CRISANTA G. HOSOYA V ATTY. ALLAN C.

CONTADO
A.C. No. 10731. October 5, 2021.

Facts:

This administrative case arose from a Complaint for Disbarment filed by complainant Crisanta
charging respondent Atty. Contado with violations of the Lawyers' Oath and the CPR.

Crisanta claimed that she met Atty. Contado in 2003. She alleged that he immediately courted her and
represented that he was already separated-in-fact from his wife and that he was already working out the
dissolution of his marriage through a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage or through annulment.

Crisanta agreed with Atty. Contado's proposal to live together as husband and wife. During that time,
she 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.

Crisanta claimed that they were having financial problems, and that Atty. Contado left her alone in
settling the obligations. At this point, the parties had already terminated their relationship. Crisanta and her
children were constrained to move to another place.

Crisanta claimed that she and her children no longer received support from Atty. Contado. Thus, she
sent him a demand letter asking him to provide support. In the letter though, Crisanta stated that Atty. Contado
was providing support albeit not sufficient for their needs. She claimed that he did not respond to the demand
as of the time of the filing of the instant complaint.

Crisanta also claimed that Atty. Contado took her vehicle. She also sent him a demand letter asking for
its return, but to no avail.

Crisanta alleged in her Complaint that Atty. Contado's acts constituted continuous violations of several
laws: Republic Act No. (RA) 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act; RA No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004; and,
carnapping.

In response, Atty. Contado denied the allegations in the Complaint. He posited that Crisanta's
allegations were not supported by evidence and were meant to exact revenge for a relationship that had gone
sour.
On the allegation of non-support of his daughters, Atty. Contado insisted that he was not remiss in his
obligations to them; he in fact provided support within his means. In this connection, Atty. Contado attached
receipts and deposit slips to show that he is sending money and supplies to Crisanta. He asserted that the
amount she demanded was huge and beyond his financial capabilities.

Atty. Contado deflected the blame and pointed out that Crisanta is the one guilty of child abuse in
depriving their daughters of the right to see and be with him. He claimed that Crisanta did not inform him of
the whereabouts of their children.

On the allegations of having sexual relations with many other women, Atty. Contado pointed out that
Crisanta offered no evidence to support these claims.

On the subject vehicle, Atty. Contado admitted that it is still with him. He insisted, however, that there
is no carnapping as he did not take it through violence or intimidation. She offered it to be use during the
election campaign.

IBP REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The same was true with respect to the allegation of multiple sexual relations: this was also not
supported by evidence.

However, the CBD ruled that Atty. Contado is guilty of immorality. Atty. Contado had 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 Atty. Contado must 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.

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.

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 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.

Atty. Contado made similar statements in his Position Paper as filed with the IBP, with the following
specifically reiterating that he had a wife during the cohabitation: "Respondent has severed his relationship
with complainant. And respondent did not abandon his lawful wife."

These admissions strongly support and corroborate Crisanta's statements that they cohabited. Instead
of disputing Crisanta's allegations,
he affirmed them in giving these statements; he did not present any denial on these specifics. Atty. Contado's
statements, therefore, made it clear to the Court that he abandoned his legal wife and family to cohabit with
Crisanta that resulted in two children.

Applying Chan, Atty. Contado's admissions can serve as basis to find him guilty of violating the CPR for
committing grossly immoral acts.

Further, the fact that Atty. Contado has not yet returned the subject vehicle to Crisanta despite demand
bolsters this disciplinary case against him. Refusal to return property despite lawful 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.

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.

The Court, however, takes exception to IBP's recommendation of returning the subject vehicle to
Crisanta. The Court cannot order Atty. Contado to return the vehicle, as this is not the proper forum.

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS Atty. Allan C. Contado GUILTY of gross immorality in violation of Rule
1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is DISBARRED from the practice of law
effective upon receipt of this Decision. His name is ORDERED stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.

MRAA NOTES