Tere vs. Tere

7/23/2019 Tere vs. Tere

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tere-vs-tere 1/3

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. 2349 July 3, 1992

DOROTHY B. TERRE, complainant,vs.ATTY. JORDAN TERRE, respondent.

PER CURIAM:

In a sworn complaint filed with this Court on ! "ecember #$%#, complainant "oroth&B. 'erre char(ed respondent )ordan 'erre, a member of the Philippine Bar with*(rossl& immoral conduct,* consistin( of contractin( a second marria(e and livin( withanother woman other than complainant, while his prior marria(e with complainantremained subsistin(.

'he Court resolved to re+uire respondent to answer the complaint. 1 Respondentsuccessfull& evaded five - attempts to serve a cop& of the Court/sResolution and of the complaint b& movin( from one place to another, suchthat he could not be found nor reached in his alle(ed place of emplo&ment or residence. 2 0n ! April #$%-, that is after three 1 &ears and a half, with stillno answer from the respondent, the Court noted respondent/s success inevadin( service of the complaint and the Court/s Resolution and thereuponresolved to *suspend respondent Att&. )ordan 'erre from the practice of lawuntil after he appears and2or files his answer to the complaint a(ainst him* inthe instantcase. 3

0n % 3eptember #$%-, respondent finall& filed an Answer with a Motion to 3et Asideand2or 4ift 3uspension 0rder. In his Answer, Att&. 'erre averred that he hadcontracted marria(e with complainant "oroth& 'erre on #! )une #$55 upon her representation that she was sin(le6 that he subse+uentl& learned that "oroth& wasmarried to a certain Merlito A. Bercenilla sometime in #$7%6 that when he confronted"oroth& about her prior marria(e, "oroth& drove him out of their con8u(al residence6that "oroth& had moc9in(l& told him of her private meetin(s with Merlito A. Bercenillaand that the child she was then carr&in( i.e., )ason 'erre was the son of Bercenilla6that believin( in (ood faith that his marria(e to complainant was null and void abinitio, he contracted marria(e with :elina Malicdem at "asol, Pan(asinan. 4

In her Repl&, complainant "oroth& denied that )ason 'erre was the child of Merlito A.Bercenilla and insisted that )ason was the child of respondent )ordan 'erre, as

evidenced b& )ason/s Birth Certificate and ph&sical resemblance to respondent."oroth& further e;plained that while she had (iven birth to )ason 'erre at the PA<=:

re(istered as a dependent of Merlito Bercenilla, she had done so out of e;tremenecessit& and to avoid ris9 of death or in8ur& to the fetus which happened to be in adifficult breech position. Accordin( to "oroth&, she had then alread& been abandonedb& respondent )ordan 'erre, leavin( her penniless and without means to pa& for themedical and hospital bills arisin( b& reason of her pre(nanc&.

'he Court denied respondent/s Motion to 3et Aside or 4ift the 3uspension 0rder andinstead referred6 b& a Resolution dated 7 )anuar& #$%7, the complaint to the 0ffice of the 3olicitor =eneral for investi(ation, report and recommendation. 5

'hen 3olicitor Pio C. =uerrero was appointed investi(ator b& the 0ffice of the3olicitor =eneral. :e set the case for hearin( on 5 )ul& #$%7 with notice to bothparties. 0n 5 )ul& #$%7, complainant "oroth& appeared and presented her

evidence ex parte, since respondent did not so appear. 'he Investi(atin( 3olicitor scheduled and held another hearin( on #$ Au(ust #$%7, where he putclarificator& +uestions to the complainant6 respondent once a(ain did notappear despite notice to do so. Complainant finall& offered her evidence andrested her case. 'he 3olicitor set still another hearin( for 0ctober #$%7,notif&in( respondent to present his evidence with a warnin( that should hefail once more to appear, the case would be deemed submitted for resolution.

Respondent did not appear on 0ctober #$%7. 'he Investi(atin( 3olicitor accordin(l& considered respondent to have waived his ri(ht to presentevidence and declared the case submitted for resolution. 'he parties were(iven time to submit their respective memoranda. Complainant "oroth& didso on % "ecember #$%7. Respondent 'erre did not file his memorandum.

0n 7 <ebruar& #$$>, the 0ffice of the 3olicitor =eneral submitted its *Report andRecommendation* to this Court. 'he Report summari?ed the testimon& of thecomplainant in the followin( manner@

Complainant "oroth& 'erre too9 the witness stand and testifiedsubstantiall& as follows@ she and respondent met for the first t ime in

#$5$ as fourth &ear hi(h school classmates in Cadi? Cit& :i(h3chool tsn, )ul& 5, #$%7, p. $6 she was then married to MerlitoBercenilla, while respondent was sin(le id .6 respondent wasaware of her marital status ibid , p. #!6 it was then that respondentstarted courtin( her but nothin( happened of the courtship ibid , p.#>6 the& complainant and respondent moved to Manila were the&respectivel& pursued their education, respondent as a law studentat the 4&ceum niversit& tsn, )ul& 5, #$%7, p. #, #-D#76respondent continued courtin( her, this time with more persistenceibid , p. ##6 she decided nothin( would come of it since she wasmarried but he respondent e;plained to her that their marria(ewas void ab initiosince she and her first husband were first cousinsibid , p. #6 convinced b& his e;planation and havin( securedfavorable advice from her mother ande;DinDlaws, she a(reed to marr& him respondent ibid , #D#1, #76in their marria(e license, despite her complainant/s ob8ection, he



respondent wrote *sin(le* as her status e;plainin( that since her marria(e was void ab initio, there was no need to (o to court todeclare it as such ibid , #!D#-6 the& were married before )ud(ePriscilla Mi8ares of the Cit& Court of Manila on )une #!, #$55E;hibit A6 tsn, )ul& 5, #$%7, pp. #7D#56 )ason 'erre was born of their union on )une -, #$%# E;hibit B, tsn, )ul& 5, #$%7, p. #%6 allthrou(h their married state up to the time he respondentdisappeared in #$%#, complainant supported respondent, inaddition to the allowance the latter was (ettin( from his parents

ibid , pp. #$D>6 she was unaware of the reason for hisdisappearance until she found out later that respondent married acertain ilma sic Malicdem E;hibit C, tsn, )ul& 5, #$%7, pp. #D6 she then filed a case for abandonment of minor with the Cit&<iscal of Pasa& Cit& ibid , p. 1 which was subse+uentl& filedbefore Branch II of the Cit& Court of Pasa& Cit& as Criminal CaseNo. %#7#-$ E;hibit "6 tsn, )ul& 5, #$%7, p. !6 she li9ewise filed acase for bi(am& a(ainst respondent and :elina Malicdem with theoffice of the Provincial <iscal of Pan(asinan, where a primafaciecase was found to e;ist E;hibit E6 tsn, )ul& 5, pp. -D76additionall&, complainant filed an administrative case a(ainstrespondent with the Commission on Audit where he was emplo&ed,which case however was considered closed for bein( moot andacademic when respondent was considered automaticall&

separated from the service for havin( (one on absence withoutofficial leave E;hibit <6 tsn, )ul& 5, #$%7, pp. %D$. !

'here is no dispute over the fact that complainant "oroth& 'erre and respondent)ordan 'erre contracted marria(e on #! )ul& #$55 before )ud(e Priscilla Mi8ares.'here is further no dispute over the fact that on 1 Ma& #$%#, respondent )ordan 'erremarried :elina Malicdem in "asol, Pan(asinan. Fhen the second marria(e wasentered into, respondent/s prior marria(e with complainant was subsistin(, no 8udicialaction havin( been initiated or an& 8udicial declaration obtained as to the nullit& of such prior marria(e of respondent with complainant.

Respondent )ordan 'erre sou(ht to defend himself b& claimin( that he had believedin (ood faith that his prior marria(e with complainant "oroth& 'erre was null andvoid ab initio and that no action for a 8udicial declaration of nullit& was necessar&.

'he Court considers this claim on the part of respondent )ordan 'erre as a spuriousdefense. In the first place, respondent has not rebutted complainant/s evidence as tothe basic facts which underscores the bad faith of respondent 'erre. In the secondplace, that pretended defense is the same ar(ument b& which he had invei(ledcomplainant into believin( that her prior marria(e to Merlito A. Bercenilla bein(incestuous and void ab initio "oroth& and Merlito bein( alle(edl& first cousins to eachother, she was free to contract a second marria(e with the respondent. Respondent)ordan 'erre, bein( a law&er, 9new or should have 9nown that such an ar(ument rancounter to the prevailin( case law of this Court which holds that for purposes of

determinin( whether a person is le(all& free to contract a second marria(e, a 8udicialdeclaration that the first marria(e was null and void ab initio is essential. " Even if wewere to assume, arguendo merel&, that )ordan 'erre held that mista9en belief in (ood faith, the sameresult will follow. <or if we are to hold )ordan 'erre to his own ar(ument, his first marria(e tocomplainant "oroth& 'erre must be deemed valid, with the result that his second marria(e to :elinaMalicdem must be re(arded as bi(amous and criminal in character.

'hat the moral character of respondent )ordan 'erre was deepl& flawed is shown b&other circumstances. As noted, he convinced the complainant that her prior marria(eto Bercenilla was null and void ab initio, that she was still le(all& sin(le and free tomarr& him. Fhen complainant and respondent had contracted their marria(e,respondent went throu(h law school while bein( supported b& complainant, withsome assistance from respondent/s parents. After respondent had finished his lawcourse and (otten complainant pre(nant, respondent abandoned the complainant

without support and without the wherewithal for deliverin( his own child safel& in ahospital.

'hus, we a(ree with the 3olicitor =eneral that respondent )ordan 'erre, b& hisactions, *elo+uentl& displa&ed, not onl& his unfitness to remain as a member of theBar, but li9ewise his inade+uac& to uphold the purpose and responsibilit& of his(ender* because marria(e is a basic social institution. 9

In Pomperada v. Jochico, 1# the Court, in re8ectin( a petition to be allowed tota9e the oath as a member of the Bar and to si(n the Roll of Attorne&s, saidthrou(h Mme. )ustice MelencioD:errera@

It is evident that respondent fails to meet the standard of moralfitness for membership in the le(al profession. Fhether themarria(e was a 8o9e as respondent claims, or a tric9 pla&ed on her as claimed b& complainant, it does not spea9 well of respondent/smoral values. Respondent had made a moc9er& of marria(e, abasic social institution which public polic& cherishes and protectsArticle #7, Civil Code. 11

In Bolivar v. Simbol , 12 the Court found the respondent there (uilt& of *(rossl&immoral conduct* because he made a dupe of complainant, livin( on her bount& and allowin( her to spend for his schoolin( and other personalnecessities while dan(lin( before her the mira(e of a marria(e, marr&in(another (irl as soon as he had finished his studies, 9eepin( his marria(e a

secret while continuin( to demand mone& from complainant. . . . .* 'he Court



held such acts *indicative of a character not worth& of a member of theBar.* 13

Fe believe and so hold that the conduct of respondent )ordan 'erre in invei(lin(complainant "oroth& 'erre to contract a second marria(e with him6 in abandonin(complainant "oroth& 'erre after she had cared for him and supported him throu(h lawschool, leavin( her without means for the safe deliver& of his own child6 in contractin(a second marria(e with :elina Malicdem while his first marria(e with complainant"oroth& 'erre was subsistin(, constituted *(rossl& immoral conduct* under 3ection 5

of Rule #1% of the Rules of Court, affordin( more than sufficient basis for disbarmentof respondent )ordan 'erre. :e was unworth& of admission to the Bar in the firstplace. 'he Court will correct this error forthwith.

F:ERE<0RE, the Court Resolved to "I3BAR respondent )ordan 'erre and to3'RIGE 0' his name from the Roll of Attorne&s. A cop& of this decision shall bespread on the personal record of respondent )ordan 'erre in the Bar Confidant/s0ffice. A cop& of this resolution shall also be furnished to the Inte(rated Bar of thePhilippines and shall be circulari?ed to all the courts of the land.

30 0R"ERE".

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, eliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Gri!o"#$uino,%edialdea, &egalado, 'avide, Jr., &omero, Nocon and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

$oo%&o%'(

# Resolution, #7 )une #$$. &ollo, p. 7.

'hree 1 attempts were made b& re(istered mail@ the first two ,at respondent/s address at Abelardo 3treet, Cadi? Cit&, Ne(ros0ccidental, and the third, at respondent/s emplo&ment address atCommission on Audit, Cadi? Cit&. Another attempt was made atrespondent/s address at Bliss Pro8ect "a(a, Cadi( Cit&, throu(h theassistance of the P.C. Command at Bacolod Cit&6 and another at4umbunao Calino( 3u(ar Mill, Iloilo Court/s Resolution dated ! April #$%-, &ollo, p. !5.

1 Resolution, ! April #$%-. &ollo, p. -.

! &ollo, p. -1.

- (d ., p. 5>.

7 In his Answer with Motion to 3et Aside and2or 4ift 3uspension0rder, respondent )ordan 'erre stated his address as *c2o !th<loor, PAIC Buildin(, #>- Paseo de Ro;as, Ma9ati, Metro Manila.*Court papers sent to him at that address were, however, returnedunserved with the notation *not 9nown at (iven address* &ollo, p.

71. It thus appears that )ordan 'erre once more submer(ed toevade service of le(al papers on him.

5 &ollo, p. 51.

% =ome? v. 4ipana, 11 3CRA 7#- #$5>6 da. de Consue(ra v.=overnment 3ervice Insurance 3&stem, 15 3CRA 1#7 #$5#6Fie(el v. :on. Alicia 3empioD"i&, etc., et al, #!1 3CRA !$$ #$%7.'his rule has been cast into statutor& form b& Article !> of the<amil& Code E;ecutive 0rder No. >$, dated 7 )ul& #$%5.

$ Arro&o v. Court of Appeals, et al., =.R. Nos. $77> and $75#-, #$

November #$$#.

#> #11 3CRA 1>$ #$%!.

## #11 3CRA at 1#7. See also Cordova v. Cordova, #5$ 3CRA 7%>#$%$ and 4a(uitan v. 'inio, #5$ 3CRA %15 #$%$.

# #7 3CRA 71 #$77.

#1 #7 3CRA 71>.

'he 4awp

hil Pro8ect D Arellano 4aw <oundation

Documents

Tere vs. Tere