Scribd
Upload
312 views

Zerna vs. Zerna

1) The complainant filed charges against her husband, respondent Atty. Manolo Zerna, alleging he abandoned his family financially and emotionally after passing the bar exam to pursue relationships with other women. 2) An investigation found evidence substantiating the complainant's claims through emails and photos showing the respondent's illicit relationships. 3) The Supreme Court agrees the complainant presented substantial evidence of the respondent's gross immorality and that he should be disbarred from practicing law.

Uploaded by

Veah Caabay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
312 views

Zerna vs. Zerna

1) The complainant filed charges against her husband, respondent Atty. Manolo Zerna, alleging he abandoned his family financially and emotionally after passing the bar exam to pursue relationships with other women. 2) An investigation found evidence substantiating the complainant's claims through emails and photos showing the respondent's illicit relationships. 3) The Supreme Court agrees the complainant presented substantial evidence of the respondent's gross immorality and that he should be disbarred from practicing law.

Uploaded by

Veah Caabay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Evidence

NENA YBAÑEZ ZERNA, complainant


vs.
ATTY. MANOLO M. ZERNA, respondent
A.C. No. 8700
September 8, 2020

Facts:
The complainant and the respondent were married on May 6, 1990 at the Mary Immaculate Church in
Dumaguete City. Their union produced three daughters: Phoebe Manelle, Kristine Anne, and June Evangel. In
May 1999, respondent took his oath as a member of the Bar. Complainant alleged that after passing the Bar,
respondent stopped extending financial support to their children and started having illicit affairs with women.
Complainant discovered in 1999 that respondent was involved with a balikbayan named Grace based
on their email correspondence. The respondent, on this same year, was also engaged in another illicit
relationship with a woman named Judelyn. The complainant further alleged that apart from Judelyn,
respondent maintained romantic relations with another woman named Evelyn Martinez.
On July 5, 2009, complainant filed criminal charges against respondent for concubinage, for allegedly
openly cohabiting with Evelyn and siring a child with the latter. Complainant claimed that respondent
abandoned his financial obligation to his legal family, resulting in severe financial difficulties as well as mental
and emotional anguish.
In his comment, the respondent countered that their marriage was void ab initio for lack of a valid
marriage license, as complainant allegedly forged his signature and obtained a marriage license even without
his personal appearance. That the complainant never supported him either financially or emotionally as a
dutiful wife should. He denied the accusation that he failed to give support to his children, and that he
abandoned his family. He, likewise, denied complainant's allegations of concubinage, claiming that these were
brought about by complainant's misplaced and unfounded jealousy. He claimed that Grace was a mere
acquaintance and prospective client; that Judelyn was just a friend; and that Evelyn was just a close family
friend.
The matter was referred to the IBP for. investigation, report and recommendation. Commissioner
Oliver A. Cachapero of the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline found merit in the complaint and recommended
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. The Commissioner found
that there was enough evidence to hold respondent administratively liable for maintaining illicit affairs despite
him being married to complainant. The IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XX-2013-7213 adopting
and approving, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the IBP Commissioner, and suspending
respondent from the practice of law for three (3) years instead of one (1) year.
On April 18, 2016, the Court resolved to require the complainant to report to the Court within ten (10)
days from notice the veracity of the "death" of the respondent, it appearing that the copy of the Court's
Resolution suspending respondent from the practice of law was returned unserved, with postal carrier's
notation "RTS-addressee deceased" on the envelope. On May 14, 2019, the IBP National Secretary submitted
to the Court its compliance with the Court's January 30, 2019 Resolution, informing the Court that as of that
date, the IBP National Office had not officially received any information about the death of respondent Atty.
Manolo M. Zerna and was, thus, unable to confirm the same. In view of the foregoing, the Office of the Bar
Confidant recommended that the case be resolved by the Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the complainant has presented enough evidence to substantiate her claim that
respondent Atty. Manolo M. Zerna is guilty of gross immorality and may, therefore, be removed or suspended
by the Supreme Court.

Held:
YES. After a thorough review of the records, the Court agrees with the finding of the IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline and IBP Board of Governors that the complainant has presented enough evidence to
substantiate her claim that respondent Atty. Manolo M. Zerna is guilty of gross immorality and may, therefore,
be removed or suspended by the Supreme Court for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar.
This Court has emphasized that as officers of the court, lawyers must not only, in fact, be of good moral
character but must also be seen to be of good moral character in leading lives in accordance with the highest
moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the Court is required
not only to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping mistresses but also to conduct himself as to avoid
scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.
In the present case, complainant alleged that respondent carried on a number of adulterous and illicit
relations throughout their marriage, eventually abandoning her and their children to openly cohabit with one
paramour. Through pieces of documentary evidence in the form of email messages and photos, among others,
as well as the corroborating affidavits of her witnesses, complainant was able to establish respondent's illicit
relations with other women, particularly Evelyn, through substantial evidence which is necessary to justify the
imposition of administrative penalties on a member of the Bar. On the other hand, respondent only offered
self-serving denials. Basic is the principle that denials are weak especially if unsupported by evidence. Thus, it
bears emphasis that aside from respondent's claim that complainant was not the hapless and pitiful wife she
claimed to be and that complainant's allegations of his infidelities were purely brought about by misplaced
and unfounded jealousy, respondent did not present countervailing evidence to substantiate his bare
allegations.
While this Court is cognizant that cases such as this usually include self-serving arguments, this Court
finds that between the two parties, it was complainant who was able to build her case against respondent.
Thus, this Court will not deviate from the findings of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline that there was
enough evidence to support the claims of gross immorality against the respondent.
WHEREFORE, respondent Manolo M. Zerna is found GUILTY of GROSS IMMORALITY and is hereby
DISBARRED from the practice of law.

You might also like