Evangeline Leda Vs Atty. Trebonian Tabang, A.C. No.

2505, February 21 1992

Facts:
Tabang and Leda contracted marriage at Iloilo and was solemnized under Article 76 of the Civil
Code as marriage of exceptional character. Both of them kept their marriage a secret until
Tabang finishes his law studies, they had not yet lived as husband and wife.

Tabang, having finished his law studies, declared in his application to take the bar that he was
―single‖. After Tabang passed the bar, Leda blocked him of taking his oath by instituting a
complaint, Bar Matter No. 78, that he acted fraudulently in filling out his application. Thus,
Tabang should be considered as unworthy to take the lawyer‘s oath for lack of good moral
character. Tabang admitted that he ‗legally married‖ Leda but that the marriage ―was not yet
made and declared public‖ so that he could properly take the Bar exams and ensure their
future. Bar Matter No. 78 was dismissed because Tabang said that it just arose out of
misunderstanding between him and Leda.

Leda, in response to this, instituted the present Administrative Case praying Tabang‘s
disbarment on grounds of using his legal knowledge to contract an invalid marriage with Leda,
misrepresented himself as single, and for lack of good moral character.

It was found out that the marriage contract was actually void for failure to comply with the
requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code, or the five-year minimum cohabitation before
celebration of marriage and that they were both twenty years old when they got married,
below the required minimum age of twenty-one years old.

He contended that he and Leda agreed not to disclose that their marriage was void from the
beginning because he wanted to finish his studies and take the bar first. He also believed that
when he applied for the Bar, he honestly believed that in the eyes of the law, he was single.

Issue:
Whether or not, Tabang committed gross misrepresentation of his status?

Ruling:
Yes. Tabang committed gross misrepresentation of his status.

Tabang‘s declaration in his application for Admission to the 1981 Bar Examinations that he was
"single" was a gross misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith, for which he
should be made answerable. Rule 7.01, Canon 7, Chapter II of the Code of Professional
Responsibility explicitly provides: "A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false
statement or suppression of a material fact in connection with his application for admission to
the bar." That false statement, if it had been known, would have disqualified him outright from
taking the Bar Examinations as it indubitably exhibits lack of good moral character.

Tabang‘s protestations that he had acted in good faith in declaring his status as "single" not
only because of his pact with Complainant to keep the marriage under wraps but also because
that marriage to Leda was void from the beginning, are mere afterthoughts absolutely wanting
of merit. Tabang cannot assume that his marriage to Leda is void. The presumption is that all
the requisites and conditions of a marriage of an exceptional character under Article 76 of the
Civil Code have been met and that the Judge's official duty in connection therewith has been
regularly performed. Tabang is SUSPENDED from the practice of law until further Orders.