G.R. No. A.C. No. 13615 (Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3166). January 31, 2023.
JULIEWHYN R. QUINDOZA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ERNESTO DAVID DELOS SANTOS AND ATTY. MARUJITA S. PALABRICA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Complainant Juliewhyn R. Quindoza filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondents Atty. Ernesto David Delos Santos and Atty. Marujita S. Palabrica before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline. Quindoza alleged that she was the common-law wife of Atty. Delos Santos, with whom she had a nonmarital child, Mergarett Veronica Delos Santos. At the time they cohabited, Atty. Delos Santos was legally married to Edita Baltasar and also had another mistress, Fe Delilah, with three children. Quindoza further accused Atty. Delos Santos of committing acts of lasciviousness against their daughter, Veronica. Against Atty. Palabrica, Quindoza alleged violations for: (1) acting as godmother during Veronica’s baptism despite knowing she was Atty. Delos Santos’s nonmarital child; (2) knowing of the illicit relationship between Quindoza and the married Atty. Delos Santos; and (3) her passive toleration of the alleged abuse committed by Atty. Delos Santos against Veronica.
Atty. Palabrica, in her defense, stated she was merely a classmate of Atty. Delos Santos who was invited to be a baptismal sponsor; it was her first time meeting Quindoza and Veronica during the baptism, and she had no subsequent contact with them. She denied knowledge of any illicit relationship or acts of lasciviousness, arguing that her role as a sponsor was a personal, not a professional, act. She also contended the complaint was filed in bad faith, motivated by her legal representation of Atty. Delos Santos in opposing the probate of his father’s will, a case involving conflicting interests within the University of Manila.
Atty. Delos Santos denied Quindoza was his common-law wife but admitted fathering Veronica with her, expressing remorse and claiming to have ended the relationship while providing love and financial support. He admitted a criminal complaint for acts of lasciviousness was filed against him but stated it was dismissed for lack of probable cause and was intended to harass him. He echoed that the disbarment case was filed to harass him and Atty. Palabrica due to the probate case opposition.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended a two-year suspension for Atty. Delos Santos and dismissal of the case against Atty. Palabrica. The IBP Board of Governors initially resolved to disbar Atty. Delos Santos but, upon his motion for reconsideration, modified the penalty to a five-year suspension. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final resolution.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Atty. Ernesto David Delos Santos and Atty. Marujita S. Palabrica are administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Atty. Ernesto David Delos Santos GUILTY of gross immorality for violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court held that his act of cohabiting with Quindoza and having a child with her while legally married to another woman constituted grossly immoral conduct. Such conduct, which is corrupt, unprincipled, and scandalous, adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law and discredits the legal profession. Considering the circumstances, including his admission of the relationship and provision of support for his child, the Court imposed a penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) YEARS, with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
The administrative case against Atty. Marujita S. Palabrica was DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Court ruled that her act of being a baptismal sponsor was a personal and social undertaking, not done in her capacity as a lawyer. There was no substantial evidence presented to prove she had knowledge of Atty. Delos Santos’s illicit relationship or the alleged acts of lasciviousness, or that she engaged in any professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action.