Abaigar vs.

David Paz (1979)

Summary Cases:

● Pillar Abaigar vs. David D.C. Paz

Subject: In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant;

Facts:

Pilar Abaigar filed an administrative case for disbarment against David D. C. Paz, a member of the
Philippine Bar.

Pilar Abaigar alleged that she sought the aid of a legal counsel regarding her divorce case filed by her
husband in the Superior Court of California, U.S.A. She called the office of Congressman Bagatsing in
Manila and respondent David D.C. Paz answered the telephone call and volunteered his legal services.

Complainant alleged that, after the termination of the divorce case, David Paz became exceedingly
friendly with complainant, and eventually, respondent proposed marriage to the complainant and the
complainant accepted. Respondent made complainant believe that although he was living with another
woman, his relations with said woman were no impediment. Since he had been compelled to contract a
civil marriage with the woman and that since it was not a marriage under the church laws, it was no bar
for him to get married under the church laws with the complainant.

Respondent convinced the complainant that since they were going to get married anyway, they should
act as husband and wife. She reluctantly acceded to said demands. The complainant became pregnant
but due to causes beyond her control, the pregnancy was lost.

Respondent introduced Virginia Paz to the complainant. Virginia Paz, in the course of the meeting,
informed the complainant that there had been actually two marriages between Virginia Paz and the
respondent, one under the civil law and one under the church law. Complainant confronted the
respondent but the latter did nothing to make amends for having deceived the complainant and for
having taken advantage of her.

David Paz countered that he never proposed marriage to the complainant and that he had not deceived
complainant nor taken advantage of her. Complainant has appealed to him on several occasions for
legal and financial assistance which he accommodated out of compassion.

The Court referred the administrative case to the Solicitor General for investigation.

In the Solicitor General's report, he found it highly doubtful that complainant, a licensed chemical
engineer ( fifth placer in the Board Examinations), could allow herself to be easily and wholly deceived
that, “notwithstanding the full awareness by both of the existence of each other's previous marriages, no
legal impediment stood in the way of their getting married ecclesiastically.” Even granting that
complainant did not actually comprehend the legal implications of the situation, just the mere realization
that both respondent's wife and her own husband being still alive was enough to stir her mind and to
impel her to make her own investigation. The Solicitor General concluded that complainant voluntarily
entered into sexual relations with respondent.

Meanwhile the complainant sent a verified letter-petition to the then Chief Justice Makalintal. This time
she asserts that there never was an illicit relationship between her and the respondent, Atty. David D.C.
Paz, and that their relationship was above-board just like any engaged couple. And finally, she avers that
| Page 1 of 2
she was only after the collection of the loan which the respondent got from her and not for revenge for
his deception.

Held:

In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant

1. The power of this Court to disbar a lawyer should be exercised with caution because of its serious
consequences. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant and the
charge against the lawyer must be established by convincing proof .

2. Moreover, considering the serious consequences, of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the
Bar, clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of either penalty. Where there is
no proof that respondent lawyer was guilty of any unethical conduct, harassment and malpractice, the
disbarment case against him should be dismissed.

3. The evidence adduced by the complainant has failed to establish any cause for disciplinary action
against the respondent. As the Solicitor General said in his report, "From all indications, there is little
room for doubt that she filed his disbarment case not in redress of a wrong, for there was no wrong
committed. It was a voluntary act of indiscretion between two counting adults who were fully aware of the
consequences of their deed and for which they were responsible only to their own private consciences."

| Page 2 of 2