By Atty. Rolex T. Suplico
Lawyers are humans, too, and sometimes they fall in love, for the wrong reasons. Today, I write about the story of Noli and Irene in the case of Guevarra vs. Eala (A. C. NO. 7136, August 1, 2007), decided by the Supreme Court en banc in a per curiam decision.
This case started with the engagement of Jose and Irene. In Jan.2000, she introduced Jose to Atty. Noli. She told him that Noli is married to Mary Anne and they have 3 children.
On Oct. 7, 2000, Jose and Irene were married. Thereafter, Jose noticed that she started receiving phone calls and messages from Noli some of which read, “I love you,” “I miss you,” or “Meet you at Megamall.” She also started going home late and sometimes, she did not go home at all. When asked, she replied that “she slept in her parents’ house” or “was busy at work.”
In Feb or Mar. 2001, Jose saw Irene with Noli on 2 occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted her. She abruptly left the conjugal house. On April 2001, he saw Noli arrived uninvited to her birthday. Embarrassed, angry, and humiliated, he left the party. She then went to the conjugal house, “hauled off all her personal belongings, pieces of furniture, and her share of the household appliances.”
Jose later found, “in the master’s bedroom, a folded social card bearing the words ‘I LOVE YOU’ on its face, which card when unfolded contained a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to Irene,” which, my dear Reader, I am reproducing in full:
“My everdearest Irene,
By the time you open this, you’ll be moments away from walking down the aisle. I will say a prayer for you that you may find meaning in what you’re about to do.
Sometimes I wonder why we ever met. Is it only for me to find fleeting happiness but experience eternal pain? Is it only for us to find a true love but then lose it again? Or is it because there’s a bigger plan for the two of us?
I hope that you have experienced true happiness with me. I have done everything humanly possible to love you. And today, as you make your vows…I make my own vow to YOU.
I will love you for the rest of my life. I loved you from the first time I laid eyes on you, to the time we spend together, up to the final moments of your single life. But more importantly, I will love you until the life in me is gone and until we are together again.
Do not worry about me! I will be happy for you. I have enough memories of us to last me a lifetime. Always remember though that in my heart, in my mind and in my soul, YOU WILL ALWAYS
…AND THE WONDERFUL THINGS YOU DO!
BE MINE…AND MINE ALONE, and I WILL ALWAYS BE YOURS AND YOURS ALONE!
I LOVE YOU FOREVER, I LOVE YOU FOR ALWAYS. AS LONG AS I’M LIVING MY TWEETIE YOU’LL BE!”
Eternally yours,
NOLI”
On Mar. 2002, Jose filed a complaint for disbarment before the Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Noli for “grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer’s oath.”
On Oct. 2004, the CBD “found the charge against respondent sufficiently proven.” However, on Jan. 2006, the IBP Board of Governor annulled and set aside the recommendation of the CBD.
Aggrieved, Jose filed a petition with the Supreme Court, which granted the same. It disbarred Noli “for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.”.
The Court noted that Noli “admitted having sent the I LOVE YOU card x x x.” Jose stated in his complaint that Noli and Irene “FLAUNTED THEIR ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP as they attended social functions together,” including an event reported with their picture in the Manila Standard issue of Sept. 24, 2001.
In his Answer, Noli denied this and said that “their relationship was low profile and known only to the immediate members of their respective families, and that Respondent, as far as the general public was concerned, was still known to be legally married to Mary Anne Tantoco (Par. 5, Answer),” and that the acts charged are “purely personal and low profile relationship with Irene is neither under scandalous circumstances nor tantamount to grossly immoral conduct…”
The Court quoted with approval the findings of the CBD, which stated that:
“While it may be true that the love letter dated October 7, 2000 (Exh. “C”) and the news item published in the Manila Standard (Exh. “D”), even taken together do not sufficiently prove that respondent is carrying on an adulterous relationship with complainant’s wife, there are other pieces of evidence on record which support the accusation x x x.”
The Court then held that:
“These statements of respondent in his Answer are an admission that there in indeed a ‘special’ relationship between him and complainant’s wife, Irene (which) taken together with the Certificate of Live Birth of Samantha Louise Irene Moje (Annex “H-1”) sufficiently prove that there was indeed an illicit relationship between respondent and Irene which resulted in the birth of the child ‘Samantha’. In the Certificate of Live Birth of Samantha it should be noted that complainant’s wife Irene supplied the information that respondent was the father of the child. Given the fact that the respondent admitted his special relationship with Irene there is no reason to believe that Irene would lie or make any misrepresentation regarding the paternity of the child. It should be underscored that respondent has not categorically denied that he is the father of Samantha Louise Irene Moje.”
The Court examined Noli’s Answer and held that his denials partook of a negative pregnant. “A negative pregnant,” the Court said, “is a denial with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. It was in effect an admission of the arguments it was directed at. x x x. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, it has been held that the qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted. ”
First, Noli “does not deny carrying on an adulterous relationship with Irene, ‘adultery’ being defined under Art. 333 of the Revised Penal Code x x x. What respondent denies is having flaunted such relationship, he maintaining that it was ‘low profile and known only to the immediate members of their respective families.’”
Second, he denied having “personal knowledge” of the Certificate of Live Birth of Samantha. But in the certificate,
“Irene named respondent – a ‘lawyer’,’– 38 years old – as the child’s father. And the phrase ‘NOT MARRIED’ is entered on the desired information on ‘DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE.’ A comparison of the signature attributed to Irene in the certificate with her signature on the Marriage Certificate shows that they were affixed by one and the same person. Notatu dignum is that, x x x, respondent never denied being the father of the child.”
In fact, the records custodian of the hospital declared “that Irene gave the information that the child’s father is (Noli), who was 38 years old and a lawyer.”
The Court concluded that without doubt, the adulterous relationship “has been sufficiently proven by more than clearly preponderant evidence x x x which is the quantum of evidence needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.”
There is an interesting twist in this case, my dear Reader. Noli informed the CBD that Jose’s petition for the nullity of his marriage to Irene has been granted by the Regional Trial Court and that the criminal complaint for adultery filed by Jose against Irene “based on the same set of facts alleged in the instant case,‘ which was pending review before the Department of Justice (DOJ), on petition of the complainant, had been, on motion of the complainant, withdrawn.”
The Court said that the grant of the petition for nullity of the marriage declaring the marriage between Jose and Irene “void ab initio is immaterial. The acts complained of took place before the marriage was declared null and void. x x x. In carrying on an extra-marital affair x x x prior to the judicial declaration that (the) marriage was null and void, and despite respondent himself being married, he showed disrespect for an institution held sacred by the law. And he betrayed his unfitness to be a lawyer.”
The Court also said that “(a)s for complainant’s withdrawal of his Petition for Review before the DOJ, respondent glaringly omitted to state that before complainant filed his December 23, 2003 Motion to Withdraw his Petition for Review, the DOJ had already promulgated a Resolution on September 22, 2003 reversing the dismissal by the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office of complainant’s complaint for adultery.”
The Court explained that:
“Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.”
Permit me, dear Reader, to repeat the phrase “a class of their own.” Amen.
