AM 641; (November, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 641 November 19, 1982
FRANCISCO RADOMES, complainant, vs. FERNANDO FABRIGARAS, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Francisco Radomes accused respondent attorney Fernando Fabrigaras of grossly immoral conduct, deceit, and breach of his lawyer’s oath. The specific charge was that Fabrigaras, while married to Felicidad Jumagdao, contracted a second marriage with Rosario Laureta. In his defense, Fabrigaras denied the allegations, characterizing Radomes as vindictive. He asserted that the disbarment complaint was filed in retaliation after Fabrigaras, as the offended party, refused to dismiss an “Attempted Murder” case (Criminal Case No. 6691) he had filed against Radomes and his son.
The case was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation, report, and recommendation. The OSG conducted a thorough investigation and submitted its findings.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Fernando Fabrigaras should be disbarred based on the charge of contracting a bigamous marriage.
RULING
The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, adopting the OSG’s recommendation for exoneration. The legal logic rests on the complainant’s utter failure to substantiate the serious allegations with competent evidence. The OSG’s investigation conclusively found that Radomes had no documentary proof of the alleged first marriage between Fabrigaras and Felicidad Jumagdao. His knowledge was based purely on hearsay and rumors. Crucially, official examinations of the municipal civil registry and the local parish records for the relevant year (1942) revealed no entry of such a marriage, a fact certified by the custodians of those records.
The Court emphasized that the reputation of a lawyer is paramount, and disbarment proceedings require clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof. It cited precedent stating that a decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity. Here, the complaint was built on unsubstantiated rumors and appeared to be a malicious tool for harassment, filed from a motive of retaliation due to a pending criminal case, rather than from a genuine desire to uphold ethical standards. Consequently, with no evidentiary basis, the charges could not stand.