Terre v.

Terre
A.M. No. 2349, July 3, 1992
Facts:
Respondent Atty. Jordan Tere was charged with gross immoral conduct consisting of contracting a
second marriage and living with another woman other than his wife while his prior marriage is subsisting.
Dorothy and respondent were school mates in high school. Respondent persistently courted her while
knowing that she was married to Merlito. He convinced her that the marriage was void being contrary to
public policy and that there was no need to go to court to have it annulled. Prior to their marriage, in their
marriage license he wrote down Dorothy’s status as single since her marriage to Merlito is void. After the
marriage, respondent disappeared, and complainant later found out that respondent married Vilma
Malicdem.
Prior to the trial, Respondent evaded 5 attempts to serve him a copy of the complaint by moving
from place to place for three years and a half. The court resolved to suspend respondent from the practice
of law until he appears or files his answer to the complaint. Respondent finally filed an answer with
motion to lift suspension averring that believing in good faith that his marriage with complainant was null
and void as she was still married to Merlito Bercenilla and that he is not that father of Jason Terre.
Complainant in her reply, denied that Jason was the child of Merlito, she insisted that it was respondent’s
child as evidenced by his birth certificate and similar physical resemblance.
Issue:
Whether his prior marriage with Dorothy was null and void ab initio and that no action for a
judicial declaration of nullity was necessary.
Whether respondent action constitutes gross immoral conduct.
Held:
No. The court considers respondent’s defense as spurious. Respondent Jordan Terre, being a
lawyer, knew or should have known that such an argument ran counter to the prevailing case law of this
Court which holds that for purposes of determining whether a person is legally free to contract a second
marriage, a judicial declaration that the first marriage was null and void ab initio is essential. Even if we
were to assume, arguendo merely, that Jordan Terre held that mistaken belief in good faith, the same
result will follow. For if we are to hold Jordan Terre to his own argument, his first marriage to
complainant Dorothy Terre must be deemed valid, with the result that his second marriage to Malicdem
must be regarded as bigamous and criminal in character.
Yes, The Court citing; Pomperada v. Jochico, It is evident that respondent fails to meet the
standard of moral fitness for membership in the legal profession. Whether the marriage was a joke as
respondent claims, or a trick played on her as claimed by complainant, it does not speak well of
respondent's moral values. Respondent had made a mockery of marriage, a basic social institution which
public policy cherishes and protects.
We believe and so hold that the conduct of respondent Jordan Terre in inveigling complainant
Dorothy Terre to contract a second marriage with him; in abandoning complainant Dorothy Terre after she
had cared for him and supported him through law school, leaving her without means for the safe delivery
of his own child; in contracting a second marriage with Malicdem while his first marriage with
complainant Dorothy Terre was subsisting, constituted "grossly immoral conduct" under Section 27 of
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to DISBAR respondent Jordan Terre and to STRIKE OUT
his name from the Roll of Attorneys.