Unrestrained greed

This is the case of Kiko (not his true name), another lawyer who was disbarred because of brazen disregard for the sanctity of marriage and its inviolability as a social institution.

Sometime in April 1953, while still studying law, Kiko started courting and proposed marriage to Ana, whose educational attainment was only up to first year high school. More than a year later or in July 1954, Ana accepted his proposal. In November 1954, the affianced couple got their residence certificate and then proceeded to the Office of the Local Civil Registrar to apply for marriage license. In the room of the Registrar, they signed two sheets of paper, after which the Registrar asked them whether they were willing to marry each other and they said yes.

From the Registrar’s Office they went to another room and there a lady doctor took their blood. Coming out of the doctor’s room, Kiko told Ana that they were already married and asked her to go with him to his uncle for proper introduction.

But along the way, they entered a house which Ana later learned to be a hotel. After signing a book, they went inside a room where Kiko asked Ana to have sexual intercourse with him for they were already married. Because of Kiko’s insistence and assurance that they were already married, Ana gave in to his desire.

Three days thereafter, Kiko showed Ana the report of their blood test and drew her attention to the fact that after the printed word “occupation,” the handwritten word “bride” appears, which shows, according to him, that they were already married. From then on, they continued to have sexual intercourse in the same place once a month for three consecutive months and in another hotel in Manila.

Sometime in January 1955, Ana asked Kiko why, despite their marriage, they had not yet lived together. As an excuse, Kiko said that he was still waiting for the release of the Bar examinations. Indeed, after he passed the Bar, Kiko even gave Ana the Certificate issued by the Clerk of the Supreme Court to show his affection for her. Ana then asked him that they settle down and he agreed to talk to her parents.

Sometime in March 1955, Kiko spoke to Ana’s father, who told him that it would be better for them to be married in the Catholic Church since they were Catholics.

Hence, after obtaining from the Registrar the marriage license they previously applied for and the other accompanying necessary documents, arrangements for the church wedding and the wedding date were set on May 15, 1955.

However, before the date set, Ana received a letter from Kiko withdrawing from their agreement to marry in church. Upon examination of the documents which Ana showed her father, the latter found out that they were not civilly married. Ana then also confessed to her father that she was pregnant. Then on June 9, 1955, Kiko married another girl as Ana gave birth to their daughter on Aug. 4, 1955.

As a consequence, Ana filed a complaint before the SC charging Kiko with immorality and asking for his disbarment. Kiko admitted his relationship with Ana and acknowledged their daughter. For his defense, he denied that he deceived Ana into believing that they had been married civilly and insisted that Ana submitted to his desire voluntarily. Should Kiko be disbarred?

Yes. Kiko’s defense cannot be believed. The truth is that all along he never intended to redeem Ana’s honor. He had inveigled her into believing that they had been married civilly to satisfy his carnal desire. He himself admits that what prompted him to offer and propose marriage to her was to satisfy such desire.

On the other hand, Ana has not gone far in educational attainment, having reached first year high school only, and does not have the slightest idea of a legal and valid marriage. Thus, she fell easy prey to a man like Kiko, a lawyer who knows the intricacies of the law and the way to extricate himself from the mess he has brought about.

Kiko has not maintained the highest degree of morality and integrity which, at all times is expected of, and must be possessed by, members of the Bar. He is therefore disbarred from the practice of law and his name in the roll of attorneys stricken out (Cabrera vs. Agustin, A.C. No 225, Sept. 30, 1959, 106 Phil. 256).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]