A.C. No. 6148; February 27, 2004
Florence Teves Macarrubo, et al. vs. Atty. Edmundo L. Macarrubo

FACTS

Complainant Florence Teves Macarrubo, on behalf of herself and her two minor children, filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Edmundo L. Macarrubo. She alleged that in 1991, respondent, then a married man to Helen Esparza since 1982, deceived her into believing he was single and contracted marriage with her on two occasions in December 1991. Complainant further averred that respondent later entered into a third marriage with Josephine T. Constantino, and subsequently abandoned her and their children without providing regular support.
Respondent denied the allegations, claiming complainant was fully aware of his prior marriage and that their wedding was a “sham” orchestrated by complainant to protect her reputation as she was pregnant. He presented a final Regional Trial Court decision declaring his marriage to complainant void ab initio due to a legal impediment and lack of a valid license. Respondent also submitted evidence of financial support for the children and certifications showing no pending criminal or administrative cases against him.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Edmundo L. Macarrubo should be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent is disbarred for gross immorality. The Supreme Court emphasized that a lawyer’s conduct must be beyond reproach, and membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, including adherence to the highest moral standards. The Court found respondent’s actions constituted grossly immoral conduct. He contracted a second marriage with complainant while his first marriage was still subsisting, as his first marriage was only declared void years later in 1998. This act of bigamy is a serious crime reflecting moral depravity.
The Court rejected respondent’s defenses. The civil declaration of nullity of his second marriage does not absolve him from administrative liability, as the disbarment case is separate and focuses on his fitness as a lawyer. His provision of sporadic financial support and clean records from other agencies do not negate the gravity of his deceit and serial marital engagements, which directly violate the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such conduct erodes public confidence in the legal profession. The penalty of disbarment is appropriate, as a lesser sanction would be inadequate for conduct so grossly inconsistent with the moral integrity required of an attorney. The Court also ordered him to show evidence of providing regular support for his children.