Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2004 Order No. 1, series of 1993, thus, such documents are inadmissible in
evidence; respondent did not participate in the preparation and
PEDRO G. TOLENTINO, ROMEO M. LAYGO, SOLOMON M. submission with the local civil registry of subject birth certificates;
LUMALANG, SR., MELITON D. EVANGELISTA, respondent never declared that he had two wives, as he has always
SR., complainants, declared that he is separated in fact from his wife, Felicitas V. Valderia;
vs. and complainants have used this issue against him during elections and
ATTY. NORBERTO M. MENDOZA, respondent. yet, the people of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro still elected him as Mayor,
hence, respondent has not offended the public’s sense of morality.
RESOLUTION
The administrative case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: Philippines (hereinafter IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. Thereafter, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
IBP conducted hearings.
Before us is a complaint filed by Pedro G. Tolentino, Romeo M. Laygo,
Solomon M. Lumalang, Sr., Meliton D. Evangelista, Sr., and Nelson B.
Melgar against Atty. Norberto M. Mendoza for Grossly Immoral Conduct Witnesses for complainants, Nelson B. Melgar and Romeo M. Laygo,
and Gross Misconduct. submitted their affidavits as their direct testimony and were subjected to
cross-examination by respondent’s counsel.
Complainants allege in their Affidavit-Complaint that respondent, a
former Municipal Trial Court Judge, abandoned his legal wife, Felicitas Witness Nelson B. Melgar declares in his affidavit as follows: He knows
V. Valderia in favor of his paramour, Marilyn dela Fuente, who is, in turn, respondent for they both reside in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. Respondent
married to one Ramon G. Marcos; respondent and Marilyn dela Fuente is known as a practicing lawyer and a former Municipal Trial Court
have been cohabiting openly and publicly as husband and wife in Brgy. Judge. Respondent has been cohabiting openly and publicly with Marilyn
Estrella, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro; respondent had fathered two children dela Fuente, representing themselves to be husband and wife, and from
by his paramour Marilyn dela Fuente; respondent and Marilyn dela their cohabitation, they produced two children, namely, Mara Khrisna
Fuente declared in the birth certificates of their two daughters that they Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza and Myrra Khrisna Normina dela Fuente
were married on May 12, 1986, making it appear that their two children Mendoza. Sometime in 1995, he (witness Melgar) received a letter from
are legitimate, while in respondent’s Certificate of Candidacy filed with a concerned citizen, informing him that respondent was married to
the COMELEC during the 1995 elections, respondent declared that his Felicitas Valderia of San Rafael, Bulacan, on January 16, 1980, but
wife is Felicitas V. Valderia; in respondent’s certificate of candidacy for respondent abandoned his wife to cohabit with Marilyn dela Fuente.
the 1998 elections, he declared his civil status as separated; such Attached to the letter was a photocopy of a Certification issued by the
declarations in the birth certificates of his children and in his certificate Civil Register attesting to the marriage between respondent and Felicitas
of candidacy are acts constituting falsification of public documents; and Valderia. He also received information from concerned citizens that
respondent’s acts betray his lack of good moral character and constitute Marilyn dela Fuente is also legally married to one Ramon G. Marcos, as
grounds for his removal as a member of the bar. evidenced by a Certification from the Office of the Civil Register.
Respondent stated in his Certificate of Candidacy filed with the
COMELEC in 1995 that he is still legally married to Felicitas Valderia.
Respondent filed his Comment wherein he states that complainants, who
In respondent’s Certificate of Candidacy filed with the COMELEC in
are his political opponents in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, are merely filing
1998, he declared his civil status as separated. Respondent has
this case to exact revenge on him for his filing of criminal charges against
represented to all that he is married to Marilyn dela Fuente. In
them; complainants illegally procured copies of the birth certificates of
the Naujanews, a local newspaper where respondent holds the position of
Mara Khrisna Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza and Myrra Khrisna
Chairman of the Board of the Editorial Staff, respondent was reported by
Normina dela Fuente Mendoza, in violation of Rule 24, Administrative
Witness Melgar’s testimony that respondent had been publicly a. the concerned person himself, or any person
introducing Marilyn dela Fuente as his wife is corroborated by the authorized by him;
contents of an article in the Naujanews, introducing respondent as one of
Naujan’s public servants, and stating therein that respondent has been b. the court or proper public official whenever
blessed with two beautiful children with his wife, Marilyn dela absolutely necessary in administrative, judicial
(2) Any person violating the prohibition shall suffer the Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 and the
penalty of imprisonment of at least two months or a fine Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from
in an amount not exceeding five hundred pesos, or both evidence of the birth certificates in question, said public documents are,
in the discretion of the court. (Article 7, P.D. 603) therefore, admissible and should be properly taken into consideration in
the resolution of this administrative case against respondent.
Section 3, Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that
"evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded Verily, the facts stated in the birth certificates of Mara Khrisna Charmina
by the law or these rules." There could be no dispute that the subject birth dela Fuente Mendoza and Myrra Khrisna Normina dela Fuente Mendoza
certificates are relevant to the issue. The only question, therefore, is and respondent’s Certificate of Candidacy dated March 9, 1995 wherein
whether the law or the rules provide for the inadmissibility of said birth respondent himself declared he was married to Felicitas Valderia, were
certificates allegedly for having been obtained in violation of Rule 24, never denied nor rebutted by respondent. Hence, said public documents
Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993. sufficiently prove that he fathered two children by Marilyn dela Fuente
despite the fact that he was still legally married to Felicitas Valderia at
Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 only that time.
provides for sanctions against persons violating the rule on confidentiality
of birth records, but nowhere does it state that procurement of birth In Bar Matter No. 1154,17 good moral character was defined thus:
records in violation of said rule would render said records inadmissible in
evidence. On the other hand, the Revised Rules of Evidence only provides . . . good moral character is what a person really is, as
for the exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of illegal searches distinguished from good reputation or from the opinion generally
and seizures. It should be emphasized, however, that said rule against entertained of him, the estimate in which he is held by the public
unreasonable searches and seizures is meant only to protect a person from in the place where he is known. Moral character is not a
interference by the government or the state.15 In People vs. Hipol,16 we subjective term but one which corresponds to objective reality.
explained that: The standard of personal and professional integrity is not
satisfied by such conduct as it merely enables a person to escape
The Constitutional proscription enshrined in the Bill of Rights the penalty of criminal law.
does not concern itself with the relation between a private
individual and another individual. It governs the relationship In Zaguirre vs. Castillo,18 we reiterated the definition of immoral
between the individual and the State and its agents. The Bill of conduct, to wit:
Rights only tempers governmental power and protects the
individual against any aggression and unwarranted interference . . . that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to
by any department of government and its agencies. Accordingly, show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable
it cannot be extended to the acts complained of in this case. The members of the community. Furthermore, such conduct must not
alleged "warrantless search" made by Roque, a co-employee of only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so
appellant at the treasurer’s office, can hardly fall within the ambit corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
In the above-quoted case, we pointed out that a member of the Bar and SO ORDERED.
officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous
relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also behave himself as
to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting
those moral standards and, thus, ruled that siring a child with a woman
other than his wife is a conduct way below the standards of morality
required of every lawyer.19
We must rule in the same wise in this case before us. The fact that
respondent continues to publicly and openly cohabit with a woman who
is not his legal wife, thus, siring children by her, shows his lack of good
moral character. Respondent should keep in mind that the requirement of
good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the
Philippine Bar but is also a continuing requirement to maintain one’s
good standing in the legal profession.20 In Aldovino vs. Pujalte, Jr.,21 we
emphasized that:
This Court has been exacting in its demand for integrity and good
moral character of members of the Bar. They are expected at all
times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession
and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust
and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and
integrity of the legal profession. Membership in the legal
profession is a privilege. And whenever it is made to appear that
an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the
public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of this
Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the
privilege of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the privilege.