Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A. C. No. 3405 June 29, 1998 Julieta B. Narag, Complainant, vs. Atty. Dominador M. NARAG, Respondent
A. C. No. 3405 June 29, 1998 Julieta B. Narag, Complainant, vs. Atty. Dominador M. NARAG, Respondent
PER CURIAM:
The St. Louis College of Tuguegarao engaged the services of Atty. Dominador M.
Narag in the early seventies as a full-time college instructor in the College of Arts
and Sciences and as a professor in the Graduate School. In 1984, Ms. Gina Espita,
17 years old and a first year college student, enrolled in subjects handled by Atty.
Narag. Exerting his influence as her teacher, and as a prominent member of the
legal profession and then member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Tuguegarao, Atty.
Narag courted Ms. Espita, gradually lessening her resistance until the student
acceded to his wishes.
It appears that Atty. Narag used his power and influence as a member of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan to cause the employment of Ms. Espita at
the Department of Trade and Industry Central Office at Makati, Metro Manila. Out
of gratitude perhaps, for this gesture, Ms. Espita agreed to live with Atty. Narag,
her sense of right[e]ousness and morals completely corrupted by a member of the
Bar.
This Court, in a Resolution dated December 18, 1989, referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. 4
On June 26, 1990, the office of then Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan received
from complainant another letter seeking the dismissal of the administrative
complaint. She alleged therein that (1) she fabricated the allegations in her
1
complaint to humiliate and spite her husband; (2) all the love letters between the
respondent and Gina Espita were forgeries; and (3) she was suffering from
"emotional confusion arising from extreme jealousy." The truth, she stated, was
that her husband had remained a faithful and responsible family man. She further
asserted that he had neither entered into an amorous relationship with one Gina
Espita nor abandoned his family. 5 Supporting her letter were an Affidavit of
Desistance 6 and a Motion to Dismiss, 7 attached as Annexes A and B, which she
filed before the IBP commission on bar discipline. 8 In a Decision dared October 8,
1991, the IBP Board of Governors 9 dismissed the complaint of Mrs. Narag for
failure to prosecute. 10
The case took an unexpected turn when, on November 25, 1991, this
Court 11 received another letter 12 from the complainant, with her seven
children 13 as co-signatories, again appealing for the disbarment of her husband.
She explained that she had earlier dropped the case against him because of his
continuous threats against her. 14
In addition, he professed his love for his wife and his children and denied
abandoning his family to live with his paramour. However, he described his wife
as a person emotionally disturbed, viz:
What is pitiable here is the fact that Complainant is an incurably jealous and
possessive woman, and every time the streak of jealousy rears its head, she fires
off letters or complaints against her husband in every conceivable forum, all
without basis, and purely on impulse, just to satisfy the consuming demands of her
"loving" jealousy. Then, as is her nature, a few hours afterwards, when her
jealousy cools off, she repents and feels sorry for her acts against the Respondent.
Thus, when she wrote the Letter of November 11, 1991, she was then in the grips
of one of her bouts of jealousy. 18
On August 24, 1992, this Court issued another Resolution referring the Comment
of respondent to the IBP. 19 In the hearing before IBP Commissioner Plaridel C.
Jose, respondent alleged the following: 20
2. Your Respondent comes from very poor parents who have left him not even a
square meter of land, but gave him the best legacy in life: a purposeful and
meaningful education. Complainant comes from what she claims to be very rich
parents who value material possession more than education and the higher and
nobler aspirations in life. Complainant abhors the poor.
3. Your Respondent has a loving upbringing, nurtured in the gentle ways of love,
forgiveness, humility, and concern for the poor. Complainant was reared and raised
in an entirely different environment. Her value system is the very opposite.
2
4. Your Respondent loves his family very dearly, and has done all he could in
thirty-eight (38) years of marriage to protect and preserve his family. He gave his
family sustenance, a comfortable home, love, education, companionship, and most
of all, a good and respected name. He was always gentle and compassionate to his
wife and children. Even in the most trying times, he remained calm and never
inflicted violence on them. His children are all now full-fledged professionals,
mature, and gainfully employed. . . .
On the other hand, consumed by insane and unbearable jealousy, Complainant has
been systematically and unceasingly destroying the very foundations of their
marriage and their family. Their marriage has become a torture chamber in which
Your Respondent has been incessantly BEATEN, BATTERED, BRUTALIZED,
TORTURED, ABUSED, and HUMILIATED, physically, mentally, and
emotionally, by the Complainant, in public and at home. Their marriage has
become a nightmare.
For thirty-eight years, your Respondent suffered in silence and bore the pain of his
misfortune with dignity and with almost infinite patience, if only to preserve their
family and their marriage. But this is not to be. The Complainant never mellowed
and never became gentl[e], loving, and understanding. In fact, she became more
fierce and predatory.
Hence, at this point in time, the light at the tunnel for Your Respondent does not
seem in sight. The darkness continues to shroud the marital and familial landscape.
On the other hand, for no reason at all, except a jealous rage, Complainant tells
everyone, everywhere, that her husband is worthless, good-for-nothing, evil and
immoral. She goes to colleges and universities, professional organizations,
religious societies, and all other sectors of the community to tell them how evil,
bad and immoral her husband is. She tells them not to hire him as professor, as
Counsel, or any other capacity because her husband is evil, bad, and immoral. Is
this love? Since when did love become an instrument to destroy a man's dearest
possession in life - his good name, reputation and dignity?
3
Because of Complainant's virulent disinformation campaign against her husband,
employing every unethical and immoral means to attain his ends, Your Respondent
has been irreparably and irreversibly disgraced, shamed, and humiliated. Your
Respondent is not a scandalous man. It is he who has been mercilessly scandalized
and crucified by the Complainant. 21
To prove the alleged propensity of his wife to file false charges, respondent
presented as evidence the following list of the complaints she had filed against him
and Gina Espita:
3.2 Complaint for Immorality/Neglect of Duty, DILG, Adm. Case No. P-5-90. . . .
3.3 Complaint for Concubinage. Provincial Prosecutor's Office of Cagayan. I.S No.
89-114. . . .
3.5 Complaint for Civil Support. RTC, Tuguegarao, Civil Case No. 4061.
DISMISSED.
3.8 Complaint for Disbarment, again (. . .). Adm. Case No. 3405. Pending.
3.9 Complaint for Concubinage, again (. . .). Third MCTC, Tumauini, Isabela.
Pending. . . . 22
I. That all the alleged love letters and envelopes (. . .), picture (. . .) are
inadmissible in evidence as enunciated by the Supreme Court in "Cecilia Zulueta
vs. Court of Appeals, et.al.", G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996. (. . .).
II. That respondent is totally innocent of the charges: He never courted Gina Espita
in the Saint Louis College of Tuguegarao. He never caused the employment of said
woman in the DTI. He never had or is having any illicit relationship with her
anywhere, at any time. He never lived with her as husband and wife anywhere at
any time, be it in Centro Tumauini or any of its barangays, or in any other place.
He never begot a child or children with her. Finally, respondent submits that all the
other allegations of Mrs. Narag are false and fabricated, . . .
III. Respondent never abandoned his family[.] Mrs. Narag and her two sons
forcibly drove respondent Narag out of the conjugal home. After that, Atty. Narag
4
tried to return to the conjugal home many times with the help of mutual friends to
save the marriage and the family from collapse. He tried several times to reconcile
with Mrs. Narag. In fact, in one of the hearings of the disbarment case, he offered
to return home and to reconcile with Mrs. Narag. But Mrs. Narag refused all these
efforts of respondent Narag. . . .
VI. Respondent Atty. Narag is now an old man - a senior citizen of 63 years -
sickly, abandoned, disgraced, weakened and debilitated by progressively
degenerative gout and arthritis, and hardly able to earn his own keep. His very
physical, medical, psychological, and economic conditions render him unfit and
unable to do the things attributed to him by the complainant. Please see the
attached medical certificates, . . ., among many other similar certificates touching
on the same ailments. Respondent is also suffering from hypertension. 23
b) Whether the denial under oath that his illegitimate children with Gina Espita
(Aurelle Dominic and Kyle Dominador) as appearing on paragraph 1(g) of
respondent's Comment vis-a-vis his handwritten love letters, the due execution and
contents of which, although he objected to their admissibility for being allegedly
forgeries, were never denied by him on the witness stand much less presented and
offered proof to support otherwise.
5
the adulterous relationship between him and their having begotten their illegitimate
children, namely: Aurelle Dominic N. Espita and Kyle Dominador N. Espita.
Worse, respondent's denial that he is the father of the two is a ground for
disciplinary sanction (Morcayda v. Naz, 125 SCRA 467).
Viewed from all the evidence presented, we find the respondent subject to
disciplinary action as a member of the legal profession. 25
In its Resolution 26 issued on August 23, 1997, the IBP adopted and approved the
investigating commissioner's recommendation for the indefinite suspension of the
respondent. 27 Subsequently the complaint sought the disbarment of her husband in
a Manifestation/Comment she filed on October 20, 1997. The IBP granted this
stiffer penalty and, in its Resolution dated November 30, 1997, denied respondent's
Motion for Reconsideration.
After a careful scrutiny of the records of the proceedings and the evidence
presented by the parties, we find that the conduct of respondent warrants the
imposition of the penalty of disbarment.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Thus, good moral character is not only a condition precedent 28 to the practice of
law, but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar. Hence, when a
lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he may be suspended or
disbarred. 29
Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or
shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members
of the community. 30 Furthermore, such conduct must not only be immoral,
but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or
so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree 31 or committed under
such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of
decency. 32
6
the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if she establishes her case by
clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. 34
A Yes, sir.
ATTY. NARAG:
A Because he is the live-in partner of my sister and that they are now living
together as husband and wife and that they already have two children, Aurelle
Dominic and Kyle Dominador.
Q Mr. Espita, you claim that Atty. Narag is now living with your sister as husband
and wife. You claim that?
A Yes, sir.
A Because at present you are living together as husband and wife and you have
already two children and I know that is really an immoral act which you cannot
just allow me to follow since my moral values don't allow me that my sister is
living with a married man like you.
Q How do you know that Atty. Narag is living with your sister? Did you see them
in the house?
A Yes, si[r].
7
xxx xxx xxx
Q You said also that Atty. Narag and your sister have two children, Aurelle
Dominic and Kyle Dominador, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q How do you know that they are the children of Atty. Narag?
A Because you are staying together in that house and you have left your family. 44
In addition, Charlie Espita admitted (1) that it was he who handed to Mrs. Narag
the love letters respondent had sent to his sister, and (2) that Atty. Narag tried to
dissuade him from appearing at the disbarment proceedings. 45
Q And you specifically, categorically state under oath that this is the residence of
Atty. Narag?
A Yes, sir.
Q And under oath this is where Atty. Narag and Gina Espita are allegedly living
as husband and wife, is it not?
A Yes, sir. 46
Witness Nieves Reyes, a neighbor and friend of the estranged couple, testified that
she learned from the Narag children - Randy, Bong and Rowena - that their father
left his family, that she and her husband prodded the complainant to accept the
respondent back, that the Narag couple again separated when the respondent "went
back to his woman," and that Atty. Narag had maltreated his wife. 47
8
On the strength of the testimony of her witnesses, the complainant was able to
establish that respondent abandoned his family and lived with another woman.
Absent any evidence showing that these witnesses had an ill motive to testify
falsely against the respondent, their testimonies are deemed worthy of belief.
Further, the complainant presented as evidence the love letters that respondent had
sent to Gina. In these letters, respondent clearly manifested his love for Gina and
her two children, whom he acknowledged as his own. In addition, complainant,
also submitted as evidence the cards that she herself had received from him.
Guided by the rule that handwriting may be proved through a comparison of one
set of writings with those admitted or treated by the respondent as genuine, we
affirm that the two sets of evidence were written by one and the same
person. 48 Besides, respondent did not present any evidence to prove that the love
letters were not really written by him; he merely denied that he wrote them.
While the burden of proof is upon the complainant, respondent has the duty not
only to himself but also to the court to show that he is morally fit to remain a
member of the bar. Mere denial does not suffice. Thus, when his moral character is
assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherished profession is
imperiled, he must meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to the
satisfaction of the investigating body and this Court, that he is morally fit to have
his name in the Roll of Attorneys. 49 This he failed to do.
Respondent adamantly denies abandoning his family to live with Gina Espita. At
the same time, he depicts his wife as a "violent husband-beater, vitriolic and
unbending," and as an "insanely and pathologically jealous woman," whose only
obsession was to "destroy, destroy and destroy" him as shown by her filing of a
series of allegedly unfounded charges against him (and Gina Espita). To prove his
allegation, he presented ninety-eight (98) pieces of documentary evidence 50 and
ten (10) witnesses. 51
We note, however, that the testimonies of the witnesses of respondent did not
establish the fact that he maintained that moral integrity required by the profession
that would render him fit to continue practicing law. Neither did their testimonies
destroy the fact, as proven by the complainant, that he had abandoned his family
and lived with Gina Espita, with whom he had two children. Some of them
testified on matters which they had no actual knowledge of, but merely relied on
information from either respondent himself or other people, while others were
presented to impeach the good character of his wife.
Respondent may have provided well for his family - they enjoyed a comfortable
life and his children finished their education. He may have also established himself
as a successful lawyer and a seasoned politician. But these accomplishments are
not sufficient to show his moral fitness to continue being a member of the noble
profession of law.
We remind respondent that parents have not only rights but also duties - e.g., to
support, educate and instruct their children according to right precepts and good
example; and to give them love, companionship and understanding, as well as
moral and spiritual guidance. 52 As a husband, he is also obliged to live with his
wife; to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity; and to render help and support. 53
Respondent himself admitted that his work required him to be often away from
home. But the evidence shows that he was away not only because of his work;
9
instead, he abandoned his family to live with her paramour, who bore him two
children. It would appear, then, that he was hardly in a position to be a good
husband or a good father. His children, who grew up mostly under the care of their
mother, must have scarcely felt the warmth of their father's love.
Respondent's son, Jervis B. Narag, showed his resentment towards his father's
moral frailties in his testimony:
A That depends upon the sin or fault, sir, but if the sin or fault is with the
emotional part of myself, I suppose I cannot forgive a person although am a God-
fearing person, but I h[av]e to give the person a lesson in order for him or her to at
least realize his mistakes, sir.
COMR. JOSE:
I think it sounds like this. Assuming for the sake of argument that your father is the
worst, hardened criminal on earth, would you send him to jail and have him
disbarred? That is the question.
CONTINUATION.
A With the reputation that he had removed from us, I suppose he has to be given a
lesson. At this point in time, I might just forgive him if he will have to experience
all the pains that we have also suffered for quite sometime.
Q Dr. Narag, your father gave you life, his blood runs in your veins, his flesh is
your flesh, his bones are your bones and you now disown him because he is the
worst man on earth, is that what you are saying.
Q You are now telling that as far [as] you are concerned because your father has
sinned, you have no more father, am I correct?
A Long before, sir, I did not feel much from my father even when I was still a kid
because my father is not always staying with us at home. So, how can you say
that? Yes, he gave me life, why not? But for sure, sir, you did not give me love. 54
Another son, Dominador Narag, Jr., narrated before the investigating officer the
trauma he went through:
Q In connection with that affidavit, Mr. Witness, which contains the fact that your
father is maintaining a paramour, could you please tell this Honorable Commission
the effect on you?
A This has a very strong effect on me and this includes my brothers and sisters,
especially my married life, sir. And it also affected my children so much, that I and
my wife ha[ve] parted ways. It hurts to say that I and my wife parted ways. This is
one reason that affected us.
10
Q Will you please tell us specifically why you and your wife parted ways?
A Because my wife wa[s] ashamed of what happened to my family and that she
could not face the people, our community, especially because my wife belongs to a
well-known family in our community.
Q How about the effect on your brothers and sisters? Please tell us what are those.
A Well, sir, this has also affected the health of my elder sister because she knows
so well that my mother suffered so much and she kept on thinking about my
mother.
A The truth is because of the things that had happened in our family, Your Honor.
A What meant by that is my father had an illicit relationship and that my father
went to the extent of scolding my wife and calling my wife a "puta" in provincial
government, which my mother-in-law hated him so much for this, which really
affected us. And then my wife knew for a fact that my father has an illicit
relationship with Gina Espita, whom he bore two children by the name of Aurelle
Dominic and Kyle Dominador, which I could prove and I stand firm to this, Your
Honor. 55
Although respondent piously claims adherence to the sanctity of marriage, his acts
prove otherwise. A husband is not merely a man who has contracted marriage.
Rather, he is a partner who has solemnly sworn to love and respect his wife and
remain faithful to her until death.
We reiterate our ruling in Cordova vs. Cordova 56: "The moral delinquency that
affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that
outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct for
instance, which makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage."
In Toledo vs. Toledo, 57 the respondent was disbarred from the practice of law,
when he abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with another woman who had
borne him a child.
In the present case, the complainant was able to establish, by clear and convincing
evidence, that respondent had breached the high and exacting moral standards set
for members of the law profession. As held in Maligsa vs. Cabanting, 59 "a lawyer
11
may be disbarred for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity
and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court."
SO ORDERED.
12