Case Summary (A.C. No. 10612)
Key Dates
• Marriage of parties: February 7, 1987
• Relevant admissions and evidence gathering: April–August 2014
• Complainant’s motion to withdraw complaint: February 24, 2015
• Supreme Court resolution terminating case: June 17, 2015
• Motion for reconsideration granted/case reopened: November 28, 2016
• Referral to Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP): April 26, 2017
• IBP Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation: May 24, 2018
• IBP Board of Governors’ resolution adopting recommendation: December 15, 2019
• Supreme Court decision: January 31, 2023
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (bar admission and public interest standards)
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1 Rule 1.01(a) – prohibition against unlawful, dishonest or immoral conduct
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 7 Rule 7.03(a) – prohibition against conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law
Procedural History
- Filing of disbarment complaint alleging gross immorality based on an extramarital affair.
- June 17, 2015 Supreme Court resolution declaring the case closed and terminated.
- Complainant’s motion for reconsideration leading to November 28, 2016 resolution reopening the case.
- April 26, 2017 referral to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.
- May 24, 2018 IBP Investigating Commissioner recommends termination due to compromise agreement and affidavit of desistance.
- December 15, 2019 IBP Board of Governors adopts recommendation to close and terminate.
- January 31, 2023 Supreme Court issues decision finding respondent guilty of gross immorality.
Factual Background
• Despite a valid marriage in 1987, respondent admitted to an ongoing romantic relationship with a former classmate.
• Complainant recounted respondent’s confession during an April 2014 family event, including an earlier affair that produced a child allegedly aborted by mutual agreement.
• Evidence included respondent’s mobile-phone wallpaper featuring the woman and a dedicated Facebook photo folder.
• A series of June 2014 text messages revealed expressions of affection (“Miss you,” “Love you, Honey,” “tsupmmmm”) and efforts at discretion.
• Respondent openly referred to the woman as his “girlfriend,” displayed no remorse, and boasted of her financial means before their children.
• Photographs posted on Facebook in August 2014 depicted the couple embracing and holding hands.
• Respondent announced plans to move into a condominium with the paramour, dubbing her his “new wife.”
Respondent’s Defense
• Denied gross immorality, characterizing the messages as friendly banter taken out of context.
• Cited public speaking invitation by local officials as proof of good moral reputation.
• Moved to have the complaint withdrawn, citing adverse effects on their children.
Issue
Whether respondent’s admitted extramarital relationship and related conduct constitute “gross immorality” under the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disbarment.
Supreme Court Analysis
• Lawyers must both possess and be seen to possess good moral character.
• Disciplinary proceedings are sui generis and focus on the lawyer’s fitness to practice in the public interest, irrespective of civil or criminal outcomes.
• Evidence of repeated admissions, affectionate communications, public displays, and lack of remorse demonstrates wi
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 10612)
Parties and Nature of Proceeding
- En Banc, A.C. No. 10612, January 31, 2023
- Complainant: Atty. Nora Malubay Saludares
- Respondent: Atty. Reynaldo Lagda Saludares
- Nature of Proceeding: Disbarment Complaint/Petition for gross immorality under the Code of Professional Responsibility
- Core Allegation: Respondent maintained an illicit and immoral relationship despite a lawful marriage since February 7, 1987
Factual Background
- Respondent admitted an affair with a former high-school classmate, including a pre-marital relationship that allegedly produced an aborted child.
- During an April 2014 family recollection, respondent confessed the affair; complainant had long suspected his nightly absences and third-party calls requesting “pahiram ng asawa mo.”
- Early May 2014: Complainant discovered the paramour’s portrait as respondent’s mobile-phone wallpaper.
- Facebook folder contained the paramour’s childhood and travel photos in an exclusive album.
- June 10–14, 2014 text messages revealed terms of endearment (“Miss you,” “Love you, Honey,” “tsupmmmm”) and discussion of discretion to keep their families away.
- Respondent publicly acknowledged the woman as his girlfriend in the presence of their children, describing her as “disente” and “maraming pera.”
- Respondent showed no remorse, stating, “Ano masama sa ginagawa ko? Maghihiwalay naman tayo,” and insisting, “She is my girlfriend, she is not my mistress.”
- July 3–18, 2014: Respondent traveled to the United States allegedly to visit the same woman.
- August 8, 2014: Facebook posts depicted respondent and the woman smiling closely, with interlocked hands and respondent’s arm around her shoulder.
- Respondent declared plans to move out and bring the paramour into the conjugal condominium, calling her his “new wife.”
Procedural History
- February 24, 2015: Complainant moved to withdraw the disbarment Complaint citing the case’s adverse effect o