Case Summary (G.R. No. 166744)
Petitioner
Dr. Elmar O. Perez
Respondents
Atty. Tristan A. Catindig
Atty. Karen E. Baydo
Key Dates
• May 18, 1968 – Catindig’s marriage to Gomez (Methodist and Catholic rites)
• 1983 – Catindig courts Dr. Perez; admits existing marriage
• June 12, 1984 – Divorce by mutual consent in Dominican Republic
• July 14, 1984 – Catindig marries Perez in Virginia, USA
• 1997 – Perez urges nullity petition in Philippines
• April 25, 2001 – Love letter from Catindig to Baydo discovered
• August 13, 2001 – Catindig files petition to nullify first marriage
• October 31, 2001 – Catindig abandons Perez and son
• August 27, 2002 – Administrative complaint for disbarment filed
• October 9, 2002 – Court directs respondents to comment
• January 29, 2003 – Case referred to IBP for investigation
• May 6, 2011 – IBP Investigating Commissioner recommends disbarment
• December 10, 2011 – IBP Board adopts recommendation
• December 29, 2012 – Reconsideration denied
• March 10, 2015 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution – sanctity of marriage, lawyer’s oath
• Code of Professional Responsibility:
– Rule 1.01 (immoral or deceitful conduct)
– Canon 7 (integrity and dignity of the profession)
– Rule 7.03 (conduct reflecting on fitness to practice)
• Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 27 – grounds for disbarment
• Precedents on gross immorality and disbarment (Arnobit v. Arnobit; Cordova v. Cordova; Tucay v. Tucay)
Factual Background
Atty. Catindig, validly married to Gomez in 1968, separated de facto in 1984 following alleged intimacy problems. With Atty. Joven’s advice, he and Gomez obtained a Dominican Republic divorce decree and dissolved their Philippine conjugal partnership. He then married Dr. Perez in Virginia on July 14, 1984, despite knowing the foreign divorce lacked effect in the Philippines. Their union produced a son. In 1997 and again in 2001, Perez pressed Catindig to secure a Philippine nullity decree and to adopt their child. In 2001, Perez received an anonymous letter and a dated love letter evidencing Catindig’s professed intent to marry Atty. Baydo once freed from marital impediment. Catindig filed for nullity on August 13, 2001, and abandoned Perez and their son by October 31, 2001, relocating to Makati.
Procedural History
Perez filed an administrative complaint for disbarment on August 27, 2002, alleging gross immorality and Code violations. The Court required comments in October 2002, which both respondents submitted. The case was referred to the IBP in January 2003. After conferences, the IBP‐CBD directed position papers, submitted in October 2003. On May 6, 2011, the IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended disbarment of Catindig and dismissal of the charge against Baydo. The IBP Board adopted and approved these findings on December 10, 2011, and denied Catindig’s motion for reconsideration on December 29, 2012.
Findings and Recommendations of IBP
• Atty. Catindig knowingly contracted a bigamous marriage, reflecting gross immorality and violating Rule 1.01, Canon 7, Rule 7.03. Disbarment was deemed the appropriate penalty.
• Evidence of an affair between Catindig and Baydo was uncorroborated. The anonymous letter and love letter lacked the requisite preponderance to overcome the presumption of innocence; the charge against Baydo was recommended for dismissal.
Issue
Whether the respondents’ conduct constitutes gross immorality warranting disbarment under the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court.
Court’s Analysis
Under the 1987 Constitution, marriage is inviolable and lawyers must exhibit exemplary moral character. Rule 1.01 prohibits immoral conduct; Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 mandate upholding the profession’s dignity. Section 27, Rule 138 authorizes disbarment for gross immorality. The Court defined “gross immorality” as willful, flagrant acts showing moral indifference to community standards. Contracting a second marriage during
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 166744)
Facts
- Dr. Elmar O. Perez and Atty. Tristan A. Catindig were friends since the mid-1960s at the University of the Philippines, later losing contact after graduation.
- In 1983, Atty. Catindig renewed courtship of Dr. Perez, admitting he was married to Lily Corazon Gomez since May 18, 1968 (Methodist and Catholic ceremonies).
- He explained his marriage to Gomez resulted from her pregnancy and fear of scandal threatening his Harvard scholarship.
- Atty. Catindig represented that he secured a foreign divorce in the Dominican Republic (1984) and that he and Gomez dissolved their conjugal partnership in Makati City.
- Relying on such statements, Dr. Perez married Atty. Catindig on July 14, 1984 in Virginia, USA, and they had a son, Tristan Jegar Josef Frederic.
- Years later, Dr. Perez learned Philippine law did not recognize the Dominican Republic decree, making her marriage void. Atty. Catindig promised to obtain a Philippine declaration of nullity and to adopt their son.
- In 1997 and again in 2001, Dr. Perez reminded him to file the nullity petition; he said he needed Gomez’s consent.
- In 2001, Dr. Perez received an anonymous tip and discovered a purported love letter from Atty. Catindig to Atty. Karen E. Baydo, professing intent to marry once his impediment was removed.
- On August 13, 2001, Atty. Catindig filed a petition to nullify his marriage to Gomez. On October 31, 2001, he left Dr. Perez and their son, relocating to a Makati condominium where Atty. Baydo was often seen.
Procedural History
- August 27, 2002: Dr. Perez filed an administrative complaint with the Office of the Bar Confidant for disbarment of both respondents for gross immorality and Code of Professional Responsibility violations.