Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BANSIG VS CELERA A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014
BANSIG VS CELERA A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014
Facts:
Bansig, sister of bunagan narrated that, respondent and Gracemarie R. Bunagan, entered into a contract of
marriage. However, notwithstanding respondent’s marriage with Bunagan, respondent contracted another
marriage with a certain Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba, as evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the certificate
of marriage Bansig stressed that the marriage between respondent and Bunagan was still valid and in full
legal existence when he contracted his second marriage with Alba, and that the first marriage had never
been annulled or rendered void by any lawful authority.
Bansig alleged that respondent’s act of contracting marriage with Alba, while his marriage is still
subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar, which renders
him unfit to continue his membership in the Bar.
Issue: Whether respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation of justice.
Ruling:
For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these Marriage Certificates bearing the name of respondent
are competent and convincing evidence to prove that he committed bigamy, which renders him unfit to
continue as a member of the Bar.
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.
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar.
He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting
a second marriage while his first marriage is subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds
for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.