He successfully evaded five attempts to serve a copy of the Courts resolution

He successfully evaded five attempts to serve a copy

This preview shows page 116 - 117 out of 149 pages.

. He successfully evaded five attempts to serve a copy of the Court’s resolution requiring him to comment.7.After three years and a half, the Supreme Court decided to suspend him indefinitely until he appears or files his answer. 8.On 28 Sep 1985, he filed an Answer with a Motion to Set Aside the Suspension Order. He claimed that he believed in good faith that his prior marriage with Dorothy was void ab initio and that no action for judicial declaration of nullity was necessary. 9.The Court denied the motion on 6 Jan 1986. Solicitor Pio Guerrero was then appointed as investigator and on 26 Feb 1990, submitted his report. Issue: Was Jordan’s marriage to Vilma bigamous?Held: Yes. Jordan was disbarred. Ruling: 1.Jordan’s marriage with Dorothy was still subsisting when he married Vilma. No judicial action had been initiated or any judicial declaration obtained as to the nullity of the marriage. 2.His defense that he believed in good faith that his marriage with Dorothy was void ab initio and that no judicial action was necessary was spurious. The defense was the same argument he used to Dorothy. 3.Being a lawyer, he should have known that the argument ran counter to the prevailing case law of the Court that in order to contract a second marriage, a judicial declaration that the first marriage was null and void ab initio was essential. 4.The moral character of Jordan was deeply flawed as shown by the other circumstances. He convinced Dorothy that her previous marriage was void, abandoning his son upon passing finishing his law course after being supported by Dorothy. 5.The Court held that Jordan eloquently displayed, not only his unfitness to remain as a member of the Bar, but likewise his inadequacy to uphold the process and responsibility of his gender. His acts constituted grossly immoral conduct and he was thus disbarred. 157. Domingo vs. CA Facts: 4.Petitioner and Respondent were married on Nov 29, 1976 5.Respondent was already married to Emerlinda on April, 1969. This marriage was still valid and existing. 6.Emerlinda sued Respondent for bigamy, that’s when respondent found out about the marriage. 7.Respondent filed a declaration of nullity of marriage and separation of property against petitioner (May, 1991.) 8.Respondent had been working in Saudi Arabia and when she came back in June 1989, she discovered that Petitioner was living with another woman and that he had been disposing of some of her properties without her consent. 9.She appointed her brother as Atty-in-Fact to take care of her property, but petitioner refused to turn over the possession and admin of said property to the brother. 10.Petitioner submits that the marriage is void ab initio, thus the petition for nullity is unnecessary. He added that respondent has no property which is in his possession.
Background image
Image of page 117

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture