Macarrubo vs Macarrubo

A.C. No. 6148

February 27, 2004

Facts

For resolution is the Petition (For Extraordinary Mercy) filed by respondent Edmundo L.
Macarubbo (respondent) who seeks to be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys.

Records show that in the Decision dated February 27, 2004, the Court disbarred
respondent from the practice of law for having contracted a bigamous marriage with
complainant Florence Teves and a third marriage with one Josephine Constantino while
his first marriage to Helen Esparza was still subsisting, which acts constituted gross
immoral conduct in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7.  Rule 7.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. 

Canon 1 Rule 1.01 “ A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest or deceitful
conduct”

Canon 7 Rule 7.03 “ A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall be, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to discredit of the legal profession.

In 2004, respondent Edmundo L. Macarubbo was found guilty of gross immorality and
was DISBARRED from the practice of law. He is likewise ORDERED to show
satisfactory evidence to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline and to this Court that he
is supporting or has made provisions for the regular support of his two children by
complainant. The respondent’s name was also stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.

He filed for a motion for reconsideration in 2004 but was denied. In 2012, the
respondent filed the instant Petition (For Extraordinary Mercy) 5 seeking judicial
clemency and reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys. 

Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency, to
wit:

1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but
should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s)
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and
prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A
subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar
misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.

2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a
period of reform.
 3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has
productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a
chance to redeem himself.

4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or

legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the
legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for
public service.

5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify
clemency.9 (Citations omitted)

Moreover, to be reinstated to the practice of law, the applicant must, like any other
candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral
character.10

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not the petitioner should be granted judicial clemency and be reinstated to
the roll of attorneys

RULING:

Petition granted. Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered to be reinstated to the
roll of attorneys

Respondent has sufficiently shown his remorse and acknowledged his indiscretion in
the legal profession and in his personal life. He has asked forgiveness from his children
by complainant Teves and maintained a cordial relationship with them as shown by the
herein attached pictures. Records also show that after his disbarment, respondent
returned to his hometown in Enrile, Cagayan and devoted his time tending an orchard
and taking care of his ailing mother until her death in 2008. In 2009, he was appointed
as Private Secretary to the Mayor of Enrile, Cagayan and thereafter, assumed the
position of Local Assessment Operations Officer II/ Office-In-Charge in the Assessor’s
Office, which office he continues to serve to date. Moreover, he is a part-time instructor
at the University of Cagayan Valley and F.L. Vargas College during the School Year
2011-2012. Respondent likewise took an active part in socio-civic activities by helping
his neighbors and friends who are in dire need.
Bautista Vs Gonzales
ADM Case no 1625 Feb 12 1990

FACTS

On July 15, 1976, complainant submitted an amended complaint for disbarment,

alleging that respondent committed the following acts: 

1. Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients, namely, Alfaro Fortunado,
Nestor Fortunado and Editha Fortunado [hereinafter referred to as the Fortunados] to
pay all expenses, including court fees, for a contingent fee of fifty percent (50%) of the
value of the property in litigation.

2. Acting as counsel for the Fortunados in Civil Case No. Q-15143, wherein Eusebio
Lopez, Jr. is one of the defendants and, without said case being terminated, acting as
counsel for Eusebio Lopez, Jr. in Civil Case No. Q-15490; 

3. Transferring to himself one-half of the properties of the Fortunados, which properties

are the subject of the litigation in Civil Case No. Q-15143, while the case was still
pending; 

4. Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a contract with him on
August 30, 1971 for the development into a residential subdivision of the land involved
in Civil Case No. Q-15143, covered by TCT No. T-1929, claiming that he acquired fifty
percent (50%) interest thereof as attorney's fees from the Fortunados, while knowing
fully well that the said property was already sold at a public auction on June 30, 1971,
by the Provincial Sheriff of Lanao del Norte and registered with the Register of Deeds of
Iligan City; 

5. Submitting to the Court of First Instance of Quezon City falsified documents

purporting to be true copies of "Addendum to the Land Development Agreement dated
August 30, 1971" and submitting the same document to the Fiscal's Office of Quezon
City, in connection with the complaint for estafa filed by respondent against complainant
designated as I.S. No. 7512936; 

6. Committing acts of treachery and disloyalty to complainant who was his client; 

7. Harassing the complainant by filing several complaints without legal basis before the
Court of First Instance and the Fiscal's Office of Quezon City; 

8. Deliberately misleading the Court of First Instance and the Fiscal's Office by making
false assertion of facts in his pleadings; 
9. Filing petitions "cleverly prepared (so) that while he does not intentionally tell a he, he
does not tell the truth either."

Respondent filed an answer on September 29, 1976 and an amended answer on

November 18, 1976, denying the accusations against him. Complainant filed a reply to
respondent's answer on December 29, 1976 and on March 24, 1977 respondent filed a
rejoinder.

ISSUE/S

Whether or not respondent committed the acts of misconduct alleged by complainant

Bautista

RULING

WHEREFORE, finding that respondent Attorney Ramon A. Gonzales committed serious

misconduct, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law for
SIX (6) months effective from the date of his receipt of this Resolution. Let copies of this
Resolution be circulated to all courts of the country for their information and guidance,
and spread in the personal record of Atty. Gonzales.