This case is still about the disbarment of a lawyer who entered into multiple marriages. This is the case of Gino (not his true name) who left his first wife (Connie) allegedly to study law but had romantic relationships with other women misrepresenting himself as a bachelor, until he also subsequently married Mely with whom he had six children. Then during the first two marriages, he had relationship with another woman, Mina, whom he also married eventually upon the death of Connie his first wife. When his second wife Mely filed an administrative complaint for his disbarment on the ground of gross immorality, Gino claimed that under the circumstances, he did not commit any gross immorality because when he had relationship with Mina, Mely was not his legal wife as he was then still married to Connie. He claimed that he married Mely after he and Connie parted ways. On the other hand he said that he contracted the third marriage with Mina when Connie died such that by that time there was no more existing and valid marriage that would prevent him from marrying again? Was Gino correct?
No. The undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and Gino’s admissions establish a pattern of gross immoral conduct that warrants his disbarment.
First, Gino admitted that he left Connie to pursue his law studies; thereafter and during the marriage he had romantic relationship with other women. He had the gall to represent that the study of law was the reason for leaving his wife; marriage and the study of law are not mutually exclusive;
Second, he misrepresented himself to Mely as a bachelor, when in truth he was already married to Connie. This was a misrepresentation to lure a woman into a prohibited relationship.
Third, Gino contracted his second marriage with Mely notwithstanding the subsistence of his first marriage. This was an open admission, not only of an illegal liaison, but of the commission of a crime.
Fourth, Gino engaged in extramarital affairs with Mina while his two marriages were in place and without taking into consideration the moral and emotional implications of his actions on the two women he took as wives and on his six children by his second marriage.
Fifth, instead of making legal amends to validate his marriage to Mely upon the death of Connie, Gino married Mina who bore him a daughter….
Sixth, Gino misused his legal knowledge and convinced Mina (who was not then a lawyer) that he was free to marry considering that his marriage with Mely was not valid.
Seventh, Gino married Mina in Hongkong in an apparent attempt to accord legitimacy to a union entered into while another marriage was in place.
Eight, after admission to the practice of law, Gino simultaneously cohabited and had sexual relations with two women who at one point were both his wedded wives. He also led a double life with two families for more than 10 years.
Lastly, Gino petitioned for nullity of his marriage to Mely. This was not an act of facing up to his responsibility or of mending his ways. This was an attempt, using his legal knowledge, to escape liability for his past actions by having his second marriage declared void after the present complaint was filed against him.
By his actions Gino committed multiple violations relating to the legal profession, specifically, violations of the bar admission rules, of his lawyer’s oath, and of the ethical rules of the profession.
He did not possess the good moral character required of a lawyer at the time of his admission to the Bar. As a lawyer he violated his lawyer’s oath, Section 20 (a), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, all of which require him to obey the laws of the land. In marrying Mely, he committed the crime of bigamy, as he entered the second marriage while his first marriage with Connie was subsisting. He openly admitted his bigamy when he filed his petition to nullify his marriage to Mely.
He violated Section 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which commands that he “shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct”, Canon 7 of the same code which demands that a “lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession”; Rule 7.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a “lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession”. This is the ruling in the case of Garrido vs. Garrido , AC No.6593, February 4, 2010.
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net