3L\.

epublit of tbe tlbilippines

~upreme <!Court
;fflllanila
EN BANC

DIVINE GRACE P. CRISTOBAL, A.C. No. 12702

Complainant,
Present:

PERALTA, CJ,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
LEONEN,
CAGUIOA,
GESMUNDO,
HERNANDO,
CARANDANG,
-versus- LAZARO-JAVIER,*
INTING,*
ZALAMEDA,*
LOPEZ,
DELOS SANTOS,
GAERLAN,
ROSARIO,JJ

ATTY. JONATHAN A. CRISTOBAL, Promulgated:

Respondent.
---=--.::c..=-.::'---------/
_N_o_v_e_m_b_e_r-=-10-=--z_,
X - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

DECISION

CARANDANG, J.:

This case involves a Complaint1 for disbarment filed by Divine Grace P.

Cristobal (Divine) against her husband, Atty. Jonathan A. Cristobal (Atty.
Cristobal; collectively, the spouses). Divine accused Atty. Cristobal of
violating Canon 72 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the
lawyer's oath.
r·
On official leave.
Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 1-3.
2 CANON 7 -A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
support the activities of the integrated bar.
 ,
Decision 2 A.C. No. 12702 .

Version of the Complainant

Divine and Atty. Cristobal were married on May 1, 1999 and were
blessed with four (4) children. They did not encounter any major marital
problem during the early years . of their married life. However, Atty.
Cristobal's behavior changed when he became a lawyer in March 2003. He
became abusive and irresponsible towards his family and subjected Divine to
verbal, emotional, psychological, and physical abuse. Divine described six (6)
particular instances of such abuse. 3

On January 30, 2005, the spouses had a heated argument over money. In
the presence of two (2) of their children, Atty. Cristobal's mother (Araceli),
his brother (Jay), his sister (Joyce), and his cousins, Atty. Cristobal choked
and pushed Divine, punched her at the back, and shouted "mayabang ka, akala
mo ikaw ang gumgastos [sic] ng lahat!" Divine reported the incident at the
Ilagan Police Station and secured a Medical Certificate on the same day. 4

Sometime in April 2006, Atty. Cristobal threw a Red Horse beer bottle
at Divine because she protested Atty. Cristobal's payment of his family's
utility bills. The argument started when Divine asked for money to buy food
but was not given money by Atty. Cristobal because he paid for the said utility
bills. It was then that Atty. Cristobal threatened that they separate and uttered,
"you may get the car, the house, the children but you can never have me!" 5

Sometime in April 2007, Divine requested Atty. Cristobal to purchase

milk for their son. Atty. Cristobal retorted, "eh di ikaw ang mag-utos, leche
ka!" He then pulled Divine's hair and punched her back, causing Divine to fall
down the stairs. Atty. Cristobal shouted, "umuwi na kayo! Ayaw ko na kayong
makita! Lumayas ka dito! [sic]" in the presence of their children. 6 Since they
were at Araceli's house at the time of the incident, Divine and her children
returned to their rented place in Bagumbayan, Ilagan, Isabela. For one month,
Atty. Cristobal did not go home to their rented house. Divine went back to
Araceli's house with her children when she realized she was solely paying for
the rent in addition to the family loan she took out in July 2004. 7

On May 15, 2009, Divine confronted Atty. Cristobal about her suspicions
that he was having an affair with one of his students in St. Ferdinand College.
Atty. Cristobal responded, "lumayas ka na aya~ na kita!" He then pushed her,
causing her to lose her balance and hit her forehead on their house's gate. 8
Pictures of her injury were attached to the instant disbarment complaint. 9

During a car ride on July 17, 2009, the spouses were with Joyce and three
of their children when Atty. Cristobal ordered Divine to step out of the car. He
pulled her hair, yelled, "umuwi ka na sa nanay mo!," "ayaw na kitang
3 Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 1-2.

~
4 Id. at 2.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 167.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 12.
Decision 3 A.C. No. 12702

makita!," and ''papatayin kita!" Atty. Cristobal then drew out his hand gun
and threatened to shoot her. 10

On December 11, 2009, Atty. Cristobal boxed Divine's right eye.

According to Divine, she simply followed Atty. Cristobal to his law office to
chat but Atty. Cristobal was hostile and misinterpreted everything Divine said.
It was because of this incident that Divine filed with the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Ilagan, Isabela a Complaint against Atty. Cristobal
for violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of
2004 (AVAWC) on December 14, 2009. Pictures of her black (right) eye, the
police blotter, and a medico-legal report were attached to the instant
disbarment complaint. 11

Version of the Respondent

In his Answer 12 dated September 8, 2010, Atty. Cristobal denied having

a peaceful relationship during the early stages of their marital life as they often
quarrelled even before they got married. He described Divine as disrespectful
to everyone - his relatives, their children, their children's teachers, their
household help, and Divine's officemates. 13

Atty. Cristobal denied arguing about money because he gave his salary
to Divine. His pay checks as the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of
Santiago City, Branch 35 were given to Divine. When he resigned as a Clerk
of Court and became the Dean of St. Ferdinand College, his salary from the
school was deposited to his Metro Bank account - the bank where Divine
worked. Divine had control of his earnings as Dean because she had
possession of his ATM card. 14

Atty. Cristobal vehemently denied physically and verbally abusing

Divine and explained his version of the events between January 30, 2005 and
December 11, 2009. 15

On January 30, 2005, the spouses were occupying the third floor of
Araceli's house. Since it was a Sunday, he went down to Araceli's place at the
second floor to take a nap on the sofa located inside the living room. While he
was sleeping, Divine suddenly woke him up by repeatedly kicking his legs
and feet and angrily said, "hoy gising!" Annoyed, Atty. Cristobal responded,
"ang bastos mo naman. Hindi pa ginawa ng papa ko sa akin yan!" Because
of their elevated voices, Araceli, Jay, and Joyce went to them and asked what
was going on. When Atty. Cristobal explained that Divine was kicking him to
wake up, Araceli asked Divine why the latter needed to resort to such
behavior. Divine then denied kicking him. Frustrated over Divine's denial, he
lost his composure and pushed Divine back up to the third floor. However, he

r
10
Id. at 3.
II
Id. at 169.
12
Id. at 24-36.
13
Id. at 24-25.
14
Id. at 26-28.
15
Id. at 26-36.
 '
Decision 4 A.C. No. 12702 ,

did not choke or punch her back. 16 This was attested to by Araceli, 17 Jay, 18 and
Joyce, 19 in separate affidavits all dated September 6, 2010.

In April 2006, Atty. Cristobal manifested that he was new in private

practice and was barely earning enough for the family. However, his earnings
as Dean of St. Ferdinand College were at Divine's disposal for food and other
expenses. Atty. Cristobal recalled that upon reaching the house after a tennis
match with one of his clients, he asked Divine what their breakfast would be.
Out of the blue, Divine shouted, "magbigay ka ng pera mo! Akin na!" When
Atty. Cristobal said he had no money because he paid for his family's
electricity bills, she got angry and threatened to leave the house if he didn't
give her money. Divine then proceeded to pack her and their children's
belongings and pointed at the number of household items she will get. Irked,
Atty. Cristobal shouted, "you can have the car, you can have the house, you
can have the children but you cannot have me!" However, Atty. Cristobal
denied having thrown a beer bottle at Divine as he was not drinking at that
time. 20

As for the April 2007 incident where the spouses allegedly fought over
purchasing their child's milk, Atty. Cristobal denied physically hurting and
shouting at Divine over such issue. He claimed that Divine's version of what
happened is too vague and failed to specify the exact date of the said
incident. 21

Atty. Cristobal averred that it was impossible for them to argue last May
15, 2009 because he attended a court hearing in the morning and proceeded to
the Office of the City Prosecutor in the afternoon. Any argument the spouses
had over Atty. Cristobal's alleged affairs were fabricated by Divine because
of her unjustified fits of jealousy. Atty. Cristobal claimed that Divine would
be suspicious of almost anyone - his relatives, clients, students, officemates
at the RTC, employees in the law firm, and even a guest at their child's
baptism. Divine's pictures of her May 15, 2009 injury were alleged to be
digitally altered and new. 22

Atty. Cristobal gave a lengthy account of what happened on July 17,

2009. On that day, Atty. Cristobal dropped Divine and their youngest child off
at Isabela General Hospital and informed Divine that he cannot pick them up
because of a testimonial luncheon for new lawyers hosted by the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) - Isabela Chapter. During the luncheon, Divine
would berate Atty. Cristobal via text messages and insisted that he pick them
up from the hospital. He was forced to leave the luncheon to fetch them and
bring them back home. 23 However, Divine ordered him to bring them back to
the hospital at 4:00 p.m. Anticipating that he would have imbibed a few
alcoholic drinks by then, he suggested that any of their two part-time drivers
16
Id. at 27.
17
Id. at 39-40.

1✓
18
Id. at 44.
19
Id. at 40-43.
20
Id. at 28-29.
21
Id. at 30.
22
Id. at 30-31.
23
Id. at 32.
Decision 5 A.C. No. 12702

(Franklin or Rolly) bring her and their son to the hospital. Still, Divine insisted
that Atty. Cristobal accompany them. Upon returning home at 5 :00 p.m., Atty.
Cristobal acceded to Divine's demands to bring them back to the hospital
despite his earlier advice. It was during this second trip to the hospital that
Joyce and three of their children rode the car with the spouses. On the ride to
the hospital, Divine was picking fights with Atty. Cristobal and was nagging
him about his drinking during the luncheon. At wits' end, Atty. Cristobal
stopped the car, took his things, told Divine to drive the car herself, and rode
a tricycle to his uncle's house to cool down. Contrary to Divine's allegations,
he could not have pulled her hair while they were in the car because Divine
was seated in between Joyce and the spouses' daughter at the back seat. He
also denied carrying a gun in the car, as attested by Franklin and Rolly. 24

Atty. Cristobal gave a different version of what transpired on December

11, 2009. On that fateful day, Atty. Cristobal attended seven hearings.
Afterwards, he reported for work at St. Ferdinand College until 7:30 p.m.
Before heading home for the evening, he passed by his cousin's store where
he ate dinner with his daughter. 25 Around 9:00 p.m., he instructed his daughter
to return to his law office (located at the third floor of Araceli's residential
building) where he and his daughter slept. As he was beginning to feel pain in
his right eye, he went to Mercury Drugstore with his cousin's husband to
purchase eye drops. Upon entering the gate of their house, Divine was already
waiting for him (nag-aahang) at the ground floor. She then followed him to
the third floor. Atty. Cristobal proceeded to take his glaucoma maintenance
medicine and prepare for bed. When he lied down on the bed, Divine sat
beside him and asked about his whereabouts on previous days. 26 She told him
that she saw a piece of scratch paper with scribbles of Atty. Cristobal's
paramour in the pocket of Atty. Cristobal's pants. Divine then reached into
Atty. Cristobal's shorts, grabbed his crotch, pulled his penis, and said,
''pinalahas na ha nila ito ha? Pinalahas na ha nila?" Appalled by Divine's
behavior, Atty. Cristobal brushed her hand away. Still, Divine placed her right
hand on top of Atty. Cristobal's shorts, shook his crotch, and asked the same
question. He requested her to stop nagging him. Divine then told one of their
sons to bring up their crying child. In the presence of all their children, Divine
would accuse Atty. Cristobal of having an affair. Divine also berated him
about her labor case with her former employer. 27 Unsatisfied, Divine
proceeded to slap Atty. Cristobal and punch his chest. She then put down their
youngest child (who she was previously carrying), took Atty. Cristobal's belt
and hit him with it. She also scratched Atty. Cristobal's face. Feeling his blood
pressure rising, he closed his eyes, shielded his face, and defended himself by
extending his arms to parry Divine's blows. When Divine stopped hitting him,
he opened his eyes and saw Divine standing by the wall with an injury on her
eye. Atty. Cristobal said, "ayan kasi eh, sinabi ko ng tama na, nasaktan ka
tuloy," Divine vindictively uttered, "wala na talagang mangyayari sa atin.
Kaya hintayin mo ang bawi ko, tingnan mo magmakaawa ka din sa akin! Aalis
na ako!" Atty. Cristobal did not bother going to the hospital for his bruises as

24
25
26
27
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
at 33-34.
at 61-62.
at 63-64.
at 65-67.
9/
Decision 6 A.C. No. 12702

they were only minor injuries and were the result of a normal quarrel between
spouses. 28

Atty. Cristobal then questioned the credibility of Divine's pictures

evidencing Divine's black eye from the December 11, 2009 incident. He
pointed out that these pictures were never presented in the criminal case filed
against him, thus, alleging that these pictures were new and the injury shown
in the pictures were digitally produced. 29

Ruling of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

In his Report and Recommendation30 dated January 12, 2016,

Investigating Commissioner Mario V. Andres (Commissioner Andres)
recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of
merit. 31

Commissioner Andres agreed with Atty. Cristobal and held that domestic
squabbles cannot be a ground for disciplinary action when such squabbles are
not scandalous in nature and would not affect the integrity or perception of
the legal profession. The evidence presented by Divine failed to prove that
Atty. Cristobal's actions merit the penalty of disbarment. Commissioner
Andres noted that Divine's allegations are self-serving and ill motivated.
Commissioner Andres ruled that Atty. Cristobal cannot be administratively
sanctioned for the December 11, 2009 incident in the absence of a conviction
in the criminal case filed by Divine against Atty. Cristobal. 32

In Resolution No. XXI-2014-790 33 dated October 11, 2014, the IBP-:-

Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) reversed the Report and Recommendation:
The IBP-BOG recommended Atty. Cristobal's disbarment and his name
stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. Pursuant to the IBP-BOG's Resolution, an
Extended Resolution34 dated January 12, 2016 was then submitted by Director
Ramon S. Esguerra (Director Esguerra) on behalf of the IBP~BOG. 35

Citing In Re: Query ofAtty. Silverio-Bujfe, 36 Director Esguerra explained

that a lawyer may still be held administratively liable despite the absence of
any criminal intent. Atty. Cristobal's acts of physical violence were found to
be prohibited, immoral, and scandalous behavior, thus, violating Canons 1 and
7 of the CPR. Director Esguerra noted Atty. Cristobal's admission that there
were verbal altercations between the spouses, which led to physical violence.
However, Director Esguerra did .not believe that the injuries inflicted on
Divine by Atty. Cristobal were accidental because Atty. Cristobal's version of
the events were contrary to human experience. Atty. Cristobal cannot utilize

28
Id. at 68.
29
Id. at 26.
30
Id. at 3-8.
31
Id. at 6.
32
Id. at 7-8.
33
Id. at I.
34
Id. at. 9-17. In the said Extended Resolution, Director Ramon S. Esguerra explained that such was
belatedly submitted because previous Directors were not able to submit any such Resolution.
35
Id.
36
613 Phil. 1 (2009).
' Decision 7 A.C. No. 12702

domestic squabbles as an excuse for his conduct because violence and abuse
are nonns eschewed by society- much more by the legal profession. 37

With Atty. Cristobal's failure to refute and disprove Divine's allegations,

coupled with a pending criminal case filed against him, the IBP-BOG found
him guilty of violating Canons 1 and 7 of the CPR and recommended Atty.
Cristobal's disbarment. 38

Atty. Cristobal filed a Motion for Reconsideration39 dated February 18,

2016. He claimed that the IBP-BOG grossly misappreciated the facts and
questioned the probative value of Divine's police blotter, medical certificate,
and pictures. Atty. Cristobal manifested the dismissal of the criminal case filed
by Divine against him via an Order dated October 5, 2015, concluding that
the allegations made against him were specious and unsubstantiated. 40 On the
slight physical injury caused by Atty. Cristobal on December 11, 2009, 41 Atty.
Cristobal averred that disbarment is too harsh a penalty to be imposed on him
for such act, especially since he has full custody of three of their children and
shoulders all their expenses. 42 Also, Atty. Cristobal has not been remiss in
sending his financial support to Divine for the monthly expenses of his
youngest child, in accordance with the Compromise Agreement43 dated
September 19, 2014 executed by the spouses in connection with the criminal
case filed by Divine against him. 44

Atty. Cristobal disclosed subsequent text messages sent to him by Divine

from October 14, 2014 to August 14, 2015 manifesting Divine's love for him
and her desire to reunite their family. 45

In her Comment/Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration, 46 Divine

asserted that her desistance to the criminal case does not merit the dismissal
of the administrative case - the latter being sui generis and requiring only
preponderant evidence. Thus, she prayed that Atty. Cristobal's motion for
reconsideration be denied. 47

In Resolution No. XXII-2017-1174 48 dated June 17, 2017, the IBP-BOG

denied Atty. Cristobal's motion for reconsideration. This prompted Atty.
Cristobal to file another Motion for Reconsideration49 dated November 18,
201 7. Atty. Cristobal raised the same issues as those in his first motion for
reconsideration. 50

37
Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 14-17.
38
Id. at 17.
39
Id. at 18-35.
40
Id. at 28.
41
Inadve1iently cited by Atty. Cristobal as December 9, 2009.
42
Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 29-30.
43
Id. at 36-38.
44
Id.
45
Id. at 32-34.
46
Id. at 45-48.
47
ld. at 45-47.
48
Rollo, Vol. III, p.1.
49
Id. at 2-21.
50
Id.
Decision 8 A.C. No. 12702

Ruling of the Court

Time and again, this Court has emphasized the need to regulate the legal
profession with the goal of raising the standards of the legal profession,
improving the administration of justice, and efficiently discharging one's
public responsibility as an officer of the courts. 51 This Court's power to purge
the legal profession of people who do not exemplify the traits of honesty,
integrity, and good moral character is necessary to promote the public's faith
in the legal profession. 52 Otherwise, the integrity of the judicial system is
suspect since lawyers are the bridge between the lay and the courts. "He[/she]
is the first one, either as a government lawyer or as a private practitioner, to
sit in judgment on every case, and whether the court will be called upon to act
depends upon his[/her] decision." 53

Citing U.S. jurisprudence, 54 this Court in In Re: Cunanan 55 succinctly

explained:

The relation of the bar to the courts is a peculiar and

intimate relationship. The bar is an attache of the courts. The
quality of justice dispensed by the courts depends in no small
degree upon the integrity of the bar. An unfaithful bar may
easily bring scandal and reproach to the administration of
justice and bring the courts themselves to disrepute. 56

Therefore, a lawyer's duty to comport one's self in a professional and

respectful manner is not only confined to professional engagements but
extends to one's personal life. This principle is also embodied in Rule 7.03 of
the CPR where "[a] lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession."
Corollary to this standard of conduct is the proscription against engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct under Rule 1.01 of the
CPR.

Aside from Rules 1.01 and 7.03 and Canon 7 of the CPR, Section 27,
Rule 13 8 of the Rules of Com1 lists deceit, malpractice, other gross ·
misconduct in the office, grossly immoral conduct, or a violation of the
lawyer's oath as grounds for suspension or disbarment. Item no. 29 of the
Canons of Professional Ethics directs the reporting of conupt and dishonest
conduct and instructs lawyers to guard against morally deficient candidates.
It cannot be gainsaid that the burden imposed on lawyers is in keeping with
the Court's objective of obviating the Bar of odious members who tarnish the
reputation of and reduce the confidence reposed on the legal profession and
the judicial system to which they belong.

51
See In Re: Integration of the Bar ofthe Philippines, 151 Phil. 132, 134 (1973).
52
Jimenezv. Atty. Francisco, 749 Phil. 551,566 (2014).
53
Agpalo (2009), Legal and Judicial Ethics, 8th ed., p. 4, citing Ruckenbrod v. Mullins, 133 2d. 325,
144ALR 839 (1943).
54
State v. Canon, 240 NW 441 ( 1932).
55
94 Phil. 534 (1954).
56
Id. at 546.
 Decision 9 A.C. No. 12702

In the 1923 case of In Re: Pelaez, 57 Justice Malcolm - likewise a noted

authority in legal ethics - pointed out the following principle:

[A]s a general rule, a court will not assume jurisdiction

to discipline one of its officers for misconduct alleged to
have been committed in his private capacity. But this is a
general rule with many exceptions. The courts sometimes
stress the point that the attorney has shown, through miscon-
duct outside of his professional dealings, a want of such pro-
fessional honesty as render him unworthy of public confi-
dence, and an unfit and unsafe person to manage the legal
business of others.

Despite the significant changes 58 made in the realm of legal ethics to

adapt to the changing times and countless jurisprudence applying its legal
principles, this Court will not waver in rebuking deplorable conduct. Lawyers
are always mandated to maintain the noble ideas and strictest standards of
morality to remain worthy of the office and the privileges which their license
and the law confers upon them. 59

As against this legal philosophy, this Court is now tasked to determine -

for the first time - whether domestic squabbles involving a lawyer and his/her
spouse are proper subjects of a disbarment proceeding.

We rule, pro hac vice, in the positive. Atty. Cristobal's actions fall shmi
of the exacting moral standard required of the noble profession of law.

Although acts amounting to gross immorality cannot be delineated, this

Court has held that grossly immoral conduct is one that is "willful, flagrant,
or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good
and respectable members of the community." 60 Detennining whether one's
actions is grossly immoral depends on the attendant circumstances and
prevailing norms of conduct. 61

The instant administrative case is hinged on Atty. Cristobal's violent and

abusive behavior towards his wife, Divine. The dismissal of the criminal case
filed by Divine against him does not exculpate him from administrative
liability. While We correct Divine's allegation that a preponderance of
evidence is needed in administrative cases, this Court nevertheless finds Atty.
Cristobal guilty under Rule 1.01 for unlawful conduct based on substantial
evidence - that which is more than a mere scintilla but is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.

57
58
44 Phil. 567 (1923).
From only having Sections 13-37, Chapter II of Act. No. 190 or an Act Providing a Code of
9
Procedure in Civil Actions and Special Proceedings in the Philippine Islands in 190 I to today's Rule
138-139 of the Rules of Court, Code of Professional Responsibility, and Code of Professional Ethics
(adopted from the American Bar Association's Code of Professional Ethics in 1917).
59 Supra note 57.
60 Obusan v. Obusan, J,: 213 Phil. 437 (1984).
61 See Inocente v. St. Vincent Foundation For Children and Aging, Inc., 788 Phil. 62, 78 (2016).
Decision 10 A.C. No. 12702

Note that in Reyes v. Atty. Nieva, 62 this Court finally wrote finis to the
issue of determining the quantum of proof in administrative cases. After
perusing through this Court's history of cases, We clarified in Reyes that "the
evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence - as opposed to preponderance
of evidence - is more in keeping with the primordial purpose of and essential
consideration attending this type of cases." As against this jurisprudential
dictum, We find Atty. Cristobal's acts wanting in the professional conduct
expected of him.

Of the incidences reported by Divine against Atty. Cristobal, those that

happened on January 30, 2005; May 15, 2009; and December 11, 2009 were
accompanied by substantial evidence that Atty. Cristobal became physically
violent with Divine. While we do not necessarily dismiss the other allegations
of abuse, the evidence presented in the abovementioned three instances are
sufficient to merit disciplinary action.

Atty. Cristobal never denied hurting Divine on January 30, 2005.

Although Atty. Cristobal denied choking and punching her, he admitted
pushing her after he "[lost] his composure." The affidavits of his mother,
brother, and sister prove that they witnessed Atty. Cristobal pushing Divine.
Atty. Cristobal and his witnesses claimed that he merely did so because of
Divine's provocation. Furthermore, Atty. Cristobal merely attacks the
probative value of Divine's police blotter63 and medical certificate, 64 stating
that the blotter has no probative value and that the medical certificate is a sham
for failure to indicate the name of the physician.

Entries in police records made by a police officer in the performance of

the duty especially enjoined by law are primafacie evidence of the fact therein
stated, and their probative value may be either substantiated or nullified by
other competent evidence. Although police blotters are of little probative
value, they are nevertheless admitted and considered in the absence of
competent evidence to refute the facts stated therein. " 65

We find that the January 30, 2005 incident, which was entered in the
police blotter was substantiated by other competent evidence. The January 30,
2005 blotter was presented in evidence with a medical certificate. On the other
hand, the affidavits presented by Atty. Cristobal failed to refute the fact that
an altercation occurred on January 30, 2005 resulting in his physically hurting
Divine out of anger.

On May 15, 2009, in an argument between the spouses about Atty.

Cristobal's alleged affair, Atty. Cristobal again pushed Divine. This caused
Divine to lose her balance and hit the gate of their house. Pictures ofDivine's
head injuries were attached to the complaint.

62
63
64
796 Phil. 360 (2016).
Rollo, Vol. l, p. 10.
Id. at 11.
r
65
Lao v. Standard Insurance Co., Inc., 456 Phil. 227, 234 (2003).
Decision 11 A.C. No. 12702

Atty. Cristobal's defense is a denial that a confrontation occurred on that

day. He makes much ado about the absence of proof that he was with another
woman or was seen in a scandalous situation with another woman. Instead,
Atty. Cristobal claims that the incident was merely fabricated because of
Divine's obsessive jealousy. While Divine's jealous behavior is outside the
ambit of the instant administrative complaint, what is undisputed is Atty.
Cristobal's violent reaction during their argument.

The December 11, 2009 incident, which became the cause for Divine's
filing of a criminal case against Atty. Cristobal, also remained unrefuted. As
against Divine's four (4) pictures showing her black eye, the police blotter, 66
and the Medico-Legal Report67 (both dated December 15, 2009), Atty.
Cristobal simply attached the Counter-Affidavit68 he submitted in the criminal
case. Again, the police blotter was given weight because the same was
presented in evidence with a Complaint for violation of AVAWC, pictures of
Divine's black (right) eye, and a medico-legal repmi. Moreover, Atty.
Cristobal admitted that he hit Divine on December 11, 2009, although he
claimed that it was merely in an act of self-defense.

Atty. Cristobal alleged in his Counter-Affidavit that although he

attempted to brush aside Divine's aggressive behavior (i.e., her tirades about
his womanizing, her holding his penis and shouting ''pinalabas na ba nila ito
ha? Pinalabas na ba nila?" and her accusation that Atty. Cristobal caused her
to resign from her previous job), he accidentally hit her when he closed his
eyes and "move[d] his extended arms forward to parry the complainant's
blows and to drive her away." 69 Upon opening his eyes, he "saw complainant
standing [by] the wall with an injury marked [on] her eyes." 70 According to
him, he did not bother to go to the hospital despite the wounds caused by
Divine's aggression and did nothing further.

Atty. Cristobal's narration of the facts does not inspire belief. Similar
to Director Esguerra's observation, Atty. Cristobal's defense is contrary to
human experience. One's acts of parrying an offender's blows and driving the
latter away is completely different from directly punching the alleged assailant
straight to the face. For Divine to receive a black eye, Atty. Cristobal would
have had made a boxing motion. It is incredulous that the first and only action
he did immediately hit Divine in the eye. He already admitted that he was
angry as he "felt his blood rising up" prior to allegedly closing his eyes. Thus,
it is more believable that he deliberately boxed Divine. What's more, he
admitted seeing Divine with an injury on her eye yet he did not even bother
to attend to her wounds. To him, such fight was a normal quarrel between
couples.

Let it be stressed that physical violence is never a nonnal occurrence

when couples argue. Violence is violence. To justify the same is egregious and
goes against the very essence of a civilized society.
66
67
68
69
70
Rollo, p. 14.
Id. at 15.
Id. at 58-77.
Id.
Id.
Cf'
Decision 12 A.C. No. 12702

Atty. Cristobal knew, or at least ought to know, that the injury Divine
sustained made him liable for slight physical injuries. To trivialize what
happened is appalling considering his standing as a lawyer - a person tasked
to uphold the law.

Divine's execution of an Affidavit of Desistance 71 in the criminal case

- resulting in its dismissal - does not absolve Atty. Cristobal from any
administrative liability. The Whereas Clause of the Compromise Agreement72
categorically stated that its execution was "without admitting liability to each
other" and was more for "amicably settl[ing] the civil aspect of the [criminal]
case." Divine's desistance in the criminal case did not diminish the veracity of
her accusations against Atty. Cristobal.

Therefore, Atty. Cristobal's actions display his unlawful and immoral

conduct, in violation of Rule 1.01 of the CPR.

Atty. Cristobal's violence towards his spouse shows his lack of respect
for the sanctity of man-iage. It is violative of his legal obligation to respect
Divine. 73 Even negating their relationship as husband and wife, Atty.
Cristobal's actions may clearly be subject of a criminal proceeding - had it
not been for Divine's desistance. Divine's alleged attempts to reconcile with
Atty. Cristobal will not erase the fact that Atty. Cristobal did not conduct
himself in the manner required of him as a member of the Bar.

However, disbarment is too harsh a penalty given the attenuating

circumstances in this case.

In Alitagtag v. Atty. Garcia,74 this Court warned against the immediate

disbarment of en-ant lawyers, to wit:

Indeed, the power to disbar must be exercised with

great caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of
misconduct that seriously affects the standing and the char-
acter of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member
of the bar. Disbarment should never be decreed where any
lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired. Without
doubt, a violation of the high moral standards of the legal
profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty,
including suspension and disbarment. However, the said
penalties are imposed with great caution, because they are
the most severe forms of disciplinary action and their conse-
quences are beyond repair. 75

Because disbarment proceedings are to be "exercised on the preservative

and not on the vindictive principle," the Court, in its discretion, may impose
a lower penalty. As in this case, there are mitigating circumstances that
militate against the imposition of the extreme penalty of disbarment. . ·

r
71
Rollo, Vol. II, p. 39.
72
Id. at 36-38.
73
FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Art. 68.
74
451 Phil. 420 (2003).
75
Id. at 426.
Decision 13 A.C. No. 12702

We cannot tum a deaf ear on Atty. Cristobal's claim that Divine is

abrasive, boorish, insolent, and disrespectful towards Atty. Cristobal, Atty.
Cristobal's relatives, the spouses' household help, their children, the people
tasked to renovate their house, and even their children's teachers.

Atty. Cristobal's mother, Araceli, attested that Divine was always

disrespectful to her and never held back in speaking ill of her. Divine would
brand Araceli as a pakialamera (meddlesome) and even cursed her and wished
her dead. Even the workers who did some construction work at Araceli's
house heard Divine shout at Araceli, "putang ina mo na matanda ka. "

Atty. Cristobal's sister, Joyce, described Divine as someone who (1)

would insist on berating Atty. Cristobal - even in the presence of Atty.
Cristobal's notarial clients - rather than stepping away from an argument to
cool off; (2) would bad mouth Atty. Cristobal and constantly yelled at him,
"letche ka!;" (3) did not care about her child's wellbeing when she was angry
with Atty. Cristobal; and (4) was proud that she once threatened Atty.
Cristobal with a knife, which she hid under her pillow. Even Joyce and the
spouses' household help were not spared from Divine's bad temper. Divine
would shout at them and call them stupid. Divine once threw a tantrum by
throwing pots and pans when Joyce did not immediately answer her calls to
go to her (Divine). Joyce, along with Atty. Cristobal's cousin (Jerocelyn), and
Jerocelyn's husband noted how Divine was physically violent with her
children - particularly the spouses' third child.

Jerocelyn helped the spouses during the times that they did not have
any household help. She recalled how Divine accused her of stealing Divine 's
jewelry. Divine punched her and threw a pillow at her in an attempt to make
Jerocelyn confess to the crime.

Ronald Pascual, one of the construction workers assigned to Araceli's

house, revealed that Divine loved to curse and humiliate them. He also
recalled how Divine once destroyed plates in a fit of anger over a punchbowl.

Antonio Apostol, another cousin of Atty. Cristobal, recounted how, on

December 23, 2008, he and three of the spouses' children were happily
preparing buko salad when he heard the spouses arguing. He then saw Divine
pick up an empty, opened tin can and hurl the same at Atty. Cristobal. Divine
then grabbed a knife and was about to throw it at Atty. Cristobal but retracted
when her son shouted, "huwag!"

In an Incident Report7 6 dated September 23, 2010, Jocelyn M. Claravall

(Jocelyn), St. Ferdinand College's elementary principal, narrated how Divine
punched the face of her son's Grade I adviser (Leticia) during a closed door
meeting between Divine, Leticia, and Jocelyn. Divine tried to punch Leticia a
second time but was successfully stopped by Jocelyn. The Incident Report
also disclosed how Divine called Leticia gaga (crazy) in front of grade 1
students just because Leticia texted Divine the day before requesting Divine

76
Rollo, pp. 197-198.
Decision 14 A.C. No. 12702

to bring her son to Atty. Cristobal's house (as the spouses already lived
separately at that time).

Also, a meticulous scrutiny of the evidence presented by both parties

shows that most of the incidences complained of were caused by Divine's
provocation. First, Atty. Cristobal pushed Divine to go up to their house on
the third floor because Divine denied kicking Atty. Cristobal while the latter
was peacefully sleeping on Araceli's sofa. Second, the spouses' altercation in
April 2006 was because ofDivine's sudden demand for Atty. Cristobal to give
her money. Her displeasure over: (1) Atty. Cristobal's payment of Araceli's
utility bills; and (2) his failure to give her more money prompted her to pack
her belongings and point to several items in their house that she will be getting
- all while shouting at Atty. Cristobal. Third, the spouses' heated argument on
May 15, 2009 was caused by Divine's fits of jealousy. Fourth, what happened
on July 17, 2009 stemmed from Divine's persistent demand that Atty.
Cristobal be the one to bring Divine and their son to and fro the hospital twice
despite: (1) knowing that Atty. Cristobal had a prior engagement; (2) being
offered to be driven by Franklin or Rolly; and (3) being offered by Joyce to
accompany her. Her incessant nagging and bad-mouthing of Atty. Cristobal in
the presence of their children and Joyce led Atty. Cristobal to leave the car
and ride a tricycle to his uncle's house to cool off. Fifth, the events that
transpired on December 11, 2009 began when Divine impudently confronted
Atty. Cristobal about his suspected affair. Notwithstanding Atty. Cristobal's
pleas to rest after an exhausting week, Divine continued to harass Atty.
Cristobal - even going so far as to pull his penis, punch his chest, slap him,
hit him with his belt, and scratch his face. One of Atty. Cristobal's part-time
drivers, Rolly, recalled how he met with Atty. Cristobal the following day and
saw the latter's bruises and scratches on his hands. In spite of Atty. Cristobal's
detailed account of the aforementioned instances, Divine never refuted Atty.
Cristobal's allegations.

Moreover, this Court notes Atty. Cristobal's claim that he has solely
provided for their four children's education, sustenance, and support for the
past decade. Of their four children, their first three children havebeert living
with Atty. Cristobal from the time Divine left the conjugal abode on December
9, 2009. Their youngest son, although within Divine's custody, is supported
by Atty. Cristobal via monthly financial support in accordance with the
spouses' Compromise Agreement.

Given the aforementioned mitigating circumstance, this Court finds a

suspension of three (3) months appropriate.

We emphasize that Our act of reducing the administrative penalty due to

Divine's disrespect towards Atty. Cristobal is in no way a condonation or
justification for Atty. Cristobal's acts of violence toward Divine. The
consideration of these circumstances is only for the purpose of reducing the
penalty imposed on Atty. Cristobal from disbarment to suspension.
Decision 15 A.C. No. 12702

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Atty. Jonathan A.

Cristobal is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01 and 7 .03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of three
(3) months from the practice of law, with a WARNING that a repetition of
the same or similar offense will warrant a more severe penalty.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts, the Office of the Bar
Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their information and
guidance. The Office of the Bar Confidant is DIRECTED to append a copy
of this Decision to respondent's record as a member of the Bar.

Respondent Atty. Jonathan A. Cristobal is DIRECTED to infonn the

Court of the date of his receipt of this Decision, so that the Court could
determine the reckoning point when his suspension shall take effect.

This Decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.
 Decision 16 A.C. No. 12702

WE CONCUR:

( on official leave)
.HERNAND AMY C. LAZARO-JAVIER
Associate Justice

(on official leave) (on official leave)

HENRI JEAN PAUL B. INTING RODIL V. ZALAMEDA
Associate Justice Associate Justice

✓
EDGAlo L. DELOS SANTOS
Associate Justice

- <: ~::::=:::: s
-----
SAMUEL H. GAERLAN
Associate Justice

CERTff!!i:D TRUE COPY

•
)C:: R 0. ARI CH ETA
Clerk ofCourt En Banc
Supreme Court