G.R. No. 132518 - Maglucot-Aw vs. Maglucot

Case Summary (G.R. No. 132518)

Petitioner, Respondent, and Primary Allegations

Petitioner (complainant) accused respondent of gross immorality for engaging in an illicit relationship with a married man (Carlos Ui) — producing two children — and of submitting a marriage certificate with an altered/intercalated date to the IBP as part of respondent’s Answer.
Respondent denied knowledge of Carlos Ui’s existing marriage when the relationship began, asserted a marriage ceremony in Hawaii and that she ceased contact upon discovering his civil status, and counterclaimed for moral damages alleging malicious prosecution.

Key Dates and Procedural History

24 January 1971: Marriage of Leslie Ui and Carlos L. Ui.
1986: Birth of respondent’s first child by Carlos (per complainant’s allegation).
December 1987: Complainant discovered relationship between husband and respondent.
August 11, 1989: Disbarment complaint filed with IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (Adm. Case No. 3319).
Criminal complaint for concubinage filed and dismissed by Provincial Fiscal for lack of probable cause; dismissal affirmed by DOJ (Resolution No. 030, Series of 1992).
IBP Commission hearings, Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation adopting facts favorable to respondent.
Board of Governors, IBP: adopted and approved the Commission’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed the complaint but imposed reprimand for submission of falsified marriage certificate (Notice of Resolution dated December 13, 1997).
Supreme Court decision (A.C. No. 3319): affirmed dismissal for disbarment but imposed reprimand for attaching a marriage certificate with an altered date (Decision rendered June 8, 2000).

Applicable Law and Standards (Constitutional and Disciplinary)

Constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post-1990; the Supreme Court’s exercise of disciplinary authority over the legal profession is governed under the constitutional framework regulating judicial and legal institutions).
Qualifications for admission and continued practice of law (as applied): citizenship, residency, minimum age, possession and continuity of good moral character, absence of pending charges involving moral turpitude, required education, and passage of the bar examination — noting that good moral character is a continuing requisite. (Ruben E. Agpalo, Legal Ethics; Royong v. Oblena cited.)
Standard for disciplinary removal: disbarment is warranted for grossly immoral conduct or conviction of crimes involving moral turpitude; “gross immorality” denotes conduct that is willful, flagrant, shameless and shows moral indifference to the opinion of respectable community members, or conduct so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree (authority and definitions cited in the record: Arciga v. Maniwang; Reyes v. Wong; Narag v. Narag; Quingwa v. Puno, etc.).
Evidentiary standard in disciplinary proceedings: complainant bears the burden to prove allegations by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence before the Court exercises disciplinary power.

Factual Findings Adopted by the Tribunals

The record discloses an intimate relationship between respondent and Carlos Ui that resulted in two children. Complainant confronted respondent; respondent acknowledged the child and initially represented the relationship was over. Complainant later discovered the relationship persisted.
Respondent’s narrative: she met Carlos in 1983, believed him to be single (though aware he had children by a Chinese woman), asserted they married in Hawaii (dates disputed), left for Honolulu in 1986, and upon discovering the complainant’s prior marriage in June 1988, she claimed to have cut off ties and returned only in March 1989. Respondent denied cohabitation with Carlos at the Ayala Alabang address.
Criminal proceedings for concubinage were dismissed for insufficient evidence to establish probable cause, particularly lacking proof that Carlos and respondent cohabited at the Alabang address as husband and wife; this dismissal and the DOJ’s rejection of appeal were considered by the IBP and the Court.
The marriage certificate attached to respondent’s Answer bore a date that was intercalated (respondent alleged 1985; certified copy indicated 1987). The tribunals found the altered/intercalated date to be a substantiated irregularity.

Issues for Determination

Whether respondent’s intimate relationship with a married man, under the particular circumstances, constituted “gross immorality” sufficient to warrant disbarment.
Whether respondent’s attachment of a marriage certificate with an altered date constituted conduct warranting contempt, criminal sanction, or disciplinary penalty sufficient to affect her standing in the bar.

Analysis and Rationale — Immorality and Disbarment

The Court applied the established rule that disbarment for immorality requires conduct that is grossly immoral — i.e., willful, flagrant, shameless and showing moral indifference, or otherwise so reprehensible as to warrant removal from the bar. The Court emphasized that members of the bar are held to high moral standards but that not every unconventional or imprudent personal conduct amounts to gross immorality.
The IBP Commission’s assessment that respondent was more a victim than a deliberate malefactor was persuasive: there existed credible evidence that respondent believed she had valid marital status with Carlos and that upon discovering his prior marriage she distanced herself and cut off ties. The criminal dismissals for lack of probable cause on cohabitation reinforced reasonable doubt as to the elements of an illicit, continuing conjugal relationship required for criminal and disciplinary condemnation.
The Court underscored that the complainant bore the burden of clear, convincing and satisfactory proof of gross immorality; the complainant’s evidence (photographs taken by a private security agency whose photographer was not presented, and testimonial assertions) failed to meet that standard. The Court therefore concluded that respondent’s personal imprudence did not rise to the level of gross immorality that would justify disbarment.

Analysis and Rationale — Falsified Marriage Certificate and Sanction

The Court found it improbable that a lawyer-bride would forget the year of her own marriage and that a prudent lawyer would verify documentary attachments to pleadings — particularly a document as fundamental as a marriage certificate when asserting a defense based on purported marital status. The discrepancy between respondent’s claimed date and the certified copy’s date, together with admitted possession and handling of the document, undermined respondent’s claim of good-faith reliance on a photocopy provided by Carlos.
Given the professional duty of candor and the higher standard of care required of lawyers in filings, the Court held that respondent’s act of attaching a photocopy containing an intercalated date justified a disciplinary admonition. The misconduct did not, however, am

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 132518)

Case Caption, Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 388 Phil. 691, Second Division, A.C. No. 3319, decided June 08, 2000.
Complainant: Leslie Ui. Respondent: Atty. Iris Bonifacio.
Nature of the proceeding: Administrative complaint for disbarment (gross immorality) filed before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; Review by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar; decision of the Supreme Court affirming dismissal with reprimand.
Relief sought by complainant: Disbarment of respondent for alleged immorality arising from a relationship with complainant’s husband.
Relief sought by respondent (counterclaim): Moral damages of Ten Million Pesos (Php10,000,000.00) for alleged malicious and groundless disbarment case.

Principal Facts

Complainant and Carlos L. Ui were married on January 24, 1971 at Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Quezon City and had four children: Leilani, Lianni, Lindsay and Carl Cavin, surnamed Ui.
In or about December 1987, complainant discovered that her husband Carlos Ui was allegedly carrying on an illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio and that respondent allegedly begot a daughter with him sometime in 1986.
Complainant alleged respondent and Carlos Ui had been living together at No. 527 San Carlos Street, Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City.
Carlos Ui admitted to complainant his relationship with respondent.
Complainant visited respondent at her office in late June 1988, introduced herself as the legal wife, and respondent allegedly admitted to having a child with Carlos Ui but represented that everything was over between them.
Complainant believed respondent’s representations but later discovered the relationship persisted and that respondent and Carlos Ui had a second child in or about December 1988.
Complainant met respondent again around March 1989 and pleaded with respondent to discontinue the relationship; the illicit relationship allegedly continued. Complainant later learned respondent had been employed by her husband in his company.

Respondent’s Background, Admissions and Version of Events

Respondent is a graduate of the College of Law of the University of the Philippines and was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1982.
Respondent stated she met Carlos Ui around 1983 and knew him to be a bachelor, though she knew he had children by a Chinese woman in Amoy, China from whom he was estranged.
Respondent averred that during a trip abroad Carlos Ui formalized his intention to marry her and they married in Hawaii, U.S.A., claiming the marriage took place in 1985 (as alleged in her Answer).
Respondent averred that upon return to Manila she did not live with Carlos Ui; Carlos Ui remained with his children in their Greenhills residence, allegedly so the children could be gradually introduced to the marriage before living together.
Respondent asserted she left the country in 1986 and stayed in Honolulu, Hawaii, returning occasionally to the Philippines for law practice matters.
Respondent alleged she was confronted in June 1988 by a woman claiming to be Carlos Ui’s lawful wife, and that, hurt, she left for Honolulu in July 1988, returning only in March 1989 with her two children.
Respondent maintained that after discovering Carlos Ui’s true civil status in June 1988 she cut off all ties with him, that they never lived together at Alabang, and that she lived in a house in Alabang belonging to her mother, Rosalinda L. Bonifacio, built from her parents’ funds.

Procedural History Before Other Authorities (Criminal Complaint, Appeals)

Complainant charged respondent and Carlos Ui with concubinage before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, docketed I.S. No. 89-5247.
The criminal complaint was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause. The dismissal resolution noted: complainant’s evidence prima facie established an illicit relationship discovered in December 1987, but evidence also showed Carlos Ui was still living with complainant up to late 1988/early 1989; there was no prima facie proof of the alleged cohabitation at No. 527 San Carlos St., Ayala Alabang. The resolution recommended dismissal for want of evidence to establish probable cause.
Complainant appealed the provincial fiscal’s resolution to the Secretary of Justice; the appeal was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence to prove cohabitation at the Alabang address.

Administrative Complaint and Respondent’s Pleadings

Complainant filed an administrative complaint for disbarment with the Integrated Bar’s Commission on Bar Discipline on August 11, 1989, docketed Adm. Case No. 3319, alleging immorality by carrying on an illicit relationship with complainant’s husband resulting in two children.
Respondent filed an Answer averring prior facts (meeting Carlos Ui in 1983, marriage in Hawaii, residence patterns, her departure to and stay in Honolulu), denied illicit relationship after knowledge of his civil status, and asserted she cut ties after learning of the marriage.
Respondent filed a counterclaim for moral damages of Php10,000,000.00 for the allegedly malicious and groundless disbarment case.
Respondent filed a Memorandum on February 22, 1995 raising as the lone issue whether she conducted herself immorally for which she should be barred; she argued for dismissal on grounds of good moral character and complainant’s failure to prove immorality.

Allegation of Falsified Marriage Certificate and Motion to Cite in Contempt

Complainant filed a Motion to Cite Respondent in Contempt of the Commission, alleging respondent made false allegations in her Answer and submitted an altered/intercalated supporting document.
Respondent’s Answer alleged marriage to Carlos Ui on October 22, 1985 and attached a Certificate of Marriage as support.
The Certificate of Marriage certified by the State Registrar as a true copy of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health and authenticated by the Philippine Consulate General in Honolulu, Hawaii, revealed the date of marriage was October 22, 1987, not October 22, 1985.
Complainant contended the altered date was intended to show the birth of respondent’s first child by Carlos Ui was within wedlock and that these acts constituted violations of Articles 183 and 184 of the Revised Penal Code and contempt of the Commission, demonstrating moral perversity and lack of integrity rendering respondent unfit for the bar.
Respondent opposed the contempt motion, asserting she did not have the original certificate (it was in Carlos Ui’s possession) and that she annexed the copy in good faith, relying on what appeared in her possession.
Respondent further alleged it was highly improbable she knowingly attached an altered certificate; she argued Carlos Ui later testified he was responsible for changing the date from 1987 to 1985, and complainant did not rebut his testimony.

Evidence Presented by Complainant and Respondent

Complainant’s evidence included photographs: respondent with a child; respondent with Carlos Ui; picture of a garage with cars; picture of a light colored car with Plate No. PNS 313; another picture of same car and portion of house and grounds; and a picture of the house and garage. These were taken by a private security agency photographer who was not presented during hearings.
Complainant testified respondent’s mother