G.R. No. A.C. No. 5816. March 10, 2015.
DR. ELMAR O. PEREZ, Complainant, vs. ATTY. TRISTAN A. CATINDIG and ATTY. KAREN E. BAYDO, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Dr. Elmar O. Perez filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondents Atty. Tristan A. Catindig and Atty. Karen E. Baydo for gross immorality and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Dr. Perez alleged that Atty. Catindig, who was married to Lily Corazon Gomez since 1968, courted her in 1983. Atty. Catindig claimed he married Gomez due to her pregnancy and was obtaining a foreign divorce to dissolve the marriage. In 1984, Atty. Catindig and Gomez obtained a divorce decree from the Dominican Republic. Relying on Atty. Catindig’s assurance that the divorce was valid and no impediment existed, Dr. Perez married him in Virginia, USA, in July 1984, and they had a son. Dr. Perez later discovered the Dominican divorce was not recognized in the Philippines, making her marriage to Atty. Catindig a nullity. Atty. Catindig promised to legalize their union by filing a petition to nullify his marriage to Gomez. In 2001, Dr. Perez received an anonymous letter and later found a love letter dated April 25, 2001, from Atty. Catindig to Atty. Baydo, professing his love and promising to marry her once his “impediment is removed.” Atty. Catindig filed a petition to declare the nullity of his marriage to Gomez on August 13, 2001, and abandoned Dr. Perez and their son on October 31, 2001, moving to a condominium where Atty. Baydo was frequently seen.
In his Comment, Atty. Catindig admitted marrying Gomez and obtaining the Dominican divorce, but claimed Dr. Perez knew the divorce had no effect in the Philippines and that their marriage was invalid. He asserted his relationship with Dr. Perez deteriorated by 1997, and he left in 2001 to avoid acrimony. He denied Atty. Baydo was the reason for leaving, stating she rejected his romantic overtures and resigned from his law firm in January 2001. Atty. Baydo, in her Comment, denied having an affair with Atty. Catindig, claiming she rejected his advances because he was married and too old for her.
The case was referred to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). The Investigating Commissioner recommended the disbarment of Atty. Catindig for gross immorality and violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 7, and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, citing his bigamous marriage and pattern of immoral conduct. The charge against Atty. Baydo was recommended for dismissal due to lack of evidence. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved this recommendation in a Resolution dated December 10, 2011, and denied Atty. Catindig’s motion for reconsideration on December 29, 2012.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents committed gross immorality warranting disbarment.

RULING

The Court adopted the recommendations of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. Atty. Tristan A. Catindig is found GUILTY of gross immorality and of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 7, and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. His name is ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. The Court found that Atty. Catindig’s act of contracting a second marriage with Dr. Perez, despite knowing his prior marriage to Gomez was still valid and subsisting under Philippine law, constituted grossly immoral and illegal conduct. This behavior, as a lawyer and law professor, displayed a pattern of corrupt and reprehensible conduct that damaged the integrity of the legal profession and made a mockery of marriage as an institution.
The charge of gross immorality against Atty. Karen E. Baydo is DISMISSED for lack of evidence. The anonymous letter and love letter presented by Dr. Perez were insufficient to prove by clear and preponderant evidence that an affair existed between Atty. Catindig and Atty. Baydo. The love letter only proved Atty. Catindig’s feelings, not that Atty. Baydo reciprocated or was in a relationship with him.