ERRE v TERRE AC# 2349 July 3, 1992 VOID v VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

July 28, 2013P a g e |

1

SUMMARY:
Disbarment case against Jordan Terre who convinced a married woman to marry without judicial
declaration of nullityof void marriage (incestuous) AND THEN marrying someone else after a
few years without getting a judicial declaration of nullity forhis first marriage (bigamous).
FACTS:

12/24/1981: Disbarment case filed by Dorothy B. Terre against Jordan Terre for "grossly
immoral conduct,"

Jordan Terre alleged to have contracted a second marriage and living with another woman other
than complainant, whilehis prior marriage with complainant remained subsists

4/24/85: Three years, respondent still has not answered. SC decided to suspend respondent for
evading notice from court.

9/28/85: Respondent finally answered via Answer with Motion to Set Aside/Lift Suspension.
Stated the ff:
o

Petitioner Dorothy Terre was married to Merito Bercenilla 1968

o

Petitioner mockingly told him of her private meetings with Bercenilla and that child she was
carrying then was theson of Bercenilla
o

That believing in good faith, Jordan Terre married Helina Malicdem believing that his first
marriage is void ab initio.

SC denied petition

Petitioner testified. Petitioner and Respondent met highschool where petitioner was already
married. Both moved toManila where eventually, respondent studied Law in Lyceum.
Respondent continued courting her even with the knowledgethat she was married. Respondent
said that her prior marriage was void ab initio since Bercenilla is her first cousin.

Despite her objections, respondent wrote single under her status in the marriage license stating
that her first marriage
was void ab initio and requires no judicial declaration. Couple was thereby married.

Respondent suddenly left petitioner 1981. Eventually, respondent found out that respondent
married.
ISSUE/S:
WON a judicial declaration of nullity is needed to enter into a subsequent marriage
RULING:
Respondent disbarred.
RATIO:
The Court considers this claim on the part of respondent Jordan Terre as a spurious defense. In
the first place, respondent has notrebutted complainant's evidence as to the basic facts which
underscores the bad faith of respondent Terre. In the second place, thatpretended defense is the
same argument by which he had inveigled complainant into believing that her prior marriage to
Merlito A.Bercenilla being incestuous and void ab initio (Dorothy and Merlito being allegedly
first cousins to each other), she was free tocontract a second marriage with the
respondent.Respondent Jordan Terre, being a lawyer, knew or should have known that such an
argument ran counter to the prevailing case lawof this Court which holds that
for purposes of determining whether a person is legally free to contract a second marriage, a
judicialdeclaration that the first marriage was null and void ab initio is essential
.Even if we were to assume, arguendo merely, that Jordan Terre held that mistaken belief in good
faith, the same result will follow.For if we are to hold Jordan Terre to his own argument, his first
marriage to complainant Dorothy Terre must be deemed valid, withthe result that his second
marriage to Helina Malicdem must be regarded as bigamous and criminal in character.
 100 Phil 586 Legal Ethics Lawyer may be disbarred even if transgression is not one
enumerated by law

In 1952, Atty. Anacleto Aspiras introduced himself as a single man to Mortel. The latter believed
it and he let Anacleto court her. Anacleto, with flowery words, promised to marry Mortel. With
this promise, Mortel agreed to have carnal knowledge with him. Later, Anacleto persuaded
Mortel to go to Manila so that they could marry there. Mortel complied. However, Anacleto did
not secure the marriage license with Mortel, instead he let Cesar Aspiras, whom he introduced to
Mortel as his nephew, secure it with Mortel. Further, in the marriage ceremony, Anacleto made
Mortel believe that Cesar will be his proxy in the wedding. So it happened that Mortel married
Cesar who turned out to be Anacletos son, worse, Cesar was a minor. Worst still, after Cesars
and Mortels marriage, Anacleto continued to cohabit and have carnal knowledge with Mortel
until the latter got pregnant, and until the latter found out that Anacleto is married and he has a
son, Cesar.

ISSUE: Whether or not Anacleto should be disbarred.

HELD: Yes. Though it may be said that Anacletos moral transgression did not amount to crime
nor is it one of those enumerated by statute still his moral delinquency as proved by the facts as
aggravated by his mockery of marriage which is an inviolable social institution and his
corruption of his minor son to marry Mortel just so he could redeem his promise of marriage to
Mortel all these concur to Anacleto being unfit to continue being a member of the legal
profession. The Supreme Court ordered his disbarment.
ACTS:

Complainant is a second year medical student of the Southwestern University in which

respondent Atty. Aznar is the then Chairman of the College of Medicine. Complainant was
compelled to go to Manila with respondent for three days where he repeatedly had carnal
knowledge of her upon the threat of respondent that if she would not give in to his lustful desires,
she would flunk in all her subjects and she would never become a medical intern. After due
investigation, the Solicitor General found the respondent guilty of gross immoral conduct and
recommends that since the complainant is partly to blame for having gone with respondent to
Manila knowing fully well that respondent is a married man ,with children, a rich man and is not
practicing his profession before the court, he should merely be suspended from the practice of
law for not less than three (3) years.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the imposition of the penalty is proper.

HELD: NO.

The fact that he is a rich man and does not practice his profession as a lawyer, does not
render respondent a person of good moral character. Evidence of good moral character precedes
admission to bar (Sec.2, Rule 138, Rules of Court) and such requirement is not dispensed with
upon admission thereto. Good moral character is a continuing qualification necessary to entitle
one to continue in the practice of law.

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court enumerates the grounds for disbarment
or suspension from his office as attorney, among others, by grossly immoral conduct. Immoral
conduct has been defined as that which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a
moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.

In the present case, it was highly immoral of respondent to have taken advantage of his
position in asking complainant to go with him under the threat that she would flunk in all her
subjects in case she refused.

Respondent Jose B. Aznar is DISBARRED.

 Bun Siong Yao vs. Aurelio, 485 SCRA 553 , March 30, 2006
Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed on him.It is essential to note that the relationship
between an attorney and his client is a fiduciary one. Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him. The long-
established rule is that an attorney is not permitted to disclose communications made
to him in his professional character by a client, unless the latter consents. This
obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of a client arises at the inception
of their relationship. The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not
cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the partys ceasing
to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other change of relation
between them. It even survives the death of the client.

Same; Same; Forum Shopping; Respondents act of filing multiple suits on similar
causes of action in different venues constitutes forum shopping. He has inevitably
utilized information he has obtained from his dealings with complainant and
complainants companies for his own end.Notwithstanding the veracity of his
allegations, respondents act of filing multiple suits on similar causes of action in
different venues constitutes forum shopping, as correctly found by the investigating
commissioner. This highlights his motives rather than his cause of action. Respondent
took advantage of his being a lawyer in order to get back at the complainant. In doing
so, he has inevitably utilized information he has obtained from his dealings with
complainant and complainants companies for his own end.

Same; Same; Lawyers cannot be allowed to exploit their profession for the purpose
of exacting vengeance or as a tool for instigating hostility against any personmost
especially against a client or former client.Lawyers must conduct themselves,
especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and
integrity in a manner beyond reproach. Lawyers cannot be allowed to exploit their
profession for the purpose of exacting vengeance or as a tool for instigating hostility
against any personmost especially against a client or former client.
 Javier vs. De Guzman, 192 SCRA 434 , December 19, 1990
Judges; Respondent judge took advantage of his position as Regional Trial Judge of
Makati by filing the collection case against complainants in said court.As to the
second chargethat Respondent took advantage of his position as Makati Regional
Trial Court Judge by filing the collection case against Complainants in said Courtwe
quote with approval Justice de la Fuente's observations thereon: "x x x The civil case
was filed by respondent with the Makati RTC on September 8, 1988; and respondent
admits that he was 'detailed indefinitely to Branch 142 of the same Court on June 30,
1988 and assumed office thereat on July 5, 1988.' Instead of filing the suit in Quezon
City where the Javiers reside or in Manila where respondent resides, respondent
taking advantage of what he calls the waiver of venue stipulation in the Memorandum
of Agreement (which states that 'in case of litigation, venue shall be in any court in
Metro Manila, at the option of the Third Party,' i.e., the respondent)chose to file the
case in Makati. "True, considering the abovecited stipulation, it might be said that
respondent was acting in the legal exercise of the option granted to him in the
Agreement. Nonetheless, the undersigned submits that in thus acting, respondent had
fallen short of what is expected of him as a Judge and officer of the court among
whose duties it is to see to it that public confidence in the honor, dignity, integrity
and independence of the judiciary is not eroded, pursuant to Canons 3 and 25 of the
Canons of Judicial Ethics, supra. It is reasonably to be expected, considering the
peculiar Filipino psyche, personality and cultureof which a Judge like respondent is
presumably awarethat the public, particularly respondent's adversary in this case,
would naturally be apprehensive that respondent might exert influence to favor
himself, to the detriment of his said adversary. And so it turned out, this was precisely
the substance of complainant's second charge. Indeed, instead of promoting public
confidence in the dignity, honor, integrity and independence of the Judiciary, as every
Judge is urged to do by the Canons just cited, respondent's aforesaid behavior
produced the opposite result."

Same; Respondent judge was found guilty on three (3) counts of irresponsible,
improper and dishonorable conduct, and was severely censured.All told, traces of
animosity and harassment on the part of Respondent Judge are all too evident, in
sharp contrast to what a Judge should bethe embodiment of what is judicious,
proper and fair. Wherefore, finding Respondent Judge, Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr.
guilty on three (3) counts of irresponsible, improper and dishonorable conduct in
disregard of the Code of Judicial Ethics, he is hereby SEVERELY CENSURED, with a
stern warning that a repetition of the said acts or similar acts in the future shall
receive graver sanctions.