SALVACION E. MARCAYDA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUSTINIANO P. NAZ, RESPONDENT.

This is a revival of the immorality charge against respondent Justiniano P. Naz. Salvacion E. Marcayda in a
handwritten letter filed in this Court on April 19, 1977 asked that Naz’s
oath-taking as a member of the bar (after having flunked twice) be withheld
pend­ing negotiations for the support of his alleged child begotten with Salvacion.

Naz in his answer of April 27, 1977 denied the paternity of
the child. He alleged that the complaint was pure harassment and blackmail. He
said that Salvacion could have filed an
administrative complaint with the Department of Education and Culture since he
was employed in the Legaspi branch of that Office but
she never filed any such complaint.

Accompanying his answer was an affidavit wherein Naz requested that, because clearance could not be given
him to take the oath on April 29, 1977 due to Salvacion’s
complaint, he be allowed to take the oath but his signing of the Roll of
Attorneys be deferred pending resolution of Salvacion’s
complaint.

On the following day, April 28, 1977, Naz
and Salvacion, both 47, natives of Camalig, Albay, executed in Manila
a notarized agreement before lawyer Braulio R. G. Tansinsin wherein Naz admitted
that he had an affair with Salvacion in 1964 as a
result of which a boy named Rey E. Marcayda was born on January
8, 1965, (should be March
8, 1965, as shown in Exhibit 2). Naz
was a married man. Salvacion was married to Primo Marcayda who died of tuberculosis on July 5, 1965 (Exh.
1).

Naz in that agreement bound himself to
pay Salvacion for Rey’s
support (1) back support of P2,000 on or before
December 25, 1977 and another P2,000 on or before December 25, 1978 and (2)
P100 or its dollar equivalent in advance within the first five days of every
month, starting May, 1977 until Rey reached the age
of twenty-one.

Because of that public instrument admitting pater­nity and the
promise to support the adulterous child, Salvacion on
that same date, April 28, 1977, withdrew her
complaint filed in this Court to withhold the oath-taking of Naz on the ground of immorality.

The withdrawal document was also executed before Notary Tansinsin. It is document No. 628 of his nota­rial book while the document of acknowledgment and
support is No. 629.

The result of these last minute maneuvers was this Court’s
resolution of April 28, 1977
allowing Naz to take his oath by reason of Salvacion’s withdrawal of her complaint (SBC-582). He took
his oath on April 29, 1977.
But Naz did not live up to his promise to give
support.

In a verified complaint dated December 23, 1977 Salvacion
asked for the reopening of the administrative case. She alleged that she
withdrew the complaint so that Naz would have a
higher salary and would be in a better position to support Rey.
He is now an incumbent legal
officer of Region V of the Ministry of Education and Culture in Legaspi City,
with an annual salary of P17,724.

She testified that after Rey’s birth Naz gave her forty pesos a month for six months. After she
withdrew her complaint, Naz gave her one hundred
pesos for May, 1977. As already stated, he did not comply with his commitment
in the notarial agreement of support which was the
basis of the withdrawal of the immorality complaint against him.

Naz in his comment on the complaint and
in his testimony in the Solicitor General’s office declared that Rey was not his son. Rey’s 1965
birth certifi­cate shows that he was born in wedlock to Salvacion
and her husband, Primo (Exh. 2). He alleged that he
was “coerced” to sign the agreement of support. The complaint was
like “an Armalite trained on the head of the res­pondent”.

We hold that, as noted by the Solicitor General, Naz is not guilty of gross immorality. He should not be disbarred because he had
admitted the paternity of Rey in a public document
and agreed to support him. This circumstance rendered his immorality not so
gross and scandalous. (Arciga vs. Maniwang, Adm. Case No. 1608, August 14, 1981,
106 SCRA 591).

The agreement of support was basis of the withdrawal of the
1977 complaint against him. The eleventh-hour withdrawal paved the way for
his oath-taking. He cannot be allowed to repudiate that public document on the
ground of supposed coercion.

Respondent Naz’s stand of not giving
any value to that public document shows a certain unscrupulous­ness unbecoming
a member of a noble profession. It is tantamount to self-stultification. His
attitude is highly censurable. He wants to make a mockery of the proceedings in
this Court by making it appear that he lied brazenly about the filiation of Rey Marcayda just to facilitate his admission to the bar. In
his oath, he swore to do no falsehood.

The remedy of complainant Marcayda is a
civil action for support on the basis of the agreement of support which is irrevocably
binding on Naz. She could also file an
administrative complaint against him with the Ministry of Education and Culture
which could require him to give support to the child, Rey
(See sec. 36, Civil Service Decree, P. D. No. 807).

WHEREFORE, respondent Naz is
severely reprimanded for his attempt to nullify the notarial
agree­ment to support a child whose filiation he had
admitted. A copy of this resolution should be attached to his record in the Bar
Confidant’s office.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., (Chairman), he dissent. He should be disbarred for immorality
and his brazen repudiation of a notarial deed wherein
he committed adultery with a married woman even while he himself now is
married.

De Castro, J., on leave.