Respondent argued in her Answer that she was the counsel for complainant.34 Yet, there is no explanation how she was referred to complainant or how they were introduced. It appears, then, that respondent was contacted by Leomarte Tamaray to file a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy. As stated in Maritess Marquez-Guerrero's Affidavit, "Leomarte told Cheryl that the reason for that meeting and the presence of Atty. Daquis was because he had decided to file a case to annul his marriage with Cheryl[. ]"35 Based on this, it seems Leomarte Tamaray intended to file the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. However, respondent made it appear that complainant, not her client Leomarte Tamaray, was the petitioner. There is a probability that respondent did not want Leomarte Tamaray to be the petitioner because he would have to admit that he entered into a bigamous marriage, the admission of which may subject him to criminal liability. In addition, if it is true that complainant was respondent's client, then there appears to be no reason for respondent to advise her "not to oppose Leomarte's decision to have their marriage annulled."36 The records of this case also support complainant's allegation that she never received any court process because her purported address in the Petition is the address of Leomarte Tamaray. The Petition states that complainant is "of legal age, Filipino citizen, married with postal address at 09 Daang Hari St., Umali Comp., Summitville Subd., Putatan, Muntinlupa City[.]"37 The Certificate of Marriage of complainant and Leomarte Tamaray states that Leomarte's residence is at "Summitvil[l]e Subv [sic], Muntinlupa," while complainant's residence is at "Hermosa St. Gagalangin, Tondo, Manila."38 Assuming that complainant lived with her husband after they were married, complainant most likely did not receive court processes because she left their home before the filing of the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. As written in the Minutes of the meeting before the Office of the City Prosecutor: P[etitioner] & R[espondent] met sometime in 1993 through his secretary. They became sweethearts in 1993 and their relationship as steadies lasted until 1996; During the 3 years of their union, petitioner knew respondent's family as she even sleeps in their house; Theirs was also a long distance relationship as respondent worked in Japan; Upon respondents [sic] return to the Philippines they got married in Feb, 1996. They had no children, as respondent immediately left for Japan on March 11, 1996; Respondent returned to the Philippines but unfortunately he brought another woman. As a result, petitioner left their house.39 (Emphasis supplied) Further, complainant cannot be faulted for her failure to inform the prosecutor that she did not file any petition for declaration of nullity of marriage because during the meeting on March 5, 2007, complainant had no knowledge that the Petition was filed in her name.40 She obtained a copy of the Petition after the March 5, 2007 meeting.41 In Yupangco-Nakpil v. Uy,42 this court discussed Canon 1, Rule 1.01, as follows: Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code, as it is applied to the members of the legal professions, engraves an overriding prohibition against any form of misconduct, viz: