A.C. No. 6148 (CBD 00-734-A) - FLORENCE TEVES MACARRUBO, THE MINORS JURIS ALEXIS T. MACARRUBO AND GABRIEL ENRICO T. MACARRUBO AS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER/GUARDIAN, FLORENCE TEVES MACARRUBO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. EDMUNDO L. MACARRUBO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is recommended that respondent Atty. Edmundo L. Macarrubo be SUSPENDED FOR THREE MONTHS for gross misconduct reflecting unfavorably on the moral norms of the profession. Moreover, it must likewise be impressed on respondent that he should comply with the moral and legal obligations incumbent upon him as a father of the children as a result of his relationship with complainant. (Underscoring supplied) The IBP Board of Governors subsequently passed Resolution No. XV-2003-351 [35] which adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. The final disposition of the present administrative case is now before this Court. It appears that respondent began his legal career in 1986 as Legal Officer of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports after which he became Supervising Civil Service Attorney of the Civil Service Commission. [36] He later became an Ombudsman Graft Investigation Officer, then a State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice, before finally bowing out of public service after about 14 years or in July 2000 to engage in private practice. [37] The rule that a lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, in probity and good demeanor, thus rendering him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court [38] bears reiterating. Upon the evidence on record, respondent is indeed guilty of gross misconduct in his private affairs which warrant disciplinary action by this Court as the guardian of the purity and integrity of the legal profession. The incontrovertible facts show that while respondent had a subsisting marriage with Helen Esparza with whom he had two children, [39] he entered into a second marriage with complainant. While the marriage between complainant and respondent has been annulled by final judgment, this does not cleanse his conduct of every tinge of impropriety. He and complainant started living as husband and wife in December 1991 when his first marriage was still subsisting, as it was only on August 21, 1998 that such first marriage was annulled, rendering him liable for concubinage. [40] Such conduct is inconsistent with the good moral character that is required for the continued right to practice law as a member of the Philippine bar. [41] It imports moral turpitude and is a public assault upon the basic social institution of marriage. [42] Even assuming arguendo that respondent was coerced by complainant to marry her, the duress, by his own admission as the following transcript of his testimony reflects, ceased after their wedding day, respondent having freely cohabited with her and even begot a second child by her. x x x ATTY. PAGUIA [Complainants Counsel] Q: Are you claiming that the complainant coerced you again to marry her? A: Yes, I was. Q: Did she use a gun to coerce you? A: A lot of people appearing around and a lot of