GARRIDO v.

GARRIDO
[4 February 2010]
Facts:
The petitioner, the respondents legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a supplemental affidavit for disbarment
against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana P. Valencia before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Committee on Discipline, charging them with gross immorality, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint arose after the petitioner caught wind through her daughter
that her husband was having an affair with a woman other than his wife and already had a child with her; and the
same information was confirmed when oner of her daughters saw that her husband walking in a Robinsons mall with
the other respondent, Atty. Valencia, with their child in tow.
After a much further investigation into the matter, the time and effort given yielded results telling her that Atty.
Valencia and her legal husband had been married in Hong Kong. Moreover, on June 1993, her husband left their
conjugal home and joined Atty. Ramona Paguida Valencia at their residence, and has since failed to render much
needed financial support. In their defense, they postulated that they were not lawyers as of yet when they committed
the supposed immorality, so as such, they were not guilty of a violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Garridos and Valencias actions constitute a violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and thus a good
enough cause for their disbarment, despite the offense being supposedly committed when they were not lawyers.
Held:
Yes. Membership in the Bar is a privilege, and as a privilege bestowed by law through the Supreme Court,
membership in the Bar can be withdrawn where circumstances show the lawyers lack of the essential qualifications
required of lawyers, be they academic or moral.
In the present case, the Court had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Rowena
P. Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which commands that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Furthermore,
The contention of respondent that they were not yet lawyers when they got married shall not afford them exemption
from sanctions; good moral character was already required as a condition precedent to admission to the Bar.
As a lawyer, a person whom the community looked up to, Atty. Garrido and Valencia were shouldered with the
expectation that they would set a good example in promoting obedience to the Constitution and the laws. When they
violated the law and distorted it to cater to his own personal needs and selfish motives, not only did their actions
discredit the legal profession. Such actions by themselves, without even including the fact of Garridos abandonment
of paternal responsibility, to the detriment of his children by the petitioner; or the fact that Valencia married Garrido
despite knowing of his other marriages to two other women including the petitioner, are clear indications of a lack of
moral values not consistent with the proper conduct of practicing lawyers within the country. As such, their
disbarment is affirmed.