O lntegrated BAR of the Philippineg- GOMMISSION ON BAR DISGIPLINE Dona Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig CitY JULIEWHYN R. QUINDOZA Complainant - versus - CBD GASE NO. 1{.3{66 ?q)r'.Q!SEARMENT ATTY. ERNESTO DAVID LLAMAS DE LOS SANTOS ANd ATTY, MARUJITA S. PALABRICA' Respondents OPPOSITION vexyw Ernesto David L' de los Santos' r{ q) bo (E Pa*fqalfiJloti on far Reco ns id erati o n w Ltfu th,et C mnPlntrna,nt' Y Ow w Motion {or P artial Reconsideration tw COMPLAINANT JULIEI,VHYN R. QUINDOZA, by the undersigned Counsel, most respecffully and seasonablyl submits to the IBP Board of Governors, her opirOStTioNversus Ernesto David L. de los Santos' Partial Motion for Reconsideration, with herOwnMotion for Partial Reconsideration to effect Atty. Marujita S. Palabrica's DISBARMENT' by reason of the following Premises: PREFATORY STATEMENT 2 Complainant reiterates her Prefatory Statementthat the noblestprofession of Law calls for the highest standard of moral values and integrity. Theofficial designation of "Attorney-at-Law" requires - the onsErvince of unquestionable character that evokes utmost respect from philippine society.ERNESTO DAVID L. de los SANTOS (Roll of Attomeys No. 2?739 t9 Mav 19771) and MARUJITA A. SANO'PALABRIGA @o11 of Atrorneys Xi. ZZf gf t: May 19771) do not deserve to be part of the Philippine ' Complainant's Counsel received on 13 October 2015 an Entry of Appeararye by Tacardon and partners and aquestionable Partial Motion For Reconsideration in behalf of Respondent Ernesto De Los Santos, which seasonably brought about this Opposition; ' quindora's PREFATORY STATEMENT, Pages I &. 2, MANDATORY CONFERENCE BRIEF [21 January 2012]; Dean Atty. Joe.santos Balagtas Bisquera QUINDOZAvs de los Santos & Palabrica October 22,2015
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
O
lntegrated BAR of the Philippineg-GOMMISSION ON BAR DISGIPLINE
Dona Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas Center, 1605
Pasig CitY
JULIEWHYN R. QUINDOZAComplainant
- versus - CBD GASE NO. 1{.3{66
?q)r'.Q!SEARMENT
ATTY. ERNESTO DAVID LLAMAS DE LOS SANTOS ANdATTY, MARUJITA S. PALABRICA'
Respondents
OPPOSITIONvexyw
Ernesto David L' de los Santos'
r{q)bo(E
Pa*fqalfiJloti on far Reco ns id erati o n
w Ltfu th,et C mnPlntrna,nt' Y Ow wMotion {or P artial Reconsideration
tw
COMPLAINANT JULIEI,VHYN R. QUINDOZA, by the undersigned
Counsel, most respecffully and seasonablyl submits to the IBP Board of
Governors, her opirOStTioNversus Ernesto David L. de los Santos' Partial
Motion for Reconsideration, with herOwnMotion for Partial
Reconsideration to effect Atty. Marujita S. Palabrica's DISBARMENT' by
reason of the following Premises:PREFATORY STATEMENT 2
Complainant reiterates her Prefatory Statementthat the
noblestprofession of Law calls for the highest standard of moral values and
integrity. Theofficial designation of "Attorney-at-Law" requires - the
onsErvince of unquestionable character that evokes utmost respect fromphilippine society.ERNESTO DAVID L. de los SANTOS (Roll of Attomeys
No. 2?739 t9 Mav 19771) and MARUJITA A. SANO'PALABRIGA @o11 ofAtrorneys Xi. ZZf gf t: May 19771) do not deserve to be part of the Philippine
' Complainant's Counsel received on 13 October 2015 an Entry of Appeararye by Tacardon and
partners and aquestionable Partial Motion For Reconsideration in behalf of Respondent Ernesto
De Los Santos, which seasonably brought about this Opposition;
' quindora's PREFATORY STATEMENT, Pages I &. 2, MANDATORY CONFERENCE
BRIEF [21 January 2012];
Dean Atty. Joe.santos Balagtas Bisquera QUINDOZAvs de los Santos & Palabrica October 22,2015
Legal profession because their professional and personal actuations are
*r"nting in the basic moral and et'hical fiber so essential for members of the
philipplne BAR. Respondent de los Santos demonstrated and openly
dispiayed his cRos'sLytMMoRAL BEHAVIoR. As the IBP Board of
Governors most accurately ruled, "Respondent's (tre {AS Santoslac't of
COHABITING with Fe Delilahwhile his marriage with Editha is still
subsistingxxx is ADULTEROUS and GROSSLY IMMORAL, in violation of
Canon 1 , R.ule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Ernesto
David de los Santos is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and
his name ordered stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys" (e*Wh"a,fi*
*,,,ppti"en).3
This is the essence of the instant-Disbarment Proceedings against
Ernesto de los Santos and Marujita Palabrica.
De los Santos'GROSS IMMORAL Acts. deservinq Di$barment
The Complainant Quindoza opposes Ernesto de los Santos' Motion for
Reconsideration because the same has no merit at all in Law and in fact, to
wit:
1. THAT, the IBP Board of Governors o is correct in deciding that De
los Santos be forever Disbarred as a Member of the Philippine
BAR because of his gross immoral conduct,s manifesting his
failure, nay refusal, to uphold the Constitution, to obey the lawsof the land and to promote respect for law of and legal processes,
the IBP declaring that:
(1) Atty. de los Santos violated Canon 1, Rule 1.U which
states that:
'A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,immoral and deceitful conduct.'
(2) tmmoral Conduct refers to Moral Depravity. lt is thedcing of an act which is unprincipled, corrupt,dishbnest, deprave and contrary to justice whichincludes ADULTEROUSIILLICITR ELATI O N S H I P ( ennplw*i6' v4pl,id,).
(s) The act of Atty. de los Santos of cohabiting with Fe
Delilah while his marriage with Editha is subsisting isADULTEROUS and GROSSLY IMMORAL(64a'Lw,e,nnplw,il,y guppl,idr).
2. TH^AT, in Zaguirre vs. CastiffotA.C. No. 4921. March
2003.16the Supreme Court, EN BANC declared that "the practice
t IBP Board of Governors' RESOLUTION NO. XXI-2014-890 on CBD Case No. 11-3766;
4 -fltm..4,IBP Board of Governors' RESOLUTION NO. )Cil-2014-890 on CBD Case No.
1 1-3 166;
' Carror, 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility [PromulgatedJune 21, 19881
6 Carmelita I. Zagtirrevs. Atty. Atfredo Castillo, respondent, EN BANC, [A.C. No. 4921.
March 6, 2003.1 citing Dumadag vs. Lumayal334 SCRA 513,521(2000)h
6,
of
r{b0(!
Dean Atty. Joe-Santos Balagtas Bisquera QUINDOZA vs de los Santos & Palabrica October 22,2015
law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid
standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of
morality and taitfrtut compliance with the rules of the legal
profession are the conditions reqtrired for remaining a member of
good standing of the BAR and for enjoying the privilege to practice
law."
THAT, among the conditions imposed upon the members of the
Legal 'ProfesJion
is adherence to the Rules of Court, Code ofPr6fessional Responsibilityand the Canons of ProfessionalEthics, which include herein some of their relevant provisions;
(1) Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on
what grounds. - A member of the BAR may be removed
or suspended from his office as Attorney by the Supreme
Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, GRossLY IMMORAL
CoNDUCT, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the
oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order
of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing
as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so
to do.; 7
(2) Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey thelaws of the land and promote respect for law of and legalprocesses.'
Rule 1.01 - A Lawyer shal! not engage in unlawful,dishonest, IMMORAL or deceitful conduct.
(3) Cano n 7 - A Lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrityand DIGNITY of the Legal Profession;
Rule 7.03 - A Lawyer shall not engage in conduct thatadversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shallhe whether in public or PRIVATE LIFE, behave in
asGANDALOUS MANNERIo the discredit of the legalprofession.
(4) Canon 2g - Upholding the Honor of the Professione
' Section 27, Rule 138 - Attorneys and Admission to BAR, Rules of Court
s Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility
[Promulgated June 21 , 1988];e Canon 29, Canons of Professional Ethics;
3.
rf)(!)b0
Dean Atty. Joe-santos Balagtas Bisquera QUINDOZAvs de los Santos & Palabrica October 22,2015
ThelawyershouldaidinguardingthgBARagainstadmission io the profession of candidates unfit or
unqualified because deficient in either MORAL
CHARACTER or education. He should strive at all times to
uphold the honor and to maintain the dignity of the
profession and to improve not only the law but the
admi nistration of justice.
4. THAT, in a long line of decisions involving immorality, t!"Supreme Court ledared, in no uncertain terms, the need for
Members of the Philippine BAR to take the high ground in matters
1) the possession of Good Moral Gharacter is both a' condition precedent and a continuing requirementto warrant admission to the BAR -3nd to retain
membership in the legal profession' 12
2) lmmoral conduct involves acts that are willful,ftagrant, or shameless, and that show a moralindifference to the opinion of the upright and
respectable members of the community''"
3) lmmoral conduct is GROSS when it is so corruptas to constitute a cRlMl['lAL ACT' or sounprincipled as to be reprehensible to a highdegree, or when committed under such scandalousor revolting circumstances as to shock the
communi$'isense of decency' 14
4) Membership in the BAR is a privilege burdened with
conditions, which can be withdrawn wherecircumstances show the lawyer's lack of the essentialqualifications required of lawyers;
5) The Pattern of GRAVE and IMMORALMIscoNDUCT that demonstrates lack of MENTALand EMOTIONAL FITNESS and MORAL
10 Macarrubov. Macamrbo[424 SCRA 42,54(200\;11 Maelotisea S. Garridovs. Attys. Angel E, Garrido and Romana P. Valencia, En Banc, [A.C. No'
" Co3uangco, Jr. v. Palma, Adrn. Case No. 2474,September 15,2A04,438 SCRA 306,314'
where the respondent secretly contracted a second marriage with the daughter of his client
in Hongkong. We found that the respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree ofmoratity required of members of the Bar. In particular, he made a mockery of marriage - a
sacred institution that demands respect and dignity. We also declared his act of contracting a
second marriage contrary to honesty, justice, decency and moratity.
la St. Louis University Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) and Faculty and Staff v. Dela Cruz,
A.C. No. 6010, August 2.8,20A6,499 SCRA 614'624'
+obo(gA
Dean Atty. Joe-santos Balagtas Bisquera QIIINDOZA vs de los Santos & Palabrica October 22,2015
GHARACTER to qualifY them for the
responsibilities and duties imposed on Lawyers as
Professionals and as Officers of the court.
(2) ln Tiffasanta v. ?erAttaf the respondent lawyer
married the complainant while his marriage with his firstwife was subsisting.
(a)The respondent's act of contracting the secondmarriage was contrary to honesty, justice, decencyand MORALITY.
(b)The lack of Good Moral Gharacter required by theRules of Court disqualified the respondent fromadmission to the Bar.
(3) ln Defos R.eyes lt. Azn6r,'u the Supreme Court found
the respondent lawyer, a married man with children, highlyimmoral for having taken advantage of his position as theGhairman of the College of Medicine of his school in
enticing the complainant, then a student in the college, tohave carnal knowledge with him under the threat that shewould flunk in all her subjects should she refuse. Therespondent was disbarred for Grossly lmmoral Conduct.
(5) ln Svlacarntho y. 5vtacarrU"6o, 17 the respondent lawyer
entered into multiple marriages and subsequently usedlegal remedies to sever them.
1) The respondent's pattern of misconduct underminedthe institutions of marriage and family - institutionsthat this society looks up to for the rearing of ourchildren, for the development of values essential tothe survival and well being of our communities, andfor the strengthening of our nation as a whole.
2) No fate other than Disbarment awaited the waywardrespondent.
(6) lnsattt^artiego vs. fe?"rer,18the Supreme Court ruled that:
1) The Lawyer Ferrerlacked the degree of moralityrequired of a member of the BAR for his illicit affairwith Ms. Samaniego, with whom he sired a childwhile he was lavnfully married and with 10 children;
15 Villasanta v. Peralta [101 Phil. 373,314 (1957)j cited in Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, supra;
t6Adm. Case No. l334,November 28, 1989, 179 SCRA 653 cited Jocelyn De Leon vs. Atty
Tyrone Pedrefla, En Banc [A.C. No. 9401. October 22,2013]:17 Macamrbo v. Macamrbo 1424 SCRA 42, 54 (2004) cited in Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma [Adm.
Case No. 2474, September 15,2A04,438 SCRA 306,3141,
18 Marjorie F. Samaniego vs. Atty. Andrew V. Ferrer, Second Division, [A.C. No. 7022. June 18,
2008.1
tnobB
Dean Atty Joe-Santos Balagtas Bisquera QUINDOZA vs de los Santos & Palabrica October 22,2015
2) Such ilticit relation is a disgraceful and immoralconduct subiect to disciplinary action;'"
3) The penalty for such immoral conduct is
DISBARME1\|T, 'oor indefinite 21 or definite
"suspension, depending on the circumstances of the
case.
5. THAT, Respondent Ernesto de los Santos admitted having
committed acts which fit into the Supreme Court's definition of
GROSS IMMORAL ACTS, necessitating the DISBARMENT of de
los Santos;
CONCUBINAGE - 1't Count
(1) While De los Santos is stil! legally married to Edita Baltasar,
such marriage having takenltate on 4 June 1978, " the
Respondent today cohabits with Fe Delilah Daguinsin(hereinafter referred to as Gommon'Law Wife I Delilah), "clearty committing the criminal offense of Goncubinage, by
living with said woman, as the Respondent's spouse,showing to their community that they arehusband-and-wifeat No. 108, Cenacle Drive, Sanville Subdivision, TandangSora, Quezon City;
(2) Common-Law Wife I Delilah and de los Santos havebegotten lllegitimate Ghildren from their lllicit SexualReiationship which started in 1981 and continued to thisdate, or for thirty (30) years now;'u
ADULTERY
(3) Common-Law Wife I Delilah is legally married to anotherman, a certain Ricardo s. ching, by way of a marriage thattook place at Pila, Laguna on 14 April 1968; 'o
(4) Hence, common-Law wife I Delilah is a married woman,having carnal knowledge with Respondent Ernesto de losSantos, since 1981 and for thirty (30) years now, a mannot her husband, thereby repeatedly committing thecriminal offense of Adultery, with Delilah as the Principal
le Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Jr., A.C. No. 7Tl4,November 30,2A06,509 SCRA 1, 15.20 Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, A.C. No. 4256, February 13,2004,422 SCRA 527, 532'
533; Guevarrav.Eala,A.C. No. 7l36,August 1,2AA7,529 SCRA 1,21'2r Zaguirrev. Castillo, Adm. Case No. 492l,March 6,2003,398 SCRA 658,66622 Zagaiwe v. Castillo, A.C. No. 4921, August 3, 2A05,465 SCRA 520, 525; Ferancullo v.
Ferancullo, Jr., supranote 15, at 18.
23 1'tParagraph, Page 2, Ernesto's MANDATORY CONFERENCE BRIEF [29 November
26 Attachment A - Certification, National lndices of Marriage, Office of the Civil Registrar
General, National Statistics Office [20 December 2011];
\oobo(!o.
Dean Atty. Joe-Sartos Balagtas Bisquera QIINDOZAvs de los Santos & Palabrica October 22,2015
by Direct Participation while de los Santos as the Principal
by lndisPensable CooPeration;
(5)Hisimmoralsexualtrystwith'.Gommon.lawwifelDelilahallowed Ernesto to "sire" three (3) illegitimate
children - Virgil Patrick, David Vincent and Helen Julien, all
surnamed De-los Santos; 27
CONGUBINAGE- 2nd Coutl
(7) While said lmmoral co-Habitation was going gl,.de los
santos had another extramarital sexual affair with
complainant Juliewhyn Quindoza(hereinafter referred to
as Gommon-Law Wifa ll Juliewhyn), sometime in 1988,
his student at the University of Manila;
(8) De los Santos committed his znd Count of the criminal
offense of Concubinage when he provided residence and
lived with common-liw wife ll Juliewhynat No. 39, A.
Everlasting st., upper QM, Baguio city wherg h9 would
normally Jtay while in Baguio, making it his abode while
enjoying his sexual trYst there;
(9) De los Santos "sired" withCommon-Law Wife ll Juliewhyn a
Baby Girl born on 4 December 1993 and named "Mergarett
Veronica de los Santos"; 28
CONCUBINAGE- 3'd Count
(10)De los Santos committed his 3'dextramarital sexual affairwith one Marissa Berroy(hereinafter referred to as
common-Law wife lll Marissa), while maintaining his
lmmoral Co-Habitation with Common-Law-Wife I Delilah
and his extramarital sexual affair with ComplainantCommon-Law Wife ll JuliewhYn;
(1 1) Ernesto bought and allowed Common-Law WifelllMarissa to set up their common abode at No.7256 J.
Victor St., Barangay Pio del Pilar, Makati City;
(12) Ernesto went about his business making the wholecommunity know that he is "Atty. Ernesto L. de los Santos",
a member of the Philippine BAR, the Executive Vice-President, the Registrar, the Vice-Chairman of the Board ofTrustees of the University of Manila and a member of theROTARY Club as if such immoral, extra-maritalrelationships with Gommon-Law-Wife lDelilah,Common'Law Wife ll Juliewhynand comrnon-Law Wife lllMarissaare a matter of course and are normal occurrencesin his visible stature as such;
27 SUfnA, 2"d Paragraph,Page 2;
zs,:ttlolu4 4th Paragraph, Page 2 and Annex A, common-law
AFFIDAVIT/COMPLAINT [10 September 20 I 1];
r\b8
wife II Juliewhyn's
October 22,2015Dean Atty. Joe-Santos Balagtas Bisquera QUINIDOZA vs de los Santos & Palabrica
6. THAT, De los Santos flagrantly vlolated Philippine Law
concerning the sanctity of mirriaget by repeatedly engaging in-
immoral conOuct, 'n' consisting of the criminal offenses of
concubinage and'adultery, to thereby manifesting his GROSS
IMMORAL CHARAGTER wfticn deserves Disbarment' 31 As aLawyer, de los santos failed to uphold the integrity and dignityof the legal profession by behaving in a scandalous manner tothe discredit of the legal profession.o'
(1) De los Santos failed to uphold the honor of the legal
profession by ^showing he is deficient in his MORAL
CHARACTER;".
(2) As inQarri{o ys. Ta[encq [A.C. No. 6se3- February 4,20107,,ohis repeated, criminal acts of concubinage and_{dultery is
the pattern of GRAVE and IMMORAL MISCONDUCT,
demonstrating lack of MENTAL and EMOTIONALFITNESS anO MORAL CHARACTER to qualify De los
Santos for the responsibilities and duties imposed on
Lawyers as Professionals and as Officers of the court-
(3) De los Santos' criminal acts consisted of the same lmmoralconduct, ofAtty. Angel E. Garrido, '\rvhich wasGROSS
IMMORAL Conduct because they are so corrupt as toconstitute the Concubinage and
Adulteryand so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to ahigh degree, committed under scandalousand revolting
circumstances aS to shock the community's sense of
decency. 36
(4) Respondent De los Santos' acts of Concubinage and
Aduitery comprise lmmoral Conduct involving acts thatare wiliful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moralindifference to the opinion of the upright and respectablemembers of the community. t'
"Curror, 1 and Rgle 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility [Promulgated June 21, 1988]
30 St. Louis University Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) and Faculty and Staff v. Dela Cruz,
A.C. No. 6010, August 28,2AA6,499 SCRA 614,624.
31 Marjorie F. Samaniego vs. Atfy, Andrew V. Ferrer, Second Division, [A.C. No. 7022. June 18,
2008.1
32 Canon 7 andRule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility [Promulgated June 21, 1988]
" Catton 29, Canons of Professional Ethics;
3o f$fD,Maelotisea S. Garridovs. Attys. Angel E. Garrido and Romana P. Valencia, En Banc,
[A.C. No. 6593. February 4,Z}fi.);35 S'l,t?8,-LGarridovs. Attys. Angel E. Garrido and Vaiencia, En Banc, [A.C. No^ 6593.
February 4,2}fi.1;
'6 St. Louis University Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) and Faculty and Staff v. Dela Cntz,
A.C. No. 6010, August 28, 2006,499 SCRA 614,624-
" Coluarrgco, Jr. v. Palma, Adm. Case No. 2474, September 15,20A4,438 SCRA 306,314.Dean Atty. Joe-santos Balagtas Bisquera QUINDOZA vs de los Santos & Palabrica october 22,2075
@0)h0(go-
(5) worse than the case s of Tiftasa.rlta. v. ?erattd' and
Svtacary-u^o y. Svtacatruno, " De los Santos engaged
in three (3) separate acts of illicit sexual relations'
consisting tif
ioncuninage, yitl common-Law-wife
lDelilah,Gommon.LawwifellJuliewhynandCommon.Law wife lll Marissa while still legally married to Edita
Baltasar. Respondent's sexual adventurism was contrary to
honesty, -;r;ti"",
decency and MORALITY' clearly
showing nislact< of Good rurorat Gharacter required by the
Rules oJ Court, meriting DISBARMENT;
Just like the cases of disbarred Attys. ?eraftdo and
fuIacaryuho, orRespondent De los santos' pattern of
misconduct undermined the institutions of marriage and
family - institutions that this society looks up to for. the
rearing of our children, for the development of values
essential to the survival and well-being of our communities'
and for ifrr strengthening of our nation as a whole'
Disbarmentshould be li[ewise imposed on wayward
respondent De los Santos;
(6) De los santos overtook the bad example .of another
disbarred-l-rGt inDetos fr,eyes vt, -Mrlflra2whom the
supreme court found to be a married man and forbeing
highty immoral for having taken ad_vantage of his position
as the Chairman of the Cillege of Medicine of his school
in enticing the complainant, then a student in the college, to
have carnal knowledge with him under the threat that she
would flunk in all her subjects should she refuse' The
respondent Aznar was disbarred for Gross lmmoral
Conduct.
lnaWorsescenario,RespondentdelosSantosshowed Gross lmmoral conductwhen he seduced and
later abducted a young, teenage Student of the University
of Manila (uM), -
finally gettingGomplainant Juliewhyn
where the respondent secretly contractecl a second marriage wrth the dgughter of his client
in Hongkong. we found that the respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of.thtj:flee of
mo.aliti reqiired of members of the Bar. In particular, he made a mockery of marriage - a
sacred institution that demands respect and dignity. we also declared his act of contracting a
second marriage contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality.
,r fBfD,villasanta v. peralta [101 Phil. 373,314 (1957)] cited in Cojuangco, Jr' v. Palma, supra;
3s fhfD,Macarrubo v. Macarrub o 1424 SCRA 42, 54 (2004) cited in Cojuangco, Jr' v' Palma
[Adm.CaseNo.z474,September15,2004,438SCRA3A6,314;oo IBfD,yillasanta v. peralta [101 Phil. 313,314 (1957)] cited in Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, supra;
o, ItsfD,Macarrubo v. Macamrb a 1424 SCRA 42, 54 (2004) cited in Cojuangco, Jr' v' Palma
[Adm. Case No. 2474, September 15,2004,438 SCRA 306'314;o\
q)bo(6a-
o2Adm. Case No. l334,November 28, 1989, 179 SCRA 653 cited Jocelyn De
Tyrone Pedrefia, EnBanc [A.C. No. 9401. october 22,2a|37;Leon vs. Atry
October 22,2015Dean Atty. Joe-santos Balagtas Bisquera QUINDOZA vs de los Santos & Palabrica
Quindoza(Gommon.LawWifellJuliewhyn),sometimein1988, having ta[en aOvantage that De los Santos was UM's
major StockhoiJ*i, - tn" Snly Son .?f $e controlling
*to"fftolder Di. Vitiifio de los bantos, the Executive Vice-
President, the Ref,istrar and a Board Member' De los
Santos deserves tobe equally disbarred;
(7) overtaking the gross immoral conduct of Atty' Ferrer in
Sam^aniego ,i- ferver,a'Respondent De los Santos
clearly lac"ksthe Oelree of m_orality required of a member
of the BAR toi nis"illicit affairsin concubinage, while he
was lavvfully marriedto Editha Baltasar'
(a)common.Law.Wife lDelilah, with whom he ..Sired,,
three tei ilregitimate children - virgil Patrick, David
Vincent,no"HelenJulien,allsurnamedDelosSantos;
aa simultaneous with
(b)common.LawWifellJuliewhyn,withwhomDelosSantos..authored,,ababygirl,bornon4December1993 and named "Mergarett Veronica de los santos";as and
(c) Common-Law Wife lll Marissa;
Surely,RespondentDelossantosdeservesthesame rebuke from the supreme court as that which Atty'
Ferrer received when the High Tribunal declared that,,such illicit relation is a dlsgraceful ,and immoral
7' THAT, there is no basis for De los Santos to claim that the
tnvestigating Commissioner acted erroneously in finding him guilty
of Grdssly lmmoral Conduct and in imposing of Disbarment
based on his own Allegations:
(1)Respondent undertook a Judicial Admission in his Answer'concerning his co-habitation withCommon-Law'WifelDelilah, siring three (3) children with her;
(2) His Judicial Admission likewise included his extra-marital
affair with Common-Law Wife ll Juliewhyn and herein
Complainant, siring also one (1) child with her;
43 ltsID,Marjorie F. Samaniego vs. Atty. Andrew V. Ferrer, Second Division, [A'C' No' 7022'
June 18,2008.1
44 SumA,2od Paragraph,Page 2;
qssulDlu4 4th paragraph, page 2 and Annex A, common-law wife lI Juliewhyn's
AFFIDAVIT/COMPLAINT [10 September 201 1];
46 Suru?4Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Jr., A.C. No. 7zt4,November 30,2006,509 SCRA 1' 15'
47 Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejanclro, A.c. No. 4256, February 13,2A04,422 SCRA 527 ' 532'
533; Guevanu u' Eul,, A.C. No. 7|36,August 7,2a07,529 SCRA 7,21.
Or{
obo(6o.
Dean Atty. Joe-santos Balagtas Bisquera QUINDOZA vs de los Santos & Palabrica October 22,2015
(3) With these Admissions, de los Santosdeserves to be
(11) Denial, essentially a negation of a fact, does not prevail
over an affirmative assertion of the fact. Thus, courts -both trial and appellate have generally viewed th"defense of deniii in criminal cases with considerable
caution, if not with outright rejection' Such judicial.attitude
comes from the recognition that denial is inherently weak
and unreliable by virtue of its being an excuse too easy
and too convenient for the guilty to make. To be worthy
of consideration at all, denial should be substantiated by
clear and convincing evidence. The accused cannot solely
rely on h"i negativi and self-serving negations, for denial
carries no *"'Ight in law and has no greater evidentiary
value than the-iestimony of credible witnesses who testify
on affirmative matters ("eoy[e vs. Te{asco [G.R. No. 195668'
June 25, 20l41citing ?eoyfe v' tsensig [G'R' No' 138989' September
17.2002));51
(12) Denial is a negative and self-serving assertion that
cannot ove.come the victim's affirmative, categoricaland convincing testimony ("eoyteTs.
^{e{mida,nN BANC,
[G.R. No. 184500. September ll,20l2l;"(13) De los Santos finally castrates himself by correctly quoting
the Supreme Court, when it said that "as officers of the
court, Lawyers must not only, in fact, be of good moral
character but must also be seen to be of good moral
character and leading lives in accordance with the highestmoral standards of the comrnunity. A Member of the BAR
and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from
adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistressesbut must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizingthe public by creating the belief that he is flouting those
moral standards;" ur As to the manner with which De los
Santos is quoting such direct affront to his admittedly
IMMORAL conduct, replete with concubinage, Adultery
50 people of the Philippines vs. Adel Ramos Y Abellana, First Division, [G.R. No' 200077 '
September 17,2014.1
'?eople of the philippinesvs. Ma. Harleta Velasco y Briones, Maricar B. Inovero, Marissa Diala,
and Berna tvt. pu.rtino, First Division, [G.R. No. 195658. June 25, 2a147 citing People v'
Bensig, G.R. No. 138989, September !7,2002,389 SCRA 182,194;
t, people of the philippinesvs. Wenceslao Nelmida-@ "Eslao," and Ricardo Ajok @ "Pordoy," EN
BANC, [G.R. No. 184500. Septernber 11,2012-];
e{r{
q)u0
Dean Atty. Joe-santos Balagtas Bisquera QUINDOZA vs de los Santos & Palabrica October 22,?.015
and the "siring" of illegitimate offsprings all over the place
simply adds irisutt to inJury in this legal exchange;
g. THAT, with Respondent De los santos' flagrant ald callous
immoral acts, the IBP Board of Governors has no other option
except to OTSARR him from the practice of law, by virtue of the
following fundamental rules on Legal Ethics:
(1)"A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adverselyreftects on his fitnesJ to practice law, nor shall he
whether in public or PRIVATE LlFE,behave in a
US to the discredit of the legal
profession."
(2).A Lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity "ot tf'* legal profession and support the activities of
the lntegrated BAR.' su
9. THAT, on the issue of basic conscience as regards G19ss.lmmoral
Character, Respondent De los Santos went about his business
making while ihe whole community knows him to be 'ATTY'
Ernesio L. de los Santos", a member of the Philippine BAR, the
Executive Vice-President, the Registrar, the vice-chairman of the
Board of Trustees of the university of Manila and a member of the
ROTARY Club while his immoral, extra-marital relationships with
andcommon-law wife lll Marissa are, in his own tacit declaration;OPEN BOOK", I matter of normal course and casual
occurrences in his visible stature as such;
10.THAT, in a desperate attempt to disprove of his Gross lmmoral
Character, de los Santos cited some jurisprudence which, on
closer scrutiny, even works against his rationalization:
(1) De los Santos cites Advincufa vs Svlacabata, uu to
posit that the immoral relationship between Common-Law-Wite I Delilah and De Ios Santos, admittedly an 'OPEN
BOOK,' dOCS NOt AMOUNT tO A GROSSLY IMMORAL ACT
meriting Disbarment;
(2) ln Advincufa y. SvtacabAtA,szthe Supreme Court
merely reprimanded Lawyer Macabata and not imposed
Disbarment on him because his unethical conduct did not
approach the gargantuan magnitude of De los santos'callous sexual adventures;
', RuIe 7.03, CANON 7, CODE of PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY [21 JUNE 21 1988]
s5 slt?ra,Rule 7.03, cANoN 7, -1.
June 21 1988.|
CODE of PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY [21
tu paragfaphs i8 & 22, No Pages Indicated, De los Santos' Partial Motion for Reconsideration [9
October 2015,s' Jocelyn De Leon vs. Atty. Tyrone Pedrefla, En Banc [A.C. No. 940t. October 22,201'37
making referenc,e to Advincula v. Macabata, A.C. No. 7204, March 7,2A07,517 SCRA 600,
616.
C,Or{
q)bo(t
Dean Atty. Joe-santos Balagtas Bisquera QUINDOZA vs de los Santos & Palabrica October 22,2015
(3) lvlacabata'simmoral act consisted merely of turning his
clienfs head towards him and then kissing her on the
lips, while distasteful, albeit offensive and undesirable, was
not grosslY immoral;
(4) De los Santos' immoral acts, of simultaneously engaging in
illicit, sexual promiscuity with common-Law'Wife lDelilah,Gommon-Law Wife ll Juliewhyn and Gommon'Law Wifelll Marissa, with adisplay ofunabashed sexual adventurism,
has become by pubiic knowledge and so scandal, which
the Respondent casually describes by his own words as.oPEN BOOK,"
(5) Respondent cannot seek comfort in the A{vincu{A v'Svtacabata Case, unless he wants the Supreme Court to
naively grant that his simultaneous sexual adventurism with
three c6mmon-law-wives partook of nothing but "turning
their individual heads to kiss them on their lips, in the
process bringing about four (4) illegitimate children;
1 1. THAT, the singular but patently lameAllBl that Respondent de
los Santos advances, to forestall his DISBARMENT, is that he
fro* fr.ei jatfter but a{so tfie necess-ilry financiaf, ysycfrotogi.yt-an{
emoiionaf suyyort to emsure sfre fives in a cumforta|fe fifd';58
(1) This is the ultimate shocker of the saga of De los Santos
who, in effect, declares that it should be acceptable in forLawyers and the rest of the Filipino community to engage in
wanton, illicit sexual relationships with as many women as
one can "buy" through financial influence and power
because the philandering Father can provide the resultantillegitimate offspring with a "comfortable life";
(2) De los Santos advances the hypothesis that his legitimatespouse Edithaabandoned him. Ergo, he now pleads the
Philippine Society extends to him the BLANKET LICENSEto indulge in extra-marital sexual escapades as he pleases,
leading him to relationshipswith common-Law-WifelDelilah, Gommon-Law Wife ll Juliewhyn and common-law wife lll Marissa;
(3) lndeed, with no sense of basic moral value nor conscience,he claims he longed for a partner in life, to allow him to feelhow to have a family but brings in a MARRIED WOMAN in
Common-Law-Wife lDelilahDaguinsin as his solace;
(4) But his longing for legitimate spouse Editha must havebeen so overwhelming that he needed the simultaneous
58 Paragraphs 5 to 10, No Pages Indicated, SUPRA, de los Santos' PARTIAL MOTION for
RECONSIDERATION [9 October 2015];
-#r{
bD(t
Dean Atty. Joe-santos Balagtas Bisquera QUINDOZA vs de los Santos & Palabrica October 22,2015
llQt;ezon Ci'iy, r.rl'le:r first hoving been dul.r,rslvorn to iniCvl, rJep.-tse ,:rpcj -sc:y:
, .t. ' I
o(-'cordonce w'ith
,l'.
l. I on.r the ihi-d orrd ;26;n6est chilcJ of the deceCen.i Dr.,' ,
\zlrgilio clel,:>s: Scrr rtc:s ond the lc:te clordeiicr Llcrmos; I ofl llkewise ornecJicci cjc;..rtc>i. l>,r, pi-ofession; ,
t"t
2. in reory to the opposiiicn fired by my qib/ings, Ernesiool.a
Delos .Sontr::i ,..::n,J Dr. Cynthio L, Dsros Sarrlos-<lhon''.erqtive io sp.D'-^.- /_\D I ra) ) 1t\ ,lr '\.-.,, r"roc-'. No. Uti I tt!/l g o'ihenrvise entitlel "tn tire Motierof ine petition icr'ppr-or/3 ih() Will of Dr. Vlrgilio D. delos Sontr>s, t)er:.eosed. Atfy.Dlosdodo G. r,"4r_rcrrjd, petiiloner , Iilecl befcre ihe Reglonol ]iiqi Coud-
,
Bronch 4?, ,vlcinilr:, rhe foilowing ore the pre,vorlrng focis; ,
trl
(r. My por.ents were rnorried <:i ihe Soir MiouelIrr.-Ccrlhecjr<:l of Moni/o on fef:ru).,, lt, l?5C wit;'t;
1
pre'rior.J:; nroirioge license on ,rLrrre 28, l94g r:rncj noi orr,l
t, r/1.An:ilA CC)RAZON RAMOiJA LLAMAS )E[Os,SAINTOS, cf iegologe, single FiijI:rrrrrt, v,zith residertce of 2l Scou.i S,i.tnliogo Dillmqn
r$r
. liI tl
lother's frrvorlte be-irig the ;"'oungb.st. My .two sib
:[rowever, v/ere troublgd incJivicjucls since childhood. My
brothq>r llrne::;io wcs on inse,nsitive on.J bruirll humon being.
He only k.nows how io l^rrrri me physicolly ond emotic,nslly'
Tormentin(,1 me wiih his consiont ono cruiel reosing ond
itnpris<:nincl me inslde his "Coge''. As o clrild, I see him os o
rnensie..r who olwoys,frightened me wiih his peculior ond
scdi.sti,:: wcry of shovving oifectiolrs;
r.l. Whenever my i:rother is oi home; he wouldclwqy:; run clfier rne ond lock me in l-ris roonr with hinr. Her,voulci ;>in rne clown in his k;ed with l-ris honcj.s Eo ihot I
coqicl r:o'l 6evs ond wili beg]in kissing me ond biiing me inihre:fcr,:e onrj on cther pods cf my bc.!y He doesn't listen
to n'ry ncr€,\nTs whenever ihey tell hirrr lo stop ond ,,azould
onlr, srr)f) wher lre is ihrouen bitingl.11s. He w,ciuld onlyrelecse rne ,)fter he is Corre bliing me. I r:lvvc:ys end upcrying; whenever he would do those things'to rn". .Thls
mocle rnr.; not oni'y physicolly huri bLrt rrisercble inside
becouse I olwo'/s thoughi tnot on older brc;,iher is olwoysihere for the younger siste,. to proiect snd lo.ze l'rer ond notio hurl irer physicolly oncj tormeni h=r emotionolly. My
mother exrrli:ined ihoi his bizone onc oirocious behqviormoybe: cr:used by o previcus cor crccident, But mybrothei or:1ed thot woy even before ihe cor occident.
(). N1y brother ne',/er slopped riolr,tg things to.onnoyme despiie rhe foci thot I cion't cio onyrhing to irritote hlm.
His oilih,rcia, continUed even when we were growrr-up. He
wo'rld stegl rny belongings iike portrr.rifs ih<-rr I love, lcoxes cfrninerol woter in my restsuront which he would brirg to his
ovvn clnlee:rt. Whenever vle hocJ orguments, hc wouldthrovv thingr of me ond ouT mecl rnzorlld crlrvcrys beciisrupir:d- ltly brolhe,-would th.ow cnything his hclnds :ongel holci r:i, He would beqt me ui:,wlrenever he's,modond lcrr rro rec,son. There was or,e inci<Jent vvhen he
hcrci tirree orher misiresses, He ho<i three children wiih the,
f irst one; c-rrrd one child wiih the se:oncl The third mistress I
never nTej. I'he second mistress Julic,rvhyne v,/cs cnly
obusecJ hy r,ry broiher ond vlos bit on tlre ciifferent poris ol.t.,, :, ,'
her bc,cJy, lffre clrrritld.Ferni'with her first rnistress Delilo,it \lvpre CI'll
11'
*|
si,
AT[,{tr[lTITilII
5;6irS,1hl trp like their mother who' was n'roteric:l-
deceiving, crrogont ond wilh verrgelul clti::..rcl,.'ts. \ /itileihey \/vere ydung. tleii nrother prohibited them from
visiiing; llreir -q1r<:ncjfothgr becouse she thoughl they might
conin:ct cl ,liseose from hinr. She woulcJ only 13llpyT them
to vi.sil i.nu hen iis tirr,e to give gifis onci money ouring speciollloccosir:rrs otheru'isq she vrould rrol ollow her children torll,l,l
, see or even coll up their gr-ondfc.:fl-,er, Deliloh ,rvr-ls greedyoncJ l)ficJ ,ln interest in the lJrriver;i1y oncj sht: soid she
wo'ulc; nnt <:llow Dr. De Lecn to enter ihe premises. She
olso triecj to mecJdle *;iih ,=u"rything like the way our housein Bclgtr-rio 'arr.:s Vorlished rvhicl-r is not even lrers. lj wos myiother whr; p;eyides fOr.;ihe ollowonce of Mergor:ett, br_ri
, g. t,Av broiher loved our fother s money more thonhe iov'ecj oul father. He hod <:,ncmclies while b,eing tireReglsirr:r r'>l' the universiiy. His integriiy ir.r. terms ol, money*o, olso pui to question. One time, he reimO',.,rsed his
breqkf'r:st expenses oi Benguei pensicnne owne(:J by theUniver:sity oi Moniio of o pricr: he rnorkecj up, l/y fotherleornecJ qbc,ui this ond wos disgustecl knc>wing ihcrt hls son
will clerlroud oiher people for o smoll nnroun.i of pl,COO.
Be<),:.rLrs'3 ol this incideni. he iold Ms, Gilcra Belerro'who rvos
ossign,:d oll3enguet pensionn; tholhe olreody disowns his
son. (crff iclc:vit cttoched) My l:rother olso bought lurniiureinlencjecl io be brought in B,?nguet i:errsionne bUt my
brother brought it insteod to orre cf his prcperties in
Boguic,. Fle even osked the selesclerk to write o higf-ter
price r>n lhe, receipt so thct he csn reimburse nrore from
the Uniirersif'/.'My L:rother clso demonded fronn my lotherllrot L,] should stort giving his properlies fo thel-n
consicj,=rirrr.) thot he is olreody old. 'll:is cousecj furtherrlisoppointrnent 1o my fo,f ner, My fo'lher eve,r colled n"ry
broiher "(;AGS" which is sirori for "()A()O";
[-- trt.,.
t,I
.o$..
ATTACI{TIF
, r I"r. tA/iren my mothgr wos dyin0, nry brothel wc]s
oble lo se,? her becquse he wos ottendin6l to itis
bcskeiboll r;;ctivitie:; qnd insteqd sent lrer mistress Deliloh,
V'/hen rrry l'other leornediobout rn1,, mollrer's deoilr, he iolC
me tr: 8o lr) Boguio imrrredir:tel)' *n,on I cliij. My foiirer wos
noll ol:rle lc: corre becouse he is s,lill recovering irom l'ris
prost,ol'e cr[-ierotion. 'l,wos ihe one who pqid for the
rrospil,:l bill of tny mother orrcJ the rnr>rgtra ond iook core
oi oihrr;r il'rings neeclqQ oi ihct time. .',/y broiher come
whe;n ,everylhing was seitled, Belore rny nrother's deo1h,
rny. sisler would only visil for o r,vhile ond would troi toke
core of lrer of ihot ti,.ne when c[,r mother wos no longerirO
r:rnbulr:tr:ry deipite -the foci' thot il wos c)rrr r.rrother who
look c:rrru: r:1' her clrlldren in ihe Stoies while they were still,l
yoqngr, M), sister just boughi o bed ond o wheel,::hoir the
costs ef vvlrich she hccJ to reirnburse from ffi'y' folher.',Despiie 'lhis ii was my sisier ond brotirer who gct oil iheproperlies oi my moiher worih more ihon P3B lv4iiiion. My
sister <:iso got her inheriionce crrd our mother'ti money in
'dollor:;. I clr,J not receive o singie centctvo fnom m'y, mother
ond t reV,:;' comploined. The house 'which tny moihergave io rne in l.li..reve Ecijo wlrile sltre.. wos stili oliv'e will be
Igiven to my iousins.who CIre ncw tiVing there, Even ofter
my m:ilr>r':; deqth, my broiher nev'er .siopped cloing evil
th'rgs, rry rnothe)r wos cremoted ond the coffin used by
rny m<>lher c;rt her buriol includlng the liowers were broughi
by my brolht-=r to the Boguio Pines Perrsionne whlch lenibly
soddeneci rny fother. He wos sencling the messoge thot
he woni.s trt)/ fofher to die nexi.
i. r-ln thb oiher hond, my sister Cynihio only knows
how tp k>elillle ,.ne onQ rmoke me foel insecure in every
',,rcy she con even when v/e we[e slill young, ln her
second yefir oi' medicine propeir oi Fo; Eosiern Llniversiiy,
she c:orrtnti'lied suicide , pqcc:use of ,r:r riireoni brreo,k,I
fI
(,:_, ' .'
(-- ;
..s,
il
j ;fi'
lr
INTTACh; . IHNli,
Forlt.rrrc:tel'2, she wos .sovecj by my pcJrenis wno hoforce opelt her be:droo;-n docr. My sister wos olso seond envior..rs;. .She hos no regord for my welfclre ond enjoysi,it' ir om oiwoys oi o iorr, Dirring the July 2OOg U""a
:
tleelinir cri rhe University, rny, sisre;r conrnrented ihot r
lqlkecl like ? pon"ct ond llrc:t I <Jor.i,t kno,v q thing.U/henever l.hcd,,rme-thlng berfier, iire will iry lrep besi to,g?1, it oncJ if she ioilg she worrjci olrvoys lobel nry icther ,
urrfqir, Vvirerr our fotirer gove rne (.r r-roUse in i.Jew york, mysisfer trieci fo get ii from me even wr,j"n she orreor:.ry hod otlriee .storey iownhouse which is being ren:ied cndgener::iirg) income. l just gcve ner ihe hous.e I,o ovoidorgun'rents. when ihe iown house rvos tronsferrerj to me, I
ncsver receiuecJ ony ,incor,re I'rom it becouse my sisterworrlcl nlv'tj''/s s<:y thot the repoi's'\^,ere cosr,ry ond thelentoll; were oll used for the rr>poir;
j I n,i>ver preverrterl rrl/ fofher fro,,r seeing mybrotheir otrrJ sister, in loci on .Juty 25 2007, my lsister
togeilr';r v'ziih her husboad ond l',e. lwo grown up chirdrenhsc <Jinnr:r with my foiher onc rTje in Shong proce,
shongrilo iir:iei, Mokoii. A ,lopy of picture.s token on thotdoy is t:llci,:hed hei.elo es Annex ,,A,,, ll wos only wherr myfother rvr.,s ri<:k ihot ne refuse io see ihem. He solid thot henrighi ciie r:r:rry Lrecouse of the sires.s oI seeinq my brotherond silier. ivly sisier kepi on soyinl; ltrol she is nciinterestec) in my folher's properiies bui ever sinr.:e she wosinsiste.i irr ccquiring ilre Tcncy prcperty which iri r45,5?5sq.lr. M\v sisler oiwoys wonts the. besl oncj rarlll ,llei ii nonnotter whot it tokes.
l<, /vly broiher crnd si.sier r,voul,,J oiwc:.vs scry thoi ourfof heri w(.:)rj unfoir. The truil-, is ,-.,..t),,frJiher , ,,,1),.i o veryresponsihrler c:rnd gen'erorjs mon oncj lhinks onl;u li,, besi lorus cno icrr lri:; gron<lchildren. l-.le wos o goocl pr, ., .ler to ollr:f us, lhere is no truth ihot my sister r"vos self-mode. A1l the
tI
"S:
ATTAfiI{HIHT
l"-- r o +'
(,--j
,, l i :;
things .she is enjoying qt the mcrment were the c,rttci:,r.
my I'oli-rer'ri bounteousness, Ihe houle thoi ;he is living in
ihe'51r:tes including ,thq ollo:wonces ond ev.tr)etlsbs she.
neerds c:lre crll shculdered by my fother, But f,::r t"nv sister,
she cnly sees my fother os unroir oncl selfish. Titere wos
ol.so or-le tirne while my sister wos oboul to review in Stonley,;tr,,Kqplon irr flre Siotes when she Encouniered o problem
- r 1,,
v,1ith.hi3r norne E[enito,,?r,l*n,o ond Cynihio onr:: it rnvos our
foilrer wtrc> helped hel solvecl ihis probl My slbllrrgs
we.te <:lvroyl unoppreciotlve of rnlz folher's generosity arrd
would cnly see the neQofi,ze sid,: of him. They folled to
opprecrifite ihe fqct thot it wos eve[r my fother who
sl-rouldere< j his grondc,hildreri's expenses. This wos
eviden,:er:l by o cerlificotion issued by ihe Pr:esideni ond
Chiet c:f Acodemic Cfficer, copy of wlrich is ottoched .:i
hereio o.s Annex "8" ottesting thot my h:rother's second
nris'tr.ess hcr; breen recqiving rnonihly (.tllowonce lrom the
Unrver;iiy in the omount of llirre Tlrousond Eighi llundred
Tweptlu Five> Pesos. My fother did nol fcil lo givr* rnonetoty
gitts during speciol occosicrrs, Hi: gronrJchild Michoel
evr311 \r,roie lrim o ihant< you cord for giving P3S,O,JO io the
loiier. A cr:py of ihe lhcink yo,-r cord is otfoci'rocj irereto os
^^^^., il/-tl/\|t)tr,\ \_-
l. M',7 fo'ther only hod rne, Dr:. linnily Dei, Lt,ron ond
Dove llerror De Leotr who w'os lhe lqtter's ,grr:rldson, to
trusl vritlr hi,s ',,{r;lfore ond vvitirihe lJniversiiy. Dove
proctic:oll)' gJrew r..rp with my father since Eove; \vos oniy
five wlren he mel rny foiher cnd ihe lofter lovecJ hlrn so
much. [-)r:tze wos qDle to gi'ze hir,'r the, love, c;cre ond
unclersfc:nclirrg thot he ne ver got irom i-ris children. Dove
wcs v€)ry pctieni ,viih hinn e\/en rvhen he wos moody, He
gove lrirn imnrense joy" in more woys ihon one. Dove wos
oble 1o i-;it,e my' fother" utmosl improrl'once by being
thougi-rtfr-rl crncj ottentive. wi;rich h5-a lrover goi ' from hls
gnond,r:U'rrift:]nc:rn. Thls i,von rny'fother's otte'n'tic-:n, Thus, ii iaros
$Eftf lArilli;r
*I
hi:,$ii,i
""$.
i..
tl\. )
one ol'nty f(:lther's wi.shes ih,rt Dor,,e l-.:e ollowecj io see
rr. As to I)r. De l_eorr, my folher had an unwovering
foiih on her copobiliiies os o mover, leqder ond problem
solver. l-le wos o gre,:t lielp to nry fother. Before Dr. De
Leon con're, il wos only, rny foihclwlro shourldered the ,
heovy L:rrr<lens of the University, Dr, De Leon wos osked by
m'y. fother to hellt'him hondle the concerns of lhe Universiiy
CI,nd hi.s fornily. lt rnzos,Dr.,Dr? Leon who helped my fothercorrsicl,=rr-r hrlv with his problerns,
r). lhe University of ldonilcl improved dr-orrroticolly
duririg the ierm of 'Dlr. Leon os president, The, i-oie ofenrpllrneni irrcreoied theqerrdously lrcm o previous pl,5O0
2. Thot in conrrection with ihe execution of soid offidovit' o copy ot tog!ls hereio ottoched os Annex A, Aiiy' Ernesto Delos 'sontos' together wiih his
lowyer Atty. Morujito Polobrico ond one Morisso Wu fetched m" on July 07'
2OO9 ot obout 8:OOP.M. from the Dorio Eleno Oor[,.!}ot, of .'263 Lordixobol St''
Sompoloc. Monilo 1
3.ThottheybroughtmetooTopsilogonsomewhereotLocsonAvenueinfronl of the Nogtohon Bridge;
4. Thoi oi soid ploce Atty. Morujito Polobrico prepored o.n offidovit which
Atty.FrnestoDelosSontosdictoted*ni.ndirectlycontrovertedorcontrodictedthe offidovit which r eorrier "r".JGa
i"lr.," euotified Theft - cose os mentioned
in po. t hereof, a+qdod qcart*eftrr ArDtad C'
5'ThotinthisoffidovitwhichAfty.MorujitoPolobricoondAtty.ErnestoDeros sontos prepored ond which they ret me signed r stqted Jhot r previously
worked os driver of the uporr", or. Virgilio oeloi Sontos ond Cordello Llomos
from September .10,2001 up tolrf, f ,iOOq when in foct ond indeed ldid not
work os such driver for soid spouses from September l0' 2001 up to July 01 ' 2OO? '
but, insteod worked os such ariu"itt"- Seb'tember l0' 200'l up to July 0l' 2009
for Atty. Ernesto oeros Sontos os stoted in my offidovit in the euolified rheft -cose) qlqi,vrtd aE arvnQt<(t A'b and c'
6. Thot the oct of Atty. Morujito Polob.rico.ond Atty' Ernesto Delos sontos in
preporing ond letiing me signed o ttttt offidovit thus moking me controdict my
previous offidovit ond my ,rpprr"d-testimony in the quolified theft - cose loter
\ SANTOS orderecl nre to make an electrical connection coming frbm Benguet Pine
der and made the\ andlobeYedhisor'\\ Tour.ist Inn goilg to tire basetnetlt of CTLL'Bldg'; and I oDeyeu rLrJ vL'
electrical connection
5. That afler rnaking the electrical connection the plu".t of wori< was transferred to the'
basement of CTLL Bldg. and there the Bail cuttrng,_u*u**. and weiding using the
electric c*rreut co,rirrg from Benguet Pine Toruist lnn was done;
: of Ball outter' Bender' and
6. That I larow this fact becarrse I aiso worked as operatol
welder for sometirjre; but, afte' teaching fwo workers there to operate the Bail cuttel'
sed to work thereiBender, ancl welding macldne' I cea:
c,rrent then used in the
7. That I loow as a fabt that the one paying for the electric
bwner of Bengudt Pine Tourist
Ll'Blclg' was Universit'v of Maniia' thebasetnent of CTLI- IJlclg' was LrtuYv
Inn;
fj
/,rrirtr${lsJr}-,*H}l,iliril.?-'S',i"d'rsts4its'
suppiy of CTLL Bldg. to the water installation of Beuguet Pine Torrrist h,rn_sometime in
February, 2009 purposely to nrake supply of water to the second tloor of CTLL Bldg.
w-hich ATTY. ERNIISTO DELOS SANTOS intencled then to open for woulcl be toulist'
or checkers on February 14,2Q09;
9. That when I Ieft the enrploy of ATTY, ERNESTO DELOS SANTOS iuJuIy,2009, that
water connection rvas still in effect aud existing;
10, That wiren I u'as instircted by the President.of University of Manila to check the water'
connection sometime iri June, 2011.I still sau, and found out that the water connection
was still existing; Itor.vever, the electric connection was already cut, but the electric wire
ra,lich was then used lo conr:ect the eiectric current with Benguet Pine Toulist kur was
still tl'rere, but, alreadv cut; ,
11. That I execute this aflidavit for any purpose it is legall,v feasible and I am ready and
willing to affin:r. and confirrn the foregoing facts in cotrt or aay investigating body'
rN ffIf}.r-ESS WIIER-EOF, I have hereunto set my hancl this th day of July,.
2011 in Baguio City, PhiliPPines.
SUBSCRJi]ED AND
City, PhilipPines.
.,|.l
l
:
SWOITN TO BEFORE ME this
Affiant
th day of JulY,2011 in Baguio
.l
tUfffrflg:ffi
CERTIIIED XEROX CO}Y
T',',r i d, :,
I ia L.r *' "ih caserbf irufi}'IL.I, utt lfll, url r i-CitY of Bagr
DE LEON,ComPlainant,
EMILY DODSON
- versus
ERNESTO DE LOS SANTOSResPondent'
x__________ -------------x
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
hnarry.
PS NO. 11-01553
UTI
rll
tll
BFgSEC
2011
.^ITY OF
coMES NOW THE RESPONDENT, throughttre r-rndersigned
cor]nsel, a:rd unto Lhis Honorable office, most respect-ful1y states that:
1'AcomplaintforQualifieclTheftrva.sfi]edbyEmilyDodsondeLeonagainsthereirrresponclentallegingthatthe.lattermideillegalelectricai connections and. a-lso diverted water from Benguet Pines Tourist