A.C. No. 13132 - TEODORA ALTOBANO-RUIZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTYS. WILFREDO A. RUIZ, CHERRY ANNE DELA CRUZ, AND FRANCISCO S. BENEDICTO, III.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Atty. Wilfredo Aberte Ruiz be DISBARRED for having violated the aforementioned provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The undersigned recommends that the complaint against Attys. Francisco Benedicto III and Cherry Anne Dela Cruz be DISMISSED for lack of merit. Respectfully submitted. The investigating commissioner aptly formulated the core issue - whether respondents, all former lawyers of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) conspired to commit acts of violence against complainant in violation of the CPR. [51] The investigating commissioner focused on three points, first , Atty. Ruiz's failure to provide support to complainant and their minor child despite the trial court's final and executory judgment and orders in JDRC Case No. 7964-SJ; second , his act of abandoning his family; and third , his act of cohabiting with another woman, not his lawful spouse. [52] It was undisputed that despite the finality of the PPO dated September 10, 2008 in the Anti-VAWC case and the subsequent writ of execution issued on February 27, 2015, Atty. Ruiz had still invariably failed to give support to complainant and Jarren. [53] The investigating commissioner echoed the trial court's finding that there existed no valid reason for Atty. Ruiz's failure to provide support. On one hand, complainant's alleged infidelity, short of any final court order thereon was irrelevant to his obligation to give support to her and Jarren who is presumed to be a legitimate child, having been born during his marriage with complainant. Support should have been given as soon as the decision became final and executory. [54] Too, Atty. Ruiz methodically provided the trial court with at least five (5) false addresses obviously to evade service of court processes on him as he could not be found in any of them. [55] Further, the MAU exposes the intimacy between Atty. Ruiz and Radelia, who are living together as common law spouses despite the subsistence of his marriage with complainant. Their intention to place his earnings beyond complainant's reach vis-à-vis the writ of execution was evident from the terms and conditions of the said MAU. Worse, the same were obviously intended to deprive Jarren of receiving support from his father. [56] In sum, Atty. Ruiz engaged in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct which makes him unfit, nay, unworthy to remain as a member of the Bar. [57] Resolutions of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) Under Resolution dated December 6, 2018, the IBP-BOG affirmed. In his subsequent motion for reconsideration, [58] Atty. Ruiz asserted that first , the MAU was fabricated since it was allegedly executed on January 16, 2012, but his driver's license which was used as proof of his identity therein was issued only post facto on April 30, 2013 [59] ; second , complainant herself was at fault for the delayed execution of the PPO which she sought beyond the five-ye