Republic of the Philippines

City of Manila
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, LENI RUGISTA, of legal age, Filipino, with assistance of counsel,
do hereby state under oath that:
1. I am the wife of Atty. Rob Rugista and the mother of Bernadette. I
am the head of real estate brokers for Manuela Realty.
2. I accuse and hereby charge my husband, ROB RUGISTA, a
member of the Philippine Bar and a managing partner of Batas Law firm in
Manila for violation of his oath as a lawyer and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides:
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, committed against me
when he maliciously entered into two other marriages while our
marriage was still subsisting.
3. On May 9, 2005, I married Rob Rugista at the Manila Cathedral,
Intramuros, Manila. We are currently living in a house owned by my
parents, Flordeliz and Mario Marquez.
Attached as ANNEX A is a copy of the marriage certificate of Rob and Leni
Rugista.
4. On June 2014, I went to Cebu to inspect one of our projects for
Manuela Realty, I met Bonita Rugista, one of our Cebu real estate agents.
Both of us were shocked to know that we have the same husband. Bonita
stated that Rob married her in a civil ceremony celebrated by Judge Juan
de la Cruz on June 12, 2013.
Attached as ANNEX B is a copy of the marriage certificate of Rob and
Bonita Rugista.

5. After I filed a criminal case against Rob for bigamy, I also learned
that he contracted another marriage with a girl named Amanda, a teacher
from Davao.
6. Amanda also filed a case against Rob for bigamy after she read in
the newspaper that there was an earlier case filed against him. According
to her, she only agreed to marry Rob because she believed in good faith
that he was single after he showed her divorce papers obtained in Havana
in 2010. Their married was solemnized at the San Pedro Church in Davao
in June 2011.
Attached as ANNEX C is a copy of the marriage certificate of Rob and
Amanda.
7. Amanda also informed me that she has a 3-year-old son with Rob.
Attached as ANNEX D is a copy of the birth certificate of their son.
8. It is clear from the foregoing that Rob Rugista did not only violated
his oath as a lawyer but his act was contrary to honesty, justice, decency
and morality.
9. He also violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides:
Canon 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession as well as Rule 7.03 of the
same code, which provides that, a lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
10. Further, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 27.
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
the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority
so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose
of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice.
11. In Macarrubo v. Macarrubo, the respondent lawyer entered
into multiple marriages and subsequently used legal remedies to sever
them. The court ruled: the respondents 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 the strengthening of our nation as a whole. In this light, no fate
other than disbarment awaited the wayward respondent.
12. Clearly, with these acts and omissions of Atty. Rob Rugista, he
should be accordingly punished and must suffer the maximum
penalty sanctioned by law.
I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing
statements and in support of my prayer for the IMMEDIATE DISBARMENT
of ATTY. ROB RUGISTA.
Other relief just and equitable under the premise is likewise prayed
for.
TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this
Complaint-Affidavit on 22 September 2016.

LENI RUGISTA
Complainant-Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 22nd day of

September 2016.

Notary Public