You are on page 1of 5



Ortigas-Madrigal case
breaks silence on
By: Marge C. Enriquez
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:04 AM February 26, 2012

LAWYER Thea Daep-Laurena: “Susie’s case is an eye-opener that (wronged)

women can have remedies.” NELSON MATAWARAN

In the past 100 years, only 10 cases of concubinage have reached the Supreme
Court. The earliest record was 1911. Nine out of the 10 were brought before the
Supreme Court before 1941. The 10th case was decided upon in 1990 after 50

Twelve years since the last case, the concubinage lawsuit filed against former
ambassador Francisco “Paqui” Ortigas III and his secretary, Maria Antonia
“Marian” Legarda, by his wife, Susana “Susie” Madrigal-Bayot, is deemed the most
controversial not only because it involves prominent individuals. It also brings to
the fore Philippine society’s rather cavalier attitude towards philandering, the
hiya or timidity of aggrieved wives in asserting themselves, and the gender biases
in our laws.

The day after Valentine’s, Ortigas was arrested after a meeting with his lawyers.
Apparently, his lawyers were also caught off-guard by the issuance of the warrant
of arrest against Ortigas.

Ortigas posted bail and sent a statement: “I am saddened by having to endure the
course of events, which continue to turn a private matter between me and my wife
Susana Ortigas, into a public spectacle.” He was referring to the reports about
Susie’s complaint affidavit that graphically described his indiscretions, not just
with his secretary but also with other women.

Still, the warrant of arrest, issued by Pasig Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 72
Judge Joy N. Casihan-Dumlao, signified that the case would soon go on trial.

Madrigal-Bayot’s lawyer, Thea Daep-Laurena, senior partner, and the lone female
partner in the male-dominated litigation department of CVC Law, says, “That’s a
common notion that if there’s a fight between a husband and wife, people would
always say it’s a private matter. If you violate a law and get arrested, it is not
confined between the two of you. The state is involved because a crime has been
committed. Our laws protect the sanctity of marriage. Concubinage is violation of a
marital vow.”

Living in

Daep-Laurena explained that concubinage is a criminal case. Madrigal-Bayot, the

complainant, is alleging that Ortigas committed the third form of concubinage,
which is cohabitation.

According to the complaint filed, the affair allegedly began when Ortigas was
posted in Mexico in 2008 with Legarda, whom he brought along as his secretary
since she was fluent in Spanish. The affair allegedly continued when they returned
to the Philippines in 2010 after Ortigas’ diplomatic stint.

The lawyer explains that the law defines three ways of committing concubinage.
“First is if you keep a mistress in the conjugal home; second, if you have sexual
intercourse under scandalous circumstances; the third is cohabitation or live-in. In
this case, our complaint and the findings of the fiscal’s office are unanimous; there
is probable cause to hold Paqui and Marian liable for the third form of
concubinage—cohabitation. That’s going to be the focus of the trial,” says Daep-
FRANCISCO “Pacqui” Ortigas III: Refuses to dignify the accusations hurled against

Ortigas and Legarda have been reportedly spending time together in Luntala, an
Ortigas development in Valle Verde. They (Ortigas and Legarda) claim that it was
an office where Legarda worked as his secretary. “What is hurtful for Susie is that
the property is actually owned by Suzy Q Corporation, a real estate company of
Paqui, Susie and their children,” says the lawyer.

Mild punishment

Madrigal-Bayot left the Greenhills home last July before she filed the case.

“Leaving him because of concubinage was one factor. Susie, over the years, was a
battered wife, a victim of psychological and verbal abuse,” says Daep-Laurena.

Her client had been fearful about coming forward. “Ultimately, Susie had enough,”
says the lawyer. “She felt that everybody knew about the affair. Whatever may be
the natural consequence of her filing a criminal complaint, so be it.”

Although the case has become front-page news, the penalties for concubinage are
not severe. The minimum penalty ranges from six months and one day to one year,
eight months and 20 days. The maximum penalty ranges from two years, 11
months and 11 days to four years and two months.

The penalty for the concubine is destierro. “This means banishment or the
concubine will be prohibited from entering the place or places designated in the
sentence or to keep a distance of about 25 km at least from the place designated in
the sentence. It is not imprisonment,” says Daep-Laurena.

If a wife commits adultery, the repercussions are weightier. “The differences

between adultery, which is committed by a wife, and concubinage, which is
committed by a husband, clearly show the bias of our laws in favor of the
men. First, the law itself makes it difficult for a wife to get a conviction for
concubinage,” says Daep-Laurena.
“In concubinage, the prosecution must prove that the sexual intercourse must be
under scandalous circumstances, or that the husband keeps his mistress in the
conjugal home, or that he (the husband) cohabited with his mistress in any other

“In adultery, proof of sexual intercourse by the wife with another man is
enough. Meaning, you do not need to show scandalous circumstances or

Daep-Laureano adds that the penalty for adultery is stiffer than concubinage.

“The minimum penalty for adultery ranges from two years, four months and one
day to three years, six months and 20 days,” the lawyer says. “On the other hand,
the maximum penalty ranges from four years, nine months and 11 days to six
years. Also, consider the penalty for the concubine. It is only destierro while the
penalty for the man in adultery is the same as the offending wife.”


The criminal case on concubinage is just the beginning for Madrigal-Bayot.



“There has to be some closure,” says Daep-Laureano. “When Susie decided she had
enough, the marching orders were to protect the children (Marivic Borromeo and
Victoria Duarte), their properties, and to give her adequate recompense under the

Consequently, civil actions are to follow. The lawyer cites the example of how the
Madrigal-Bayot reportedly shouldered practically all of the family expenses in
their 43-year marriage and the $1.5-million helicopter bought by Madrigal-Bayot
for Ortigas.

“To me, the Susie-Paqui ceased to be a private matter when Paqui brought Marian
in their work and social circles,” the lawyer says. “While it is a dispute involving a
husband and wife, I do not believe that it should bar interested persons to discuss
it in public especially since the issues involved are universal. They resonate with
every woman who has been cheated on or humiliated by unfaithful partners.”

She adds that if wives feel victimized by their situation, and wrongly believe that
it’s hard to get justice and keep silent, infidelity will continue to be glorified in our
macho culture.

“Sa atin, ang babaero ay bida,” Daep-Laureano says.

“Even if you are at a disadvantage, it doesn’t mean you can’t win,” the lawyer adds.
“The bravery that Susie showed when she filed the case, knowing that this may be
talked about and may be embarrassing or humiliating will serve to empower
women in similar situations to follow suit. That way, men, who are predisposed to
commit unfaithful acts or those who are engaged in them, will learn that women
who have been abused and cheated on have remedies. And, men cannot simply get
away with their infidelity.”