9.) ROYONG vs.

OBLENA

G.R. No. 376

April 30, 1963

BARRERA, J.

Digested by: Rain Gwapo

FACTS:

 Respondent Ariston Oblena, a member of the bench and the bar, was charged with rape by
complainant Josefina Royong (which was the niece of Oblena’s common-law wife, Briccia
Angeles, which was a married woman) and prayed for the respondent’s disbarment. After an
investigation was conducted by the Solicitor General, it was found out that Oblena did not rape
Royong; the carnal knowledge between the two was consensual. Additionally, the Solicitor
General stated in the subsequent report that even if Oblena did not commit rape, he was still
guilty of other misconduct.
 In another complaint made by the Solicitor General, Oblena was charged of falsely and
deliberately alleging in his application for admission to the bar that he is a person of good moral
character, of living adulterously with Briccia Angeles at the same time maintaining illicit relations
with the 18-year-old Josefina Royong, thus rendering him unfit to practice law. The Solicitor
General prayed that the Court render judgment ordering the permanent removal of the
respondent as lawyer and judge.

ISSUE:

WON the illicit relations of Oblena with Josefina Royong and his adulterous relationship with Briccia
Angeles warrants his disbarment. (YES)

RULING:

The continued possession of a fair private and professional character or a good moral character
is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice of law for one who has been
admitted, and its loss requires suspension or disbarment even though the statutes do not specify that as
ground for disbarment.

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

The moral depravity of the respondent is most apparent, considering that the complainant
was the niece of his common-law wife (with whom he was in adulterous relationship as Angeles was
married) and that he enjoyed a moral ascendancy over her who looked up to him as her uncle.
Furthermore, the blunt admission of his illicit relations with the complainant reveals the respondent
to be a person who would suffer no moral compunction for his acts if the same could be done without
fear of criminal liability. He has, by these acts, proven himself to be devoid of the moral integrity
expected of a member of the bar.

Fornication, if committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as have proven in this
case, as to shock common sense of decency, certainly may justify positive action by the Court in
protecting the prestige of the noble profession of the law.

DISPOSITION:

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