AC 4256; (February, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 4256; February 13, 2004
JOVITA BUSTAMANTE-ALEJANDRO, complainant vs. ATTYS. WARFREDO TOMAS ALEJANDRO and MARICRIS A. VILLARIN, respondents.
FACTS
Complainant Jovita Bustamante-Alejandro filed this administrative case in 1994, charging her husband, Atty. Warfredo Tomas Alejandro, and Atty. Maricris A. Villarin with bigamy and concubinage. She alleged a valid marriage with Atty. Alejandro in 1971, which produced three children. She claimed that in 1990, her husband abandoned the family to cohabit with Atty. Villarin, publicly representing themselves as spouses. This relationship allegedly produced a son, Paolo, born in 1992, whose Certificate of Live Birth named Atty. Alejandro as the father and Atty. Villarin as “Ma. Cristina V. Alejandro,” stating they were married in 1990.
The Supreme Court repeatedly required respondents to comment. Service of notices to Atty. Alejandro at his Quezon City address failed due to returns marked “moved” and refusal of personal service by a house helper. The Court eventually deemed service completed and imposed a fine for his non-compliance, but he remained unresponsive. Complainant later provided a new address in Houston, Texas. Atty. Villarin, while also directed to comment, was not effectively served notices at the correct updated address.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Atty. Warfredo Tomas Alejandro and Atty. Maricris A. Villarin should be disbarred for gross immorality.
RULING
Yes, but with a distinction between the respondents based on procedural due process. The Court disbarred Atty. Alejandro for gross immorality. The legal logic is that a lawyer’s conduct must adhere to the highest standards of morality, both professionally and privately. Atty. Alejandro’s abandonment of his lawful family to cohabit with another woman, fathering a child with her while his marriage subsisted, constitutes grossly immoral conduct. His failure to contest the allegations despite being deemed served with the complaint amounted to a waiver, allowing the Court to rule based on the substantial evidence presented by the complainant, including the marriage contract and the child’s birth certificate.
Regarding Atty. Villarin, the Court referred the case back to the IBP for further proceedings. The rationale is that disbarment, being severe, requires that the respondent be given full opportunity to be heard. The records showed that notices sent to her were either addressed solely to Atty. Alejandro or sent to an old address, not the updated Texas address provided by the complainant. Therefore, there was no clear waiver on her part, and the requirement of due process necessitated further proceedings to afford her a chance to answer the charges.