A.M. No. 697-CFI - IN RE: Echiverri

Case Summary (A.M. No. 697-CFI)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Court decision (final appellate disposition): February 27, 2004 (decision under the 1987 Constitution).
Complaint filed with IBP: June 6, 2000 (CBD Case No. 00-734-A).
Alleged marriages to complainant: December 18, 1991 and December 28, 1991.
Prior marriage to Helen Esparza: June 16, 1982 (documentary evidence).
Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation: January 22, 2001.
IBP Board remand and subsequent proceedings: May 26, 2001 (remand), re-opening in September–October 2001.
Relevant RTC decisions submitted by respondent: August 21, 1998 (annulment vs. Helen Esparza); October 30, 2000 (annulment declaring marriage to complainant void ab initio).

Applicable Law and Authorities

Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (governing constitutional framework at the time of the decision).
Rules of Court: Rule 138, Section 27 (disciplinary proceedings for lawyers).
Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 1.01; Canon 7; Rule 7.03 (professional and moral conduct standards).
Penal provision invoked by analogy: Revised Penal Code, Article 334 (concubinage; cited to highlight potential criminal character of cohabitation while a prior marriage subsists).
Relevant jurisprudence cited by the Court: In re Almacen; Calub v. Suller; Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos; Pimentel, Jr. v. Llorente; Laguitan v. Tinio; Brientos v. Daarol; Cordova v. Cordova; and authority on disciplinary standards.

Allegations and Factual Summary

Complainant alleged that respondent represented himself as a bachelor when courting her in April 1991, married her in December 1991, despite a prior subsisting marriage to Helen Esparza (registered June 16, 1982).
Complainant alleged that respondent deceived her and others into believing his earlier marriage was void and that he later contracted a third marriage to Josephine T. Constantino.
Complainant further alleged abandonment and failure to provide regular support for the two children he fathered with her, leaving them in precarious condition.

Evidence Submitted by Complainant

Documentary evidence: the marriage contract between respondent and Helen Esparza; marriage contracts for the marriages to complainant (two ceremonies); numerous photographs of the complainant and respondent and their family life.
Testimony: complainant testified and photographs were relied upon to demonstrate cohabitation and the respondent’s role as husband and father. Complainant’s difficulties in effecting service initially were also documented.

Service Difficulties, Default Proceedings, and Reopening

The IBP initially attempted service but could not locate respondent; complainant later provided an address. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline thrice required an answer; respondent initially failed to file and was declared in default, allowing ex parte evidence.
The IBP Board of Governors remanded the case to ensure proper notice and service; after the remand, respondent filed a manifestation and was allowed to re-open and present his defenses and evidence.

Respondent’s Defenses and Evidence

Denial of deception: respondent insisted complainant was aware of his prior marriage and contended the marriage to her was entered under coercion/duress (a “sham” wedding), asserting she dragged him into it to protect her and her family’s reputation because she was pregnant.
Documentary submissions: respondent produced a final and executory RTC decision (Tuguegarao City RTC, Civil Case No. 5617) declaring his marriage to complainant void ab initio (rendered in default of complainant); certifications from the National Statistics Office and municipal civil registrar indicating no record of the December 28, 1991 marriage; and the marriage contract to Helen Esparza.
Evidence of support and civic character: respondent presented paid educational plans for the children, a bank check for final amortization of a car left with complainant, a civil court petition filed by complainant admitting issuance of postdated checks for the children’s allowance, a letter demanding custody and return of property, certifications from various government offices showing no pending cases, and letters indicating civic involvement.
Additional defenses: res judicata based on the annulment decree, estoppel (complainant’s alleged admission of live-in status), and forum shopping allegations; he also invoked an earlier RTC annulment of his marriage to Helen Esparza (psychological incapacity).

Investigating Commissioner’s Findings and Recommendation

After hearings (during which both parties testified), the Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension for three months for gross misconduct reflecting unfavorably on the profession and emphasized the respondent’s moral and legal obligations to his children. The recommendation was grounded on findings that respondent cohabited with complainant while his prior marriage subsisted and that the conduct imported moral turpitude and undermined marital and family institutions.

IBP Board Action and Supreme Court Review

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation but earlier had remanded for additional notice; the final IBP resolution adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s findings. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final determination.

Supreme Court’s Findings of Misconduct and Rationale

The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of gross immorality warranting disciplinary action. Key points of the Court’s reasoning:
- Uncontroverted evidence showed respondent had a subsisting marriage with Helen Esparza when he entered into the relationship and marriage-like cohabitation with complainant in December 1991; the first marriage’s annulment occurred only in August 1998.
- Photographic evidence and testimony established that respondent lived and acted as husband and father toward complainant and their children; respondent admitted intermittent cohabitation and acknowledged paternity.
- The fact that an RTC annulment decreeing the complainant marriage void rendered in default of complainant existed did not preclude administrative discipline; administrative proceedings are sui generis and require only a preponderance of evidence, so res judicata and criminal acquittals or civil judgments do not automatically bar administrative liability.
- Respondent’s repeated pattern—entering into multiple marriages, later seeking annulments, and asserting coercion—was viewed as implausible and inconsistent with the standards expected of an officer of the court. The Court stressed that a lawyer must both be of good moral character in fact and be perceived as such by the community.

Assessment of Evidence on Support and Family Obligations

The Court found respondent’s claims of supporting the children not fully persuasive: although respondent produced some documentary evidence of intermittent support (educational plans, occasional payments, and other transfers), the pattern showed lack of regular, monthly support. Respondent himself admitted intermittent provision and periods of non-support. The Court ordered respondent to show satisfactory evidence to the IBP and the Court that he is supporting or has made provisions for regular support of the two children.

Legal Principles on Administrative Discipline and Res Judicata

The Court reiterated established principles: disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are administrative, sui generis, and not strictly bound by civil or criminal outcomes; the standard of proof is a preponderance of evidence. Consequently, a decree of annulment rendered in a civil case—especially where entered in default of a party—does not automatically exonerate a lawyer from administrative liability for miscon

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 697-CFI)

Case Caption, Citation, and Docket

En banc decision reported at 468 Phil. 148, A.C. No. 6148 (CBD 00-734-A), decided February 27, 2004.
Case instituted as an administrative disbarment proceeding originated before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), docketed CBD Case No. 00-734-A.
Final disposition rendered by the Supreme Court en banc.

Parties

Complainant: Florence Teves Macarrubo, acting personally and as mother/guardian of minors Juris Alexis T. Macarrubo and Gabriel Enrico T. Macarrubo.
Respondent: Atty. Edmundo L. Macarrubo, an attorney who previously held various government legal positions and later engaged in private practice.

Nature of Action

Verified complaint for disbarment filed against respondent alleging deception in contracting marriage while having a prior subsisting marriage, entering multiple marriages, abandonment of complainant and their children, and conduct showing moral turpitude and gross immorality warranting disciplinary action.

Core Allegations of the Complainant

Respondent courted complainant beginning April 1991, representing himself as a bachelor.
Complainant and respondent allegedly married on two occasions: December 18, 1991 (in respondent’s Manila office) and December 28, 1991 (at the Asian Institute of Tourism Hotel, Quezon City), both administered by Rev. Rogelio J. Bolivar.
Respondent had a prior subsisting marriage to Helen Esparza (married June 16, 1982) which respondent allegedly misrepresented as void to complainant, her family, and friends.
Respondent purportedly entered into a third marriage with Josephine T. Constantino.
Respondent allegedly abandoned complainant and their two children without providing regular support, leaving them in precarious living conditions.

Evidence Presented by the Complainant

Marriage contract between respondent and Helen Esparza (Exhibit "C").
Marriage contract(s) between complainant and respondent (Exhibits "D" and "E").
Photographs showing nuptials and family moments (recorded at pages 42–55 of the rollo).
Documentary letters and filings in the IBP record describing difficulty serving the complaint and furnishing respondent’s address (complainant’s letter to IBP Commission on Bar Discipline).

Initial IBP Proceedings and Attempted Service

Copy of the complaint could not be immediately served because respondent was difficult to locate.
Complainant filed a Manifestation identifying respondent’s supposed address with third wife Josephine T. Constantino.
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline required respondent to file his Answer on three occasions; respondent failed to answer and was declared in default on motion of complainant.
Complainant was permitted to present ex parte evidence after default.
The Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation dated January 22, 2001.
By Resolution of May 26, 2001, the IBP Board of Governors remanded the case to the Investigating Commissioner to ensure proper notice or another opportunity to serve respondent.
On September 5, 2001, respondent filed a Manifestation/Ex Parte Motion to Re-Open Proceedings; the motion was granted and proceedings were reopened.

Respondent’s Pleadings, Denials, and General Defenses

Respondent denied use of deception in his marriage to complainant and insisted complainant knew of his prior marriage to Helen Esparza.
He asserted that complainant coerced him into a “sham wedding” to protect her and her family’s reputation because she was allegedly three months pregnant.
Respondent contended that the marriage between complainant and respondent was declared void ab initio by a final and executory decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City in Civil Case No. 5617 (Edmundo L. Macarubbo v. Florence J. Teves), which he presented in evidence.
Additional defenses raised in his Supplemental Comment: res judicata based on the annulment decree, estoppel (citing complainant’s alleged admission of live-in status in a letter to Josephine T. Constantino), and forum-shopping because complainant pursued both the administrative action and a civil case in the Quezon City RTC.
Respondent challenged any finding of depraved moral character, presented certifications denying pending cases, and submitted evidence of civic involvement and contributions.

Documentary and Other Evidence Submitted by Respondent

Final and executory October 30, 2000 Decision of Branch IV, RTC Tuguegarao City, in Civil Case No. 5617 (Edmundo L. Macarubbo v. Florence J. Teves), declaring the marriage to complainant void ab initio.
Certification from the National Statistics Office that complainant’s name does not appear in the National Index of Marriages for Bride (Exhibit "16").
Certification from the National Statistics Office—Office of Civil Registrar General stating no record of the December 28, 1991 marriage of complainant and respondent (Exhibit "17").
Attestation from the Office of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Bacoor, Cavite that Marriage License No. 772176221 (used in complainant/respondent marriage) is not on file (Exhibit "18").
Copies of fully paid educational plans for the children (Exhibits "9", "9-c", "9-f", "9-I").
Philippine National Bank check dated January 18, 1999 for P22,556.33 (payment of final amortization of respondent’s car which remained in complainant’s possession since 1997) (Exhibit "10").
Civil case petition in Quezon City RTC filed by complainant in which she admitted respondent issued three postdated checks of P2,000.00 each for children’s allowance covering October–December 1999 (Exhibit "11").
Copy of respondent’s August 9, 1999 letter to complainant demanding custody and return of personal properties (Exhibit "12").
Certifications from Office of the Bar Confidant, Office of the Ombudsman, Department of Justice, and Philippine National Police (in Enrile, Cagayan) showing no pending cases (Exhibits "1", "3", "4", "6").
Letters from Department of Interior and Local Government and Metro Manila Development Authority addressed to respondent demonstrating civic engagement (Exhibits "7" and "8").
Exhibit "19": Final and executory August 21, 1998 Decision of Branch 158, RTC Pasig City in JDRC Case No. 4320 (Edmundo L. Macarubbo v. Helen C. Esparza), declaring the first marriage void on the ground of wife’s psychological incapacity.

Testimony Highlights and Admissions