AC 6353; (February, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 6353 ; February 27, 2006
SPOUSES DAVID and MARISA WILLIAMS, Complainants, vs. ATTY. RUDY T. ENRIQUEZ, Respondent.
FACTS
The complainants, spouses David and Marisa Williams, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez, the counsel for the opposing party in a civil case. The complaint stemmed from Atty. Enriquez filing a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents against Marisa Williams before the Office of the City Prosecutor. The basis of the criminal charge was his allegation that Marisa, by marrying an American citizen, automatically lost her Filipino citizenship and was thus prohibited from owning land in the Philippines, rendering her acquisition of a lot and the subsequent Transfer Certificate of Title falsified.
In their complaint, the spouses alleged that Atty. Enriquez, a retired judge, knowingly cited outdated law to support his position. They pointed out that Marisa cited the correct provision of the 1987 Constitution , which states that a Filipino citizen who marries an alien retains citizenship unless it is renounced by a specific act. In reply, Atty. Enriquez insisted that the act of marriage itself constituted renunciation. The complainants argued this demonstrated gross ignorance of a fundamental and settled constitutional principle.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for erroneously asserting that a Filipino woman automatically loses her citizenship by marrying a foreigner.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Enriquez is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. The Court affirmed the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The 1987 Constitution is clear: a Filipino citizen who marries an alien retains citizenship unless by a specific act or omission they are deemed to have renounced it. Marriage alone does not effect a loss of citizenship. This legal principle is elementary and fundamental.
Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments. When the law is so basic, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance. As a retired judge, Atty. Enriquez had a heightened duty to be well-informed of the latest laws and jurisprudence, especially on constitutional provisions. His reliance on inapplicable, outdated jurisprudence concerning aliens acquiring land, and his misapplication of the Constitution, demonstrated a failure to uphold this duty. His actions exposed the complainant to baseless criminal litigation. Considering his previously unblemished record, the Court modified the IBP’s recommendation and imposed a fine of P10,000.00 with a stern warning.