AC 6148; (January, 2013) (Digest)
Adm. Case No. 6148; January 22, 2013
Florence Teves Macarubbo, Complainant, vs. Atty. Edmundo L. Macarubbo, Respondent.
FACTS
In a 2004 Decision, the Court disbarred respondent Atty. Edmundo L. Macarubbo for gross immoral conduct. He contracted a bigamous marriage with the complainant and a third marriage while his first marriage remained subsisting, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. His motion for reconsideration was denied with finality in 2004. Eight years after his disbarment, in 2012, respondent filed a Petition for Extraordinary Mercy seeking judicial clemency and reinstatement to the Roll of Attorneys. The Court initially denied it but later re-evaluated the petition on substantive merits following an endorsement from the Office of the Vice President.
ISSUE
Whether respondent has sufficiently demonstrated reformation and remorse to warrant judicial clemency and reinstatement as a member of the Philippine Bar.
RULING
Yes, the petition for reinstatement is granted. The Court applies the guidelines for judicial clemency established in Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz. Respondent has satisfactorily shown remorse and reformation. He acknowledged his indiscretions, maintained cordial relations with his children, and provided them regular support as previously ordered. After disbarment, he returned to his hometown, cared for his ailing mother, and engaged in productive civic and government service, currently serving as a Local Assessment Operations Officer. Numerous certifications from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Cagayan Chapter), barangay officials, the NBI (showing no criminal record), his parish priest, and other community members attest to his good moral character and reformed ways. He has settled his prior marital issues, with no opposition from the original complainant. Eight years have lapsed since his disbarment, providing a sufficient period for reform. At 58 years old, he retains productive years for contributing to the legal profession and society. While the Court strictly upholds professional standards, it also extends compassion to those who have genuinely atoned. Respondent is reinstated to the practice of law, reminded that the privilege demands continued adherence to intellectual, moral, and legal standards.