Dr. Elmar O. Perez vs. Atty. Tristan A Catindig and Atty. Karen E. Baydo, AC No. 5816, March 10, 2015

Dr. Elmar O. Perez vs. Atty. Tristan A Catindig and Atty. Karen E. Baydo, AC No.
5816, March 10, 2015
FACTS: The complainant, Dr. Perez alleged that she and Atty. Catindig had been friends since the mid-1960’s when they were both students.
Sometime in 1983, their paths crossed again and that time Atty. Catindig started to court Dr.Perez. Atty. Catindig admitted to Dr. Perez the he was
already married, and told Dr. Perez that he was in the process of obtaining divorce in a foreign country to dissolve his marriage to Gomez and that
he would eventually marry her once the divorce has been decreed. In 1984, Atty. Catindig and Gomez obtained a divorce decree. Dr. Perez claimed
that Atty. Catindig assured her that the said divorce decree was lawful and valid and that there was no longer any impediment to their marriage.
On July 14, 1984, Atty. Catindig, married Dr. Perez in the State of Virginia in the United States of America. However, years later, Dr. Perez came to
know that her marriage to Atty. Catindig is null since the divorce decree was obtained from the Dominical Republic and is not recognized by the
Philippine laws. Atty. Catindig allegedly assured Dr. Perez that he would legalize their union once he obtains a declaration of nullity if his marriage
under the laws of the Philippines.
Sometime in 2001, Dr, Perez alleged that she received an anonymous letter informing her of Atty. Catindig’s scandalous affair with Atty. Baydo
which the latter denied. Atty. Baydo claimed that Atty Catindig began courting her while she was employed in his firm. She however rejected Atty.
Catindig , she could not reciprocate his feelings since he was married and that he was too old for her.
Atty Catindig, claimed that Dr. Perez knew that their marriage was not valid since his previous marriage to Gomez was still subsisting and that he
claimed that his relationship with Dr. Perez turned sour, eventually led him to left their home to prevent any acrimony from developing. He also
denied that Atty. Baydo was the reason that he left Dr. Perez.
After due proceeding and investigation f the IBP-CBD, a report was issued recommending 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. On the other hand, they recommended that the charge
against Atty. Baydo be dismissed for lack of evidence. The IBP Board of Governors approved the recommendation of the investigating
commissioner.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are guilty of gross immorality, which would warrant their disbarment.
RULING: Yes, the Court resolves to adopt the recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP to disbarred Atty. Catindig from the
practice of law. However, in the case of respondent, Atty. Baydo, the charge of gross immorality is dismissed.
The Code of Professional Responsibility Rule 1.01 provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Canon 7 also provides that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the
Integrated Bar. Furthermore, Rule 7.03 states 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.
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.
From the evidence adduced by the parties and from Atty. Catindig’s own admission, this establishes a pattern of conduct that is grossly immoral.
Atty Catindig was validly married to Gomez. 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 Citizen at that time. He knew that he cannot marry
anew unless his previous marriage is properly declared a nullity. This notwithstanding, he still married Dr. Perez. This circumstances seriously
tainted Atty. Catindig’s sense of social propriety and moral values. Furthermore, Atty Catindig knew that his previous marriage remain valid, he
wanted to marry Dr. Perez in the USA for the security of avoiding any charge of bigamy by entering into subsequent marriage outside the Philippine
jurisdiction.
Atty. Catindig deciding to separate from Dr. Perez to pursue Atty. Baydo, in itself, cannot be considered a grossly immoral conduct. This forms part
of the pattern showing his propensity towards immoral conduct. The Court’s finding of gross immoral conduct is hinged not n Atty. Catindig’s
desertion of Dr. Perez, but on his contracting of subsequent marriage during the subsistence of his previous marriage to Gomez. His subsequent
marriage during the subsistence of his previous one, manifest a deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage. By his own admission, he exhibited
a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the bar, thus warrant the penalty of disbarment.
The Court has consistently held that in suspension or disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence,
and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove the allegations in his complaint. The evidence required in suspension or disbarment
proceedings is preponderance of evidence.
The presentation of the anonymous letter that was received by Dr. Perez only proves that the latter indeed received a letter informing her of the
alleged relations between the respondents; it does not prove the veracity of the allegations therein. Similarly, the supposed love letter, if at all,
only proves that Atty. Catindig wrote Atty. Baydo a letter professing his love for her. It does not prove that Atty. Baydo is indeed in a relationship
with Atty. Catindig. Thus, the charge of gross immorality against Atty. Baydo is dismissed.

Dr. Elmar O. Perez vs. Atty. Tristan A Catindig and Atty. Karen E. Baydo, AC No. 5816, March 10, 2015

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

Dr. Elmar O. Perez vs. Atty. Tristan A Catindig and Atty. Karen E. Baydo, AC No. 5816, March 10, 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dr. Elmar O. Perez vs. Atty. Tristan A Catindig and Atty. Karen E. Baydo, AC No.

5816, March 10, 2015

You might also like