Bunagan-Bansig vs. Celera

Contracting a second marriage while a prior marriage remains valid and subsisting constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; independently, willful disobedience of lawful court orders demonstrated by repeated failure to comply with directives to file pleadings, coupled with evasive tactics and selective compliance, constitutes a separate and sufficient ground for disbarment.

Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera married Gracemarie R. Bunagan on May 8, 1997, at the Church of Saint Augustine, Intramuros, Manila. While this marriage remained valid and had never been annulled or declared void, respondent contracted a second marriage with Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba on January 8, 1998, at Mary the Queen Church in Greenhills, San Juan. Rose Bunagan-Bansig, sister of the first wife and respondent’s former client, possessed certified copies of both marriage certificates. Bansig alleged that respondent’s bigamous marriage rendered him unfit to practice law.

• The First Marriage: On May 8, 1997, respondent married Gracemarie R. Bunagan at the Church of Saint Augustine, Intramuros, Manila. The marriage was evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the certificate of marriage issued by the City Civil Registry of Manila.

• The Second Marriage: On January 8, 1998, while the first marriage remained valid and subsisting—never having been annulled or declared void by any lawful authority—respondent contracted a second marriage with Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba at Mary the Queen Church, Madison St., Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila. This marriage was evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the certificate of marriage issued by the City Civil Registry of San Juan.

• The Disbarment Complaint: On January 8, 2002, Rose Bunagan-Bansig, sister of the first wife and respondent’s former client, filed a petition for disbarment alleging that respondent’s act of contracting a second marriage while the first was subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar.

• Procedural Evasion and Non-Compliance: Respondent repeatedly failed to file his comment on the complaint despite numerous resolutions requiring him to do so. He claimed non-receipt of the complaint and requested copies multiple times. The Court accommodated these requests, directing Bansig to furnish copies to respondent’s indicated addresses, including No. 238 Mayflower St., Ninoy Aquino Subdivision, Angeles City, and Unit 8, Halili Complex, 922 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City. Notices sent to these addresses were returned marked “RTS-Moved” or could not be located (the Cubao address proved to be a vacant lot with debris of a demolished building). Respondent selectively responded to show cause orders while ignoring directives to file comments, and failed to appear before the IBP despite notices.

• IBP Investigation: The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline declared respondent in default on August 4, 2010, for failure to attend mandatory conferences and hearings. In its Report and Recommendation dated January 3, 2011, the IBP recommended suspension for two years.

• Gross Immoral Conduct: Bansig maintained that respondent’s act of contracting a second marriage with Alba on January 8, 1998, while his marriage to Bunagan remained valid and subsisting, constituted grossly immoral conduct and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar, rendering him unfit to continue his membership in the legal profession.

• Dilatory Tactics: Bansig countered respondent’s claims of non-receipt by asserting that his selective response to show cause orders while ignoring resolutions requiring him to file comments demonstrated deliberate dilatory tactics intended to frustrate the court’s actions and delay the proceedings.

• Lack of Notice: Respondent argued that he had not received a copy of the complaint and was unaware of the nature of the charges against him, claiming that Bansig’s failure to send the complaint to his law office address was a ploy to mislead him and prevent him from defending himself.

• Security Concerns: Respondent claimed that he and his wife had received death threats from unknown persons, necessitating his transfer to multiple new residences in Sampaloc, Manila, and Angeles City, which explained why court notices sent to previous addresses were not received.

• Financial Dispute and Retaliation: Respondent alleged that Bansig had an unpaid obligation of ₱2,000,000.00 to his wife, which triggered a sibling rivalry, and that the disbarment complaint was filed to intimidate him and his wife from pursuing criminal complaints for falsification of public documents against Bansig and her husband.

• Gross Immoral Conduct: Whether contracting a second marriage while the first marriage remains subsisting constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

• Willful Disobedience: Whether respondent’s repeated failure to file his comment on the complaint despite numerous court resolutions, coupled with evasive tactics and selective compliance, constitutes willful disobedience of lawful orders warranting disbarment.

• Gross Immoral Conduct: The charge was sustained. Certified xerox copies of the marriage certificates, admissible as best evidence of their contents under Section 7, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, established that respondent contracted marriage with Bunagan on May 8, 1997, and with Alba on January 8, 1998, while the first marriage remained valid and subsisting. Contracting a second marriage while the first is subsisting constitutes bigamy and grossly immoral conduct under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, violating Rule 1.01 (prohibition against immoral conduct) and Rule 7.03 (prohibition against conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such conduct makes a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution, and renders the lawyer unfit to continue as an officer of the court.

• Willful Disobedience: The charge was sustained. Respondent’s pattern of ignoring court resolutions requiring him to file a comment, while selectively responding to show cause orders, and his constant changing of residences without informing the court or providing accurate addresses, demonstrated deliberate evasion and willful disobedience of lawful orders under Section 27, Rule 138. A court’s resolution is not a mere request to be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively; respondent’s obstinate refusal to comply betrays a recalcitrant character and underscores disrespect for the judicial institution, warranting disbarment.

• Sui Generis Nature of Disbarment Proceedings — Disbarment cases are neither purely civil nor purely criminal but are investigations by the court into the conduct of its officers. Such proceedings continue despite the desistance of the complainant, failure to prosecute, or failure of the respondent to answer the charges.

• Burden of Proof in Disbarment — The complainant bears the burden of proving allegations by substantial evidence (such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion). However, for the imposition of the severe penalty of disbarment, clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof (clear preponderant evidence) is required.

• Best Evidence of Public Records — When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof under Section 7, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Such certified copies are accorded full faith and credence as public documents and constitute competent evidence to establish facts such as the existence of marriage contracts.

• Grossly Immoral Conduct — Contracting a second marriage while the first marriage remains valid and subsisting constitutes bigamy and grossly immoral conduct warranting disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. This violates the lawyer’s duty under Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility to avoid conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law or brings discredit to the legal profession.

• Willful Disobedience of Court Orders — Repeated failure to comply with lawful court orders, characterized by selective compliance, evasion, disregard of the judicial process, and failure to appear before investigating bodies, constitutes willful disobedience under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Court resolutions must be complied with fully and promptly, not treated as mere requests or complied with partially or selectively.

• "A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal, but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers." — Establishing the unique nature of disbarment proceedings which continue regardless of the complainant’s participation or respondent’s failure to answer.

• "The certified xerox copies of the marriage contracts, issued by a public officer in custody thereof, are admissible as the best evidence of their contents, as provided for under Section 7 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court..." — Affirming the admissibility and evidentiary weight of certified copies of public records as sufficient to establish bigamy in disbarment proceedings.

• "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." — Characterizing the gravity of contracting a bigamous marriage and its impact on fitness to practice law.

• "A Court's Resolution is 'not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively.' Respondent's obstinate refusal to comply with the Court's orders 'not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in his character; it also underscores his disrespect of the Court's lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.'" — Articulating the standard for compliance with court orders and the consequences of willful disobedience.

• In re Almacen, No. L-27654, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 562 — Cited for the principle that disbarment cases are sui generis and continue despite the failure of the complainant to prosecute or the respondent to answer.

• Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, 538 Phil. 501 (2006) — Cited for the standard of proof required in disbarment cases: clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof (clear preponderant evidence).

• Villatuya v. Tabalingcos, A.C. No. 6622, July 10, 2012, 676 SCRA 37 — Cited in support of the principle that contracting a second marriage while the first is subsisting constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting disbarment.

• Sebastian v. Bajar, 559 Phil. 211 (2007) — Cited for the principle that court resolutions are not mere requests and that obstinate refusal to comply constitutes willful disobedience deserving of reproof.

• Section 27, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court — Enumerates grounds for disbarment or suspension, including deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the oath, and willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. Applied to hold that both bigamy and willful disobedience constitute independent grounds for disbarment.

• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Applied to condemn respondent’s bigamous marriage as immoral conduct.

• Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Applied to find that bigamy adversely reflects on fitness to practice and brings discredit to the profession.

• Section 7, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Provides that when the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. Applied to admit certified copies of marriage certificates as best evidence of their contents.

Antonio T. Carpio (Acting Chief Justice), Presbitero J. Velasco, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, and Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Chief Justice, was on leave.