Perez Vs Catindig

A.C. No.
5816, March 10, 2015

DR. ELMAR O. PEREZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. TRISTAN A. CATINDIG AND ATTY.
KAREN E. BAYDO, Respondents.
Facts:
Complainant In her complaint, Dr. Perez alleged that she and Atty. Catindig had been
friends since the mid-1960’s when they were students at the University of the Philippines. In
1983, their paths crossed again. It was at that time that Atty. Catindig started to court her.
Atty. Catindig admitted to Dr. Perez that he was already married to Lily Corazon Gomez
in 1968 at the Central Methodist Church, which was followed by a Catholic wedding in Quezon
City. Atty. Catindig however claimed that he only married Gomez because he got her pregnant
and he did not want to jeopardize his scholarship in the Harvard Law School.
Atty. Catindig told Dr. Perez that he was in the process of obtaining a divorce from the
Dominican Republic, and that he would eventually marry her once the divorce decree is granted.
Consequently, the divorce decree was granted and on July 14, 1984, Atty. Catindig married Dr.
Perez in the US. Their union was blessed with a child.
Years later, Dr. Perez discovered that her marriage to Atty. Catindig is a nullity since the
divorce decree that was obtained from the Dominican Republic is not recognized in the
Philippines. When she confronted Atty. Catindig about it, he promised to legalize their union
once he obtains a declaration of nullity of his marriage to Gomez. In 1997, Dr. Perez reminded
Atty. Catindig of his promise but he told Dr. Perez that he would still have to get the consent of
Gomez.
In 2001, Dr. Perez alleged that she received an anonymous letter in the mail informing her of
Atty. Catindig’s scandalous affair with Atty. Baydo. She also came to know of a love letter
signed by Atty. Catindig for Atty. Baydo where the former professed his love to the latter and
promised to marry her once the legal “impediment is removed”.
In 2001, Atty. Catindig filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to
Gomez. He then abandoned Dr. Perez and their son; he moved to an upscale apartment in
Salcedo Village, where allegedly Atty. Baydo was frequently seen.
Atty. Catindig admitted that he married Gomez in 1968. He claimed, however, that
Gomez had serious intimacy problems; and that they eventually separated in 1984. They
consulted a lawyer who advised them to obtain a divorce decree from the Dominican Republic
for whatever value it may have and comfort it may provide them.
Atty. Catindig claimed that Dr. Perez knew that the divorce decree by the Dominican Republic
court does not have any effect in the Philippines. Notwithstanding that she knew that the
marriage of Atty. Catindig and Gomez still subsisted, Dr. Perez demanded that Atty. Catindig
marry her. Thus, Atty. Catindig married Dr. Perez in July 1984 in the US.
Atty. Catindig averred that the only reason he married Dr. Perez was because he loved her
and did not want to lose her, and that he desired to lend a modicum of legitimacy to their
relationship, which eventually turned sour. In 2001, he left their home.
He denied that Atty. Baydo was the reason that he left Dr. Perez, claiming that his relationship
with Dr. Perez started to fall apart as early as 1997. He asserted that Atty. Baydo joined his law
firm only in September 1999; and that while he was attracted to her, Atty. Baydo did not
reciprocate and in fact rejected him. He likewise pointed out that Atty. Baydo resigned from his
firm in January 2001.
On the other hand, Atty Baydo denied that she had an affair with Atty. Catindig. She
averred that Atty. Catindig courted her, however, she rejected Atty. Catindig’s romantic
overtures since he was too old for her and he’s already married. She said that despite being
turned down, Atty. Catindig still pursued her, which was the reason why she resigned from his
law firm.
On May 6, 2011, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-CBD recommended the

disbarment of Atty. Catindig for gross immorality, violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Investigating Commissioner pointed out that
Atty. Catindig’s act of marrying Dr. Perez despite knowing that his previous marriage to Gomez
still subsisted was a grossly immoral and illegal conduct, which warrants the ultimate penalty of
disbarment. 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.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondents committed gross immorality which would warrant their
disbarment.
Ruling: The Court agrees with the findings and recommendations of the Investigating
Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Canon 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
In this regard, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that a lawyer may be
removed or suspended from the practice of law, inter alia, for grossly immoral conduct. Thus:
Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of
the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to
a case without authority so to do.
“A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct showing any fault or
deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.” Immoral conduct
involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the
opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community. Immoral conduct is gross
when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a
high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock
the community’s sense of decency. The Court makes these distinctions, as the supreme penalty
of disbarment arising from conduct requires grossly immoral, not simply immoral, conduct.
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. “The
moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes
conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct for
instance, which makes ‘a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage.’” In various
cases, the Court has held that disbarment is warranted when a lawyer abandons his lawful wife
and maintains an illicit relationship with another woman who has borne him a child.
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.

Perez Vs Catindig

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perez Vs Catindig

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.C. No.

5816, March 10, 2015

On May 6, 2011, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-CBD recommended the

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

You might also like