"First, Atty. Teneza contracted a second marriage while the first one was still subsisting. Notably, Atty. Teneza did not dispute the existence, due execution and authenticity of the Marriage Contracts28 issued by the National Statistics Office (NSO). He merely asserts that these are "illegally fished evidence" obtained through unlawful means,29 and that it was not proven that he was the same person who contracted the two marriages.30 We are not persuaded. A marriage contract, being a public document, enjoys the presumption of regularity in its execution and is conclusive as to the fact of marriage.31 Thus, the marriage contracts bearing Atty. Teneza's name are competent and convincing evidence to prove that he contracted two marriages.32 Moreover, in his counter-affidavit33 in the charge for bigamy, Atty. Teneza admitted entering into a second marriage. This admission more than proves his identity as husband in both marriages and the existence of the two marriages.
Atty. Teneza claims good faith because he had not heard from his first wife since 1983. This argument is futile and pathetic. We note that Atty. Teneza was already a lawyer when he contracted the second marriage in 1993, having been admitted to the bar on March 31, 1976.34 As such, he cannot feign ignorance of the law that before a second marriage may be validly contracted, the first and subsisting marriage must first be annulled by the appropriate court.35 We have consistently held that he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy,36 which renders him unfit to continue as member of the bar.37
Moreover, it is of no moment that the bigamy charge against him was dismissed, albeit provisional. In In re Almacen,38 we held that a disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal; it is an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. Thus, the acquittal of a lawyer or the dismissal of the case in a criminal action is not determinative of an administrative case against him. As long as the quantum of proof in disciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar is met, as in this case, liability attaches.39
Second, Atty. Teneza was complicit to two bigamous marriages. Atty. Teneza knew that Rogelio had a subsisting marriage when he contracted the second marriage with Mary Grace. The complaint for ejectment wherein Atty. Teneza was the counsel states that "[Rogelio] is ... married but separated in fact from his wife."40 This was filed in 2005. Thus, when he attended the marriage of Rogelio and Mary Grace in 2006, Atty. Teneza was fully aware that Rogelio is engaging in an unlawful act. However, he did not do anything to stop Rogelio. This is a violation of his sworn duty not to support activities aimed at defiance of the law.41
More, Atty. Teneza admitted that he was a witness in the two marriages of Francisco.42 He posits, however, that he should be lauded because he attended the two weddings so that he can testify against Francisco in case "something goes wrong in any of these marriages." This excuse is lame and does not merit credence. The fact remains that he did not do anything to prevent others from transgressing the law. He consented to the unlawful act.
We are not unmindful of the rule that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and only the most imperative of reasons or in cases of clear misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar.43 Thus, when a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, could accomplish the end desired, disbarment should never be decreed.44
Here, the totality of the foregoing circumstances showed Atty. Teneza's utter disregard of the laws and highly immoral conduct that is so gross and so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. Atty. Teneza not only entered into a second marriage knowing fully well that his first marriage is valid and subsisting, he likewise supported and allowed another to contract a bigamous marriage. Notably, he did not show remorse or sincere repentance for committing these acts. He even seeks to be admired and complimented for "braving" to be a witness in the marriages of Francisco. Indeed, Atty. Teneza's wanton disregard of the sanctity of marriage and his own vows of fidelity, not to mention his gross ignorance of the law demonstrate that he is morally and legally unfit to remain in the legal profession. He deserves the extreme penalty of disbarment."
EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 11104, June 09, 2020 ]
ROGELIO PASAMONTE, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LIBERATO TENEZA, RESPONDENT.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/jun2020/ac_11104_2020.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
