3L\epublic of tbe ~btltpptnes

~upreme Qtourt
jJl!lanila

EN BANC

FLORESWINDA V. JUNI, A.C. No. 11599

Complainant,
Present:

GESMUNDO, CJ,
- versus - PERLAS-BERNABE,
LEONEN,
CAGUIOA
HERNANDO,
CARANDANG,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
INTING,
ZALAMEDA,
LOPEZ, M.,
GAERLAN,
ROSARIO, and
LOPEZ, J., JJ

Promulgated:

A TTY. MARIO T. JUNI, August 3, 2021

Respondent.
. . _ _ ~ t i ~,_,,•.,,,.,.._
x-------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- -------------------x

DECISION

PERCURIAM:

This resolves the complaint for disbarment filed by complainant

Floreswinda V. Juni (complainant) against respondent Atty. Mario T. Juni
(respondent) for gross immorality for having sexual intercourse with a
married woman and contracting a second marriage while the first marriage
was subsisting.
 Decision 2 A.C. No. 11599

Facts of the Case

Floreswinda V. Juni (complainant) claimed that on January 4, 1987,

she married Atty. Mario T. Juni (Atty. Juni) at St. Ignatius De Loyola
Chapel. 1 The marital union was blessed with two children, Kent V. Juni and
Karina V. Juni. 2

Complainant narrates in her affidavit that she frequently quarrelled

with Atty. Juni due to the latter's womanizing. On April 17, 2002,
complainant had enough of Atty. Juni's womanizing by ordering the latter to
leave their conjugal home. 3 Two days after, Atty. Juni executed an Affidavit
of Undertaking4 the parties agreed that they will live separately and that
Atty. Juni will provide support to their children in the amount ofi>20,000.00
a month. 5 Complainant came to know that it was a ploy to consummate Atty.
Juni's desire to live with Ruth S. Vaguchay (Ruth). It was later discovered
that Atty. Juni and Ruth already consummated their illicit relations since a
child, Marianne Angel S. Juni was born on July 18, 2001, 6 almost a year
before Atty. Juni separated from complainant. On August 13, 2003, Atty.
Juni and Ruth had another child named, Jergen Mae S. Juni. 7

Then, on July 8, 2004, despite the subsisting prior marriage with

complainant, Atty. Juni entered into a contract of marriage with Ruth. The
subsequent marriage was solemnized under Muslim rites and the same was
recorded in the Civil Registry ofCagayan de Oro City. 8

On February 26, 2007, Atty. Juni filed an annulment of marriage

against complainant. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City
rendered a Decision annulling the marriage. The same however was not yet
final. On September 23, 2010, complainant filed a criminal case for Bigamy
against Atty. Juni. 9

Complainant alleged that Atty. Juni committed a grossly immoral act

by having sexual relations with a married woman since Ruth is legally
married to Ritchie Vaguchay. Further, Atty. Juni knew that Ruth is married
because the latter obtained the services of Atty. Juni in filing a case against
Ritchie for the support of their son, Paul Christian Vaguchay. Also, it was
Atty. Juni who subscribed the Verification and Certification against Forum
Shopping when Ruth filed an annulment case against Ritchie. 10

Rollo. pp. 5, 124.

2
Id. at 76.
Id. at 133.
4
Id. at 126.
5
Id.
6
Id.atl0-11.
7
Id. at 7-9.
Id. at 68, 86.
9
Id. at 116-117.
10
Id. at 2-3.
 Decision 3 A.C. No. 11599

Because of grossly immoral act committed by Atty. Juni, complainant

claimed that Atty. Juni violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 7.03, Canon 7
of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). 11

Atty. Juni, on the other hand, argued that the instant administrative
complaint for disbarment was only filed in order to gain leverage and/or
revenge against him because he filed a criminal case for adultery against
complainant. 12

Atty. Juni claimed that he and complainant had been estranged and
separated de facto since 2002 because of personal and psychological
differences. That in 2007, to formally sever his marriage ties with
complainant, he filed a petition for annulment of his marriage. Then in 2010,
he filed an adultery case against complainant allegedly because complainant
was having sexual relations with a certain Engr. Pascual "Bebot"
Comendador, who is also married. Thus, complainant came to the court with
unclean hands. 13

To refute the accusations against him, Atty. Juni alleged that even
prior to his separation with complainant he had already converted to Islam in
2000. After his conversion, he met Ruth and became romantically involved.
When he met Ruth, the latter informed him that she has a son with a man
named Ritchie Vaguchay, 14 with whom she had a brief common-law
relationship when she was just 16 years old. 15

Atty. Juni admitted that he married Ruth on July 8, 2004 under

Muslim rites. However sometime in 2006, when Ruth secured copies of her
Marriage Certificate, she discovered that she had a subsisting marriage with
Ritchie. She claimed that there was no actual marriage ceremony, that she
just went to the l'vfunicipal Hall of Villanueva, Misamos Oriental together
with the parents of Ritchie and signed some papers. Ruth was not aware of
the supposed marriage. Upon learning of her subsisting marriage with
Ritchie, she filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage in 2007. 16

Atty. Juni further argued that the statement of complainant that Ruth
obtained his services to file a petition for support for her son is fabricated,
since Ruth's son with Ritchie was raised and well provided for by Ritchie's
parents. In fact, spouses Rodolfo and Mila Vaguchay executed an Joint-
Affidavit17 to this effect. 18

ll
Id. at 114.
12
Id. at 69.
13
Id. at 69-70, 76-77.
14
Richie Vaguchay in some parts of the rollo.
15
Rollo, p. 66.
16
Id. at 67.
17
Id. at 87.
18
Id. at 68.
 Decision 4 A.C. No. 11599

Atty. Juni stated that they are not living scandalously because they are
living as legitimate husband and wife, their children carry their names and
they live regularly as normal spouses. 19

IBP Commission on Bar Discipline

On November 3, 2011, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) rendered its Report and
Recommendation20 finding Atty. Juni administratively liable for his grossly
immoral act of contracting two marriages and having sexual relations with a
married woman. 21

Thus, the IBP CBD recommended that Atty. Juni be meted out a
penalty of Censure. 22

IBP Board of Governors

In a Resolution23 dated September 27, 2014, the IBP Board of

Governors modified the recommendation of the IBP CBP and recommended
that Atty. Juni be disbarred from the practice of law for contracting a
bigamous marriage. 24

Issue

Whether Atty. Juni is administratively liable for contracting a

bigamous marriage and for violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 7.03,
Canon 7 of the CPR.

Ruling of the Court

Upon review of the records of the case, this Court affirms the
recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.

Rule 1.01 of the CPR provides that "a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of
the CPR states:

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.

xxxx.

19
Id.
20
Penned by Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero; id. at 149-152.
21
Id. at 151-152.
22
Id. at 152.
23
Id.at 179.
24
Id.
 Decision 5 A.C. No. 11599

Rule 7.03. - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct

that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

The above provisions of the CPR show that the members of the Bar,
as officers of the court, must possess good moral character that must also be
seen by the community to be leading lives in accordance with the highest
moral standards of the community. 25 The practice of law is a privilege given
to those who possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the
profession. 26 The good moral character must be possessed by the lawyer not
only upon admission to the bar, but it must be continuously possessed until
his retirement from the practice oflaw. 27

To warrant disciplinary action in administrative cases against lawyers,

the grossly immoral act must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or
so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, 28 or when committed
under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the
community's sense of decency. 29

Be it noted that disbarment cases are sui generis; neither purely civil
nor purely criminal. Disbarment cases are an investigation by the court into
the conduct of its officers. As long as the quantum of proof in disciplinary
proceedings against lawyers is established, liability already attaches. 30

In this case, the pieces of evidence presented clearly show Atty. Juni's
grossly immoral act of having sired a child from another woman and
contracting a second marriage while his previous marriage is still subsisting.
We have ruled in various cases that a married person's abandonment of his
or her spouse in order to live and cohabit with another constitutes
immorality. The fact that the illicit partner is himself or herself married
compounds the immorality. 31

The evidence presented in this case clearly show that Atty. Juni had
an illicit relationship with Ruth. Complainant presented the Birth
Certificates of the two children of Atty. Juni with Ruth. The eldest was born
in 2001, 32 which was even a year before complainant and Atty. Juni
separated, and the other was born in 2003. 33 Both were sired during the
subsistence of Atty. Juni's marriage with complainant. Atty. Juni never
denied his illicit relationship, in fact he even flaunted the same to the public.

25
See Valdez v. Atty. Dabon, 773 Phil. 109, 121-122 (2015), citing Arnobit v. Atty. Arnobit, 590
Phil. 270,276 (2008).
26
Atty. Ecraela v. Atty. Pangalangan, 769 Phil. I, 14 (2015).
27
See Pasamonte v. Atty. Teneza, A.C. No. 11104, June 9, 2020.
28
Fabugais v. Atty. Faundo, 833 Phil. 19, 28 (2018), citing Ui v. Atty. Bonifacio, 388 Phil. 691, 707
(2000).
29
Supra note 26.
30
Id.
31
Cenizo vs. Atty. Cenizo, Jr., A.C. No. 8335, April I 0, 2019, 900 SCRA 357, 375.
32
Rollo, pp. I 0-11.
33
Id. at 7-9.
 Decision 6 A.C. No. 11599

Atty. Juni's admission of siring two .children with Ruth and his
abandonment of his family to cohabit with another woman34 sufficiently
establishes the fact that he transgressed the high standards of morality
required of him as a lawyer. His transgression was even made worse because
he flaunted his illicit relationship to the public. 35 In fact, he is consistent in
alleging that they are already living ·as husband and wife by virtue of a
subsequent marriage even during the subsistence of a prior marriage with
complainant. This circumstance only shows Atty. Juni's disregard of the
sanctity of marriage protected in the 1987 Constitution.

Atty. Juni claims that his actuations were justified because he had
already converted to Islam in 2000. 36 However, this fact was not established.
Atty. Juni failed to present his Certificate of Conversion to Islam that is duly
recorded in their Civil Registry. 37 As in the case of Panagsagan v. Atty.
Panagsagan (Panagsagan), 38 Atty. Panagsagan justified his illicit
relationship by alleging his conversion to Islam. This Court was
unconvinced with his defense because while Atty. Panagsagan presented his
certificate of conversion, the registration was only years later, a few days
before he filed his answer to the complaint. 39 Thus, it is with more reason
that in this case, the Court cannot consider Atty. Juni's defense as he failed
to prove his conversion to Islam.

Nevertheless, even if Atty. Juni indeed converted to Islam, he cannot

deny the fact that he had an illicit affair with Ruth, who was also married
which resulted to the birth of his two children in 2001 and 2003,
undisputedly during the subsistence of his marriage with complainant.
Clearly, his act is reprehensible and cannot be countenanced by this Court.

The Court has consistently expressed its intolerance towards lawyers

who openly engaged in illicit affairs during the subsistence of their
marriages. 40 In Panagsagan, it enumerated cases where the Court did not
countenanced illicit affairs of lawyers during the subsistence of their
marriage, such as in the case of Ceniza v. Atty. Ceniza, Jr. 41 and in
Bustamante-Alejandro v. Atty. Alejandro, 42 the Court disbarred the lawyer
for having abandoned their respective spouses and maintained their illicit
relationships with other partners. Thus, Atty. Juni is guilty of gross
immorality.

34
Id.at 17.
35
Id. at 68.
36
Id. at 66.
37
Article 86 of Presidential Decree No. I 083, also known as the "Code of Muslim Personal Laws of
the Philippines.
Article 86. Legal effects of registration. The books making up the registry of marriage, divorce,
revocation of divorce, conversion, and all other documents relating thereto shall be considered
public documents and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained. However,
nothing herein provided shall affect the intrinsic validity or invalidity of the acts registered.
(Emphasis supplied)
38
A.C. No. 7733, October I, 2019, 921 SCRA 180.
39
Id.
40
Id. at 190.
41
Supra note 31.
42
467 Phil. 139 (2004).
 Decision 7 A.C. No. 11599

However, We do not agree with the recommendation of the IBP to

disbar Atty. Juni.

As in the case of Ignacio vs. Ignacio, 43 complainant therein alleged

that Atty. Ignacio committed bigamy as he was previously married to a
certain Celia Tingson Valenzuela in 1978 but he still married complainant in
1985. It was also alleged that Atty. Ignacio fathered several children with
different women. Atty. Ignacio alleged that complainant knew of his
previous marriage and that his marriage with the complainant was simply for
convenience since the latter can easily petition for Atty. Ignacio's
immigration to the US. Atty. Ignacio also explained that his other children
were born before his marriage to complainant, while the other children were
born after complainant divorced him in the US. While this Court held that
Atty. Ignacio is guilty of gross immorality, imposing the penalty of
disbarment to Atty. Ignacio should be imposed with great caution for clear
cases of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of an
officer of the court. Although the reason of Atty. Ignacio for contracting
both marriages is not a valid excuse, We noted that he did not deceive the
Court and instead exhibited candor in admitting the transgression. Further,
there was no instance showing, that Atty. Ignacio is unfit to continue his
membership in the bar. Thus, a penalty of suspension from the practice of
law for five years was deemed proper by the Court. 44

The penalty of disbarment must be a last resort. Where a lesser

penalty may accomplish the goal of discipling the erring lawyer, disbarment
should not be imposed. 45 While Atty. Juni left complainant to cohabit with
Ruth and sired two children with her, the same standing alone does not show
Atty. Juni's unfitness to remain a member of the Bar. Atty. Juni did not deny
his circumstances, instead he exhibited candor due to his religious belief that
he is now a converted muslim. Thus, without any evidence showing that his
transgression seriously affected his standing and character as an officer of
the court, a penalty of suspension from the practice of law· for five years is
proper.

WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent Atty. Mario T. Juni

GUILTY of gross immorality in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.0 I and Canon
7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is therefore
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for FIVE (5) 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.
43
A.C. Nos. 9426 & 11988, August 25, 2020.
44
Id.
45
See Venturav. Atty. Samson, 699 Phil. 404,418 (2012).
•
Decision 8 A.C. No. 11599

Associate Justice

AMY
IL'
LA?ARO-JAVIER
ssociate Justice

HENRI .INTING ROD

SAMU~
Associate Justice

-
JHOSE~PEZ
Associate Justice