JOSLLANO GULVARRA v. A11Y.

JOSL LMMANULL LALA

A.C. No. 7J36, J August 2007, Per Curiam (Ln Banc)

v carr,ivg ov av etravaritat affair ritb tbe rife of Cverarra rior to tbe ;vaiciat aectaratiov of
tbe vvttit, of ber varriage ritb Cverarra, ava ae.ite .tt,. ata biv.etf beivg varriea, tbe tatter .borea
ai.re.ect for av iv.titvtiov beta .acrea b, tbe tar. ectiov 2, Rvte 1 of tbe Rvte. of Covrt va/e. vo
ai.tivctiov a. to rbetber tbe retatiov.bi i. .cavaatov. or tor rofite, roriaea tbat it cov.titvte. gro..t,
ivvorat covavct.


Complainant Joselano Guearra irst met respondent Atty. Jose Lmmanuel Lala
when his then-iance Irene Moje introduced Lala to him as a riend. Atty. Lala, at that
time, was married to Marianne 1antoco with whom he had three children. Ater their
marriage on October , 2000, Guearra noticed that Irene was receiing rom Atty. Lala
cellphone calls and messages, some o which read I loe you`, I miss you`, and Meet you
at the Megamall.` le also noticed that his wie oten went home ery late at night and at
times did not go home at all ater work. On two occasions, Guearra saw Irene and Atty.
Lala together. On the second instance, he conronted them ollowing which Irene
abandoned the conjugal house.

On April 22, 2001, Guearra went uninited to Irene`s birthday celebration at which
he saw her and Atty. Lala celebrating with her amily and riends. Out o embarrassment,
anger and humiliation, he let the enue immediately. Guearra later ound in their house a
olded social card bearing the words I Loe \ou` on its ace. le unolded the card and saw
a handwritten letter dated October 200, the day o his wedding to Irene, reading:

My eerdearest Irene,

By the time you open this, you`ll be moments away rom walking down the aisle. I
will say a prayer or you that you may ind meaning in what you`re about to do.

Sometimes I wonder why we eer met. Is it only or me to ind leeting happiness
but experience eternal pain Is it only or us to ind a true loe but then lose it again Or is
it because there`s a bigger plan or the two o us

I hope that you hae experienced true happiness with me. I hae done eerything
humanly possible to loe you. And today, as you make your ows . . . I make my own ow
to \OU!

I will loe you or the rest o my lie. I loed you rom the irst time I laid eyes on
you, to the time we spent together, up to the inal moments o your single lie. But more
importantly, I will loe you until the lie in me is gone and until we are together again.

Do not worry about me! I will be happy or you. I hae enough memories o us to
last me a lietime. Always remember though that in my heart, in my mind and in my soul,
\OU \ILL AL\A\S

. . . AND 1lL \ONDLRlUL 1lINGS \OU DO!

BL MINL . . . . AND MINL ALONL, and I \ILL AL\A\S BL \OURS AND \OURS
ALONL!

I LOVL \OU lORLVLR, I LOVL \OU lOR AL\A\S. AS LONG AS I`M
LIVING M\ 1\LL1IL \OU`LL BL!`
Lternally yours,

NOLI

Guearra later learn that Irene was already cohabiting with Atty. Lala and that she
was pregnant.

1his prompted Guearra to ile with the Integrated Bar o the Philippines ,IBP, a
disbarment complaint against Atty. Lala or grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated
iolation o the lawyer`s oath.

In his deense, Atty. Lala admitted that he had a relationship with Irene but he
insisted that disbarment does not lie because such relationship was not under scandalous
circumstances as the same was low-proile, known only to the immediate members o their
respectie amilies.`

1he Inestigating Commissioner recommended that he be disbarred or immoral
conduct. 1he IBP Board o Goernors, howeer, ruled to dismiss the complaint or lack o
merit. 1hus, Guearra eleated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUL:

\hether or not Atty. Lala is guilty o grossly immoral conduct and should thus be
dismissed

HLLD:

Petition GRAN1LD.

Atty. Jose Lmmanuel Lala DISBARRLD or grossly immoral conduct, iolation o
his oath o oice, and iolation o Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon , Rule .03 o the Code
o Proessional Responsibility.

Rule 138, Section 2 o the Reised Rules o Court proides that a member o the
bar may be disbarred or suspended or any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
such oice, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason o his coniction o a crime inoling
moral turpitude, or or any iolation o the lawyer`s oath, or or a willul disobedience
appearing as an attorney or a party to a case without authority so to do.

1he Rule, which proides the grounds or disbarment or suspension, uses the phrase
grossly immoral conduct,` not under scandalous circumstances.`
\hether a lawyer`s sexual congress with a woman, not his wie or without the
beneit o marriage should be characterized as grossly immoral conduct` depends on the
surrounding circumstances. 1he case at bar inoles a relationship between a married lawyer
and a married woman who is not his wie. It is immaterial whether the aair was carried out
discreetly. In the case o 1itvg r. Rovgcat, the Court likewise disagreed with respondent`s
contention that his extra-marital aair with complainant, albeit brie and discreet, was not so
corrupt and alse as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a
high degree in order to merit disciplinary sanction.

As pronounced by the Court in 1itvg the mere act o sexual relations between two
unmarried adults is not suicient to warrant administratie sanction or such illicit behaior
but it is not so with respect to betrayals o the marital ow o idelity. Len i not all orms
o extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside marriage is
considered disgraceul and immoral as it maniests deliberate disregard o the sanctity o
marriage and the marital ows protected by the Constitution and airmed by our laws.

1he question o whether or not the Atty. Lala contracted a bigamous marriage need
not be addressed by the Court in disbarment proceedings. It is enough that the records o
the administratie case substantiate the indings o the IBP, i.e., that indeed Lala has been
carrying on an illicit aair with a married woman, a grossly immoral conduct and indicatie
o an extremely low regard or the undamental ethics o his proession.

Atty. Lala in act also iolated the lawyer`s oath he took beore admission to practice
law. lurthermore, he iolated Rule 1.01 o Canon 1 o the Code o Proessional
Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer rom engaging in unlawul, dishonest, immoral or
deceitul conduct,` and Rule .03 o Canon o the same Code which proscribes a lawyer
rom engaging in any conduct that adersely relects on his itness to practice law.`

1hat the marriage between Guearra and Irene was subsequently declared oid ab
ivitio is immaterial. 1he acts complained o took place beore the marriage was declared null
and oid. As a lawyer, Atty. Lala should be aware that a man and a woman deporting
themseles as husband and wie are presumed, unless proen otherwise, to hae entered into
a lawul contract o marriage. In carrying on an extra-marital aair with Irene prior to the
judicial declaration that her marriage with Guearra was null and oid, and despite Atty. Lala
himsel being married, he showed disrespect or an institution held sacred by the law.