[A.C. No. 3249.

August 9, 2004]

CORDOVA vs. CORDOVA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 9 2004.

A.C. No. 3249 (Salvacion Delizo-Cordova vs. Atty. Lawrence D. Cordova.)

In the Resolution of November 29, 1989, the Court indefinitely suspended Atty. Lawrence D.
Cordova from the practice of law after finding him guilty of immorality. The Court likewise resolved
to consider lifting the suspension upon submission by respondent of proof satisfactory to the
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), that he has and
continues to provide for the support of his legitimate family and that he has given up his immoral
course of conduct.

On January 15, 1992 and February 12, 1992, respondent and complainant, respectively, filed
separate petitions with this Court praying that the suspension of respondent be lifted. In his
petition, respondent explained that the allegations of maltreatment and failure to provide support
were products of complainant's imagination and were unsubstantiated. He alleged that his eldest
daughter, Lorraine Salve, who was living with him after complainant left their home in 1989, was
enrolled in school and was provided with material and emotional support. Respondent also
submitted the affidavit of desistance executed by complainant on December 27, 1991, attesting
that he has reformed, living in the conjugal home and provides love and paternal affection to his
family. On the other hand, complainant contended in her petition that she and respondent have
reconciled, and that respondent has given up his immoral conduct and is supporting his legitimate
family. Appended to her petition is the affidavit of respondent which was also executed
on December 27, 1991. In the Resolutions of February 13, 1992 and March 5, 1992, these
petitions were referred to the IBP for appropriate action and recommendation.

However, on March 17, 1992, complainant wrote separate letters to Chief Justice Andres R.
Narvasa and the IBP negating her earlier petition to lift respondent's suspension. Complainant
claimed that respondent still goes home to his live-in partner, Cita Magallanes; does not support
his family, and made it appear that he had changed his ways so she would sign an affidavit of
desistance.[1] In the months following, complainant sent two other letters of a similar tenor.[2] At
cralaw cralaw

about the same time, Lorraine Salve Cordova wrote the Court in support of her father's petition.[3] cralaw

On January 30, 1998, the CBD received a Manifestation/Motion from respondent reiterating his
plea that his suspension be lifted. Respondent stated:

4. That on December 15, 1994, then Chapter President, Atty. MAMERTO B. ALCISO, JR., in
compliance with the directive, submitted with the Supreme Court for its consideration Resolution
No. 6, Series of 1994 of the IBP Surigao del Sur Chapter recommending the Lifting of the
Suspension of the herein Respondent for having sufficiently proven to have regained the fitness to
be allowed to resume the practice of law as an officer of the Court by commendably supporting
and taking care of his children despite the absence, neglect and abandonment of his wife
(Complainant) who is now living with another man, not her husband in Cebu City....

5. That on February 18, 1995, the Honorable Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) passed Resolution No. XI- 95-293 ... resolving to adopt and direct the IBP
Surigao del Sur Chapter to report on the behavior and substantiation of Respondent's activities
pending his indefinite suspension ....

6. That upon receipt of the copy of the above-cited notice, Respondent wrote a letter under oath to
Atty. Antonia C. Buenaflor, President of the IBP Surigao del Sur Chapter categorically explaining
the details and story about Complainant's continued clandestine extra-marital affair painfully kept
secret by the herein Respodnent in the hope of saving the shuttered [sic] marriage....

7. In compliance with the directive of the Board of Governors of IBP, a report of the
Committee dated August 31, 1996 chaired by Atty. Teresita P. Donasco was submitted to the
Chapter President Recommending that Respondent's Suspension from the practice of law be NOW
LIFTED ...[4]cralaw
 In a Report dated April 5, 2000, CBD Commissioner Julio C. Elamparo recommended that the
suspension of respondent be lifted, noting that:

... complainant has always informed the Supreme Court as well as this office of any further acts of
immorality committed by respondent. The latest letter from the complainant was received in June
1992. Since then up to the present, complainant has been silent on her husband's conduct. The
silence could only be interpreted that respondent has made amends and has reformed.

It has been more than 10 years that respondent has suffered the effect of his suspension from the
practice of his legal profession. Such suspension has not only affected him but it has also an
adverse effect to [sic] his family particularly to [sic] his children.

This office is convinced that respondent has reformed as reported by his IBP Chapter.
Furthermore, more than ten years suspension from the practice of law appears to be sufficient
penalty for the acts complained of.[5]
cralaw

On May 29, 2000, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XIV-000-318,[6] adopting
cralaw

and approving the report and recommendation of Commissioner Elamparo, lifting the suspension
of respondent, copy of which was furnished this Court.

In view thereof, the Court directed complainant to comment thereon.[7] In a letter dated January
cralaw

18, 2002, complainant expressed disappointment over the move of the Surigao del Sur Chapter in
extending assistance to respondent. She contended that the Surigao del Sur Chapter is not in a
position to know that respondent has already reformed, and claimed that respondent is cohabiting
with his mistress, Isabelita Cinciro, with whom he has a seven-year old son. She also opined that
all the allegations in respondent's motion for early resolution were lies, and that in 1992,
respondent tried to reconcile with her so that his suspension would be lifted. Complainant thought
that respondent had turned in a new leaf but later discovered that this was not so. She also
recounted the hardships that she endured with respondent.

The Court referred this matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation, report and
recommendation. In its Report dated January 13, 2003, the OBC submitted that the Court is
neither bound by the findings of the IBP nor obliged to accept the same as a matter of course. It
also considered the protestation of respondent that the length of his suspension is more than
sufficient punishment and his insistence that he has fully reformed are not fully meritorious since
respondent has not submitted proof satisfactory to the Court that he has met the standards
imposed in the Resolution of November 29, 1989.

On January 27, 2003, upon the recommendation of the OBC, the Court required respondent to
comment on the letter dated January 18, 2002 of complainant and to submit satisfactory proof
that he has continuously provided for the support of his family and that he has given up his
immoral conduct. Respondent received a copy of said resolution on March 21, 2003 but failed to
comply therewith. In the Resolution of October 8, 2003, respondent was required to show cause
why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for his non-compliance, a copy of which was received
by respondent on November 12, 2003.

Considering that up to this late date, respondent has neither commented on the letter dated
January 18, 2002 of complainant by way of opposition to his motion to lift suspension nor
submitted satisfactory proof that he has continuously provided for the support of his legitimate
family and given up his immoral conduct, the Court Resolves to DENY the motion of respondent
that his indefinite suspension from the practice of law be lifted.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court