JUSTINE EUNICE ESPINOLA LEGAL ETHICS JUDGE CUERDO SEPT. 27, 2012 SALMINGO VS. RUBICA A.C. NO.

6573 JULY 9, 2007 PARTIES: Complainant: Ignacio J. Salmingo Respondent: Atty. Rodney K. Rubica Ponente: Carpio Morales, J. FACTS: On Jan. 9, 2003 Atty. Rubica filed for a declaration of nullity of his marriage with Liza Jane Estao. Liza Jane's given address was at Blk. 25, Lot 36 Josefina St., Eroreco Subd., Bacolod City. But, the summons delivered to her was returned unserved because noone was allegedly found in the address. The court granted the respondent's Motion for Leave of Court to Effect Service by Publication and he was able to publish his summons in the Visayan Post, a weekly newspaper os general circulation in Negros Occidental. When nothing was heard from Liza Jane, Atty. Rubica presented his evidence ex parte at Branch 40 of Silay RTC without the City Prosecutor's participation. On May 23, 2003, the trial court declared the respondent's and Liza Jane's marriage as null and void because it was shown through the presented evidence that Liza Jane had a previous valid and existing marriage with another man named Rene T. Mojica. The judgment was rendered final on July 17, 2003. Ignacio Salmingo complained that Atty. Rubica intentionally hid Liza Jane's address so she could not receive the summons and that this enabled him to present evidence ex parte. He also alleged that the respondent only published the summons in a newspaper of local circulation and that he also did not serve a copy of his petition on the Office of the Solicitor General and Office of the City Prosecutor;

hence, the petition for Atty. Rubica's disbarment. ISSUE: Whether Salmingo's complaint of non-service of summons could have merit in Atty. Rubica's disbarment. RULING: No. As with other judicial determinations, the Court upheld the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors, where it was presumed that the lawyer being complained about is innocent until the complainant's proof overcomes the presumption and that the latter's clear evidence could establish his charges ( Marcelo v. Javier, Sr., 214 SCRA 1, 15). To prove that Atty. Rubica knew Liza Jane's address, Salmingo argued that he was sending allowances to his ex-wife and children at her residence. The respondent countered that he sent his allowances through ATM, which could enable Liza Jane to withdraw the money from anywhere in the country. The complainant also alleged that Atty. Rubica did not follow the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages in terms of submitting six copies to the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor and that he did not publish his summons in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. The Court held that the first complaint did not apply to Atty. Rubica at the time of his filling for the declaration of his marriage as null and void. So, he was not obliged to submit six copies of his petition. He was also found to comply with the rules on publishing summons as provided for in Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, wherein he was able to post the summons in publication in a newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for such time as the court may order. Because of insufficient evidence, weak argument, and absence of direct claim to the situation being complained about, the Court denied Salmingo's petition for Atty. Rubica's disbarment.