[ A.C. No. 9426. August 25, 2020 ] 879 Phil. 493
EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 9426. August 25, 2020 ]
CORAZON KANG IGNACIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MONTE P. IGNACIO, RESPONDENT. A.C. NO. 11988 JANINA B. DE LA CRUZ AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF CORAZON KANG IGNACIO, COMPLAINANT VS. ATTY. MONTE P. IGNACIO RESPONDENT D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
The Court once again exercises its power to discipline a lawyer who contracted a bigamous marriage, engaged in extra-marital affairs, and sired children with different women other than his lawful wife.
ANTECEDENTS
Corazon Kang Ignacio filed two disbarment complaints against Atty. Monte Ignacio docketed as Administrative Case Nos. 9426 and 1198’. Allegedly, Atty. Ignacio married Corazon on August 4, 1985. At that time, Corazon was working in the United States (US) and Atty. Ignacio would stay with her abroad every six months. In May 1988, Corazon got pregnant but Atty. Ignacio left the US. On February 28 1989, Corazon gave birth to their child without Atty. Ignacio. In May 1989, Atty. Ignacio visited the US and took the child to the Philippines. Thereafter, Atty. Ignacio entrusted the child to Corazon’s half-sister without giving any financial support.[1] In April 1990, Atty. Ignacio brought the child to the US. On the same year, Corazon divorced Atty. Ignacio.[2] Moreover, Corazon claimed that Atty. Ignacio committed bigamy because he was previously married to Celia Tingson Valenzuela on July 3, 1978. As supporting evidence, Corazon submitted the corresponding marriage certificate and contract.[3] Thus, Corazon charged Atty. Ignacio with bigamy and perjury,[4] and applied for temporary and permanent protection orders.[5] Also, Corazon narrated that Atty. Ignacio fathered several children with different women, namely: Maria Juliana, Don Basilio and Monte John with Felisa Dela Cruz; Michelle and an unnamed son with a certain Cecilia from Mindoro; Monteson I and Monteson II with a certain Virginia from Pangasinan; and Joker with Lily Dela Cruz. Lastly, Corazon averred that she lent USD 9,300.00 to Atty. Ignacio as bail in the murder case for which he was implicated. Yet, Atty. Ignacio did not pay his debt despite demand.[6] In his Comment,[7] Atty. Ignacio argued that Corazon knew of his previous marriage but she insisted “for love as well as for convenience because she can easily petition for [his] immigration to the US, after several denials of [his] tourist visa application with the US Embassy."[8] Further, Atty. Ignacio explained that his children Monteson I, Monteson II, Joker and Michelle were born before his marriage with Corazon. On the other hand, Maria Juliana, Don Basilio and Monte John were born after the divorce. In its Consolidated Report[9] dated January 8, 2016, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the disbarment of Atty. Ignacio for gross immoral conduct in contracting a bigamous marriage. Atty. Ignacio did not dispute the authenticity and genuineness of the evidence against him and even admitted his prior marriage. Meanwhile, Corazon failed to establish the other charges. On February 25, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors affirmed the Commission’s findings.[10]
RULING
The Court adopts the IBP’s findings with modification as to the penalty. Canon I,[11] Rule 1.01[12] and Canon 7,[13] Rule 7.03[14] of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandate all lawyers to possess good moral character at the time of their application for admission to the Bar, and require them to maintain such character until their retirement from the practice of law.[15] Indeed, the possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to membership in the legal profession.[16] This proceeds from the bounden duty of lawyers to safeguard the Bar’s integrity, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality.[17] As such, any errant behavior of a lawyer, be it in his public or private activities, which tends to show deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment. Specifically, a lawyer may be removed or suspended from the practice of law for grossly immoral conduct.[18] One such instance is when a lawyer engaged in a bigamous marriage. In Villasanta v. Peralta, [19] we held that the respondent’s act of contracting a second marriage during the existence of his first marriage is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality. It is a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. Thus, the respondent was disqualified from being admitted to the bar despite passing the examinations. Also, the respondents in Tucay v. Atty. Tucay,[20] Villatuya v. Atty. Tabalingcos [21] Bunagan-Bansig v. Atty. Celera[22] and Dr. Perez v. Atty. Catindig, et al[23] were all disbarred after entering into a bigamous marriage. In this case, Atty. Ignacio likewise fell below the standards of morality required of a lawyer when he contracted a bigamous marriage. It is undisputed that Atty. Ignacio entered into two marriages - in 1978 with Celia and in 198T with Corazon. The marriage contract and certificate that Corazon submitted further establish these facts.[24] Also, Atty. Ignacio admitted the prior marriage with Celia and argued that Corazon knew his civil status. However, Atty. Ignacio maintained that it was Corazon who insisted on their marriage an 1 that “weighing the pros and cons, [he] approved of her plan that she comec home for the marriage so that upon acquiring citizenship, she will immediately file the petition [for immigration] for him."[25] We find this reason irrelevant. Foremost, a lawyer’s culpability for gross immorality is not dependent on whether the other party knowingly engaged in an immoral relationship with him.[26] Notably, Atty. Ignacio was admitted to the bar in 1974[27] and is already a lawyer when he married Celia and Corazon. Thus, he cannot feign ignorance of the law requiring that the first marriage must be annulled before a second marriage may be validly contracted.[28] Finally, Atty. Ignacio exhibited reproachable conduct when he engaged in extra-marital affairs and sired children with different women other than his lawful wife.[29] The argument that some of the children were born before 1985 while others after the divorce in 1990 does not remove the fact that he begot them while his first marriage with Celia is still existing. Taken together, Atty. Ignacio is guilty of gross immorality. However, we do not agree with the IBP’s recommendation to disbar Atty. Ignacio. The penalty of disbarment should be imposed with great caution for clear cases o>r misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of an officer of the court.[30] Although the reason of Atty. Ignacio for contracting both marriages is not a valid excuse, we note that he did not deceive the Court and instead exhibited candor in admitting the transgression. Moreover, there was no showing that Atty. Ignacio is unfit to continue his membership in the bar. In these circumstances, a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for five years is proper. On this point, vve reiterate that lawyers are duty-bound to observe the highest degree of morality and integrity not only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their career in order to safeguard the reputation of the legal profession.[31] Time and again, the Court reminds the members of the bar that the practice of law is not a right but a mere privilege subject to the inherent regulatory power of this Court,[32] viz.:
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental Illness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law.[33]
FOR THESE REASONS, the Court finds Atty. Monte P. Ignacio GUILTY of gross immorality in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of five years. Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant for immediate implementation; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and guidance; and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country. SO ORDERED. Peralta, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur. Leonen, J., See separate opinion Baltazar-Padilla, J., On leave.