JUAN DULAL IA vs. ATTY. ATTY. PABLO PABLO C. CRUZ
Facts: Atty. Pablo Pablo C. Cruz, Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan, Bulacan, respondent, is charged by uan !ulalia, r., co"plainant, of #iolation of the Code of Professional $esponsibility. Co"plainant%s &ife 'usan 'oriano !ulalia filed an application for building per"it for the construction of a &arehouse. !espite co"pliance &ith all the re(uire"ents for the purpose, she failed to secure a per"it, she attributing the sa"e to the opposition of respondents &ho &rote a letter to Carlos . Abacan, Municipal )ngineer and concurrent Building Official of Meycauayan saying that unbearable nuisances that the construction creates and its ad#erse effects particularly the i""inent danger and da"age da"age to their properties, properties, health and safety safety of the neighbour neighbourss ad*oining ad*oining the site. site. By co"plaina co"plainant% nt%ss clai", clai", respondent opposed the application for building per"it because of a personal grudge against his &ife 'usan &ho ob*ected to respondent%s "arrying her first cousin +"elda 'oriano &hile respondent%s "arriage &ith Carolina Agaton is still subsisting. $espondent "arried +"elda 'oriano at the Clar County, -e#ada, 'A, &hen the Fa"ily Code of the Philippines had already taen effect. /e in#oes good faith, ho&e#er, he clai"ing to ha#e had the i"pression that the applicable pro#ision at the ti"e &as Article 01 of the Ci#il Code. For &hile Article 234 of the Fa"ily Code pro#ides that the Code shall ha#e retroacti#e application, there is a (ualification there under that it should not pre*udice or i"pair #ested or ac(uired rights in accordance &ith the Ci#il Code or other la&s. +n respondent%s case, he being out of the country since 5604, he can be gi#en the benefit of the doubt on his clai" that Article 01 of the Ci#il Code &as the applicable pro#ision &hen he contracted the second "arriage abroad. Fro" 5603 &hen allegedly his first &ife abandoned hi", an allegation &hich &as not refuted, until his "arriage in 5606 &ith +"elda 'oriano, there is no sho&ing that he &as ro"antically in#ol#ed &ith any &o"an. And, it is undisputed that his first &ife has re"ained an absentee e#en during the pendency of this case. $espondent%s "isi"pression that it &as the Ci#il Code pro#isions &hich applied at the ti"e he contracted his second "arriage and the see"ingly un"indful attitude of his residential co""unity to&ards his second "arriage not&ithstanding, not&ithstanding, respondent "ay not go scot free. +ssue: 7hether or not $espondent #iolated Canon 3 of the Code of $esponsibility8 /eld: 9es. $espondent%s clai" that he &as not a&are that the Fa"ily Code because he &as in the nited 'tated does not lie, as ignorance of the la& e;cuses no one fro" co"pliance there&ith. +t "ust be e"phasized that the pri"ary duty of la&yers is to obey the la&s of the land and pro"ote respect for the la& and legal processes.
