A.C. No. 8866, September 15, 2020
Catherine V. Villarente, Complainant, vs. Atty. Benigno C. Villarente, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Catherine V. Villarente filed a disbarment complaint against her husband, respondent Atty. Benigno C. Villarente, Jr., a retired judge, for gross immorality. The complaint alleged that despite a prior disbarment case (A.C. No. 10017) where he was suspended from the practice of law for one year with a stern warning, the respondent continued to openly cohabit with his mistress, Maria Ellen Guarin. The prior case, decided in 2013, involved the same illicit relationship that began in 2002 and produced an illegitimate child.
The present complaint specifically averred that the respondent, emboldened by the previous penalty, flaunted his immorality by siring a second illegitimate child with the same mistress after the first case was filed. The complainant submitted a barangay certification confirming their cohabitation. The respondent, while not explicitly denying the birth of a second child, admitted the allegation in his conference brief. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors recommended disbarment.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent should be disbarred for gross immorality due to his continued illicit cohabitation and siring of another child despite a previous suspension and stern warning from the Court.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court En Banc disbarred Atty. Benigno C. Villarente, Jr. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that a lawyer’s conduct must adhere to the highest standards of morality both in public and private life, as mandated by the Code of Professional Responsibility. The respondent’s actions constituted a blatant violation of Rule 1.01, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, and Rule 7.03, which obligates lawyers to uphold the dignity of the legal profession.
The Court emphasized that the respondent’s misconduct was aggravated by its repetitive and contumacious nature. Having been previously sanctioned and expressly warned that further evidence of gross immorality would be dealt with more severely, his decision to continue the relationship and father another child demonstrated a cavalier disregard for the Court’s authority and the ethical norms of the profession. This repeated defiance over a prolonged period revealed a serious character flaw and moral indifference, which severely tarnished the integrity of the legal profession. The act of cohabiting with a woman not his wife while his marriage subsisted showed a clear disrespect for family law and institutions. Consequently, to preserve public confidence in the legal system, the ultimate penalty of disbarment was deemed appropriate and necessary.