Page 1 of 2

Garrido v. Garrido (AC NO 6593)

PROMULGATED: February 10, 2010
Per Curiam
PETITIONER: Maelotisea S. Garrido
RESPONDENT: Attys. Angel E. Garrido and Romana P. Valencia

Article VII Sec 5 (par 5)
The Supreme Courts power to promulgate rules

FACTS:

1. Petitioner is the legal wife of Atty Angel Garrido. They were married in Ermita on June
1962. They had 6 kids. She discovered the relationship of Respondents and found out
that they had a child and were married in HK (1978.

2. Atty Garrido left their conjugal home in 1993 and joined Atty. Ramona Valencia at their
residence. Since leaving the home, Petitioner says that he has failed to provide support to
the family.

3. Petitioner Maelotisea Garrido filed a complaint for disbarment against the Respondents
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Discipline charging
them with gross immorality.

4. Respondents filed counter-affidavits which said that:

o Maelotisea wasnt Atty Garridos legal wife as he was married to
Constancia David when he married Maelotisea. Therefore, Valencia wasnt
his mistress
o Atty. Garrido emphasized that all his marriages were contracted before he
became a member of the bar
o Maelotisea knew of the respondents relationship but kept silent when
things were favorable for her

5.Respondents filed several motions: Motion for suspension of Proceedings against
complaint for concubinage, Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage to nullify
marriage with Maelitosea, Motion to dismiss after RTC declared the Marriage with
Maelitosea was annulled and Petitioner did not have personality to file complaint. IBP
Denied motions.

6.Petitioner filed a motion for dismissal of complaints arguing that she wanted to remain
friends with Atty Garrido. IBP Denied motion.

In 2004, IBP Board approved recommendation of disbarment of Atty Garrido but dismissed
complaint against Atty Valencia. Garrido filed for reconsideration but IBP Commission on
Bar Discipline denied his motion.

KIND OF CASE/PETITION:
Administrative Case in the SC. Disbarment

ISSUES/ HELD:

1. W/N Atty. Garrido committed grossly immoral acts and should be disbarred.

YES
COURT:
By his actions, he committed multiple violations relating to the legal profession:
a.) He violated the lawyers oath: (1) I will support its constitution and obey the
laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein. (2)
I will do no falsehood or consent to its commission; (3) and will conuct
myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with
all good fidelity as well as to the court as to my clients. xxx
b.) Sec 20 (a) Rule 138 of the Rules of Court : It is the duty of an attorney to
maintain allegiance to the RP and support the Constitution and obey the laws of
the Philippines
c.) Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: A lawyer shall uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the land, promote respect for law and legal
processes.
d.) Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: commands that he
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct
e.) Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: [a] lawyer shall at all
times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession:
f.) Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: [a] lawyer shall not
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,nor hould
he, whether in public or private lifem behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.

Facts gathered from evidence and admissions established a pattern of gross immoral
conduct that warrants his disbarment: He left his wife to pursue law marriage and
the study of law are not mutually exclusive, misrepresented himself to Maelotisea to lure
her into a prohibited relationship, contracted his 2
nd
marriage notwithstanding the
subsistence of his first marriage, engaged in extra-marital affair, misused legal
knowledge and convinced Atty Valencia that he was free to marry, got married in HK to
accord legitimacy to union with Valencia, simultaneously cohabited and had sexual
relations with 2 women, petitioned for nullity of marriage he wanted to escape liability
for his past actions.

2. W/N Atty. Valencia committed gross immoral conduct and should be disbarred.

YES, (Court disagrees with IBP recommendation to dismiss complaint against Atty.
Valencia)
COURT:
Page 2 of 2

Prior to becoming a lawyer she knew of Atty. Garridos marriage but she entered into
the relationship she lacked good moral character. She drove him away from
legitimizing his relationship with Maelitosea and their children after Constancias death,
contracted a clandestine marriage in HK to avoid the charge of bigamy, and did not mind
that her husband was also living with another woman showed perverse sense of moral
values.

Court finds that Atty. Valencia violated Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility her behavior demeaned the dignity and discredited the
legal profession.

She was not an on-looker victimized by the circumstances, but a willing and knowing
full participant

RULING:
Both Atty. Angel Garrido and Atty. Romana Valencia are disbarred. Clerk of Court to strike
out names from the Roll of Attorneys

BUZZ WORDS/ TAGS:
Disbarment, IBP, Immoral Conduct