Complaint-affidavit 563724

Republic of the Philippines City of Manila COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT I, LENI RUGISTA, of legal age, Filipino, with assistance of counsel, do hereby state under oath that: 1. I am the wife of Atty. Rob Rugista and the mother of Bernadette. I am the head of real estate brokers for Manuela Realty. 2. I accuse and hereby charge my husband, ROB RUGISTA, a member of the Philippine Bar and a managing partner of Batas Law firm in Manila for violation of his oath as a lawyer and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, committed against me when he maliciously entered into two other marriages while our marriage was still subsisting. 3. On May 9, 2005, I married Rob Rugista at the Manila Cathedral, Intramuros, Manila. We are currently living in a house owned by my parents, Flordeliz and Mario Marquez. Attached as ANNEX A is a copy of the marriage certificate of Rob and Leni Rugista. 4. On June 2014, I went to Cebu to inspect one of our projects for Manuela Realty, I met Bonita Rugista, one of our Cebu real estate agents. Both of us were shocked to know that we have the same husband. Bonita stated that Rob married her in a civil ceremony celebrated by Judge Juan de la Cruz on June 12, 2013. Attached as ANNEX B is a copy of the marriage certificate of Rob and Bonita Rugista.

5. After I filed a criminal case against Rob for bigamy, I also learned that he contracted another marriage with a girl named Amanda, a teacher from Davao. 6. Amanda also filed a case against Rob for bigamy after she read in the newspaper that there was an earlier case filed against him. According to her, she only agreed to marry Rob because she believed in good faith that he was single after he showed her divorce papers obtained in Havana in 2010. Their married was solemnized at the San Pedro Church in Davao in June 2011. Attached as ANNEX C is a copy of the marriage certificate of Rob and Amanda. 7. Amanda also informed me that she has a 3-year-old son with Rob. Attached as ANNEX D is a copy of the birth certificate of their son. 8. It is clear from the foregoing that Rob Rugista did not only violated his oath as a lawyer but his act was contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality. 9. He also violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: Canon 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession as well as Rule 7.03 of the same code, which provides that, a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. 10. Further, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the

Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the ission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. 11. In Macarrubo v. Macarrubo, the respondent lawyer entered into multiple marriages and subsequently used legal remedies to sever them. The court ruled: “the respondents pattern of misconduct undermined the institutions of marriage and family institutions that this society looks up to for the rearing of our children, for the development of values essential to the survival and well-being of our communities, and for the strengthening of our nation as a whole. In this light, no fate other than disbarment awaited the wayward respondent”. 12. Clearly, with these acts and omissions of Atty. Rob Rugista, he should be accordingly punished and must suffer the maximum penalty sanctioned by law. I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing statements and in of my prayer for the IMMEDIATE DISBARMENT of ATTY. ROB RUGISTA. Other relief just and equitable under the premise is likewise prayed for. TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this Complaint-Affidavit on 22 September 2016.

LENI RUGISTA Complainant-Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 22nd day of September 2016.

Notary Public