CRISANTA G. HOSOYAvs.
ATTY. ALLAN C. CONTADO
A.C. No. 10731, [October 5, 2021])
Per Curiam
Grossly Immoral Conduct : Illicit relations with another woman despite being married to another
Facts:
Crisanta met Atty. Contado in 2003 who immediately courted her but during that time, he was already
separated-in-fact from his wife. He claimed to be working out the dissolution of his marriage through a
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage or through annulment. So in 2010, they started to live
together as husband and wife. However, Crisanta discovered that Atty. Contado was also cohabiting with
and impregnated other women (apart from her). Despite knowledge of these, Crisanta admitted that she
continued living with him. Their cohabitation resulted in two children that were born in 2011 and 2013.
As they were having financial problems. Atty. Contado left her alone in settling the obligations. They
already separated and so they were constrained to move to another place.
She sent him demand letters for the insufficient support or failure to provide support to their children and
to demand return of her vehicle but to no avail. Respondent denied the allegations, insisted he was not
remiss of his obligations to his children as evidenced by receipts and deposit slips and it is Crisanta who
is guilty of child abuse in depriving their daughters of the right to see and be with him. There was also no
carnapping as he did not take it through violence or intimidation. Crisanta voluntarily brought the
subject vehicle to him for his use in the 2010 and 2013 election campaigns. On the allegations of having
sexual relations with many other women, Atty. Contado pointed out that Crisanta offered no evidence to
support these claims.
The CBD IBP ruled as follows:
Support and Multiple Sexual Relations Issue-- There is no sufficient evidence to fault Atty. Contado.
However, the CBD ruled that Atty. Contado is guilty of immorality for having a relationship and children
with Crisanta despite having a legal wife, which he admitted although he stated that they were already
separated-in-fact at that time. Further, the Committee stated that Atty. Contado's failure to return
Crisanta's vehicle constituted conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar; it was imperative for him to
find a way to return the subject vehicle to her.
Hence, it recommended that Atty. Contado be suspended from the practice of law for one year. It also
recommended that he be directed to return the subject vehicle to Crisanta. Further, respondent must be
censured for failure to return the subject vehicle, and be admonished to regularly give support to their
children.
The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) adopted the findings of fact and recommendation of the CBD.
However, it resolved to increase the penalty to disbarment.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondend should be disbarred.
Ruling:
Yes. The Court adopts the findings of fact by the IBP CBD as affirmed by the BOG, and agrees with the
imposition of the penalty of disbarment.
Pertinent provisions of the Law:
Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the CPR state:
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
For the imposition of the penalty of disbarment on the ground of immorality, the conduct
complained of must not only be immoral, but must be grossly immoral.
Panagsagan v. Panagsagan (Panagsagan) defines grossly immoral conduct as "one
that is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency."
In the instant case, Atty. Contado likewise admitted the fact of his relationship with Crisanta,
while being married to his wife. In so admitting, he effectively admitted to living a life of deceit and
immorality. He also admitted that their relationship resulted in two daughters. Applying case law of
Chan, Atty. Contado's admissions can serve as basis to find him guilty of violating the CPR for
committing grossly immoral acts.
Resultantly, and again based on Chan, the penalty of disbarment is proper. In other case law
such as Ceniza v. Ceniza, Panagsagan, and Villarente v. Villarente, the Court imposed the penalty
of disbarment on the erring lawyers in these cases for being guilty of committing grossly immoral
conduct in abandoning the legal spouse in order to cohabit with another woman.
It is well-settled that a married person's abandonment of his or her spouse to live with and cohabit
with another constitutes gross immorality as it amounts to either adultery or concubinage.
In Amalia R. Ceniza v. Atty. Ceniza, Jr., the Court enunciated that any lawyer guilty of gross misconduct should
be suspended or disbarred even if the misconduct relates to his or her personal life for as long as the misconduct evinces his
or her lack of moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. Every lawyer is expected to be honorable and reliable at
all times, for a person who cannot abide by the laws in his private life cannot be expected to do so in his professional
dealings.
Further, the fact that Atty. Contado has not yet returned the subject vehicle to Crisanta despite
lawfu demand is akin to deliberate failure to pay debt. Jurisprudence is clear that a lawyer's failure to
pay debts despite repeated demands constitutes dishonest and deceitful conduct — also a violation of
Rule 1.01 of the CPR. Prompt payment of financial obligations is one of the duties of a lawyer; this is in
accord with a lawyer's mandate to "faithfully perform at all times his duties to society, to the bar, to the
courts and to his clients."
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Atty. Contado guilty of violating the CPR: for his
abandonment of his legal wife and family in order to cohabit with another woman; and for failure to
return the subject vehicle despite demand. The Court therefore imposes the penalty of disbarment upon
respondent.
