Garrido vs.

Garrido and Valencia

A.C. No. 6593; 4 February 2010
Per Curiam

DOCTRINE: It is NOT important that the acts complained of were committed before Atty.
Garrido was admitted into the practice of law. The time that elapsed between the immoral acts
charged and the filing of the complaint is not material in considering the qualification of Atty.
Garrido when he applied for admission to practice law, and his continuing qualification to be a
member of the legal profession.

FACTS:
Petitioner, Maelotisea Garrido filed a complaint for disbarment against respondents Atty.
Angel Garrido and Atty. Romana Valencia before the IBP Committee on Discipline due to gross
immorality. Maelotisea avers that her husband, Atty. Garrido and Atty. Valencia had
contracted a marriage in Hong Kong and had a child together. Atty. Garrido had also left
Maelotisea and their six children, and failed to provide financial support.

Atty. Garrido and Atty. Valencia denied Maelotisea’s charges. Atty. Garrido alleged
that Maelotisea was not his legal wife as their marriage (1962) was void ab initio due to an
existing marriage between him and Constancia David. He emphasized that all his marriages
were contracted before he was admitted to the bar in May 1979, the marriage to Atty. Valencia
was contracted after the death of Constancia in December 1977, and that all his children with
Maelotisea were born before he became a lawyer.

Investigating Commissioner submitted a recommendation for the disbarment of the

respondents. IBP Board approved the recommendation, but modified it so that the case
against Atty. Valencia was dismissed.

Atty. Garrido then sought relief from the Supreme Court as he claims that the offenses
charged already prescribed under IBP rules, and that he be allowed under humanitarian
considerations to retain his profession.

ISSUE: Whether or not the acts committed by Atty. Garrido and Atty. Valencia are sufficient for
the penalty of disbarment

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court resolved to disbar Atty. Garrido.
It is NOT important that the acts complained of were committed before Atty. Garrido was
admitted into the practice of law.
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. We make these distinctions as the
supreme penalty of disbarment arising from conduct requires grossly immoral, not simply immoral,
conduct.

The time that elapsed between the immoral acts charged and the filing of the complaint is
not material in considering the qualification of Atty. Garrido when he applied for
admission to practice law, and his continuing qualification to be a member of the legal
profession.

The possession of good moral character is a condition precedent AND a continuing

requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership in the legal
profession. Admission to the practice only creates the rebuttable presumption that the applicant
has all the qualifications to become a lawyer; this may be refuted by clear and convincing
evidence to the contrary even after admission to the Bar.

Furthermore, the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and admissions of Atty.
Garrido established a pattern of gross immoral conduct that warrants his disbarment. His
conduct was corrupt, unprincipled and reprehensible to the highest degree.

First, Atty. Garrido admitted that he left Constancia to pursue his law studies; thereafter and
during the marriage, he had romantic relationships with other women. He had the gall to represent to
this Court that the study of law was his reason for leaving his wife; marriage and the study of law are
not mutually exclusive.

Second, he misrepresented himself to Maelotisea as a bachelor, when in truth he was already

married to Constancia. This was a misrepresentation given as an excuse to lure a woman into a
prohibited relationship.

Third, Atty. Garrido contracted his second marriage with Maelotisea notwithstanding the
subsistence of his first marriage. This was an open admission, not only of an illegal liaison, but of
the commission of a crime.

Fourth, Atty. Garrido engaged in an extra-marital affair with Atty. Valencia while his two
marriages were in place and without taking into consideration the moral and emotional implications
of his actions on the two women he took as wives and on his six (6) children by his second marriage.

Fifth, instead of making legal amends to validate his marriage with Maelotisea upon the death
of Constancia, Atty. Garrido married Atty. Valencia who bore him a daughter.
Sixth, Atty. Garrido misused his legal knowledge and convinced Atty. Valencia (who was not
then a lawyer) that he was free to marry, considering that his marriage with Maelotisea was not
"valid."

Seventh, as the evidence on record implies, Atty. Garrido married Atty. Valencia in Hongkong in
an apparent attempt to accord legitimacy to a union entered into while another marriage was
in place.

Eighth, after admission to the practice of law, Atty. Garrido simultaneously cohabited and had
sexual relations with two (2) women who at one point were both his wedded wives. He also
led a double life with two (2) families for a period of more than ten (10) years.

Lastly, Atty. Garrido petitioned for the nullity of his marriage to Maelotisea. Contrary to the
position advanced by Atty. Alicia A. Risos-Vidal, this was not an act of facing up to his responsibility
or an act of mending his ways. This was an attempt, using his legal knowledge, to escape
liability for his past actions by having his second marriage declared void after the present
complaint was filed against him.

By his actions, Garrido committed multiple violations relating to the legal profession, specifically,
violations of the bar admission rules, of his lawyer’s oath, and of the ethical rules of the
profession.

He did not possess the good moral character required of a lawyer at the time of his admission to the
Bar. As a lawyer, he violated his lawyer’s oath, Section 20(a) of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,29 and
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, 30 all of which commonly require him to obey the
laws of the land.

In marrying Maelotisea, he committed the crime of bigamy, as he entered this second marriage while
his first marriage with Constancia was subsisting. He openly admitted his bigamy when he filed his
petition to nullify his marriage to Maelotisea.

He violated ethical rules of the profession, specifically, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which commands that he "shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct"; Canon 7 of the same Code, which demands that "[a] lawyer shall at all times
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession"; Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides that, "[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."

As a lawyer, his community looked up to Atty. Garrido with the expectation and that he would set a
good example in promoting obedience to the Constitution and the laws. When he violated the law
and distorted it to cater to his own personal needs and selfish motives, he discredited the legal
profession and created the public impression that laws are mere tools of convenience that can be
used, bended and abused to satisfy personal whims and desires. In this case, he also used the law
to free him from unwanted relationships.

The Court has often reminded the members of the bar to live up to the standards and norms
expected of the legal profession by upholding the ideals and principles embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal
proficiency, but also of morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. Lawyers are at all times
subject to the watchful public eye and community approbation. Needless to state, those whose
conduct – both public and private – fail this scrutiny have to be disciplined and, after appropriate
proceedings, accordingly penalized

Atty. Valencia

We agree with the findings of Investigating Commissioner San Juan that Atty. Valencia should be
administratively liable under the circumstances for gross immorality:

The contention of respondent that they were not yet lawyers in March 27, 1978 when they got
married shall not afford them exemption from sanctions, for good moral character is required
as a condition precedent to admission to the Bar. Likewise there is no distinction whether the
misconduct was committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his private life. Again,
the claim that his marriage to complainant was void ab initio shall not relieve respondents from
responsibility x x x Although the second marriage of the respondent was subsequently declared null
and void the fact remains that respondents exhibited conduct which lacks that degree of
morality required of them as members of the Bar.

Moral character is not a subjective term but one that corresponds to objective reality. To have good
moral character, a person must have the personal characteristics of being good. It is not
enough that he or she has a good reputation, i.e., the opinion generally entertained about a person
or the estimate in which he or she is held by the public in the place where she is known. 37 

The requirement of good moral character has four general purposes, namely: (

1) to protect the public;

(2) to protect the public image of lawyers;

(3) to protect prospective clients; and

(4) to protect errant lawyers from themselves. Each purpose is as important as the other.

Under the circumstances, we cannot overlook that prior to becoming a lawyer, Atty. Valencia already
knew that Atty. Garrido was a married man (either to Constancia or to Maelotisea), and that he
already had a family. As Atty. Garrido’s admitted confidante, she was under the moral duty to give
him proper advice; instead, she entered into a romantic relationship with him for about six (6) years
during the subsistence of his two marriages. In 1978, she married Atty. Garrido with the knowledge
that he had an outstanding second marriage. These circumstances, to our mind, support the
conclusion that she lacked good moral character; even without being a lawyer, a person possessed
of high moral values, whose confidential advice was sought by another with respect to the latter’s
family problems, would not aggravate the situation by entering into a romantic liaison with the person
seeking advice, thereby effectively alienating the other person’s feelings and affection from his wife
and family.

While Atty. Valencia contends that Atty. Garrido’s marriage with Maelotisea was null and void, the
fact remains that he took a man away from a woman who bore him six (6) children. Ordinary decency
would have required her to ward off Atty. Garrido’s advances, as he was a married man, in fact a
twice-married man with both marriages subsisting at that time; she should have said no to Atty.
Garrido from the very start. Instead, she continued her liaison with Atty. Garrido, driving him, upon
the death of Constancia, away from legitimizing his relationship with Maelotisea and their children.
Worse than this, because of Atty. Valencia’s presence and willingness, Atty. Garrido even left his
second family and six children for a third marriage with her. This scenario smacks of immorality even
if viewed outside of the prism of law.
1avvphi1

We are not unmindful of Atty. Valencia’s expressed belief that Atty. Garrido’s second marriage to
Maelotisea was invalid; hence, she felt free to marry Atty. Garrido. While this may be correct in the
strict legal sense and was later on confirmed by the declaration of the nullity of Atty. Garrido’s
marriage to Maelotisea, we do not believe at all in the honesty of this expressed belief.

The records show that Atty. Valencia consented to be married in Hongkong, not within the
country. Given that this marriage transpired before the declaration of the nullity of Atty.
Garrido’s second marriage, we can only call this Hongkong marriage a clandestine marriage,
contrary to the Filipino tradition of celebrating a marriage together with family. Despite Atty.
Valencia’s claim that she agreed to marry Atty. Garrido only after he showed her proof of his capacity
to enter into a subsequent valid marriage, the celebration of their marriage in Hongkong 39 leads us to
the opposite conclusion;

they wanted to marry in Hongkong for the added security of avoiding any charge of bigamy by
entering into the subsequent marriage outside Philippine jurisdiction. In this regard, we cannot help
but note that Atty. Valencia afterwards opted to retain and use her surname instead of using the
surname of her "husband." Atty. Valencia, too, did not appear to mind that her husband did not live
and cohabit with her under one roof, but with his second wife and the family of this marriage.
Apparently, Atty. Valencia did not mind at all "sharing" her husband with another woman. This, to us,
is a clear demonstration of Atty. Valencia’s perverse sense of moral values.

Measured against the definition of gross immorality, we find Atty. Valencia’s actions grossly immoral.
Her actions were so corrupt as to approximate a criminal act, for she married a man who, in all
appearances, was married to another and with whom he has a family. Her actions were also
unprincipled and reprehensible to a high degree; as the confidante of Atty. Garrido, she preyed on
his vulnerability and engaged in a romantic relationship with him during the subsistence of his two
previous marriages. As already mentioned, Atty. Valencia’s conduct could not but be scandalous and
revolting to the point of shocking the community’s sense of decency; while she professed to be the
lawfully wedded wife, she helped the second family build a house prior to her marriage to Atty.
Garrido, and did not object to sharing her husband with the woman of his second marriage.

We find that Atty. Valencia violated Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, as her behavior demeaned the dignity of and discredited the legal profession. She
simply failed in her duty as a lawyer to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality. 40 

Conclusion

Membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. As a privilege bestowed by law
through the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be withdrawn where circumstances
concretely show the lawyer’s lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers. We resolve to
withdraw this privilege from Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Rowena P. Valencia for this reason.

In imposing the penalty of disbarment upon the respondents, we are aware that the power to disbar
is one to be exercised with great caution and only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affects
the standing and character of the lawyer as a legal professional and as an officer of the Court. 42
We are convinced from the totality of the evidence on hand that the present case is one of them. The
records show the parties’ pattern of grave and immoral misconduct that demonstrates their lack of
mental and emotional fitness and moral character to qualify them for the responsibilities and duties
imposed on lawyers as professionals and as officers of the court.

While we are keenly aware of Atty. Garrido’s plea for compassion and his act of supporting his
children with Maelotisea after their separation, we cannot grant his plea. The extent of his
demonstrated violations of his oath, the Rules of Court and of the Code of Professional
Responsibility overrides what under other circumstances are commendable traits of character.

In like manner, Atty. Valencia’s behavior over a long period of time unequivocally demonstrates a
basic and serious flaw in her character, which we cannot simply brush aside without undermining the
dignity of the legal profession and without placing the integrity of the administration of justice into
question. She was not an on-looker victimized by the circumstances, but a willing and knowing full
participant in a love triangle whose incidents crossed into the illicit.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to:

(1) DISBAR Atty. Angel E. Garrido from the practice of law for gross immorality, violation of the
Lawyer’s Oath; and violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; and

(2) DISBAR Atty. Romana P. Valencia from the practice of law for gross immorality, violation of
Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Let a copy of this Decision be attached to the personal records of Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty.
Romana P. Valencia in the Office of the Bar Confidant, and another copy furnished the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines.

The Clerk of Court is directed to strike out the names of Angel E. Garrido and Rowena P. Valencia
from the Roll of Attorneys.

SO ORDERED.

FACTS:

4. That on May, 1991, during my light moments with our children, one of my daughters, Madeleine
confided to me that sometime on the later part of 1987, an unknown caller talked with her claiming
that the former is a child of my husband. I ignored it and dismissed it as a mere joke. But when May
Elizabeth, also one of my daughters told me that sometime on August 1990, she saw my husband
strolling at the Robinson’s Department Store at Ermita, Manila together with a woman and a child
who was later identified as Atty. Ramona Paguida Valencia and Angeli Ramona Valencia Garrido,
respectively x x x

6. That I did not stop from unearthing the truth until I was able to secure the Certificate of Live Birth of
the child, stating among others that the said child is their daughter and that Atty. Angel Escobar
Garrido and Atty. Romana Paguida Valencia were married at Hongkong sometime on 1978.
7. That on June 1993, my husband left our conjugal home and joined Atty. Ramona Paguida
Valencia at their residence x x x

8. That since he left our conjugal home he failed and still failing to give us our needed financial
support to the prejudice of our children who stopped schooling because of financial constraints.

atty. Garrido denied Maelotisea’s charges and imputations. By way of defense, he alleged
that Maelotisea was not his legal wife, as he was already married to Constancia David (Constancia)
when he married Maelotisea. He claimed he married Maelotisea after he and Constancia parted
ways. He further alleged that Maelotisea knew all his escapades and understood his "bad boy"
image before she married him in 1962. As he and Maelotisea grew apart over the years due to
financial problems, Atty. Garrido met Atty. Valencia. He became close to Atty. Valencia to whom he
confided his difficulties. Together, they resolved his personal problems and his financial difficulties
with his second family. Atty. Garrido denied that he failed to give financial support to his children with
Maelotisea, emphasizing that all his six (6) children were educated in private schools; all graduated
from college except for Arnel Victorino, who finished a special secondary course. 4 Atty. Garrido
alleged that Maelotisea had not been employed and had not practiced her profession for the past ten
(10) years.

 Atty. Valencia denied that she was the mistress of Atty. Garrido. She explained that
Maelotisea was not the legal wife of Atty. Garrido since the marriage between them was void from
the beginning due to the then existing marriage of Atty. Garrido with Constancia. Atty. Valencia
claimed that Maelotisea knew of the romantic relationship between her and Atty. Garrido, as they
(Maelotisea and Atty. Valencia) met in 1978. Maelotisea kept silent about her relationship with Atty.
Garrido and had maintained this silence when she (Atty. Valencia) financially helped Atty. Garrido
build a house for his second family. Atty. Valencia alleged that Maelotisea was not a proper party to
this suit because of her silence; she kept silent when things were favorable and beneficial to her.
Atty. Valencia also alleged that Maelotisea had no cause of action against her.

In the course of the hearings, the parties filed the following motions before the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline:

first, the respondents filed a Motion for Suspension of Proceedings 6 in view of the criminal complaint
for concubinage Maelotisea filed against them, and the Petition for Declaration of Nullity 7 (of
marriage) Atty. Garrido filed to nullify his marriage to Maelotisea. The IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline denied this motion for lack of merit.

Second, the respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss8 the complaints after the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City declared the marriage between Atty. Garrido and Maelotisea "an absolute nullity." Since
Maelotisea was never the legal wife of Atty. Garrido, the respondents argued that she had no
personality to file her complaints against them. The respondents also alleged that they had not
committed any immoral act since they married when Atty. Garrido was already a widower, and the
acts complained of were committed before his admission to the bar. The IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline also denied this motion. 9
Third, Maelotisea filed a motion for the dismissal of the complaints she filed against the respondents,
arguing that she wanted to maintain friendly relations with Atty. Garrido, who is the father of her six
(6) children.10 The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline likewise denied this motion. 11

On April 13, 2004, Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan (Investigating Commissioner
San Juan) submitted her Report and Recommendation for the respondents’ disbarment. 12 The
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board of Governors) approved
and adopted this recommendation with modification under Resolution No. XVI-2004-375 dated July
30, 2004. This resolution in part states:

x x x finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws
and rules, and considering that Atty. Garrido exhibited conduct which lacks the degree of morality
required as members of the bar, Atty. Angel E. Garrido is hereby DISBARRED for gross immorality.
However, the case against Atty. Romana P. Valencia is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit of the
complaint.

Atty. Garrido moved to reconsider this resolution, but the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline denied
his motion under Resolution No. XVII-2007-038 dated January 18, 2007.

Atty. Garrido now seeks relief with this Court through the present petition for review. He submits that
under the circumstances, he did not commit any gross immorality that would warrant his disbarment.
He also argues that the offenses charged have prescribed under the IBP rules.

Additionally, Atty. Garrido pleads that he be allowed on humanitarian considerations to retain his
profession; he is already in the twilight of his life, and has kept his promise to lead an upright and
irreproachable life notwithstanding his situation.

In compliance with our Resolution dated August 25, 2009, Atty. Alicia A. Risos-Vidal (Atty. Risos-
Vidal), Director of the Commission on Bar Discipline, filed her Comment on the petition. She
recommends a modification of the penalty from disbarment to reprimand, advancing the view that
disbarment is very harsh considering that the 77-year old Atty. Garrido took responsibility for his acts
and tried to mend his ways by filing a petition for declaration of nullity of his bigamous marriage. Atty.
Risos-Vidal also notes that no other administrative case has ever been filed against Atty. Garrido.