Teves vs. Macarubbo

Reinstatement to the Roll of Attorneys after disbarment requires the petitioner to satisfy the five guidelines for judicial clemency: (1) proof of remorse and reformation; (2) sufficient time lapsed from the imposition of penalty; (3) age showing productive years ahead; (4) showing of promise and potential for public service; and (5) other relevant justifying circumstances. Additionally, the applicant must demonstrate good moral character equivalent to that required of new bar candidates.

Respondent Edmundo L. Macarubbo was disbarred by the Supreme Court on February 27, 2004 for contracting bigamous marriages with complainant Florence Teves and Josephine Constantino while his first marriage to Helen Esparza was still subsisting, constituting gross immoral conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Eight years following the finality of his disbarment, he filed a Petition for Extraordinary Mercy seeking judicial clemency and reinstatement, supported by certifications from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, local government officials, and community members attesting to his reformed character.

• Respondent was disbarred on February 27, 2004 for contracting bigamous marriages with complainant Florence Teves and Josephine Constantino while his first marriage to Helen Esparza was subsisting, constituting gross immoral conduct in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• The disbarment decision ordered respondent to show satisfactory evidence to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline and the Court that he was supporting or had made provisions for the regular support of his two children by complainant.
• Following disbarment, respondent returned to his hometown in Enrile, Cagayan where he tended an orchard and cared for his ailing mother until her death in 2008.
• In 2009, he was appointed Private Secretary to the Mayor of Enrile, Cagayan and subsequently assumed the position of Local Assessment Operations II/Office-In-Charge in the Assessor’s Office, which he continued to hold at the time of the petition.
• He served as a part-time instructor at the University of Cagayan Valley and F.L. Vargas College during School Year 2011-2012.
• He actively participated in socio-civic activities by helping neighbors and friends in dire need, and maintained a cordial relationship with his children, sending them regular support in compliance with the Court's 2004 directive.
• Various certifications attested to his reformed character, including those from the IBP Cagayan Chapter, nine barangay chairpersons, the Municipal Local Government Office, the Office of the Municipal Agriculturist/Health Officer/Social Welfare Development Officer, the Election Officer, the Provincial Assessor, the Magsaka ca Multi-Purpose Cooperative, the Federation of Senior Citizens, and the Parish Priest certifying his faithful practice of Catholic doctrines.
• The Office of the Municipal Treasurer certified he had no monetary accountabilities, while the Human Resource Management Officer certified he had no pending administrative case.
• The National Bureau of Investigation certified he had no criminal record as of May 31, 2011.
• At the time of the petition, respondent was 58 years old and had served fourteen years in government from 1986 to July 2000 as Legal Officer of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, Supervising Civil Service Attorney of the Civil Service Commission, Ombudsman Graft Investigation Officer, and State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice.
• He is the first lawyer product of Lemu National High School.
• Complainant Florence Teves tendered no opposition to the instant petition.

• Respondent sought judicial clemency and reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys after eight years of disbarment, demonstrating sufficient remorse and acknowledgment of his indiscretion in both his legal profession and personal life.
• He presented evidence of reformation through his return to his hometown, care for his ailing mother, government service, teaching positions, and active participation in socio-civic activities.
• He maintained that he had settled his previous marital squabbles and was sending regular support to his children as ordered by the Court.
• He argued that at age 58, he still had productive years ahead that could be put to good use for the upliftment of the legal profession and betterment of society.
• He relied on certifications from the IBP, municipal officials, barangay leaders, police officers, and his parish priest attesting to his good moral character, integrity, and reformed ways.

• No opposition was tendered by complainant Florence Teves to the petition for extraordinary mercy.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the petition for extraordinary mercy should be treated as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration; and whether the endorsement by the Office of the Vice President permits the Court to re-evaluate the petition on its substantive merits.
• Substantive Issues: Whether respondent has satisfied the requirements for judicial clemency—specifically proof of remorse and reformation, sufficient time lapse, productive years ahead, promise for public service, and good moral character—warranting his reinstatement to the Roll of Attorneys.

• Procedural: The Court initially denied the petition as a second motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. However, upon endorsement by the Office of the Vice President on December 18, 2012, the Court proceeded to evaluate the substantive merits of the case.
• Substantive: The Court granted the petition for extraordinary mercy and ordered respondent's reinstatement. It found that respondent had sufficiently shown remorse and reformation through various certifications, employment history, community service, and settlement of marital issues; that eight years had lapsed since disbarment ensuring a period of reform; that at age 58 he still had productive years ahead; and that he possessed promise and potential for public service evidenced by his 14 years of prior government service and academic contributions. The Court held that he had atoned for his transgressions and satisfied the requirements of good moral character, balancing its duty to discipline errant officers with its duty to show compassion to those who have reformed.

• Guidelines for Judicial Clemency — Established in In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, these require: (1) proof of remorse and reformation; (2) sufficient time lapse from penalty imposition; (3) age showing productive years ahead; (4) showing of promise and potential for public service; and (5) other relevant factors. Applied here to justify reinstatement after the petitioner demonstrated compliance with all five guidelines.
• Good Moral Character Requirement for Reinstatement — Per In Re: Atty. Tranquilino Rovero, a lawyer seeking reinstatement must satisfy the Court of good moral character, similar to new bar candidates. The Court found respondent met this standard through certifications from the IBP, government officials, and community leaders.
• Duty of Compassion to Reformed Lawyers — As held in Bernardo v. Mejia, the Court's duty to discipline errant officers is balanced by a concomitant duty to show compassion to those who have reformed their ways, provided they meet the stringent requirements for reinstatement.

• "While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline and even remove its errant officers, concomitant to it is its duty to show compassion to those who have reformed their ways as in this case."
• "He is, however, reminded that such privilege is burdened with conditions whereby adherence to the rigid standards of intellect, moral uprightness, and strict compliance with the rules and the law are continuing requirements."

• In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz — Cited for the five-point guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency which served as the framework for evaluating the petition.
• In Re: Atty. Tranquilino Rovero — Cited for the principle that reinstatement to the practice of law requires the applicant to satisfy the Court of good moral character, similar to new bar candidates.
• Bernardo v. Mejia — Cited for the doctrine that the Court has a duty to show compassion to reformed lawyers, balancing its duty to discipline errant officers.

• Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Cited as the provisions violated by respondent's bigamous marriages constituting gross immoral conduct, which formed the basis of his original disbarment.