GARRIDO vs.

GARRIDO

Facts:

The petitioner, the respondent’s legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a supplemental affidavit for disbarment against the
respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana P.Valencia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on
Discipline, charging them with gross immorality, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The complaint arose after the petitioner caught wind through her daughter that her husband was having an
affair with a woman other than his wife and already had a child with her; and the same information was
confirmed when oner of her daughters saw that her husband walking in a Robinsons mall with the other respondent,
Atty. Valencia, with their child in
tow. After a much further investigation into the matter, the time and effort given yielded resultstelling her that Atty. Valencia and
her legal husband had been married in Hong Kong.Moreover, on June 1993, her husband left their conjugal home and joined
Atty. RamonaPaguida Valencia at their residence, and has since failed to render much needed financial support. In their
defense, they postulated that they were not lawyers as of yet when they committed the supposed immorality, so as
such, they were not guilty of a violation of Canon1, Rule 1.01.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Garrido’s and Valencia’s actions constitute a violation of Canon 1, Rule1.01 and thus a good enough cause
for their disbarment, despite the offense being supposedly committed when they were not lawyers.

Held:

Yes. Membership in the Bar is a privilege, and as a privilege bestowed by law through the Supreme Court,
membership in the Bar can be withdrawn where circumstances show the lawyer’s lack of the essential
qualifications required of lawyers, be they academic or moral. In the present case, the Court had resolved to withdraw this
privilege from Atty. Angel E.Garrido and Atty. Rowena P. Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation of Canon 1,Rule 1.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which commands that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Furthermore, The contention of respondent that they were not yet lawyers when they got
married shall not afford them exemption from sanctions; good moral character was already required as a
condition precedent to admission to the
Bar. As a lawyer, a person whom the community looked up to, Atty. Garrido and Valencia wereshouldered with the expectation
that they would set a good example in promoting obedience to the Constitution and the laws. When they violated the law and
distorted it to cater to his own personal needs and selfish motives, not only did their actions discredit the legal profession. Such
actions by themselves, without even including the fact of Garrido’s abandonment of paternal responsibility, to the detriment of his
children by the petitioner; or the fact that Valencia married Garrido despite knowing of his other marriages to two other women
including the petitioner, are clear indications of a lack of moral values not consistent with the proper conduct of practicing lawyers
within the country. As such, their disbarment is affirmed.