AM 906; (July, 1982) (Digest)
A.M. No. 906 July 30, 1982
Teresita B. Tabiliran, complainant, vs. Atty. Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr., respondent.
FACTS
In a verified complaint dated December 8, 1969, Teresita B. Tabiliran charged her husband, Atty. Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr., with abandonment of the family home and immorality for allegedly cohabiting with another woman and fathering a child with her. The respondent denied the allegations, claiming it was the complainant who abandoned the conjugal home without just cause and that he neither lived with another woman nor fathered any child outside the marriage. The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation.
ISSUE
Whether the evidence presented by the complainant is sufficient to warrant the disciplinary sanction of disbarment or suspension against the respondent.
RULING
The Supreme Court exonerated the respondent from the charges. The Court emphasized that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests heavily upon the complainant, and the case must be established by clear, convincing, and preponderant evidence. The Solicitor General’s report, which the Court adopted, found the complainant’s evidence insufficient and incompetent. Specifically, her own exhibit contradicted the claim of abandonment by stating she left the home against her husband’s will. The documents purporting to prove the respondent’s extramarital affair and paternity—a letter, a baptismal certificate, and an affidavit—were deemed hearsay and inadmissible as they were never properly identified or testified to by the persons who executed them. Marked discrepancies in the alleged paramour’s surname across these documents further undermined their credibility. The respondent’s denial remained unrebutted by competent proof.
However, the Court reprimanded the respondent for his participation in a “Deed of Settlement” that contained a stipulation permitting each spouse to live with another person, which is contrary to law, morals, and public policy. As a lawyer, he should have recognized its illegality. The Court considered the Solicitor General’s cited extenuating circumstances, including that the document was prepared by another lawyer at the complainant’s instance and the respondent’s youth and emotional state at the time, in mitigating the sanction to a mere reprimand.