ANNALIZA C. CHAN v. ATTY. REBENE C.
CARRERA
A.C. NO. 10439, 3 September 2019, PER CURIAM
DOCTRINE OF THE CASE
Time and again, the Court has ruled that a married person's abandonment of his
or her spouse in order to live and cohabit with another constitutes immorality. The offense
may even be criminal—either as concubinage or as adultery. Immoral conduct, or
immorality, is that which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the
opinion of good and respectable members of the community.
FACTS
Chan alleged that she met Carrera sometime in July 2006 while she was a trainee
at Max's Restaurant. At that time, he was dining with a woman companion whom she
thought was Carrera's wife. She was surprised when Carrera later introduced himself as
a widower. After 2 weeks, Carrera returned and requested for Chan to be his server.
Chan, however, was not interested. Be that as it may, from then on, Carrera frequented
the restaurant and requested for Chan to assist him. He showed interest in pursuing her
and even visited her house to meet her parents. At one point, however, Chan told Carrera
that it was best he pursued somebody else as she was still married albeit separated. She
told him that her husband left her for another woman and that she was raising their
daughter alone. Carrera, however, did not seem to mind. He even represented that he
can annul her marriage for her and support her daughter. Eventually, Chan grew fond of
Carrera and they had a harmonious and lucrative relationship. Carrera even introduced
Chan as his fiancé and a new member of the board of trustees.
Around the time when Chan and Carrera moved to another house at Project 8,
Quezon City, Chan discovered that Carrera was not in fact a widower and that his wife
was still alive. Even though his wife was confined in an institution, he was still validly
married to her. Chan further discovered that Carrera also had a child with another woman.
Because of this, Chan wanted to leave Carrera. Unfortunately, she found out that she
was pregnant with his child. Nevertheless, while Chan decided to stay with Carrera, their
relationship was no longer harmonious. Throughout her pregnancy, Carrera often scolded
her and treated her badly. He accused her of stealing his credit card and withdrawing
from his account. In one instance, Carrera even denied being the father of the child she
was carrying. Aside from this, Chan often caught Carrera having illicit relationships with
other women. When confronted, he would usually make empty promises to change his
ways. Chan thought about the welfare of their child and felt that she had no choice but to
remain with Carrera.
Despite his infractions, Chan nonetheless helped Carrera during his time of need..
Because of her help, he was able to recover his losses, save his school from closing, and
was even able to purchase more properties. Still, Carrera refused to give up his
womanizing. This time, when Chan confronted Carrera about it, he got furious, asked her
to leave their home, to return the car he gave her, and forbade her from working as his
paralegal. He also consistently humiliated her such that when she would visit his office to
ask for financial support for their son, he would utter invective words first before giving
her money.
Carrera denied all of this. He insisted that his only "sin" was that he was so
sympathetic and charitable to Chan who was never satisfied with his generosity and with
whom he fell deeply in love with. But this had nothing to do with his qualifications as a
provider of the family and as lawyer. On the contrary, he was nothing but respectable
having been a member of the Academe for more than 20 years, a Director and Treasurer
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Pangasinan Chapter, and a member of the bar in
good standing since his admission in 1980. As such, he asked for compassion given that
his infraction did not amount to the kind of "grossly immoral conduct" he was accused of
engaging in.
ISSUE
Were the acts of Carrera sufficient to warrant disbarment?
RULING
YES. While Chan's contends that the English translation exaggerated the
allegations she raised in her Tagalog complaint, both parties never denied, and even
expressly admitted, that they freely engaged in an extra-marital affair. They cohabited
under one roof from September 2006 to August 2009, or practically for a period of three
(3) years, despite the fact that they were still legally married to their respective spouses.
They also produced a child who they named after Carrera. This fact, standing alone,
suffices to hold Carrera administratively liable for grossly immoral conduct. No amount of
exaggeration can change the attending circumstances of the instant case.
Time and again, the Court has ruled that a married person's abandonment of his
or her spouse in order to live and cohabit with another constitutes immorality. The offense
may even be criminal—either as concubinage or as adultery. Immoral conduct, or
immorality, is that which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the
opinion of good and respectable members of the community. As a basis of disciplinary
action, such immoral conduct, or immorality must be so corrupt as to virtually 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. That the illicit partner is himself or herself married compounds the immorality.
In this case, both Chan and Carrera acknowledged their undeniable love affair,
with the latter designating the same as a "chemistry of two consensual adults." At the
same time, both of them did not deny the reality that they were still legally married to
another. In a heartbeat, they left their respective homes and moved into a house that
Carrera had bought and where they willfully resided for a good three (3) years. It is in said
house that they played husband and wife to each other and father and mother to their
child. All of these facts, both parties do not contest. At most, their disagreement lies
merely in the alleged time when each found out about the fact that the other was still
legally married to his or her spouse. But the precise date and time one discovered the
other party's existing marriage cannot affect the outcome of the case for both parties
nonetheless openly and deliberately cohabited despite knowledge of their status,
separating only when their relationship had turned sour.
It is this clear and outright admission that is the basis for Carrera's disbarment. His
endless accomplishments listed in his curriculum vitae cannot render him innocent of the
charges against him. On the contrary, the Court wonders how despite all these
achievements in his professional career, Carrera allowed himself to falter in such a highly
scandalous manner. His level of knowledge and experience should have alerted him of
his duty to keep with the standards of morality imposed on every lawyer. To recall, he
even proposed to Chan his services in annulling her marriage. Hence, all of this could
have been avoided had he made an effort to make things right.
