ROYONG v OBLENA

FACTS:
Royong, the niece it the common-law wife of Oblena, filed a rape case against the latter.
In her complaint, Royong alleged that in 1958 Oblena forced her to have intercourse with her
and that she refrained to report the incident because Oblena threatened to kill her family.
As a result if the sexual intercourse, Royong gave birth to a child
Oblena denied all the allegations and argued that he and Royong had a relationship and Royong
consented to have intercourse with him.
The Solicitor General recommended that Oblena be permanently removed from the roll of
attorney eventhough the acts of the Royong before and after the rape incident showed that she
is more of a sweetheart than a victim because of the circumstances behind the incident
The Solicitor General also charged Oblena of falsifying and deliberately alleging in his application
in the bar in1958 that he is a person of good moral character while having an illicit and
adulterous relationship with Angeles who is not only the aunt of Royong but also has a legal
husband in the province
Oblena moved to dismiss the case because the offenses charged are different from those
originally charged in the complaint but the court overruled his petition
After the hearing, the investigators concluded that A.) Oblena used his knowledge in law to
commit immoral acts without incurring any criminal liability; B.) he committed gross immorality
by continuously cohabiting with Angeles, his common-law wife, even after he became a lawyer
and C.) Oblena falsified the truth as to his good moral character in his application to take the
bar.
ISSUE:
W/N the illicit relationship with Royong and the open cohabitation with Angeles, a married
woman, are sufficient grounds to cause Oblenas disbarment
HELD:
YES!
Although Oblena is not yet convicted of the crime of rape, seduction or adultery and he is not
guilty of any of the grounds for disbarment enumerated in Sec 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of
Court, the enumeration is not exclusive and the power of the court to exclude unworthy
members of the bar is inherent and is a necessary incident to the proper administration of
justice and can be exercised even without any statutory authority, in all cases unless properly
prohibited by statutes.
American jurisprudence provides that the continued possession of a good moral character is a
requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice of law. The loss requires
suspension or disbarment eventhough the statues do not explicitly specify that as a ground of
disbarment.
Oblenas argument that he believed himself to be a person with good moral character when he
filed his application to take the bar examination is wrong. Ones own approximation of himself
is not a gauge of his moral character. Moral character is not a subjective term but one which
corresponds to objective reality. Moral character is what the person really is and not what he
other people thinks he is.
His pretension to wait for the 18th birthday of Royong before having carnal knowledge with her
shows the scheming mind of Oblena and his taking advantage of his knowledge of the law.

Also, Royong is the niece of his common-law wife and he enjoyed moral ascendancy over her.
Oblena took advantage of Royongs trust on him.
Oblenas contention that the Solicitor General exceeded his authority in filing the present
complain which is entirely different from the original complaint filed is untenable. There is
nothing in the law requiring the Solicitor General to charge in his complaint the same offence
charged in the original complaint. What the law provides is that if the Solicitor General finds
sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondent, he shall file the corresponding complaint
accompanied by the evidence introduced in his investigation.