12. Cordova Vs Cordova Case Digest.docx

12. CORDOVA vs. CORDOVA, A.C. No. 3249. August 9, 2004 FACTS: The case at bar stemmed from the complaint of Salvacion Delizo-Cordova against respondent husband for immoral conduct. In the Resolution of November 29, 1989, the Court indefinitely suspended Atty. Lawrence D. Cordova from the practice of law after finding him guilty of immorality. The Court likewise resolved to consider lifting the suspension upon submission by respondent of proof satisfactory to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), that he has and continues to provide for the support of his legitimate family and that he has given up his immoral course of conduct. On January 15, 1992 and February 12, 1992, respondent and complainant, respectively, filed separate petitions with this Court praying that the suspension of respondent be lifted. In his petition, respondent explained that the allegations of maltreatment and failure to provide support were products of complainant's imagination and were unsubstantiated. He alleged that his eldest daughter, Lorraine Salve, who was living with him after complainant left their home in 1989, was enrolled in school and was provided with material and emotional support. Respondent also submitted the affidavit of desistance executed by complainant on December 27, 1991, attesting that he has reformed, living in the conjugal home and provides love and paternal affection to his family. On the other hand, complainant contended in her petition that she and respondent have reconciled, and that respondent has given up his immoral conduct and is supporting his legitimate family. Appended to her petition is the affidavit of respondent which was also executed on December 27, 1991. In the Resolutions of February 13, 1992 and March 5, 1992, these petitions were referred to the IBP for appropriate action and recommendation. However, on March 17, 1992, complainant wrote separate letters to Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa and the IBP negating her earlier petition to lift respondent's suspension. Complainant claimed that respondent still goes home to his live-in partner, Cita Magallanes; does not support his family, and made it appear that he had changed his ways so she would sign an affidavit of desistance.aw In the months following, complainant sent two other letters of a similar tenor.aw At about the same time, Lorraine Salve Cordova wrote the Court in support of her father's petition. On January 30, 1998, the CBD received a Manifestation/Motion from respondent reiterating his plea that his suspension be lifted. The court On May 29, 2000, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XIV-000-318, adopting and approving the report and recommendation of Commissioner Elamparo, lifting the suspension of respondent, copy of which was furnished this Court. In view thereof, the Court directed complainant to comment thereon. In a letter dated January 18, 2002, complainant expressed disappointment over the move of the Surigao del Sur Chapter in extending assistance to respondent. She contended that the Surigao del Sur Chapter is not in a position to know that respondent has already reformed, and claimed that respondent is cohabiting with his mistress, Isabelita Cinciro, with whom he has a seven-year old son. She also opined that all the allegations in respondent's motion for early resolution were lies, and that in 1992, respondent tried to reconcile with her so that his suspension would be lifted. Complainant thought that respondent had turned in a new leaf but later discovered that this was not so. She also recounted the hardships that she endured with respondent. The Court referred this matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation, report and recommendation. In its Report dated January 13, 2003, the OBC submitted that the Court is neither bound by the findings of the IBP nor obliged to accept the same as a matter of course. It also considered the protestation of respondent that the length of his suspension is more than sufficient punishment and his insistence that he has fully reformed are not fully meritorious since respondent has not submitted proof satisfactory to the Court that he has met the standards imposed in the Resolution of November 29, 1989. On January 27, 2003, upon the recommendation of the OBC, the Court required respondent to comment on the letter dated January 18, 2002 of complainant and to submit satisfactory proof that he has continuously provided for the support of his family and that he has given up his immoral conduct. Respondent received a copy of said resolution on March 21, 2003 but failed to comply therewith. In the Resolution of October 8, 2003, respondent was required to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for his non-compliance, a copy of which was received by respondent on November 12, 2003. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Lawrence D. Cordova’s suspension be lifted on the basis that he has morally reformed. HELD: No. Considering that up to this late date, respondent has neither commented on the letter dated January 18, 2002 of complainant by way of opposition to his motion to lift suspension nor submitted satisfactory proof that he has continuously provided for the support of his legitimate family and given up his immoral conduct, the Court Resolves to DENY the motion of respondent that his indefinite suspension from the practice of law be lifted.