A.C. No. 14228 [Formerly CBD Case No. 23-6845] - MARIA THERESA E. IMPERIAL, COMPLAINANT, PRESENT: VS. ATTY. PASTOR MARCELO M. REYES, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Wherefore, premises considered, it is most respectfully recommended that Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of seven (7) months. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. [33] In the Resolution No. XXVI-CRM-2023-12-21 [34] dated December 12, 2023, the IBP Board of Governors increased the recommended period of suspension from the practice of law from seven months to three years: RESOLVED, to MODIFY, as it is hereby MODIFIED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and to recommend instead to mete out upon respondent Atty. Pastor Marcelo M. Reyes, Jr., the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS. [35] (Emphasis omitted) Subsequently, the IBP Board of Governor's Resolution, the records of the case, and the Flash Drive File, were forwarded to the Court. [36] The Issue The issue for the Court's resolution is whether respondent should be held administratively liable for the complained acts against him. The Ruling of the Court After a circumspect review of the case, the Court disagrees with the findings and recommendation of the IBP. At the outset, it is well to stress that administrative cases are an avenue for the Court to compel lawyers to deal fairly and honestly with their clients, to keep lawyers in check for their professional conduct, [37] and to protect the public from lawyers whose conduct transgresses professional ethics. [38] It was not meant to deprive lawyers of their livelihood and should never be used as a vehicle to assert private rights that have no material and/or direct connection to the professional duties of lawyers. [39] Jurisprudence dictates that "[ l ] awyers are not and should not be expected to be saints. What they do as citizens of their faiths are beyond this court's power to judge. . . This court's jurisdiction over their actions is limited to their acts that may affect public confidence in the Rule of Law. " [40] Complainant charges respondent with grossly immoral conduct for having maintained an illicit affair with her for more or less two decades, which only ended when she accused him of having an affair with a fourth party, complainant already being the third party. On the other hand, respondent denied the extramarital affair with complainant. Respondent added that while he is no saint, he had never been charged with any offense before the IBP in his more than 40 years of law practice. [41] Needless to state, marital infidelity can never be justified. In Atty. Rojas v. Atty. Quiambao , [42] the Court elucidated that a breach of marital vows on fidelity offends no less than the Constitution, viz.: Among the well-recognized immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action against lawyers is the engagement in extramarital affairs because it offends the sanctity of marriage and violates Article XV, Section 2, of the 1987 Constitution which recognizes marriage as an inviolable social institution. The Court's stance against extramarital affairs among members of