[SBC Case No. 519.

July 31, 1997]

PATRICIA FIGUERA, complainant, vs. SI!EN
BARRANC, JR., respondent.
R E S " U T I N
R!ER, J.#
In a complaint made way back in 1971, Patricia
Figueroa petitioned that respondent Simeon Barranco,
Jr be denied admission to the legal pro!ession
"espondent had passed the 197# bar e$aminations on
the !ourth attempt, a!ter unsuccess!ul attempts in
19%%, 19%7 and 19%& Be!ore he could take his oath,
howe'er, complainant (led the instant petition
a'erring that respondent and she had been
sweethearts, that a child out o! wedlock was born to
them and that respondent did not !ul(ll his repeated
promises to marry her
)he !acts were mani!ested in hearings held be!ore
In'estigator *ictor F Se'illa in June and July 1971
"espondent and complainant were townmates in
Janiuay, Iloilo Since 19+,, when they were both in
their teens, they were steadies "espondent e'en
acted as escort to complainant when she reigned as
-ueen at the 19+, town (esta .omplainant (rst
acceded to se$ual congress with respondent sometime
in 19%# )heir intimacy yielded a son, "a!ael Barranco,
born on /ecember 11, 19%0
i
112 It was a!ter the child
was born, complainant alleged, that respondent (rst
promised he would marry her a!ter he passes the bar
e$aminations )heir relationship continued and
respondent allegedly made more than twenty or thirty
promises o! marriage 3e ga'e only P1### !or the
child on the latter4s birthdays 3er trust in him and
their relationship ended in 1971, when she learned that
respondent married another woman 3ence, this
petition
5pon complainant4s motion, the .ourt authori6ed the
taking o! testimonies o! witnesses by deposition in
1977 8n February 1&, 1970, respondent (led a
9ani!estation and 9otion to /ismiss the case citing
complainant4s !ailure to comment on the motion o!
Judge .uello seeking to be relie'ed !rom the duty to
take a!oresaid testimonies by deposition .omplainant
(led her comment stating that she had :usti(able
reasons in !ailing to (le the earlier comment re;uired
and that she remains interested in the resolution o! the
present case 8n June 1&, 1970, the .ourt denied
respondent4s motion to dismiss
8n 8ctober 7, 19&#, the .ourt once again denied a
motion to dismiss on the ground o! abandonment (led
by respondent on September 17, 1979
ii
172
"espondent4s third motion to dismiss was noted in the
.ourt4s "esolution dated September 1+, 19&7
iii
1,2 In
19&&, respondent repeated his re;uest, citing his
election as a member o! the Sangguniang Bayan o!
Janiuay, Iloilo !rom 19&#<19&%, his acti'e participation
in ci'ic organi6ations and good standing in the
community as well as the length o! time this case has
been pending as reasons to allow him to take his oath
as a lawyer
i'
102
8n September 79, 19&&, the .ourt resol'ed to dismiss
the complaint !or !ailure o! complainant to prosecute
the case !or an unreasonable period o! time and to
allow Simeon Barranco, Jr to take the lawyer4s oath
upon payment o! the re;uired !ees
'
1+2
"espondent4s hopes were again dashed on =o'ember
17, 19&& when the .ourt, in response to complainant4s
opposition, resol'ed to cancel his scheduled oath<
taking 8n June 1, 199,, the .ourt re!erred the case to
the Integrated Bar o! the Philippines >IBP? !or
in'estigation, report and recommendation
)he IBP4s report dated 9ay 17, 1997 recommended the
dismissal o! the case and that respondent be allowed
to take the lawyer4s oath
@e agree
"espondent was pre'ented !rom taking the lawyer4s
oath in 1971 because o! the charges o! gross
immorality made by complainant )o recapitulate,
respondent bore an illegitimate child with his
sweetheart, Patricia Figueroa, who also claims that he
did not !ul(ll his promise to marry her a!ter he passes
the bar e$aminations
@e (nd that these !acts do not constitute gross
immorality warranting the permanent e$clusion o!
respondent !rom the legal pro!ession 3is engaging in
premarital se$ual relations with complainant and
promises to marry suggests a doubt!ul moral character
on his part but the same does not constitute grossly
immoral conduct )he .ourt has held that to :usti!y
suspension or disbarment the act complained o! must
not only be immoral, but grossly immoral AB grossly
immoral act is one that is so corrupt and !alse as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or
disgrace!ul as to be reprehensible to a high
degreeC
'i
1%2 It is a will!ul, Dagrant, or shameless act
which shows a moral indiEerence to the opinion o!
respectable members o! the community
'ii
172
@e (nd the ruling in Brciga ' 9aniwang
'iii
1&2 ;uite
rele'ant because mere intimacy between a man and a
woman, both o! whom possess no impediment to
marry, 'oluntarily carried on and de'oid o! any deceit
on the part o! respondent, is neither so corrupt nor so
unprincipled as to warrant the imposition o! disciplinary
sanction against him, e'en i! as a result o! such
relationship a child was born out o! wedlock
i$
192
"espondent and complainant were sweethearts whose
se$ual relations were e'idently consensual @e do not
(nd complainant4s assertions that she had been !orced
into se$ual intercourse, credible She continued to see
and be respondent4s girl!riend e'en a!ter she had gi'en
birth to a son in 19%0 and until 1971 Bll those years
o! amicable and intimate relations re!ute her
allegations that she was !orced to ha'e se$ual
congress with him .omplainant was then an adult
who 'oluntarily and acti'ely pursued their relationship
and was not an innocent young girl who could be easily
led astray 5n!ortunately, respondent chose to marry
and settle permanently with another woman @e
cannot castigate a man !or seeking out the partner o!
his dreams, !or marriage is a sacred and perpetual
bond which should be entered into because o! lo'e, not
!or any other reason
@e cannot help 'iewing the instant complaint as an act
o! re'enge o! a woman scorned, bitter and un!orgi'ing
to the end It is also intended to make respondent
suEer se'erely and it seems, perpetually, sacri(cing
the pro!ession he worked 'ery hard to be admitted
into F'en assuming that his past indiscretions are
ignoble, the twenty<si$ years that respondent has been
pre'ented !rom being a lawyer constitute suGcient
punishment there!or /uring this time there appears to
be no other indiscretion attributed to him
$
11#2
"espondent, who is now si$ty<two years o! age, should
thus be allowed, albeit belatedly, to take the lawyer4s
oath
$%EREFRE, the instant petition is hereby
/IS9ISSF/ "espondent Simeon Barranco, Jr is
BHH8@F/ to take his oath as a lawyer upon payment o!
the proper !ees
S8 8"/F"F/
Padilla, "egalado, /a'ide, Jr, Bellosillo, 9elo, Puno,
*itug, Iapunan, 9endo6a, Francisco, and Panganiban,
JJ, concur
=ar'asa, .J, 3ermosisima, Jr, and )orres, Jr, JJ, on
lea'e
=o'ember 79, 19&9
B9 =o ,709 SA"&ACIN 'E"I( CR'&A,
complainant,
's
ATT). "AURENCE '. CR'&A, respondent
R E S O L U T I O N
, J.#
In an unsworn letter<complaint dated 10 Bpril 19&&
addressed to then 9r .hie! Justice .laudio )eehankee,
complainant Sal'acion /eli6o charged her husband,
Btty Haurence / .ordo'a, with immorality and acts
unbecoming a member o! the Bar )he letter<complaint
was !orwarded by the .ourt to the Integrated Bar o!
the Philippines, .ommission on Bar /iscipline
>J.ommissionJ?, !or in'estigation, report and
recommendation
)he .ommission, be!ore acting on the complaint,
re;uired complainant to submit a 'eri(ed complaint
within ten >1#? days !rom notice .omplainant complied
and submitted to the .ommission on 77 September
19&& a re'ised and 'eri(ed 'ersion o! her long and
detailed complaint against her husband charging him
with immorality and acts unbecoming a member o! the
Bar
In an 8rder o! the .ommission dated 1 /ecember
19&&, respondent was declared in de!ault !or !ailure to
(le an answer to the complaint within (!teen >1+? days
!rom notice )he same 8rder re;uired complainant to
submit be!ore the .ommission her e'idence ex parte,
on 1% /ecember 19&& 5pon the telegraphic re;uest o!
complainant !or the resetting o! the 1% /ecember 19&&
hearing, the .ommission scheduled another hearing on
7+ January 19&9 )he hearing scheduled !or 7+ January
19&9 was rescheduled two >7? more times<(rst, !or 7+
February 19&9 and second, !or 1# and 11 Bpril 19&9
)he hearings ne'er took place as complainant !ailed to
appear "espondent .ordo'a ne'er mo'ed to set aside
the order o! de!ault, e'en though notices o! the
hearings scheduled were sent to him
In a telegraphic message dated % Bpril 19&9,
complainant in!ormed the .ommission that she and
her husband had already JreconciledJ In an order
dated 17 Bpril 19&9, the .ommission re;uired the
parties >respondent and complainant? to appear be!ore
it !or con(rmation and e$planation o! the telegraphic
message and re;uired them to (le a !ormal motion to
dismiss the complaint within (!teen >1+? days !rom
notice =either party responded and nothing was heard
!rom either party since then
.omplainant ha'ing !ailed to submit her e'idence ex
parte be!ore the .ommission, the IBP Board o!
Ko'ernors submitted to this .ourt its report
reprimanding respondent !or his acts, admonishing him
that any !urther acts o! immorality in the !uture will be
dealt with more se'erely, and ordering him to support
his legitimate !amily as a responsible parent should
)he (ndings o! the IBP Board o! Ko'ernors may be
summed up as !ollowsL
.omplainant and respondent .ordo'a were married on
% June 197% and out o! this marriage, two >7? children
were born In 19&+, the couple li'ed somewhere in
-uirino Pro'ince In that year, respondent .ordo'a le!t
his !amily as well as his :ob as Branch .lerk o! .ourt o!
the "egional )rial .ourt, .abarroguis, -uirino Pro'ince,
and went to 9angagoy, Bislig, Surigao del Sur with one
Fely K 3olgado Fely K 3olgado was hersel! married
and le!t her own husband and children to stay with
respondent "espondent .ordo'a and Fely K 3olgado
li'ed together in Bislig as husband and wi!e, with
respondent .ordo'a introducing Fely to the public as
his wi!e, and Fely 3olgado using the name Fely
.ordo'a "espondent .ordo'a ga'e Fely 3olgado !unds
with which to establish a sari<sari store in the public
market at Bislig, while at the same time !ailing to
support his legitimate !amily
8n % Bpril 19&%, respondent .ordo'a and his
complainant wi!e had an apparent reconciliation
"espondent promised that he would separate !rom Fely
3olgado and brought his legitimate !amily to Bislig,
Surigao del Sur "espondent would, howe'er,
!re;uently come home !rom beerhouses or cabarets,
drunk, and continued to neglect the support o! his
legitimate !amily In February 19&7, complainant !ound,
upon returning !rom a trip to 9anila necessitated by
hospitali6ation o! her daughter Horaine, that
respondent .ordo'a was no longer li'ing with her
>complainantMs? children in their con:ugal homeN that
respondent .ordo'a was li'ing with another mistress,
one Huisita 9agallanes, and had taken his younger
daughter 9elanie along with him "espondent and his
new mistress hid 9elanie !rom the complinant,
compelling complainant to go to court and to take back
her daughter by habeas corpus )he "egional )rial
.ourt, Bislig, ga'e her custody o! their children
=otwithstanding respondentMs promises to re!orm, he
continued to li'e with Huisita 9agallanes as her
husband and continued to !ail to gi'e support to his
legitimate !amily
Finally the .ommission recei'ed a telegram message
apparently !rom complainant, stating that complainant
and respondent had been reconciled with each other
B!ter a re'iew o! the record, we agree with the (ndings
o! !act o! the IBP Board @e also agree that the most
recent reconciliation between complainant and
respondent, assuming the same to be real, does not
e$cuse and wipe away the misconduct and immoral
beha'ior o! the respondent carried out in public, and
necessarily ad'ersely reDecting upon him as a member
o! the Bar and upon the Philippine Bar itsel! Bn
applicant !or admission to membership in the bar is
re;uired to show that he is possessed o! good moral
character )hat re;uirement is not e$hausted and
dispensed with upon admission to membership o! the
bar 8n the contrary, that re;uirement persists as a
continuing condition !or membership in the Bar in good
standing
In 9ortel ' Bspiras, 1 this .ourt, !ollowing the rule in
the 5nited States, held that Jthe continued
possession o! a good moral character is a re;uisite
condition !or the right!ul continuance in the practice o!
the law and its loss re;uires suspension or
disbarment, e'en though the statutes do not speci!y
that as a ground !or disbarment J 7 It is important to
note that the lack o! moral character that we here re!er
to as essential is not limited to good moral character
relating to the discharge o! the duties and
responsibilities o! an attorney at law )he moral
delin;uency that aEects the (tness o! a member o! the
bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages
the generally accepted moral standards o! the
community, conduct !or instance, which makes Ja
mockery o! the in'iolable social institution or
marriageJ , In 9ortel, the respondent being already
married, wooed and won the heart o! a single, 71<year
old teacher who subse;uently cohabited with him and
bore him a son Because respondentMs conduct in
9ortel was particularly morally repulsi'e, in'ol'ing the
marrying o! his mistress to his own son and therea!ter
cohabiting with the wi!e o! his own son a!ter the
marriage he had himsel! arranged, respondent was
disbarred
In "oyong ' 8blena, 0 the respondent was declared
un(t to continue as a member o! the bar by reason o!
his immoral conduct and accordingly disbarred 3e was
!ound to ha'e engaged in se$ual relations with the
complainant who conse;uently bore him a sonN and to
ha'e maintained !or a number o! years an adulterous
relationship with another woman
In the instant case, respondent .ordo'a maintained !or
about two >7? years an adulterous relationship with a
married woman not his wi!e, in !ull 'iew o! the general
public, to the humiliation and detriment o! his
legitimate !amily which he, rubbing salt on the wound,
!ailed or re!used to support B!ter a brie! period o!
Jre!ormJ respondent took up again with another
woman not his wi!e, cohabiting with her and bringing
along his young daughter to li'e with them .learly,
respondent Daunted his disregard o! the !undamental
institution o! marriage and its elementary obligations
be!ore his own daughter and the community at large
@3F"FF8"F, the .ourt "esol'ed to S5SPF=/
respondent !rom the practice o! law inde(nitely and
until !arther orders !rom this .ourt )he .ourt will
consider li!ting his suspension when respondent
.ordo'a submits proo! satis!actory to the .ommission
and this .ourt that he has and continues to pro'ide !or
the support o! his legitimate !amily and that he has
gi'en up the immoral course o! conduct that he has
clung to
Fernan, .J, =ar'asa, Kutierre6, Jr, .ru6, Paras,
Feliciano, Kancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, .ortes,
Kri
A.!. No. 3*+9 'e,e-.e/ +, 1909
PER"A ). "AGUITAN, ,o-1la23a34,
5s.
ATT). SA"&A'R F. TINI, /es1o36e34.
Joanes G. Caacbay for respondent.
" F S 8 H 5 ) I 8 =

PER CURIA!#
In the instant Petition !or /isbarment dated 71 9ay
19&7, petitioner Perla O Haguitan charged Btty
Sal'ador F )inio with immorality and acts unbecoming
a member o! the Bar
B!ter answer was (led on 77 8ctober 19&7, the .ourt,
in its "esolution dated 1% =o'ember 19&7, re!erred the
Petition to the Solicitor Keneral !or In'estigation,
"eport and "ecommendation
/uring the initial hearing o! this case by the Solicitor
Keneral on 17 February 19&&, only respondent and his
counsel appearedN it turned out that complainant had
not been duly ser'ed with notice o! the hearing )he
hearing scheduled !or 70 9arch 19&& was likewise
reset to 77 Bpril 19&& upon motion o! respondent and
upon !ailure o! complainant to appear be!ore the 8Gce
o! the Solicitor Keneral
)his case was e'entually transmitted by the Solicitor
Keneral to the Integrated Bar o! the Philippines,
.ommission on Bar /iscipline >.ommission? !or
in'estigation and proper action )hus, in an order
dated 1& Bugust 19&&, the .ommission set the case !or
hearing on 9 September 19&& and re;uired both
complainant and respondent to submit additional
copies o! their pleadings within ten >1#? days !rom
notice
)he initial hearing set by the .ommission !or 9
September 19&& was reset to 7# September 19&&
because only complainant appeared, respondent
ha'ing !ailed to present himsel! despite due notice to
him )he hearing o! 7# September 19&& was again
reset to 7# 8ctober 19&& because neither complainant
nor her counsel appeared )he hearing !or 7# 8ctober
19&& was once again reset to 10 =o'ember 19&& as
only complainant appeared, Finally, the hearing !or 10
=o'ember 19&& was rescheduled two >7? more times,
(rst to 1+ /ecember 19&& and second to 17 January
19&9
In its 8rder dated 77 January 19&9, the .ommission,
upon the une$plained !ailure o! respondent to appear
at the hearing on 17 January 19&9, re;uired petitioner
to make a !ormal oEer o! e'idence ex parte, and
therea!ter submit the case !or resolution )he 8rder
was duly recei'ed by respondentMs counsel on ,1
January 19&9
8n 9 February 19&9, petitioner !ormally oEered her
e$hibits as !ollowsL
1 F$h MBM P .erti(cate o! Hi'e Birth o!
Sheila Haguitan )inio
PurposeL )o show and pro'e the (liation
o! the child as shown on the documentN
7 F$h MBM P.erti(cate o! Hi'e Birth o!
Benedict Haguitan
PurposeL )o show and pro'e likewise
the (liation o! the child as shown on
the documentL
, F$h M.M to M.<%M P "eceipts issued by
the 9t .armel 9aternity and .hildrenMs
3ospital
PurposeL )o pro'e that petitioner herein
ga'e birth to a baby girl at the 9t
.armel 9aternity and .hildrenMs
3ospital and !or which respondent paid
the bills !or the hospitali6ation,
medicines and pro!essional !ees o!
doctorsN
0 F$h M/M to M/<7M P "eceipts issued by
the Paulino 9edical .linic
PurposeL )o show and pro'e that petitioner again ga'e
birth to a baby boy at said clinic and !or which
respondent paid the bill !or hospitali6ation, medicines
and pro!essional !ees o! doctorsN
+ F$h MFM to MF<lM P Baptismal
certi(cates o! Sheila H )inio and
Benedict H )inio, respecti'ely
PurposeL )o show and pro'e that respondent admits his
paternity o! the childrenL
% F$h MFM to MF<0M P )he !amily pictures
showing respondent either singly or
with the rest o! the !amily during
happier times
PurposeL )o show and pro'e that petitioner and
respondent really li'ed together as husband and wi!e
and begot two children and the respondent admits
these through the picturesL
7 F$h MKM to MK<,M P )he school
records o! Sheila H )inio at the St
9aryMs Bcademy
PurposeL )o show and pro'e that respondent was
supporting the schooling o! the children as he himsel!
signed the correspondence and was marked as F$h MK<
7<BM
1
Based on the a!ore;uoted e$hibits, the Integrated Bar
o! the Philippines Board o! Ko'ernors submitted to us
its (ndings and recommendation, which may be
summed up as !ollowsL
Sometime in June 1970, complainant and respondent
)inio met each other and in time became lo'ers
Beginning in 197%, the parties li'ed together as
husband and wi!e Bs a result, complainant bore
respondent two >7? childrenL Sheila, now about ten >1#?
years old and Benedict, now appro$imately nine >9?
years old In the course o! this relationship, petitioner
disco'ered that respondent )inio, be!ore meeting her,
had contracted marriage with someone else and that
the prior marriage was subsisting =onetheless,
complainant continued li'ing in with respondent until
e'entually, ten >1#? years later, she and her children
by respondent )inio were abandoned by the latter in
=o'ember 19&% Feeling helpless and aggrie'ed, she
sought the help o! respondentMs parents in supporting
her children who were then already in school
"espondentMs parents ga'e her P0#### and ad'ised
her not to see them again
B!ter e$amination o! the record o! this case and noting
that respondent )inio appeared be!ore the IBP
In'estigating .ommissioner and candidly admitted his
illicit relationship with complainant and his ha'ing
begotten two >7? children by her, and promised the
.ommissioner that he would support his illegitimate
children but had not li'ed to his promise, we agree with
the (ndings o! !act o! the IBP Board )he IBP Board
recommends that respondent )inio be suspended !rom
the practice o! law Jnot !or ha'ing cohabited with the
complainant, but !or re!usal to support his illegitimate
children,J the suspension to remain in eEect until
respondent )inio complies with his obligation o!
support
)he .ourt agrees that respondent )inio deser'es to be
suspended !rom the practice o! law but not merely
because he has !ailed in his obligation to support the
children complainant bore him but also because !or a
prolonged period o! time, he li'ed in concubinage with
complainant, a course o! conduct inconsistent with the
re;uirement o! good moral character that is re;uired
!or the continued right to practice law as a member o!
the Philippine Bar,
7
.oncubinage imports moral
turpitude and entails a public assault upon the basic
social institution o! marriage
B..8"/I=KHO, the .ourt "esol'ed to S5SPF=/
respondent Sal'ador F )inio !rom the practice o! law
until !urther orders !rom this .ourt )he .ourt will
consider li!ting the suspension upon e'idence
satis!actory to the .ommission and to this .ourt that
respondent is supporting or has made pro'ision !or the
support o! his illegitimate children and that he has
gi'en up his immoral course o! conduct
ernan, C.J., Nar!asa, Gut"erre#, Jr., Cru#, $aras,
e%"c"ano, Gancayco, $ad"%%a, &"d"n, Sar'"ento, Cortes,
Gr"(o)*+u"no, ,ed"a%dea and Re-a%ado, JJ., concur.
,e%enc"o).errera, J., "s on Lea!e.
A.!. No. 7897 A1/2l 19, 1991
ATT). JSE S. SANTS, ,o-1la23a34,
5s.
ATT). CIPRIAN A. TAN, /es1o36e34.
R E S " U T I N

PER CURIA!#p
.omplainant Btty Jose S Santos instituted on
=o'ember 7#, 19&0 these disbarment proceedings
against respondent Btty .ipriano B )an !or alleged
gross misconduct
Speci(cally, the complainant who was then Bcting
/irector o! the Bureau o! Bgrarian Hegal Bssistance
under the 9inistry >now /epartment? o! Bgrarian
"e!orm, charged the respondent with ha'ing
committed acts o! immorality, !alsi(cation, and bigamy
In the said complaint, Btty Santos stated that the
respondent, while employed as )rial Bttorney I*, with
the Judicial .ases /i'ision under the a!oresaid
/epartment, maintained amorous relationship with a
married clerk, a certain =orma 8 Pihid >nee 8lea?, who
was then directly under him F'entually, the
respondent got married to =orma 8 Pihid on Bpril 77,
19&1 be!ore the 9unicipal 9ayor o! 9eycauayan,
Bulacan, purportedly in an attempt to co'er up their
illicit relations
1
)he complainant, moreo'er, alleged that the
respondent !alsi(ed his marriage contract with =orma
8 Pihid by deliberately misrepresenting himsel! as
single, thus, decei'ing the said mayor into solemni6ing
the said marriage
7
In the in!ormation sheet, howe'er,
prepared and (led by the respondent prior to his
employment, he clearly stated therein that he was
married to one Fmilia Benito )an and had begotten
eight >&? children with the latter
3
.onse;uently, the complainant likewise charged the
respondent with bigamy since it appears !rom the
records o! the Hocal .i'il "egistrar that he had
pre'iously contracted marriage with the said Fmilia B
Benito on January %, 1901 )he complainant asserted
that the said marriage continued to be 'alid and
binding between the said contracting parties when the
respondent entered into a subse;uent manage with
=orma 8 Pihid on Bpril 77, 19&1
+
Finally, the complainant a'erred that the respondentMs
second wi!e, =orma 8 Pihid, ga'e birth to a child by
the respondent on =o'ember 71, 19&1 at the
.hildrenMs 9edical .enter in -ue6on .ity, as e'idenced
by the birth certi(cate o! the said child indicating his
name to be =oel 8lea )an
5
8n January 9, 19&+, the .ourt acting on the said
complaint !or disbarment re;uired the respondent to
submit his Bnswer
)he respondent in an Bnswer dated February 7&, 19&+,
denied ha'ing married =orma 8 Pihid on Bpril 77,
19&1 and ha'ing !athered a child by the name o! =oel
8lea )an, although he admitted being married to Fmilia
B Benito
8
Bs regards the charges o! bigamy and !alsi(cation o!
oGcial documents, the respondent argued that the
same were issues that were properly the sub:ect o! a
criminal case (led by the complainant against him
which was pending be!ore the "egional )rial .ourt o!
9alolos, Bulacan, Branch *I, and there!ore raised a
pre:udicial ;uestion in the present contro'ersy
7
Bnent the charge o! maintaining amorous relationship
with =orma 8 Pihid, the respondent contended that
the same charge had been pre'iously resol'ed in an
8rder dated 8ctober 1, 19&7 issued by the 9inister
>now Secretary? o! the 9inistry >now /epartment? o!
Bgrarian "e!orm In the said order, the allegation o!
immorality which was originally the content o! an
anonymous letter<complaint was dismissed !or being
de'oid o! merit
)he respondent, in turn, suggested that the real and
actual moti'e behind the said complaint was traceable
to the strong resentment harbored by the complainant
against the !ormer whose ser'ices as .hie! )rial
Bttorney o! the said 9inistry >now /epartment? was
e$tended e'en beyond his retirement age at the
re;uest o! the then 9inister >now Secretary? .onrado F
Fstrella )he respondent contended that he and the
complainant did not see eye to eye with respect to the
handling and prosecution o! agrarian cases
0
By way o! a counter<complaint, the respondent charged
the complainant with acts unbecoming o! a lawyer and
a member o! the Philippine Bar such as obtaining and
utili6ing con(dential documents without the necessary
authori6ation, introducing a !alsi(ed document as
e'idence in a court proceeding, and e$ecuting an
aGda'it<complaint containing !alse statements )he
respondent !urther assailed the complainant !or (ling
the said complaint based on inadmissible and
un!ounded charges
9
8n 9arch 7+, 19&+, the .ourt resol'ed to re!er the said
complaint to the Solicitor Keneral !or in'estigation,
report and recommendation
)he "eport and "ecommendation submitted by the
Solicitor Keneral on February 7,, 199#, in part, statesL
$$$ $$$ $$$
B thorough re'iew o! the record o! the
case duly heard be!ore the 8Gce o! the
Solicitor Keneral in se'eral protracted
hearings, re'eals the e$istence o! a
ground !or disbarment against
respondent
Bside !rom claiming that the
documents presented by complainant
were allegedly unauthenticated,
hearsay, sel!<ser'ing, and his de!ense
o! alibi at the time o! the marriage on
Bpril 77, 19&1, respondent has
miserably !ailed in re!uting the same
and at the same time presenting strong
e'idence to con'ince the Solicitor
Keneral o! the !alsity o! the charges
against him
8n Bpril 77, 19&1 respondent claims
that he was attending a go'ernment
case at the then .FI o! .aloocan .ity
>F$h 9<B, rec? while his alleged second
wi!e was at the .ourt o! Bppeals on
oGcial business >F$hs % Q 11 B, rec?
)here are serious doubts in
entertaining the a!oresaid de!ense
B glance at the daily time records
>F$hs 9<B and 11<B, rec? re'eals that
both entries o! respondent and =orma
8lea were indicated on the line
co'ering Bpril 7%, 19&1N secondly,
penmanship o! the alleged entries !or
Bpril 77, 19&1 are the sameN thirdly,
the indicated time inMs o! respondent
and =orma 8lea were the same, "e,
&L#1 amN !ourthly, probability that
they were together is high because
they were both out o! the oGce
Bssuming, ar-uendo, respondentMs alibi
that they were married in 9eycauayan,
Bulacan, it was highly probable and
possible !or both to proceed to
9eycauayan, Bulacan on Bpril 77, 19&1
since the places where they were
allegedly then is 1s"c2 not impossibly !ar
!rom 9eycauayan Bulacan
"espondent e'en !ailed to speci!y the
alleged go'ernment case he was
attending at the .FI o! .aloocan either
by mentioning the title o! the case or
by presenting other e'idence aside
!rom his sel!<ser'ing testimony
@ith respect to the Birth .erti(cate
>F$h B? o! respondentMs alleged son,
the !ormer has not made a categorical
denial that =oel 8lea )an is =8) his
son 3e only argues that the birth
certi(cate is not authentic F'idence
!or complainant, howe'er, shows that
F$hibit B<+ was presented to show the
authenticity o! the Birth .erti(cate
contrary to respondentMs claim >pls see
.erti(cation dated July 70, 19&+ !ound
at the back o! the Birth .erti(cate?
Hikewise, respondent has not made any
categorical denial o! his amorous
relationship with =orma 8lea despite
the e$istence o! his (rst marriage with
Fmilia Benito )an
For immorality to be a ground !or
disbarment, it must be so gross, eg, it
is so corrupt and !alse as to constitute
a criminal act or so unprincipled or
disgrace!ul as to be reprehensible to a
high degree >"eyes ' @ong, %, S."B
%%7 1197+2?
)he circumstances o! the case
de(nitely has put respondentMs moral
character in doubt despite non<
con'iction o! the criminal case !or
bigamy against respondent )he
reputation o! a lawyer must be such
that he be o! good moral character
during the continuance o! his practice
and the e$ercise o! the pri'ilege
)he (ndings are clear and con'incing
that respondent entered into a second
marriage despite the e$istence o! his
(rst marriage and that he begot a child
with the second woman /e(nitely,
such !actual (ndings ha'e put serious
doubt on respondentMs moral character
"espondentMs main de!ense o! alibi is
rather too weak a reason that he did
not engage in an immoral act Bs
earlier said, respondent has neither
categorically denied that =orma 8lea is
his wi!e nor =oel 8lea )an is his son
with =orma
It appears, howe'er, that respondent
has retired !rom go'ernment ser'ice on
9arch 77, 19&, 3e was si$ty<('e >%+?
years old on September 1%, 19&7 >F$h
1,, rec?, and there!ore, e the time o!
the rendition o! this report, respondent
is now se'enty two >77? years old
.onsidering that respondent has
retired and is in the twilight o! his li!e,
disbarment would be too harsh a
penalty to impose on respondent
Suspension !rom the practice o! law
would be proper !or humanitarian
reasons i! respondent is still acti'ely
engaged in practice
I= *IF@ 8F )3F F8"FK8I=K
.8=SI/F"B)I8=S, it is respect!ully
recommended that respondent be
ad:udged guilty o! immoral conduct,
unbecoming o! a lawyer, and
accordingly impose the penalty o! one
>1? year suspension !rom the acti'e
practice o! law
1*
@e agree with the said (ndings o! the Solicitor Keneral
including his !a'orable and compassionate
consideration o! the ad'anced age o! the respondent
Speci(cally, "ule 1#1 o! .anon I o! the .ode o!
Pro!essional "esponsibility pro'ides that Ja lawyer shall
not engage in unlaw!ul, dishonest, immoral or deceit!ul
conductJ
@hate'er the alleged moti'es o! the complainant are,
the respondent has !ailed to contro'ert and re!ute the
charges made by the !ormer F'en granting arguendo
that the complainant was not well<moti'ated in
instituting these disbarment proceedings, the same
does not e$culpate him !rom any liability resulting !rom
his grossly immoral conduct
Bs regards the respondentMs counter<complaint, the
Solicitor Keneral in compliance with the .ourtMs
"esolution dated 8ctober 1, 199#, submitted his
Supplemental "eport and "ecommendation on
=o'ember 77, 199#, and !ound that the charges
against the complainant !or acts unbecoming a
member o! the Philippine Bar were all unsubstantiated
@e agree with his (ndings and recommendation on this
regard which stateL
=o misconduct has been committed by
Btty Santos contrary to Btty )anMs
accusations which will warrant
disciplinary action I! at all, Btty )anMs
charges were merely in de!ense o! the
charges against him >immorality? which
the Solicitor Keneral has !ound to be
supported by the e'idence >c!L "eport
and "ecommendation dated February
7,, 199#, pp 0%<+7, "ecords<Bdm
.ases?
I= *IF@ 8F )3F F8"FK8I=K
.8=SI/F"B)I8=S, it is respect!ully
recommended that Btty )anMs counter<
complaint against Btty Santos be
/IS9ISSF/ !or being unsubstantiated
11
@3F"FF8"F, (nding respondent Btty .ipriano B )an
guilty o! immoral conduct in disregard o! the .ode o!
Pro!essional "esponsibility, he is hereby S5SPF=/F/
!rom the acti'e practice o! law !or a period o! one >1?
year )he counter<complaint against complainant Btty
Jose S Santos is hereby /IS9ISSF/ !or lack o! merit
Het this /ecision be spread upon the personal records
o! the respondent and copies thereo! !urnished to all
courts
S8 8"/F"F/
ernan, C.J., Nar!asa, ,e%enc"o).errera, Gut"erre#, Jr.,
Cru#, $aras, e%"c"ano, Gancayco, $ad"%%a, &"d"n,
Sar'"ento, Gr"no)*+u"no, ,ed"a%dea, Re-a%ado and
/a!"de, Jr., JJ., concur.
A.!. No. 73+9 July 3, 1997
'RT%) B. TERRE, complainant,
's
ATT). JR'AN TERRE, respondent

PER CURIA!#
In a sworn complaint (led with this .ourt on 70
/ecember 19&1, complainant /orothy B )erre charged
respondent Jordan )erre, a member o! the Philippine
Bar with Jgrossly immoral conduct,J consisting o!
contracting a second marriage and li'ing with another
woman other than complainant, while his prior
marriage with complainant remained subsisting
)he .ourt resol'ed to re;uire respondent to answer the
complaint
1
"espondent success!ully e'aded ('e >+?
attempts to ser'e a copy o! the .ourtMs "esolution and
o! the complaint by mo'ing !rom one place to another,
such that he could not be !ound nor reached in his
alleged place o! employment or residence
7
8n 70
Bpril 19&+, that is a!ter three >,? years and a hal!, with
still no answer !rom the respondent, the .ourt noted
respondentMs success in e'ading ser'ice o! the
complaint and the .ourtMs "esolution and thereupon
resol'ed to Jsuspend respondent Btty Jordan )erre
!rom the practice o! law until a!ter he appears andRor
(les his answer to the complaint against himJ in the
instant
case
3
8n 7& September 19&+, respondent (nally (led an
Bnswer with a 9otion to Set Bside andRor Hi!t
Suspension 8rder In his Bnswer, Btty )erre a'erred
that he had contracted marriage with complainant
/orothy )erre on 10 June 1977 upon her representation
that she was singleN that he subse;uently learned that
/orothy was married to a certain 9erlito B Bercenilla
sometime in 19%&N that when he con!ronted /orothy
about her prior marriage, /orothy dro'e him out o!
their con:ugal residenceN that /orothy had mockingly
told him o! her pri'ate meetings with 9erlito B
Bercenilla and that the child she was then carrying
>".e., Jason )erre? was the son o! BercenillaN that
belie'ing in good !aith that his marriage to complainant
was null and 'oid ab "n"t"o, he contracted marriage with
3elina 9alicdem at /asol, Pangasinan
+
In her "eply, complainant /orothy denied that Jason
)erre was the child o! 9erlito B Bercenilla and insisted
that Jason was the child o! respondent Jordan )erre, as
e'idenced by JasonMs Birth .erti(cate and physical
resemblance to respondent /orothy !urther e$plained
that while she had gi'en birth to Jason )erre at the
PBFK3 registered as a dependent o! 9erlito Bercenilla,
she had done so out o! e$treme necessity and to a'oid
risk o! death or in:ury to the !etus which happened to
be in a diGcult breech position Bccording to /orothy,
she had then already been abandoned by respondent
Jordan )erre, lea'ing her penniless and without means
to pay !or the medical and hospital bills arising by
reason o! her pregnancy
)he .ourt denied respondentMs 9otion to Set Bside or
Hi!t the Suspension 8rder and instead re!erredN by a
"esolution dated % January 19&%, the complaint to the
8Gce o! the Solicitor Keneral !or in'estigation, report
and recommendation
5
)hen Solicitor Pio . Kuerrero was appointed
in'estigator by the 8Gce o! the Solicitor Keneral 3e
set the case !or hearing on 7 July 19&% with notice to
both parties 8n 7 July 19&%, complainant /orothy
appeared and presented her e'idence ex parte, since
respondent did not so appear
8
)he In'estigating
Solicitor scheduled and held another hearing on 19
Bugust 19&%, where he put clari(catory ;uestions to
the complainantN respondent once again did not appear
despite notice to do so .omplainant (nally oEered her
e'idence and rested her case )he Solicitor set still
another hearing !or 7 8ctober 19&%, noti!ying
respondent to present his e'idence with a warning that
should he !ail once more to appear, the case would be
deemed submitted !or resolution "espondent did not
appear on 7 8ctober 19&% )he In'estigating Solicitor
accordingly considered respondent to ha'e wai'ed his
right to present e'idence and declared the case
submitted !or resolution )he parties were gi'en time
to submit their respecti'e memoranda .omplainant
/orothy did so on & /ecember 19&% "espondent )erre
did not (le his memorandum
8n 7% February 199#, the 8Gce o! the Solicitor Keneral
submitted its J"eport and "ecommendationJ to this
.ourt )he "eport summari6ed the testimony o! the
complainant in the !ollowing mannerL
.omplainant /orothy )erre took the
witness stand and testi(ed
substantially as !ollowsL she and
respondent met !or the (rst time in
1979 as !ourth year high school
classmates in .adi6 .ity 3igh School
>tsn, July 7, 19&%, p 9?N she was then
married to 9erlito Bercenilla, while
respondent was single >"d?N respondent
was aware o! her marital status >"b"d, p
10?N it was then that respondent
started courting her but nothing
happened o! the courtship >"b"d, p 1#?N
they 1complainant and respondent2
mo'ed to 9anila were they
respecti'ely pursued their education,
respondent as a law student at the
Hyceum 5ni'ersity >tsn, July 7, 19&%, p
17, 1+<1%?N respondent continued
courting her, this time with more
persistence >"b"d, p 11?N she decided
nothing would come o! it since she was
married but he 1respondent2 e$plained
to her that their marriage was 'oid ab
"n"t"o since she and her (rst husband
were (rst cousins >"b"d, p 17?N
con'inced by his e$planation and
ha'ing secured !a'orable ad'ice !rom
her mother and
e$<in<laws, she agreed to marry him
1respondent2 >"b"d, 17<1,, 1%?N in their
marriage license, despite her
1complainantMs2 ob:ection, he
1respondent2 wrote JsingleJ as her
status e$plaining that since her
marriage was 'oid ab "n"t"o, there was
no need to go to court to declare it as
such >"b"d, 10<1+?N they were married
be!ore Judge Priscilla 9i:ares o! the .ity
.ourt o! 9anila on June 10, 1977
>F$hibit BN tsn, July 7, 19&%, pp 1%<17?N
Jason )erre was born o! their union on
June 7+, 19&1 >F$hibit B, tsn, July 7,
19&%, p 1&?N all through their married
state up to the time he 1respondent2
disappeared in 19&1, complainant
supported respondent, in addition to
the allowance the latter was getting
!rom his parents >"b"d, pp 19<7#?N she
was unaware o! the reason !or his
disappearance until she !ound out later
that respondent married a certain
*ilma 1sic2 9alicdem >F$hibit ., tsn,
July 7, 19&%, pp 71<77?N she then (led
a case !or abandonment o! minor with
the .ity Fiscal o! Pasay .ity >"b"d, p 7,?
which was subse;uently (led be!ore
Branch II o! the .ity .ourt o! Pasay .ity
as .riminal .ase =o &1%1+9 >F$hibit
/N tsn, July 7, 19&%, p 70?N she likewise
(led a case !or bigamy against
respondent and 3elina 9alicdem with
the oGce o! the Pro'incial Fiscal o!
Pangasinan, where a pr"'a fac"e case
was !ound to e$ist >F$hibit FN tsn, July
7, pp 7+<7%?N additionally, complainant
(led an administrati'e case against
respondent with the .ommission on
Budit where he was employed, which
case howe'er was considered closed
!or being moot and academic when
respondent was considered
automatically separated !rom the
ser'ice !or ha'ing gone on absence
without oGcial lea'e >F$hibit FN tsn,
July 7, 19&%, pp 7&<79?
7
)here is no dispute o'er the !act that complainant
/orothy )erre and respondent Jordan )erre contracted
marriage on 10 July 1977 be!ore Judge Priscilla 9i:ares
)here is !urther no dispute o'er the !act that on , 9ay
19&1, respondent Jordan )erre married 3elina 9alicdem
in /asol, Pangasinan @hen the second marriage was
entered into, respondentMs prior marriage with
complainant was subsisting, no :udicial action ha'ing
been initiated or any :udicial declaration obtained as to
the nullity o! such prior marriage o! respondent with
complainant
"espondent Jordan )erre sought to de!end himsel! by
claiming that he had belie'ed in good !aith that his
prior marriage with complainant /orothy )erre was null
and 'oid ab "n"t"o and that no action !or a :udicial
declaration o! nullity was necessary
)he .ourt considers this claim on the part o!
respondent Jordan )erre as a spurious de!ense In the
(rst place, respondent has not rebutted complainantMs
e'idence as to the basic !acts which underscores the
bad !aith o! respondent )erre In the second place, that
pretended de!ense is the same argument by which he
had in'eigled complainant into belie'ing that her prior
marriage to 9erlito B Bercenilla being incestuous and
'oid ab "n"t"o >/orothy and 9erlito being allegedly (rst
cousins to each other?, she was !ree to contract a
second marriage with the respondent "espondent
Jordan )erre, being a lawyer, knew or should ha'e
known that such an argument ran counter to the
pre'ailing case law o! this .ourt which holds that !or
purposes o! determining whether a person is legally
!ree to contract a second marriage, a :udicial
declaration that the (rst marriage was null and 'oid ab
"n"t"o is essential 0 F'en i! we were to assume,
ar-uendo merely, that Jordan )erre held that mistaken
belie! in good !aith, the same result will !ollow For i! we
are to hold Jordan )erre to his own argument, his (rst
marriage to complainant /orothy )erre must be
deemed 'alid, with the result that his second marriage
to 3elina 9alicdem must be regarded as bigamous and
criminal in character
)hat the moral character o! respondent Jordan )erre
was deeply Dawed is shown by other circumstances Bs
noted, he con'inced the complainant that her prior
marriage to Bercenilla was null and 'oid ab "n"t"o, that
she was still legally single and !ree to marry him @hen
complainant and respondent had contracted their
marriage, respondent went through law school while
being supported by complainant, with some assistance
!rom respondentMs parents B!ter respondent had
(nished his law course and gotten complainant
pregnant, respondent abandoned the complainant
without support and without the wherewithal !or
deli'ering his own child sa!ely in a hospital
)hus, we agree with the Solicitor Keneral that
respondent Jordan )erre, by his actions, Jelo;uently
displayed, not only his un(tness to remain as a
member o! the Bar, but likewise his inade;uacy to
uphold the purpose and responsibility o! his genderJ
because marriage is a basic social institution
9
In $o'perada !. Joch"co,
1*
the .ourt, in re:ecting a
petition to be allowed to take the oath as a member o!
the Bar and to sign the "oll o! Bttorneys, said through
9me Justice 9elencio<3erreraL
It is e'ident that respondent !ails to
meet the standard o! moral (tness !or
membership in the legal pro!ession
@hether the marriage was a :oke as
respondent claims, or a trick played on
her as claimed by complainant, it does
not speak well o! respondentMs moral
'alues "espondent had made a
mockery o! marriage, a basic social
institution which public policy cherishes
and protects >Brticle 71%, .i'il .ode?
11
In &o%"!ar !. S"'bo%,
17
the .ourt !ound the respondent
there guilty o! Jgrossly immoral conductJ because he
made a dupe o! complainant, li'ing on her bounty and
allowing her to spend !or his schooling and other
personal necessities while dangling be!ore her the
mirage o! a marriage, marrying another girl as soon as
he had (nished his studies, keeping his marriage a
secret while continuing to demand money !rom
complainant J )he .ourt held such acts Jindicati'e
o! a character not worthy o! a member o! the BarJ
13
@e belie'e and so hold that the conduct o! respondent
Jordan )erre in in'eigling complainant /orothy )erre to
contract a second marriage with himN in abandoning
complainant /orothy )erre a!ter she had cared !or him
and supported him through law school, lea'ing her
without means !or the sa!e deli'ery o! his own childN in
contracting a second marriage with 3elina 9alicdem
while his (rst marriage with complainant /orothy )erre
was subsisting, constituted Jgrossly immoral conductJ
under Section 77 o! "ule 1,& o! the "ules o! .ourt,
aEording more than suGcient basis !or disbarment o!
respondent Jordan )erre 3e was unworthy o! admission
to the Bar in the (rst place )he .ourt will correct this
error !orthwith
@3F"FF8"F, the .ourt "esol'ed to /ISBB" respondent
Jordan )erre and to S)"IIF 85) his name !rom the "oll
o! Bttorneys B copy o! this decision shall be spread on
the personal record o! respondent Jordan )erre in the
Bar .on(dantMs 8Gce B copy o! this resolution shall
also be !urnished to the Integrated Bar o! the
Philippines and shall be circulari6ed to all the courts o!
the land
S8 8"/F"F/
Nar!asa, C.J., Gut"erre#, Jr., Cru#, $aras, e%"c"ano,
$ad"%%a, &"d"n, Gr"(o)*+u"no, ,ed"a%dea, Re-a%ado,
/a!"de, Jr., Ro'ero, Nocon and &e%%os"%%o, JJ., concur.
[A.C. No. +1+0. July 3*, 1990]
RE!E'IS RA!IRE( TAPUCAR, ,o-1la23a34, 5s.
ATT). "AUR ". TAPUCAR, /es1o36e34.
' E C I S I N
PER CURIA!#
In a letter<complaint dated =o'ember 77, 199,,
complainant "emedios "amire6 )apucar sought the
disbarment o! her husband, Btty Hauro H )apucar, on
the ground o! continuing grossly immoral conduct !or
cohabiting with a certain Flena >3elen? PeSa under
scandalous circumstances112
Prior to this complaint, respondent was already
administrati'ely charged !our times !or conduct
unbecoming an oGcer o! the court in Bdministrati'e
9atter =o 170#, resol'ed on Bpril 11, 19&#,
respondent, at that time the Judge o! Butuan .ity, was
meted the penalty o! si$ months suspension without
pay,172 while in Bdministrati'e 9atter =os 177#, 1911
and 7,##<.FI, which were consolidated,1,2 this .ourt
on January ,1, 19&1 ordered the separation !rom
ser'ice o! respondent102
=ow he !aces disbarment
)he records re'eal the !ollowing !actsL
From the "eport and "ecommendation o! the
.ommission on Bar /iscipline, it appears that
complainant and respondent were married on 8ctober
79, 19+, at the Sacred 3eart "oman .atholic .hurch in
-ue6on .ity )hey established their residence in
Bntipolo, "i6al, were eight o! their ele'en children were
born In 19%7 respondent relocated his !amily to
/adiangas, .otabato >=ow Keneral Santos .ity?, where
his last three children were born and where he
practiced his pro!ession until his appointment as a .FI
Judge in Butuan .ity on January ,#, 197%
In Bugust, 197%, shortly a!ter being appointed as .FI
Judge, respondent began cohabiting with a certain
Flena >3elen? PeSa, in =asipit, Bgusan /el =orte 8n
/ecember 7&, 1977 Flena ga'e birth to their (rst child,
named 8!elia Sembrano PeSa
In 'iew o! this cohabitation, a certain Btty )ran;uilino
.alo (led an administrati'e complaint against
respondent !or immorality B!ter in'estigation, the
penalty o! suspension !rom oGce !or a period o! si$
months without pay was meted by this .ourt upon
respondent1+2
/espite this penalty, respondent still continued to
cohabit with Flena, gi'ing rise to another charge o!
immorality and other administrati'e cases, such as
conduct unbecoming an oGcer o! the court, and
grossly immoral conduct )hese cases were
consolidated and a!ter in'estigation, this .ourt ordered
his dismissal and separation !rom the ser'ice1%2
But his dismissal as a :udge did not impel respondent
to mend his ways 3e continued li'ing with Flena,
which resulted in the birth on September 7#, 19&9, o!
their second child named Haella PeSa )apucar
9oreo'er, he completely abandoned complainant and
his children by her
"espondent later mo'ed !rom =asipit, Bgusan del
=orte back to Bntipolo, "i6al, bringing along Flena and
their two children Bnd on 9arch +, 1997, respondent
contracted marriage with Flena in a ceremony
solemni6ed by 9etropolitan )rial .ourt Judge Isagani B
Keronimo o! Bntipolo, "i6al )his was done while the
respondent4s marriage to complainant subsists, as
nothing on record shows the dissolution thereo!
.omplainant, in the meanwhile, had migrated to 5nited
States o! Bmerica upon her retirement !rom the
go'ernment ser'ice in 199# 3owe'er, her children,
who remained in Bntipolo, kept her posted o! the
misery they allegedly suEered because o! their !ather4s
acts, including deception and intrigues against them
)hus, despite ha'ing pre'iously withdrawn a similar
case which she (led in 197%, complainant was !orced
to (le the present petition !or disbarment under the
compulsion o! the material impulse to shield and
protect her children !rom the despotic and cruel acts o!
their own !ather .omplainant secured the assistance
o! her eldest daughter, Btty 9a Susana )apucar<Baua,
to represent her in this case
.onsistent with Section 7#, "ule 1,9<B o! the "ules o!
.ourt, the matter was re!erred to the .ommission on
Bar /iscipline o! the Integrated Bar o! the Philippines
!or in'estigation, report and recommendation B!ter
conducting a thorough in'estigation, the .ommission
through .ommissioner *ictor . Fernande6
recommended that respondent be disbarred, and his
name be stricken oE the roll o! attorneys 9ainly, this
was premised on the ground that, notwithstanding
sanctions pre'iously imposed upon him by the
3onorable Supreme .ourt, respondent continued the
illicit liaison with Flena172
In his report .ommissioner Fernande6 noted that,
instead o! contradicting the charges against him,
respondent displayed arrogance, and e'en made a
mockery o! the law and the .ourt, as when he saidL
AI ha'e been ordered suspended by Supreme .ourt !or
two months without pay in 19&# !or ha'ing a mistress,
the same girl 9s Flena >3elen? PeSa, now my wi!e
Being ordered separated in later administrati'e case
constitute double :eopardy I! now disbarred !or
marrying 9s Flena PeSa will constitute triple :eopardy
I! that4s the law so be itC1&2
Based on said report, the Board o! Ko'ernors o! the
Integrated Bar o! the Philippines, passed on 9ay 17,
1997, a "esolution adopting the .ommissioner4s
recommendation, as !ollowsL
A"FS8H5)I8= =8 TII<97<97
Bdm .ase =o 010&
"emedios "amire6 )apucar 's Btty Hauro H )apucar
"FS8H*F/ to B/8P) and BPP"8*F, as it is hereby
B/8P)F/ and BPP"8*F/, the "eport and
"ecommendation o! the In'estigating .ommissioner in
the abo'e<titled case, herein made part o! the
"esolutionR/ecision as Bnne$ ABCN and, (nding the
recommendation therein to be !ully supported by the
e'idence on record and the applicable laws and rules,
"espondent Btty Hauro H )apucar is hereby
/ISBB""F/ and that his name be stricken oE the roll o!
attorneysC
@e (nd the "eport and "ecommendation o!
.ommissioner Fernande6, as appro'ed and adopted by
the Board o! Ko'ernors o! IBP, more than suGcient to
:usti!y and support the !oregoing "esolution, herein
considered as the recommendation to this .ourt by
said Board pursuant to "ule 1,9<B, Sec 17>b?, o! the
"ules o! .ourtU @e are in agreement that respondent4s
actuations merit the penalty o! disbarment
@ell settled is the rule that good moral character is not
only a condition precedent !or admission to the legal
pro!ession, but it must also remain intact in order to
maintain one4s good standing in that e$clusi'e and
honored !raternity192 )here is perhaps no pro!ession
a!ter that o! the sacred ministry in which a high<toned
morality is more imperati'e than that o! law11#2 )he
.ode o! Pro!essional "esponsibility mandates thatL
"ule 1#1 B lawyer shall not engage in unlaw!ul,
dishonest, immoral or deceit!ul conduct
"ule 7#, B lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
ad'ersely reDects on his (tness to practice law, nor
should he, whether in public or pri'ate li!e, beha'e in a
scandalous manner to the discredit o! the legal
pro!essionU
Bs this .ourt o!ten reminds members o! the Bar, they
must li'e up to the standards and norms e$pected o!
the legal pro!ession, by upholding the ideals and tenets
embodied in the .ode o! Pro!essional "esponsibility
always Hawyers must maintain a high standards o!
legal pro(ciency, as well as morality including honesty,
integrity and !air dealing For they are at all times
sub:ect to the scrutini6ing eye o! public opinion and
community approbation =eedless to state, those
whose conduct V both public and pri'ate V !ails this
scrutiny would ha'e to be disciplined and, a!ter
appropriate proceedings, penali6ed accordingly
9oreo'er, it should be recalled that respondent here
was once a member o! the :udiciary, a !act that
aggra'ates this pro!essional in!ractions For ha'ing
occupied that place o! honor in the Bench, he knew a
:udge4s actuations ought to be !ree !rom any
appearance o! impropriety1112 For a :udge is the
'isible representation o! the law, more importantly, o!
:ustice 8rdinary citi6ens consider him as a source o!
strength that !orti(es their will to obey the law1172
Indeed, a :udge should a'oid the slightest in!raction o!
the law in all o! his actuations, lest it be a demorali6ing
e$ample to others11,2 Surely, respondent could not
ha'e !orgotten the .ode o! Judicial .onduct entirely as
to lose its moral imperati'es1102
Hike a :udge who is held to a high standard o! integrity
and ethical conduct,11+2 an attorney<at<law is also
in'ested with public trust Judges and lawyers ser'e in
the administration o! :ustice Bdmittedly, as oGcers o!
the court, lawyers must ensure the !aith and
con(dence o! the public that :ustice is administered
with dignity and ci'ility B high degree or moral
integrity is e$pected o! a lawyer in the community
where he resides 3e must maintain due regard !or
public decency in an orderly society
B lawyer is e$pected at all times to uphold the integrity
and dignity o! the legal pro!ession by !aith!ully
per!orming his duties to society, to the bar, to the
courts and to his clients11%2 F$acted !rom him, as a
member o! the pro!ession charged with the
responsibility to stand as a shield in the de!ense o!
what is right, are such positi'e ;ualities o! decency,
truth!ulness and responsibility that ha'e been
compendiously described as Amoral characterC )o
achie'e such end, e'ery lawyer needs to stri'e at all
times to honor and maintain the dignity o! his
pro!ession, and thus impro'e not only the public regard
!or the Bar but also the administration o! :ustice
8n these considerations, the .ourt may disbar or
suspend a lawyer !or misconduct, whether in his
pro!essional or pri'ate capacity, which shows him to be
wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity, and
good demeanor, thus pro'ing unworthy to continue as
an oGcer o! the court1172
)he power to disbar, howe'er, is one to be e$ercised
with great caution, and only in a clear case o!
misconduct which seriously aEects the standing and
character o! the lawyer as an oGcer o! the .ourt o! and
member o! the bar11&2 For disbarment proceedings are
intended to aEord the parties thereto !ull opportunity
to 'indicate their cause be!ore disciplinary action is
taken, to assure the general public that those who are
tasked with the duty o! administering :ustice are
competent, honorable, trustworthy men and women in
whom the .ourts and the clients may repose !ull
con(dence
In the case o! 8busan 's 8busan, Jr,1192 a complaint
!or disbarment was (led against a member o! the bar
by his wi!e She was able to pro'e that he had
abandoned his wi!e and their sonN and that he had
adulterous relations with a married but separated
woman "espondent was not able to o'ercome the
e'idence presented by his wi!e that he was guilty o!
grossly immoral conduct In another case,17#2 a
lawyer was disbarred when he abandoned his law!ul
wi!e and cohabited with another woman who had borne
him a child )he .ourt held that respondent !ailed to
maintain the highest degree o! morality e$pected and
re;uired o! a member o! a bar
In the present case, the record shows that despite
pre'ious sanctions imposed upon by this .ourt,
respondent continued his illicit liaison with a woman
other than law!ully<wedded wi!e )he report o! the
.ommissioner assigned to in'estigate thoroughly the
complaint !ound respondent !ar !rom contriteN on the
contrary, he e$hibited a ca'alier attitude, e'en
arroganceN in the !ace o! charges against him )he IBP
Board o! Ko'ernors, tasked to determine whether he
still merited the pri'ileges e$tended to a member o!
the legal pro!ession, resol'ed the matter against him
For indeed, e'idence o! grossly immoral conduct
abounds against him and could not be e$plained away
Ieeping a mistress, entering into another marriage
while a prior one still subsists, as well as abandoning
andRor mistreating complainant and their children,
show his disregard o! !amily obligations, morality and
decency, the law and the lawyer4s oath Such gross
misbeha'ior o'er a long period o! time clearly shows a
serious Daw in respondent4s character, his moral
indiEerence to scandal in the community, and his
outright de(ance o! established norms Bll these could
not but put the legal pro!ession in disrepute and place
the integrity o! the administration o! :ustice in peril,
hence the need !or strict but appropriate disciplinary
action
I= *IF@ )3F"F8F, respondent Btty Hauro H )apucar is
hereby /ISBB""F/ )he .lerk o! .ourt is directed to
strike out his name !rom the "oll o! Bttorneys
S8 8"/F"F/
=ar'asa, .J, "egalado, /a'ide, Jr, "omero, 9elo,
Puno, *itug, Iapunan, 9endo6a, Panganiban, 9artine6,
and -uisumbing, JJ, concur
Bellosillo, no part due to personal relationships
Purisima, J, no part
1B. =o +,,, 8ctober 1&, 7###2
"8SB OBP PB"BS, co'p%a"nant, !s. B))O J5S)8 /F
JFS5S PB"BS, respondent.
/F.ISI8=
9FH8, JL
)his has re!erence to a case !or disbarment initiated by
complainant "osa Oap Paras against her husband, Btty
Justo de Jesus Paras )he parties e$changed tirades
and barbs in their copious pleadings, hurling
in'ecti'es, cutting remarks and insults at each other
"educed to its essentials, "osa Paras charged her
husband with dishonesty and !alsi(cation o! public
documents, harassment and intimidation, and
immorality !or siring a child with another woman
"espondent denied the allegations, contending that his
wi!e, in cahoots with her !amily, is out to destroy and
strip him o! his share in their multi<million con:ugal
assets
)he parties come !rom wealthy !amilies in =egros
8riental )hey were married on 9ay 71, 19%0 and ha'e
two grown<up children )hey ha'e 'ast sugarlands and
other businesses "espondent was a 9unicipal Judge
!or 10 years and ser'ed as 9ayor in their town !or 7
terms during the administration o! President B;uino
.omplainant is a businesswoman Sometime in 19&&,
their marriage !ell apart when due to Jmarital strain
that has de'eloped through the years,J respondent le!t
his wi!e and children to li'e with his mother and sister
in /umaguete .ity and thence started his law practice
.omplainant, in the meantime, (led a case !or the
dissolution o! their marriage, which case is still pending
in court
)he complaint chargedL
/IS38=FS)O, FBHSIFI.B)I8= and F"B5/
W respondent obtained loans !rom certain banks
in the name o! complainant by counter!eiting
complainantMs signature, !alsely making it appear
that complainant was the applicant !or said loans
)herea!ter, he carted away and misappropriated
the proceeds o! the loans
to guarantee the abo'e loans, respondent
mortgaged some personal properties belonging to
the con:ugal partnership without the consent o!
complainant
K"8SSHO I998"BH .8=/5.) B=/ .8=.5BI=BKF
"espondent is engaged in the immoral and criminal
act o! concubinage as he maintained an illicit
relationship with one 9s Jocelyn B .hing, siring an
illegitimate child with her while married to
complainant
5=F)3I.BH B=/ 5=P"8FFSSI8=BH .8=/5.)
"espondent abused courts o! :ustice and misused his
legal skills to !righten, harass and intimidate all those
who take a position diametrically ad'erse to his sinister
plans by unethically (ling complaints and other
pleadings against them 3e utili6ed strategies to
obstruct :ustice
8BS)"5.)I8= 8F J5S)I.F
>"espondent? utili6ed strategies to obstruct :ustice In
the criminal actions initiated against him, respondent
used his legal skills not to pro'e his innocence but to
derail all the proceedings
>.omplaint, "ollo, p 7?
In his Bnswer, respondent interposed the !ollowing
de!ensesL
>1? 8n the .harge o! Falsi(cation o! Public
/ocumentsL
)hat during the sugarboom in the 197#Ms, his wi!e
e$ecuted in his !a'or a Special Power o! Bttorney to
negotiate !or an agricultural or crop loan authori6ing
him Jto borrow money and apply !or and secure any
agricultural or crop loan !or sugar cane !rom the Bais
"ural Bank, Bais .ity J >"ollo, Bnne$ J,J, p 7%7?
>7? 8n the .harge o! ForgeryL
)hat the "eport o! the =ational Bureau o! In'estigation
which !ound that Jthe ;uestioned signatures >re!erring
to the alleged !orged signatures o! complainant? and
the standard sample signatures J5S)8 J PB"BS were
written .y o3e a36 49e sa-e 1e/so3WJ>Bnne$ JBJ
o! the .omplaint, "ollo, p 7%? was doctored, and that
his wi!e (led against him a string o! cases !or
!alsi(cation o! public documents because he intends to
disinherit his children and be;ueath his inchoate share
in the con:ugal properties to his own mother
>,? 8n the .harge o! Krossly Immoral .onduct and
.oncubinageL
)hat this is a malicious accusation !abricated by his
brother<in<law, Btty Francisco / Oap to dis;uali!y him
!rom getting any share in the con:ugal assets 3e cites
the dismissal o! the complaint !or concubinage (led
against him by his wi!e be!ore the .ity Prosecutor o!
=egros 8riental as proo! o! his innocence
"espondent, howe'er, admits that he, his mother and
sister, are solicitous and hospitable to his alleged
concubine, 9s Jocelyn .hing and her daughter,
.yndee "ose >named a!ter his own deceased
daughter?, by allowing them to stay in their house and
gi'ing them some (nancial assistance, because they
pity 9s .hing, a secretary in his law oGce, who was
deserted by her boy!riend a!ter getting her pregnant
>0? 8n the .harge o! 8bstruction o! JusticeL
)hat Jthe legal remedies pursued by >him? in de!ense
and oEense are legitimate courses o! action done by an
embattled lawyerJ
)he .ommission on Bar /iscipline >.B/? o! the
Integrated Bar o! the Philippines in'estigated the
complaint against respondent summari6ing the causes
o! action as !ollowsL
>1? Falsi(cation o! complainantMs signature and
misuse o! con:ugal assetsN and
>7? Immorality and criminal acts o! concubinage
with one 9s 9a Jocelyn B .hing >!or? siring an
illegitimate child with her while married to
complainant, and, abandonment o! his own !amily
>"ollo, "eport o! the IBP, p ,0?
=o actual hearing was conducted as the parties agreed
to merely submit their respecti'e memoranda,
depositions, and other pieces o! e'idence attached to
their pleadings
)herea!ter, the .B/ !ound respondent guilty as
charged and recommendedL
>1? "espondentMs suspension !rom the practice o!
law !or three >,? months on the (rst chargeN and
>7? "espondentMs inde(nite suspension !rom the
practice o! law on the second charge
>"b"d., p +7?
)he .B/ held that the dismissal o! the criminal cases
against respondent !or !alsi(cation and use o! !alsi(ed
documents >.riminal .ase =o 117%&? and !or
concubinage >IS =o 9,<+7&? will not bar the (ling o!
an administrati'e case !or disbarment against him In a
criminal case, proo! beyond reasonable doubt is
re;uired !or con'iction, while in an administrati'e
complaint, only a preponderance o! e'idence is
necessary
)he .B/ ga'e credence to the =BI "eport that Jthe
;uestioned signatures >re!erring to the signatures
appearing in the loan agreements, contracts o!
mortgage, etc? and the standard sample signatures o!
respondent were :/244e3 .y o3e a36 49e sa-e
1e/so3J )his aGrms the allegation o! complainant
"osa Oap Paras that her husband !orged her signatures
in those instruments "espondent denies this but his
denial was unsubstantiated and is, there!ore, sel!<
ser'ing
In (nding respondent liable !or Immorality, the .B/
relied hea'ily on the uncontro'erted sworn aGda'it<
statements o! respondentMs children and three other
eyewitnesses to respondentMs illicit aEair with 9s
Jocelyn .hing For a better appreciation o! their
statements, their aGda'its are hereby reproduced in
!ull )husly,
JI, /B3HIB O PB"BS, o! legal age, single, resident o!
Bindoy, =egros 8riental, but presently li'ing in
/umaguete .ity, a!ter being duly sworn hereby depose
and sayL
1 I am a nurse by pro!ession I (nished my BS=
degree at the .ollege o! =ursing, Silliman 5ni'ersity
7 9y mother is "osa Oap Paras and my !ather
Justo J Paras 9y !ather has le!t the !amily home in
Bindoy and now li'es at his motherMs house at San Jose
F$t, /umaguete .ity
, 9y !ather has a JkabitJ or concubine by the
name o! 9a Jocelyn .hing )hey ha'e a child named
.yndee "ose, who was deli'ered at the Silliman
5ni'ersity 3ospital 9edical .enter on July 19, 199#
0 Jocelyn used to be the secretary o! my !ather
and Btty 9elchor Brboleda when they practice law
together in 19&& to 19&9 )heir relationship started in
19&9 @hen she became pregnant, my !ather rented
an apartment !or her at the Bmigo Subdi'ision,
/umaguete .ity
+ Following deli'ery o! the baby, my !ather built
a house !or Jocelyn in 9aayong )ubig, /auin, =egros
8riental 9y !ather spend time there o!ten with Jocelyn
and their child
% I used to 'isit my !ather at San Jose F$tension
these past years, and almost e'ery time I was there, I
would see Jocelyn, sitting, watching )*, ser'ing coEee
in my !atherMs law oGce, and one time, she was
washing my !atherMs clothes
7 I (rst saw their child .yndee "ose in 1997,
about early 9ay, at San Jose F$tension I was there to
ask !or my allowance 3e was there at the time, and
when I looked at .yndee "ose closely, I became
con'inced that she was my !atherMs daughter with
Jocelyn
& Incidentally, I had an elder sister also named
.indy "ose >now deceased?
9 In September 1997 when I went to 'isit my
!ather, I saw toys and childMs clothes in my !atherMs
room
1# @hene'er, I saw Jocelyn at San Jose F$tension,
I wanted to talk to her or be alone with her, but she
would deliberately a'oid me I could see that she was
hiding something !rom meJ p 1#9, "ecords
S5PPHF9F=)BH BFFI/B*I)
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
1 sometime during the period o! Bpril<
September, 1997, I made se'eral 'isits to my !ather at
his motherMs house in San Jose F$tension, /umaguete
.ity, where he had mo'ed a!ter he le!t our home in
BindoyN
7 )hat these 'isits were made on diEerent times
and diEerent days o! the weekN
, )hat most o! my 'isits, I would meet a woman
who was also li'ing at my !atherMs place )his woman is
now known to me to be 9a Jocelyn .hingN
0 )hat my basis !or obser'ing that 9s .hing was
li'ing in my !atherMs house is that during my 'isits,
whether during oGce hours or a!ter oGce hours, I
would meet her at my !atherMs place, not his oGceN she
was wearing house clothes and slippers, such as
skimpy clothes, shorts and )<shirt, not street or oGce
clothesN she was generally unkempt, not made up !or
work or going outN on one occasion, I e'en saw her,
washing my !atherMs clothes as well as a small childMs
clothingN and she conducted hersel! around the house
in the manner o! someone who li'ed thereN
+ )hat on one o! my 'isits, I con(rmed that 9s
.hing was li'ing with my !ather !rom Josie *ailoces,
who was then a working student li'ing at my !atherMs
placeN
% 9s *ailoces subse;uently con(rmed under
oath the !act that my !ather and 9s Jocelyn .hing
were li'ing together as husband and wi!e at my
!atherMs place in a deposition taken in connection with
.i'il .ase =o 1#%1,, ").</umaguete .ity, Branch ,#,
the 3onorable Fnri;ue . Karo'illo, presiding B copy o!
the transcript o! the deposition o! 9s *ailoces is
already part o! the record o! this case For emphasis,
photocopies o! the pertinent portion o! the written
deposition o! Josie *ailoces is hereto attached as
Bnne$es JBJand JB<1J p 111, "ecords
"espondentMs son has this to sayL
JI, "385FH O PB"BS, 1+ years old, single, resident o!
Bindoy, =egros 8riental, but presently li'ing in
/umaguete .ity, a!ter being duly sworn according to
law, depose and sayL
1 I am a high school student at the 3oly .ross
3igh School, /umaguete .ity
7 9y mother is "osa Oap Paras, and my !ather
Justo J Paras, a lawyer
, 9y !ather has le!t our home in Bindoy, and now
li'es at his motherMs house in San Jose F$tension,
/umaguete .ity 3e is not gi'ing us support any more
0 3owe'er, !rom 8ctober 1991 to /ecember
1997, I was getting my allowance o! P+### a week I
would go to their house at San Jose F$tension and
personally ask him !or it
+ In 8ctober 1997, between 11L,# B9 and 1L##
P9, I went to San Jose F$tension !or my weekly
allowance I asked Josephus, an adopted son o! my
!atherMs sister, i! my !ather was around Josephus said
my !ather was in his room
% So I went direct to his room and because the
door was not locked, I entered the room without
knocking )here I saw my !ather lying in bed side by
side with a woman 3e was only wearing a brie! )he
woman was wearing shorts and )<shirt
7 )hey both appeared scared upon seeing me
9y !ather hurriedly ga'e me P1#### and I le!t
immediately because I !elt bad and embarrassed
& Be!ore that incident, I used to see the woman
at my !atherMs house in San Jose F$tension F'ery time
I went to see my !ather, she was also there
9 I later came to know that she was 9s Jocelyn
.hing, and that she was my !atherMs JkabitJ or
concubine
1# I am no longer getting my weekly allowance
!rom my !atherJ p 117, "ecords
Bdded to the !oregoing sworn statements o!
respondentMs children is the damaging statement under
oath o! *irgilio Iabrisante who was respondentMs
secretary when respondent was a mayor o! Bindoy,
=egros 8riental which reads as !ollowsL
JI, *I"KIHI8 * IBB"ISB=)F, o! legal age, married,
Filipino, a resident o! 9alaga, Bindoy, =egros 8riental,
a!ter ha'ing been sworn in accordance with law, do
hereby depose and state thatL
1 I personally know Justo J Paras, ha'ing been
his secretary during his incumbency as 9ayor o!
Bindoy, =egros 8riental In !act, through the latterMs
recommendation and intercession, I was later on
appointed as 8I. 9ayor o! the same town !rom
/ecember 19&% to January 19&7
7 @hen Justo J Paras decided to practice law in
/umaguete .ity, I became his personal aide and
per!ormed 'arious chores !or the same Bs his personal
aide, I stayed in the same house and room with the
latter
, Sometime in January 19&9, Justo J Paras
con(ded to me that he !elt attracted to my lady !riend
named 9a Jocelyn B .hing 3e then re;uested me to
in'ite the latter to a dinner date at .hin Hoong
"estaurant
0 .on'eying the in'itation which was accepted
by 9a Jocelyn .hing, the latter, Justo J Paras and
mysel! then had dinner at the abo'e<mentioned
restaurant
+ Bt the behest o! Justo J Paras, I in'ited 9a
Jocelyn B .hing, on se'eral occasions, always to a
picnic at a beach in /auin, =egros 8riental Said
in'itations were always accepted by the latter
% Bt each o! the abo'e<mentioned picnics, I
obser'ed that Justo J Paras and 9a Jocelyn B .hing
had become more and more intimate with each other
7 Sometime in 9arch 19&9, at around 7L##
oMclock in the e'ening on a Friday, I accompanied Justo
J Paras to the area in !ront o! the Silliman 5ni'ersity
9edical .enter, where he said he was going to meet
someone
& B!ter waiting !or a !ew minutes, 9a Jocelyn
.hing arri'ed and immediately boarded at the back
seat o! the Sakbayan 'ehicle I was dri'ing !or Justo J
Paras )he latter then re;uested me to dri'e both o!
them >Justo Paras and 9a Jocelyn B .hing? to
3oneybee 9otel somewhere in Sibulan, =egros
8riental
9 @hen we arri'ed there, Justo J Paras asked me
to wait !or them outside the room, while he and 9a
Jocelyn B .hing entered the said room
1# I waited outside the room !or about two >7?
hours a!ter which the two o! them emerged !rom the
room @e then proceeded to .hin Hoong to eat supper
11 B!ter eating supper, we dropped 9a Jocelyn B
.hing oE in !ront o! the /umaguete .ity .ockpit
17 )his meeting was repeated two more times, at
the same place and always on a Friday
1, 8n Bpril ,, 19&&, I went home to Bindoy and
stopped working !or Justo ParasJ pp +%<+7, "ecords
S5PPHF9F=)BH BFFI/B*I)
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
1 Sometime in 9ay 19&9, I returned to
/umaguete .ity to look !or a :ob, ha'ing been :obless
since I le!t /umaguete .ity to go home to Bindoy,
=egros 8riental
7 @hile looking !or a :ob, I stayed at the house
where my !riend, Bernard /e:illo was staying at
9angnao, /umaguete .ity 9y !riend Bernard /e:illo
was occupying a room at the second Door o! the said
house which he shared with me
, Sometime in the last week o! 9ay 19&9, in the
course o! my :ob hunting, I met Justo J Paras 3a'ing
not seen each other !or some time, we talked !or a
while, discussing matters about the barangay elections
in Bindoy, =egros 8riental
0 @hen our discussion was (nished, Justo J Paras
asked me where I was staying, to which I answered
that I was staying at the a!orementioned house 3e
then re;uested me to (nd out i! there was an a'ailable
room at the said house which he could rent with 9a
Jocelyn B .hing I told him that I would ha'e to ask my
!riend Bernard /e:illo about the matter
+ @hen I arri'ed at the house that e'ening, I
asked my !riend Bernard /e:illo about the matter, to
which the latter signi(ed his appro'al 3e told me that
a room at the (rst Door o! the same house was
a'ailable !or rental to Justo Paras and 9a Jocelyn B
.hing
% )he ne$t day, I immediately in!ormed Justo J
Paras o! Bernard /e:illoMs appro'al o! his re;uest
7 Sometime in the (rst week o! June 19&9, 9a
Jocelyn .hing mo'ed in to the room she had rented at
the (rst Door o! the house I was also staying at
& Blmost e'ery night therea!ter, Justo J Paras
would come to the house and stay o'ernight @hen he
came at night Justo J Paras and I would con'erse and
while con'ersing, drink a bottle o! )anduay "um
8!tentimes, 9a Jocelyn .hing would :oin in our
con'ersation
9 B!ter we (nish drinking and talking, Justo J
Paras and 9a Jocelyn .hing would enter the room
rented and sleep there, while I would also go upstairs
to my room
1# )he ne$t morning I could always obser'e Justo
J Paras came out o! said room and depart !rom the
house
11 )he coming o! Justo J Paras to the house I was
staying ceased a!ter about one >1? month when they
trans!erred to another house
17 I mysel! le!t the house and returned to Bindoy,
=egros 8riental some time in June 19&9
1, Sometime in January 199,, on a Saturday at
about noontime, I went to the house o! Justo J Paras to
consult him about a Iabataang Barangay matter
in'ol'ing my son @hen I arri'ed at his house, I noticed
that the same was closed and there was no one there
10 =eeding to consult him about the abo'e<
mentioned matter, I proceeded to the resthouse o!
Justo J Paras located at 9aayong )ubig, /auin, =egros
8riental
1+ @hen I arri'ed at the said resthouse, Justo J
Paras was not there but the person in charge o! the
said resthouse in!ormed me that Justo J Paras was at
his house at Barangay 9aayong )ubig, /auin, =egros
8riental )he same person also ga'e me directions so
that I could locate the house o! Justo J Paras he
re!erred to earlier
1% @ith the help o! the directions gi'en by said
person, I was able to locate the house o! Justo J Paras
17 Bt the doorway o! the said house, I called out i!
anybody was home while knocking on the door
1& B!ter a !ew seconds, 9a Jocelyn .hing opened
the door 5pon seeing the latter, I asked her i! Justo J
Paras was home She then let me in the house and told
me to sit down and wait !or a while She then
proceeded to a room
19 B !ew minutes later, Justo J Paras came out o!
the same room and sat down near me I noticed that
the latter had :ust woke up !rom a nap
7# @e then started to talk about the matter
in'ol'ing my son and sometime later, 9a Jocelyn
.hing ser'ed us coEee
71 @hile we were talking and drinking coEee I saw
a little girl, about three >,? years old, walking around
the sala, whom I later came to know as .yndee "ose,
the daughter o! Justo J Paras and 9a Jocelyn .hing
77 B!ter our con'ersation was (nished, Justo J
Paras told me to see him at this oGce at San Jose
F$tension, /umaguete .ity, the !ollowing 9onday to
discuss the matter some more
7, I then bid them goodbye and went home to
Bindoy, =egros 8riental
70 I am e$ecuting this aGda'it as a supplement to
my aGda'it dated 77 July 199,J pp +&<%#, "ecords
>ibid, pp 00<+7?
)he .B/ likewise ga'e credence to the sworn aGda'its
and the deposition o! two other witnesses, namely,
Sal'ador de Jesus, a !ormer repairman o! the ParasM
household, and, Josie *ailoces, a working student and
!ormer ward o! the ParasM !amily, who both ga'e
personal accounts o! the illicit relationship between
respondent and Jocelyn .hing, which led to the birth o!
.yndee "ose /e Jesus swore that while doing repair
works in the ParasM household he obser'ed 9s .hing
and .yndee "ose practically li'ing in the ParasM house
>p &+, "ollo, Bnne$ J3J? *ailoces, on the other hand,
deposed that she was asked by respondent Paras to
deli'er money to 9s .hing !or the payment o! the
hospital bill a!ter she ga'e birth to .yndee "ose
*ailoces was also asked by respondent to procure
.yndee "ose ParasM baptismal certi(cate a!ter the
latter was bapti6ed in the house o! respondentN she
!urther testi(ed that in said baptismal certi(cate,
respondent appears as the !ather o! .yndee "ose
which e$plains why the latter is using the surname
JParasJ >p &7, Bnne$ JIJ, "ollo?
)he (ndings and the recommendations o! the .B/ are
substantiated by the e'identiary record
8= )3F .3B"KF 8F FBHSIFI.B)I8= 8F .89PHBI=B=)MS SIK=B)5"F
)he handwriting e$amination conducted by the
=ational Bureau o! In'estigation on the signatures o!
complainant "osa Oap Paras and respondent Justo de
Jesus Paras 'is<X<'is the ;uestioned signature J"osa O
ParasJ appearing in the ;uestioned bank loan
documents, contracts o! mortgage and other related
instrument, yielded the !ollowing resultsL
.8=.H5SI8=L
1 )he ;uestioned and the standard sample
signatures J5S)8 J PB"BS were written by one and
the same person.
7 )he ;uestioned and the standard sample
signatures "8SB OBP PB"BS 0ere not 0r"tten by one
and the sa'e person
>Bnne$ JBJ, "ollo, p 7%, emphasis oursN?
)he =BI did not make a categorical statement that
respondent !orged the signatures o! complainant
3owe'er, an analysis o! the abo'e (ndings lead to no
other conclusion than that the ;uestioned or !alsi(ed
signatures o! complainant "osa O Paras were authored
by respondent as said !alsi(ed signatures were the
same as the sample signatures o! respondent
)o e$plain this anomaly, respondent presented a
Special Power o! Bttorney >SPB? e$ecuted in his !a'or
by complainant to negotiate !or an agricultural or crop
loan !rom the Bais "ural Bank o! Bais .ity Instead o!
e$culpating respondent, the presence o! the SPB places
him in hot water For i! he was so authori6ed to obtain
loans !rom the banks, then why did he ha'e to !alsi!y
his wi!eMs signatures in the bank loan documentsY )he
purpose o! an SPB is to especially authori6e the
attorney<in<!act to sign !or and on behal! o! the
principal using his own name
8= )3F .3B"KF 8F I998"BHI)O B=/ .8=.5BI=BKF
)he e'idence against respondent is o'erwhelming )he
aGda'it<statements o! his children and three other
persons who used to work with him and ha'e
witnessed the acts indicati'e o! his in(delity more than
satis!y this .ourt that respondent has strayed !rom the
marital path )he baptismal certi(cate o! .yndee "ose
Paras where respondent was named as the !ather o!
the child >Bnne$ JJJ, "ollo, p 1#&?N his naming the child
a!ter his deceased (rst<born daughter .yndee "oseN
and his allowing Jocelyn .hing and the child to li'e in
their house in /umaguete .ity bolster the allegation
that respondent is carrying on an illicit aEair with 9s
.hing, the mother o! his illegitimate child
It is a time<honored rule that good moral character is
not only a condition precedent to admission to the
practice o! law Its continued possession is also
essential !or remaining in the practice o! law >$eop%e
!s. Tunda, 1&1 S."B %97 1199#2N Leda !s. Taban-, 7#%
S."B ,9+ 119972? In the case at hand, respondent has
!allen below the moral bar when he !orged his wi!eMs
signature in the bank loan documents, and, sired a
daughter with a woman other than his wi!e 3owe'er,
the power to disbar must be e$ercised with great
caution, and only in a clear case o! misconduct that
seriously aEects the standing and character o! the
lawyer as an oGcer o! the .ourt and as a member o!
the bar >)apucar 's )apucar, Bdm .ase =o 010&, July
,#, 199&? /isbarment should ne'er be decreed where
any lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension,
could accomplish the end desired >"esurrecion 's
Sayson, ,## S."B 179 1199&2?
In the light o! the !oregoing, respondent is hereby
S5SPF=/F/ !rom the practice o! law !or SIT >%?
98=)3S on the charge o! !alsi!ying his wi!eMs signature
in bank documents and other related loan instrumentsN
and !or 8=F >1? OFB" !rom the practice o! law on the
charges o! immorality and abandonment o! his own
!amily, the penalties to be ser'ed simultaneously Het
notice o! this decision be spread in respondentMs record
as an attorney, and notice o! the same ser'ed on the
Integrated Bar o! the Philippines and on the 8Gce o!
the .ourt Bdministrator !or circulation to all the courts
concerned
S8 8"/F"F/
*itug, Panganiban, Purisima, and Kon6aga<"eyes, JJ,
concur
[A.C. No. +001. ,4o.e/ 0, 7**3.]
RAU S%ENG !A, Complainant, 5. ATT). ANGE"ES
A. &E"ASC, Respondent.
' E C I S I N
BE""SI"", J.#
.omplainant is a )aiwanese national 3e came to the
Philippines to in'est in a beach resort !or leisure and
recreation 3e engaged the ser'ices o! respondent as
legal consultant and retained counsel .omplainant
now seeks his disbarment !or gross misconduct and
immorality 1chanrob1es 'irtua1 1aw 1ibrary
.omplainant "au Sheng 9ao narrates that sometime in
199, he hired respondent Btty Bngeles B *elasco as
his legal consultant and counsel !or his company, the
Foreign In'estors .onsultancy and 9anagement Inc
>FI.9I? Bs he was new in the country, he trusted the
business :udgment o! respondent who crowed about
his being president o! the Integrated Bar o! the
Philippines, *irac, .atanduanes .hapter
B year later, complainant, in his capacity as President
o! FI.9I, entered into a 9anagement Bgreement with
3aru Ken Beach "esort and 3otel .orporation >J3aru
KenJ? !or the operation and management o! )win "ock
Beach "esort in *irac, .atanduanes 3aru Ken was
represented in this transaction by respondent as
director and stockholder B!ter concluding the
management agreement, respondent sold complainant
his ten thousand shares o! stock with 3aru Ken !or
P1,###,##### .omplainant alleges that although he
had !ully paid !or the shares, as e'idenced by receipts
acknowledged by respondent, the latter !ailed and
re!used to deli'er the certi(cates !or the purchased
shares
.omplainant also alleges that respondent persuaded
him to buy three >,? parcels o! land belonging to the
latter !or P,,%%#,&#### Blthough he paid respondent
P,,,##,#####, the latter reneged on his obligation to
deli'er the certi(cates o! title co'ering the purchased
properties
)o !urther complicate his woes, in the course o! FI.9I4s
management o! )win "ock Beach "esort, se'eral
complaints were (led against him by !ormer employees
o! the beach resort "espondent acted as his counsel
and in the course o! their pro!essional relationship
respondent asked !or se'eral sums o! money
purportedly to be gi'en to the :udges hearing his
cases In one o! his letters to complainant, respondent
wrote P Jthe :udge >whom he did not identi!y? was not
contented o! the P%,##### claiming that he dismissed
two >7? cases I suggest that you gi'e additional
P+,##### J 7 In another letter he reported to
complainant that JJudge Barsaga has already rendered
the decision in my case regarding the three >,? parcels
o! land 3e is asking P Z.hristmas gi!t4 J ,
.omplainant also claims that respondent represented
him in the special proceedings in'ol'ing the settlement
o! the estate o! the deceased 9iharu 9atsu6awa where
he >complainant? was appointed administrator
)herea!ter howe'er their relationship turned sour and
respondent did not only se'er their pro!essional
relationship but went !urther and mo'ed !or the
re'ocation o! complainant4s appointment as
administratorchanrob1es 'irtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Hastly, complainant charges respondent with
immorality !or Daunting his illicit relationship with a
certain Hudy 9atien6o despite his being legally married
to one "osita *elasco .omplainant declares that the
aEaire d4 amour, which was common knowledge in the
place, produced three >,? children, namely, Jesebeth,
Jenny and Jenneth, all o! whom were acknowledged by
respondent as his own
"espondent denies the allegations and insists that he
could not ha'e decei'ed complainant in their business
dealings inasmuch as the latter was represented in all
their transactions by Btty "icardo B Purog, Jr Inso!ar
as the charge o! non<deli'ery o! the purchased shares
o! stock is concerned, he asserts that complainant 'ery
well knew that he had not paid !or his shares hence his
!ailure to immediately deli'er the certi(cates
corresponding to the shares sold Bs !or the non<
deli'ery o! the certi(cates o! title co'ering the three >,?
parcels o! land, respondent a'ers that he had told
complainant that the purchased properties were still
under litigation
@ithout disclaiming authorship o! any o! the letters
presented by complainant where respondent bragged
about his inDuence o'er :udges, respondent a'ers that
in all his thirty<('e >,+? years o! practice he had ne'er
asked !a'ors !rom :udges nor pri'ately sought an
audience with them 3e likewise denies ha'ing had any
relationship with Hudy 9atien6o and in support thereo!
he presented the aGda'it o! Hudy 9atien6o re!uting
the imputed relationship between them as well as the
aGda'it o! his wi!e "osita attesting to his (delity 0
In retort to respondent4s denial o! !athering any o! Hudy
9atien6o4s daughters, complainant presented in
e'idence the baptismal certi(cate o! Jenny 9 *elasco
which listed respondent Bngeles *elasco as her !ather
and Hudy 9atien6o as her mother + 3e likewise
presented aGda'its o! se'eral persons residing within
the municipality, including a lawyer, a court employee
and a neighbor o! the 9atien6os, con(rming
respondent4s intimate relationship with Hudy 9atien6o
%
.onsistent with "ule 1,9<B o! the "ules o! .ourt, the
matter was re!erred to the .ommission on Bar
/iscipline o! the Integrated Bar o! the Philippines !or
in'estigation, report and recommendation B!ter
conducting a thorough in'estigation, the .ommission
recommended that respondent Btty Bngeles B *elasco
be Jsuspended !or a period o! at least two >7? yearsJ
9ainly, the recommendation was premised on the
ground that notwithstanding complainant4s !ailure to
support his allegation that respondent duped him in
their business transactions, the e'idence on record
supports the charge o! immorality against Respondent
Blso, respondent by writing letters to complainant
boasting about being able to inDuence :udges
undermined the integrity o! the :udiciarychanrob1es
'irtua1 1aw 1ibrary
5pon a re'iew o! the records, we are con'inced that
respondent4s conduct lea'es much to be desired @e
howe'er agree with the (ndings o! the In'estigating
.ommissioner that complainant was as not as gullible
in his business dealings with respondent as he
presented himsel! to be )he .ommission !ound it
unlikely !or complainant to ha'e been decei'ed by
respondent inasmuch as the !ormer was represented
by his own counsel Btty Purog, Jr in all his business
transactions with the latter )hus, complainant could
not ha'e been misled by respondent with respect to
the import o! their contracts regarding the sale o! the
shares o! stock with 3aru Ken as well as the sale o! the
three >,? parcels o! land =onetheless, respondent
must still be chastised !or his grossly immoral conduct
"espondent Btty Bngeles B *elasco has been li'ing an
adulterous li!e with Hudy 9atien6o with whom he has
three >,? children )he children bear respondent4s
surnameN their school records e'en re!er to their
mother Hudy 9atien6o as JHudy 9 *elascoJ By
Daunting his relationship with a woman not his wi!e
respondent has transgressed the high moral standard
re;uired !or membership in the bar
5nder "ule 1#1 o! the .ode o! Pro!essional
"esponsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlaw!ul,
dishonest, immoral or deceit!ul conduct It may be
diGcult to speci!y the degree o! moral delin;uency that
may ;uali!y an act as immoral, yet, !or purposes o!
disciplining a lawyer, immoral conduct has been
de(ned as that Jconduct which is will!ul, Dagrant, or
shameless, and which shows a moral indiEerence to
the opinion o! respectable members o! the communityJ
7 )hus, in se'eral cases, the .ourt did not hesitate to
discipline a lawyer !or keeping a mistress in de(ance o!
the mores and sense o! morality o! the community &
Bs keepers o! the public !aith, lawyers are burdened
with the highest degree o! social responsibility and
thus must handle their personal aEairs with the
greatest caution )hey are e$pected at all times to
maintain due regard !or public decency in the
community where they li'e )heir e$alted positions as
oGcers o! the court demand no less than the highest
degree o! morality Indeed, those who ha'e taken the
oath to assist in the dispensation o! :ustice should be
more possessed o! the consciousness and the will to
o'ercome the weakness o! the Desh
@hat is more, respondent has 'iolated another basic
tenet o! legal ethics P he has gi'en complainant the
impression that he was in a position to inDuence the
court 9 )hus, in a series o! letters presented by
complainant, which respondent meekly claimed were
pri'ate communications between them, respondent
trumpeted his connection with :udges and their
supposed demand !or money B lawyer is duty bound to
a'oid improprieties which gi'e the appearance o!
inDuencing the court "espondent4s actions could not
but place the integrity o! the administration o! :ustice
in peril, hence the need !or strict disciplinary
actionchanrob1es 'irtual law library
8n these considerations, we !eel strongly the impulse
to purge respondent !rom the ranks o! our noble
pro!ession 3owe'er, considering that he is in the
declining years o! his li!e 1# and has rendered years o!
ser'ice to the Integrated Bar o! the Philippines as
President o! the *irac, .atanduanes .hapter, we !eel
that disbarment would be too harsh a penalty !or him
3ence, a suspension o! two >7? years, as recommended
by the .ommission on Bar /iscipline, would suGce as a
puniti'e but compassionate disciplinary measure
Indeed, no pro!ession oEers greater opportunity !or
public ser'ice than that o! a lawyer For the pri'ilege
con!erred upon him, a lawyer is tasked with the e;ually
great responsibility o! upholding the ethics and ideals
established by the learned lawyers o! ancient times
Into his hands are entrusted the li!e, liberty and
property o! a trusting man )he only guarantee that
this trust will be carried with honor isNthe character o!
the lawyer Such character, on the other hand, can only
be obser'ed through one4s reputation and conduct
)hus, when a lawyer so deports himsel! that
con(dence can no longer be rested in him without !ear,
his use!ulness to the court and to the society ceases
@3F"FF8"F, respondent Btty Bngeles B *elasco is
S5SPF=/F/ !rom the practice o! law !or two >7? years
!rom notice, with warning that a repetition o! the acts
charged will be dealt with more se'erely "espondent is
!urther ordered to noti!y this .ourt o! his receipt o! this
/ecision
Het copies o! this /ecision be !urnished all courts in the
land, the Integrated Bar o! the Philippines, the 8Gce o!
the Bar .on(dant, and let it be spread in respondent4s
personal record
S8 8"/F"F/
/a'ide, Jr, C.J., Puno, *itug, Panganiban, -uisumbing,
Onares<Santiago, Sando'al<Kutierre6, .arpio, Bustria<
9artine6, .arpio 9orales, .alle:o, Sr, B6cuna and
)inga, JJ., concur
.orona, J., is on lea'e
A.!. No. 133+ No5e-.e/ 70, 1909
RSARI 'E"S RE)ES, complainant,
's
ATT). JSE B. A(NAR, respondent
eder"co *. &%ay for co'p%a"nant.
Luc"ano &ab"era for respondent.
"FS8H5)I8=

PER CURIA!#
)his is a complaint !or disbarment (led against
respondent on the ground o! gross immorality
.omplainant, a second year medical student o! the
Southwestern 5ni'ersity >.ebu?, alleged in her 'eri(ed
complaint that respondent Btty Jose B B6nar, then
chairman o! said uni'ersity, had carnal knowledge o!
her !or se'eral times under threat that she would !ail in
her Pathology sub:ect i! she would not submit to
respondentMs lust!ul desires .omplainant !urther
alleged that when she became pregnant, respondent,
through a certain /r Kil "amas, had her undergo
!orced abortion
In compliance with the "esolution o! the .ourt dated
July 9, 1970, respondent (led his Bnswer denying any
personal knowledge o! complainant as well as all the
allegations contained in the complaint and by way o!
special de!ense, a'erred that complainant is a woman
o! loose morality
8n September 7, 1970, the .ourt "esol'ed to re!er the
case to the Solicitor Keneral !or in'estigation, report
and recommendation
)he (ndings o! the Solicitor Keneral is summari6ed as
!ollowsL
F*I/F=.F F8" )3F .89PHBI=B=)
.omplainant "osario delos "eyes testi(ed thatL
1? she was a second year medical student o! the
Southwestern 5ni'ersity, the .hairman o! the Board o!
which was respondent Jose B B6nar >pp 11, 1+, tsn,
June %, 197+?N
7? she howe'er !ailed in her Pathology sub:ect
which prompted her to approach respondent in
the latterMs house who assured her that she
would pass the said sub:ect >pp 1+,1%, 7%, ,,,
tsn, June %, 197+?N
,? despite this assurance, howe'er, she !ailed
>p ,,, tsn, June %, 197+?N
0? sometime in February, 197,, respondent
told her that she should go with him to 9anila,
otherwise, she would Dunk in all her sub:ects
>pp 07, +#, tsn, June %, 197+?N N
+? on February 17, 197,, both respondent and
complainant boarded the same plane >F$h JBJ?
!or 9anilaN !rom the 9anila /omestic Birport,
they proceeded to "oom 9#+, 9th Floor o! the
Bmbassador 3otel where they stayed !or three
days >F$hs JIJ, JI<1J to JI<%JN p ++, tsn, June
%, 1 97+?N
%? a!ter arri'ing at the Bmbassador 3otel, they
dined at a Spanish restaurant at San 9arcelino,
9alate, 9anila !or around three hours >pp +%<
+7, tsn, June %, 197+?N
7? they returned to the hotel at around twel'e
oMclock midnight, where respondent had carnal
knowledge o! her twice and then thrice the
ne$t morning >p +9, tsn, June %, 197+N pp 1+0,
1++ Q 1+7, tsn, July 1&, 197+?N
&? complainant consented to the se$ual desires
o! respondent because !or her, she would
sacri(ce her personal honor rather than !ail in
her sub:ects >p%l, tsn, June %, 197+?N N
9? sometime in 9arch, 197,, complainant told
respondent that she was suspecting pregnancy
because she missed her menstruation >p 7%,
tsn, July 17, 197+?N N
1#? later, she was in!ormed by /r 9onsanto
>an instructor in the college o! medicine? that
respondent wanted that an abortion be
per!ormed upon her >p&7, tsn, July l7,
197+?N N
11? therea!ter, "uben .ru6, a con(dant o!
respondent, and /r 9onsato !etched her at her
boarding house on the prete$t that she would
be e$amined by /r Kil "amas >pp &7<&&, tsn,
July 17, 197+?N
17? upon reaching the clinic o! /r "amas she
was gi'en an in:ection and an inhalation mask
was placed on her mouth and nose >pp &&<9#,
tsn, July 17, 1 97+?N
1,? as a result, she lost consciousness and
when she woke up, an abortion had already
been per!ormed upon her and she was weak,
bleeding and !elt pain all o'er her body >pp
9#<91, tsn, July 17, 197+?N >"ollo, pp
,&<0#?
9onica Kutierre6 )an testi(ed that she
met complainant and a man whom
complainant introduced as Btty B6nar
in !ront o! the Bmbassador 3otel >pp
1&,<1&0, tsn, Sept 1#, 197+N "ollo, p
01?
/r "ebecca Kucor and /r Brtemio Ingco, witnesses !or
the complainant, testi(ed that abdominal e$aminations
and $<ray e$amination o! the lumbro<sacral region o!
complainant showed no signs o! abnormality >"ollo, p
07?
)he e'idence !or the respondent as reported by the
Solicitor Keneral is summari6ed as !ollowsL
Fdilberto .aban testi(ed thatL
1 In /ecember, 1977, respondent Btty B6nar
stayed at Bmbassador 3otel with his wi!e and
childrenN respondent ne'er came to 9anila
e$cept in /ecember, 1977N >pp &<9, tsn, =o'
70, 1977?N
7 3e usually slept with respondent e'erytime
the latter comes to 9anila >p 1,, tsn, =o' 70,
1977N "ollo, pp 07<0,?
8scar Salangsang, another witness !or the respondent stated
thatL
1 In February, 197,, he went to Bmbassador
3otel to meet respondentN the latter had male
companions at the hotel but he did not see any
woman companion o! respondent B6narN
7 3e usually slept with respondent at the
Bmbassador 3otel and ate with him outside the
hotel together with .aban >pp &<9, 1,<1+, tsn,
Jan 1,, 197&N "ollo, p 0,?
)he .ourt notes that throughout the period o! the
in'estigation conducted by the Solicitor Keneral,
respondent B6nar was ne'er presented to re!ute the
allegations made against him
In his Bnswer, respondent B6nar alleges that he does
not ha'e any knowledge o! the allegations in the
complaint Bs special de!ense, respondent !urther
alleged that the charge le'elled against him is in
!urtherance o! complainantMs 'ow to wreck 'engeance
against respondent by reason o! the latterMs appro'al o!
the recommendation o! the Board o! )rustees barring
complainant !rom enrollment !or the school year 197,<
1970 because she !ailed in most o! her sub:ects It is
likewise contended that the de!ense did not bother to
present respondent in the in'estigation conducted by
the Solicitor Keneral because nothing has been shown
in the hearing to pro'e that respondent had carnal
knowledge o! the complainant
.ontrary to respondentMs a'erments, the Solicitor
Keneral made a categorical (nding to the eEect that
respondent had carnal knowledge o! complainant, to
witL
From the !oregoing, it is clear that complainant
was compelled to go to 9anila with respondent
upon the threat o! respondent that i! she !ailed
to do so, she would Dunk in all her sub:ects and
she would ne'er become a medical intern >pp
07, +#, tsn, June %, 197+? Bs respondent was
.hairman o! the .ollege o! 9edicine,
complainant had e'ery reason to belie'e him
It has been established also that complainant
was brought by respondent to Bmbassador
3otel in 9anila !or three days where he
repeatedly had carnal knowledge o! her upon
the threat that i! she would not gi'e in to his
lust!ul desires, she would !ail in her Pathology
sub:ect >F$hs JBJ, JIJ, JI<1J to JI<%J pp +1,
+7, ++<+9, tsn, June %, 197+?N
$$$ $$$ $$$
8n the other hand, respondent did not bother
to appear during the hearing It is true that he
presented Fdilberto .aban and 8scar
Salangsang who testi(ed that respondent
usually slept with them e'ery time the latter
came to 9anila, but their testimony >sic? is not
much o! help =one o! them mentioned during
the hearing that they stayed and slept with
respondent on February 17 to February 10,
197, at Bmbassador 3otel Besides,
Fdilberto .aban testi(ed that respondent
stayed at Bmbassador 3otel with his wi!e and
children in /ecember, 1977 )he dates in
;uestion, howe'er, are February 17 to 10,
197,, inclusi'e 3is >.abanMs? testimony,
there!ore, is immaterial to the present caseJ
>"ollo, pp 0,<00?
In eEect, the Solicitor Keneral !ound that the charge o!
immorality against respondent B6nar has been
substantiated by suGcient e'idence both testimonial
and documentaryN while (nding insuGcient and
uncorroborated the accusation o! intentional abortion
)he Solicitor Keneral then recommends the suspension
o! respondent !rom the practice o! law !or a period o!
not less than three >,? years
8n 9arch 1%, 19&9, the .ourt "esol'ed to re;uire the
parties to 9o'e in the premises to determine whether
any inter'ening e'ent occurred which would render the
case moot and academic >"ollo, p %9?
8n Bpril 17, 19&9, the Solicitor Keneral (led a
mani!estation and motion praying that the case at bar
be considered submitted !or decision on the bases o!
the report and recommendation pre'iously submitted
together with the record o! the case and the e'idence
adduced >"ollo, p 7+?
B!ter a thorough re'iew o! the records, the .ourt
agrees with the (nding o! the Solicitor Keneral that
respondent B6nar, under the !acts as stated in the
"eport o! the in'estigation conducted in the case, is
guilty o! Jgrossly immoral conductJ and may there!ore
be remo'ed or suspended by the Supreme .ourt !or
conduct unbecoming a member o! the Bar >Sec 77,
"ule 1,&, "ules o! .ourt?
"espondent !ailed to adduce e'idence suGcient to
engender doubt as to his culpability o! the oEense
imputed upon him @ith the e$ception o! the sel!<
ser'ing testimonies o! two witnesses presented on
respondentMs behal!, the records are bere!t o! e'idence
to e$onerate respondent o! the act complained o!,
much less contradict, on material points, the
testimonies o! complainant hersel!
@hile respondent denied ha'ing taken complainant to
the Bmbassador 3otel and there had se$ual
intercourse with the latter, he did not present any
e'idence to show where he was at that date @hile this
is not a criminal proceeding, respondent would ha'e
done more than keep his silence i! he really !elt
un:ustly traduced
It is the duty o! a lawyer, whene'er his moral character
is put in issue, to satis!y this .ourt that he is a (t and
proper person to en:oy continued membership in the
Bar 3e cannot dispense with nor downgrade the high
and e$acting moral standards o! the law pro!ession >Ko
' .andoy, 71 S."B 0,9 119%72? Bs once pronounced
by the .ourtL
@hen his integrity is challenged by
e'idence, it is not enough that he
denies the charges against himN he
must meet the issue and o'ercome the
e'idence !or the relator >Hegal and
Judicial Fthics, by 9alcolm, p 9,? and
show proo!s that he still maintains the
highest degree o! morality and
integrity, which at all times is e$pected
o! him In the case o! Un"ted States
!. Tr"a, 17 Phil ,#,, Justice 9oreland,
speaking !or the .ourt, saidL
Bn accused person sometimes owes a
duty to himsel! i! not to the State I! he
does not per!orm that duty, he may not
always e$pect the State to per!orm it
!or him I! he !ails to meet the
obligation which he owes to himsel!,
when to meet it is the easiest o! easy
things, he is hardy indeed i! he demand
and e$pect that same !ull and wide
consideration which the State
'oluntarily gi'es to those who by
reasonable eEort seek to help
themsel'es )his is particularly so
when he not only declines to help
himsel! but acti'ely conceals !rom the
State the 'ery means by which it may
assist him >-uingwa S."B 0,9 119%72?
)he Solicitor Keneral recommends that since the
complainant is partly to blame !or ha'ing gone with
respondent to 9anila knowing !ully well that
respondent is a married man ,with children, respondent
should merely be suspended !rom the practice o! law
!or not less than three >,? years >"ollo, p 07?
8n the other hand, respondent in his mani!estation and
motion dated Bpril 1&, 19&9 alleges that since a period
o! about ten >1#? years had already elapsed !rom the
time the Solicitor Keneral made his recommendation
!or a three >,? years suspension and respondent is not
practicing his pro!ession as a lawyer, the court may
now consider the respondent as ha'ing been
suspended during the said period and the case
dismissed !or being moot and academic
@e disagree
.omplainant (led the instant case !or disbarment not
because respondent reneged on a promise to marry
>-uingwa ' Puno, supra? 9ore importantly
complainantMs knowledge o! o! respondentMs marital
status is not at issue in the case at bar .omplainant
submitted to respondentMs solicitation !or se$ual
intercourse not because o! a desire !or se$ual
grati(cation but because o! respondentMs moral
ascendancy o'er her and !ear that i! she would not
accede, she would Dunk in her sub:ects Bs chairman o!
the college o! medicine where complainant was
enrolled, the latter had e'ery reason to belie'e that
respondent could make good his threats 9oreo'er, as
counsel !or respondent would deem it Jworthwhile to
in!orm the the .ourt that the respondent is a scion o! a
rich !amily and a 'ery rich man in his own right and in
!act is not practicing his pro!ession be!ore the courtJ
>"ollo, p 7#?, mere suspension !or a limited period, per
se, would there!ore ser'e no redeeming purpose )he
!act that he is a rich man and does not practice his
pro!ession as a lawyer, does not render respondent a
person o! good moral character F'idence o! good
moral character precedes admission to bar >Sec7, "ule
1,&, "ules o! .ourt? and such re;uirement is not
dispensed with upon admission thereto Kood moral
character is a continuing ;uali(cation necessary to
entitle one to continue in the practice o! law )he
ancient and learned pro!ession o! law e$acts !rom its
members the highest standard o! morality >-uingwa '
Puno, supra?
5nder Section 77, "ule 1,&, J>a? member o! the bar
may be remo'ed or suspended !rom his oGce as
attorney by the Supreme .ourt !or any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such oGce,
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason o! his con'iction
o! a crime in'ol'ing moral turpitude, or !or any
'iolation o! the oath which he is re;uired to take be!ore
admission to practice, J In *rc"-a !. ,an"0an- >1#%
S."B +91, 119&12?, this .ourt had occasion to de(ne
the concept o! immoral conduct, as !ollowsL
B lawyer may be disbarred !or grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason o! his
con'iction o! a crime in'ol'ing moral
turpitude B member o! the bar should
ha'e moral integrity in addition to
pro!essional probity
It is diGcult to state with precision and
to ($ an inDe$ible standard as to what
is grossly immoral conduct or to speci!y
the moral delin;uency and obli;uity
which render a lawyer unworthy o!
continuing as a member o! the bar )he
rule implies that what appears to be
uncon'entional beha'ior to the
straight<laced may not be the immoral
conduct that warrants disbarment
Immoral conduct has been de(ned as
Mthat which is will!ul, Dagrant, or
shameless, and which shows a moral
indiEerence to the opinion o! the good
and respectable members o! the
communityM >7 .JS 9+9?
@here an unmarried !emale dwar!
possessing the intellect o! a child
became pregnant by reason o!
intimacy with a married lawyer who
was the !ather o! si$ children,
disbarment o! the attorney on the
ground o! immoral conduct was
:usti(ed >In re 3icks 7# Pac 7nd &9%?
In the present case, it was highly immoral o!
respondent, a married man with children, to ha'e taken
ad'antage o! his position as chairman o! the college o!
medicine in asking complainant, a student in said
college, to go with him to 9anila where he had carnal
knowledge o! her under the threat that she would Dunk
in all her sub:ects in case she re!used
@3F"FF8"F, respondent Jose B B6nar is hereby
/ISBB""F/ and his name is ordered stricken oE !rom
the "oll o! Bttorneys
S8 8"/F"F/
Nar!asa, Gut"erre#, Jr., Cru#, $aras, e%"c"ano, $ad"%%a,
Gancayco, &"d"n, Sar'"ento, Cortes, Gr"(o)*+u"no,
,ed"a%dea and Re-a%ado, JJ., concur.
ernan 1C.J.2, too3 no part.
,e%enc"o).errera, J., "s on %ea!e.
A.C. No. 1517 Ja3ua/y 79, 1993
&ICTRIA BARRIENTS, complainant,
's
TRANSFIGURACIN 'AAR", respondent
" F S 8 H 5 ) I 8 =

PER CURIA!#
In a sworn complaint (led with this .ourt on Bugust 7#,
197+, complainant *ictoria . Barrientos seeks the
disbarment o! respondent )rans(guracion /aarol, ;; a
member o! the Philippine Bar, on grounds o! deceit and
grossly immoral conduct
B!ter respondent (led his answer >Ro%%o, p 17?, the
.ourt "esol'ed to re!er the case to the Solicitor
Keneral !or in'estigation, report and recommendation
>Ro%%o, p 1&?
Bs per recommendation o! the Solicitor Keneral and !or
the con'enience o! the parties and their witnesses who
were residing in the pro'ince o! [amboanga del =orte,
the Pro'incial Fiscal o! said pro'ince was authori6ed to
conduct the in'estigation and to submit a report,
together with transcripts o! stenographic notes and
e$hibits submitted by the parties, i! any >Ro%%o, p 7#?
8n =o'ember 9, 19&7, the 8Gce o! the Solicitor
Keneral submitted its "eport and "ecommendation,
!"#L
F'idence o! the complainantL
complainant *ictoria Barrientos was
single and a resident o! Boni!acio St,
/ipolog .ityN that when she was still a
teenager and (rst year in college she
came to know respondent
)rans(guracion /aarol in 19%9 as he
used to go to their house being a !riend
o! her sister =ormaN that they also
became !riends, and she knew the
respondent as being single and li'ing
alone in Kalas, /ipolog .ityN that he
was the Keneral 9anager o!
[amboanga del =orte Flectric
.ooperati'e, Inc >[B=F.8? and
subse;uently trans!erred his residence
to the [B=F.8 compound at Haguna
Bl'd at /el Pilar St, /ipolog .ity >pp
1#9<111, tsn, September ,#, 197%?
)hat on June 77, 197,, respondent
came to their house and asked her to
be one o! the usherettes in the 9asonMs
con'ention in Sicayab, /ipolog .ity,
!rom June 7& to ,#, 197, and, she told
respondent to ask the permission o!
her parents, which respondent did, and
her !ather consentedN that !or three
whole days she ser'ed as usherette in
the con'ention and respondent picked
her up !rom her residence e'ery
morning and took her home !rom the
con'ention site at the end o! each day
>pp 117<110, tsn, "d?
)hat in the a!ternoon o! July 1, 197,,
respondent came to complainantMs
house and in'ited her !or a :oy ride
with the permission o! her mother who
was a !ormer classmate o! respondentN
that respondent took her to Sicayab in
his :eep and then they strolled along
the beach, and in the course o! which
respondent proposed his lo'e to herN
that respondent told her that i! she
would accept him, he would marry her
within si$ >%? months !rom her
acceptanceN complainant told
respondent that she would think it o'er
(rstN that !rom then on respondent
used to 'isit her in their house almost
e'ery night, and he kept on courting
her and pressed her to make her
decision on respondentMs proposalN that
on July 7, 197,, she (nally accepted
respondentMs oEer o! lo'e and
respondent continued his usual
'isitations almost e'ery night
therea!terN they agreed to get married
in /ecember 197, >pp 11+<119, tsn,
"d?
)hat in the morning o! Bugust 7#,
197,, respondent in'ited her, with the
consent o! her !ather, to a party at the
Hope6 SkyroomN that at 7L## pm o!
that day respondent !etched her !rom
her house and went to the Hope6
Skyroom >pp 119<171, tsn, "d?N that at
about 1#L## pm o! that e'ening they
le!t the party at the Hope6 Skyroom,
but be!ore taking her home respondent
in'ited her !or a :oy ride and took her
to the airport at Sicayab, /ipolog .ityN
respondent parked the :eep by the
beach where there were no houses
aroundN that in the course o! their
con'ersation inside the :eep,
respondent reiterated his promise to
marry her and then started caressing
her downward and his hand kept on
mo'ing to her panty and down to her
pri'ate parts >pp 171<177, tsn "d?N
that she then saidL J@hat is this
)ransYJ, but he answeredL J/ay, do not
be a!raid o! me I will marry youJ and
reminded her also that Janyway,
/ecember is 'ery near, the month we
ha'e been waiting !orJ >1p2, 177, tsn,
"d?, then he pleaded, J/ay, :ust gi'e
this to me, do not be a!raidJ >"b"d?, and
again reiterated his promise and
assurances, at the same time pulling
down her pantyN that she told him that
she was a!raid because they were not
yet married, but because she lo'ed him
she (nally agreed to ha'e se$ual
intercourse with him at the back seat
o! the :eepN that a!ter the intercourse
she wept and respondent again
reiterated his promises and assurances
not to worry because anyway he would
marry herN and at about 17L##
midnight they went home >pp
177<170, tsn, "d?
B!ter Bugust 7#, 197,, respondent
continued to in'ite her to eat outside
usually at the 3oneycomb "estaurant
in /ipolog .ity about twice or three
times a week, a!ter which he would
take her to the airport where they
would ha'e se$ual intercourseN that
they had this se$ual intercourse !rom
Bugust to 8ctober 197, at the
!re;uency o! two or three times a
week, and she consented to all these
things because she lo'ed him and
belie'ed in all his promises >pp 17+<
177, tsn, "d?
Sometime in the middle part o!
September, 197, complainant noticed
that her menstruation which usually
occurred during the second week o!
each month did not comeN she waited
until the end o! the month and still
there was no menstruationN she
submitted to a pregnancy test and the
result was positi'eN she in!ormed
respondent and respondent suggested
to ha'e the !etus aborted but she
ob:ected and respondent did not insistN
respondent then told her not to worry
because they would get married within
one month and he would talk to her
parents about their marriage >pp 179<
1,7, tsn, "d?
8n 8ctober 7#, 197,, respondent came
to complainantMs house and talked to
her parents about their marriageN it
was agreed that the marriage would be
celebrated in 9anila so as not to create
a scandal as complainant was already
pregnantN complainant and her mother
le!t !or 9anila by boat on 8ctober 77,
197, while respondent would !ollow by
planeN and they agreed to meet in
Singalong, 9anila, in the house o!
complainantMs sister /elia who is
married to Frnesto Serrano >pp 1,7<
1,+, tsn, "d?
8n 8ctober 7%, 197,, when respondent
came to see complainant and her
mother at Singalong, 9anila,
respondent told them that he could not
marry complainant because he was
already married >p 1,7, tsn, "d?N
complainantMs mother got mad and
saidL J)rans, so you !ooled my daughter
and why did you let us come here in
9anilaYJ >p 1,&, tsn, "d? Hater on,
howe'er, respondent reassured
complainant not to worry because
respondent had been separated !rom
his wi!e !or 1% years and he would work
!or the annulment o! his marriage and,
subse;uently marry complainant >p
1,9, tsn, "d?N respondent told
complainant to deli'er their child in
9anila and assured her o! a monthly
support o! P7+### >p 10#, tsn, "d?N
respondent returned to /ipolog .ity
and actually sent the promised
supportN he came back to 9anila in
January 1970 and went to see
complainantN when asked about the
annulment o! his pre'ious marriage, he
told complainant that it would soon be
appro'ed >pp 101<107, tsn, "d?N he
came back in February and in 9arch
1970 and told complainant the same
thing >p 107, tsn, "d?N complainant
wrote her mother to come to 9anila
when she deli'ers the child, but her
mother answered her that she cannot
come as nobody would be le!t in their
house in /ipolog and instead
suggested that complainant go to .ebu
.ity which is nearerN complainant went
to .ebu .ity in Bpril 1970 and, her
sister =orma took her to the Kood
Shepherd .on'ent at Banawa 3illN she
deli'ered a baby girl on June 10, 1970
at the Perpetual Succor 3ospital in
.ebu .ityN and the child was registered
as J/ure6a BarrientosJ >pp 10,<10&,
tsn, "d?
In the last week o! June 1970
complainant came to /ipolog .ity and
tried to contact respondent by phone
and, thru her brother, but to no a'ailN
as she was ashamed she :ust stayed in
their houseN she got sick and her !ather
sent her to [amboanga .ity !or
medical treatmentN she came back
a!ter two weeks but still respondent did
not come to see her >tsn 0&<1+#, tsn,
"d?N she consulted a lawyer and (led
an administrati'e case against
respondent with the =ational
Flectri(cation BdministrationN the case
was re!erred to the [amboanga del
=orte Flectric .ooperati'e >[B=F.8?
and it was dismissed and thus she (led
the present administrati'e case >pp
1+#<1+1, tsn, "d?
E!"dence for the Respondent
)he e'idence o! the respondent
consists o! his sole testimony and one
e$hibit, the birth certi(cate o! the child
>F$h 1? "espondent declared
substantially as !ollowsL that he was
born on Bugust %, 19,7 in Hiloy,
[amboanga del =orteN that he married
"omualda Sumaylo in Hiloy in 19++N
that he had a son who is now 7# years
oldN that because o! incompatibility he
had been estranged !rom his wi!e !or
1% yearsN that in 19+, he was bapti6ed
as a moslem and thereby embraced
the Islam "eligion >pp
17,<1&# tsn, Jan 1,, 1977?N that he
came to know complainantMs !ather
since 19+7 because he was his
teacherN likewise he knew
complainantMs mother because they
were !ormer classmates in high schoolN
that he became ac;uainted with
complainant when he used to 'isit her
sister, =orma, in their houseN they
gradually became !riends and o!ten
talked with each other, and e'en talked
about their personal problemsN that he
mentioned to her his being estranged
!rom his wi!eN that with the consent o!
her parents he in'ited her to be one o!
the usherettes in the 9asonic
.on'ention in Sicayab, /ipolog .ity
held on June 7&<,#, 197, >pp 1&+<197,
tsn, "d?N that the arrangement was !or
him to !etch her !rom her residence
and take her home !rom the con'ention
siteN that it was during this occasion
that they became close to each other
and a!ter the con'ention, he proposed
his lo'e to her on July 7, 197,N that
>sic? a week o! courtship, she accepted
his proposal and since then he used to
in'ite her >pp 19,<190, tsn, "d?
)hat in the e'ening o! Bugust 7#, 197,,
respondent in'ited complainant to be
his partner during the .hamber o!
.ommerce aEair at the Hope6 SkyroomN
that at about 1#L## pm o! that
e'ening a!ter the aEair, complainant
complained to him o! a headache, so
he decided to take her home but once
inside the :eep, she wanted to ha'e a
:oy ride, so he dro'e around the city
and proceeded to the airportN that
when they were at the airport, only two
o! them, they started the usual kisses
and they were carried by their passionN
they !orgot themsel'es and they made
lo'eN that be!ore midnight he took her
homeN that therea!ter they indulged in
se$ual intercourse many times
whene'er they went on :oy riding in the
e'ening and ended up in the airport
which was the only place they could be
alone
>p 19+, tsn, "d?
)hat it was sometime in the later part
o! 8ctober 197, that complainant told
him o! her pregnancyN that they agreed
that the child be deli'ered in 9anila to
a'oid scandal and respondent would
take care o! e$pensesN that during
respondentMs talk with the parents o!
complainant regarding the latterMs
pregnancy, he told him he was married
but estranged !rom his wi!eN that when
complainant was already in 9anila, she
asked him i! he was willing to marry
her, he answered he could not marry
again, otherwise, he would be charged
with bigamy but he promised to (le an
annulment o! his marriage as he had
been separated !rom his wi!e !or 1%
yearsN that complainant consented to
ha'e se$ual intercourse with him
because o! her lo'e to him and he did
not resort to !orce, trickery, deceit or
ca:oleryN and that the present case was
(led against him by complainant
because o! his !ailure to gi'e the
money to support complainant while in
.ebu waiting !or the deli'ery o! the
child and, also to meet complainantMs
medical e$penses when she went to
[amboanga .ity !or medical check<up
>pp 19&<7#7, tsn, "d?
IN/ING O *CTS
From the e'idence adduced by the
parties, the !ollowing !acts are not
disputedL
1 )hat the complainant, *ictoria
Barrientos, is single, a college student,
and was about 7# years and 7 months
old during the time >July<8ctober 197+?
o! her relationship with respondent,
ha'ing been born on /ecember 7,,
19+7N while respondent )rans(guracion
/aarol is married, Keneral 9anager o!
[amboanga del =orte Flectric
.ooperati'e, and 01 years old at the
time o! the said relationship, ha'ing
been born on Bugust %, 19,7N
7 )hat respondent is married to
"omualda B Sumaylo with whom be
has a sonN that the marriage ceremony
was solemni6ed on September 70,
19++ at Hiloy, [amboanga del =orte by
a catholic priest, "e' Fr Bnacleto
Pellamo, Parish Priest thereatN and that
said respondent had been separated
!rom his wi!e !or about 1% years at the
time o! his relationship with
complainantN
, )hat respondent had been known by
the Barrientos !amily !or ;uite
sometime, ha'ing been a !ormer
student o! complainantMs !ather in 19+7
and, a !ormer classmate o!
complainantMs mother at the Bndres
Boni!acio .ollege in /ipolog .ityN that
he became ac;uainted with
complainantMs sister, =orma in 19%,
and e'entually with her other sisters,
Baby and /elia and, her brother, Boy,
as he used to 'isit =orma at her
residenceN that he also be!riended
complainant and who became a close
!riend when he in'ited her, with her
parentsM consent, to be one o! the
usherettes during the 9asonic
.on'ention in Sicayab, /ipolog .ity
!rom June 7& to ,#, 197,, and he used
to !etch her at her residence in the
morning and took her home !rom the
con'ention site a!ter each dayMs
acti'itiesN
0 )hat respondent courted
complainant, and a!ter a week o!
courtship, complainant accepted
respondentMs lo'e on July 7, 197,N that
in the e'ening o! Bugust 7#, 197,,
complainant with her parentsM
permission was respondentMs partner
during the .hamber o! .ommerce
aEair at the Hope6 Skyroom in the
/ipolog .ity, and at about 1#L##
oMclock that e'ening, they le!t the place
but be!ore going home, they went to
the airport at Sicayab, /ipolog .ity and
parked the :eep at the beach, where
there were no houses aroundN that
a!ter the usual preliminaries, they
consummated the se$ual act and at
about midnight they went homeN that
a!ter the (rst se$ual act, respondent
used to ha'e :oy ride with complainant
which usually ended at the airport
where they used to make lo'e twice or
three times a weekN that as a result o!
her intimate relations, complainant
became pregnantN
+ )hat a!ter a con!erence among
respondent, complainant and
complainantMs parents, it was agreed
that complainant would deli'er her
child in 9anila, where she went with
her mother on 8ctober 77, 197, by
boat, arri'ing in 9anila on the 7+th
and, stayed with her brother<in<law
Frnesto Serrano in Singalong, 9anilaN
that respondent 'isited her there on
the 7%th, 77th and 7&th o! 8ctober
197,, and again in February and 9arch
1970N that later on complainant
decided to deli'er the child in .ebu
.ity in order to be nearer to /ipolog
.ity, and she went there in Bpril 1970
and her sister took her to the Kood
Shepherd .on'ent at Banawa 3ill,
.ebu .ityN that on June 10, 1970, she
deli'ered a baby girl at the Perpetual
Succor 3ospital in .ebu .ity and,
named her J/ure6a BarrientosJN that
about the last week o! June 1970 she
went home to /ipolog .ityN that during
her stay here in 9anila and later in
.ebu .ity, the respondent de!rayed
some o! her e$pensesN that she (led an
administrati'e case against respondent
with the =ational Flectri(cation
BdministrationN which complaint,
howe'er, was dismissedN and then she
instituted the present disbarment
proceedings against respondent
$$$ $$$ $$$
In 'iew o! the !oregoing, the
undersigned respect!ully recommend
that a!ter hearing, respondent
)rans(guracion /aarol be disbarred as
a lawyer >Ro%%o, pp 7&<+1?
B!ter a thorough re'iew o! the case, the .ourt (nds
itsel! in !ull accord with the (ndings and
recommendation o! the Solicitor Keneral
From the records, it appears indubitable that
complainant was ne'er in!ormed by respondent
attorney o! his real status as a married indi'idual )he
!act o! his pre'ious marriage was disclosed by
respondent only a!ter the complainant became
pregnant F'en then, respondent misrepresented
himsel! as being eligible to re<marry !or ha'ing been
estranged !rom his wi!e !or 1% years and dangled a
marriage proposal on the assurance that he would
work !or the annulment o! his (rst marriage It was a
deception a!ter all as it turned out that respondent
ne'er bothered to annul said marriage 9ore
importantly, respondent knew all along that the mere
!act o! separation alone is not a ground !or annulment
o! marriage and does not 'est him legal capacity to
contract another marriage
Interestingly enough respondent li'ed alone in /ipolog
.ity though his son, who was also studying in /ipolog
.ity, li'ed separately !rom him 3e ne'er introduced
his son and went around with !riends as though he was
ne'er married much less had a child in the same
locality )his circumstance alone belies respondentMs
claim that complainant and her !amily were aware o!
his pre'ious marriage at the 'ery start o! his courtship
)he .ourt is there!ore inclined to belie'e that
respondent resorted to deceit in the satis!action o! his
se$ual desires at the e$pense o! the gullible
complainant It is not in accordance with the nature o!
the educated, cultured and respectable, which
complainantMs !amily is, her !ather being the Bssistant
Principal o! the local public high school, to allow a
daughter to ha'e an aEair with a married man
But what surprises this .ourt e'en more is the
per'erted sense o! respondentMs moral 'alues when he
said thatL JI see nothing wrong with this relationship
despite my being marriedJ >)S=, p 7#9, January 1,,
1977N Ro%%o, p 07? @orse, he e'en suggested abortion
)ruly, respondentMs moral sense is so seriously
impaired that we cannot maintain his membership in
the Bar In $an-an !. Ra'os >1#7 S."B 1 119&12?, we
held thatL
>F?'en his act in making lo'e to
another woman while his (rst wi!e is
still ali'e and their marriage still 'alid
and e$isting is contrary to honesty,
:ustice, decency and morality
"espondent made a mockery o!
marriage which is a sacred institution
demanding respect and dignity
Finally, respondent e'en had the temerity to allege
that he is a 9oslem con'ert and as such, could enter
into multiple marriages and has in;uired into the
possibility o! marrying complainant >Ro%%o, p 1+? Bs
records indicate, howe'er, his claim o! ha'ing
embraced the Islam religion is not supported by any
e'idence sa'e that o! his sel!<ser'ing testimony In this
regard, we need only to ;uote the (nding o! the 8Gce
o! the Solicitor Keneral, to witL
@hen respondent was asked to marry
complainant he said he could not
because he was already married and
would open him to a charge o! bigamy
>p 7##, tsn, January 1,, 1977? I! he
were a moslem con'ert entitled to !our
>0? wi'es, as he is now claiming, why
did he not marry complainantY )he
answer is supplied by respondent
himsel! 3e said while he was a
moslem, but, ha'ing been married in a
ci'il ceremony, he could no longer
'alidly enter into another ci'il
ceremony without committing bigamy
because the complainant is a christian
>p 707, tsn, January 1,, 1977?
.onse;uently, i! respondent knew, that
notwithstanding his being a moslem
con'ert, he cannot marry complainant,
then it was grossly immoral !or him to
ha'e se$ual intercourse with
complainant because he knew the
e$istence o! a legal impediment
"espondent may not, there!ore, escape
responsibility thru his dubious claim
that he has embraced the Islam
religion >Ro%%o,
p 09?
By his acts o! deceit and immoral tendencies to
appease his se$ual desires, respondent /aarol has
amply demonstrated his moral delin;uency 3ence, his
remo'al !or conduct unbecoming a member o! the Bar
on the grounds o! deceit and grossly immoral conduct
>Sec 77, "ule 1,&, "ules o! .ourt? is in order Kood
moral character is a condition which precedes
admission to the Bar >Sec 7, "ule 1,&, "ules o! .ourt?
and is not dispensed with upon admission thereto It is
a continuing ;uali(cation which all lawyers must
possess >People ' )uanda, 1&1 S."B %&7 1199#2N /elos
"eyes ' B6nar, 179 S."B %+, 119&92?, otherwise, a
lawyer may either be suspended or disbarred
Bs we ha'e held in $"att !. *bordo >+& Phil ,+# 119,,2,
cited in Leda !. Taban-, 7#% S."B ,9+ 119972?L
It cannot be o'eremphasi6ed that the
re;uirement o! good character is not
only a condition precedent to
admission to the practice o! lawN its
continued possession is also essential
!or remaining in the practice o! law
>People ' )uanda, Bdm .ase =o ,,%#,
,# January 199#, 1&1 S."B %97? Bs
aptly put by 9r Justice Keorge B
9alcolmL JBs good character is an
essential ;uali(cation !or admission o!
an attorney to practice, when the
attorneyMs character is bad in such
respects as to show that he is unsa!e
and un(t to be entrusted with the
powers o! an attorney, the court retains
the power to discipline him >Piatt '
Bbordo, +& Phil ,+# 119,,2?
8nly recently, another disbarment proceeding was
resol'ed by this .ourt against a lawyer who con'inced
a woman that her prior marriage to another man was
null and 'oid ab "n"t"o and she was still legally single
and !ree to marry him >the lawyer?, married her, was
supported by her in his studies, begot a child with her,
abandoned her and the child, and married another
woman >)erre 's )erre, Bdm .ase =o 7,09, July ,,
1997?
3ere, respondent, already a married man and about 01
years old, proposed lo'e and marriage to complainant,
then still a 7#<year<old minor, knowing that he did not
ha'e the re;uired legal capacity "espondent then
succeeded in ha'ing carnal relations with complainant
by deception, made her pregnant, suggested abortion,
breached his promise to marry her, and then deserted
her and the child "espondent is there!ore guilty o!
deceit and grossly immoral conduct
)he practice o! law is a pri'ilege accorded only to those
who measure up to the e$acting standards o! mental
and moral (tness "espondent ha'ing e$hibited
debased morality, the .ourt is constrained to impose
upon him the most se'ere disciplinary action P
disbarment
)he ancient and learned pro!ession o! law e$acts !rom
its members the highest standard o! morality )he
members are, in !act, en:oined to aid in guarding the
Bar against the admission o! candidates un(t or
un;uali(ed because de(cient either moral character or
education >In re Puno, 19 S."B 0,9, 119%72N Pangan 's
"amos, 1#7 S."B 1 119&12?
Bs oGcers o! the court, lawyers must not only in !act
be o! good moral character but must also be seen to be
o! good moral character and must lead a li!e in
accordance with the highest moral standards o! the
community 9ore speci(cally, a member o! the Bar and
an oGcer o! the .ourt is not only re;uired to re!rain
!rom adulterous relationships or the keeping o!
mistresses but must also beha'e himsel! in such a
manner as to a'oid scandali6ing the public by creating
the belie! that he is Douting those moral standards
>)olosa 's .argo, 171 S."B 71, 7% 119&92, citing
)oledo 's )oledo, 7 S."B 7+7 119%,2 and "oyong 's
8blena, 7 S."B &+9 119%,2?
In brie!, @e (nd respondent /aarol morally delin;uent
and as such, should not be allowed continued
membership in the ancient and learned pro!ession o!
law >-uingwa ' Puno, 19 S."B 0,9 119%72?
B..8"/I=KHO, @e (nd respondent )rans(guracion
/aarol guilty o! grossly immoral conduct unworthy o!
being a member o! the Bar and is hereby ordered
/ISBB""F/ and his name stricken oE !rom the "oll o!
Bttorneys Het copies o! this "esolution be !urnished to
all courts o! the land, the Integrated Bar o! the
Philippines, the 8Gce o! the Bar .on(dant and spread
on the personal record o! respondent /aarol
S8 8"/F"F/
Nar!asa, C.J., Gut"erre#, Jr., Cru#, e%"c"ano, $ad"%%a, &"d
[A.C. No. 700+. Ja3ua/y 70, 1990]
IRENE RA)S<!BAC, complainant, vs. ATT).
R"AN' A. RA)S, respondent.
' E C I S I N
PUN, J.#
)his case stemmed !rom a petition !or disbarment (led
with this .ourt by 9rs Irene "ayos<8mbac against her
nephew, Btty 8rlando B "ayos, a legal practitioner in
9etro 9anila, !or Jhis !ailure to adhere to the standards
o! mental and moral (tness set up !or members o! the
barJ
$i
112
)he records show that in January 19&+, respondent
induced complainant who was then &+ years old to
withdraw all her bank deposits and entrust them to him
!or sa!ekeeping "espondent told her that i! she
withdraws all her money in the bank, they will be
e$cluded !rom the estate o! her deceased husband and
his other heirs will be precluded !rom inheriting part o!
it
Bcting on respondentMs suggestion, complainant
preterminated all her time deposits with the Philippine
=ational Bank on January 1&, 19&+ She withdrew
P+&&,#####
"espondent then ad'ised complainant to deposit the
money with 5nion Bank where he was working 3e
also urged her to deposit the money in his name to
pre'ent the other heirs o! her husband !rom tracing the
same
.omplainant heeded the ad'ice o! respondent 8n
January 77, 19&+, respondent deposited the amount o!
P+&&,##### with 5nion Bank under the name o! his
wi!e in trust !or se'en bene(ciaries, including his son
)he maturity date o! the time deposit was 9ay 77,
19&+
8n 9ay 71, 19&+, complainant made a demand on
respondent to return the P+&&,##### plus interest
"espondent told her that he has renewed the deposit
!or another month and promised to return the whole
amount including interest on June 7+, 19&+
"espondent, howe'er, !ailed to return the money on
June 7+, 19&+
8n Bugust 1%, 19&+, respondent in!ormed complainant
that he could only return P0##,##### to be paid on
installment .omplainant acceded to respondentMs
proposal as she was already old and was in dire need
o! money
8n the same date, respondent and complainant
e$ecuted a memorandum o! agreement statingL
J@3F"FBS, on January 77, 19&+, >complainant?
entrusted !or sa!ekeeping to >respondent? the sum o!
FI*F 35=/"F/ FIK3)O FIK3) )385SB=/ PFS8S
>P+&&,#####? which sum o! money was withdrawn by
the parties !rom the Philippine =ational Bank on said
date
@3F"FBS, the said amount was deposited by
>respondent? with the consent o! >complainant? with
the 5=I8= BB=I, JP "i6al Branch, 9akati, 9etro
9anila
@3F"FBS, upon mutual agreement o! the parties, they
ha'e agreed as they hereby agree on the !ollowing
terms !or the purpose o! disposing o! the abo'e sum, to
witL
1 8! the sum o! P+&&,##### recei'ed in trust,
>respondent? shall return only the sum o! P0##,#####
to >complainant? in the !ollowing mannerL
a? P1##,##### upon e$ecution o! this agreementN
b? P7##,##### on or be!ore 8ctober 19, 19&+, to be
co'ered by postdated checkN
c? P1##,##### on or be!ore =o'ember 19, 19&+, to be
co'ered by a postdated check
7 >"espondent? hereby undertakes and guarantees
that at the time the a!oresaid postdated checks !all
due, the same should be backed up with suGcient
!unds on a best eEorts basis
, )hat the remaining balance o! P1&&,#####,
>respondent? hereby acknowledges the same as his
indebtedness to >complainant? to be paid by the !ormer
when able or at his option >.omplainant? howe'er
assures >respondent? that she will not institute any
collection suit against >respondent? >sic?, neither will
she transmit the same by way o! testamentary
succession to her heirs, neither are >respondentMs?
heirs liable
0 )hat the parties ha'e e$ecuted this agreement with
the 'iew o! restoring their pre'ious cordial (lial
relationshipJ
$ii
172
In accordance with the memorandum o! agreement,
respondent issued to complainant the !ollowing checksL
1 5.PB .heck =o 0&7970 dated Bugust 19,
19&+ in the amount o! P1##,#####N
7 5.PB .heck =o 0&797+ dated 8ctober 19,
19&+ in the amount o! P7##,###N
, 5.PB .heck =o 0&797% dated =o'ember 19,
19&+ in the amount o! P1##,#####
.omplainant was not able to encash 5.PB .heck =o
0&7970 as it was dishonored due to insuGcient !unds
"espondent, nonetheless, asserted that he was not
duty<bound to !und the check because under
paragraph 7 o! the memorandum o! agreement, he
only guaranteed that the checks shall be Jbacked up
with suGcient !unds on a best eEorts basisJ )his
prompted the other relati'es o! respondent and
complainant to inter'ene in the brewing dispute
between the two )hey begged respondent to pay his
obligation to complainant 3eeding their plea,
respondent replaced 5.PB .heck =o 0&7970 with two
new checks, one !or P%0,&#### and another !or
P,+,7#### .omplainant was able to encash the (rst
check but not the second because it was dishonored by
the drawee bank )he remaining checks, 5.PB .heck
=o 0&797+ and 5.PB .heck =o 0&797%, were likewise
dishonored by the drawee bank !or lack o! !unds
8n =o'ember 1+, 19&+, complainant (led a complaint
!or esta!a against respondent and a corresponding
in!ormation was (led against him by the pro'incial
(scal
"espondent therea!ter made a proposal to complainant
!or an amicable settlement )o pay his debt,
respondent oEered to complainant two second hand
cars and cash amounting to P0#,##### .omplainant
re!used the oEer because she needed cash to pro'ide
!or her daily needs
)he records also show that respondent (led se'eral
suits against complainant
First, in February 19&+, respondent (led a criminal case
!or esta!a against complainant It appears that
respondent has pre'iously told the tenants o! a parcel
o! land owned by complainant that she had promised
to sell them the land and that she had authori6ed him
to negotiate with them 3e obtained !rom the tenants
ad'ance payment !or the lots they were occupying
"espondent then prepared a special power o!
attorney
$iii
1,2 authori6ing him to sell the land and asked
complainant to sign it .omplainant, howe'er, re!used
to sign because she did not intend to make respondent
her attorney<in<!act 3ence, the tenants sued
respondent !or esta!a "espondent, in turn, sued
complainant !or esta!a !or allegedly reneging on her
promise to sell the land
)hen, on Bpril +, 19&%, respondent (led a pleading
entitled J9otion to "e'iew Bcts o! Bdministratri$ as a
Prelude !or Formal 9otion to >sic? her /ischargeJ in
Special Proceedings =o ++00 !or the settlement o! the
estate o! complainantMs husband, pending be!ore the
"egional )rial .ourt o! Hingayen, Pangasinan
$i'
102
"espondent (led the pleading although he was not a
party to the case
Finally, on 9ay 19, 19&%, respondent indicted
complainant !or J!alsi(cation by pri'ate indi'iduals and
use o! !alsi(ed documents under Brticle 177 o! the
"e'ised Penal .odeJ !or allegedly making untruth!ul
statements in her petition !or appointment as
administratri$ o! the estate o! her deceased husband
$'
1+2
)hus, in June 19&%, complainant (led with this .ourt a
complaint to disbar respondent on two groundsL >1?
that respondent employed cle'er scheme to de!raud
complainant, and >7? that respondent (led !ri'olous
cases against complainant to harass her
"espondent subse;uently (led a complaint !or
disbarment against complainantMs counsel, Btty
Bbelardo *iray )he complaint cited !our causes o!
actionL >1? assisting client to commit ta$ !raudN >7? use
o! unorthodo$ collection methodN >,? ignorance o! the
lawN and >0? subornation o! per:ury
$'i
1%2
Both disbarment cases were consolidated and re!erred
to the 8Gce o! the Solicitor Keneral !or in'estigation,
report and recommendation
)he cases were trans!erred to the Integrated Bar o! the
Philippines >IBP? !or in'estigation and disposition
pursuant to Section 7# "ule 1,9<B which took eEect on
June 1, 19&&
B!ter in'estigation, the .ommission on Bar /iscipline o!
the IBP recommended the suspension o! respondent
!rom the practice o! law !or two years It also
recommended the dismissal o! the complaint to disbar
Btty *iray !or lack o! merit
$'ii
172
8n January 77, 199%, the Board o! Ko'ernors o! the IBP
passed "esolution =o TII<9%<77 statingL
J"FS8H*F/ to B/8P) and BPP"8*F, as it is
hereby B/8P)F/ and BPP"8*F/, the "eport and
"ecommendation o! the In'estigating
.ommissioner in the abo'e entitled case,
hereinmade part o! this "esolutionR/ecision as
Bnne$ JBJN and, (nding the recommendation
therein to be supported by the e'idence on record
and the applicable laws and rules, "espondent
Btty 8rlando B "ayos is hereby S5SPF=/F/ !rom
the practice o! law !or two >7? years and the
complaint against Btty Bbelardo * *iray is hereby
/IS9ISSF/ !or lack o! meritJ
$'iii
1&2
8n June %, 199%, respondent (led a 9otion !or
"econsideration with regard to Bdministrati'e .ase =o
7&&0
$i$
192 )he Board o! Ko'ernors o! the IBP, howe'er,
denied the motion in "esolution =o TII<9%<19,
$$
11#2
8n September 1+, 1997, respondent (led with this
.ourt a 9otion to Hi!t Suspension !or )wo Oears,
alleging that complainant has e$ecuted an aGda'it
withdrawing the complaint !or disbarment
$$i
1112
@e deny the motion o! respondent
"ule 1#1 o! the .ode o! Pro!essional "esponsibility
statesL
JB lawyer shall not engage in unlaw!ul, dishonest,
immoral or deceit!ul conductJ
"ule 1#, o! the same .ode, on the other hand,
pro'idesL
JB lawyer shall not, !or any corrupt moti'e or
interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or
delay any manMs causeJ
"espondent 'iolated the .ode o! Pro!essional
"esponsibility, as well as his oath as an attorney when
he decei'ed his &+<year old aunt into entrusting to him
all her money, and later re!used to return the same
despite demand "espondentMs wicked deed was
aggra'ated by the series o! un!ounded suits he (led
against complainant to compel her to withdraw the
disbarment case she (led against him Indeed,
respondentMs deceit!ul conduct makes him unworthy o!
membership in the legal pro!ession )he nature o! the
oGce o! a lawyer re;uires that he shall be o! good
moral character )his ;uali(cation is not only a
condition precedent to admission to the legal
pro!ession, but its continued possession is essential to
maintain oneMs good standing in the pro!ession
$$ii
1172
.onsidering the depra'ity o! respondentMs oEense, we
(nd the penalty recommended by the IBP to be too
mild Such oEense calls !or the se'erance o!
respondentMs pri'ilege to practice law not only !or two
years, but !or li!e
)he aGda'it o! withdrawal o! the disbarment case
allegedly e$ecuted by complainant does not, in any
way, e$onerate the respondent B case o! suspension
or disbarment may proceed regardless o! interest or
lack o! interest o! the complainant @hat matters is
whether, on the basis o! the !acts borne out by the
record, the charge o! deceit and grossly immoral
conduct has been duly pro'en
$$iii
11,2 )his rule is
premised on the nature o! disciplinary proceedings B
proceeding !or suspension or disbarment is not in any
sense a ci'il action where the complainant is a plaintiE
and the respondent lawyer is a de!endant /isciplinary
proceedings in'ol'e no pri'ate interest and aEord no
redress !or pri'ate grie'ance )hey are undertaken
and prosecuted solely !or the public wel!are )hey are
undertaken !or the purpose o! preser'ing courts o!
:ustice !rom the oGcial ministration o! persons un(t to
practice in them )he attorney is called to answer to
the court !or his conduct as an oGcer o! the court )he
complainant or the person who called the attention o!
the court to the attorneyMs alleged misconduct is in no
sense a party, and has generally no interest in the
outcome e$cept as all good citi6ens may ha'e in the
proper administration o! :ustice
$$i'
1102 3ence, i! the
e'idence on record warrants, the respondent may be
suspended or disbarred despite the desistance o!
complainant or his withdrawal o! the charges In the
instant case, it has been suGciently pro'ed that
respondent has engaged in deceit!ul conduct, in
'iolation o! the .ode o! Pro!essional "esponsibility
IN &IE$ $%EREF, respondent is hereby
/ISBB""F/ Het a copy o! this decision be attached to
respondentMs record in the Bar .on(dantMs 8Gce and
!urnished the IBP and all our courts
S8 8"/F"F/
=ar'asa, .J, "egalado, /a'ide, Jr, "omero, Bellosillo,
9elo, *itug, Iapunan, 9endo6a, Francisco, Panganiban,
and 9artine6, JJ, concur
[A C. No. 3919. Ja3ua/y 70, 1990]
SCRR T. C, ,o-1la23a34, 5s. ATT).
G'FRE' N. BERNAR'IN, /es1o36e34.
' E C I S I N
BE""SI"", J.
)his is an administrati'e complaint !or disbarment (led
by complainant Socorro ) .o, a businesswoman,
against Btty Kodo!redo = Bernardino charging him
with unpro!essional and unethical conduct indicating
moral de(ciency and un(tness to stay in the pro!ession
o! law
Socorro ) .o alleged that in 8ctober 19&9, as she was
!ollowing up the documents !or her shipment at the
Bureau o! .ustoms, she was approached by
respondent, Btty Kodo!redo = Bernardino, introducing
himsel! as someone holding 'arious positions in the
Bureau o! .ustoms such as F$ecuti'e Bssistant at the
=BIB, 3earing 8Gcer at the Haw /i'ision, and 8I. o!
the Security @arehouse "espondent oEered to help
complainant and promised to gi'e her some business
at the Bureau In no time, they became !riends and a
month a!ter, or in =o'ember o! the same year,
respondent succeeded in borrowing !rom complainant
P17#,##### with the promise to pay the amount in !ull
the !ollowing month, broadly hinting that he could use
his inDuence at the Bureau o! .ustoms to assist her )o
ensure payment o! his obligation, respondent issued to
complainant se'eral postdated Boston Bank checksL
=o #97%#1 dated 1 /ecember 19&9 !or P71,9+###,
=o #97%#7 dated 0 /ecember 19&9 !or P%,7+###, =o
#97%1+ dated 1+ January 199# !or P%+,##### and =o
#97%77 dated 1+ January 199# !or P1#,##### >F$hs
JB<,,J JB,J J.,J J/,J respecti'ely? "espondent also
issued a postdated 5rban /e'elopment Bank check =o
#+190% dated 9 January 199# !or P+,+#### >F$h JFJ?
3owe'er, the checks co'ering the total amount o!
P1#9,7#### were dishonored !or insuGciency o! !unds
and closure o! account
Pressed to make good his obligation, respondent told
complainant that he would be able to pay her i! she
would lend him an additional amount o! P7+,##### to
be paid a month a!ter to be secured by a chattel
mortgage on his /atsun car 112 Bs complainant agreed
respondent handed her three >,? copies o! a deed o!
chattel mortgage which he himsel! dra!ted and si$ >%?
copies o! the deed o! sale o! his car with the assurance
that he would turn o'er its registration certi(cate and
oGcial receipt )he agreement was not consummated
as respondent later sold the same car to another
/espite se'eral chances gi'en him to settle his
obligation respondent chose to e'ade complainant
altogether so that she was constrained to write him a
(nal demand letter dated 77 September 1997 172
preceding the (ling o! se'eral criminal complaints
against him !or 'iolation o! BP Blg 77 1,2 .omplainant
also (led a letter<complaint dated + 8ctober 1997 with
the 8Gce o! the 8mbudsman 102
It may be worth mentioning that a certain Fmelinda
8rti6 also (led se'eral criminal and ci'il cases against
respondent similarly in'ol'ing money transactions 1+2
9s 8rti6 claimed that respondent had 'olunteered to
sell to her a 7#<!ooter container 'an (lled with
imported cotton !abric shirting raw materials !rom the
Bureau o! .ustoms warehouse !or P%##,##### in time
!or the holidays 3owe'er, despite her successi'e
payments to respondent totalling P01#,#####, the
latter !ailed to deli'er the goods as promised @orse,
respondentMs personal check !or P01#,#####
representing reimbursement o! the amount he recei'ed
!rom 9s 8rti6 was returned dishonored !or
insuGciency o! !unds
By way o! de!ense, respondent a'erred that he ga'e
the checks to complainant .o by way o! rediscounting
and that these were !ully paid when he deli'ered ('e
cellular phones to her 3e brushed aside the
allegations o! complainant and 9s 8rti6 as ill<
moti'ated, 'ague, con!using, misleading and !ull o!
biases and pre:udices Blthough he is married he
insinuated a special relationship with the two >7?
women which caused him to be careless in his dealings
with them
8n , 9arch 199, the .ourt re!erred this administrati'e
case to the Integrated Bar o! the Philippines !or
in'estigation, report and recommendation
8n 17 9ay 1997 the IBP issued a resolution
recommending the suspension o! respondent !rom the
practice o! law !or si$ >%? months based on the
!ollowing (ndings <
1 =o receipt has been produced by respondent
showing that the !ace 'alue o! the sub:ect checks has
been paid or that the alleged ('e >+? units o! cellular
phones ha'e been deli'ered to the complainantN
7 )he /ecision in the criminal cases that were (led
'is<a<'is the sub:ect bouncing checks and wherein he
was ac;uitted clearly shows that his ac;uittal was not
due to payment o! the obligation but rather that
Mpri'ate complainant knew at the time the accused
issued the checks that the latter did not ha'e suGcient
!unds in the bank to co'er the same =o 'iolation o! BP
Blg 77 is committed where complainant was told by
the drawer that he does not ha'e suGcient !unds in the
bankN and
, "espondent subse;uently paid the complainant as
shown by a receipt dated 7% Bugust 199+ $ $ $ and the
release o! real estate mortgage $ $ $ $ I! it is true that
he had already paid his obligation with ('e >+? cellular
phones, why pay againY
)he general rule is that a lawyer may not be
suspended or disbarred, and the court may not
ordinarily assume :urisdiction to discipline him !or
misconduct in his non<pro!essional or pri'ate capacity
>In "e Pelae6, 00 Phil ++%9 1197,2? @here, howe'er,
the misconduct outside o! the lawyerMs pro!essional
dealings is so gross a character as to show him morally
un(t !or the oGce and unworthy o! the pri'ilege which
his licenses and the law con!er on him, the court may
be :usti(ed in suspending or remo'ing him !rom the
oGce o! attorney >In "e Sotto, ,& Phil +%9 1197,2?
)he e'idence on record clearly shows respondentMs
propensity to issue bad checks )his gross misconduct
on his part, though not related to his pro!essional
duties as a member o! the bar, puts his moral
character in serious doubt )he .ommission, howe'er,
does not (nd him a hopeless case in the light o! the
!act that he e'entually paid his obligation to the
complainant, albeit 'ery much delayed 1%2
@hile it is true that there was no attorney<client
relationship between complainant and respondent as
the transaction between them did not re;uire the
pro!essional legal ser'ices o! respondent, ne'ertheless
respondentMs ab:ect conduct merits condemnation !rom
this .ourt )hus we held in Hi6aso ' Bmante 172 where
Btty Bmante enticed complainant to in'est in the
casino business with the proposition that her
in'estment would yield her an interest o! 1#\ pro(t
daily, and Btty Bmante not only !ailed to deli'er
the promised return on the in'estment but also the
principal thereo! >P+,#####? despite complainantMs
repeated demands <
Bs early as 197,, howe'er, the .ourt laid down in In "e
*icente Pelae6 100 Phil+%7 >197,?2 the principle that it
can e$ercise its power to discipline lawyers !or causes
which do not in'ol'e the relationship o! an attorney
and client $ $ $ $ In disciplining the respondent, 9r
Justice 9alcolm saidL $ $ $ $ Bs a general rule, a court
will not assume :urisdiction to discipline one o! its
oGcers !or misconduct alleged to ha'e been
committed in his pri'ate capacity But this is a general
rule with many e$ceptions $ $ $ $ )he nature o! the
oGce, the trust relation which e$ists between attorney
and client, as well as between court and attorney, and
the statutory rules prescribing the ;uali(cations o!
attorneys, uni!ormly re;uire that an attorney shall be a
person o! good moral character I! that ;uali(cation is
a condition precedent to a license or pri'ilege to enter
upon the practice o! the law, it would seem to be
e;ually essential during the continuance o! the practice
and the e$ercise o! the pri'ilege So it is held that an
attorney will be remo'ed not only !or malpractice and
dishonesty in his pro!ession, but also !or gross
misconduct not connected with his pro!essional duties,
which shows him to be un(t !or the oGce and unworthy
o! the pri'ileges which his license and the law con!er
upon him $ $ $ $ 1&2
)en years later, in Piatt ' Bbordo 192 where the erring
lawyer was suspended !or one year !rom the practice
o! law !or attempting to engage in an opium deal,
Justice 9alcolm reiterated that an attorney may be
remo'ed not only !or malpractice and dishonesty in his
pro!ession, but also !or gross misconduct not related to
his pro!essional duties which show him to be an un(t
and unworthy lawyer J)he courts are not curators o!
the morals o! the bar Bt the same time the pro!ession
is not compelled to harbor all persons whate'er their
character, who are !ortunate enough to keep out o!
prison Bs good character is an essential ;uali(cation
!or admission o! an attorney to practice, when the
attorneyMs character is bad in such respects as to show
that he is unsa!e and un(t to be entrusted with the
powers o! an attorney, the courts retain the power to
discipline him $ $ $ $ 8! all classes and pro!essions, the
lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the law $ $ $
and to that doctrine we gi'e our un;uali(ed supportJ
11#2
Finally, re!erence is made to "ule 1#1, .hapter 1,
entitled )he Hawyer and Society o! the .ode o!
Pro!essional "esponsibility which re;uires that Ja
lawyer shall not engage in unlaw!ul, dishonest,
immoral or deceit!ul conductJ J.onduct,J as used in
this "ule, is not limited to conduct e$hibited in
connection with the per!ormance o! pro!essional duties
In the case at bar, it is glaringly clear that the
procurement o! personal loans through insinuations o!
his power as an inDuence peddler in the Bureau o!
.ustoms, the issuance o! a series o! bad checks and
the taking undue ad'antage o! his position in the
a!oresaid go'ernment oGce constitute conduct in gross
'iolation o! "ule 1#1 o! the .ode o! Pro!essional
"esponsibility
)he recommended suspension o! respondent !or si$ >%?
months is less than what he :ustly deser'es 3is
propin;uity !or employing deceit and
misrepresentations as well as his ca'alier attitude
towards incurring debts without the least intention o!
repaying them is reprehensible )his disturbing
beha'ior cannot be tolerated most especially in a
lawyer who is an oGcer o! the court
@3F"FF8"F, respondent B))O K8/8F"F/8 =
BF"=B"/I=8 is S5SPF=/F/ F8" 8=F >1? OFB" !rom
the practice o! law with warning that repetition o! the
same or similar acts will merit a more se'ere penalty
Het copies o! this /ecision be !urnished all courts in the
land, the Integrated Bar o! the Philippines, the 8Gce o!
the Bar .on(dant and spread in respondentMs personal
records
S8 8"/F"F/
/a'ide, Jr, >.hairman?, *itug, and Iapunan, JJ, concur
i
ii
iii
i'
'
'i
'ii
'iii
i$
$
$i
$ii
$iii
$i'
$'
$'i
$'ii
$'iii
$i$
$$
$$i
$$ii
$$iii
$$i'