Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84110:59378&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 01:52:11+00:00

Document:
A.C. No. 5816, March 10, 2015 - DR. ELMAR O. PEREZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. TRISTAN A. CATINDIG AND ATTY. KAREN E. BAYDO, Respondents.
DR. ELMAR O. PEREZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. TRISTAN A. CATINDIG AND ATTY. KAREN E. BAYDO, Respondents.
Before the Court is an administrative complaint1 for disbarment filed by Dr. Elmar O. Perez (Dr. Perez) with the Office of the Bar Confidant on August 27, 2002 against Atty. Tristan A. Catindig (Atty. Catindig) and Atty. Karen E. Baydo (Atty. Baydo) (respondents) for gross immorality and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Catindig, in his Comment,15 admitted that he married Gomez on May 18, 1968. He claimed, however, that immediately after the wedding, Gomez showed signs that she was incapable of complying with her marital obligations, as she had serious intimacy problems; and that while their union was blessed with four children, their relationship simply deteriorated.
On June 2, 2003, the IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) issued an Order24 setting the mandatory conference of the administrative case on July 4, 2003, which was later reset to August 29, 2003. During the conference, the parties manifested that they were already submitting the case for resolution based on the pleadings already submitted. Thereupon, the IBP-CBD directed the parties to submit their respective position papers within 10 days from notice. Respondents Atty. Catindig and Atty. Baydo filed their position papers on October 17, 200325 and October 20, 2003,26 respectively. Dr. Perez filed her position paper27 on October 24, 2003.
In this case, the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the admissions of Atty. Catindig established a pattern of grossly immoral conduct that warrants fustigation and his disbarment. His conduct was not only corrupt or unprincipled; it was reprehensible to the highest degree.
On the other hand, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that the charge against Atty. Baydo be dismissed for dearth of evidence; Dr. Perez failed to present clear and preponderant evidence in support of the alleged affair between the respondents.
On December 10, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution,30 which adopted and approved the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
Atty. Catindig sought a reconsideration31 of the December 10, 2011 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors, claiming that the Investigating Commissioner erred in relying solely on Dr. Perez’s uncorroborated allegations. He pointed out that, under Section 1 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, a complaint for disbarment must be supported by affidavits of persons having knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts. He said that despite the absence of any corroborating testimony, the Investigating Commissioner gave credence to Dr. Perez’ testimony.
He also claimed that he had absolutely no intention of committing any felony; that he never concealed the status of his marriage from anyone. In fact, Atty. Catindig asserted that he had always been transparent with both Gomez and Dr. Perez.
The IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution32 dated December 29, 2012, denied Atty. Catindig’s motion for reconsideration.
The issue in this case is whether the respondents committed gross immorality, which would warrant their disbarment.
After a thorough perusal of the respective allegations of the parties and the circumstances of this case, the Court agrees with the findings and recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors.
Contracting a marriage during the subsistence of a previous one amounts to a grossly immoral conduct.
The facts gathered from the evidence adduced by the parties and, ironically, from Atty. Catindig’s own admission, indeed establish a pattern of conduct that is grossly immoral; it is not only corrupt and unprincipled, but reprehensible to a high degree.
Atty. Catindig was validly married to Gomez twice – a wedding in the Central Methodist Church in 1968, which was then followed by a Catholic wedding. In 1983, Atty. Catindig started pursuing Dr. Perez when their paths crossed again. Curiously, 15 years into his first marriage and four children after, Atty. Catindig claimed that his first marriage was then already falling apart due to Gomez’ serious intimacy problems.
A year after pursuing Dr. Perez, Atty. Catindig had a de facto separation from Gomez, dissolved their conjugal partnership of gains, obtained a divorce decree from a court in the Dominican Republic, and married Dr. Perez in the USA all in the same year. Atty. Catindig was so enchanted with Dr. Perez at that time that he moved heaven and earth just so he could marry her right away – a marriage that has at least a semblance of legality.
From his own admission, Atty. Catindig knew that the divorce decree he obtained from the court in the Dominican Republic was not recognized in our jurisdiction as he and Gomez were both Filipino citizens at that time. He knew that he was still validly married to Gomez; that he cannot marry anew unless his previous marriage be properly declared a nullity. Otherwise, his subsequent marriage would be void. This notwithstanding, he still married Dr. Perez. The foregoing circumstances seriously taint Atty. Catindig’s sense of social propriety and moral values. It is a blatant and purposeful disregard of our laws on marriage.
It has also not escaped the attention of the Court that Atty. Catindig married Dr. Perez in the USA. Considering that Atty. Catindig knew that his previous marriage remained valid, the logical conclusion is that he wanted to marry Dr. Perez in the USA for the added security of avoiding any charge of bigamy by entering into the subsequent marriage outside Philippine jurisdiction.
Moreover, assuming arguendo that Atty. Catindig’s claim is true, it matters not that Dr. Perez knew that their marriage is a nullity. The fact still remains that he resorted to various legal strategies in order to render a façade of validity to his otherwise invalid marriage to Dr. Perez. Such act is, at the very least, so unprincipled that it is reprehensible to the highest degree.
Further, after 17 years of cohabiting with Dr. Perez, and despite the various legal actions he resorted to in order to give their union a semblance of validity, Atty. Catindig left her and their son. It was only at that time that he finally decided to properly seek the nullity of his first marriage to Gomez. Apparently, he was then already entranced with the much younger Atty. Baydo, an associate lawyer employed by his firm.
While the fact that Atty. Catindig decided to separate from Dr. Perez to pursue Atty. Baydo, in itself, cannot be considered a grossly immoral conduct, such fact forms part of the pattern showing his propensity towards immoral conduct. Lest it be misunderstood, the Court’s finding of gross immoral conduct is hinged not on Atty. Catindig’s desertion of Dr. Perez, but on his contracting of a subsequent marriage during the subsistence of his previous marriage to Gomez.
Atty. Catindig’s subsequent marriage during the subsistence of his previous one definitely manifests a deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. By his own admission, Atty. Catindig made a mockery out of the institution of marriage, taking advantage of his legal skills in the process. He exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the bar, which thus warrant the penalty of disbarment.
The Court is not unmindful of the rule that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. Where a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, could accomplish the end desired, disbarment should never be decreed. Nevertheless, in this case, the seriousness of the offense compels the Court to wield its power to disbar, as it appears to be the most appropriate penalty.
Atty. Catindig’s claim that Dr. Perez’s allegations against him are not credible since they are uncorroborated and not supported by affidavits contrary to Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, deserves scant consideration. Verily, Atty. Catindig himself admitted in his pleadings that he indeed married Dr. Perez in 1984 while his previous marriage with Gomez still subsisted. Indubitably, such admission provides ample basis for the Court to render disciplinary sanction against him.
There is insufficient evidence to prove the affair between the respondents.
The Court likewise agrees with the Investigating Commissioner that there is a dearth of evidence to prove the claimed amorous relationship between the respondents. As it is, the evidence that was presented by Dr. Perez to prove her claim was mere allegation, an anonymous letter informing her that the respondents were indeed having an affair and the purported love letter to Atty. Baydo that was signed by Atty. Catindig.
The presentation of the anonymous letter that was received by Dr. Perez only proves that the latter indeed received a letter informing her of the alleged relations between the respondents; it does not prove the veracity of the allegations therein. Similarly, the supposed love letter, if at all, only proves that Atty. Catindig wrote Atty. Baydo a letter professing his love for her. It does not prove that Atty. Baydo is indeed in a relationship with Atty. Catindig.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the Court resolves to ADOPT the recommendations of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Atty. Tristan A. Catindig is found GUILTY of gross immorality and of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.
Let a copy of this Decision be entered into the records of Atty. Tristan A. Catindig in the Office of the Bar Confidant and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Likewise, copies of this Decision shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and circulated by the Court Administrator to all appellate and trial courts.
The charge of gross immorality against Atty. Karen E. Baydo is hereby DISMISSED for lack of evidence.
Sereno, C. J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Jardeleza, J., no part respondent ca finding was collegue in faculty.
14 Id. at 75-83; 86-99.
33 590 Phil. 270 (2008).
34 Id. at 276. See also Cordon v. Balicanta, 439 Phil. 95, 115-116 (2002).
35Sps. Donato v. Atty. Asuncion, Sr., 468 Phil. 329, 335 (2004).
36See Garrido v. Attys. Garrido and Valencia, 625 Phil. 347, 358 (2010).
37See Cordova v. Cordova, 259 Phil. 278 (1989).
38See Tucay v. Atty. Tucay, 376 Phil. 336 (1999); Narag v. Atty. Narag, 353 Phil. 643, 663 (1998); Obusan v. Obusan, Jr., 213 Phil. 437, 440 (1984).
39See Aba v. De Guzman, Jr., A.C. No. 7649, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 361, 372.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.