EN BANC

[A.C. No. 4921. March 6, 2003.]

CARMELITA I. ZAGUIRRE, complainant, vs. ATTY. ALFREDO

CASTILLO, respondent.

Ariel M. Los Banos for complainant.

SYNOPSIS
At bar is an administrative case for disbarment filed against
respondent on the ground of Gross Immoral Conduct. Respondent allegedly
had an illicit relationship with a woman other than his wife and sired a child
with her. The respondent did not deny having an extra-marital affair with
complainant, but argued that what happened between them was nothing
but mutual lust and desire. He claimed that he did not use any deception to
win her affection.
The Supreme Court held that siring a child with a woman other than his
wife is a conduct way below the standards of morality required of every
lawyer. Respondent repeatedly engaged in sexual congress with a woman
not his wife and now refused to recognize and support a child whom he
previously recognized and promised to support. Clearly, he violated the
standards of morality required of the legal profession and should be
disciplined accordingly. The fact that complainant entered into a relationship
with him knowing full well his marital status did not absolve respondent of
gross immorality for what is in question in a case like this was respondent's
fitness to be a member of the legal profession. It was not dependent whether
or not the other party knowingly engaged in an immoral relationship with
him. The Court held that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any
misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows
him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.
Accordingly, it found the respondent guilty of gross immoral conduct and
imposed upon him the penalty of indefinite suspension from the practice of
law.

SYLLABUS

1. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; GROSS IMMORALITY; IMMORAL

CONDUCT; DEFINED. — 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. 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 or committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency."
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; SIRING A CHILD WITH A WOMAN OTHER THAN HIS WIFE
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 IS A CONDUCT WAY BELOW THE STANDARDS OF MORALITY REQUIRED OF
EVERY LAWYER. — In the recent case of Liguid vs. Judge Camano, Jr., the Court
in castigating a judge stated that: ". . . even as an ordinary lawyer, respondent
has to conform to the strict standard of conduct demanded of members of the
profession. Certainly, fathering children by a woman other than his lawful wife
fails to meet these standards." Siring a child with a woman other than his wife
is a conduct way below the standards of morality required of every lawyer.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; LAWYERS MUST NOT ONLY IN FACT BE OF GOOD
MORAL CHARACTER BUT MUST ALSO BE SEEN TO BE OF GOOD MORAL
CHARACTER; CASE AT BAR. — Moreover, the attempt of respondent to renege
on his notarized statement recognizing and undertaking to support his child by
Carmelita demonstrates a certain unscrupulousness on his part which is highly
censurable, unbecoming a member of a noble profession, tantamount to self-
stultification. This Court has repeatedly held: "as officers of the court, lawyers
must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of
good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral
standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer
of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the
keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing
the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards."
While respondent does not deny having an extra-marital affair with complainant
he seeks understanding from the Court, pointing out that "men by nature are
polygamous," and that what happened between them was "nothing but mutual
lust and desire." The Court is not convinced. In fact, it is appalled at the
reprehensible, amoral attitude of the respondent.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; LAWYER'S FITNESS TO BE A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION NOT DEPENDENT ON WHETHER THE OTHER PARTY KNOWINGLY
ENGAGED IN AN IMMORAL RELATIONSHIP WITH MARRIED LAWYER. —
Respondent claims that he did not use any deception to win her affection.
Granting arguendo that complainant entered into a relationship with him
knowing full well his marital status, still it does not absolve him of gross
immorality for what is in question in a case like this is respondent's fitness to
be a member of the legal profession. It is not dependent whether or not the
other party knowingly engaged in an immoral relationship with him.
5. ID.; ID.; DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS; DEFENSE OF IN PART DELICTO
IMMATERIAL THEREIN. — We agree with the IBP that the defense of in pari
delicto is not feasible. The Court held in Mortel vs. Aspiras: "In a disbarment
proceeding, it is immaterial that the complainant is in pari delicto because this
is not a proceeding to grant relief to the complainant, but one to purge the law
profession of unworthy members, to protect the public and the courts."
6. ID.; ID.; QUALIFICATIONS; AN APPLICANT FOR ADMISSION TO
MEMBERSHIP IN THE BAR MUST SHOW THAT HE POSSESSES GOOD MORAL
CHARACTER. — The illicit relationship with Carmelita took place while
respondent was preparing to take the bar examinations. Thus, it cannot be said
that it is unknown to him that an applicant for admission to membership in the
bar must show that he is possessed of good moral character, a requirement
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 which is not dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. DHSACT

7. ID.; ID.; ID.; POSSESSION OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER IS A

CONTINUING REQUIREMENT TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW. — This qualification is
not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but its
continued possession is essential to maintain one's good standing in the
profession; it is a continuing requirement to the practice of law and therefore
admission to the bar does not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry, upon
proper complaint, into any question concerning his mental or moral fitness
before he became a lawyer. This is because his admission to practice merely
creates a rebuttable presumption that he has all the qualifications to become a
lawyer.
8. ID.; ID.; ID.; MEMBERSHIP IN THE BAR IS A PRIVILEGE BURDENED
WITH CONDITIONS. — The Court held: "The practice of law is not a right but a
privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and
continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of
such privilege. We must stress that membership in the bar is a privilege
burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege to practice law only during
good behavior. He can be deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained
and declared by judgment of the court after giving him the opportunity to be
heard." and in Dumadag vs. Lumaya: "The practice of law is a privilege
burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness,
maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the
rules of the legal profession are the conditions required for remaining a
member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice
law."
9. ID.; ID.; ID.; STANDARDS OF MORALITY; VIOLATED WHERE A
LAWYER REPEATEDLY ENGAGED IN SEXUAL CONGRESS WITH A WOMAN NOT
HIS WIFE AND REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE AND SUPPORT THEIR CHILD. —
Respondent repeatedly engaged in sexual congress with a woman not his wife
and now refuses to recognize and support a child whom he previously
recognized and promised to support. Clearly therefore, respondent violated the
standards of morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined
accordingly.

10. ID.; ID.; DISBARMENT; NOT TO BE METED OUT IF A LESSER

PUNISHMENT COULD BE GIVEN; INDEFINITE SUSPENSION IMPOSED UPON
RESPONDENT IN CASE AT BAR. — As consistently held by this Court, disbarment
shall not be meted out if a lesser punishment could be given. Records show
that from the time he took his oath in 1997, he has severed his ties with
complainant and now lives with his wife and children in Mindoro. As of now, the
Court does not perceive this fact as an indication of respondent's effort to
mend his ways or that he recognizes the impact of his offense on the noble
profession of law. Nevertheless, the Court deems it more appropriate under the
circumstances that indefinite suspension should be meted out than disbarment.
The suspension shall last until such time that respondent is able to show, to the
full satisfaction of the Court, that he had instilled in himself a firm conviction of
maintaining moral integrity and uprightness required of every member of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 profession.

11. ID.; ID.; A LAWYER MAY BE SUSPENDED OR DISBARRED FOR ANY

MISCONDUCT EVEN IF IT PERTAINS TO HIS PRIVATE ACTIVITIES. — The rule is
settled that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even
if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in
moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.

DECISION

PER CURIAM : p

Before this Court is a Petition for Disbarment filed by Carmelita I. Zaguirre

against Atty. Alfredo Castillo on the ground of Gross Immoral Conduct.

The facts as borne by the records are as follows:

Complainant and respondent met sometime in 1996 when the two
became officemates at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). 1 Respondent
courted complainant and promised to marry her while representing himself to
be single. 2 Soon they had an intimate relationship that started sometime in
1996 and lasted until 1997. 3 During their affair, respondent was preparing for
the bar examinations which he passed. On May 10, 1997, he was admitted as a
member of the Philippine Bar. 4 It was only around the first week of May 1997
that complainant first learned that respondent was already married when his
wife went to her office and confronted her about her relationship with
respondent. 5 On September 10, 1997, respondent, who by now is a lawyer,
executed an affidavit, admitting his relationship with the complainant and
recognizing the unborn child she was carrying as his. 6 On December 09, 1997,
complainant gave birth to a baby girl, Aletha Jessa. 7 By this time however,
respondent had started to refuse recognizing the child and giving her any form
of support. 8

Respondent claims that: he never courted the complainant; what

transpired between them was nothing but mutual lust and desire; he never
represented himself as single since it was known in the NBI that he was already
married and with children; 9 complainant is almost 10 years older than him and
knew beforehand that he is already married; 10 the child borne by complainant
it not his, because the complainant was seeing other men at the time they were
having an affair. 11 He admits that he signed the affidavit dated September 10,
1997 but explains that he only did so to save complainant from
embarrassment. Also, he did not know at the time that complainant was seeing
other men. 12

After due haring, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Alfredo
Castillo guilty of gross immoral conduct and recommends that he be meted the
penalty of indefinite suspension from the practice of law.

The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
"Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct."
xxx xxx xxx
"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."

xxx xxx xxx

"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."

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. 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
or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to
shock the common sense of decency." 13

In his affidavit dated September 10, 1997, duly acknowledged before a

notary public, he declared explicitly:
"1. That I had a relationship with one Carmelita Zaguirre, my
officemate;

"2. That as a result of that relationship, she is presently

pregnant with my child;

"3. That I hereby voluntarily recognize the child now under

(sic) her womb to be my own;

"4. That I am willing to support the said child henceforth,

including his/her personal and medical needs, education, housing,
food, clothing and other necessities for living, which I will give through
his/her mother, Carmelita Zaguirre, until he/she becomes of legal age
and capable to live on his/her own;

"5. That I undertake to sign the birth certificate as an

additional proof that he/she is my child; however, my failure to sign
does not negate the recognition and acknowledgement already done
herein;

"6. That I am executing this affidavit without compulsion on

my part and being a lawyer, I have full knowledge of the consequence
of such acknowledgment and recognition." 14

More incriminating is his handwritten letter dated March 12, 1998 which
states in part:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 "Ayoko ng umabot tayo sa kung saan-saan pa . All your
officemates, e.g., Ate Ging, Glo, Guy and others (say) that I am the look
like(sic) of your daughter.
"Here's my bargain. I will help you in supporting your daughter,
but I cannot promise fix amount for monthly support of your daughter.
However it shall not be less than P500 but not more than P1,000." 15

In the recent case of Liguid vs. Judge Camano, Jr., the Court in castigating
a judge stated that:
". . . even as an ordinary lawyer, respondent has to conform to
the strict standard of conduct demanded of members of the profession.
Certainly, fathering children by a woman other than his lawful wife fails
to meet these standards." 16

Siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a conduct way below the
standards of morality required of every lawyer. 17
Moreover, the attempt of respondent to renege on his notarized
statement recognizing and undertaking to support his child by Carmelita
demonstrates a certain unscrupulousness on his part which is highly
censurable, unbecoming a member of a noble profession, tantamount to self-
stultification. 18
This Court has repeatedly held:
"as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good
moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character
and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the
community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the
court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the
keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid
scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those
moral standards." 19

While respondent does not deny having an extra-marital affair with

complainant he seeks understanding from the Court, pointing out that "men by
nature are polygamous," 20 and that what happened between them was
"nothing but mutual lust and desire." 21 The Court is not convinced. In fact, it is
appalled at the reprehensible, amoral attitude of the respondent.
Respondent claims that he did not use any deception to win her affection.
Granting arguendo that complainant entered into a relationship with him
knowing full well his marital status, still it does not absolve him of gross
immorality for what is in question in a case like this is respondent's fitness to
be a member of the legal profession. It is not dependent whether or not the
other party knowingly engaged in an immoral relationship with him.
We agree with the IBP that the defense of in pari delicto is not feasible.
The Court held in Mortel vs. Aspiras:
"In a disbarment proceeding, it is immaterial that the
complainant is in pari delicto because this is not a proceeding to grant
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 relief to the complainant, but one to purge the law profession of
unworthy members, to protect the public and the courts." 22

The illicit relationship with Carmelita took place while respondent was
preparing to take the bar examinations. Thus, it cannot be said that it is
unknown to him that an applicant for admission to membership in the bar must
show that he is possessed of good moral character, a requirement which is not
dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. 23 This qualification is
not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but its
continued possession is essential to maintain one's good standing in the
profession; 24 it is a continuing requirement to the practice of law 25 and
therefore admission to the bar does not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry,
upon proper complaint, into any question concerning his mental or moral
fitness before he became a lawyer. This is because his admission to practice
merely creates a rebuttable presumption that he has all the qualifications to
become a lawyer.
The Court held:
"The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the
State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess,
the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.
We must stress that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened
with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege to practice law only during
good behavior. He can be deprived of his license for misconduct
ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after giving him the
opportunity to be heard." 26

and in Dumadag vs. Lumaya:

"The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions.
Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the
highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the
legal profession are the conditions required for remaining a member of
good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law."
27

Respondent repeatedly engaged in sexual congress with a woman not his

wife and now refuses to recognize and support a child whom he previously
recognized and promised to support. Clearly therefore, respondent violated the
standards of morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined
accordingly.
As consistently held by this Court, disbarment shall not be meted out if a
lesser punishment could be given. 28 Records show that from the time he took
his oath in 1997, he has severed his ties with complainant and now lives with
his wife and children in Mindoro. As of now, the Court does not perceive this
fact as an indication of respondent's effort to mend his ways or that he
recognizes the impact of his offense on the noble profession of law.
Nevertheless, the Court deems it more appropriate under the circumstances
that indefinite suspension should be meted out than disbarment. The
suspension shall last until such time that respondent is able to show, to the full
satisfaction of the Court, that he has instilled in himself a firm conviction of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 maintaining moral integrity and uprightness required of every member of the
profession.
The rule is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any
misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him
to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. 29
ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds respondent
GUILTY of Gross Immoral Conduct and ordered to suffer INDEFINITE
SUSPENSION from the practice of law.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty. Castillo's personal record
in the Office of the Bar Confidant and a copy thereof be furnished the IBP and
all courts throughout the country.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr. and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
Ynares-Santiago and Corona, JJ., are on leave.

Footnotes

1. Rollo , p. 11.
2. Id., p. 2.
3. Id., p. 12.
4. Annex "A", Rollo , p. 5.

5. Rollo , p. 2.
6. Id., p. 7.
7. Annex "B", Rollo, p. 6.
8. Rollo , p. 2.
9. Id., at p. 11.
10. Id., at p. 13.
11. Id., at p. 12.
12. Id., at p. 13.
13. Narag vs. Narag, 291 SCRA 451, 464 (1998).
14. Annex "C", Rollo, p. 7.

15. Id., at p. 39.

16. A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519, August 8, 2002.
17. Paras vs. Paras, 343 SCRA 414, 426 (2000).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 18. Marcayda vs. Naz, 125 SCRA 466, 469 (1983).
19. Narag vs. Narag, supra, footnote 13.
20. Rollo , p. 14.
21. Id., at p. 11.
22. 100 Phil. 586, 592 (1956).
23. Cordova vs. Cordova , 179 SCRA 680, 683 (1989); Vda. de Mijares vs.
Villaluz, 274 SCRA 1, 8 (1997).
24. Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos, 285 SCRA 93, 100 (1998); Igual vs. Javier, 254
SCRA 416 (1996); Villanueva vs. Sta. Ana, 245 SCRA 707 (1995); People vs.
Tuanda, 18 SCRA 692 (1990); Melendrez vs. Decena, 176 SCRA 662 (1989).
25. Nakpil vs. Valdes, 286 SCRA 758, 774 (1998).
26. Sebastian vs. Calis, 344 SCRA 1, 8 (1999).
27. 334 SCRA 513, 521 (2000).
28. Saburnido vs. Madrono, A.C. No. 4497, September 26, 2001.
29. Nakpil vs. Valdes, supra.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com