AC 6573; (July, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 6573 ; July 9, 2007
IGNACIO J. SALMINGO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. RODNEY K. RUBICA, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Ignacio J. Salmingo filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Rodney K. Rubica. The complaint stemmed from respondent’s petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Liza Jane Estaño before the RTC of Negros Occidental. Summons to Liza Jane at her given address was returned unserved. Respondent subsequently obtained leave to serve summons by publication in a local weekly newspaper, presented evidence ex parte, and secured a decision declaring the marriage null and void due to Liza Jane’s prior existing marriage.
Complainant alleged that respondent committed gross misconduct by deliberately concealing Liza Jane’s true address to prevent service of summons, enabling ex parte proceedings. He further accused respondent of non-compliance with procedural rules: failure to serve copies of the petition on the Office of the Solicitor General and the City/Provincial Prosecutor, causing publication only in a local newspaper, and not registering the decree of nullity with the Civil Registry. Complainant prayed for the setting aside of the decision, reopening of the case, and respondent’s disbarment.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Rodney K. Rubica should be held administratively liable for gross misconduct based on the allegations.
RULING
The Court upheld the IBP Board of Governors’ resolution dismissing the complaint for lack of sufficient evidence. In disciplinary proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant to establish the charges by clear preponderance of evidence, with the lawyer enjoying a presumption of innocence. Complainant failed to meet this burden.
Regarding the alleged concealment of Liza Jane’s address, respondent countered that he sent allowances via an ATM account accessible nationwide, not directly to a specific residence. Complainant did not controvert this. On the procedural violations under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages), the Court noted that the rule took effect on March 15, 2003, after respondent filed his petition in January 2003 and even after the May 2003 decision. Thus, respondent could not be faulted for non-compliance with its subsequent requirements. As to the failure to register the decree, complainant offered no proof, such as a certification from the Civil Registry, as required by the rules on evidence. Finally, complainant lacked standing to seek the annulment case’s reopening, as he was not a real party-in-interest; representation of the State’s interest in marriage nullity cases is exclusively vested in the prosecuting attorney or Solicitor General. The petition was denied.