Hosoya vs. Contado

A lawyer's admitted act of abandoning a legal spouse to cohabit with another person, resulting in children, constitutes grossly immoral conduct that warrants disbarment, as it violates the duty to uphold the law and maintain the integrity of the legal profession.

Complainant Crisanta G. Hosoya filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Allan C. Contado, alleging that he misrepresented himself as legally separated from his wife, induced her to cohabit with him, and fathered two children with her during this illicit relationship. She further alleged that he failed to provide adequate support for their children and refused to return her vehicle despite demand. Atty. Contado admitted to the relationship and cohabitation but claimed he was already separated-in-fact from his wife when it began. The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.

• Nature of the Relationship: Complainant Crisanta G. Hosoya and respondent Atty. Allan C. Contado met in 2003. Atty. Contado represented that he was already separated-in-fact from his wife and was working on a petition for nullity or annulment. In 2010, Hosoya agreed to cohabit with him as husband and wife.
• Discovery and Continuation: During their cohabitation, Hosoya discovered Atty. Contado was also cohabiting with and had impregnated other women. Despite this knowledge, she continued the relationship.
• Children and Separation: The cohabitation resulted in two children, born in 2011 and 2013. The relationship later terminated due to financial problems and Atty. Contado's alleged abandonment of financial obligations. Hosoya and the children moved to another place.
• Demands and Refusals: Hosoya sent a demand letter for support, stating Atty. Contado's support was insufficient. She also demanded the return of her vehicle, which remained in his possession. Atty. Contado did not comply with the demand for the vehicle's return.
• Respondent's Admissions: In his defense, Atty. Contado admitted the relationship, the birth of the two children, and that he was still legally married to his wife at the time, though separated-in-fact. He admitted the vehicle was still with him but claimed it needed major repairs for transport.
• IBP Findings: The IBP CBD found insufficient evidence to support allegations of non-support and multiple sexual relations but found Atty. Contado guilty of immorality for the admitted cohabitation and of conduct unbecoming for failing to return the vehicle. The IBP Board of Governors increased the recommended penalty to disbarment.

• Gross Immorality: Petitioner argued that Atty. Contado's acts of deceiving her about his marital status, cohabiting with her while legally married, and having sexual relations with other women constituted continuous violations of law and gross immorality.
• Failure to Support and Return Property: Petitioner maintained that Atty. Contado abandoned his children by failing to provide sufficient support and refused to return her vehicle despite demand, which she alleged amounted to carnapping or theft.

• Lack of Evidence for Some Allegations: Respondent countered that allegations of non-support and multiple sexual relations were unsupported by evidence. He presented receipts and deposit slips to show he provided support within his means.
• Consensual Relationship and Separation-in-Fact: Respondent argued that his relationship with complainant was consensual and that he was already separated-in-fact from his wife when it began. He claimed the vehicle was voluntarily given for use in election campaigns and could not be returned immediately due to needed repairs.
• Threats and Revenge: Respondent posited that the complaint was motivated by revenge after their relationship soured and that complainant threatened to destroy his reputation.

• Gross Immorality: Whether Atty. Contado's admitted act of cohabiting with complainant while legally married to another constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action.
• Conduct Unbecoming a Lawyer: Whether Atty. Contado's refusal to return complainant's vehicle despite demand constitutes dishonest or deceitful conduct violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the appropriate penalty for the established violations is disbarment.

• Gross Immorality: The admitted cohabitation with complainant while still legally married to his spouse, resulting in two children, constituted grossly immoral conduct. Applying Chan v. Carrera, such an admission is sufficient basis for a finding of guilt. The act of abandoning a legal spouse to live with another is scandalous, reprehensible, and unprincipled, reflecting a lawyer's lack of moral character and fitness to practice law.
• Conduct Unbecoming a Lawyer: The unjustified refusal to return property despite lawful demand is akin to a deliberate failure to pay a debt, which constitutes dishonest and deceitful conduct under Rule 1.01 of the CPR. The proffered excuse for not returning the vehicle was flimsy and unacceptable.
• Proper Penalty: The established violations—gross immorality and dishonest conduct—warrant the supreme penalty of disbarment, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence (Chan v. Carrera, Ceniza v. Ceniza, Panagsagan v. Panagsagan). The Court, however, cannot order the return of the vehicle in this administrative proceeding, as that is a civil or criminal matter for the proper courts.

• Grossly Immoral Conduct — Defined as conduct that is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. A married person's abandonment of his or her spouse to cohabit with another constitutes gross immorality as it amounts to either adultery or concubinage. The Court applied this doctrine to find Atty. Contado's admitted acts grossly immoral.
• Failure to Pay Just Debts as Ground for Disciplinary Action — A lawyer's failure to pay debts or return property despite repeated demands constitutes dishonest and deceitful conduct, violating Rule 1.01 of the CPR. It reflects poorly on the lawyer's fitness to practice and breaches the duty to perform duties to society faithfully. The Court applied this principle to the unjustified refusal to return the vehicle.

• "It is well-settled that married person's abandonment of his or her spouse to live with and cohabit with another constitutes gross immorality as it amounts to either adultery or concubinage." — This passage reaffirms the established standard for what constitutes grossly immoral conduct in the context of marital obligations.
• "Refusal to return property despite lawful demand is akin to deliberate failure to pay debt. Jurisprudence is clear that a lawyer's failure to pay debts despite repeated demands constitutes dishonest and deceitful conduct also a violation of Rule 1.01 of the CPR." — This excerpt links the civil obligation to return property with the ethical duty of a lawyer, establishing the disciplinary consequence.

• Chan v. Carrera, A.C. No. 10439, September 3, 2019 — Applied as controlling precedent with similar facts (a lawyer cohabiting with another while still legally married). The Court gave weight to the respondent's admission in that case, which served as the basis for disbarment. The same reasoning was applied to Atty. Contado's admissions.
• Panagsagan v. Panagsagan, A.C. No. 7733, October 1, 2019 — Cited for the definition of "grossly immoral conduct" and for the principle that abandonment of a spouse for another constitutes gross immorality.
• Ceniza v. Ceniza, A.C. No. 8335, April 10, 2019 — Cited as another instance where disbarment was imposed for abandoning a legal spouse and maintaining an illicit affair.
• Buenaventura v. Gille, A.C. No. 7446, December 9, 2020 — Cited for the rule that a lawyer's failure to pay debts or return property despite demand constitutes dishonest conduct warranting disciplinary action.

• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Applied to both the act of cohabitation (immoral conduct) and the refusal to return the vehicle (deceitful/dishonest 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 shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit or the legal profession." Applied to the scandalous and immoral nature of the cohabitation.

Gesmundo, C. J., Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, and Dimaampao, JJ., concur.