Title
Perez vs. Catindig
Case
A.C. No. 5816
Decision Date
Mar 10, 2015
Atty. Catindig disbarred for gross immorality after invalid divorce, bigamous marriage, and abandonment; Atty. Baydo cleared due to insufficient evidence.
disbarment
gross immorality
lawyer
A

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5816)

Procedural History

Dr. Perez’s administrative complaint for disbarment was filed August 27, 2002. The Court directed respondents to comment; comments were filed November 25, 2002. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on January 29, 2003 for investigation, report and recommendation. The IBP‑Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) conducted conferences and required position papers; the Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation on May 6, 2011 recommending disbarment of Atty. Catindig and dismissal of the charge against Atty. Baydo for lack of evidence. The IBP Board of Governors adopted that recommendation on December 10, 2011 and denied reconsideration on December 29, 2012. The Supreme Court reviewed the record, adopted the IBP recommendations, and entered the final disciplinary disposition.

Allegations and Factual Background

Dr. Perez alleged that she and Atty. Catindig renewed acquaintance in 1983 and that he courted her despite being married to Gomez (1968). Atty. Catindig secured a divorce decree in the Dominican Republic in 1984 and, believing or representing that this dissolved his first marriage, married Dr. Perez in Virginia on July 14, 1984; the couple had one son. Later Dr. Perez learned that the Dominican decree was not effective under Philippine law and that Catindig’s prior marriage still subsisted. Dr. Perez alleged that Catindig promised to seek a Philippine declaration of nullity and to adopt their son. In 2001 she received an anonymous letter and a love letter dated April 25, 2001, purportedly signed by Catindig to Baydo; Catindig filed a petition for nullity on August 13, 2001 and shortly thereafter left Dr. Perez and their son and moved to a condominium where Atty. Baydo was frequently seen.

Respondents’ Positions and Admissions

Atty. Catindig admitted his 1968 marriage to Gomez, the couple’s de facto separation in 1984, execution of special powers of attorney to pursue divorce in the Dominican Republic, the Dominican court’s divorce by mutual consent (June 12, 1984), and dissolution of the conjugal partnership before the Makati RTC (June 23, 1984). He maintained that Dr. Perez knew the Dominican divorce had no effect in the Philippines and nevertheless insisted on a marriage ceremony in the USA; he asserted his motivation was love and to provide a semblance of legitimacy to their relationship. He denied that Atty. Baydo was the cause of his separation from Dr. Perez and stated that Baydo had in fact rebuffed his advances and resigned from his firm. Atty. Baydo denied an affair, stating she rejected Catindig’s courtship and resigned from his firm because of his pursuit.

IBP Findings and Recommendations

The IBP Investigating Commissioner concluded that Atty. Catindig’s contracting of a second marriage during the subsistence of his first was grossly immoral, recommended his disbarment for gross immorality and violations of Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and found the charge against Atty. Baydo unsupported by clear and preponderant evidence. The IBP Board of Governors adopted that recommendation. Catindig’s motion for reconsideration before the IBP Board was denied.

Legal Issue Framed

The core legal issue addressed by the Court was whether the respondents committed gross immorality sufficient to warrant disbarment, specifically whether Atty. Catindig’s second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage and related conduct constituted grossly immoral conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Governing Standards and Legal Principles Applied

The Court applied the ethical rules: Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct), Canon 7 (duty to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession), and Rule 7.03 (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice or scandalous behavior). It relied on precedents and statutory standards recognizing that a lawyer’s good moral character must be maintained while in practice, and that removal or suspension may be imposed for grossly immoral conduct. The decision referenced the definition of gross immorality as willful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to the opinion of respectable community members and noted that disbarment is reserved for gross, not merely ordinary, immorality. The Court invoked constitutional protection of marriage as reflected in the record’s reasoning.

Court’s Analysis on Gross Immorality and Facts Applied to Law

The Court found that the undisputed admissions in the pleadings established that Atty. Catindig contracted a subsequent marriage while his first marriage still subsisted under Philippine law. From Catindig’s own account he was aware that the Dominican Republic decree had no effect in the Philippines, yet proceeded to marry Dr. Perez in the USA and employed legal stratagems (foreign marriage and foreign divorce decree) that gave his subsequent union only a façade of legality. The Court regarded those circumstances as demonstrating deliberate disregard of Philippine marriage laws and community moral standards and as an exercise of legal skill to mask an invalid marriage. The Court also found relevant the pattern of conduct—including lengthy cohabitation, reliance on extrajurisdictional measures, and later abandonment—that, taken together, manifested moral delinquency affecting fitness to practice. T

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms