Case No. 1 Garrido vs. Garrido

CASE NO.
1
GARRIDO vs. GARRIDO
Facts: The petitioner, the respondent’s legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a
supplemental affidavit for disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and
Atty. Romana P. Valencia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on
Discipline, charging them with gross immorality, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint arose after the petitioner caught wind
through her daughter that her husband was having an affair with a woman other than his
wife and already had a child with her; and the same information was confirmed when
oner of her daughters saw that her husband walking in a Robinsons mall with the other
respondent, Atty. Valencia, with their child in tow.
After a much further investigation into the matter, the time and effort given yielded
results telling her that Atty. Valencia and her legal husband had been married in Hong
Kong. Moreover, on June 1993, her husband left their conjugal home and joined Atty.
Ramona Paguida Valencia at their residence, and has since failed to render much needed
financial support. In their defense, they postulated that they were not lawyers as of yet
when they committed the supposed immorality, so as such, they were not guilty of a
violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Garrido’s and Valencia’s actions constitute a violation of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and thus a good enough cause for their disbarment, despite the
offense being supposedly committed when they were not lawyers.
Held: Yes. Membership in the Bar is a privilege, and as a privilege bestowed by law
through the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be withdrawn where
circumstances show the lawyer’s lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers,
be they academic or moral.
In the present case, the Court had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty. Angel E.
Garrido and Atty. Rowena P. Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation of Canon 1,
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which commands that a lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Furthermore, The
contention of respondent that they were not yet lawyers when they got married shall not
afford them exemption from sanctions; good moral character was already required as a
condition precedent to admission to the Bar.
As a lawyer, a person whom the community looked up to, Atty. Garrido and Valencia were
shouldered with the expectation that they would set a good example in promoting
obedience to the Constitution and the laws. When they violated the law and distorted it to
cater to his own personal needs and selfish motives, not only did their actions discredit
the legal profession. Such actions by themselves, without even including the fact of
Garrido’s abandonment of paternal responsibility, to the detriment of his children by the
petitioner; or the fact that Valencia married Garrido despite knowing of his other
marriages to two other women including the petitioner, are clear indications of a lack of
moral values not consistent with the proper conduct of practicing lawyers within the
country. As such, their disbarment is affirmed.
Administrative Law; Attorneys; Disbarment; Laws dealing with double

jeopardy or with procedure—such as the verification of pleadings and
prejudicial questions or in this case, prescription of offenses or the
filing of affidavits of desistance by the complainant—do not apply in
the determination of a lawyer’s qualifications and fitness for
membership in the Bar.—Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with
procedure—such as the verification of pleadings and prejudicial
questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the filing of
affidavits of desistance by the complainant—do not apply in the
determination of a lawyer’s qualifications and fitness for membership
in the Bar. We have so ruled in the past and we see no reason to
depart from this ruling. First, admission to the practice of law is a
component of the administration of justice and is a matter of public
interest because it involves service to the public. The admission
qualifications are also qualifications for the continued enjoyment of
the privilege to practice law. Second, lack of qualifications or the
violation of the standards for the practice of law, like criminal cases, is
a matter of public concern that the State may inquire into through this
Court. In this sense, the complainant in a disbarment case is not a
direct party whose interest in the outcome of the charge is wholly his
or her own; effectively, his or her participation is that of a witness who
brought the matter to the attention of the Court.
Same; Same; Same; Possession of good moral character is both a

condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant
admission to the bar and to retain membership in the legal profession;
Admission to the bar does not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry,
upon proper complaint, into any question concerning the mental or
moral fitness of the respondent before he became a lawyer.—From
this perspective, it is not important that the acts complained of were
committed before Atty. Garrido was admitted to the practice of law. As
we explained in Zaguirre v. Castillo, 398 SCRA 658 (2003) the
possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and
a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to
retain membership in the legal profession. Admission to the bar does
not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry, upon proper complaint,
into any question concerning the mental or moral fitness of the
respondent before he became a lawyer. Admission to the practice only
creates the rebuttable presumption that the applicant has all the
qualifications to become a lawyer; this may be refuted by clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary even after admission to the Bar.
Same; Same; Same; The disciplinary authority of the Court over the
members of the Bar recognized to be merely incidental to the Court’s
exclusive power to admit applicants to the practice of law.— Article
VIII Section 5(5) of the Constitution recognizes the disciplinary
authority of the Court over the members of the Bar to be merely
incidental to the Court’s exclusive power to admit applicants to the
practice of law. Reinforcing the implementation of this constitutional
authority is Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which expressly
states that a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from
his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for, among others, any
deceit, grossly immoral conduct, or violation of the oath that he is
required to take before admission to the practice of law.
Same; Same; Same; Immoral conduct involves acts that are wilful,
flagrant or shameless and that show a moral indifference to the
opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community.—
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. We make these distinctions as the
supreme penalty of disbarment arising from conduct requires grossly
immoral, not simply immoral, conduct.
Same; Same; Same; Lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high
standard of legal proficiency but also of morality, including honesty,
integrity and fair dealing.—The Court has often reminded the
members of the bar to live up to the standards and norms expected of
the legal profession by upholding the ideals and principles embodied
in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Lawyers are bound to
maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of
morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. Lawyers are at
all times subject to the watchful public eye and community
approbation. Needless to state, those whose conduct—both public and
private—fail this scrutiny have to be disciplined and, after appropriate
proceedings, accordingly penalized.
Same; Same; Same; Purposes of the Requirement of Good Moral

Character.—Moral character is not a subjective term but one that
corresponds to objective reality. To have good moral character, a
person must have the personal characteristics of being good. It is not
enough that he or she has a good reputation, i.e., the opinion
generally entertained about a person or the estimate in which he or
she is held by the public in the place where she is known. The
requirement of good moral character has four general purposes,
namely: (1) to protect the public; (2) to protect the public image of
lawyers; (3) to protect prospective clients; and (4) to protect errant
lawyers from themselves. Each purpose is as important as the other.
Same; Same; Same; Court finds Atty. Valencia violated Canon 7 and
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as her behaviour
demeaned the dignity of and discredited the legal profession.—We
find that Atty. Valencia violated Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, as her behavior demeaned the dignity of
and discredited the legal profession. She simply failed in her duty as a
lawyer to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality. In
Barrientos v. Daarol, 218 SCRA 30 (1993), we held that lawyers, as
officers of the court, must not only be of good moral character but
must also be seen to be of good moral character and must lead lives
in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community.
Atty. Valencia failed to live up to these standards before she was
admitted to the bar and after she became a member of the legal
profession.

Case No. 1 Garrido vs. Garrido

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case No. 1 Garrido vs. Garrido

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

Case No. 1 Garrido vs. Garrido

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE NO.

Administrative Law; Attorneys; Disbarment; Laws dealing with double

Same; Same; Same; Possession of good moral character is both a

Same; Same; Same; Purposes of the Requirement of Good Moral

You might also like