Juni vs. Juni

A lawyer who contracts a second marriage while his first marriage subsists and maintains an illicit relationship with another married woman is guilty of gross immorality, but disbarment is not automatic; where the lawyer exhibits candor and no evidence shows unfitness to remain in the Bar, suspension from the practice of law for five years is the proper penalty.

Respondent Atty. Mario T. Juni is a member of the Philippine Bar, and complainant Floreswinda V. Juni is the spouse he married on January 4, 1987. The disbarment complaint invokes the Code of Professional Responsibility's requirement that lawyers refrain from unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct and from scandalous behavior that discredits the legal profession, specifically Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 7.03, Canon 7. The 1987 Constitution's protection of the sanctity of marriage and the Code of Muslim Personal Laws' registration requirements for conversion to Islam provide the broader legal backdrop.

Floreswinda V. Juni and Atty. Mario T. Juni married on January 4, 1987 at St. Ignatius De Loyola Chapel. Their marriage produced two children, Kent V. Juni and Karina V. Juni. Complainant frequently quarrelled with Atty. Juni because of his womanizing. On April 17, 2002, she ordered him to leave their conjugal home. Two days later, Atty. Juni executed an Affidavit of Undertaking; the parties agreed to live separately and that Atty. Juni would provide support to their children in the amount of P20,000.00 a month. Complainant later learned that this was a ploy to consummate Atty. Juni's desire to live with Ruth S. Vaguchay.

Atty. Juni and Ruth already had illicit relations, as their child Marianne Angel S. Juni was born on July 18, 2001, 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. 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 recorded in the Civil Registry of Cagayan de Oro City. On February 26, 2007, Atty. Juni filed an annulment of marriage against complainant; the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City rendered a Decision annulling the marriage, but the same was not yet final. On September 23, 2010, complainant filed a criminal case for Bigamy against Atty. Juni.

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. Atty. Juni knew that Ruth was married because Ruth obtained his services in filing a case against Ritchie for the support of their son, Paul Christian Vaguchay. Atty. Juni also subscribed the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping when Ruth filed an annulment case against Ritchie. Complainant claimed that Atty. Juni violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Juni argued that the administrative complaint for disbarment was filed only to gain leverage or revenge because he filed a criminal case for adultery against complainant. He claimed that he and complainant had been estranged and separated de facto since 2002 because of personal and psychological differences. In 2007, to formally sever his marriage ties with complainant, he filed a petition for annulment of marriage. 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 court with unclean hands.

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, she informed him that she has a son with a man named Ritchie Vaguchay, with whom she had a brief common-law relationship when she was just 16 years old. Atty. Juni admitted that he married Ruth on July 8, 2004 under Muslim rites. 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 Municipal Hall of Villanueva, Misamos Oriental together with the parents of Ritchie and signed some papers, and that she 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. Atty. Juni further argued that the statement that Ruth obtained his services to file a petition for support for her son was fabricated, since Ruth's son with Ritchie was raised and well provided for by Ritchie's parents; spouses Rodolfo and Mila Vaguchay executed a Joint-Affidavit to this effect. 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.

• Gross Immorality: Complainant alleged that Atty. Juni committed a grossly immoral act by having sexual relations with a married woman and by contracting a second marriage while his first marriage was subsisting.
• Knowledge of Ruth's Marriage: Complainant maintained that Atty. Juni knew Ruth was legally married to Ritchie Vaguchay because Ruth obtained his legal services in filing a support case against Ritchie and because Atty. Juni subscribed the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping in Ruth's annulment case against Ritchie.
• CPR Violation: Complainant claimed that Atty. Juni violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Retaliatory Complaint: Atty. Juni argued that the disbarment complaint was filed only to gain leverage or revenge because he filed a criminal case for adultery against complainant.
• Unclean Hands: Atty. Juni claimed that complainant came to court with unclean hands because she allegedly had sexual relations with Engr. Pascual "Bebot" Comendador, who is also married.
• De Facto Separation and Annulment: Atty. Juni maintained that he and complainant had been estranged and separated de facto since 2002 due to personal and psychological differences, and that he filed a petition for annulment in 2007 to sever their marriage ties.
• Conversion to Islam: Atty. Juni alleged that he converted to Islam in 2000, before his separation from complainant, and that after conversion he met Ruth and became romantically involved.
• Ruth's Prior Marriage: Atty. Juni admitted marrying Ruth on July 8, 2004 under Muslim rites, but claimed that Ruth discovered only in 2006 that she had a subsisting marriage with Ritchie; Ruth claimed there was no actual marriage ceremony and that she merely signed papers at the Municipal Hall of Villanueva, Misamos Oriental with Ritchie's parents.
• Fabricated Support Claim: Atty. Juni argued that the statement that Ruth obtained his services to file a support petition was fabricated, since Ruth's son with Ritchie was raised and provided for by Ritchie's parents, as supported by a Joint-Affidavit executed by Rodolfo and Mila Vaguchay.
• Not Scandalous: Atty. Juni stated that they were not living scandalously because they lived as legitimate husband and wife, their children carried his name, and they lived regularly as normal spouses.

• Administrative Liability: 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 Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Penalty: Whether disbarment is the proper penalty for gross immorality, or whether a lesser penalty should be imposed.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. Atty. Juni is guilty of gross immorality for contracting a second marriage while his first marriage subsisted and for having an illicit relationship with Ruth, a married woman, in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Penalty: No. Disbarment is a last resort; suspension from the practice of law for five years is proper where a lesser penalty can discipline the erring lawyer and no evidence shows unfitness to remain a member of the Bar.

• Administrative Liability: Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, while Rule 7.03, Canon 7 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. Members of the Bar must possess good moral character that is continuously possessed until retirement. To warrant disciplinary action, the grossly immoral act must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community's sense of decency. Disbarment cases are sui generis; neither purely civil nor purely criminal, and liability attaches once the quantum of proof in disciplinary proceedings is established. The evidence showed that Atty. Juni sired two children with Ruth, born in 2001 and 2003, both during the subsistence of his marriage with complainant. Atty. Juni never denied his illicit relationship and even flaunted it to the public. His admission of siring two children with Ruth and his abandonment of his family to cohabit with another woman sufficiently established that he transgressed the high standards of morality required of him as a lawyer. His claim of conversion to Islam was not established because he failed to present a Certificate of Conversion to Islam duly recorded in the Civil Registry. Even if he had converted, he could not deny his illicit affair with Ruth, who was also married, which resulted in the birth of two children during the subsistence of his marriage with complainant. The Court has consistently expressed intolerance towards lawyers who openly engaged in illicit affairs during the subsistence of their marriages, as in Panagsagan vs. Atty. Panagsagan, Ceniza vs. Atty. Ceniza, Jr., and Bustamante-Alejandro vs. Atty. Alejandro. Thus, Atty. Juni is guilty of gross immorality.
• Penalty: The IBP's recommendation to disbar Atty. Juni was not adopted. In Ignacio vs. Ignacio, the Court held that while the lawyer was guilty of gross immorality, disbarment should be imposed with great caution for clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of an officer of the court; because the lawyer did not deceive the Court and exhibited candor in admitting the transgression, and there was no showing that he was unfit to continue his membership in the Bar, suspension from the practice of law for five years was proper. The penalty of disbarment must be a last resort; where a lesser penalty may accomplish the goal of disciplining the erring lawyer, disbarment should not be imposed. While Atty. Juni left complainant to cohabit with Ruth and sired two children with her, this standing alone does not show his unfitness to remain a member of the Bar. Atty. Juni did not deny his circumstances; he exhibited candor due to his religious belief that he is now a converted Muslim. Without evidence showing that his transgression seriously affected his standing and character as an officer of the court, suspension from the practice of law for five years is proper.

• Gross Immorality as Ground for Disciplinary Action — A lawyer may be disciplined for gross immorality when the act is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or committed under scandalous or revolting circumstances that shock the community's sense of decency. The Court applied this standard to Atty. Juni's contracting of a second marriage while his first marriage subsisted and his illicit relationship with Ruth, a married woman.
• Continuous Good Moral Character — A lawyer must possess good moral character not only upon admission to the Bar but continuously until retirement from the practice of law. Atty. Juni's conduct during the subsistence of his marriage violated this requirement.
• Disbarment Cases Are Sui Generis — Disbarment cases are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they are an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers, and liability attaches once the quantum of proof in disciplinary proceedings is established. This principle supported the finding of administrative liability despite the absence of a criminal conviction.
• Disbarment as Last Resort — Disbarment must be imposed only when no lesser penalty can accomplish the goal of disciplining the erring lawyer. The Court applied this by imposing a five-year suspension instead of disbarment, given Atty. Juni's candor and the absence of evidence that his transgression seriously affected his standing and character as an officer of the court.
• Sanctity of Marriage — The 1987 Constitution protects the sanctity of marriage. Atty. Juni's second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage showed disregard of this protection.
• Proof of Conversion to Islam — Under Article 86 of Presidential Decree No. 1083, the books making up the registry of conversion are public documents and prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained. Atty. Juni's failure to present a Certificate of Conversion to Islam duly recorded in the Civil Registry defeated his defense of conversion.

• "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, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community's sense of decency." — This passage states the controlling standard for gross immorality as a ground for disciplining lawyers.
• "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 of law." — This passage defines the continuing requirement of good moral character for members of the Bar.
• "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." — This passage explains the unique nature of disbarment proceedings and the quantum of proof required for liability.
• "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." — This passage articulates the rule that disbarment is a last resort and supports the imposition of suspension instead of disbarment.

• Panagsagan vs. Atty. Panagsagan, A.C. No. 7733, October 1, 2019, 921 SCRA 180 — Cited for rejecting a lawyer's defense of conversion to Islam where the certificate of conversion was registered only years later; here, Atty. Juni failed to present any recorded certificate, making his defense even weaker.
• Ceniza vs. Atty. Ceniza, Jr., A.C. No. 8335, April 10, 2019, 900 SCRA 357 — Cited as an example where the Court did not countenance illicit affairs of lawyers during the subsistence of their marriage; supports the finding of gross immorality.
• Bustamante-Alejandro vs. Atty. Alejandro, 467 Phil. 139 (2004) — Cited among cases where the Court disbarred lawyers for abandoning their spouses and maintaining illicit relationships with other partners; supports the Court's intolerance of such conduct.
• Ignacio vs. Ignacio, A.C. Nos. 9426 & 11988, August 25, 2020 — Relied upon for the principle that disbarment for gross immorality must be imposed with great caution and that suspension for five years was proper where the lawyer admitted the transgression with candor and no unfitness was shown.
• Ventura vs. Atty. Samson, 699 Phil. 404, 418 (2012) — Cited for the rule that disbarment must be a last resort and that a lesser penalty should be imposed if it can accomplish the goal of discipline.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Atty. Juni's grossly immoral acts violated this rule.
• Rule 7.03, Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — 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. Atty. Juni's second marriage and illicit relationship violated this rule.
• Article 86, Presidential Decree No. 1083 (Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines) — 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. Atty. Juni failed to present a Certificate of Conversion to Islam recorded in the Civil Registry, so his conversion defense was not established.
• 1987 Constitution — The text refers to the protection of the sanctity of marriage; the Court observed that Atty. Juni's second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage showed disregard of this protection.

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