Villarente vs. Villarente, Jr.

A lawyer's continued cohabitation with a mistress and siring a child with her, after a prior suspension and stern warning for gross immorality, constitutes gross immorality warranting disbarment under Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; the penalty is aggravated where the lawyer is a retired judge.

Catherine V. Villarente and respondent Atty. Benigno C. Villarente, Jr. were married on December 30, 1975 at Pamplona, Leyte and had four children. Respondent is a lawyer and a retired judge. The Code of Professional Responsibility imposes on lawyers the duty to avoid immoral conduct and scandalous behavior. In an earlier disbarment case, A.C. No. 10017 (formerly CBD Case No. 05-1620), respondent had been penalized for gross immorality and warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.

On October 29, 2010, Catherine V. Villarente filed a complaint for Serious Misconduct as a Lawyer and as a Judge against her husband, respondent Atty. Benigno C. Villarente, Jr., a retired judge. She alleged that he delayed Civil Case No. PN-0306 for Nullity of Marriage, which respondent had filed in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Palompon, Leyte, and that he continuously cohabited with his concubine and their illegitimate child despite a previous disbarment case that warned him against continuing such relationship.

The prior disbarment case, docketed as CBD Case No. 05-1620 (also referred to as A.C. No. 10017), had been initiated by complainant through a complaint for gross immorality dated December 15, 2005. She alleged that respondent and complainant were married on December 30, 1975 at Pamplona, Leyte and had four children; that sometime in 2002, respondent started cohabiting with Maria Ellen Guarin; and that Guarin gave birth to a son, Benigno Junius Guarin, on December 25, 2002. On May 27, 2010, IBP Commissioner Dennis Siapno recommended disbarment for gross immorality. On November 19, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation with modification, finding respondent guilty of gross immorality and imposing indefinite suspension. On respondent's motion for reconsideration, the IBP Board, on March 22, 2013, modified the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for one year with a stern warning that should evidence surface that his alleged conduct be proven grossly immoral, the matter would be dealt with more severely. The Court's Second Division approved the recommendation on September 23, 2013; the Resolution was adopted and approved in a Resolution dated September 25, 2013.

On February 25, 2015, complainant wrote IBP Commissioner Victor D. Cruz stating that respondent, emboldened by the very light penalty in A.C. No. 10017, had flaunted his immorality by siring a second illegitimate child with his mistress with whom he had been openly cohabiting since 2002 at No. 28 Sitio NGA, Lahug, Cebu City. On November 25, 2015, the case was endorsed to Investigating Commissioner Dominica L. Dumangeng-Rosario, who submitted her Report and Recommendation on July 21, 2016.

Commissioner Dumangeng-Rosario found that the arguments centered on respondent's open and shameless cohabitation with his mistress-concubine and siring two illegitimate sons with her, the younger son having been born after the first disbarment case was filed. She noted that respondent did not deny siring the first child; the child's certificate of live birth identified "Benigno Jr. Clitar Villarente" as the father with occupation "Lawyer (Ret. RTC Judge)," the informant was Maria Ellen T. Guarin, and respondent signed a notarized Affidavit of Acknowledgment/Admission of Paternity. As to the second child, complainant had not submitted evidence, but the Commissioner noted that certificates of live birth and other civil registry records, save death certificate, can only be requested by a close kin of the record owner; the information was proposed by complainant for admission in her Mandatory Conference Brief and was admitted by respondent. A Certification was issued by the Barangay Captain of Lahug, Cebu City that "BENIGNO VILLARENTE[, JR.] and MARIA ELLEN T. GUARIN are residents of [No.] 28 Sitio NGA, Lahug, Cebu City." The Commissioner concluded that respondent failed to live up to the standards of the profession, lacked moral integrity, and continued his illicit liaison despite the caveat in the first disbarment case.

On June 17, 2017, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XXII-2017-1205 adopting the findings of fact of the investigating Commissioner and imposing the penalty of disbarment. On November 8, 2018, the IBP Board issued another Resolution denying respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and adopting the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to mete out disbarment.

• Serious Misconduct and Delay: Complainant alleged that respondent, her husband and a retired judge, delayed Civil Case No. PN-0306 for Nullity of Marriage filed by respondent in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Palompon, Leyte.
• Continued Cohabitation and Second Child: Complainant alleged that respondent continuously cohabited with his concubine and their illegitimate child despite a previous disbarment case warning him; in a February 25, 2015 letter to IBP Commissioner Victor D. Cruz, she stated that respondent, emboldened by the very light penalty in A.C. No. 10017, had sired a second illegitimate child with his mistress with whom he had openly cohabited since 2002 at No. 28 Sitio NGA, Lahug, Cebu City.
• Disbarment: Complainant sought respondent's disbarment for serious misconduct as a lawyer and as a judge.

• Disbarment for Gross Immorality: Whether respondent Atty. Benigno C. Villarente, Jr., a retired judge, should be disbarred for continued cohabitation with his mistress and siring another child despite prior suspension and warning.

• Disbarment for Gross Immorality: Yes. Respondent was disbarred for gross immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, his continued cohabitation with his mistress and siring a second child after prior suspension and stern warning constituting gross immorality.

• Disbarment for Gross Immorality: The Code of Professional Responsibility requires a lawyer not to engage in immoral conduct under Rule 1.01 and not to engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law or behave scandalously in public or private life under Rule 7.03. A lawyer, as an officer of the Court, must not only be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character, and is required not only to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping mistresses but also to avoid scandalizing the public. Respondent, a lawyer and retired judge, was previously suspended for one year with a stern warning that a repetition of grossly immoral conduct would be dealt with more severely. Notwithstanding that warning, complainant showed that he continued to cohabit with his mistress in Lahug, Cebu City and begot another child. Immorality is conduct so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community; grossly immoral conduct is so corrupt as to amount to a criminal act, so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or committed under scandalous or revolting circumstances shocking common decency. A married lawyer's abandonment of his spouse to live and cohabit with another constitutes gross immorality, and may even be criminal as concubinage or adultery. Respondent's offense was compounded by siring two children with his mistress, one born after the Court's warning. His continued illicit liaison despite prior sanction and warning showed a cavalier and arrogant attitude toward the Court, disregard of family obligations, morality, decency, the law, and the lawyer's oath, and a serious flaw in character. Because these acts put the legal profession in disrepute and placed the integrity of the administration of justice in peril, disbarment was warranted.

• Gross Immorality as a Ground for Disbarment — A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for gross misconduct even if it relates to his personal life, provided the misconduct evinces lack of moral character, honesty, probity, or good demeanor. Grossly immoral conduct is so corrupt that it amounts to 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 common sense of decency. The Court applied this to disbar respondent.
• Married Lawyer's Cohabitation with Another — A married lawyer's abandonment of his spouse in order to live and cohabit with another constitutes gross immorality; the offense may even be criminal, amounting to concubinage or adultery. The Court found respondent's continued cohabitation with Maria Ellen Guarin and siring two children with her to fall within this doctrine.
• Good Moral Character and Public Perception — Every lawyer, as an officer of the Court, must not only be in fact of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and lead a life in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. A lawyer must refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping mistresses and must avoid scandalizing the public. The Court relied on this to reject respondent's personal-life defense.
• Aggravating Effect of Prior Warning and Judicial Office — A prior suspension with a stern warning that repetition of grossly immoral conduct would be dealt with more severely aggravates a subsequent offense. Respondent's status as a retired judge further aggravated his infractions because a judge must avoid any appearance of impropriety, being the visible representation of law and justice. The Court considered both factors in imposing disbarment.
• Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Rule 1.01 prohibits a lawyer from engaging in immoral conduct, while Rule 7.03 prohibits conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law and scandalous behavior in public or private life. The Court found respondent's conduct violated both rules.

• "Immorality or immoral conduct is that which is so willful, flagrant or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community." — This passage supplies the Court's working definition of immorality, which it used to characterize respondent's continued cohabitation with his mistress.
• "Grossly immoral conduct is one that is so corrupt that it amounts to a criminal act. It is 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." — This is the Court's canonical formulation of grossly immoral conduct, the standard applied to justify disbarment.
• "Without a doubt, a married lawyer's abandonment of his spouse in order to live and cohabit with another, constitutes gross immorality." — This states the ratio decidendi: respondent's abandonment of complainant to cohabit with his mistress was itself gross immorality.
• "Any lawyer guilty of gross misconduct should be suspended or disbarred, even if the misconduct relates to his personal life, for as long as the misconduct evinces his lack of moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor." — This passage establishes that private-life misconduct may warrant disbarment when it reveals a defect in moral character.

• Advincula vs. Atty. Advincula, 787 Phil. 101, 112 (2016) — Cited to support the requirement that a lawyer must not only be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character, a requirement of greater import to the public than legal learning.
• Tapucar vs. Atty. Tapucar, 355 Phil. 66, 73 (1998) — Cited for the principle that a judge is the visible representation of the law and justice and must avoid even the slightest infraction, and that misbehavior over a long period puts the legal profession in disrepute.
• Hierro vs. Atty. Nava II, A.C. No. 9459, January 7, 2020 — Cited for the definition of immorality and for the rule that a lawyer guilty of gross misconduct may be suspended or disbarred even if the misconduct relates to his personal life.
• Panagsagan vs. Atty. Panagsagan, A.C. No. 7733, October 1, 2019 — Cited for the definition of grossly immoral conduct as corrupt, unprincipled, or committed under scandalous or revolting circumstances.
• Ceniza vs. Atty. Ceniza, Jr., A.C. No. 8335, April 10, 2019 — Cited for the proposition that a married lawyer's abandonment of his spouse to cohabit with another may even be criminal, amounting to concubinage or adultery.

• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in immoral conduct. The Court found respondent's continued cohabitation with his mistress and siring a second child violated this rule.
• Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. The Court applied this to respondent's open and scandalous cohabitation.

Peralta, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, Gesmundo, Reyes, J. Jr., Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur. Leonen, J., filed a dissenting opinion; Baltazar-Padilla, J., was on sick leave.