A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014 ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA, Respondent.

ECISION PER CURIAM: Before us is a Petition for Disbarment1 dated January 8, 2002 filed by complainant Rose BunaganBansig (Bansig against respondent !tty" Rogelio Juan !" #elera (respondent for $ross %mmoral #onduct" %n &er complaint, Bansig narrated t&at, on 'ay 8, 1((), respondent and $racemarie R" Bunagan (Bunagan , entered into a contract of marriage, as e*idenced by a certified +ero+ copy of t&e certificate of marriage issued by t&e #ity #i*il Registry of 'anila" 2 Bansig is t&e sister of $racemarie R" Bunagan, legal ,ife of respondent" -o,e*er, not,it&standing respondent.s marriage ,it& Bunagan, respondent contracted anot&er marriage on January 8, 1((8 ,it& a certain 'a" #ielo Pa/ 0orres !lba (!lba , as e*idenced by a certified +ero+ copy of t&e certificate of marriage issued by t&e #ity Registration 1fficer of 2an Juan, 'anila"3 Bansig stressed t&at t&e marriage bet,een respondent and Bunagan ,as still *alid and in full legal e+istence ,&en &e contracted &is second marriage ,it& !lba, and t&at t&e first marriage &ad ne*er been annulled or rendered *oid by any la,ful aut&ority" Bansig alleged t&at respondent4s act of contracting marriage ,it& !lba, ,&ile &is marriage is still subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral and conduct unbecoming of a member of t&e Bar, ,&ic& renders &im unfit to continue &is members&ip in t&e Bar" %n a Resolution5 dated 6ebruary 18, 2002, t&e #ourt resol*ed to re7uire respondent to file a comment on t&e instant complaint" Respondent failed to submit &is comment on t&e complaint, despite receipt of t&e copy of t&e #ourt.s Resolution, as e*idenced by Registry Return Receipt 8o" 3093(" 0&us, t&e #ourt, in a Resolution :dated 'arc& 1), 2003, resol*ed to re7uire respondent to s&o, cause ,&y &e s&ould not be disciplinarily dealt ,it& or &eld in contempt for failing to file &is comment on t&e complaint against &im" 9 1n December 10, 2002, Bansig filed an 1mnibus ;+ Parte 'otion ) praying t&at respondent.s failure to file &is comment on t&e complaint be deemed as a ,ai*er to file t&e same, and t&at t&e case be submitted for disposition" 1n 'ay 5, 2003, in a 'otion, respondent claimed t&at ,&ile it appeared t&at an administrati*e case ,as filed against &im, &e did not <no, t&e nature or cause t&ereof since ot&er t&an Bansig.s 1mnibus 'otion, &e recei*ed no ot&er pleading or any processes of t&is #ourt" Respondent, &o,e*er, countered t&at Bansig.s 1mnibus 'otion ,as merely a ploy to frig&ten &im and &is ,ife from pursuing t&e criminal complaints for falsification of public documents t&ey filed against Bansig and &er &usband" -e also e+plained t&at &e ,as able to obtain a copy of t&e #ourt.s 2&o, #ause 1rder only ,&en &e *isited &is brot&er ,&o is occupying t&eir former residence at :(-B !gu&o 2t", Pro=ect 3, >ue/on #ity" Respondent furt&er a*erred t&at &e also recei*ed a copy of Bansig.s 1mnibus 'otion ,&en t&e same ,as sent to &is la, office address" Respondent pointed out t&at &a*ing been t&e family.s erst,&ile counsel and &er younger sister.s &usband, Bansig <ne, &is la, office address, but s&e failed to send a copy of t&e complaint to &im" Respondent suspected t&at Bansig ,as trying to mislead &im in order to pre*ent &im from defending

&imself" -e added t&at Bansig &as an unpaid obligation amounting to P2,000,000"00 to &is ,ife ,&ic& triggered a sibling ri*alry" -e furt&er claimed t&at &e and &is ,ife recei*ed deat& t&reats from un<no,n persons? t&us, &e transferred to at least t,o (2 ne, residences, i"e", in 2ampaloc, 'anila and !ngeles #ity" -e t&en prayed t&at &e be furnis&ed a copy of t&e complaint and be gi*en time to file &is ans,er to t&e complaint" %n a Resolution8 dated July ), 2003, t&e #ourt resol*ed to (a re7uire Bansig to furnis& respondent ,it& a copy of t&e administrati*e complaint and to submit proof of suc& ser*ice? and (b re7uire respondent to file a comment on t&e complaint against &im" %n compliance, Bansig submitted an !ffida*it of 'ailing to s&o, proof t&at a copy of t&e administrati*e complaint ,as furnis&ed to respondent at &is gi*en address ,&ic& is 8o" 238 'ayflo,er 2t", 8inoy !7uino 2ubdi*ision, !ngeles #ity, as e*idenced by Registry Receipt 8o" 219)" ( 1n 'arc& 1), 2005, considering t&at respondent failed ane, to file &is comment despite receipt of t&e complaint, t&e #ourt resol*ed to re7uire respondent to s&o, cause ,&y &e s&ould not be disciplinarily dealt ,it& or &eld in contempt for suc& failure" 10 1n June 3, 2005, respondent, in &is ;+planation, 11 reiterated t&at &e &as yet to recei*e a copy of t&e complaint" -e claimed t&at Bansig probably &ad not complied ,it& t&e #ourt.s 1rder, ot&er,ise, &e ,ould &a*e recei*ed t&e same already" -e re7uested ane, t&at Bansig be directed to furnis& &im a copy of t&e complaint" !gain, on !ugust 2:, 2005, t&e #ourt granted respondent.s prayer t&at &e be furnis&ed a copy of t&e complaint, and re7uired Bansig to furnis& a copy of t&e complaint to respondent" 12 1n 1ctober 1, 2005, Bansig, in &er 'anifestation, 13 lamented t&e dilatory tactics allegedly underta<en by respondent in ,&at ,as supposedly a simple matter of receipt of complaint" Bansig asserted t&at t&e #ourt s&ould sanction respondent for &is deliberate and ,illful act to frustrate t&e actions of t&e #ourt" 2&e attac&ed a copy of t&e complaint and submitted an !ffida*it of 'ailing stating t&at again a copy of t&e complaint ,as mailed at respondent.s residential address in !ngeles #ity as s&o,n by Registry Receipt 8o" 3:82" 1n 'ay 19, 200:, t&e #ourt ane, issued a 2&o, #ause 1rder to respondent as to ,&y &e s&ould not be disciplinarily dealt ,it& or &eld in contempt for failure to comply ,it& t&e Resolution dated July ), 2003 despite ser*ice of copy of t&e complaint by registered mail" 15 1n !ugust 1, 200:, t&e #ourt noted t&e returned and unser*ed copy of t&e 2&o, #ause 1rder dated 'ay 19, 200: sent to respondent at 238 'ayflo,er 2t", 8inoy !7uino 2ubd" under Registry Receipt 8o" ::921, ,it& notation @R02-'o*ed"@ %t li<e,ise re7uired Bansig to submit t&e correct and present address of respondent"1: 1n 2eptember 12, 200:, Bansig manifested t&at respondent &ad consistently indicated in &is correspondence ,it& t&e #ourt 8o" 238 'ayflo,er 2t", 8inoy !7uino 2ubdi*ision, !ngeles #ity as &is residential address" -o,e*er, all notices ser*ed upon &im on said address ,ere returned ,it& a note @mo*ed@ by t&e mail ser*er" Bansig a*erred t&at in #i*il #ase 8o" :(3:3, pending before t&e Regional 0rial #ourt (R0# , Branc& 1, 0uguegarao #ity, respondent entered &is appearance as counsel ,it& mailing address to be at @Anit 8, -alili #omple+, (22 !urora Bl*d", #ubao, >ue/on #ity"@ 19 1n 6ebruary 13, 2009, t&e #ourt resol*ed to resend a copy of t&e 2&o, #ause 1rder dated 'ay 19, 200: to respondent at &is ne, address at Anit 8, -alili #omple+, (22 !urora Bl*d", #ubao, >ue/on #ity"1) 1n June 30, 2008, due to respondent.s failure to comply ,it& t&e 2&o, #ause 1rder dated 'ay 19, 200:, for failure to file &is comment on t&is administrati*e complaint as re7uired in t&e Resolution dated July ), 2003, t&e #ourt resol*ed toB (a %'P12; upon !tty" #elera a 6%8; of P1,000"00 payable

to t&e court, or a penalty of imprisonment of fi*e (: days if said fine is not paid, and (b R;>A%R; !tty" #elera to #1'PCD ,it& t&e Resolution dated July ), 2003 by filing t&e comment re7uired t&ereon"18 %n a Resolution1( dated January 2), 2010, it appearing t&at respondent failed to comply ,it& t&e #ourt.s Resolutions dated June 30, 2008 and July ), 2003, t&e #ourt resol*ed toB (1 D%2P;82; ,it& t&e filing by respondent of &is comment on t&e complaint? (2 1RD;R t&e arrest of !tty" #elera? and (3 D%R;#0 t&e Director of t&e 8ational Bureau of %n*estigation (8B% to (a !RR;20 and D;0!%8 !tty" #elera for non-compliance ,it& t&e Resolution dated June 30, 2008? and (b 2AB'%0 a report of compliance ,it& t&e Resolution" 0&e #ourt li<e,ise resol*ed to R;6;R t&e complaint to t&e %ntegrated Bar of t&e P&ilippines for in*estigation, report and recommendation" 20 -o,e*er, t&e Return of Earrant21 dated 'arc& 25, 2010, submitted by !tty" 6rayn '" Bana,a, %n*estigation !gent %%, !nti-$raft Di*ision of t&e 8B%, s&o,ed t&at respondent cannot be located because neit&er -alili #omple+ nor 8o" (22 !urora Bl*d", at #ubao, >ue/on #ity cannot be located" During sur*eillance, it appeared t&at t&e gi*en address, i"e", 8o" (22 !urora Bl*d", #ubao, >ue/on #ity ,as a *acant lot ,it& debris of a demolis&ed building" #onsidering t&at t&e gi*en address cannot be found or located and t&ere ,ere no leads to determine respondent.s ,&ereabouts, t&e ,arrant of arrest cannot be enforced" 0&e %ntegrated Bar of t&e P&ilippines, mean,&ile, in compliance ,it& t&e #ourt.s Resolution, reported t&at as per t&eir records, t&e address of respondent is at 8o" 51 -oo*er 2t", Falley Fie, Royale 2ubd", 0aytay, Ri/al" Respondent li<e,ise failed to appear before t&e mandatory conference and &earings set by t&e %ntegrated Bar of t&e P&ilippines, #ommission on Bar Discipline (%BP-#BD , despite se*eral notices" 0&us, in an 1rder dated !ugust 5, 2010, #ommissioner Rebecca Fillanue*a-'aala, of t&e %BP-#BD, declared respondent to be in default and t&e case ,as submitted for report and recommendation" 0&e 1rder of Default ,as recei*ed by respondent as e*idenced by a registry return receipt" -o,e*er, respondent failed to ta<e any action on t&e matter" 1n January 3, 2011, t&e %BP-#BD, in its Report and Recommendation, recommended t&at respondent !tty" #elera be suspended for a period of t,o (2 years from t&e practice of la," RAC%8$ ! disbarment case is sui generis for it is neit&er purely ci*il nor purely criminal, but is rat&er an in*estigation by t&e court into t&e conduct of its officers" 22 0&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 administrati*e proceeding for disbarment continues despite t&e desistance of a complainant, or failure of t&e complainant to prosecute t&e same, or in t&is case, t&e failure of respondent to ans,er t&e c&arges against &im despite numerous notices" %n administrati*e proceedings, t&e complainant &as t&e burden of pro*ing, by substantial e*idence, t&e allegations in t&e complaint" 2ubstantial e*idence &as been defined as suc& rele*ant e*idence as a reasonable mind mig&t accept as ade7uate to support a conclusion" 6or t&e #ourt to e+ercise its disciplinary po,ers, t&e case against t&e respondent must be establis&ed by clear, con*incing and satisfactory proof" #onsidering t&e serious conse7uence of t&e disbarment or suspension of a member of t&e Bar, t&is #ourt &as consistently &eld t&at clear preponderant e*idence is necessary to =ustify t&e imposition of t&e administrati*e penalty" 23 %n t&e instant case, t&ere is a preponderance of e*idence t&at respondent contracted a second marriage despite t&e e+istence of &is first marriage" 0&e first marriage, as e*idenced by t&e certified +ero+ copy of t&e #ertificate of 'arriage issued on 1ctober 3, 2001 by t&e #ity #i*il Registry of 'anila, $loria #" Pagdilao, states t&at respondent Rogelio Juan !" #elera contracted marriage on 'ay, 8, 1(() ,it& $racemarie R" Bunagan at t&e #&urc& of 2aint !ugustine, %ntramuros, 'anila? t&e

second marriage, &o,e*er, as e*idenced by t&e certified +ero+ copy of t&e #ertificate of 'arriage issued on 1ctober 5, 2001 by t&e #ity #i*il Registry of 2an Juan, 'anila, states t&at respondent Rogelio Juan !" #elera contracted marriage on January 8, 1((8 ,it& 'a" #ielo Pa/ 0orres !lba at t&e 'ary t&e >ueen #&urc&, 'adison 2t", $reen&ills, 2an Juan, 'etro 'anila" Bansig submitted certified +ero+ copies of t&e marriage certificates to pro*e t&at respondent entered into a second marriage ,&ile t&e latter4s first marriage ,as still subsisting" Ee note t&at t&e second marriage apparently too< place barely a year from &is first marriage to Bunagan ,&ic& is indicati*e t&at indeed t&e first marriage ,as still subsisting at t&e time respondent contracted t&e second marriage ,it& !lba" 0&e certified +ero+ copies of t&e marriage contracts, issued by a public officer in custody t&ereof, are admissible as t&e best e*idence of t&eir contents, as pro*ided for under 2ection ) of Rule 130 of t&e Rules of #ourt, to ,itB 2ec" )" ;*idence admissible ,&en original document is a public record"GE&en t&e original of a document is in t&e custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be pro*ed by a certified copy issued by t&e public officer in custody t&ereof" 'oreo*er, t&e certified +ero+ copies of t&e marriage certificates, ot&er t&an being admissible in e*idence, also clearly indicate t&at respondent contracted t&e second marriage ,&ile t&e first marriage is subsisting" By itself, t&e certified +ero+ copies of t&e marriage certificates ,ould already &a*e been sufficient to establis& t&e e+istence of t,o marriages entered into by respondent" 0&e certified +ero+ copies s&ould be accorded t&e full fait& and credence gi*en to public documents" 6or purposes of t&is disbarment proceeding, t&ese 'arriage #ertificates bearing t&e name of respondent are competent and con*incing e*idence to pro*e t&at &e committed bigamy, ,&ic& renders &im unfit to continue as a member of t&e Bar"25 0&e #ode of Professional Responsibility pro*idesB Rule 1"01- ! la,yer s&all not engage in unla,ful, dis&onest, immoral or deceitful conduct" #anon )- ! la,yer s&all at all times up&old t&e integrity and dignity of t&e legal profession, and support t&e acti*ities of t&e %ntegrated Bar" Rule )"03- ! la,yer s&all not engage in conduct t&at ad*ersely reflects on &is fitness to practice la,, nor s&ould &e, ,&et&er in public or pri*ate life, be&a*e in a scandalous manner to t&e discredit of t&e legal profession" Respondent e+&ibited a deplorable lac< of t&at degree of morality re7uired of &im as a member of t&e Bar" -e made a moc<ery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity" -is act of contracting a second marriage ,&ile &is first marriage is subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under 2ection 2), Rule 138 of t&e Re*ised Rules of #ourt" 2: 0&is case cannot be fully resol*ed, &o,e*er, ,it&out addressing rat&er respondent4s defiant stance against t&e #ourt as demonstrated by &is repetiti*e disregard of its Resolution re7uiring &im to file &is comment on t&e complaint" 0&is case &as dragged on since 2002" %n t&e span of more t&an 10 years, t&e #ourt &as issued numerous directi*es for respondent.s compliance, but respondent seemed to &a*e preselected only t&ose &e ,ill ta<e notice of and t&e rest &e ,ill =ust ignore" 0&e #ourt &as issued se*eral resolutions directing respondent to comment on t&e complaint against &im, yet, to t&is day, &e &as not submitted any ans,er t&ereto" -e claimed to &a*e not recei*ed a copy of t&e complaint, t&us, &is failure to comment on t&e complaint against &im" %ronically, &o,e*er, ,&ene*er it is a s&o, cause order, none of t&em &a*e escaped respondent.s attention" ;*en assuming t&at indeed t&e copies of t&e complaint &ad not reac&ed &im, &e cannot, &o,e*er, feign ignorance t&at t&ere is a complaint against &im t&at is pending before t&is #ourt ,&ic& &e could &a*e easily obtained a copy &ad &e ,anted to"

0&e #ourt &as been *ery tolerant in dealing ,it& respondent.s nonc&alant attitude to,ards t&is case? accommodating respondent.s endless re7uests, manifestations and prayers to be gi*en a copy of t&e complaint" 0&e #ourt, as ,ell as Bansig, as e*idenced by numerous affida*its of ser*ice, &a*e relentlessly tried to reac& respondent for more t&an a decade? sending copies of t&e #ourt.s Resolutions and complaint to different locations - bot& office and residential addresses of respondent" -o,e*er, despite earnest efforts of t&e #ourt to reac& respondent, t&e latter, &o,e*er con*eniently offers a mere e+cuse of failure to recei*e t&e complaint" E&en said e+cuse seemed no longer feasible, respondent =ust disappeared" %n a manner of spea<ing, respondent4s acts ,ere deliberate, maneu*ering t&e liberality of t&e #ourt in order to delay t&e disposition of t&e case and to e*ade t&e conse7uences of &is actions" Altimately, ,&at is apparent is respondent4s deplorable disregard of t&e =udicial process ,&ic& t&is #ourt cannot countenance" #learly, respondent.s acts constitute ,illful disobedience of t&e la,ful orders of t&is #ourt, ,&ic& under 2ection 2), Rule 138 of t&e Rules of #ourt is in itself alone a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment" Respondent4s ca*alier attitude in repeatedly ignoring t&e orders of t&e 2upreme #ourt constitutes utter disrespect to t&e =udicial institution" Respondent4s conduct indicates a &ig& degree of irresponsibility" Ee &a*e repeatedly &eld t&at a #ourt4s Resolution is @not to be construed as a mere re7uest, nor s&ould it be complied ,it& partially, inade7uately, or selecti*ely"@ Respondent4s obstinate refusal to comply ,it& t&e #ourt4s orders @not only betrays a recalcitrant fla, in &is c&aracter? it also underscores &is disrespect of t&e #ourt.s la,ful orders ,&ic& is only too deser*ing of reproof"@ 29 2ection 2), Rule 138 of t&e Rules of #ourt pro*idesB 2ec" 2)" Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by 2upreme #ourt grounds t&erefor" - ! member of t&e bar may be disbarred or suspended from &is office as attorney by t&e 2upreme #ourt for any deceit, malpractice, or ot&er gross misconduct in suc& office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of &is con*iction of a crime in*ol*ing moral turpitude or for any *iolation of t&e oat& ,&ic& &e is re7uired to ta<e before admission to practice, or for a ,illful disobedience of any la,ful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or ,illfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case ,it&out aut&ority to do so" 0&e practice of soliciting cases for t&e purpose of gain, eit&er personally or t&roug& paid agents or bro<ers, constitutes malpractice" #onsidering respondent.s propensity to disregard not only t&e la,s of t&e land but also t&e la,ful orders of t&e #ourt, it only s&o,s &im to be ,anting in moral c&aracter, &onesty, probity and good demeanor" -e is, t&us, un,ort&y to continue as an officer of t&e court" %8 F%;E 16 !CC 0-; 61R;$1%8$, ,e find respondent !00D" R1$;C%1 JA!8 !" #;C;R!, guilty of grossly immoral conduct and ,illful disobedience of la,ful orders rendering &im un,ort&y of continuing members&ip in t&e legal profession" -e is t&us ordered D%2B!RR;D from t&e practice of la, and &is name stric<en of t&e Roll of !ttorneys, effecti*e immediately" Cet copies of t&is Decision be furnis&ed t&e 1ffice of t&e Bar #onfidant, ,&ic& s&all fort&,it& record it in t&e personal file of respondent" !ll t&e #ourts of t&e P&ilippines and t&e %ntegrated Bar of t&e P&ilippines s&all disseminate copies t&ereof to all its #&apters" 21 1RD;R;D" 1n Cea*e !ARIA LOUR ES ". A. SERENOH Chief Justice ANTONIO T. CAR"IOHH Associate Justice Acting Chief Justice

"RESBITERO J. #ELASCO Associate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONAR O- E CASTRO Associate Justice IOS A O !. "ERALTA Associate Justice !ARIANO C. EL CASTILLO Associate Justice !ARTIN S. #ILLARA!A, JR. Associate Justice JOSE CATRAL !EN O$A Associate Justice ESTELA !. "ERLAS-BERNABE Associate Justice

ARTURO . BRION Associate Justice LUCAS ". BERSA!IN Associate Justice ROBERTO A. ABA Associate Justice JOSE "ORTUGAL "ERE$ Associate Justice BIEN#ENI O L. REYES Associate Justice !AR#IC !ARIO #ICTOR %. LEONEN Associate Justice