Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • BANSIG VS CELERA A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014

    Uploaded by

    Markus Tran Moralde
    53 views1 page
    Bansig filed a complaint against the respondent lawyer for bigamy. Records show the respondent was still legally married to Gracemarie Bunagan when he married Ma. Cielo Torres Alba. The Court ruled the marriage certificates were valid evidence of the respondent's bigamy, which made him unfit to practice law. The Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits unlawful and immoral conduct. Contracting a second marriage while still married constitutes grossly immoral behavior unbecoming of a lawyer. This violated the integrity of the legal profession and was grounds for the respondent's disbarment.

    Original Description:

    PALE

    Original Title

    BANSIG VS CELERA A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Bansig filed a complaint against the respondent lawyer for bigamy. Records show the respondent was still legally married to Gracemarie Bunagan when he married Ma. Cielo Torres Alba. The Court ruled the marriage certificates were valid evidence of the respondent's bigamy, which made him unfit to practice law. The Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits unlawful and immoral conduct. Contracting a second marriage while still married constitutes grossly immoral behavior unbecoming of a lawyer. This violated the integrity of the legal profession and was grounds for the respondent's disbarment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    53 views1 page

    BANSIG VS CELERA A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014

    Uploaded by

    Markus Tran Moralde
    Bansig filed a complaint against the respondent lawyer for bigamy. Records show the respondent was still legally married to Gracemarie Bunagan when he married Ma. Cielo Torres Alba. The Court ruled the marriage certificates were valid evidence of the respondent's bigamy, which made him unfit to practice law. The Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits unlawful and immoral conduct. Contracting a second marriage while still married constitutes grossly immoral behavior unbecoming of a lawyer. This violated the integrity of the legal profession and was grounds for the respondent's disbarment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    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.

    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.

    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.

    You might also like