7/25/2019 4Ethics Bansig v Celera

1/3

A.C. No. 5581 January 14, 2014

ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG,Complainant,vs.

ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA,Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Before us is a Petition for Disbarment1dated January 8, 2002 filed by complainant Rose Bunaan!Bansi"Bansi# aainst respondent $tty. Roelio Juan $. Celera "respondent# for Gro I!!ora" Con#u$%.

%n &er complaint, Bansi narrated t&at, on 'ay 8, 1((), $tty Celera and *racemarie R. Bunaan "Bunaan#

entered into a contract of marriae, as evidenced by a certified +ero+ copy of t&e certificate of marriae

issued by t&e City Civil Reistry of 'anila. 2Bansi is t&e sister of *racemarie R. Bunaan, leal ife of

respondent.

Despite suc& fact, $tty Celera contracted anot&er marriae on January 8, 1((8 it& a certain 'a. Cielo Pa-

orres $lba "$lba#, as evidenced by a certified +ero+ copy of t&e certificate of marriae issued by t&e City

Reistration /fficer of an Juan, 'anila.

Bansi stressed t&at t&e marriae beteen respondent and Bunaan as still valid and in full leal e+istence&en &e contracted &is second marriae it& $lba, and t&at t&e first marriae &ad never been annulled or

rendered void by any laful aut&ority.ence, suc& act constitute rossly immoral and conduct unbecomin

of a member of t&e Bar, &ic& renders &im unfit to continue &is members&ip in t&e Bar.

%n a Resolution3dated 4ebruary 18, 2002, t&e Court resolved to re5uire respondent to file a comment on t&einstant complaint.

Respondent failed to submit &is comment on t&e complaint. /n December 10, 2002, Bansi filed an

/mnibus 6+ Parte 'otion)prayin t&at respondent7s failure to file &is comment on t&e complaint be deemed

as a aiver to file t&e same, and t&at t&e case be submitted for disposition.

C66R$ claimed t&at &ile it appeared t&at an administrative case as filed aainst &im, &e did not 9no

t&e nature or cause t&ereof since ot&er t&an Bansi7s /mnibus 'otion, &e received no ot&er pleadin or any

processes of t&is Court. e also added t&at Bansi &as an unpaid obliation amountin to P2,000,000.00 to

&is ife &ic& triered a siblin rivalry. e furt&er claimed t&at &e and &is ife received deat& t&reats fromun9non persons: t&us, &e transferred to at least to "2# ne residences, i.e., in ampaloc, 'anila and

$neles City. e t&en prayed t&at &e be furnis&ed a copy of t&e complaint and be iven time to file &is

anser to t&e complaint.

&is case &as draed on since 2002. %n t&e span of more t&an 10 years, t&e Court &as issued numerous

directives for respondent7s compliance, but respondent seemed to &ave preselected only t&ose &e ill ta9enotice of and t&e rest &e ill ;ust inore. &e Court &as issued several resolutions directin respondent to

comment on t&e complaint aainst &im, yet, to t&is day, &e &as not submitted any anser t&ereto. e claimedto &ave not received a copy of t&e complaint, t&us, &is failure to comment on t&e complaint aainst &im.

%

7/25/2019 4Ethics Bansig v Celera

2/3

&e issue to be determined is &et&er respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer of t&e court in t&e

dispensation of ;ustice. ence, an administrative proceedin for disbarment continues despite t&e desistanceof a complainant, or failure of t&e complainant to prosecute t&e same, or in t&is case, t&e failure of

respondent to anser t&e c&ares aainst &im despite numerous notices

6D=

$ disbarment case is sui eneris for it is neit&er purely civil nor purely criminal, but is rat&er an investiation

by t&e court into t&e conduct of its officers.22

Considerin t&e serious conse5uence of t&e disbarment or suspension of a member of t&e Bar, t&is Court &as

consistently &eld t&at clear preponderant evidence is necessary to ;ustify t&e imposition of t&e administrative

penalty.2

%n t&e instant case, t&ere is a preponderance of evidence t&at respondent contracted a second marriae despitet&e e+istence of &is first marriae. &e first marriae, as evidenced by t&e certified +ero+ copy of t&e

Certificate of 'arriae issued on /ctober , 2001 by t&e City Civil Reistry of 'anila, *loria C. Padilao,

states t&at respondent Roelio Juan $. Celera contracted marriae on 'ay, 8, 1(() it& *racemarie R.Bunaan at t&e C&urc& of aint $uustine, %ntramuros, 'anila: t&e second marriae, &oever, as evidenced

by t&e certified +ero+ copy of t&e Certificate of 'arriae issued on /ctober 3, 2001 by t&e City CivilReistry of an Juan, 'anila, states t&at respondent Roelio Juan $. Celera contracted marriae on January8, 1((8 it& 'a. Cielo Pa- orres $lba at t&e 'ary t&e >ueen C&urc&, 'adison t., *reen&ills, an Juan,

'etro 'anila.

?e note t&at t&e second marriae apparently too9 place barely a year from &is first marriae to Bunaan

&ic& is indicative t&at indeed t&e first marriae as still subsistin at t&e time respondent contracted t&esecond marriae it& $lba.

T&' Co#' o( )ro('*ona" R'+on**"*%y +ro*#'

Ru"' 1.01- A "a/y'r &a"" no% 'na' *n un"a/(u", #*&on'%, *!!ora" or #'$'*%(u" $on#u$%.

Canon - A "a/y'r &a"" a% a"" %*!' u+&o"# %&' *n%'r*%y an# #*n*%y o( %&' "'a" +ro('*on, an#

u++or% %&' a$%**%*' o( %&' In%'ra%'# Bar.

Ru"' .0- A "a/y'r &a"" no% 'na' *n $on#u$% %&a% a#'r'"y r'("'$% on &* (*%n' %o +ra$%*$' "a/,

nor &ou"# &', /&'%&'r *n +u"*$ or +r*a%' "*(', '&a' *n a $an#a"ou !ann'r %o %&' #*$r'#*% o( %&'

"'a" +ro('*on.

C66R$ made a moc9ery of marriae, a sacred institution demandin respect and dinity. is act ofcontractin a second marriae &ile &is first marriae is subsistin constituted rossly immoral conduct and

are rounds for disbarment under ection 2), Rule 18 of t&e Revised Rules of Court. 2@

6ven assumin t&at indeed t&e copies of t&e complaint &ad not reac&ed &im, &e cannot, &oever, fein

inorance t&at t&ere is a complaint aainst &im t&at is pendin before t&is Court &ic& &e could &ave easilyobtained a copy &ad &e anted to.

Clearly, respondent7s acts constitute illful disobedience of t&e laful orders of t&is Court, &ic& under

ection 2), Rule 18 of t&e Rules of Court is in itself alone a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment

RespondentAs cavalier attitude in repeatedly inorin t&e orders of t&e upreme Court constitutes utterdisrespect to t&e ;udicial institution. RespondentAs conduct indicates a &i& deree of irresponsibility.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/ac_5581_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/ac_5581_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/ac_5581_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/ac_5581_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/ac_5581_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/ac_5581_2014.html#fnt25

7/25/2019 4Ethics Bansig v Celera

3/3

?e &ave repeatedly &eld t&at a CourtAs Resolution is not to be construed as a mere re5uest, nor s&ould it be

complied it& partially, inade5uately, or selectively. RespondentAs obstinate refusal to comply it& t&eCourtAs orders not only betrays a recalcitrant fla in &is c&aracter: it also underscores &is disrespect of t&e

Court7s laful orders &ic& is only too deservin of reproof.2

S'$%*on 2, Ru"' 18 o( %&' Ru"' o( Cour% +ro*#'

ec. 2). Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by upreme Court rounds t&erefor. ! $ member of t&e bar

may be disbarred or suspended from &is office as attorney by t&e upreme Court for any deceit, malpractice,or ot&er ross misconduct in suc& office, rossly immoral conduct, or by reason of &is conviction of a crime

involvin moral turpitude or for any violation of t&e oat& &ic& &e is re5uired to ta9e before admission topractice, or for a illful disobedience of any laful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or illfully

appearin as an attorney for a party to a case it&out aut&ority to do so. &e practice of solicitin cases for

t&e purpose of ain, eit&er personally or t&rou& paid aents or bro9ers, constitutes malpractice.

Considerin respondent7s propensity to disreard not only t&e las of t&e land but also t&e laful orders oft&e Court, it only s&os &im to be antin in moral c&aracter, &onesty, probity and ood demeanor. 3' *

%&u, un/or%&y %o $on%*nu' a an o((*$'r o( %&' $our%.

% E%6? /4 $ 6 4/R6*/%*, /' (*n# r'+on#'n% ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERAu*"%y o( ro"y *!!ora" $on#u$% an# /*""(u" #*o'#*'n$' o( "a/(u" or#'r r'n#'r*n &*! un/or%&y o(

$on%*nu*n !'!'r&*+ *n %&' "'a" +ro('*on. 3' * %&u or#'r'# ISBARRE (ro! %&' +ra$%*$' o(

"a/ an# &* na!' %r*$'n o( %&' Ro"" o( A%%orn'y, '(('$%*' *!!'#*a%'"y.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/ac_5581_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/ac_5581_2014.html#fnt26