Perez v. Catindig and Baydo

Perez v.
Catindig and Baydo

A.C. No. 5816, March 10, 2015
PER CURIAM
DOCTRINE:
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.
FACTS:
Dr. Elmar 0. Perez (Dr. Perez) filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Tristan A. Catindig (Atty. Catindig) and Atty. Karen E. Baydo (Atty. Baydo) (respondents) for
gross immorality and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Sometime in 1983, the paths of Atty. Catindig and Dr. Perez again crossed. It was at that time
that Atty. Catindig started to court Dr. Perez. Atty. Catindig admitted to Dr. Perez that he was
already wed to Lily Corazon Gomez (Gomez),
Atty. Catindig told Dr. Perez that he was in the process of obtaining a divorce in a foreign
country to dissolve his marriage to Gomez, and that he would eventually marry her once the
divorce had been decreed.
Thus, on July 14, 1984, Atty. Catindig married Dr. Perez in the State of Virginia in the U.S.A.
Years later, Dr. Perez came to know that her marriage to Atty. Catindig is a nullity since the
divorce decree that was obtained from the Dominican Republic by the latter and Gomez is not
recognized by Philippine laws.
Sometime 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, and that sometime later,
she came upon a love letter. Few months later, Atty. Catindig abandoned Dr. Perez and their
son; he moved to an upscale condominium in Salcedo Village, Makati City where Atty. Baydo
was frequently seen.
Atty. Baydo denied that she had an affair with Atty. Catindig. She claimed that Atty. Catindig
began courting her while she was employed in his firm. She however rejected Atty. Catindig’s
romantic overtures; she told him that she could not reciprocate his feelings since he was
married and that he was too old for her. She said that despite being turned down, Atty.
Catindig still pursued her, which was the reason why she resigned from his law firm.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents committed gross immorality, which would warrant their
disbarment.
RULING:
Yes. 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; it is
not only corrupt and unprincipled, but reprehensible to a high degree.
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 citizens at that time. He knew that he was still validly married to Gomez; that he
cannot marry anew unless his previous marriage be properly declared a nullity. Otherwise, his
subsequent marriage would be void. This notwithstanding, he still married Dr. Perez. The
foregoing circumstances seriously taint Atty. Catindig’s sense of social propriety and moral
values. It is a blatant and purposeful disregard of our laws on marriage.
"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.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the Court resolves to ADOPT the
recommendations of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Atty. Tristan A. Catindig is found GUILTY of gross immorality and of violating the Lawyer's
Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is
hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.
The charge of gross immorality against Atty. Karen E. Baydo is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
evidence.

Perez v. Catindig and Baydo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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 v. Catindig and Baydo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perez v.

Catindig and Baydo

You might also like