Professional Documents
Culture Documents
13 Perez Vs Catindig - Digest
13 Perez Vs Catindig - Digest
Catindig for
and ATTY. KAREN E. BAYDO Atty. Baydo of which Catindig professed his love to
Atty. Baydo, promising to marry her once his
A.C. No. 5816; March 10, 2015
"impediment is removed." Apparently, five months
Facts into their relationship, Atty. Baydo requested to put
a halt to their affair until such time that he is able to
This is a case for disbarment filed by Dr. Elmar O. obtain the annulment of his marriage. Atty. Catindig
Perez with the Office of the Bar Confidant against then filed a petition to declare the nullity of his
Atty. Tristan A. Catindig and Atty. Karen E. Baydo for marriage to Gomez.
gross immorality and violation of the Code of Thereafter, Atty. Catindig abandoned Dr. Perez and
Professional Responsibility. their son. He moved to an upscale condominium in
Dr. Perez alleged that she and Atty. Catindig had Salcedo Village, Makati City where Atty. Baydo was
been friends since they were both students at the frequently seen.
University of the Philippines. They lost touch after In his answer, Atty. Catindig claimed that Dr. Perez
graduation and when they met again, Atty. Catindig knew the fact that the divorce decreed by the
started courting her. Dominican Republic court does not have any effect
While courting, Atty. Catindig admitted to Dr. Perez in the Philippines and that when Perez demanded
that he was already wed to Lily Gomez. First at the him to marry her, he did so because he loved her and
Central Methodist Church in Ermita, Manila, which that he was afraid of losing her.
was followed by a Catholic wedding at the Shrine of Catindig claimed that he merely desired to lend a
Our Lady of Lourdes in Quezon City. Catindig claimed modicum of legitimacy to their relationship. The
that he only married Gomez because he got her relationship turned sour though, thus he left their
pregnant and he was afraid she would make a home.
scandal if he refuses to do so which could have He denied that Atty. Baydo, an associate lawyer
jeopardized his scholarship in the Harvard Law employed by his firm, was the reason that he left Dr.
School. Perez. He admitted being attracted to her but Atty.
Atty. Catindig told Dr. Perez that he was in the Baydo did not reciprocate and in fact rejected him.
process of obtaining a divorce in a foreign country to In Atty. Baydos answer, she denied having an affair
dissolve his marriage to Gomez, and that he would with Atty. Catindig. In fact, she rejected his romantic
eventually marry her once the divorce had been overtures and told him that she could not
decreed. reciprocate his feelings since he was married and
Consequently, Atty. Catindig and Gomez obtained a that he was too old for her.
divorce decree from the Dominican Republic. Dr. Findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner:
Perez claimed that Atty. Catindig assured her that o The Investigating Commissioner
the said divorce decree was lawful and valid and that recommended the disbarment of Atty.
there was no longer any impediment to their Catindig for gross immorality, violation of
marriage. Thus, Atty. Catindig married Dr. Perez in Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the
the State of Virginia in (USA). Code of Professional Responsibility. The
Dr. Perez learned later that her marriage to Atty. Investigating Commissioner pointed out that
Catindig was a nullity, since the divorce decree that Atty. Catindig's act of marrying Dr. Perez
was obtained from the Dominican Republic is not despite knowing fully well that his previous
recognized by Philippine laws. marriage to Gomez still subsisted was a
When Perez confronted Catindig about this, he grossly immoral and illegal conduct, which
promised to legalize their union once he obtains the warrants the ultimate penalty of
decree of nullity of his marriage to Gomez. However, disbarment.
this did not materialize until their relationship turned o As to the Atty. Baydo, the Investigating
sour. Commissioner recommended that the
Perez alleged that she received an anonymous mail charge against her be dismissed for lack of
informing her of Atty. Catindig's scandalous affair evidence. Dr. Perez failed to present clear
with Atty. Baydo. Sometime later, she came upon a
and preponderant evidence in support of the Perez. The foregoing circumstances seriously taint
alleged affair between the respondents. Atty. Catindig's sense of social propriety and moral
Findings of the IBP Board of Governors: values. It is a blatant and purposeful disregard of our
o They adopted and approved the laws on marriage.
recommendation of the Investigating Atty. Catindig's subsequent marriage during the
Commissioner. subsistence of his previous one definitely manifests
o Catindig filed an MR but was denied. a deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and
the marital vows protected by the Constitution and
Issue
affirmed by our laws. By his own admission, Atty.
Whether the respondents committed gross Catindig made a mockery out of the institution of
immorality, which would warrant their disbarment. marriage, taking advantage of his legal skills in the
process, , which thus warrant the penalty of
Ruling disbarment.
The Court upheld the findings and recommendations The Court is mindful of the rule that the power to
of the Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board disbar must be exercised with great caution. In this
of Governors. case, the seriousness of the offense compelled the
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: Court to wield its power to disbar, as it appears to be
o Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in the most appropriate penalty.
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful As to the alleged affair of Atty. Catindig and Atty.
conduct. Baydo, there is insufficient evidence to prove said
o Canon 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold allegation. The anonymous letter that was received
the integrity and dignity of the legal by Dr. Perez only proves that the latter indeed
profession and support the activities of the received a letter informing her of the alleged
Integrated Bar. relations between the respondents; it does not
o Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in prove the veracity of the allegations therein.
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness Similarly, the supposed love letter, if at all, only
to practice law, nor should he, whether in proves that Atty. Catindig wrote Atty. Baydo a letter
public or private life, behave in a scandalous professing his love for her. It does not prove that
manner to the discredit of the legal Atty. Baydo is indeed in a relationship with Atty.
profession. Catindig.
Likewise, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court In suspension or disbarment proceedings against
provides that a lawyer may be removed or lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of
suspended from the practice of law, inter alia, for innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the
grossly immoral conduct. complainant. The evidence required in suspension or
In this case, the Court made a distinction. The disbarment proceedings is preponderance of
supreme penalty of disbarment arising from conduct evidence.
requires grossly immoral, not simply immoral,
conduct. Contracting a marriage during the
subsistence of a previous one amounts to a grossly
immoral conduct.
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.