Gross Immorality of Lawyer (Bigamy)
LegalEthicsDigest - Manuel G. Villatuya Vs. Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos, AC 6622 (July 10, 2012)
Manuel G. Villatuya (complainant) filed this complaint for disbarment against Atty. Bede S.
Tabalingcos (respondent).
Facts:
In this Complaint for disbarment, complainant Villatuya charged Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos with:
Unlawful solicitation of cases by setting up two financial consultancy firms as fronts for
his legal services;
Non-payment of fees to complainant despite having promised to complainant (a financial
consultant), via a verbal agreement, that the latter would be entitled to ₱50,000 for every
Stay Order issued by the court in the cases they would handle, in addition to ten percent
(10%) of the fees paid by their clients; and
Gross immorality for marrying two other women while his first marriage was subsisting,
as supported by three different marriage contracts bearing the name of respondent and
three other women secured by the complainant.
In his defense, respondent asserted that complainant himself was unprofessional and
incompetent in performing his job and that there was no verbal agreement between them
regarding the sharing of professional fees paid by his clients. He presented documents showing
that the salary of complainant had been paid. Respondent also denied committing any unlawful
solicitation. Respondent did not specifically address the allegations regarding his alleged
bigamous marriages with two other women.
Issues:
1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by non-payment of
fees to complainant
2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation, and
3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married thrice
Ruling:
1. Under Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is proscribed by the Code
to divide or agree to divide the fees for legal services rendered with a person not licensed to
practice law. There was no violation of this provision in this case, for complainant failed to
proffer convincing evidence to prove the existence of that agreement.
2. The Court held that respondent indeed used the business entities such as Jesi & Jane
Management Inc. and Christmel Business Link, Inc., both owned by him, to solicit clients and
to advertise his legal services, purporting to be specialized in corporate rehabilitation cases.
Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which prohibits lawyers
from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit. A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in
business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises, though, when the business is of such
a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyer’s duties as a
member of the bar.
3. Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a
member of the bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect
and dignity.57 His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct and
are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Adjudication:
The Court resolved the following charges against Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos as follows:
The charge of dishonesty is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Respondent is REPRIMANDED for acts of illegal advertisement and solicitation.
Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos is DISBARRED for engaging in bigamy, a grossly immoral
conduct.
