OCA CIRCULAR NO. 30-2005, April 05, 2005

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted hereunder
is the Decision of the Supreme Court En Banc dated October 19, 2004 in
Administrative Case No. 5151 entitled “Pedro G. Tolenlino vs. Atty.
Norberto M. Mendoza”. to wit:

. “‘Before us is a complaint filed by Pedro G. Tolenlino. Romeo
M. Faygo. Solomon M. Lumalang. Sr., Meliton D. Evangclista. Sr., and
Nelson B. Melgar against Ally. Norberto M. Mcndoza for Grossly Immoral
Conduct and Gross Misconduct.

Complainants allege in their Affidavit-Complaint that
respondent, a former Municipal Trial Court Judge, abandoned his legal
wife, Felicitas V. Valderia in favor of his paramour, Marilyn dela
Fuente, who is. in turn, married to one Ramon G. Marcos: respondent and
Marilyn dela Fuente have been cohabiting openly and publicly as husband
and wife in Brgy. Fslrella. Naujan Oriental Mindoro respondent had
fathered two children by this paramour Marilyn dela Fuente; respondent
and Marilyn dela Fuente declared in the birth certificates of their two
daughters that they were married on May 12. 1986, making it appear that
their two children arc legitimate, while in respondent’s Certificate of
Candidacy Hied with the COMELEC during the 1995 elections, respondent
declared that his wife is Felicitas V. Valderia: in respondent’s
certificate of candidacy for 1998 elections, declared his civil status
as separated; such declarations in the birth certificates of his
children and his certificate of candidacy are acts constituting falsification of public documents: and respondent’s acts betray his lack of good moral character and constitute grounds for his removal as a member of the bar.

Respondent filed his Comment wherein he states that
complainants, who are his political opponents in Naujan. Oriental
Mindoro . are merely filing this case to exact revenge on him for his
filing of criminal charges against them; complainants illegally produced
copies of the birth certificates of Mara Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza
and Myrra Khrisna Normina dela Fuenle Mendoza. in violation of Rule 24.
Administrative Order No. 1. series of 1993. thus such documents are
inadmissible in evidence; respondent did not participate in the
preparation and submission with the local civil registry  of
subject birth certificates: respondent never declared that he had two
wives, as he has always declared that he is separated in fact from his
wife. Pelicitas V. Valderia; and complainants have this issue against
him during elections and yet. the people of Naujan. Oriental Mindoro
still elected him Mayor. Hence. Respondent has not offended the public’s
sense of morality.

The administrative case was referred to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (hereinafter IBP) for investigation, report and ,
recommendation. Thereafter, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP
conducted hearings.

Witnesses for complainants. Nelson B. Melgar and Romeo M. Laygo.
submitted their affidavit as direct testimony and were subjected to
cross-examination by respondent’s counsel.

Witness for complainants. Nelson B. Melgar declares in his
affulav.il as follows: He knows respondent for they reside in Naujan.
Oriental Mindoro . Respondent is known as practicing lawyer and former
Municipal Trial Court Judge. Respondent has been cohabiting openly and
publicly with Marilyn dela Fuente. representing themselves to be husband
and wife, and from their cohabiting, they produced two children namely.
Mara Khrisna Charmina dela fuente Mendoza and Myrra Khrisna Normina
dela fuente Mendoza. Sometime in 1995. he (witness Melgar) received a
letter from a concerned citizen, informing him that respondent was
married to felicitas Valderia of San Rafael. Bulacan. On January 16,
1980. bui respondent abandoned his wife to cohabit with Marilyn dela
fuente. Attached to the letter was a photocopy of a Certification issued
by the Civil Register attesting to the marriage between respondent and
Felicitas Valderia. He also received information from concerned citizen
that Marilyn dela Fuenle is also legally married to one Ramon G. Marcos,
as evidenced by a Certification from the Office of the Civil Register.
Respondent slated in his Certificate of Candidacy filed with the COMELEC
in 1998 that he is still legally married to Felicitas Valderia. In
respondent’s Certificate of Candidacy Hied with the COMELEC in 1998. he
declared his civil status as separated. Respondent has represented to
all that he is married to Marylin dela Fuente, in the Naujannews. a
local newspaper where respondent holds the position of Chairman of the
Board of the Edilorial Staff, respondent was reported by said newspaper
as husband lo Marylin dela Fuente and the father of Mara Khrisna and
Myrra Khrisna Normina.

On cross-examination, witness Melgar testified as follows: He
was the former mayor of Naudjan and he and respondent belong to warring
political parties. It was not respondent who told him about the alleged
immoral conduct subject of the present case. Although he received the
letter of a concerned citizen regarding the immoral conduct of
respondent as far back as 1995. he did not immediately file a case for
disbarment against respondent. It was only alter respondent filed a
criminal ease for falsification against him that he decided to file as
administrative case against respondent.^[1]

On re-direct examination, witness Melgar testified that there
were people who were against the open relationship between respondent
and Marilyn dela Fuente as respondent had publicly introducing the
latter as his wife despite the fact that they are both still legally
married to other persons, and so someone unknown lo him just handed to
their maid copies of the birth certificate of Mara Khrisna Charmina and
Myrra Khrisna Normina.^[2]

The affidavit of Mr. Romeo M. Laygo. which was adopted as his
direct testimony, is practically identical lo that of witness Melgar. On
cross-examination, witness Laygo testified thai he was not the one who
procured the certified true copies of the birth certificates of
Mara Khrisna Charmina dela fuente Mendoza and Myrra Khrisna Normina
dela Fuenle Mendoza. as somehody just gave said documents to Nelson
Melgar. He was municipal councilor in 1995 when the letter of concerned
citizen regarding respondent’s immorality was sent to Melgar. but he did
not take any action against respondent at the time.^[3]

Complainants then formally offered documentary evidence
consisting of photocopies which were admitted by respondent’s counsel lo
be faithful reproduction of the originals of certifies true copies
thereof, lo wit: a letter of one Luis Bermudez. informing Nelson Melgar
of respondent’s immoral acts^[4]
the Certification of the local Civil Registrar of San Rafael. Bulacan.
attesting to the celebration of the marriage between respondent and one
Fclicilas Valderia.^[5] the Birth Certificate of Mara Khrisna Charmina dela fuente Mendoza.^[6] the Birth Certificate of Myrra Khrisna Normina dela Fuente Mendoza.^[7] the Certificate of Candidacy of respondent dated March 9. 1995,^[8] the Certificate of Candidacy of respondent dated March 25. 1998.^[9]
Certification issued bv the Civil Registrar of Naujan. Oriental Mindoro
dated October 27. 1998. attesting lo the marriage celebrated between
Marilyn dela Fuenle and Ramon Marcos.^[10] and ihe editorial page of the Nuujannews (February-March 1999 issue).^[11] wherein it was stated that respondent has two daughters with his wife. Marilyn dela Fuente.

Respondent, on the other hand, opted not to present any evidence
and merely submitted a memorandum expounding on his argument that the
testimonies of complainant’s witnesses are mere hearsay, thus, said
testimonies and their documentary evidence have no probative weight.

On February 27. 2004. the Board of Governors of the IBP passed Resolution No. XV1-2004-1 23. reading as follows:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVED, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
APPROVED the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as
Annex “A”; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the
evidence on record and applicable laws and rules, and considering
respondent’s violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, Atty. Norberto M. Mendoza is hereby SUSPENDED
INDEFINITELY from the practice of law until he submits satisfactory
proof that he is no longer cohabiting with a woman who is not his wife
and has abandoned such immoral course of conduct.

Portion of the report and recommendation of the IBP Commission on
Bar Discipline, upon which the above-quoted Resolution was based, read
as follows:

FINDINGS:

The evidence of complainants to support their charge of
immorality consists in a) the testimonies of Nelson Melgar and Romeo
Laygo given by way of affidavits executed under oath and affirmed before
the Commission and b) their documentary evidence consisting of their
Exhibits “A” to “H”.

Respondent filed his comment through counsel and did not
formally present or offer any evidence. Respondent opted not to present
his evidence anymore because according to him “there is none to rebut
vis-a-vis the evidence presented by the private complainants.”
Respondent instead submitted a memorandum through counsel to argue his
position. As can be seen from the comment and memorandum submitted,
respondent’s counsel argues that complaint is politically motivated
since complainants are political rivals of respondent and that the birth
certificates Exhibits “D-1” which were offered to show that respondent
sired the children namely Mara Khrisna Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza and
Myrra Khrisna Normina dela Fuente Mendoza out of his cohabiting with
Marilyn dela Fuente are inadmissible because they were allegedly secured
in violation of Administrative Order No. 1 Series of 1993. The rest of
the Exhibits are either hearsay or self-serving according to respondent.

The witnesses who are also two of the complainants herein, on
the other hand, categorically state in their affidavits [Exhibits “A”
and “B”] particularly in paragraph 2 that “Respondent has been
cohabiting openly and publicly with Marilyn dela Fuente, representing
themselves to be husband and wife.” In paragraph 10 of said affidavits
the witnesses also categorically state that “respondent has even
represented to all and sundry that Marilyn dela Fuente is his wife.”
These categorical statement made under oath by complainants are not
hearsay and remain un-rebutted. Respondent chose not to rebut them.

Exhibit “E,” the Certificate of Candidacy executed by
respondent shoes that respondent is married to one, Feiicitas V.
Valderia. As shown by Exhibit “H”, a marriage certificate, Marilyn dela
Fuente is married to one, Ramon G. Marcos. Duly certified true copies of
said exhibits have been represented by complainants.

With respect to Exhibit “D” and “D-1”, we believe that they
are competent and relevant evidence and admissible in this proceedings.
The exclusionary rule which bars admission of illegally obtained
evidence applies more appropriately to evidence obtained as a result of
illegal searches and seizures. The instant case cannot be analogous to
an illegal search and seizure. A person who violates Rule 24 of
Administrative Order No. 1 Series of ‘1993 as cited by respondent risks
the penalty of imprisonment or payment of a fine but it does not make
the document so issued inadmissible as evidence specially in proceedings
like the present case. Exhibit “D” and “D-1” which are duly certified
birth certificates are therefore competent evidence to show paternity of
said children by respondent in the absence of any evidence to contrary.

By and large the evidence of complainants consisting of the
testimonies of witnesses Nelson Melgar and Romeo Laygo, and corroborated
by documentary exhibits will show that indeed respondent has been
cohabiting publicly with a certain Marilyn dela Fuente who is not his
wife and that out of said cohabitation respondent sired two children.
These facts we repeat have not been denied by respondent under oath
since he chose to just argue on the basis of the improper motivations
and the inadmissibility, hearsay and self-serving nature of the
documents presented. Complainants have presented evidence sufficient
enough to convince us that indeed respondent has been cohabiting
publicly with a person who is not his wife. The evidence taken together
will support the fact respondent is not of good moral character. The
respondent chose not to deny under oath the grave and serious allegation
made against him is to our mind his undoing and his silence has not
helped his position before the Commission. As between the document and
positive statement of complaints, made under oath and the arguments and
comments of respondent submitted through his lawyer, which
were not verified under oath by respondent himself, we are inclined and
so give weight to the evidence of complainants. The direct and
forthright testimonies and statement of Nelson Melgar and Romeo Laygo
that respondent was openly cohabiting with Marilyn deia Fuente is not
hearsay. The witnesses may have admitted that respondent Mendoza did not
tell them a certain Marilyn dela Fuente was his paramour (for why would
respondent admit that to complainants) but the witnesses did state
clearly in their affidavit under oath that respondent was cohabiting
with Marilyn dela Fuente who is not his wife. Again their categorical
statement taken together with the other documents, are enough to
convince us and conclude that respondent id not of good moral character.

Members of the Bar have been repeatedly reminded that
possession of good moral character is a continuing condition for
membership in the Bar in good standing. The continued possession of good
moral character is a requisite condition for remaining in the practice
of law [Mortel vs. Aspiras 100 Phil. 586 (1956); Cordova vs. Cordova 179 SCRA 680 (1989); People vs. Tuanda
181 SCRA 682 (1990)]. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of
a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages
the generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct for
instance, which makes “mockery of the inviolable social institution of
marriage” [Mijares vs. Villaluz 274 SCRA 1 (1997)].

In the instant case respondent has disregarded and made a
mockery of the fundamental institution of marriage. Respondent in fact
even so stated Exhibit “F” that he is separated from his wife. This fact
and statement without any further explanation from respondent only
contributes to the blot in his moral character which good moral
character We repeat is a continuing condition for a member to remain in
good standing. Under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. Respondent has violated this rule against
engaging in immoral conduct.

We agree, as cited by the respondent, with pronouncement made
in Santos vs. Dischoso, 84 SCRA 622 (1978) that courts should not be
used by private persons particularly disgruntled opponents to vent their
rancor on member of the Bar through unjust and unfounded accusations.
However, in the instant case the charges can hardly be considered as
unfounded or unjust based on the evidence presented. The evidence
presented shows that respondent no longer possess (sic) that good moral
character necessary as a condition for him to remain a member of the Bar
in good standing. He is therefore not entitled to continue to engage in
the practice of law.

We find such report and recommendation of the IBP to be fully
supported by pleading and evidence on record, hence approve and adopt
the same.

The evidence presented by complainants reach that quantum ol
evidence required in administrative proceedings which is only
substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence that
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conviction.^[12]

Witness Melgar’s testimony that respondent had been publicly
introducing Marilyn dela Fuente as his wife is corroborated by contents
ol an article in the Naujanews. introducing respondent as one
of Naujan’s public servants, and stating therein that respondent has
been blessed with two beautiful children wilh his wife. Marilyn dela
Fuente.^[13] It should be noted
that said publication is under the control of respondent, he being the
Chairman of the Board thereof, finis, it could be reasonably concluded
that if he contested the truth of the contents of subject article in the
Naujanews. or if he did not wish to publicly present Marilyn
dela Fuenle as his wife, he could have easily ordered that the damning
portion of said article lo be edited out.

With regard to respondent’s argument lhal the credibility of
witnesses for the complainants is tainted by the fact they are motivated
by revenge for respondent’s filing of criminal cases against them, we
opine that even if witnesses Melgar and Laygo are so motivated, the
credibility of their testimonies cannot be discounted as they are fully
supported and corroborated by documentary evidence which speaks for
themselves. The birth certificates of Mara Khrisna Charmina dela Fuente
Mendoza and Myrra Khrisna Normina dela Fuente Mcndoza born June 16, 1988
and May 22, 1990, respectively, to Norberto M. Mendoza and Marilyn dela
Fuente; and Certification from the Office of the Local Registrar of
Bulacan attesting to the existence in its records of an entry of a
marriage between respondent and one Felicitas Valderia celebrated on
January 16. 1980. are public documents and are prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein, as provided for under Article 410^[14]of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Respondent mistakenly argues that the birth certificates of Mara
Khrisna Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza and Myrra Khrisna Normina dela
Fuente Mendoza born on June 16. 1998 and May 22. 1990. respectively, to
Norberlo M. Mendoza and Marilyn dela Fuente. are inadmissible in
evidence for having been obtained in violation oi’ Rule 24. Administrative Order No. 1. series of 1993. which provides as follows:

Rule 24. Non-Disclosure of Birth Records.-

(1) The records of a person’s birth shall be kept strictly confidential and no information relating thereto shall be issued except on the request of any of the following:

1. the concerned person himself, or any person authorized by him
2. the court or proper public official whenever absolutely
   necessary in administrative, judicial or other official proceedings to
   determine the identity of the child’s parents or other circumstances
   surrounding his birth;

3. in case of the person’s death, the nearest of kin.

(2) Any person violating the prohibition shall suffer thepenalty
of imprisonment of at least two months or a fine in an amount not
exceeding five hundred pesos, or both in the discretion of the court.
(Article 7. P.D. 603)

Seelion3. Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides lhi.it
“evidence is admissible when it is relevant lo the issue ‘and is not
excluded by the law or these rules.” There could be no dispute thai the
subject birth certificates are relevant lo (he issue. The only question,
therefore, is whether the law or the rules provide for the
inadmissibility of said birth certificates allegedly for having been
obtained in violation of Rule 24. Administrative Order No. I. series of
1993.

Note thai Rule 24. Administrative Order No. I. series of 1W3 only
provides lor sanctions against persons violating the rule on
confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does il slate that
procurement of birth records in violation of said rule would
render said records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, the
Revised Rules of Evidence only provides for the exclusion of evidence if
it is obtained as a result of illegal searches and seizures. It should
be emphasized, however, that said rule against unreasonable searches and
seizures is meant only to protect a person from interference by the
government or the slate.^[15] In ihe People vs. Hipol. ^[16] we explained that:

The Constitutional proscription enshrined in the Bill of Rights
does not concern itself with the relation between a private individual
and the State and its agents. The Bill of Rights only tempers
governmental power and protects the individual against any aggression
and unwarranted interference by any department of government and its
agencies. Accordingly, it cannot be extended to the acts complained of
in this case. The alleged “warrantless search” made by Roque, a
co-employee of appellant at the treasurer’s office, can hardly fall
within the ambit of the constitutional proscription on unwarranted
searches and seizures. Consequently, in this case where complainants, us
private individuals, obtained the subject birth records as evidence
against respondent, the protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures does not apply.

Since both Rule 24. Administrative Order No. 1. series of 1903
and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from
evidence of birth certificates in question, said public documents are.
therefore, admissible and should be properly taken into consideration in
the resolution of this administrative case against respondent.

Verily, the facts stated in the birth certificates of Mara
Khrisna Charmina dela Fuente Mendoza and Myrra Khrisna Normina dela
Fuenle Mendoza and respondent’s Certificate of Candidacy dated March 9,
1995 wherein respondent himself declared he was married to Felicitas
Valderia, were never denied nor rebutted by respondent. Hence, said
public documents sufficiently prove that he fathered two children by
Marilyn dela Fuenle despite the fact that he was still legally married
to Felieitas Valderia at the time.

In Bar Mallei’ No. 1 154.^[17] good moral character was defined thus:

good moral character is what a person really is, as distinguish
from good reputation or from the opinion generally entertained of him,
the same estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where
he is known. Moral character is not a subjective term but one which
correspond to objective reality. The standard of personal and
professional integrity is not satisfied by such conduct as it merely
enables a person to escape the penalty of criminal law.

In Zaguirre vs. Castillo. ^[18] we reiterated the definition of immoral conduct, to wit:

that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to
show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable member of the
community. Furthermore, such conduct must not only be immoral, but
grossly immoral. That is, it must be 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 above-quoted case, we pointed out that a member of the
Bar and ofllcer of the court is not only required to refrain from
adulterous relationship or the keeping of mistresses but must also
behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the
belief that he is Iloutinc those moral standards and, thus, ruled that
siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a conduct way below
the standards of morality required of even 1 lawyer.^[19]

We must rule in the same wise in this case before us. The fact
thai respondent continues to publicly and openly cohabit with a woman
who is not his legal wife, thus, siring children by her. shows his lack of good
moral character. Respondent should keep in mind thai the requirement of
good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission lo
the Philippine Bar but is also a continuing requirement to maintain
one’s good standing in the legal profession.^[20] In Aldovino vs. Pujalle, Jr.^[21] we emphasized that:

This Court has been exacting in its demand for integrity and
good moral character of members of the Bar. They are expected at all
times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and
confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity
of the legal profession. Membership in the legal profession is a
privilege. And whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no
longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the public, it becomes not
only the right but also the duty of this Court, which made him one of
its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its Bar,
to withdraw then privilege.

WHEREFORE, respondent Ally. Norberlo M. Mcndoza is hereby found GUILTY of immorality, in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY from the practice of law until he submits satisfactory proof that he has abandoned his immoral course of conduct.

I.et copy of this resolution be served personally on respondent
at this last known address and entered in his record as attorney. Lei
the IBP. the Bar Confidant, and the Court Administrator be furnished
also a copy of this resolution for their information and guidance as
well as for circularization to all courts in ihe country.

SO ORDERED.”

Counsel for respondent received a copy of the resolution on 17
November 2004as shown by Registry Return Receipt No. 55535 and
respondenl did not file any motion for reconsideration.

__05__ April 2005.

^[2] Id. at pp. 15-16

^[3] TSN of August 12, 2002. pp. 16-20

^[4] Exhibits “C” to “C-2,” Rollo, p. 34-36.

^[5] Exhibits “C-3,” Rollo, p. 37.

^[6] Exhibits “D,” Rollo, p. 7.

^[7] Exhibits “D-1,” Rollo, p. 8.

^[8] Exhibits “E,” Rollo, p. 38.

^[9] Exhibits “F,” Rollo, p. 39.

^[10] Exhibits “H,” Rollo, p. 41.

^[11] Exhibits “G,” Rollo, p. 41.

^[12] Office of the Conn Administrator vs. Moranle A.M. No. P-02-1 555, April I 6, 200-4.

^[13] The pertinent portion of the article written in the vernacular is reproduced as follows:

Sapagkat and kanyang hangarin na maglingkod sa hayaii ng Naujan ay wagas ai dalisay kung kaya’t siya as pinalad na nianalo biking punumbayan noong halalan ng 1998.

Si mayor Bert Mendoza ay naninirahan sa Barangay Estrella ai hiniyayaan ng dalawang magagandang anak na sina Cham-Cham at Chin-Chin sa kaniyang may-bahay na si Marilyn dela fuente.

^[14] Art. 410.The books
makirm up the civil register and all documents relating thereto shall he
considered public documents and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained.

^[15] Villanueva vs. Oiicmhin. 48 SCRA 345, 350 (1972).

^[16] 407 SCRA 179, 185 (2003)

^[17] In The Mutter of
The Disqualification Of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling In The 2002 Bar
Examinations dand For Disciplinary Action Ax Member Of The Philippine
Shari’a Bar, June 8, 2004.

^[18] 398 SCRA 658, 662 (2003), citing Narag vs. Narag, 291 SCRA 451, 464 (1998)

^[19] Id. at p. 663.

^[20] In Re: Suspension
From The Practice of Law In The Territory Of Guam Of Atty. Leon G.
Maquera, Bar Matter No. 793, July 30, 2004.

^[21] A.C. No. 5082. February 17, 2004.