Case Summary (Adm. Case No. 1856)
Initial Complaint and Allegations
On April 19, 1977, Marcayda submitted a handwritten letter to the Court requesting that Naz's admission to the bar be withheld until he fulfilled his obligations regarding the support of their allegedly begotten child. In his answer dated April 27, 1977, Naz denied the paternity claim and argued that the complaint constituted harassment. He suggested that Marcayda could have pursued other legal avenues but chose not to do so.
Notarized Agreement and Withdrawal of Complaint
On April 28, 1977, both parties, natives of Camalig, Albay, executed a notarized agreement in Manila. In this document, Naz acknowledged his affair with Marcayda and the existence of their child, born on March 8, 1965. He committed to financial support arrangements, including back support and monthly contributions until the child turned twenty-one. Following this agreement, Marcayda withdrew her complaint against Naz, resulting in the Court allowing him to take his oath on April 29, 1977.
Non-Compliance with Support Obligations
Despite the legal acknowledgment of paternity and the commitment to provide financial support, Naz failed to meet his obligations under the agreement. By December 23, 1977, Marcayda filed a verified complaint to reopen the administrative case due to Naz's lack of support, asserting that she had initially withdrawn her complaint in good faith, believing this would improve Naz's financial situation.
Respondent's Denial of Paternity and Defense
In response to the renewed complaint, Naz reiterated that he was not the child’s father and claimed he felt coerced into signing the support agreement. He characterized the administrative complaint as an undue pressure tactic against him. The birth certificate of Rey Marcayda indicates he was born to Marcayda and her deceased husband, which Naz used to bolster his claim of non-paternity.
Ruling on Gross Immorality and Disciplinary Actions
The Court assessed Naz's actions in light of the testimony and evidence presented. It concluded that he should not be disbarred despite admitting to the paternity and agreeing to support. This admission rendered the impropriety less egregious, thus not meeting the threshold for gross immorality. The Court emphasized that Naz could not annul the public document of support without consequence. Furthermore, his conduct in trying to retract his admissions was seen as unscrupulous behavior that is unbecoming of a member of the legal profession.
Recommendations and Consequences
The Court ultimately decided to reprimand Justiniano P. Naz for attempting to negate the notarial agreement he
...continue readingCase Syllabus (Adm. Case No. 1856)
Case Overview
- This case revolves around the administrative complaint filed by Salvacion E. Marcayda against Justiniano P. Naz, concerning allegations of immorality.
- The complaint initially emerged on April 19, 1977, where Marcayda requested that Naz's oath-taking as a member of the bar be withheld due to an alleged child born out of their affair.
Background of the Parties
- Complainant: Salvacion E. Marcayda, who was previously married to Primo Marcayda, who passed away in 1965.
- Respondent: Justiniano P. Naz, a married man at the time of the affair with Marcayda, which began in 1964.
Initial Complaint and Responses
- Marcayda alleged that Naz fathered a child, Rey E. Marcayda, born on January 8, 1965, and sought to withhold his admission to the bar pending discussions for child support.
- In his response dated April 27, 1977, Naz denied the allegations of paternity, labeling the complaint as harassment and blackmail.
- Naz suggested that Marcayda could have pursued an administrative complaint through the Department of Education and Culture instead.
Notarized Agreement and Withdrawal of Complaint
- On April 28, 1977, both parties executed a notarized agreement acknowledging Naz's paternity and stipulating his obligation to provide financial support for Rey.
- The agreement detailed back support payments of P2,000 due by December 25 for two c