Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., complainant versus Atty. Leo J. Palma, respondent.
Adm. Case No. 2474 September 15, 2004
Facts:
Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. filed with this Court the instant complaint for disbarment against Atty. Leo J. Palma, alleging as grounds deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, violation of his oath as a lawyer and grossly immoral conduct.
Complainant was a client of Angara Concepcion Regala and Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA) and respondent was the lawyer assigned to handle his cases. He hired respondent as his personal counsel. Consequently, respondent’s relationship with complainant became intimate. On June 22, without the knowledge of complainant’s family, respondent married Lisa, the complainant’s daughter in Hongkong. Complainant came to know that, a) on the date of the supposed marriage, respondent requested from his (complainant’s) office and airplane ticket to and from Australia, with stop-over in Hongkong; b) respondent misrepresented himself as bachelor in the Hongkong authorities to facilitate his marriage with Lisa; and c) respondent was married to Elizabeth Hermosisima and has three children. Complainant filed for the declaration of nullity of the marriage between respondent and Lisa. The complainant contented that with the moral ascendancy of the respondent over Maria Luisa and his misrepresentation that there was no legal impediment or prohibition to his contracting a second marriage, respondent succeeded in inducing and beguiling her into marrying him. Without complying with the requirements of the Philippine law that he should first obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Elizabeth H. Palma and that the “advice” of Maria Luisa’s parents should first be obtained she being only twenty-two (22) years of age, respondent succeeded in contracting marriage with her in Hongkong in June 22, 1992 by falsely representing himself before the Hongkong authorities that he is a “bachelor.”
The respondent contented that “….. and that it is contrary to the natural course of things for an immoral man to marry the woman he sincerely loves.”
Issue:
Whether or not the marriage of respondent to Ma. Luisa is void ab initio.
Held:
To this date, the records fail to disclose the outcome of this case.
Respondent admits that he married Luisa in Hongkong representing himself as a bachelor; however, he claimed that the marriage certificate stated a condition no different from the term “spinster” with respect to Luisa. There is no question that respondent as a lawyer well versed in the law knew fully well that in marrying Maria Luisa he was entering into a bigamous marriage defined and penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
The ringing truth in this case is that respondent married Lisa while he has a subsisting marriage with Elizabeth Hermosisima. The Certification from the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City shows that he married Elizabeth on December 19, 1971 at the Cardial’s Private Chapel, Cebu City. On the other hand, the Certificate of Marriage from the Deputy Registrar of Marriages in Hongkong proves respondent’s subsequent marriage with Lisa on July 9, 1982. That Elizabeth was alive at the time of respondent’s second marriage was confirmed. In particular, he made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality.
Respondent justified his conduct by professing he really loved Lisa and since he married her, he cannot be charged with immorality. His reasoning shows a distorted mind and a brazen regard on the sanctity of marriage. In such relationship, the man and woman are obliged to live together, observe mutual respect and fidelity. How could respondent perform these obligations to Lisa when he was previously married to Elizabeth? If he really loved her, then the noblest thing he could have done was to walk away.
Furthermore, (not stated in the case) under Article 35 paragraph 3 of the Family Code, “a marriage solemnized without a marriage license is void ab initio except those covered by the preceding chapter”. Though the marriage was solemnized in Hongkong, the intrinsic validity of the marriage is governed by the national law of the contracting parties. In the case at bar, since both of the parties are Filipino citizens, the validity of their marriage shall be governed by the Philippine law. Under the Philippine law, absence of the essential and formal requisites of marriage shall make the marriage void ab initio. Their marriage was contracted without the valid marriage license, thus, the marriage of respondent and Ma. Luisa is void ab initio.
