G.R. No. A.C. No. 6593. February 4, 2010
MAELOTISEA S. GARRIDO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ANGEL E. GARRIDO and ATTY. ROMANA P. VALENCIA, Respondents.

FACTS

Maelotisea S. Garrido filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Angel E. Garrido (her husband) and Atty. Romana P. Valencia, charging them with gross immorality. Maelotisea alleged that she married Atty. Garrido in 1962 and they had six children. She discovered that Atty. Garrido had an extramarital relationship with Atty. Valencia, with whom he had a child, Angeli Ramona Valencia Garrido, and that they contracted marriage in Hong Kong in 1978 while Atty. Garrido was still married to Maelotisea. Atty. Garrido left their conjugal home in 1993 and allegedly failed to provide financial support. In defense, Atty. Garrido claimed Maelotisea was not his legal wife because he was previously married to Constancia David when he married Maelotisea, rendering that marriage void. He admitted marrying Atty. Valencia after Constancia’s death. Atty. Valencia denied being a mistress, arguing Maelotisea’s marriage was void. During proceedings, the respondents filed motions to suspend or dismiss the case, citing a pending concubinage case and a later court declaration nullifying Atty. Garrido’s marriage to Maelotisea. Maelotisea also filed a motion to dismiss to maintain friendly relations, but all motions were denied. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended disbarment, and the IBP Board of Governors adopted this with modification, disbarring Atty. Garrido but dismissing the case against Atty. Valencia. Atty. Garrido appealed, arguing no gross immorality, prescription of offenses, and pleading for leniency due to his age and clean record. The IBP Director later recommended reducing the penalty to reprimand.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Angel E. Garrido should be disbarred for gross immorality.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Angel E. Garrido for gross immorality. The Court held that:
1. Disbarment proceedings are of public concern and not strictly governed by procedural rules like prescription or desistance. The complainant acts as a witness, and withdrawal of the complaint does not abate the proceedings.
2. Good moral character is a continuing requirement for lawyers. Acts committed before admission to the bar may still be grounds for disbarment, as admission creates only a rebuttable presumption of fitness.
3. Atty. Garrido’s conduct constituted gross immorality. He contracted a bigamous marriage with Maelotisea while still married to Constancia, and later married Atty. Valencia while his marriage to Maelotisea was undissolved. This showed a pattern of deceit and violation of marital laws, undermining the integrity of the legal profession.
4. The defense of void marriage does not excuse immorality. Atty. Garrido’s actions displayed a lack of moral integrity required of lawyers, regardless of the legal status of his marriages.
5. Penalty: Disbarment was upheld as appropriate due to the seriousness of the misconduct, which betrayed public trust. The Court rejected the recommendation for a lesser penalty, emphasizing that lawyers must uphold high moral standards.
6. Atty. Valencia: The Court reversed the IBP’s dismissal of the case against her, finding her equally liable for gross immorality as a participant in the bigamous relationship, and disbarred her as well.
The Court ordered the disbarment of both respondents for gross immorality, with their names stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.