(36) GARRIDO VS.
GARRIDO As applied to the present case, the time that elapsed between the immoral acts charged and
FACTS:
Maelotisea Sipin Garrido filed a complaint-affidavit and a supplemental affidavit for disbarment
against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido (Atty. Garrido) and Atty. Romana P.Valencia
(Atty. Valencia) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Discipline
charging them with gross immorality.
The complaint-affidavit states the Maelotisea is the legal wife of Atty. Garrido and the latter
has romantic relationship with Atty. Valencia. It also states that Maelotisea is also filing a
disbarment proceeding against his mistress (Atty. Valencia) considering that out of their
immoral acts she suffered not only mental anguish but also besmirch reputation, wounded
feelings and sleepless nights.
In his Counter-Affidavit, Atty. Garrido denied Maelotiseas charges and imputations. By way of
defense, he alleged that Maelotisea was not his legal wife, as he was already married to
Constancia David (Constancia) when he married Maelotisea. He claimed he married
Maelotisea after he and Constancia parted ways. He further alleged that Maelotisea knew all
his escapades and understood his bad boy image before she married him in 1962. As he and
Maelotisea grew apart over the years due to financial problems, Atty. Garrido met
Atty. Valencia. He became close to Atty. Valencia to whom he confided his
difficulties. Together, they resolved his personal problems and his financial difficulties with his
second family.
Atty. Garrido emphasized that all his marriages were contracted before he became a member
of the bar on May 11, 1979, with the third marriage contracted after the death of Constancia
on December 26, 1977. Likewise, his children with Maelotisea were born before he became a
lawyer.
IBP Board of Governors Atty. Garrido disbarred; Atty. Valencia case is dismissed for lack
of merit
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Garrido is guilty of gross immorality
RULING:
After due consideration, we resolve to adopt the findings of the IBP Board of Governors
against Atty. Garrido, and to reject its recommendation with respect to Atty. Valencia.
the filing of the complaint is not material in considering the qualification of Atty. Garrido when
he applied for admission to the practice of law, and his continuing qualification to be a member
of the legal profession. From this perspective, it is not important that the acts complained of
were committed before Atty. Garrido was admitted to the practice of law. As we explained
in Zaguirre v. Castillo,[17] the possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent
and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership in the
legal profession. Admission to the bar does not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry, upon
proper complaint, into any question concerning the mental or moral fitness of the respondent
before he became a lawyer. Admission to the practice only creates the rebuttable presumption
that the applicant has all the qualifications to become a lawyer; this may be refuted by clear
and convincing evidence to the contrary even after admission to the Bar.
By his actions, Garrido committed multiple violations relating to the legal profession,
specifically, violations of the bar admission rules, of his lawyers 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 lawyers oath, Section 20(a) of Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court. and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, all of which commonly require
him to obey the laws of the land. In marrying Maelotisea, he committed the crime of bigamy,
as he entered this second marriage while his first marriage with Constancia was
subsisting. He openly admitted his bigamy when he filed his petition to nullify his marriage to
Maelotisea.
He violated ethical rules of the profession, specifically, Rule 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 7.03 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.
As a lawyer, his community looked up to Atty. Garrido with the expectation and that he would
set a good example in promoting obedience to the Constitution and the laws. When he
violated the law and distorted it to cater to his own personal needs and selfish motives, he
discredited the legal profession and created the public impression that laws are mere tools of
convenience that can be used, bended and abused to satisfy personal whims and desires. In
this case, he also used the law to free him from unwanted relationships.
The Court has often reminded the members of the bar to live up to the standards and norms (2) DISBAR Atty. Romana P. Valencia from the practice of law for gross immorality,
expected of the legal profession by upholding the ideals and principles embodied in the Code violation of Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
of Professional Responsibility. Lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal
proficiency, but also of morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. Lawyers are at all
times subject to the watchful public eye and community approbation . Needless to state, those
whose conduct of both public and private fail this scrutiny have to be disciplined and, after
appropriate proceedings, accordingly penalized.

Measured against the definition of gross immorality, we find Atty. Valencias actions grossly
immoral. Her actions were so corrupt as to approximate a criminal act, for she married a man
who, in all appearances, was married to another and with whom he has a family. Her actions
were also unprincipled and reprehensible to a high degree; as the confidante of Atty. Garrido,
she preyed on his vulnerability and engaged in a romantic relationship with him during the
subsistence of his two previous marriages. As already mentioned, Atty. Valencias conduct
could not but be scandalous and revolting to the point of shocking the communitys sense of
decency; while she professed to be the lawfully wedded wife, she helped the second family
build a house prior to her marriage to Atty. Garrido, and did not object to sharing her husband
with the woman of his second marriage.

We find that Atty. Valencia violated Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, as her behavior demeaned the dignity of and discredited the legal
profession. She simply failed in her duty as a lawyer to adhere unwaveringly to the highest
standards of morality.[40] In Barrientos v. Daarol, we held that lawyers, as officers of the court,
must not only be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character
and must lead lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. Atty.
Valencia failed to live up to these standards before she was admitted to the bar and after she
became a member of the legal profession.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to:

(1) DISBAR Atty. Angel E. Garrido from the practice of law for gross immorality,
violation of the Lawyers Oath; and violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and

(37) CANON 7 OCA vs INDAR
FACTS:
This is an administrative complaint for gross misconduct and dishonesty against respondent
Judge Cader P. Indar (Judge Indar), presiding judge of RTC, Branch 14, Cotabato and Acting
President Judge of RTC, Branch 15 of Shariff Aguak, Maguindano.
Reports by the LCR of Manila and QC to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) showed
an alarming number of decisions, resolutions, and orders on annulment of marriage cases
allegedly issued by Judge Indar.
OCA conducted a judicial audit in RTC-Cotabato, Branch 14 and RTC-Shariff Aguak. It found
out that the list of cases submitted by the LCR of Manila and QC do not appear on the records
of cases received, pending or disposal of the said courts.
Justice Borreta (Investigating Justice) found Judge Indar guilty of serious misconduct and
dishonesty. According to him, Judge Indars act of issuing decisions on annulment of marriage
cases without complying with the stringent procedural and substantive requirements of the
ROC for such cases clearly violates the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Indar made it appear
that the annulment cases underwent trial, when the records show no judicial proceedings
occurred.
Moreover, Judge Indars act of affirming in writing before the Australian Embassy the validity
of the decision he allegedly rendered, when in fact that case does not appear in the courts
records, constitutes dishonesty.
Judge Borreta recommended the dismissal of Judge Indar from service.
ISSUE:
Whether Judge Indar is guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty
RULING:
The Court agrees with the findings of the Investigating Justice.
The Court condemns Judge Indars reprehensible act of issuing Decisions that voided marital
unions, without conducting any judicial proceedings. Such malfeasance not only makes a
mockery of marriage and its life-changing consequences but likewise grossly violates the
basic norms of truth, justice, and due process. Not only that, Judge Indars gross misconduct
greatly undermines the peoples faith in the judiciary and betrays public trust and confidence
in courts. Judge Indars utter lack of moral fitness has no place in the Judiciary. Judge Indar
deserves nothing less than dismissal from the service.
(Issue on Dishonesty)
Among the questions annulment decrees in Judge Indars decision is Chona Chanco Aquiling
v. Allan Aquiling. Despite the fact no proceedings were conducted in the case, Judge Indar
declared categorically, in response to the Australian Embassy letter, that the decision
annulling the marriage is valid and petitioner is free to marry. In effect, Judge Indar confirms
the truthfulness of the contents of the annulment decree, highlighting Judge Indars appaling
dishonesty.
Indisputably, Judge Indars gross misconduct and dishonesty like constitute a breach of the
following Canons of the CPR:
Canon 1 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Canon 7 A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF
THE LEGAL PROFESSION
It cannot be denied that the respondents dishonesty did not only affect the image of the
judiciary, it also put his moral character in serious doubt and rendered him unfit to continue in
the practice of law. Possession of good moral character is not only a prerequisite to admission
to the bar but also a continuing requirement to the practice of law. If the practice of law is to
remain an honourable profession and attain its basic ideals, those counted within its ranks
should not only master it tenets and principles but should also accord continuing fidelity to
them. The requirement of good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the
general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learing. (Samson vs Cabellero)
Considering the Judge Indar is guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty, constituting
violations of Lawyers Oath (do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing in any court), Canon 1
and 7, Judge Indar deserves DISBARMENT.