Perez vs. Catindig

Factual Background

Dr. Elmar O. Perez alleged that she and Atty. Tristan A. Catindig renewed an acquaintance in 1983 and that Atty. Catindig courted her. Atty. Catindig admitted that he had married Lily Corazon Gomez on May 18, 1968 and that by 1984 he and Gomez had reached a de facto separation and executed a joint petition for dissolution of conjugal partnership. In 1984 Atty. Catindig and Gomez procured a divorce decree in the Dominican Republic, and Atty. Catindig married Dr. Perez on July 14, 1984 in the State of Virginia, U.S.A. A child was born of that union. Years later, Dr. Perez learned that the Dominican Republic decree was not recognized in the Philippines and that her marriage to Atty. Catindig therefore remained void. In 2001 Dr. Perez received an anonymous letter and a purported love letter dated April 25, 2001 addressed to Atty. Karen E. Baydo, and Atty. Catindig filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Gomez on August 13, 2001. On October 31, 2001 Atty. Catindig left Dr. Perez and their son and took residence in Makati where Atty. Baydo was frequently seen.

Procedural History

Dr. Elmar O. Perez filed the administrative complaint for disbarment with the Office of the Bar Confidant on August 27, 2002. The Court required respondents to file comments by Resolution dated October 9, 2002; the respondents complied. The case was referred to the IBP for investigation on January 29, 2003. The IBP-CBD held mandatory conferences in 2003, received position papers in October 2003, and the Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation on May 6, 2011. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation by Resolution on December 10, 2011 and denied reconsideration on December 29, 2012. The Court resolved the administrative case and promulgated its Decision on November 16, 2015.

Parties' Contentions

Dr. Elmar O. Perez alleged gross immorality and violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by the respondents, asserting that Atty. Catindig contracted a second marriage while his first marriage subsisted and that he engaged in an illicit relationship with Atty. Baydo. Atty. Tristan A. Catindig admitted the 1968 marriage to Gomez, admitted the Dominican Republic divorce and the 1984 marriage to Dr. Perez, and contended that Dr. Perez knew of the continued subsistence of his first marriage. Atty. Catindig asserted that he never intended to commit a felony and emphasized his transparency. He also argued that Dr. Perez’s allegations were uncorroborated and therefore insufficient under Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. Atty. Karen E. Baydo denied any affair and stated that she rebuffed Atty. Catindig’s romantic advances and resigned from his firm because of his pursuit.

Findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner

The IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner recommended the disbarment of Atty. Tristan A. Catindig for gross immorality and violations of Rule 1.01, Canon 7, and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, reasoning that his contracting of a second marriage while a prior marriage subsisted was grossly immoral and reprehensible. The Investigating Commissioner found the evidence insufficient to prove an affair between the respondents and recommended dismissal of the charge against Atty. Karen E. Baydo for dearth of evidence.

IBP Board of Governors' Action

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation by Resolution dated December 10, 2011. The Board denied Atty. Catindig’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated December 29, 2012.

Issue

The controlling issue presented to the Court was whether the respondents committed gross immorality that warrants the sanction of disbarment.

Ruling of the Court

The Court agreed with the findings and recommendations of the IBP Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors. The Court found Atty. Tristan A. Catindig guilty of gross immorality and of violating the Lawyers Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 7, and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and imposed the penalty of disbarment. The Court dismissed the charge of gross immorality against Atty. Karen E. Baydo for lack of evidence.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court relied on the disciplinary provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and on Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which authorizes removal or suspension of an attorney for grossly immoral conduct. The Court reiterated that gross immorality requires willful, flagrant, or shameless acts that show moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable; disbarment is reserved for grossly immoral conduct. The Court held that contracting a marriage during the subsistence of a previous marriage constitutes grossly immoral conduct. The facts and, crucially, Atty. Catindig’s own admissions established that he knew his first marriage subsisted, procured a foreign divorce not effective in the Philippines, and nonetheless married Dr. Perez in the United States, conduct the Court concluded evidenced deliberate disregard of Philippine law on marriage and an effort to create a facade of validity. The Court found that such conduct was reprehensible to a high degree and that disbarment was the appropriate penalty. The Court observed that the desertion of Dr. Perez and their son did not alone justify disbarment but formed part of a pattern indicative of moral delinquency. The Court rejected Atty. Catindig’s contention that Dr. Perez’s allegations were uncorroborated as moot in view of his own admissions. The Court also found insufficient evidence to establish an illicit amorous relationship between the respondents, noting that the anonymous letter and the purported love letter did not prove Atty. Baydo’s participation in an affair, and reiterating that disciplinary proceedings require proof by preponderance of evidence. The Court cited precedents affirming the requirement of moral character and the circumstances warranting disba