Get Homework/Assignment Done Homeworkping.com

Homework Help https://www.homeworkping.com/

Research Paper helphttps://www.homeworkping.com/

Online Tutoringhttps://www.homeworkping.com/

click here for freelancing tutoring sites

G.R. No. L-22320           July 29, 1968

MERCEDES RUTH COBB-PEREZ and DAMASO P. PEREZ, petitioners, vs.HON. GREGORIO LANTIN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, RICARDO P. HERMOSO and the CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA, respondents.

Crispin D. Baizas and Associates for petitioners. Isidro T. Almeda for respondents.

CASTRO, J.:

This is a motion for partial reconsideration of this Court's decision of May 22, 1968, specifically directed against the following observation therein made:

We feel compelled to observe that during the protracted litigation below, the petitioners resorted to a series of actions and petitions, at some stages alternatingly, abetted by their counsel, for the sole purpose of thwarting the execution of a simple money judgment which has long become final and executory. Some of the actions were filed, only to be abandoned or withdrawn. The petitioners and their counsel, far from viewing courts as sanctuaries for those who seek justice, have tried to use them to subvert the very ends of justice.

Corollarily, this Court assessed treble costs against the petitioners, to "be paid by their counsel.".

The herein movants, Attys. Crispin D. Baizas and A. N. Bolinas, counsels for the petitioners, while submitting to the judgment on the merits, seek reconsideration of the decision in so far as it reflects adversely upon their "professional conduct" and condemns them to pay the treble costs adjudged against their clients.

At first blush, the motion for reconsideration presents a semblance of merit. After mature deliberation and patient reprobing into the records of the case, however, we are of the firmer conviction that the protracted litigation, alluded to in the above-quoted portion of our decision, was designed to cause delay, and the active participation of the petitioners' counsels in this adventure is patent.

After November 15, 1962 when the Court of Appeals rendered judgment sustaining Damaso Perez' position with respect to the extent of the levy, the subsequent proceedings interposed alternatingly by the petitioner spouses were obviously quixotic maneuvers expected to be overthrown by the courts but calculated to delay an execution long overdue.

Had the petitioners and their counsels seriously believed that the levied shares of stock were conjugal property, why did they not adopt this position from the very start, or, at the latest, in CA-G.R. 29962-R, wherein Damaso Perez challenged the legality of the levy's coverage, in order to end the litigation with reasonable dispatch? They chose, however, to attack the execution in a piecemeal fashion, causing the postponement of the projected execution sale six times. More than eight years after the finality of the judgment have passed, and the same has yet to be satisfied.

In a determined effort to prolong the litigation, the Perez spouses, as represented by their counsels, sought the issuance of preliminary injunctions to restrain the execution of the final judgment in civil case 39407 from courts which did not have jurisdiction and which would, as expected, initially or ultimately deny their prayer. For instance, after Damaso Perez bowed out temporarily from the scene following the rendition of the aforementioned Court of Appeals decision, his wife, Mercedez, Ruth Cobb-Perez, intruded into the controversy and asked for an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction from the Court of First Instance of Rizal in connection with civil case 7532 which she filed with the said court, knowing fully well that the basic civil case 39407 was decided by the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch VII presided by the respondent Judge Lantin), which latter court was the proper forum for any action relative to the execution. Judge Eulogio Mencias of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, looking to Acosta vs. Alvendia (L-14598, October 31, 1960), which held that courts of first instance have no power to restrain acts outside their territorial jurisdictions, lifted on October 4, 1963 the ex parte writ which he previously issued enjoining the respondent sheriff from carrying out the execution sale. It is clear, however, that Mrs. Perez and her counsels, the movants, knew or ought to have known beforehand that the Court of First Instance of Rizal did not have jurisdiction to issue the writ which Mrs. Perez herself sought, and, anticipating the recall of the writ improvidently issued, on September 3, 1963, a month before the said writ was actually lifted, filed in the basic civil case 39407 an urgent motion to lift the writ of execution issued on August 15, 1961, alleging as justification the conjugal nature of the levied shares of stock and the personal nature of Damaso Perez' judgment debt, the very same reasons advanced in civil case 7532 which was then still pending in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Incidentally, Mrs. Perez failed to adduce any evidence in support of her aforesaid urgent motion, as in fact neither she nor her counsels appeared during the scheduled hearing, prompting the respondent judge to issue the following order:

When the urgent motion to recall or lift writ of execution was called this morning for hearing, counsel for the movant did not appear despite the fact that he had been duly notified of the motion for hearing. In view thereof the court assumes that he is

waiving his right to present evidence in support of his urgent motion to recall or lift writ of execution. Said urgent motion is therefore deemed submitted for resolution.

Despite the recall of the aforementioned writ of injunction by Judge Mencias on a disclaimer of jurisdiction (since the execution sought to be enjoined was ordered by another tribunal), Mrs. Perez, now assisted by her husband who had staged a comeback, prayed for the issuance of another injunction, this time from Branch XXII of the Court of First Instance of Manila (not the same Branch which issued the controverted writ of execution), in connection with civil case 7532, then still pending in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. As most probably anticipated anew by the Perez spouses and their counsels, Judge Alikpala, presiding judge of Branch XXII, on November 8, 1963 denied the preliminary injunction sought, on the ground, among others, that he had no power to interfere by injunction with the judgment or decree of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. On the very day the injunction was denied, Damaso Perez, as if expecting the reversal from Judge Alikpala, was already prepared with another "remedy," as in fact on that day, November 8, 1963, he filed in the basic civil case 39407 an "Urgent Motion for Reconsideration" of the order of October 19, 1963, which denied his wife's above-mentioned motion to recall the controverted writ of execution.

The foregoing motion, far from seriously seeking the reconsideration of the order of October 19, 1963, which in the first place Damaso Perez could not legally do for he was not even a party to the denied "Urgent Motion to Recall Writ of Execution" (filed by his wife alone), was merely an offer to replace the levied stocks with supposed cash dividends due to the Perez spouses as stockholders in the Republic Bank.1 As a matter of fact, when the motion was set for hearing on December 21, 1963, the counsels for Damaso Perez promised to produce the said cash dividends within five days, but the promise was never fulfilled.2 Consequently, the respondent Judge on January 4, 1964, denied the said motion for reconsideration.

The above exposition of the circumstances relative to the protracted litigation clearly negates the avowal of the movants that "in none of the various incidents in the case at bar has any particular counsel of petitioners acted with deliberate aforethought to delay the enforcement of the judgment in Civil Case No. 39407." From the chronology of antecedent events, the fact becomes inescapable that the Perez spouses, coached by their counsels, had sallied forth on a strategem of "remedies" projected to foil the lawful execution of a simple money judgment. It is equally obvious that they foreshadowed their own reversals in the "remedies" they ventured to adopt, such that even before, one remedy had been exhausted, they interposed another until the case reached this Court for the second time. 3 Meanwhile, justice was delayed, and more than one member of this Court are persuaded that justice was practically waylaid.

The movants also contend that even this Court sanctions the aforesaid civil cases 7532 and 55292 as the "proper remedy" when we said that.

In reality, what they attacked is not the writ of execution, the validity and regularity of which are unchallenged, but the levy made by the respondent Sheriff. In this regard, the remedy is not the recall of the writ, but an independent action to enjoin the Sheriff from proceeding with the projected sale, in which action the conjugal nature of the levied stocks should be established as a basis for the subsequent issuance of a permanent injunction, in the event of a successful claim. Incidentally, in the course of the protracted litigation, the petitioners had already availed of this remedy in civil cases 7532 and 55292, only to abandon it as they incessantly sought other, and often simultaneous, devices of thwarting satisfaction of the judgment debt. (Emphasis supplied) .

And because of this statement, they now counter that the said cases could not be branded as having been instituted for delay.

The reference we made to civil cases 7532 and 55292 in the above-quoted statement must not be considered out of context. We said that the petitioners incidentally had already availed of the suggested remedy only in the sense that said civil cases 7532 and 55292 were apparently instituted to prove the conjugal nature of the levied shares of stocks in question. We used the word incidentally advisedly to show that in their incessant search for devices to thwart the controverted execution, they accidentally stumbled on the suggested remedy. But the said civil cases were definitely not the "proper remedy" in so far as they sought the issuance of writs of preliminary injunction from the Court of First Instance of Rizal and the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch XXII) where civil cases 7532 and 55292 were filed respectively, for the said courts did not have jurisdiction to restrain the enforcement of the writ of execution issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch VII) under the settled doctrines that Courts are without power to restrain acts outside of their territorial jurisdiction 4 or interfere with the judgment or decree of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. 5 However, the recall and the denial of the writs of preliminary injunction in civil cases 7532 and 55292 did not amount to the termination or dismissal of the principal action in each case. Had the Perez spouses desired in earnest to continue with the said cases they could have done so. But the fact is that Mrs. Perez practically abandoned civil case 7532 when she instituted the above mentioned urgent motion to recall writ of execution in the basic civil case 39407, anchored on the same grounds which she advanced in the former case, until the said civil case 7532 was dismissed on November 9, 1963, upon her own motion. Anent civil case 55292, the Perez spouses virtually deserted the same when they instituted the herein petition for certiorari with urgent writ of preliminary injunction based on the same grounds proffered in the said civil case — until the latter was also dismissed on March 20, 1964, with the consent of the parties because of the pendency then of the aforesaid petition for certiorari.

The movants further contend that "If there was delay, it was because petitioners' counsel happened to be more assertive ... a quality of the lawyers (which) is not to be condemned."

A counsel's assertiveness in espousing with candour and honesty his client's cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what we do not and cannot countenance is a lawyer's insistence despite the patent futility of his client's position, as in the case at bar.

It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his client's propensity to litigate. A lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client; its primacy is indisputable.

The movants finally state that the "Petitioners have several counsel in this case but the participation of each counsel was rather limited implying that the decision of this Court ordering that "treble costs are assessed against the petitioners, which shall be paid by their counsel" is not clear. The word "counsel" may be either singular or plural in construction, so that when we said "counsel" we meant the counsels on record of the petitioners who were responsible for the inordinate delay in the execution of the final judgment in the basic civil case 39407, after the Court of Appeals had rendered its aforementioned decision of November 15, 1962. And it is on record that the movants are such counsels. Atty. Bolinas, upon his own admission, "entered his appearance in the case at bar about the time the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the petitioners' Petition for Relief in Civil Case No. 39407," or about August 3, 1961 and even prior to the Court of Appeals decision above-

mentioned. Atty. Baizas claims that he "became petitioners' counsel only in October, 1963 when he filed, with Atty. A.N. Bolinao, Jr. Civil Case No. 55292 before the Court of First Instance of Manila presided by the Hon. Judge Alikpala although it appears on record that the urgent motion to recall writ of execution filed by Mrs. Perez in the basic civil case 39407 on September 3, 1963, was over the signature of one Ruby Zaida of the law firm of "Crispin Baizas & Associates" as counsel for Mrs. Perez. It is to be recalled that the said urgent motion is the same motion discussed above, which, curiously enough, antedated by at least one month the lifting of the writ of preliminary injunction issued in civil case 7532.

ACCORDINGLY, the motion for partial reconsideration is denied. Our decision of May 22, 1968 is hereby modified in the sense that Attys. Crispin D. Baizas and A.N. Bolinao, Jr. shall pay jointly and severally the treble costs assessed against the petitioners.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Angeles, JJ., concur. Concepcion C.J., voted for denial of the motion for reconsideration. Fernando, J., took no part.

Adm. Case No. 1392 April 2, 1984

PRECIOSA R. OBUSAN, complainant, vs.GENEROSO B. OBUSAN, JR., respondent.

Roger Castuciano for complainant.

Roemo J. Callejo for respondent.

 

AQUINO, J.:ñé+.£ªwph!1

This is a disbarment case filed in 1974 by Preciosa Razon against her husband Generoso B. Obusan, Jr. on the ground of adultery or grossly immoral conduct. He was admitted to the bar in 1968.

In 1967, when Generoso B. Obusan, Jr. was working in the Peoples Homesite and Housing Corporation, he became acquainted with Natividad Estabillo who represented to him that she was a widow. They had carnal relations. He begot with her a son who was born on November 27, 1972. He was named John Obusan (Exh. D). Generoso came to know that Natividad's marriage to Tony Garcia was subsisting or undissolved.

Four days after the birth of the child or on December 1, 1972, Generoso, 33, married Preciosa, 37, in a civil ceremony. The marriage was ratified in a religious ceremony held on December 30,1972 (Exh. C and C-1)

The couple lived with the wife's mother at 993 Sto. Cristo Street, Tondo, Manila for more than one year. In the evening of April 13, 1974, when his wife was out of the house, lawyer Obusan asked permission from his mother-in-law to leave the house and take a vacation in

his hometown, Daet, Camarines Norte. Since then, he has never returned to the conjugal abode.

Preciosa immediately started looking for her husband. After much patient investigation and surveillance, she discovered that he was living and cohabiting with Natividad in an apartment located at 85-A Felix Manalo Street, Cubao, Quezon City. He had brought his car to that place.

The fact that Obusan and Natividad lived as husband and wife was corroborated by Linda Delfin, their housemaid in 1974; Remedios Bernal, a laundress, and Ernesto Bernal, a plumber, their neighbors staying at 94 Felix Manalo Street. The three executed the affidavits, Exhibits A, B and F, which were confirmed by their testimonies.

Romegil Q. Magana, a pook leader, testified that Obusan introduced himself as the head of the family (25-30 tsn Nov. 26, 1976). His name is at the head of the barangay list (Exh. E, G and H). Nieves Cacnio the owner of the apartment, came to know Obusan as Mr. Estabillo. She Identified five photographs, Exhibits I to I-D where respondent Obusan appeared as the man wearing eyeglasses.

Respondent's defense was that his relationship with Natividad was terminated when he married Preciosa. He admitted that from time to time he went to 85-A Felix Manalo Street but only for the purpose of giving financial assistance to his son, Jun-Jun. Lawyer Rogelio Panotes, the ninong of Jun-Jun, corroborated respondent's testimony.

He denied the testimonies of the maid, the laundress and the plumber. He claims that they were paid witnesses. He declared that he did not live with Natividad. He resided with his sister at Cypress Village, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City.

On the other hand, he claimed that he was constrained to leave the conjugal home because he could not endure the nagging of his wife, their violent quarrels, her absences from the conjugal home (she allegedly went to Baguio, Luneta and San Andres Street) and her interference with his professional obligations.

The case was investigated by the Office of the Solicitor General. He filed a complaint for disbarment against the respondent. Obusan did not answer the complaint. He waived the presentation of additional evidence. His lawyer did not file any memorandum.

After an examination of the record, we find that the complainant has sustained the burden of proof. She has proven his abandonment of her and his adulterous relations with a married woman separated from her own husband.

Respondent was not able to overcome the evidence of his wife that he was guilty of grossly immoral conduct. Abandoning one's wife and resuming carnal relations with a former paramour, a married woman, fails within "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community" (7 C.J.S. 959; Arciga vs. Maniwang Adm. Case No. 1608, August 14, 1981, 106 SCRA 591).

Thus, a lawyer was disbarred when he abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with another woman who had borne him a child. He failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a member of the bar (Toledo vs. Toledo, 117 Phil. 768).

WHEREFORE, respondent is disbarred. His name is stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.

SO ORDERED.1äwphï1.ñët

Makasiar, Actg. C.J., Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin Relova, Gutierrez, Jr. and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.

A.C. No. 389             February 28, 1967

IN RE: DISBARMENT OF ARMANDO PUNO. FLORA QUINGWA complainant, vs.ARMANDO PUNO, respondent.

Domingo T. Zavalla for complainant.Armando Puno for and in his own behalf as respondent.

REGALA, J.:

On April 16, 1959, Flora Quingwa filed before this Court a verified complaint charging Armando Puno, a member of the Bar, with gross immorality and misconduct. In his answer, the respondent denied all the material allegations of the complaint, and as a special defense averred that the allegations therein do not constitute grounds for disbarment or suspension under section 25, Rule 127 of the former Rules of Court.

The case was referred to the Solicitor General on June 3, 1958, for investigation, report and recommendation. Hearings were held by the then Solicitor Roman Cancino, Jr., during which the complainant, assisted by her counsel, presented evidence both oral and documentary. The respondent, as well as his counsel, cross-examined the complainant's witnesses. The respondent likewise testified. He denied having sexual intercourse with complainant at the Silver Moon Hotel on June 1, 1958, disclaimed the handwriting "Mr. & Mrs. A. Puno" appearing in the hotel register, and disowned Armando Quingwa Puno, Jr. to be his child.

After the hearing, the Solicitor General filed a complaint, formally charging respondent with immorality. The complaint recites:

That on June 1, 1958, at a time when complainant Flora Quingwa and respondent Armando Puno were engaged to be married, the said respondent invited the complainant to attend a movie but on their way the respondent told the complainant that they take refreshment before going to the Lyric Theater; that they proceeded to the Silver Moon Hotel at R. Hidalgo, Manila; that while at the restaurant on the first floor of the said Silver Moon Hotel, respondent proposed to complainant that they go to one of the rooms upstairs assuring her that 'anyway we are getting married; that with reluctance and a feeling of doubt engendered by love of respondent and the respondent's promise of marriage, complainant acquiesced, and before they entered the hotel room respondent registered and signed the registry book as 'Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno; that after registering at the hotel, respondent shoved complainant inside the room; that as soon as they were inside the room, someone locked the door from outside and respondent proceeded to the bed and undressed himself; that complainant begged respondent not to molest her but respondent insisted, telling

her: 'anyway I have promised to marry you'; and respondent, still noticing the reluctance of complainant to his overtures of love, again assured complainant that 'you better give up. Anyway I promised that I will marry you'; that thereupon respondent pulled complainant to the bed, removed her panty, and then placed himself on top of her and held her hands to keep her flat on the bed; that when respondent was already on top of complainant the latter had no other recourse but to submit to respondent's demand and two (2) sexual intercourse took place from 3:00 o'clock until 7:00 o'clock that same evening when they left the hotel and proceeded to a birthday party together; that after the sexual act with complainant on June 1, 1958, respondent repeatedly proposed to have some more but complainant refused telling that they had better wait until they were married; that after their said sexual intimacy on June 1, 1958 and feeling that she was already on the family way, complainant repeatedly implored respondent to comply with his promise of marriage but respondent refused to comply; that on February 20, 1959, complainant gave birth to a child.

That the acts of the respondent in having carnal knowledge with the complainant through a promise of marriage which he did not fulfill and has refused to fulfill up to the present constitute a conduct which shows that respondent is devoid of the highest degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of and must be possessed by members of the Philippine Bar.

The Solicitor General asked for the disbarment of the respondent.

A copy of this complaint was served on respondent on May 3, 1962. Thereupon, he answered the complaint on June 9, 1962, again denying that he took complainant to the Silver Moon Hotel and that on the promise of marriage, succeeded twice in having sexual intercourse with her. He, however, admitted that sometime in June, 1955, he and the complainant became sweethearts until November, 1955, when they broke off, following a quarrel. He left for Zamboanga City in July, 1958, to practice law. Without stating in his answer that he had the intention of introducing additional evidence, respondent prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

This case was set for hearing in this Court on July 20, 1962. On the day of the hearing Solicitor Ceferino E. Gaddi who appeared for the complainant submitted the case for decision without oral argument. There was no appearance for the respondents.

Since the failure of respondent to make known in his answer his intention to present additional evidence in his behalf is deemed a waiver of the right to present such evidence (Toledo vs. Toledo, Adm. Case No. 266, April 27, 1963), the evidence produced before the Solicitor General in his investigation, where respondent had an opportunity to object to the evidence and cross-examine the witnesses, may now be considered by this Court, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 139 of the Rules of Court.

After reviewing the evidence, we are convinced that the facts are as stated in the complaint.

Complainant is an educated woman, having been a public school teacher for a number of years. She testified that respondent took her to the Silver Moon Hotel on June 1, 1958, signing the hotel register as "Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno," and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage. The hotel register of the Silver Moon Hotel (Exh. B-1 and Exh. B-2) shows that "Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno" arrived at that hotel on June 1, 1958 at 3:00 P.M. and departed at 7:00 P.M.

Complainant also testified that she last saw respondent on July 5, 1958, when the latter went to Zamboanga City. When she learned that respondent had left for Zamboanga City, she sent him a telegram sometime in August of that year telling him that she was in trouble. Again she wrote him a letter in September and another one in October of the same year, telling him that she was pregnant and she requested him to come. Receiving no replies from respondent, she went to Zamboanga City in November, 1958, where she met the respondent and asked him to comply with his promise to marry her.1äwphï1.ñët

Respondent admitted that he left for Zamboanga City in July, 1958, and that he and complainant met in Zamboanga City in November, 1958. The fact that complainant sent him a telegram and letters was likewise admitted in respondent's letter to the complainant dated November 3, 1958 (Exh. E), which was duly identified by the respondent to be his.

Complainant gave birth to a baby boy on February 20, 1959, at the Maternity and Children's Hospital. This is supported by a certified true copy of a birth certificate issued by the Deputy Local Civil Registrar of Manila, and a certificate of admission of complainant to the Maternity and Children's Hospital issued by the medical records clerk of the hospital.

To show how intimate the relationship between the respondent and the complainant was, the latter testified that she gave money to the respondent whenever he asked from her. This was corroborated by the testimony of Maria Jaca a witness for the complainant. Even respondent's letter dated November 3, 1958 (Exh. E) shows that he used to ask for money from the complainant.

The lengthy cross-examination to which complainant was subjected by the respondent himself failed to discredit complainant's testimony.

In his answer to the complaint of the Solicitor General, the respondent averred that he and complainant were sweethearts up to November, 1955 only. The fact that they reconciled and were sweethearts in 1958 is established by the testimony of Fara Santos, a witness of the complainant (pp. 12 & 17, t.s.n.); respondent's letter to the complainant dated November 3, 1958 (Exh. E); and respondent's own testimony (pp. 249 & 255, t.s.n.)

Complainant submitted to respondent's plea for sexual intercourse because of respondent's promise of marriage and not because of a desire for sexual gratification or of voluntariness and mutual passion. (Cf. Tanjanco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-18630, December 17, 1966) .

One of the requirements for all applicants for admission to the Bar is that the applicant must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character (Section 2, Rule 127 of the old Rules of Court, now section 2, Rule 138). If that qualification is a condition precedent to a license or privilege to enter upon the practice of law, it is essential during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege. (Royong vs. Oblena, Adm. Case No. 376, April 30, 1963, citing In re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 567). When his integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not enough that he denies the charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence for the relator (Legal and Judicial Ethics, by Malcolm, p. 93) and show proofs that he still maintains the highest degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is expected of him. Respondent denied that he took complainant to the Silver Moon Hotel and had sexual intercourse with her on June 1, 1958, but he did not present evidence to show where he was on that date. In the case of United States vs. Tria, 17 Phil. 303, Justice Moreland, speaking for the Court, said:

An accused person sometimes owes a duty to himself if not to the State. If he does not perform that duty he may not always expect the State to perform it for him. If he

fails to meet the obligation which he owes to himself, when to meet it is the easiest of easy things, he is hardly indeed if he demand and expect that same full and wide consideration which the State voluntarily gives to those who by reasonable effort seek to help themselves. This is particularly so when he not only declines to help himself but actively conceals from the State the very means by which it may assist him.

With respect to the special defense raised by the respondent in his answer to the charges of the complainant that the allegations in the complaint do not fall under any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar as enumerated in section 25 of Rule 127 of the (old) Rules of Court, it is already a settled rule that the statutory enumeration of the grounds for disbarment or suspension is not to be taken as a limitation on the general power of courts to suspend or disbar a lawyer. The inherent powers of the court over its officers can not be restricted. Times without number, our Supreme Court held that an attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross misconduct, which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him. (In re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 567, citing In re Smith [1906] 73 Kan 743; Balinon vs. de Leon Adm. Case No. 104, January 28, 1954; 50 O.G. 583; Mortel vs. Aspiras, Adm. Case No. 145, December 28, 1956, 53 O.G. 627). As a matter of fact, "grossly immoral conduct" is now one of the grounds for suspension or disbarment. (Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court).

Under the circumstances, we are convinced that the respondent has committed a grossly immoral act and has, thus disregarded and violated the fundamental ethics of his profession. Indeed, it is important that members of this ancient and learned profession of law must conform themselves in accordance with the highest standards of morality. As stated in paragraph 29 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics:

... The lawyer should aid in guarding the bar against the admission to the profession of candidates unfit or unqualified because deficient in either moral character or education. He should strive at all times to uphold the honor and to maintain the dignity of the profession and to improve not only the law but the administration of justice.

Wherefore, respondent Armando Puno is hereby disbarred and, as a consequence, his name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-9152        December 28, 1956

JOSEFINA MORTEL, plaintiff-appellant, vs.ANACLETO F. ASPIRAS, and CESAR ASPIRAS, defendants-appelle.

Concepcion Zacarias for appellant. Anacleto F. Aspiras in his own behalf and for his co-appellee.

 

BENGZON, J.:

In October 1954 Josefina Mortel filed in the Manila court of first instance a complaint against Anacleto F. Aspiras and Cesar Aspiras (Civil Case No. 24414) alleging substantially:

That posing as a bachelor Anacleto courted her in 1952 in Romblon province, and persuaded her to come to manila for their wedding; that for such purposes he arrived in the city, and stayed in the house of her sister in Pasay, where Anacleto, repeating his assurances of marriage lived with her as her husband; that subsequently, heeding plaintiff's insistence on the wedding, Anacleto accompanied her to the City Hall to obtain a marriage license; that there he introduced her son Cesar to her as a nephew, and then left them both in the building, after saying that Cesar already knew what to do; that with the help of Atty. Moises Espino both obtained a marriage license; that several days later plaintiff was made to marry Cesar Aspiras in the presence of Anacleto, who led her to believe she was really marrying him thru Cesar Aspiras as a proxy; that after such marriage ceremony she continued to live with Anacleto as his wife — never with Cesar, with whom she never had amorous relations; and that she had a baby born January 24, 1954 of defendant Anacleto Aspiras, who turned out to be married to another woman.

She asked annulment of her marriage to Cesar Aspiras, and for judgment requiring defendants to pay her, jointly and severally, a monthly allowance of P150.00 and damages in the total sum of P72,580.00.

On November 9, 1954 defendants filed a motion to dismiss on two grounds: no cause of action, and prior judgment in Civil Case No. 19115 of the same court. .

On February 11, 1955, the court issued an order saying,

Upon motion of the defendants this case is dismissed it being a repetition of civil Case No. 19115 (Josefina Mortel vs. Anacleto Aspiras and Cesar Aspiras) which was dismissed upon separate motions of the parties in the order of this Court of April 11, 1953.

The plaintiff moved for reconsideration, but her motion was denied in a court resolution explaining that this case "is a reiteration substantially of the old case No. 19115" . . . which was "dismissed upon separate motions of both parties" and such "dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 4, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court".

Consequently the plaintiff appealed to this Court alleging error in the application of Rule 30 section 4, inasmuch as the matter was governed by sec. 1 of same Rule 30.

Civil Case No. 19115 was admittedly filed March 1953. The allegations of the complaint therein were practically the same as those in the present litigation; before filing of the answer, plaintiff Josefina Mortel submitted on April 9, 1953 a motion to dismiss her complaint "stating that she was in fact and in truth married to the defendant Cesar Aspiras and Anacleto F. Aspiras participated in the solemnization of the marriage as the father of Cesar Aspiras, and that she filed her said complaint at the height of anger and thus the contents thereof did not represent her true sentiments" (29 Record on Appeal). It is also admitted that on April 1, 1953 the defendants in said Civil Case No. 19115 presented a motion to dismiss, asserting the plaintiff had no cause of action because she "was a school

teacher, knew that she contracted the marriage with Cesar Aspiras and that there were no misrepresentation or fraud perpetrated against her." (15, 29 Record on Appeal.)

There is no question that on April 11, 1953 the court issued, in said civil case, an order stating, "upon separate motions of both parties the complaint is hereby dismissed".

For the sake of clearness the rules cited by both sides are quoted:

SECTION 1. Dismissal by the plaintiff . — An action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service of the answer. Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that. . . .

SEC. 4. Effect of dismissal on the grounds. — Unless otherwise ordered by the court, any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, operates an adjudication upon the merits. (Rule 30, Rules of Court.)

There is another reason that may be pertinent:

SEC. 2. By order of the court. — Except as provided in the preceeding section, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. . . . Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph shall be without prejudice. . . .

In the light of the above provisions, let us examine what transpired in Civil Case No. 19115. Before the answer was made, plaintiff filed a "Motion to Withdraw and/or Dismiss"; and she asked the court "that the complaint . . . be withdrawn and/or dismissed". At first glance her pleading does not fall exactly within the letter of the "notice" contemplated by section 1. In addition it asked for a court order of dismissal.

But if it does not fall under section 1, it may be considered as a motion which the court could dispose of under section 2. When acting under such section to court could consult the wishes of the defendant. The defendant may object; but the court may order dismissal, and such order is without prejudice. Wherefore if the defendant agrees, the order is a fortiori also without prejudice. Unless otherwise expressly stated, of course.1awphil.net

Now then, the defendant's motion to dismiss in April 1953 could in legal contemplation be deemed a conformity to plaintiff's motion to withdraw. Therefore, the court's order upon both motions should be without prejudice, under section 2.

On the other hand, viewing the pleading with liberality a and seeing thru the form to the substance, the plaintiff's "motion to withdraw or dismiss" of April 9 amounted practically to a "notice" of dismissal, before service of the answer, because it advised the defendants of plaintiff's desire to withdraw. Its caption did not alter nor disguise its nature as plaintiff's statement of her determination to drop the matter. It contemplated, it is true, a court order of dismissal; but it was not thereby taken out of the purview of section 1, since even after a "notice" given under said section, a court's order of dismissal would not be incongrous. Defendant's conformity, if openly given, would be surplusage, and would not modify the ensuing juridical situation.

As we see section 1, when the plaintiff files the notice, the matter is dismissed without the necessity of a court order; but a court order may subsequently be entered definitely taking

cognizance of the withdrawal and shelving the expediente, without thereby throwing the matter out of the scope of said section 1 (b).

Being then of the opinion that the proceedings in Civil Case No. 19115 could be classified either under section 1 or under section 2, we cannot but declare section 4 to the inapplicable. In other words, we hold the dismissal to be without prejudice. At most, defendants may contend that the order of April 11, 1953 was also an order sustaining their motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, such order barring subsequent litigation. In fact such was their contention in the court below. (p. 27 Record on Appeal.) However, we do not believe that the court's order meant to declare that plaintiff had no cause of action. It did not say, "For the reasons stated in defendant's motion" the case is dismissed. It merely stated "upon separate motions of both parties the complaint is dismissed" — which ordinarily could mean "since both parties ask for dismissal, the case is dismissed". In all probability the court did not stop to consider the merits of the controversy. Indeed it would be a debatable point whether the court could still properly delve into the merits of the case after plaintiff had withdrawn. b

Anyway, even granting that the court's order also held that no cause of action existed, the situation would be one wherein the order was both provisional and final in character (if that is legally possible). Then it would not be fair to apply such finality to plaintiff, since she would thereby be forever barred from submitting her claim to the courts, although she had reasons to believe the order was a provisional dismissal. On the other hand, considering the order as provisional, defendants would not be unduly prejudiced nor definitely harmed, because they are not deprived of the opportunity to defend themselves. Defendants should have insisted either that the court make a specific ruling upon their motion or that the dismissal be expressly made with prejudice.lawphil.net

It may be stated that in this connection that we are all the more inclined to permit this new litigation, because in another expediente we have just decided, (of which we may take judicial notice) (Adm. Case No. 154, Mortel vs. Aspiras), evidence has been introduced indicating that the plaintiff's motion for dismissal had been prepared at the request of defendant Anacleto Aspiras who promised plaintiff full support, — and that there is prima facie merit to her claims for annulment and damages.

This is verily one instance requiring liberal construction of the Rules for the purpose of assisting the parties to obtain just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their controversies — without regard to technical objections that do not square with the ends of justice.

The appealed order is hereby reversed and the case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

 

Footnotes

a Pleadings to be liberally construed. Sec. 17 Rule 15.

b It might be argued that under section 1 of the notice automatically dismissed the case "without prejudice" and the order of the court was a surplusage, in no way construable as implying dismissal with prejudice.

A.M. No. 2349 July 3, 1992

DOROTHY B. TERRE, complainant, vs.ATTY. JORDAN TERRE, respondent.

 

PER CURIAM:

In a sworn complaint filed with this Court on 24 December 1981, complainant Dorothy B. Terre charged respondent Jordan Terre, a member of the Philippine Bar with "grossly immoral conduct," consisting of contracting a second marriage and living with another woman other than complainant, while his prior marriage with complainant remained subsisting.

The Court resolved to require respondent to answer the complaint. 1 Respondent successfully evaded five (5) attempts to serve a copy of the Court's Resolution and of the complaint by moving from one place to another, such that he could not be found nor reached in his alleged place of employment or residence. 2 On 24 April 1985, that is after three (3) years and a half, with still no answer from the respondent, the Court noted respondent's success in evading service of the complaint and the Court's Resolution and thereupon resolved to "suspend respondent Atty. Jordan Terre from the practice of law until after he appears and/or files his answer to the complaint against him" in the instantcase. 3

On 28 September 1985, respondent finally filed an Answer with a Motion to Set Aside and/or Lift Suspension Order. In his Answer, Atty. Terre averred that he had contracted marriage with complainant Dorothy Terre on 14 June 1977 upon her representation that she was single; that he subsequently learned that Dorothy was married to a certain Merlito A. Bercenilla sometime in 1968; that when he confronted Dorothy about her prior marriage, Dorothy drove him out of their conjugal residence; that Dorothy had mockingly told him of her private meetings with Merlito A. Bercenilla and that the child she was then carrying (i.e., Jason Terre) was the son of Bercenilla; that believing in good faith that his marriage to complainant was null and void ab initio, he contracted marriage with Helina Malicdem at Dasol, Pangasinan. 4

In her Reply, complainant Dorothy denied that Jason Terre was the child of Merlito A. Bercenilla and insisted that Jason was the child of respondent Jordan Terre, as evidenced by Jason's Birth Certificate and physical resemblance to respondent. Dorothy further explained that while she had given birth to Jason Terre at the PAFGH registered as a dependent of Merlito Bercenilla, she had done so out of extreme necessity and to avoid risk of death or injury to the fetus which happened to be in a difficult breech position. According to Dorothy, she had then already been abandoned by respondent Jordan Terre, leaving her penniless

and without means to pay for the medical and hospital bills arising by reason of her pregnancy.

The Court denied respondent's Motion to Set Aside or Lift the Suspension Order and instead referred; by a Resolution dated 6 January 1986, the complaint to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. 5

Then Solicitor Pio C. Guerrero was appointed investigator by the Office of the Solicitor General. He set the case for hearing on 7 July 1986 with notice to both parties. On 7 July 1986, complainant Dorothy appeared and presented her evidence ex parte, since respondent did not so appear. 6 The Investigating Solicitor scheduled and held another hearing on 19 August 1986, where he put clarificatory questions to the complainant; respondent once again did not appear despite notice to do so. Complainant finally offered her evidence and rested her case. The Solicitor set still another hearing for 2 October 1986, notifying respondent to present his evidence with a warning that should he fail once more to appear, the case would be deemed submitted for resolution. Respondent did not appear on 2 October 1986. The Investigating Solicitor accordingly considered respondent to have waived his right to present evidence and declared the case submitted for resolution. The parties were given time to submit their respective memoranda. Complainant Dorothy did so on 8 December 1986. Respondent Terre did not file his memorandum.

On 26 February 1990, the Office of the Solicitor General submitted its "Report and Recommendation" to this Court. The Report summarized the testimony of the complainant in the following manner:

Complainant Dorothy Terre took the witness stand and testified substantially as follows: she and respondent met for the first time in 1979 as fourth year high school classmates in Cadiz City High School (tsn, July 7, 1986, p. 9); she was then married to Merlito Bercenilla, while respondent was single (id.); respondent was aware of her marital status (ibid, p. 14); it was then that respondent started courting her but nothing happened of the courtship (ibid, p. 10); they [complainant and respondent] moved to Manila were they respectively pursued their education, respondent as a law student at the Lyceum University (tsn, July 7, 1986, p. 12, 15-16); respondent continued courting her, this time with more persistence (ibid, p. 11); she decided nothing would come of it since she was married but he [respondent] explained to her that their marriage was void ab initio since she and her first husband were first cousins (ibid, p. 12); convinced by his explanation and having secured favorable advice from her mother andex-in-laws, she agreed to marry him [respondent] (ibid, 12-13, 16); in their marriage license, despite her [complainant's] objection, he [respondent] wrote "single" as her status explaining that since her marriage was void ab initio, there was no need to go to court to declare it as such (ibid, 14-15); they were married before Judge Priscilla Mijares of the City Court of Manila on June 14, 1977 (Exhibit A; tsn, July 7, 1986, pp. 16-17); Jason Terre was born of their union on June 25, 1981 (Exhibit B, tsn, July 7, 1986, p. 18); all through their married state up to the time he [respondent] disappeared in 1981, complainant supported respondent, in addition to the allowance the latter was getting from his parents (ibid, pp. 19-20); she was unaware of the reason for his disappearance until she found out later that respondent married a certain Vilma [sic] Malicdem (Exhibit C, tsn, July 7, 1986, pp. 21-22); she then filed a case for abandonment of minor with the City Fiscal of Pasay City (ibid, p. 23) which was subsequently filed before Branch II of the City Court of Pasay City as Criminal Case No. 816159 (Exhibit D; tsn, July 7, 1986, p. 24); she likewise

filed a case for bigamy against respondent and Helina Malicdem with the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan, where a prima facie case was found to exist (Exhibit E; tsn, July 7, pp. 25-26); additionally, complainant filed an administrative case against respondent with the Commission on Audit where he was employed, which case however was considered closed for being moot and academic when respondent was considered automatically separated from the service for having gone on absence without official leave (Exhibit F; tsn, July 7, 1986, pp. 28-29). 7

There is no dispute over the fact that complainant Dorothy Terre and respondent Jordan Terre contracted marriage on 14 July 1977 before Judge Priscilla Mijares. There is further no dispute over the fact that on 3 May 1981, respondent Jordan Terre married Helina Malicdem in Dasol, Pangasinan. When the second marriage was entered into, respondent's prior marriage with complainant was subsisting, no judicial action having been initiated or any judicial declaration obtained as to the nullity of such prior marriage of respondent with complainant.

Respondent Jordan Terre sought to defend himself by claiming that he had believed in good faith that his prior marriage with complainant Dorothy Terre was null and void ab initio and that no action for a judicial declaration of nullity was necessary.

The Court considers this claim on the part of respondent Jordan Terre as a spurious defense. In the first place, respondent has not rebutted complainant's evidence as to the basic facts which underscores the bad faith of respondent Terre. In the second place, that pretended defense is the same argument by which he had inveigled complainant into believing that her prior marriage to Merlito A. Bercenilla being incestuous and void ab initio (Dorothy and Merlito being allegedly first cousins to each other), she was free to contract a second marriage with the respondent. 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. 8 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 Helina Malicdem must be regarded as bigamous and criminal in character.

That the moral character of respondent Jordan Terre was deeply flawed is shown by other circumstances. As noted, he convinced the complainant that her prior marriage to Bercenilla was null and void ab initio, that she was still legally single and free to marry him. When complainant and respondent had contracted their marriage, respondent went through law school while being supported by complainant, with some assistance from respondent's parents. After respondent had finished his law course and gotten complainant pregnant, respondent abandoned the complainant without support and without the wherewithal for delivering his own child safely in a hospital.

Thus, we agree with the Solicitor General that respondent Jordan Terre, by his actions, "eloquently displayed, not only his unfitness to remain as a member of the Bar, but likewise his inadequacy to uphold the purpose and responsibility of his gender" because marriage is a basic social institution. 9

In Pomperada v. Jochico, 10 the Court, in rejecting a petition to be allowed to take the oath as a member of the Bar and to sign the Roll of Attorneys, said through Mme. Justice Melencio-Herrera:

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 (Article 216, Civil Code). 11

In Bolivar v. Simbol, 12 the Court found the respondent there guilty of "grossly immoral conduct" because he made a dupe of complainant, living on her bounty and allowing her to spend for his schooling and other personal necessities while dangling before her the mirage of a marriage, marrying another girl as soon as he had finished his studies, keeping his marriage a secret while continuing to demand money from complainant. . . . ." The Court held such acts "indicative of a character not worthy of a member of the Bar." 13

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 Helina 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, affording more than sufficient basis for disbarment of respondent Jordan Terre. He was unworthy of admission to the Bar in the first place. The Court will correct this error forthwith.

WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to DISBAR respondent Jordan Terre and to STRIKE OUT his name from the Roll of Attorneys. A copy of this decision shall be spread on the personal record of respondent Jordan Terre in the Bar Confidant's Office. A copy of this resolution shall also be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and shall be circularized to all the courts of the land.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

A.M. No. 1334 November 28, 1989

ROSARIO DELOS REYES, complainant, vs.ATTY. JOSE B. AZNAR, respondent.

Federico A. Blay for complainant.

Luciano Babiera for respondent.

RESOLUTION

 

PER CURIAM:

This is a complaint for disbarment filed against respondent on the ground of gross immorality.

Complainant, a second year medical student of the Southwestern University (Cebu), alleged in her verified complaint that respondent Atty. Jose B. Aznar, then chairman of said university, had carnal knowledge of her for several times under threat that she would fail in her Pathology subject if she would not submit to respondent's lustful desires. Complainant further alleged that when she became pregnant, respondent, through a certain Dr. Gil Ramas, had her undergo forced abortion.

In compliance with the Resolution of the Court dated July 9, 1974, respondent filed his Answer denying any personal knowledge of complainant as well as all the allegations contained in the complaint and by way of special defense, averred that complainant is a woman of loose morality.

On September 2, 1974, the Court Resolved to refer the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.

The findings of the Solicitor General is summarized as follows:

EVIDENCE FOR THE COMPLAINANT

Complainant Rosario delos Reyes testified that:

1) she was a second year medical student of the Southwestern University, the Chairman of the Board of which was respondent Jose B. Aznar (pp. 11, 15, tsn, June 6, 1975);

2) she however failed in her Pathology subject which prompted her to approach respondent in the latter's house who assured her that she would pass the said subject (pp. 15,16, 26, 33, tsn, June 6, 1975);

3) despite this assurance, however, she failed (p. 33, tsn, June 6, 1975);

4) sometime in February, 1973, respondent told her that she should go with him to Manila, otherwise, she would flunk in all her subjects (pp. 42, 50, tsn, June 6, 1975); ... ... ... ;

5) on February 12, 1973, both respondent and complainant boarded the same plane (Exh. "A") for Manila; from the Manila Domestic Airport, they proceeded to Room 905, 9th Floor of the Ambassador Hotel where they stayed for three days (Exhs. "K", "K-1" to "K-6"; p. 55, tsn, June 6, 1 975);

6) after arriving at the Ambassador Hotel, they dined at a Spanish restaurant at San Marcelino, Malate, Manila for around three hours (pp 56-57, tsn, June 6, 1975);

7) they returned to the hotel at around twelve o'clock midnight, where respondent had carnal knowledge of her twice and then thrice the next morning (p. 59, tsn, June 6, 1975; pp. 154, 155 & 157, tsn, July 18, 1975);

8) complainant consented to the sexual desires of respondent because for her, she would sacrifice her personal honor rather than fail in her subjects (p.6l, tsn, June 6, 1975); ... ... ...;

9) sometime in March, 1973, complainant told respondent that she was suspecting pregnancy because she missed her menstruation (p. 76, tsn, July 17, 1975); ... ... ...;

10) later, she was informed by Dr. Monsanto (an instructor in the college of medicine) that respondent wanted that an abortion be performed upon her (p.82, tsn, July l7, 1975); ... ... ... ;

11) thereafter, Ruben Cruz, a confidant of respondent, and Dr. Monsato fetched her at her boarding house on the pretext that she would be examined by Dr. Gil Ramas (pp. 87-88, tsn, July 17, 1975);

12) upon reaching the clinic of Dr. Ramas she was given an injection and an inhalation mask was placed on her mouth and nose (pp. 88-90, tsn, July 17, 1 975);

13) as a result, she lost consciousness and when she woke up, an abortion had already been performed upon her and she was weak, bleeding and felt pain all over her body (pp. 90-91, tsn, July 17, 1975); ... ... ... (Rollo, pp. 38-40)

Monica Gutierrez Tan testified that she met complainant and a man whom complainant introduced as Atty. Aznar in front of the Ambassador Hotel (pp. 183-184, tsn, Sept. 10, 1975; Rollo, p. 41).

Dr. Rebecca Gucor and Dr. Artemio Ingco, witnesses for the complainant, testified that abdominal examinations and x-ray examination of the lumbro-sacral region of complainant showed no signs of abnormality (Rollo, p. 42).

The evidence for the respondent as reported by the Solicitor General is summarized as follows:

Edilberto Caban testified that:

1. In December, 1972, respondent Atty. Aznar stayed at Ambassador Hotel with his wife and children; respondent never came to Manila except in December, 1972; (pp. 8-9,. tsn, Nov. 24, 1977);

2. He usually slept with respondent everytime the latter comes to Manila (p. 13, tsn, Nov. 24, 1977; Rollo, pp. 42-43).

Oscar Salangsang, another witness for the respondent stated that:

1. In February, 1973, he went to Ambassador Hotel to meet respondent; the latter had male companions at the hotel but he did not see any woman companion of respondent Aznar;

2. He usually slept with respondent at the Ambassador Hotel and ate with him outside the hotel together with Caban (pp. 8-9, 13-15, tsn, Jan. 13, 1978; Rollo, p. 43).

The Court notes that throughout the period of the investigation conducted by the Solicitor General, respondent Aznar was never presented to refute the allegations made against him.

In his Answer, respondent Aznar alleges that he does not have any knowledge of the allegations in the complaint. As special defense, respondent further alleged that the charge levelled against him is in furtherance of complainant's vow to wreck vengeance against respondent by reason of the latter's approval of the recommendation of the Board of Trustees barring complainant from enrollment for the school year 1973-1974 because she failed in most of her subjects. It is likewise contended that the defense did not bother to present respondent in the investigation conducted by the Solicitor General because nothing has been shown in the hearing to prove that respondent had carnal knowledge of the complainant.

Contrary to respondent's averments, the Solicitor General made a categorical finding to the effect that respondent had carnal knowledge of complainant, to wit:

From the foregoing, it is clear that complainant was compelled to go to Manila with respondent upon the threat of respondent that if she failed to do so, she would flunk in all her subjects and she would never become a medical intern (pp. 42, 50, tsn, June 6, 1975). As respondent was Chairman of the College of Medicine, complainant had every reason to believe him.

It has been established also that complainant was brought by respondent to Ambassador Hotel in Manila for three days where he repeatedly had carnal knowledge of her upon the threat that if she would not give in to his lustful desires, she would fail in her Pathology subject (Exhs. "A", "K", "K-1" to "K-6" pp. 51, 52, 55-59, tsn, June 6, 1975);

xxx xxx xxx

On the other hand, respondent did not bother to appear during the hearing. It is true that he presented Edilberto Caban and Oscar Salangsang who testified that respondent usually slept with them every time the latter came to Manila, but their testimony (sic) is not much of help. None of them mentioned during the hearing that they stayed and slept with respondent on February 12 to February 14, 1973 at Ambassador Hotel. ... ... ... Besides, Edilberto Caban testified that respondent stayed at Ambassador Hotel with his wife and children in December, 1972. The dates in question, however, are February 12 to 14, 1973, inclusive. His (Caban's) testimony, therefore, is immaterial to the present case" (Rollo, pp. 43-44).

In effect, the Solicitor General found that the charge of immorality against respondent Aznar has been substantiated by sufficient evidence both testimonial and documentary; while

finding insufficient and uncorroborated the accusation of intentional abortion. The Solicitor General then recommends the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for a period of not less than three (3) years.

On March 16, 1989, the Court Resolved to require the parties to Move in the premises to determine whether any intervening event occurred which would render the case moot and academic (Rollo, p. 69).

On April 12, 1989, the Solicitor General filed a manifestation and motion praying that the case at bar be considered submitted for decision on the bases of the report and recommendation previously submitted together with the record of the case and the evidence adduced (Rollo, p. 75).

After a thorough review of the records, the Court agrees with the finding of the Solicitor General that respondent Aznar, under the facts as stated in the Report of the investigation conducted in the case, is guilty of "grossly immoral conduct" and may therefore be removed or suspended by the Supreme Court for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar (Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court).

Respondent failed to adduce evidence sufficient to engender doubt as to his culpability of the offense imputed upon him. With the exception of the self-serving testimonies of two witnesses presented on respondent's behalf, the records are bereft of evidence to exonerate respondent of the act complained of, much less contradict, on material points, the testimonies of complainant herself.

While respondent denied having taken complainant to the Ambassador Hotel and there had sexual intercourse with the latter, he did not present any evidence to show where he was at that date. While this is not a criminal proceeding, respondent would have done more than keep his silence if he really felt unjustly traduced.

It is the duty of a lawyer, whenever his moral character is put in issue, to satisfy this Court that he is a fit and proper person to enjoy continued membership in the Bar. He cannot dispense with nor downgrade the high and exacting moral standards of the law profession (Go v. Candoy, 21 SCRA 439 [1967]). As once pronounced by the Court:

When his integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not enough that he denies the charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence for the relator (Legal and Judicial Ethics, by Malcolm, p. 93) and show proofs that he still maintains the highest degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is expected of him. ... In the case of United States v. Tria, 17 Phil. 303, Justice Moreland, speaking for the Court, said:

An accused person sometimes owes a duty to himself if not to the State. If he does not perform that duty, he may not always expect the State to perform it for him. If he fails to meet the obligation which he owes to himself, when to meet it is the easiest of easy things, he is hardy indeed if he demand and expect that same full and wide consideration which the State voluntarily gives to those who by reasonable effort seek to help themselves. This is particularly so when he not only declines to help himself but actively conceals from the State the very means by which it may assist him (Quingwa SCRA 439 [1967]).

The Solicitor General recommends that since the complainant is partly to blame for having gone with respondent to Manila knowing fully well that respondent is a married man ,with

children, respondent should merely be suspended from the practice of law for not less than three (3) years (Rollo, p. 47).

On the other hand, respondent in his manifestation and motion dated April 18, 1989 alleges that since a period of about ten (10) years had already elapsed from the time the Solicitor General made his recommendation for a three (3) years suspension and respondent is not practicing his profession as a lawyer, the court may now consider the respondent as having been suspended during the said period and the case dismissed for being moot and academic.

We disagree.

Complainant filed the instant case for disbarment not because respondent reneged on a promise to marry (Quingwa v. Puno, supra). More importantly. complainant's knowledge of of respondent's marital status is not at issue in the case at bar. Complainant submitted to respondent's solicitation for sexual intercourse not because of a desire for sexual gratification but because of respondent's moral ascendancy over her and fear that if she would not accede, she would flunk in her subjects. As chairman of the college of medicine where complainant was enrolled, the latter had every reason to believe that respondent could make good his threats. Moreover, as counsel for respondent would deem it "worthwhile to inform the the Court that the respondent is a scion of a rich family and a very rich man in his own right and in fact is not practicing his profession before the court" (Rollo, p. 70), mere suspension for a limited period, per se, would therefore serve no redeeming purpose. The fact that he is a rich man and does not practice his profession as a lawyer, does not render respondent a person of good moral character. Evidence of good moral character precedes admission to bar (Sec.2, Rule 138, Rules of Court) and such requirement is not dispensed with upon admission thereto. Good moral character is a continuing qualification necessary to entitle one to continue in the practice of law. The ancient and learned profession of law exacts from its members the highest standard of morality (Quingwa v. Puno, supra).

Under Section 27, Rule 138, "(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 admission to practice, ... " In Arciga v. Maniwang (106 SCRA 591, [1981]), this Court had occasion to define the concept of immoral conduct, as follows:

A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. A member of the bar should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity.

It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is grossly immoral conduct or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment.

Immoral conduct has been defined as 'that which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community' (7 C.J.S. 959).

Where an unmarried female dwarf possessing the intellect of a child became pregnant by reason of intimacy with a married lawyer who was the father of

six children, disbarment of the attorney on the ground of immoral conduct was justified (In re Hicks 20 Pac. 2nd 896).

In the present case, it was highly immoral of respondent, a married man with children, to have taken advantage of his position as chairman of the college of medicine in asking complainant, a student in said college, to go with him to Manila where he had carnal knowledge of her under the threat that she would flunk in all her subjects in case she refused.

WHEREFORE, respondent Jose B. Aznar is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Gancayco, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Fernan (C.J.), took no part.

Melencio-Herrera, J., is on leave.

A.C. No. 376             April 30, 1963

JOSEFINA ROYONG, complainant, vs.ATTY. ARISTON OBLENA, respondent.

BARRERA, J.:

In a verified complaint filed with this Court on January 14, 1959, complainant Josefina Royong charged the respondent Ariston J. Oblena, a member of the Philippine Bar, with rape allegedly committed on her person in the manner described therein. Upon requirement of this Court, the respondent filed his answer denying all the allegations in the complaint and praying that he be not disbarred. On February 3, 1959, this Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.

On July 10, 1961, the Solicitor General submitted his report on the case with the recommendation that the respondent "be permanently removed from his office lawyer and his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys". The pertinent part of the report reads as follows:

The complainant testified that after lunch on August 5, 1958, Cecilia Angeles, her foster mother, left her alone in their house and went down to the pig sty to feed the pigs. At about 1:00 p.m., while she" (complainant) was ironing clothes on the second floor of the house the respondent entered and read a newspaper at her back. Suddenly he covered her mouth with one hand and with the other hand dragged her to one of the bedrooms of the house and forced her to lie down on the floor. She did not shout for help because he threatened her and her family with death. He next

undressed as she lay on the floor, then had sexual intercourse with her after he removed her panties and gave her hard blows on the thigh with his fist to subdue her resistance. After the sexual intercourse, he warned her not to report him to her foster parents, otherwise, he would kill her and all the members of her family. She resumed ironing clothes after he left until 5:00 o'clock that afternoon when she joined her foster mother on the first floor of the house. As a result of the sexual intercourse she became pregnant and gave birth to a baby on June 2, 1959 (pp. 4-8, 21, 23, 26, 27, t.s.n., hearing of Aug. 5, 1959).

She admitted that had she shouted for help she would have been heard by the neighbors that she did not report the outrage to anyone because of the threat made by the respondent; that she still frequented the respondent's house after August 5, 1959, sometimes when he was alone, ran errands for him, cooked his coffee, and received his mail for him. Once, on November 14, 1958, when respondent was sick of influenza, she was left alone with him in his house while her aunt Briccia Angeles left for Manila to buy medicine (pp. 11, 14-18, 24, t.s.n., hearing of August 5, 1959).

The respondent on the witness stand denied that he raped the complainant (p. 3, t.s.n., hearing of March 25 1960). He testified that after lunch on August 5, 1958, he went to the Commission Of Civil Service to follow up his appointment as technical assistant in the office of the mayor of Makati, Rizal, and read the record of the administrative case against Buenaventura Perez (pp. 23, 24, 34, t.s.n., hearing of March 25, 1960, Exhs. 1 and 2).

The respondent, however, admitted that he had illicit relations with the complainant from January, 1957 to December, 1958, when their clandestine affair was discovered by the complainant's foster parents, but to avoid criminal liability for seduction, according to him, he limited himself to kissing and embracing her and sucking her tongue before she completed her eighteenth birthday. They had their first sexual intercourse on May 11, 1958, after she had reached eighteen, and the second one week later, on May 18. The last intercourse took place before Christmas in December, 1958. In all, they had sexual intercourse about fifty times, mostly in her house and sometimes in his house whenever they had the opportunity. He intended to marry her when she could legally contract marriage without her foster parents' intervention, 'in case occasion will permit ... because we cannot ask permission to marry, for her foster parents will object and even my common-law wife, will object.' After the discovery of their relationship by the complainant's foster parents, he confessed the affair to Briccia, explaining that he wanted to have a child, something she (Briccia) could not give him. (pp. 14-16, 19-25, t.s.n., hearing of March 25, 1960).

x x x           x x x           x x x

FINDINGS AND COMMENT

There is no controversy that the respondent had carnal knowledge of the complainant. The complainant claims she surrendered to him under circumstances of violence and intimidation, but the undersigned are convinced that the sexual intercourse was performed not once but repeatedly and with her consent. From her behaviour before and after the alleged rape, she appears to have been more a sweetheart than of the victim of an outrage involving her honor ....

But the foregoing observations notwithstanding, the undersigned cannot in conscience recommend respondent's exoneration. The respondent tempted Briccia Angeles to live maritally with him not long after she and her husband parted, and it is

not improbable that the spouses never reconciled because of him. His own evidence shows that, tiring of her after more than fifteen years of adulterous relationship with her and on the convenient excuse that she, Briccia Angeles, could not bear a child, he seduced Josefina Andalis, then 17 or 18 years of age, resulting in her pregnancy and the birth of a child, on June 2, 1959. The seduction was accomplished with grave abuse of confidence and by means of promises of marriage which he knew he could not fulfill without grievous injury to the woman who forsook her husband so that he, respondent, could have all of her. He also took advantage of his moral influence over her. From childhood, Josefina Andalis, treated him as an uncle and called him 'tata' (uncle), undoubtedly because he is the paramour of a sister of her mother. Considering her age (she was 17 or 18 years old then), it is not difficult to see why she could not resist him.

The evidence further shows that on July 22, 1954, the respondent filed a sworn petition dated May 22, 1954 alleging "that he is a person of good moral character" (Par. 3) and praying that the Supreme Court permit him "to take the bar examinations to be given on the first Saturday of August, 1954, or at any time as the Court may fix.."

But he was not then the person of good moral character he represented himself to be. From 1942 to the present, he has continuously lived an adulterous life with Briccia Angeles whose husband is still alive, knowing that his concubine is a married woman and that her marriage still subsists. This fact permanently disqualified him from taking the bar examinations, and had it been known to the Supreme Court in 1954, he would not have been permitted to take the bar examinations that year or thereafter, or to take his oath of office as a lawyer. As he was then permanently disqualified from admission to the Philippine Bar by reason of his adulterous relations with a married woman, it is submitted that the same misconduct should be sufficient ground for his permanent disbarment, unless we recognize a double standard of morality, one for membership to the Philippine Bar and another for disbarment from the office of a lawyer.

x x x           x x x           x x x

RECOMMENDATION

Wherefore, the undersigned respectfully recommend that after due hearing, respondent Ariston J. Oblena be permanently removed from his office as a lawyer and his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

In view of his own findings as a result of his investigation, that even if respondent did not commit the alleged rape nevertheless he was guilty of other misconduct, the Solicitor General formulated another complaint which he appended to his report, charging the respondent of falsely and deliberately alleging in his application for admission to the bar that he is a person of good moral character; of living adulterously with Briccia Angeles at the same time maintaining illicit relations with the complainant Josefina Royong, niece of Briccia, thus rendering him unworthy of public confidence and unfit and unsafe to manage the legal business of others, and praying that this Court render judgment ordering "the permanent removal of the respondent ... from his office as a lawyer and the cancellation of his name from the roll of attorneys."

In his answer to this formal complaint, respondent alleged the special defense that "the complaint does not merit action", since the causes of action in the said complaint are different and foreign from the original cause of action for rape and that "the complaint lacks

the necessary formalities called for in Sec. 1, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court." Respondent prayed that after due notice and hearing for additional evidence, the complaint be dismissed.

On September 13, 1961, this Court designated the Court Investigators to receive the additional evidence. Accordingly the case was set for hearing of which the parties were duly notified. On September 29, 1961, respondent asked leave to submit a memorandum which was granted, and on October 9, 1961 the same was filed, alleging the following: 1) That the charge of rape has not been proven; 2) That no act of seduction was committed by the respondent; 3) That no act of perjury or fraudulent concealment was committed by the respondent when he filed his petition for admission to the bar; and 4) That the respondent is not morally unfit to be a member of the bar.

Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts. 1äwphï1.ñët

At the hearing on November 16, 1961, respondent presented his common-law wife, Briccia Angeles, who testified as follows:

... Respondent is her common-law husband (t.s.n. 23). She first met respondent on December 16, 1941 at Cavinti, Laguna (t.s.n. 23). She and her sister Cecilia Angeles-Royong were evacuated to Cavinti by the Red Cross (t.s.n. 23). She was already married (to Teodoro Arines) at the time (t.s.n. 24). She and Arines are from Iriga, Camarines Sur (t.s.n. 24). Respondent and one Mr. Flores registered them (t.s.n. 24) as evacuees. When Mr. Flores asked her about her status she told him she was 'single' (t.s.n. 25). She and her sister, Cecilia, were then told to stay at respondent's house, respondent courted her (t.s.n. 26). Respondent asked her if she was married and she told him 'we will talk about that later on' (t.s.n. 26). She told respondent she was married (to Arines) when she and respondent were already living together as 'husband and wife', in 1942( t.s.n. 26). Respondent asked her to marry him, when they were living as husband and wife (t.s.n. 27). Her sister Cecilia left Cavinti 2 months after their arrival thereat, but she did not go with her because she and respondent 'had already a good understanding'(sexual relations) [t.s.n. 27]. Later, she left Cavinti and went to her hometown in Iriga, Camarines Sur, because respondent was already reluctant to live with her and he told her it was better for her to go home to Iriga (t.s.n. 25). Arriving at Iriga, she met her legitimate husband (Arines), who told her he had already a wife, named Conching Guevara (t.s.n. 28-29). She then went back to Cavinti (in 1943), with her father, and lived with respondent (t.s.n. 29). Respondent eventually agreed that she live with him (t.s.n. 35); in fact, she is still presently living with respondent (t.s.n. 35) [Report of Court Investigators, March 6, 1962, pp. 5-6]."

Thereafter, respondent requested permission to submit an affidavit at a later date, which request was also granted. The affidavit was filed on December 16, 1961, the respondent averring, among others, the following:.

... That he never committed any act or crime of seduction against the complainant, because the latter was born on February 19, 1940, and his first sexual intercourse with her took place on May 11, 1958, when she was already above 18 years of age; that he had been living with his common-law wife, Briccia Angeles, for almost 20 years, but from the time he began courting her, he 'had no intention to alienate' her love for her husband, Arines, or to commit the crime of adultery; that he courted Briccia on October 16, 1941, and was shortly thereafter accepted by her; that on

February 21, 1942, he found Briccia alone in his house, who told him that her sister, Cecilia, had gone to Pagsanjan with the other evacuees; that from said date (February 21), to the present, he and Briccia had been living together as common-law husband and wife; that 2 or 3 weeks thereafter, he asked Briccia to marry him, but she confessed she was already married, and maybe her husband (Arines) was still living in Iriga; that he could not then drive Briccia away, because she was a stranger in the place, nor could he urge her to join her sister Cecilia, as the latter had left Pagsanjan; that in 1943 she told Briccia to separate from him and to return to Iriga, and urged her never to see him again; that contrary to his expectations, Briccia returned to Cavinti 3 months thereafter; that Briccia strongly insisted to live with him again, telling him that she cannot separate from him anymore, as he was ashamed; that Briccia's father told him that Briccia's husband (Arines) had agreed not to molest them as in fact he (Arines) was already living with another woman; that he had 'no choice but to live with her' (Briccia) again; that when he filed his petition to take the bar examinations in 1954, he 'did not have the slightest intention to hide' from this Court the fact of his 'open cohabitation with a married woman' (Briccia Angeles); that he did not state said fact in his petition, because he did not see in the form of the petition being used in 1954 that the fact must be stated; and that since his birth, he thought and believed he was a man of good moral character, and it was only from the Solicitor General that he first learned he was not so; and that he did not commit perjury or fraudulent concealment when he filed his petition to take the bar examinations in 1954." (Report of the Court Investigators, pp. 6-8, March 6, 1962).

After hearing, the investigators submitted a report with the finding that: 1) Respondent used his knowledge of the law to take advantage by having illicit relations with complainant, knowing as he did, that by committing immoral acts on her, he was free from any criminal liability; and 2) Respondent committed gross immorality by continuously cohabiting with a married woman even after he became a lawyer in 1955 to the present; and 3) That respondent falsified the truth as to his moral character in his petition to take the 1954 bar examinations, being then immorally (adulterously) in cohabitation with his common-law wife, Briccia Angeles, a married woman. The investigators also recommended that the respondent be disbarred or alternatively, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.

Upon the submission of this report, a copy of which was served on respondent, through his counsel of record, the case was set for hearing before the Court on April 30, 1962. Respondent asked leave to file his memorandum in lieu of oral argument. This was granted and the corresponding memorandum was duly filed.

It is an admitted and uncontroverted fact that the respondent had sexual relations with the complainant several times, and as a consequence she bore him a child on June 2, 1959; and that he likewise continuously cohabited with Briccia Angeles, in an adulterous manner, from 1942 up to the present.

The main point in issue is thus limited illicit relations with the complainant Josefina Royong the and the open cohabitation with Briccia Angeles, a married woman, are sufficient grounds to cause the respondent's disbarment.

It is argued by the respondent that he is not liable for disbarment notwithstanding his illicit relations with the complainant and his open cohabitation with Briccia Angeles, a married woman, because he has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. It is true that the respondent has not been convicted of rape, seduction, or adultery on this count, and that the grounds upon which the disbarment proceedings is based are not among those enumerated by Section 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court for which a lawyer may be

disbarred. But it has already been held that this enumeration is not exclusive and that the power of the courts to exclude unfit and unworthy members of the profession is inherent; it is a necessary incident to the proper administration of justice; it may be exercised without any special statutory authority, and in all proper cases unless positively prohibited by statute; and the power may be exercised in any manner that will give the party be disbarred a fair trial and a fair opportunity to be heard. (1 Francisco, Rules of Court [1958 ed.] 698, citing In Re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 567). Although it is a well settled rule that the legislature (or the Supreme Court by virtue of its rule-making power) may provide that certain acts or conduct shall require disbarment, the accepted doctrine is that statutes and rules merely regulate the power to disbar instead of creating it, and that such statutes (or rules) do not restrict the general powers of the court over attorneys, who are its officers, and that they may be removed for other than statutory grounds (7 C.J.S. 734). In the United States, where from our system of legal ethics is derived, "the continued possession of a fair private and professional character or a good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice of law for one who has been admitted, and its loss requires suspension or disbarment even though the statutes do not specify that as a ground of disbarment". The moral turpitude for which an attorney may be disbarred may consist of misconduct in either his professional or non-professional activities (5 Am. Jur. 417). The tendency of the decisions of this Court has been toward the conclusion that a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from office as a lawyer for other than statutory grounds. Indeed, the rule is so phrased as to be broad enough to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer (In Re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 567). In the case at bar, the moral depravity of the respondent is most apparent. His pretension that before complainant completed her eighteenth birthday, he refrained from having sexual intercourse with her, so as not to incur criminal liability, as he himself declared — and that he limited himself merely to kissing and embracing her and sucking her tongue, indicates a scheming mind, which together with his knowledge of the law, he took advantage of, for his lurid purpose.

Moreover, his act becomes more despicable considering that the complainant was the niece of his common-law wife and that he enjoyed a moral ascendancy over her who looked up to him as her uncle. As the Solicitor General observed: "He also took advantage of his moral influence over her. From childhood, Josefina Andalis (Royong), treated him as an uncle and called him 'tata' (uncle), undoubtedly because he is the paramour of a sister of her mother. Considering her age (she was 17 or 18 years old then), her inexperience and his moral ascendency over her, it is not difficult to see why she could not resist him." Furthermore, the blunt admission of his illicit relations with the complainant reveals the respondent to be a person who would suffer no moral compunction for his acts if the same could be done without fear of criminal liability. He has, by these acts, proven himself to be devoid of the moral integrity expected of a member of the bar.

The respondent's misconduct, although unrelated to his office, may constitute sufficient grounds for disbarment. This is a principle we have followed since the ruling in In Re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 567, where this Court quoted with approval the following portion of the decision of the Supreme Court of Kansas in the case of Peyton's Appeal (12 Kan. 398, 404), to wit:.

The nature of the office, the trust relation which exists between attorney and client, as well as between court and attorney, and the statutory rule prescribing the qualifications of attorneys, uniformly require that an attorney be a person of good moral character. If that qualification is a condition precedent to a license or privilege to enter upon the practice of the law, it would seem to be equally essential during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege. So it is held that an attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties, which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him. (Emphasis supplied).

Respondent's conduct though unrelated to his office and in no way directly bearing on his profession, has nevertheless rendered him unfit and unworthy of the privileges of a lawyer. We cannot give sanction to his acts. For us to do so would be — as the Solicitor General puts it — recognizing "a double standard of morality, one for membership to the Philippine Bar, and another for disbarment from the office of the lawyer." If we concede that respondent's adulterous relations and his simultaneous seduction of his paramour's niece did not and do not disqualify him from continuing with his office of lawyer, this Court would in effect be requiring moral integrity as an essential prerequisite for admission to the bar, only to later on tolerate and close its eyes to the moral depravity and character degeneration of the members of the bar.

The decisions relied upon by the respondent in justifying his stand that even if he admittedly committed fornication, this is no ground for disbarment, are not controlling. Fornication, if committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as have proven in this case, as to shock common sense of decency, certainly may justify positive action by the Court in protecting the prestige of the noble profession of the law. The reasons advanced by the respondent why he continued his adulterous relations with Briccia Angeles, in that she helped him in some way finish his law studies, and that his "sense of propriety and Christian charity" did not allow him to abandon her after his admission to the bar after almost 13 years of cohabitation, are hardly an excuse for his moral dereliction. The means he employed, as he stated, in order to extricate himself from the predicament he found himself in, by courting the complainant and maintaining sexual relations with her makes his conduct more revolting. An immoral act cannot justify another immoral act. The noblest means he could have employed was to have married the complainant as he was then free to do so. But to continue maintaining adulterous relations with a married woman and simultaneously maintaining promiscuous relations with the latter's niece is moral perversion that can not be condoned. Respondent's conduct therefore renders him unfit and unworthy for the privileges of the legal profession. As good character is an essential qualification for admission of an attorney to practice, he may be removed therefrom whenever he ceases to possess such character (7 C.J.S. 735).

The respondent further maintains that the Solicitor General exceeded his authority in filing the present complaint against him for seduction, adultery and perjury, as it charges an offense or offenses different from those originally charged in the complaint of January 14, 1959 for rape, and cites as authority Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, which state:.

SEC. 4. Report of the Solicitor General.— Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, if the Solicitor General finds no sufficient ground to proceed against the respondent, he shall submit a report to the Supreme Court containing his findings of fact and conclusion, whereupon the respondent shall be exonerated unless the court orders differently.

SEC. 5. Complaint of the Solicitor General. Answer of the respondent. — If the Solicitor General finds sufficient ground to proceed against the respondent, he shall file the corresponding complaint, accompanied with all the evidence introduced in his investigation, with the Supreme Court, and the respondent shall be served by the clerk of the Supreme Court with a copy of the complaint with direction to answer the same within fifteen days.

The contention is devoid of merit. Nothing in the language of the foregoing rules requires the Solicitor General to charge in his complaint the same offense charged in the complaint originally filed by the complainant for disbarment. Precisely, the law provides that should the Solicitor General find sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondent, he shall file the

corresponding complaint, accompanied by the evidence introduced in his investigation. The Solicitor General therefore is at liberty to file any case against the respondent he may be justified by the evidence adduced during the investigation..

The respondent also maintains that he did not falsify his petition to take the bar examinations in 1954 since according to his own opinion and estimation of himself at that time, he was a person of good moral character. This contention is clearly erroneous. One's own approximation of himself is not a gauge to his moral character. Moral character is not a subjective term, but one which corresponds to objective reality. Moral character is what a person really is, and not what he or other people think he is. As former Chief Justice Moran observed: An applicant for license to practice law is required to show good moral character, or what he really is, as distinguished from good reputation, or from the opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is known. As has been said, ante the standard of personal and professional integrity which should be applied to persons admitted to practice law is not satisfied by such conduct as merely enables them to escape the penalties of criminal law. Good moral character includes at least common honesty (3 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, [1957 ed.] 626, citing In Re Weinstein, 42 P. [2d] 744 B.L.D., Cooper v. Greeley. 1 Den. [N.Y.] 3447; In Re Del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399; and People v. Macauley, 82 N.E. 612). Respondent, therefore, did not possess a good moral character at the time he applied for admission to the bar. He lived an adulterous life with Briccia Angeles, and the fact that people who knew him seemed to have acquiesced to his status, did not render him a person of good moral character. It is of no moment that his immoral state was discovered then or now as he is clearly not fit to remain a member of the bar.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby entered striking the name of herein respondent, Ariston J. Oblena, from the roll of attorneys.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.Padilla, Reyes, J.B.L., and Dizon, JJ., took no part.

A.M. No. 3049 December 4, 1989

PERLA Y. LAGUITAN, complainant, vs.ATTY. SALVADOR F. TINIO, respondent.

Joanes G. Caacbay for respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

 

PER CURIAM:

In the instant Petition for Disbarment dated 21 May 1987, petitioner Perla Y. Laguitan charged Atty. Salvador F. Tinio with immorality and acts unbecoming a member of the Bar.

After answer was filed on 27 October 1987, the Court, in its Resolution dated 16 November 1987, referred the Petition to the Solicitor General for Investigation, Report and Recommendation.

During the initial hearing of this case by the Solicitor General on 17 February 1988, only respondent and his counsel appeared; it turned out that complainant had not been duly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing scheduled for 24 March 1988 was likewise reset to 27 April 1988 upon motion of respondent and upon failure of complainant to appear before the Office of the Solicitor General.

This case was eventually transmitted by the Solicitor General to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Commission on Bar Discipline (Commission) for investigation and proper action. Thus, in an order dated 18 August 1988, the Commission set the case for hearing on 9 September 1988 and required both complainant and respondent to submit additional copies of their pleadings within ten (10) days from notice.

The initial hearing set by the Commission for 9 September 1988 was reset to 20 September 1988 because only complainant appeared, respondent having failed to present himself despite due notice to him. The hearing of 20 September 1988 was again reset to 20 October 1988 because neither complainant nor her counsel appeared. The hearing for 20 October 1988 was once again reset to 14 November 1988 as only complainant appeared, Finally, the hearing for 14 November 1988 was rescheduled two (2) more times, first to 15 December 1988 and second to 17 January 1989.

In its Order dated 27 January 1989, the Commission, upon the unexplained failure of respondent to appear at the hearing on 17 January 1989, required petitioner to make a formal offer of evidence ex parte, and thereafter submit the case for resolution. The Order was duly received by respondent's counsel on 31 January 1989.

On 9 February 1989, petitioner formally offered her exhibits as follows:

1. Exh. 'A' — Certificate of Live Birth of Sheila Laguitan Tinio.

Purpose: To show and prove the filiation of the child as shown on the document;

2. Exh. 'B' —Certificate of Live Birth of Benedict Laguitan.

Purpose: To show and prove likewise the filiation of the child as shown on the document:

3. Exh. 'C' to 'C-6' — Receipts issued by the Mt. Carmel Maternity and Children's Hospital.

Purpose: To prove that petitioner herein gave birth to a baby girl at the Mt. Carmel Maternity and Children's Hospital and for which respondent paid the bills for the hospitalization, medicines and professional fees of doctors;

4. Exh. 'D' to 'D-2' — Receipts issued by the Paulino Medical Clinic.

Purpose: To show and prove that petitioner again gave birth to a baby boy at said clinic and for which respondent paid the bill for hospitalization, medicines and professional fees of doctors;

5. Exh. 'E' to 'E-l' — Baptismal certificates of Sheila L. Tinio and Benedict L. Tinio, respectively

Purpose: To show and prove that respondent admits his paternity of the children:

6. Exh. 'F' to 'F-4' — The family pictures showing respondent either singly or with the rest of the family during happier times.

Purpose: To show and prove that petitioner and respondent really lived together as husband and wife and begot two children and the respondent admits these through the pictures:

7. Exh. 'G' to 'G-3' — The school records of Sheila L. Tinio at the St. Mary's Academy.

Purpose: To show and prove that respondent was supporting the schooling of the children as he himself signed the correspondence and was marked as Exh. 'G-2-A'. 1

Based on the aforequoted exhibits, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors submitted to us its findings and recommendation, which may be summed up as follows:

Sometime in June 1974, complainant and respondent Tinio met each other and in time became lovers. Beginning in 1976, the parties lived together as husband and wife. As a result, complainant bore respondent two (2) children: Sheila, now about ten (10) years old and Benedict, now approximately nine (9) years old. In the course of this relationship, petitioner discovered that respondent Tinio, before meeting her, had contracted marriage with someone else and that the prior marriage was subsisting. Nonetheless, complainant continued living in with respondent until eventually, ten (10) years later, she and her children by respondent Tinio were abandoned by the latter in November 1986. Feeling helpless and aggrieved, she sought the help of respondent's parents in supporting her children who were then already in school. Respondent's parents gave her P400.00 and advised her not to see them again.

After examination of the record of this case and noting that respondent Tinio appeared before the IBP Investigating Commissioner and candidly admitted his illicit relationship with complainant and his having begotten two (2) children by her, and promised the Commissioner that he would support his illegitimate children but had not lived to his promise, we agree with the findings of fact of the IBP Board. The IBP Board recommends that respondent Tinio be suspended from the practice of law "not for having cohabited with the complainant, but for refusal to support his illegitimate children," the suspension to remain in effect until respondent Tinio complies with his obligation of support.

The Court agrees that respondent Tinio deserves to be suspended from the practice of law but not merely because he has failed in his obligation to support the children complainant bore him but also because for a prolonged period of time, he lived in concubinage with complainant, a course of conduct inconsistent with the requirement of good moral character that is required for the continued right to practice law as a member of the Philippine Bar, 2 Concubinage imports moral turpitude and entails a public assault upon the basic social institution of marriage.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent Salvador F. Tinio from the practice of law until further orders from this Court. The Court will consider lifting the suspension upon evidence satisfactory to the Commission and to this Court that respondent is supporting or has made provision for the support of his illegitimate children and that he has given up his immoral course of conduct.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Melencio-Herrera, J., is on Leave.

Footnotes

1 Rollo, p. 28.

2 Mortel v. Aspiras, 100 Phil. 586 (1956); Royong v. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865 (1963); and Cordova v. Cordovan Adm. Case No. 3249, promulgated 28 November 1989.

November 29, 1989

A.M. No. 3249SALVACION DELIZO CORDOVA, complainant,vs.ATTY. LAURENCE D. CORDOVA, respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

, J.:

In an unsworn letter-complaint dated 14 April 1988 addressed to then Mr. Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee, complainant Salvacion Delizo charged her husband, Atty. Laurence D. Cordova, with immorality and acts unbecoming a member of the Bar. The letter-complaint was forwarded by the Court to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Commission on Bar Discipline (“Commission”), for investigation, report and recommendation.

The Commission, before acting on the complaint, required complainant to submit a verified complaint within ten (10) days from notice. Complainant complied and submitted to the Commission on 27 September 1988 a revised and verified version of her long and detailed

complaint against her husband charging him with immorality and acts unbecoming a member of the Bar.

In an Order of the Commission dated 1 December 1988, respondent was declared in default for failure to file an answer to the complaint within fifteen (15) days from notice. The same Order required complainant to submit before the Commission her evidence ex parte, on 16 December 1988. Upon the telegraphic request of complainant for the resetting of the 16 December 1988 hearing, the Commission scheduled another hearing on 25 January 1989. The hearing scheduled for 25 January 1989 was rescheduled two (2) more times-first, for 25 February 1989 and second, for 10 and 11 April 1989. The hearings never took place as complainant failed to appear. Respondent Cordova never moved to set aside the order of default, even though notices of the hearings scheduled were sent to him.

In a telegraphic message dated 6 April 1989, complainant informed the Commission that she and her husband had already “reconciled”. In an order dated 17 April 1989, the Commission required the parties (respondent and complainant) to appear before it for confirmation and explanation of the telegraphic message and required them to file a formal motion to dismiss the complaint within fifteen (15) days from notice. Neither party responded and nothing was heard from either party since then.

Complainant having failed to submit her evidence ex parte before the Commission, the IBP Board of Governors submitted to this Court its report reprimanding respondent for his acts, admonishing him that any further acts of immorality in the future will be dealt with more severely, and ordering him to support his legitimate family as a responsible parent should.

The findings of the IBP Board of Governors may be summed up as follows:

Complainant and respondent Cordova were married on 6 June 1976 and out of this marriage, two (2) children were born. In 1985, the couple lived somewhere in Quirino Province. In that year, respondent Cordova left his family as well as his job as Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Cabarroguis, Quirino Province, and went to Mangagoy, Bislig, Surigao del Sur with one Fely G. Holgado. Fely G. Holgado was herself married and left her own husband and children to stay with respondent. Respondent Cordova and Fely G. Holgado lived together in Bislig as husband and wife, with respondent Cordova introducing Fely to the public as his wife, and Fely Holgado using the name Fely Cordova. Respondent Cordova gave Fely Holgado funds with which to establish a sari-sari store in the public market at Bislig, while at the same time failing to support his legitimate family.

On 6 April 1986, respondent Cordova and his complainant wife had an apparent reconciliation. Respondent promised that he would separate from Fely Holgado and brought his legitimate family to Bislig, Surigao del Sur. Respondent would, however, frequently come home from beerhouses or cabarets, drunk, and continued to neglect the support of his legitimate family. In February 1987, complainant found, upon returning from a trip to Manila necessitated by hospitalization of her daughter Loraine, that respondent Cordova was no longer living with her (complainant’s) children in their conjugal home; that respondent Cordova was living with another mistress, one Luisita Magallanes, and had taken his younger daughter Melanie along with him. Respondent and his new mistress hid Melanie from the complinant, compelling complainant to go to court and to take back her daughter by habeas corpus. The Regional Trial Court, Bislig, gave her custody of their children.

Notwithstanding respondent’s promises to reform, he continued to live with Luisita Magallanes as her husband and continued to fail to give support to his legitimate family.

Finally the Commission received a telegram message apparently from complainant, stating that complainant and respondent had been reconciled with each other.

After a review of the record, we agree with the findings of fact of the IBP Board. We also agree that the most recent reconciliation between complainant and respondent, assuming the same to be real, does not excuse and wipe away the misconduct and immoral behavior of the respondent carried out in public, and necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a member of the Bar and upon the Philippine Bar itself. An applicant for admission to membership in the bar is required to show that he is possessed of good moral character. That requirement is not exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. On the contrary, that requirement persists as a continuing condition for membership in the Bar in good standing.

In Mortel v. Aspiras, 1 this Court, following the rule in the United States, held that “the continued possession … of a good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice of the law … and its loss requires suspension or disbarment, even though the statutes do not specify that as a ground for disbarment. ” 2 It is important to note that the lack of moral character that we here refer to as essential is not limited to good moral character relating to the discharge of the duties and responsibilities of an attorney at law. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct for instance, which makes “a mockery of the inviolable social institution or marriage.” 3 In Mortel, the respondent being already married, wooed and won the heart of a single, 21-year old teacher who subsequently cohabited with him and bore him a son. Because respondent’s conduct in Mortel was particularly morally repulsive, involving the marrying of his mistress to his own son and thereafter cohabiting with the wife of his own son after the marriage he had himself arranged, respondent was disbarred.

In Royong v. Oblena, 4 the respondent was declared unfit to continue as a member of the bar by reason of his immoral conduct and accordingly disbarred. He was found to have engaged in sexual relations with the complainant who consequently bore him a son; and to have maintained for a number of years an adulterous relationship with another woman.

In the instant case, respondent Cordova maintained for about two (2) years an adulterous relationship with a married woman not his wife, in full view of the general public, to the humiliation and detriment of his legitimate family which he, rubbing salt on the wound, failed or refused to support. After a brief period of “reform” respondent took up again with another woman not his wife, cohabiting with her and bringing along his young daughter to live with them. Clearly, respondent flaunted his disregard of the fundamental institution of marriage and its elementary obligations before his own daughter and the community at large.

WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law indefinitely and until farther orders from this Court. The Court will consider lifting his suspension when respondent Cordova submits proof satisfactory to the Commission and this Court that he has and continues to provide for the support of his legitimate family and that he has given up the immoral course of conduct that he has clung to.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Melencio-Herrera, J., is on leave.

ADM. CASE No. 5252             May 20, 2004

PRISCILLA Z. ORBE, complainant, vs.ATTY. HENRY ADAZA, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

VITUG, J.:

On 27 March 2000, Mrs. Priscilla Z. Orbe charged respondent Atty. Henry Adaza with gross misconduct and as being unfit to continue his membership in the Bar. In a three-page complaint-affidavit complainant averred that respondent obtained a loan from the former and, to secure the repayment thereof, drew and issued two BPI Family Bank checks. When the first check (No. 0350973) was presented for payment upon maturity, the same was dishonored for insufficient funds. According to complainant, respondent, acting with malice and deceit, dated the second check "January 24, 1996," so that, once presented for payment, it would be, considering, in passing, that the loan was incurred on 23 November 1996, a stale check. She alleged that, despite repeated verbal and written demands, respondent had failed to make good his obligation.

Acting on the complaint, the Court required respondent to comment thereon within ten (10) days from notice. In a letter, dated 26 September 2000, complainant asked that the complaint be now considered submitted for resolution in view of the failure of Atty. Adaza to comply with the order of the Court requiring him to file his comment. In a resolution, dated 06 December 2000, the Court noted the letter of complainant, and it directed that the complaint be thereby referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.

Despite proper notice to respondent requiring him to file his answer to the complaint, respondent continued to ignore the matter. Finally, on 20 February 2002, the case was set for hearing by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. The complainant appeared. Respondent did not show up despite his having been duly notified of the hearing by personal service effected on 12 February 2002. Respondent’s failure to appear prompted the Commission on Bar Discipline to grant the request of complainant to allow her to adduce evidence ex-parte. An order was issued setting the proceedings on 18 March 2002 for such reception of evidence. A copy of the order was served on respondent on 28 February 2002 at his given address.

On 21 February 2002, the Commission received a letter from Atty. Adaza, sent via the facilities of PTT, requesting for a resetting of the hearing from 18 March to 18 April 2002, claiming that he was already committed to attend a hearing at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, of Dipolog City on 20 March 2002.

The proceedings set for 18 March 2002 for the reception of complainant’s evidence ex-parte was held, but the same was without loss of right on the part of respondent to conduct, if desired, a cross-examination of the witness. The evidence of complainant showed that complainant used to avail of the notarial services of Atty. Adaza at his law office at Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila. In 1995, respondent requested complainant, and the latter agreed, to

be the primary sponsor in the baptismal of his daughter. In November 1996, respondent accompanied by a certain Arlene went to the residence of complainant to seek a loan. The latter lent respondent the sum of P60,000.00 payable with interest at 5% a month. Respondent issued two (2) BPI Family Bank Checks No. 35073 and No. 35076, each for P31,800.00, dated 23 December 1996 and 24 January 1996, respectively. When presented for collection Check No. 035073 was dishonored by the drawee bank for having been drawn against insufficient funds. The other check, Check No. 035076, bearing the date 24 January 1996, was not accepted for being a stale check.

Efforts were exerted by complainant to see respondent but her efforts proved to be futile. Several demand letters were sent to the respondent by Atty. Ernesto Jacinto, complainant’s lawyer, but these letters also failed to elicit any response. A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was filed with the Office of the Prosecutor of Quezon City for Check No. 035073. Finding probable cause, the complaint was subsequently elevated to the Metropolitan Trial Court. A warrant of arrest was issued by the court, but respondent somehow succeeded in evading apprehension. Sometime in November 2000, respondent went to the house of complainant and promised to pay the checks within a month’s time. Complainant agreed to have the service of the warrant of arrest withheld but, again, respondent failed to make good his promise.

The cross-examination of complainant Priscilla Orbe was set on 22 May 2002. The stenographer was directed to transcribe the stenographic notes as soon as possible for the benefit of Atty. Adaza. An order was issued to this effect, and a copy thereof was served upon respondent on 09 April 2002.

On 22 May 2002, the complainant appeared for cross-examination but Atty. Adaza did not appear despite due notice. In light of the manifestation of complainant that she had no other witness to present and was ready to close her evidence, she was given a period of fifteen (15) days within which to file a formal offer and respondent was given a like period to thereupon submit his comment and/or opposition thereto. The order, dated 22 May 2002, was served on Atty. Adaza on 28 May 2002. The formal offer of complainant’s evidence was deemed submitted for resolution on 25 June 2002 pending proof of service of a copy thereof upon respondent and the filing of the necessary comment or opposition thereto by the latter.

In an order, dated 16 October 2002, the Commission set the reception of evidence for respondent on 13 November 2002 in order to give him another opportunity to rebut the evidence of complainant. Respondent again failed to appear on the date set therefor, prompting the Commission to rule on the admissibility of Exhibits "A" to "D" with their submarkings. There being no appearance on the part of respondent despite due notice, the case was considered submitted for resolution by the Commission in its order of 26 February 2003.

The Commission submitted its report and recommendation, dated 28 May 2003, recommending the suspension of respondent Atty. Henry Adaza from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, and that he be ordered to pay to complainant the value of the two unpaid checks he issued to complainant.

The Court adopts the recommendation.

A member of the bar may be so removed or suspended from office as an attorney for any deceit, malpractice, or misconduct in office.1 The word "conduct" used in the rules is not limited to conduct exhibited in connection with the performance of the lawyer’s professional duties but it also refers to any misconduct, although not connected with his professional

duties, that would show him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him. The grounds expressed in Section 27, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court are not limitative2 and are broad enough to cover any misconduct, including dishonesty, of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity.3 Such misdeed puts his moral fiber, as well as his fitness to continue in the advocacy of law,4 in serious doubt.

Respondent’s issuance of worthless checks and his contumacious refusal to comply with his just obligation for nearly eight years is appalling5 and hardly deserves compassion from the Court.

WHEREFORE, respondent Henry M. Adaza is found guilty of gross misconduct, and he is hereby ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR effective upon receipt hereof. This decision is without prejudice to the outcome of the Criminal Case for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 filed against him. Let copies of this decision be spread on his record in the Bar Confidant’s Office and furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for proper dissemination to all courts.

SO ORDERED.

Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.

A.C. No. 8392               June 29, 2010[ Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2175 ]

ROSARIO T. MECARAL, Complainant, vs.ATTY. DANILO S. VELASQUEZ, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

Per Curiam:

Rosario T. Mecaral (complainant) charged Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD)1 with Gross Misconduct and Gross Immoral Conduct which she detailed in her Position Paper2 as follows:

After respondent hired her as his secretary in 2002, she became his lover and common-law wife. In October 2007, respondent brought her to the mountainous Upper San Agustin in Caibiran, Biliran where he left her with a religious group known as the Faith Healers Association of the Philippines, of which he was the leader. Although he visited her daily, his visits became scarce in November to December 2007, prompting her to return home to Naval, Biliran. Furious, respondent brought her back to San Agustin where, on his instruction, his followers tortured, brainwashed and injected her with drugs. When she tried to escape on December 24, 2007, the members of the group tied her spread-eagled to a bed. Made to wear only a T-shirt and diapers and fed stale food, she was guarded 24 hours a day by the women members including a certain Bernardita Tadeo.

Her mother, Delia Tambis Vda. De Mecaral (Delia), having received information that she was weak, pale and walking barefoot along the streets in the mountainous area of Caibiran, sought the help of the Provincial Social Welfare Department which immediately dispatched two women volunteers to rescue her. The religious group refused to release her, however, without the instruction of respondent. It took PO3 Delan G. Lee (PO3 Lee) and PO1 Arnel S. Robedillo (PO1 Robedillo) to rescue and reunite her with her mother.

Hence, the present disbarment complaint against respondent. Additionally, complainant charges respondent with bigamy for contracting a second marriage to Leny H. Azur on August 2, 1996, despite the subsistence of his marriage to his first wife, Ma. Shirley G. Yunzal.

In support of her charges, complainant submitted documents including the following: Affidavit3 of Delia dated February 5, 2008; Affidavit of PO3 Lee and PO1 Robedillo4 dated February 14, 2008; photocopy of the Certificate of Marriage5 between respondent and Leny H. Azur; photocopy of the Marriage Contract6 between respondent and Shirley G. Yunzal; National Statistics Office Certification7 dated April 23, 2008 showing the marriage of Ma. Shirley G. Yunzal to respondent on April 27, 1990 in Quezon City and the marriage of Leny H. Azur to respondent on August 2, 1996 in Mandaue City, Cebu; and certified machine copy of the Resolution8 of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Naval, Biliran and the Information9 lodged with the RTC-Branch 37-Caibiran, Naval, Biliran, for Serious Illegal Detention against respondent and Bernardita Tadeo on complaint of herein complainant.

Despite respondent’s receipt of the February 22, 2008 Order10 of the Director for Bar Discipline for him to submit his Answer within 15 days from receipt thereof, and his expressed intent to "properly make [his] defense in a verified pleading,"11 he did not file any Answer.1avvphi1

On the scheduled Mandatory Conference set on September 2, 2008 of which the parties were duly notified, only complainant’s counsel was present. Respondent and his counsel failed to appear.

Investigating Commissioner Felimon C. Abelita III of the CBD, in his Report and Recommendation12 dated September 29, 2008, found that:

[respondent’s] acts of converting his secretary into a mistress; contracting two marriages with Shirley and Leny, are grossly immoral which no civilized society in the world can countenance. The subsequent detention and torture of the complainant is gross misconduct [which] only a beast may be able to do. Certainly, the respondent had violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which reads:

CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.

x x x x

In the long line of cases, the Supreme Court has consistently imposed severe penalty for grossly immoral conduct of a lawyer like the case at bar. In the celebrated case of Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Manuel Eala, the [Court] ordered the disbarment of the respondent for maintaining extra-marital relations with a married woman, and having a child with her. In the instant case, not only did the respondent commit bigamy for contracting marriages with Shirley Yunzal in 1990 and Leny Azur in 1996, but the respondent also made his secretary (complainant) his mistress and subsequently, tortured her to the point of death. All these

circumstances showed the moral fiber respondent is made of, which [leave] the undersigned with no choice but to recommend the disbarment of Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez. 13 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The IBP Board of Governors of Pasig City, by Resolution14 dated December 11, 2008, ADOPTED the Investigating Commissioner’s findings and APPROVED the recommendation for the disbarment of respondent.

As did the IBP Board of Governors, the Court finds the IBP Commissioner’s evaluation and recommendation well taken.

The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the state upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.15 When a lawyer’s moral character is assailed, such that his right to continue

practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, it behooves him to meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the investigating body and this Court, that he is morally fit to keep his name in the Roll of Attorneys.16

Respondent has not discharged the burden. He never attended the hearings before the IBP to rebut the charges brought against him, suggesting that they are true.17 Despite his letter dated March 28, 2008 manifesting that he would come up with his defense "in a verified pleading," he never did.

Aside then from the IBP’s finding that respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he also violated the Lawyer’s Oath reading:

I _________, having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the Philippines, do solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God, (underscoring supplied),

and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the same Code reading:

Rule 7.03 – 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.

The April 30, 2008 Resolution18 of the Provincial Prosecutor on complainant’s charge against respondent and Bernardita Tadeo for Serious Illegal Detention bears special noting, viz:

[T]he counter-affidavit of x x x Bernardita C. Tadeo (co-accused in the complaint) has the effect of strengthening the allegations against Atty. Danilo Velasquez. Indeed, it is clear now that there was really physical restraint employed by Atty. Velasquez upon the person of Rosario Mecaral. Even as he claimed that on the day private complainant was fetched by the two women and police officers, complainant was already freely roaming around the place

and thus, could not have been physically detained. However, it is not really necessary that Rosario be physically kept within an enclosure to restrict her freedom of locomotion. In fact, she was always accompanied wherever she would wander, that it could be impossible for her to escape especially considering the remoteness and the distance between Upper San Agustin, Caibiran, Biliran to Naval, Biliran where she is a resident. The people from the Faith Healers Association had the express and implied orders coming from respondent Atty. Danilo Velasquez to keep guarding Rosario Mecaral and not to let her go freely. That can be gleaned from the affidavit of co-respondent Bernardita Tadeo. The latter being reprimanded whenever Atty. Velasquez would learn that complainant had untangled the cloth tied on her wrists and feet.19 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

That, as reflected in the immediately-quoted Resolution in the criminal complaint against respondent, his therein co-respondent corroborated the testimonies of complainant’s witnesses, and that the allegations against him remain unrebutted, sufficiently prove the charges against him by clearly preponderant evidence, the quantum of evidence needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.20

In fine, by engaging himself in acts which are grossly immoral and acts which constitute gross misconduct, respondent has ceased to possess the qualifications of a lawyer.21

WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez, is DISBARRED, and his name ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. This Decision is immediately executory and ordered to be part of the records of respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines.

Let copies of the Decision be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and circulated to all courts.

SO ORDERED.

RENATO C. CORONAChief Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIOAssociate Justice

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALESAssociate Justice

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.Associate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURAAssociate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate JusticeDIOSDADO M. PERALTA

Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLOAssociate Justice

ARTURO D. BRIONAssociate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMINAssociate Justice

ROBERTO A. ABADAssociate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZAssociate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZAAssociate Justice

ADM. CASE No. 3319               June 8, 2000

LESLIE UI, complainant, vs.ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO, respondent.

DE LEON, JR., J.:

Before us is an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio for allegedly carrying on an immoral relationship with Carlos L. Ui, husband of complainant, Leslie Ui.

The relevant facts are:

On January 24, 1971 complainant Leslie Ui married Carlos L. Ui at the Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Quezon City1 and as a result of their marital union, they had four (4) children, namely, Leilani, Lianni, Lindsay and Carl Cavin, all surnamed Ui. Sometime in December 1987, however, complainant found out that her husband. Carlos Ui, was carrying on an illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he begot a daughter sometime in 1986, and that they had been living together at No. 527 San Carlos Street, Ayala Alabang Village in Muntinlupa City. Respondent who is a graduate of the College of Law of the University of the Philippines was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1982.

Carlos Ui admitted to complainant his relationship with the respondent. Complainant then visited respondent at her office in the later part of June 1988 and introduced herself as the legal wife of Carlos Ui. Whereupon, respondent admitted to her that she has a child with Carlos Ui and alleged, however; that everything was over between her and Carlos Ui. Complainant believed the representations of respondent and thought things would turn out well from then on and that the illicit relationship between her husband and respondent would come to an end.

However, complainant again discovered that the illicit relationship between her husband and respondent continued, and that sometime in December 1988, respondent and her husband, Carlos Ui, had a second child. Complainant then met again with respondent sometime in March 1989 and pleaded with respondent to discontinue her illicit relationship with Carlos Ui but to no avail. The illicit relationship persisted and complainant even came to know later on that respondent had been employed by her husband in his company.

A complaint for disbarment, docketed as Adm. Case No. 3319, was then filed on August 11, 1989 by the complainant against respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (hereinafter, Commission) on the ground of immorality, more particularly, for carrying on an illicit relationship with the complainant's husband, Carlos Ui. In her Answer,2 respondent averred that she met Carlos Ui sometime in 1983 and had known him all along to be a bachelor, with the knowledge, however, that Carlos Ui had children by a Chinese woman in Amoy, China, from whom he

had long been estranged. She stated that during one of their trips abroad, Carlos Ui formalized his intention to marry her and they in fact got married in Hawaii, USA in 19853. Upon their return to Manila, respondent did not live with Carlos Ui. The latter continued to live with his children in their Greenhills residence because respondent and Carlos Ui wanted to let the children gradually to know and accept the fact of his second marriage before they would live together.4

In 1986, respondent left the country and stayed in Honolulu, Hawaii and she would only return occasionally to the Philippines to update her law practice and renew legal ties. During one of her trips to Manila sometime in June 1988, she was confronted by a woman who insisted that she was the lawful wife of Carlos Ui. Hurt and desolate upon her discovery of the true civil status of Carlos Ui, respondent then left for Honolulu, Hawaii sometime in July 1988 and returned only in March 1989 with her two (2) children. On March 20, 1989, a few days after she reported to work with the law firm5 she was connected with, the woman who represented herself to be the wife of Carlos Ui again came to her office, demanding to know if Carlos Ui has been communicating with her.

It is respondent's contention that her relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit because they were married abroad and that after June 1988, when respondent discovered Carlos Ui's true civil status, she cut off all her ties with him. Respondent averred that Carlos Ui never lived with her in Alabang, and that he resided at 26 Potsdam Street, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila. It was respondent who lived in Alabang in a house which belonged to her mother, Rosalinda L. Bonifacio; and that the said house was built exclusively from her parents' funds.6 By way of counterclaim, respondent sought moral damages in the amount of Ten Million Pesos (Php10,000,000.00) against complainant for having filed the present allegedly malicious and groundless disbarment case against respondent.

In her Reply7 dated April 6, 1990, complainant states, among others, that respondent knew perfectly well that Carlos Ui was married to complainant and had children with her even at the start of her relationship with Carlos Ui, and that the reason respondent went abroad was to give birth to her two (2) children with Carlos Ui.

During the pendency of the proceedings before the Integrated Bar, complainant also charged her husband, Carlos Ui, and respondent with the crime of Concubinage before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, docketed as I.S. No. 89-5247, but the same was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause for the offense charged. The resolution dismissing the criminal complaint against respondent reads:

Complainant's evidence had prima facie established the existence of the "illicit relationship" between the respondents allegedly discovered by the complainant in December 1987. The same evidence however show that respondent Carlos Ui was still living with complainant up to the latter part of 1988 and/or the early part of 1989.

It would therefore be logical and safe to state that the "relationship" of respondents started and was discovered by complainant sometime in 1987 when she and respondent Carlos were still living at No. 26 Potsdam Street, Northeast Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila and they, admittedly, continued to live together at their conjugal home up to early (sic) part of 1989 or later 1988, when respondent Carlos left the same.

From the above, it would not be amiss to conclude that altho (sic) the relationship, illicit as complainant puts it, had been prima facie established by complainant's evidence, this same evidence had failed to even prima facie establish the "fact of

respondent's cohabitation in the concept of husband and wife at the 527 San Carlos St., Ayala Alabang house, proof of which is necessary and indispensable to at least create probable cause for the offense charged. The statement alone of complainant, worse, a statement only of a conclusion respecting the fact of cohabitation does not make the complainant's evidence thereto any better/stronger (U.S. vs. Casipong and Mongoy, 20 Phil. 178).

It is worth stating that the evidence submitted by respondents in support of their respective positions on the matter support and bolster the foregoing conclusion/recommendation.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully recommended that the instant complaint be dismissed for want of evidence to establish probable cause for the offense charged.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.8

Complainant appealed the said Resolution of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal to the Secretary of Justice, but the same was dismissed9 on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to prove her allegation that respondent and Carlos Ui lived together as husband and wife at 527 San Carlos Street, Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila.

In the proceedings before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, complainant filed a Motion to Cite Respondent in Contempt of the Commission 10 wherein she charged respondent with making false allegations in her Answer and for submitting a supporting document which was altered and intercalated. She alleged that in the Answer of respondent filed before the Integrated Bar, respondent averred, among others, that she was married to Carlos Ui on October 22, 1985 and attached a Certificate of Marriage to substantiate her averment. However, the Certificate of Marriage 11 duly certified by the State Registrar as a true copy of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health, and duly authenticated by the Philippine Consulate General in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA revealed that the date of marriage between Carlos Ui and respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio was October 22, 1987, and not October 22, 1985 as claimed by respondent in her Answer. According to complainant, the reason for that false allegation was because respondent wanted to impress upon the said IBP that the birth of her first child by Carlos Ui was within the wedlock. 12 It is the contention of complainant that such act constitutes a violation of Articles 183 13 and 184 14 of the Revised Penal Code, and also contempt of the Commission; and that the act of respondent in making false allegations in her Answer and submitting an altered/intercalated document are indicative of her moral perversity and lack of integrity which make her unworthy to be a member of the Philippine Bar.

In her Opposition (To Motion To Cite Respondent in Contempt), 15 respondent averred that she did not have the original copy of the marriage certificate because the same was in the possession of Carlos Ui, and that she annexed such copy because she relied in good faith on what appeared on the copy of the marriage certificate in her possession.

Respondent filed her Memorandum 16 on February 22, 1995 and raised the lone issue of whether or not she has conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be barred from the practice of law. Respondent averred that the complaint should be dismissed on two (2) grounds, namely:

(i) Respondent conducted herself in a manner consistent with the requirement of good moral character for the practice of the legal profession; and

(ii) Complainant failed to prove her allegation that respondent conducted herself in an immoral manner.

In her defense, respondent contends, among others, that it was she who was the victim in this case and not Leslie Ui because she did not know that Carlos Ui was already married, and that upon learning of this fact, respondent immediately cut-off all her ties with Carlos Ui. She stated that there was no reason for her to doubt at that time that the civil status of Carlos Ui was that of a bachelor because he spent so much time with her, and he was so open in his courtship. 18

On the issue of the falsified marriage certificate, respondent alleged that it was highly incredible for her to have knowingly attached such marriage certificate to her Answer had she known that the same was altered. Respondent reiterated that there was no compelling reason for her to make it appear that her marriage to Carlos Ui took place either in 1985 or 1987, because the fact remains that respondent and Carlos Ui got married before complainant confronted respondent and informed the latter of her earlier marriage to Carlos Ui in June 1988. Further, respondent stated that it was Carlos Ui who testified and admitted that he was the person responsible for changing the date of the marriage certificate from 1987 to 1985, and complainant did not present evidence to rebut the testimony of Carlos Ui on this matter.

Respondent posits that complainant's evidence, consisting of the pictures of respondent with a child, pictures of respondent with Carlos Ui, a picture of a garage with cars, a picture of a light colored car with Plate No. PNS 313, a picture of the same car, and portion of the house and ground, and another picture of the same car bearing Plate No. PNS 313 and a picture of the house and the garage, 19 does not prove that she acted in an immoral manner. They have no evidentiary value according to her. The pictures were taken by a photographer from a private security agency and who was not presented during the hearings. Further, the respondent presented the Resolution of the Provincial Fiscal of Pasig in I.S. Case No. 89-5427 dismissing the complaint filed by Leslie Ui against respondent for lack of evidence to establish probable cause for the offense charged 20 and the dismissal of the appeal by the Department of Justice21 to bolster her argument that she was not guilty of any immoral or illegal act because of her relationship with Carlos Ui. In fine, respondent claims that she entered the relationship with Carlos Ui in good faith and that her conduct cannot be considered as willful, flagrant, or shameless, nor can it suggest moral indifference. She fell in love with Carlos Ui whom she believed to be single, and, that upon her discovery of his true civil status, she parted ways with him.

In the Memorandum 22 filed on March 20, 1995 by complainant Leslie Ui, she prayed for the disbarment of Atty. Iris Bonifacio and reiterated that respondent committed immorality by having intimate relations with a married man which resulted in the birth of two (2) children. Complainant testified that respondent's mother, Mrs. Linda Bonifacio, personally knew complainant and her husband since the late 1970s because they were clients of the bank where Mrs. Bonifacio was the Branch Manager. 23 It was thus highly improbable that respondent, who was living with her parents as of 1986, would not have been informed by her own mother that Carlos Ui was a married man. Complainant likewise averred that respondent committed disrespect towards the Commission for submitting a photocopy of a document containing an intercalated date.

In her Reply to Complainant's Memorandum 24, respondent stated that complainant miserably failed to show sufficient proof to warrant her disbarment. Respondent insists that contrary to the allegations of complainant, there is no showing that respondent had knowledge of the fact of marriage of Carlos Ui to complainant. The allegation that her

mother knew Carlos Ui to be a married man does not prove that such information was made known to respondent.

Hearing on the case ensued, after which the Commission on Bar Discipline submitted its Report and Recommendation, finding that:

In the case at bar, it is alleged that at the time respondent was courted by Carlos Ui, the latter represented himself to be single. The Commission does not find said claim too difficult to believe in the light of contemporary human experience.

Almost always, when a married man courts a single woman, he represents himself to be single, separated, or without any firm commitment to another woman. The reason therefor is not hard to fathom. By their very nature, single women prefer single men.

The records will show that when respondent became aware the (sic) true civil status of Carlos Ui, she left for the United States (in July of 1988). She broke off all contacts with him. When she returned to the Philippines in March of 1989, she lived with her brother, Atty. Teodoro Bonifacio, Jr. Carlos Ui and respondent only talked to each other because of the children whom he was allowed to visit. At no time did they live together.

Under the foregoing circumstances, the Commission fails to find any act on the part of respondent that can be considered as unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. To be sure, she was more of a victim that (sic) anything else and should deserve compassion rather than condemnation. Without cavil, this sad episode destroyed her chance of having a normal and happy family life, a dream cherished by every single girl.

x x x           x x x          x x x

Thereafter, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued a Notice of Resolution dated December 13, 1997, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex "A", and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, the complaint for Gross Immorality against Respondent is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Atty. Iris Bonifacio is REPRIMANDED for knowingly and willfully attaching to her Answer a falsified Certificate of Marriage with a stern warning that a repetition of the same will merit a more severe penalty.

We agree with the findings aforequoted.

The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy the practice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. The requisites for admission to the practice of law are:

a. he must be a citizen of the Philippines;

b. a resident thereof;

c. at least twenty-one (21) years of age;

d. a person of good moral character;

e. he must show that no charges against him involving moral turpitude, are filed or pending in court;

f. possess the required educational qualifications; and

g. pass the bar examinations. 25 (Emphasis supplied)

Clear from the foregoing is that one of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character. More importantly, possession of good moral character must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. It has been held —

If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then the continued possession of good moral character is also a requisite for retaining membership in the legal profession. Membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good moral character. (Royong vs. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865).

A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude". A member of the bar should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity.

It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is "grossly immoral conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment.

Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community." (7 C.J.S. 959). 26

In the case at bar, it is the claim of respondent Atty. Bonifacio that when she met Carlos Ui, she knew and believed him to be single. Respondent fell in love with him and they got married and as a result of such marriage, she gave birth to two (2) children. Upon her knowledge of the true civil status of Carlos Ui, she left him.

Simple as the facts of the case may sound, the effects of the actuations of respondent are not only far from simple, they will have a rippling effect on how the standard norms of our legal practitioners should be defined. Perhaps morality in our liberal society today is a far cry from what it used to be before. This permissiveness notwithstanding, lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are burdened with a higher degree of social responsibility and thus must handle their personal affairs with greater caution. The facts of this case lead us to believe that perhaps respondent would not have found herself in such a compromising situation had she exercised prudence and been more vigilant in finding out more about Carlos Ui's personal background prior to her intimate involvement with him.

Surely, circumstances existed which should have at least aroused respondent's suspicion that something was amiss in her relationship with Carlos Ui, and moved her to ask probing

questions. For instance, respondent admitted that she knew that Carlos Ui had children with a woman from Amoy, China, yet it appeared that she never exerted the slightest effort to find out if Carlos Ui and this woman were indeed unmarried. Also, despite their marriage in 1987, Carlos Ui never lived with respondent and their first child, a circumstance that is simply incomprehensible considering respondent's allegation that Carlos Ui was very open in courting her.

All these taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that respondent was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. 27 Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be "grossly immoral," that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. 28

We have held that "a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships . . . but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards." 29 Respondent's act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession. Complainant's bare assertions to the contrary deserve no credit. After all, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the Court will exercise its disciplinary powers only if she establishes her case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. 30 This, herein complainant miserably failed to do.

On the matter of the falsified Certificate of Marriage attached by respondent to her Answer, we find improbable to believe the averment of respondent that she merely relied on the photocopy of the Marriage Certificate which was provided her by Carlos Ui. For an event as significant as a marriage ceremony, any normal bride would verily recall the date and year of her marriage. It is difficult to fathom how a bride, especially a lawyer as in the case at bar, can forget the year when she got married. Simply stated, it is contrary to human experience and highly improbable.

Furthermore, any prudent lawyer would verify the information contained in an attachment to her pleading, especially so when she has personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances contained therein. In attaching such Marriage Certificate with an intercalated date, the defense of good faith of respondent on that point cannot stand.

It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality.1avvphi1 The legal profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality.

WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio, for alleged immorality, is hereby DISMISSED.

However, respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED for attaching to her Answer a photocopy of her Marriage Certificate, with an altered or intercalated date thereof, with a STERN WARNING that a more severe sanction will be imposed on her for any repetition of the same or similar offense in the future.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.

A.M. No. (2170-MC) P-1356 November 21, 1979

HON. REMIGIO E. ZARI, complainant, vs.DIOSDADO S. FLORES, respondent.

 

FERNANDEZ, J.:

In a letter dated July 15, 1976 addressed to the Supreme Court, Hon. Remigio E. Zari, Presiding Judge of Branch VI. City Court of Quezon City, recommended the dismissal from the service of Mr. Diosdado S. Flores, Deputy Clerk of Court of Branch VI, City Court, on the following grounds:

1. Conviction for libel on April 28, 1967, (Criminal Case No. Q- 7171), Branch IV, Court of First Instance, Quezon City), a crime involving moral turpitude. He was sentenced to pay a fine of P500.00, which he paid on July 18, 1974, under Receipt No. 4736418.

2. Presistent attempts to unduly influence the undersigned amounting to undue interest in cases pending before Branch VI as shown by his handwritten notes to the undersigned and to my present deputy clerk of Court, Atty. Reynaldo Elcano.

On March 8, 1976, Mr. Flores was relieved from his position as Deputy Clerk of Court upon request of the undersigned primarily to dissociate myself from these actuations of Mr. Flores, which I strongly disapproved of, and to avail my Court of the services of a full-fledged lawyer with unquestionable integrity. After his transfer, as can be seen from his handwritten notes, he persisted in taking this unwarranted course of action in at least three (3) cases of Branch VI.

3. Gross discourtesy to superior officers as manifested by his uncalled for and unjustified use of strong and contemptuous language in addressing the City Judges, when he wrote a letter, dated March 11, 1976. 1

In a resolution of this Court dated July 29, 1976, Deputy Clerk of Court Diosdado S. Flores was required to file his answer to the letter of Judge Remigio E. Zari and this case was transferred to the First Division. 2

The respondent filed his answers 3 on August 12, 1976 wherein he alleged, among others, that his conviction for libel did not involve moral turpitude; that the then Commissioner Abelardo Subido, who was also convicted of the crime of libel and was fined P5,000.00, had

approved his appointment as Deputy Clerk of Court of Branch VI of the City Court of Quezon City; that the respondent never tried to unduly influence the complainant in the discharge of the latter's duties and responsibilities; that while respondent's language in his letter dated March 11, 1976 is strong, the same could not be considered contemptuous either directly or indirectly, in as much as he was merely expressing the sentiments of an aggrieved employee who deserves a better treatment from his superior after more than six years and nine months of highly dedicated and very efficient service in the City Court of Quezon City; that if ever respondent requested favors from his superior, these were all done in the spirit of friendship which the complainant professed to him before he left Branch VI of the City Court of Quezon City on March 9, 1976; that from October 15, 1975 up to his illegal transfer on March 8, 1976, the respondent was practically doing the work of the complainant; that the respondent has tutored the complainant on the fine interpretation and application of the law; that it was Judge Zari who tried to corrupt him as may be gathered from the following instances: On January 8, 1976, after the trial in Criminal Case No VI-5783 vs. Juanito Chua and two criminal cases against Emerito Lim, Judge Zari instructed the respondent to conduct an ocular inspection on the illegal constructions, subject of the cases; that Judge Zari, likewise, told the respondent to join him for lunch at Alfredo's Steakhouse in Quezon City; that after conducting the ocular inspection, the respondent proceeded to Alfredo's Steakhouse where he joined Judge Zari, Fiscal Loja and the defense counsel of Chua and Lim; that thereafter, Judge Zari directed the respondent not to prepare anymore his report on the ocular inspection to the site; that up to the time of his illegal transfer, the respondent did not see the records of said cases anymore; that in Criminal Case No. VI-166624 vs. Corazon and Macaria Tolentino, for the crime of estafa, the respondent was instructed to convict both the accused because the complainant was a relative of a certain Judge Erochi; and that in Criminal Cases Nos. VI-170682 and VI-170689 versus Gerundio Villanueva y Elazo, Dominador Garcia y Orteza and Balbino Domingo y Ramos, for the crime of theft, he was instructed by Judge Zari to convict the accused Dominador Garcia y Orteza because according to said judge, the complainant is AVESCO.

In a resolution dated September 1, 1976, 4 this Court required Judge Zari to file a reply to the answer of the respondent within ten (10) days from notice thereof.

The complainant alleged in his reply to the answer of the respondent that he had not allowed the respondent to interfere in the preparation of orders and decisions; that while the complainant is aware of his limitations, he is certainly not so naive as to allow someone not a member of the Philippine Bar to "tutor" and give him finer interpretation of the law; that he admits that Criminal Cases Nos. VI-5783 against Juanito Chua and VI-5788-5789 against Emerito Lim are pending before this court; that he did not call the respondent to his chamber and instruct him to conduct an ocular inspection on the illegal constructions; that he did not invite the respondent for lunch that day; that the truth was that after the trial, he went to Alfredo's Steakhouse in the company of his fiscal, Fiscal Guillermo Loja; that while in the said place, the complainant was surprised to see the respondent in the company of the accused; that he counseled the respondent to be more circumspect as these people had cases before his sala; that it is true that from then on up to the relief of the respondent on March 8, 1976, the records of the aforesaid case could not be found by the respondent because the complainant had the records brought inside his chamber in order to forestall any attempt on the part of the respondent to manipulate the records; that he did not instruct the respondent to convict the accused in Criminal Case No. VI-166624 and in Criminal Cases Nos. VI-170682 and VI-170689 just because the complainant is a relative of a certain Judge Erochi and AVESCO, respectively; and that he requested Atty. Reynaldo Elcano to affix his initial in all orders, decisions and sentences in order to pinpoint responsibility. 5

In his reply, the complainant additionally charged that when the respondent applied for the position of Deputy Clerk of Court, Branch VI, City Court of Quezon City, he submitted, among

others, an affidavit dated June 10, 1969 that contains the following statement "That I am a person of good moral character and integrity and have no administrative, criminal or police record;" that the respondent also accomplished Civil Service Form No. 212 (1965) which was subscribed and sworn to before then Judge Oscar A. Inocentes; that in the aforesaid data sheet, the respondent admits having acted as counsel for three companies; and that the giving of legal advice by notaries and others who are not admitted to the practice of law is dangerous to the welfare of the community, because such persons have not demonstrated their capacity by submitting to examinations lawfully established in the practice of law.

This administrative case was referred to the Executive Judge of Rizal, Quezon City, for investigation, report and recommendation after City Judge Minerva Genovea and City Judge Aloysius Alday had been allowed to inhibit themselves from investigating this case. 6

District Judge Sergio A. F. Apostol who conducted the investigation of this administrative case recommended that the respondent be separated from the service on the following findings:

The first charge is "conviction for libel which is a crime allegedly involving moral turpitude."

Presidential Decree No. 807, Sec. 36(b) No. 10 provides that one of the grounds for disciplinary action is "conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude."

Evidence adduced by the complainant which was admitted by the respondent was that on April 28, 1967 respondent was convicted of the crime of Libel in Criminal Case No. Q-7171 of Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City. Respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of P5,000.00 which he paid on July 18, 1974 under Official Receipt No. 276418.

Moral turpitude has been defined as including any act done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. 7

Some of the particular crimes which have been held to involve moral turpitude are adultery, concubinage, 8 rape, arson, evasion of income tax, barratry, bigamy, blackmail, bribery, 9 criminal conspiracy to smuggle opium, dueling, embezzlement, extortion, forgery, libel, making fraudulent proof of loss on insurance contract, murder, mutilation of public records, fabrication of evidence, offenses against pension laws, perjury, seduction under promise of marriage, 10 estafa, 11 falsification of public document, 12 estafa thru falsification of public document. 13

"Moral turpitude" has been defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellow men, to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. 14 It implies something immoral in itself, regardless of the fact that it is punishable by law or not. It must not merely be mala prohibita but, the act itself must be inherently immoral. The doing of the act itself, and not its

prohibition by statute fixes the moral turpitude. 15 Moral turpitude does not, however, include such acts as are not of themselves immoral but whose illegality lies in the fact of their being positively prohibited. 16 Hence, the crime of illegal possession of firearm or ammunition does not involve moral turpitude for under our laws, what is punishable is the possession of a firearm or ammunition without a license or authority. 17

Bribery is admittedly a felony involving moral turpitude. 18

However in another, the Supreme Court seems to imply that libel is not a crime involving moral turpitude.

The mere filing of an information for libel, or serious slander, against a municipal officer is not a ground for suspending him from office, as such offenses do not necessarily involve moral turpitude. 19

When respondent submitted his application for the position of Deputy Clerk of Court of Branch VI, City Court of Quezon City, he submitted among others an affidavit dated June 10, 1969, which reads as follows:

That I am a person of good moral character and integrity and have no administrative, criminal or police record.

On blank space of a personal data sheet opposite question No. 10, which asked if applicant has previously been convicted of a criminal offense, accused placed no. It was later discovered that accused was previously convicted of theft. Accused was acquitted of falsification of public document under Art. 171, par. 4, because there is no legal obligation to reveal previous conviction. 20 However he maybe guilty of perjury under Art. 183. 21

One of the grounds for disciplinary action under PD 807, Sec. 36(b) under No. 13 is "falsification of public documents."

The second charge is "persistent attempts to unduly influence the complainant amounting to undue interest in cases pending before Branch VI as shown by his handwritten notes to the complainant and to his present Deputy Clerk of Court, Atty. Reynaldo Elcano."

Respondent admitted that in writing the four (4) notes (Exhibits "F", "F-1", "F-2", & "F-3"), he intervened for and in behalf of Gaw Chin in Criminal Case No. VI-6196 pending before the sala of the complainant because the accused was a compadre of his friend, Salvador Estrada.

On the other hand, the defense of the respondent is that he was practically doing the work of the complainant and tutoring him in the finer interpretation and application of the law, and he was preparing the decisions in both criminal and civil cases. Thus he was not trying to influence the complainant.

The notes marked as Exhibits "F", "F-1, "F-2", & "F-3" speak for themselves. There is no need for the undersigned to quote the same.

A proposition by an attorney to his client to visit with his wife the family of the judge before whom the client's cause is to be heard, and to endeavor, in conversation thus to be had in advance of the hearing, to commit the judge to an expression of opinion favorable to the client's case warrants his dismissal from the bar. 22

The acts of the respondent amounts to conducts prejudicial to the best interest of the service. 23

The Third charge is "discourtesy to superior Officers as manifested by respondent in calling for and unjust use of strong and contemptuous language in addressing the city judges when he wrote the letter, dated March 11, 1976."

To quote the pertinent provisions of Exhibit "D":

'By the tenor of your reply, you have made the change of heart and have developed cold feet. You have badly shaken my belief in your credibility. Indeed, you are truly a woman, very fickle and unpredictable, but very impulsive.

I take this as a clear indication of your desire to enlist the sympathies and, if possible, like the other five (5) judges, involved them in the mess originally of your own making and design and align them with you against me, hoping to impress upon me that by the tyranny of numbers, I will be convinced that mine is a lost cause.

However, I regret to inform the six of you that by your conduct, you have dismally failed to live up to your oaths, ...

Kindly pardon me if I say that, the six of you must be out of your wits when you all decided to lay the blame on me and condemned without trial for the alleged inefficiency.

Yes, when you all decided to sacrifice me you are all laboring under deep and nagging hallucinations, induced and prompted by your serious concern to save the face of a colleague.

By the way, could any of the Honorable Judges of Branches I, III, V & IX honestly and truthfully say the public service in their respective branches is efficient, so that they could now come to the succor of a colleague and are also competent to promote the efficiency in Branch VI. My God, if that is true, promotions of Judges in the City Court would be fast, the Purge in the Judiciary would not have affected Quezon City and the unprepared and the inexperienced would not have come to the Bench.'

Respondent reasoned out that the use of strong language by him in his letter was justified and very much called for it being the indubitable manifestation of the indignation and disgust of the respondent, urged upon him by the complainant who engineered the respondent's illegal transfer from Branch VI of the City Court of Quezon City which he holds a valid and subsisting appointment to the Appeal and Docket Division, by virtue of a letter of the Executive Judge (Exhibit "43"), to quote the pertinent provision of which:

'as a measure to promote more efficient public service, after due and circumspect deliberation by and among the judges. '

pursuant to the authority granted to the executive judge under Administrative Order No. 6 of the Supreme Court which provides as follows:

To re-assign temporarily the personnel of one branch (sala) to another branch (sala) or to the Office of the Clerk of Court, in case of vacancy in the position of Presiding Judge of a branch (sala), or when the interest of the service requires. In the latter case, the assignment shall be made in consultation with the Presiding Judge of the branch (sala) concerned; and in case of disagreement, the assignment of the Executive Judge shall be effective immediately, unless revoked by the Supreme Court.

The transfer was made in consultation with the presiding judge of the branch concerned who is the complainant in this case.

A detail is the movement of an employee from one agency to another without the issuance of an appointment and shall be allowed, only for a limited period in the case of employees occupying professional, technical and scientific positions. If the employee believes that there is no justification for the detail, he may appeal his case to the commission. Pending appeal, the decision to detail the employee shall be executory unless otherwise ordered by the commission. 24

An employee may be reassigned from one organizational unit to another in the same agency. Provided: That such reassignment shall not involve reduction in rank, status or salary. 25

In the instant case there was actually a reassignment of employee from one branch to the Office of the Clerk of Court in accordance with Administrative Order No. 6 of the Supreme Court and in consonance with PD 807.

The language of attorney in his motion for reconsideration referring to the Supreme Court as a "Civilized, democratic tribunal," but by innuendo would suggest that it is not; in his motion to inhibit, categorizing the Court's decision as "false, erroneous and illegal" and accusing two justices for being interested in the decision of the case without any basis in fact; asking the other members of the Court to inhibit themselves for favors or benefits received from any of the petitioners including the President — constitute disrespectful language to the Court. It undermines and degrades the administration of justice.

The language is necessary for the defense of client is no justification. It ill behooves an attorney to justify his disrespectful language with the statement that it was necessary for the defense of his client. A client's cause does not permanent an attorney to cross the line between liberty and license. Lawyers must always keep in perspective the thought that "since lawyers are administrators of justice, oathbound servants of society, their first duty is not to their clients, as many suppose, but to the administration of justice; to this their client's success is wholly subordinate; and their conduct ought to and must be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. 26

Thru the use of uncalled language, respondent had committed insubordination, a ground for disciplinary action. 27

The evidence of record supports the findings of the investigating judge.

It is a fact that the respondent was convicted of libel in Criminal Case No. Q-7171 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IV, at Quezon City. 7 While this fact alone is not sufficient to warrant disciplinary action, the respondent's conviction for libel shows his propensity to speak ill of others. His letter dated March 11, 1976 to Judge Minerva C. Genovea, then Executive Judge of the City Court of Quezon City 8 contains defamatory and uncalled for language.

The handwritten notes of the respondent regarding different cases pending in Branch VI of the City Court of Quezon City, presided by the complainant, Judge Remigio E. Zari, show that the respondent had exerted undue influence in the disposition of the cases mentioned therein. 9

It is true that conviction for libel does not automatically justify removal of a public officer. 10 However, the fact of conviction for libel of the respondent, taken together with the letter he wrote to then Executive City Judge of the City Court of Quezon City, Judge Minerva C. Genovea, shows the tendency of the respondent to malign people.

Respondent's act of interfering in the cases pending before Branch VI of the City Court of Quezon City presided by the complainant is inimical to the service. This alone warrants severe disciplinary measures.

In his affidavit subscribed and sworn to before then City Judge Oscar A. Inocentes on June 10, 1969, the respondent stated "That I am a person of good moral character and integrity and have no administrative, criminal or police record. " This averment is not true because the respondent had been convicted of libel in Criminal Case No. Q-7171, of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IV, in a sentence dated April 28, 1967. This prevarication in a sworn statement is another ground for serious disciplinary action.

The removal from the service of the respondent is warranted by the evidence adduced during the investigation conducted by Judge Sergio A. F. Apostol of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XVI, Quezon City.

WHEREFORE, the respondent, Diosdado S. Flores, is hereby DISMISSED as Deputy Clerk of Court of Branch VI of the City Court of Quezon City, with forfeiture of all retirement privileges and with prejudice to reinstatement in the national and local governments, as well as, in any

government instrumentality or agency including government owned or controlled corporations effective upon the finality of this decision.

Let a copy of this decision be attached to his personal record.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.