Cases on Good Moral Character and Moral Turpitude

A.C. 3405, June 29, 1998

JULIETA NARAG VS. ATTY. DOMINADOR M. NARAG

Rulings:
Good moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member of the bar.
Thus, when a lawyer fails to meet the exacting standard of moral integrity, the Supreme
Court may withdraw his or her privilege to practice law.

Respondent was found guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the CPR.
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 on decency.
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. (Barrientos vs. Daarol-218 SCRA 30, 40, Jan. 29, 1993)
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.
(Cordova vs. Cordova, 179 SCRA 680, 683, Nov. 29, 1989)
See also Toledo vs. Toleldo- 7 SCRA 757, April 27, 1963
Obusan vs. Obusan, 128 SCRA 485, April 2, 1984

A lawyer 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. ( Maligsa vs. Cabanting, A.C.
4539, May 14, 1997)

A.C. 376, ROYONG VS. OBLENA (April 30, 1963)

The grounds for disbarment as enumerated in the Rules of Court is not exclusive and that
the power of the Courts to exclude unfit and unworthy members of the profession is
inherent; it is a necessary incident to the proper administration of justice; it may be
exercised without any special statutory authority; and in all proper cases unless positively
prohibited by statute, and the power may be exercised in any manner that will give the
party to be disbarred a fair trial and a fair opportunity to be heard.
The moral turpitude for which an attorney may be disbarred may consist of misconduct in
either his professional or non-professional activities. The tendency of the decisions of this
Court has been toward the conclusion that a member of the Bar may be removed or
suspended from office as a lawyer for other than statutory grounds.

The respondents misconduct, although unrelated to his office, may constitute sufficient
grounds for disbarment.
(See In re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 667)

1
 Respondents 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.
Respondents conduct therefore renders him unfit and unworthy for the privileges of the
legal profession. As good character is an essential qualification for admission of an attorney
to practice, he may be removed therefrom whenever he ceases to possess such character.
Ones approximation of himself is not a gauge to his moral character. Moral character is not
a subjective term, but one which corresponds to objective reality. Moral character is what a
person really is; and not what he or other people think he is.
(Chief Justice Moran: An applicant for license to practice law is required to show good moral
character, or what he really is, as distinguished from good reputation, or from the opinion
generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he, is held by the public in the place
where he is known.
Good moral character includes at least common honesty.
( it is of no moment that his immoral state was discovered then or now as he is clearly not
fit to remain a member of the bar.)
A.C. 3319, LESLIE UI VS. ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO, June 8, 2000
1) The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy the
practice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege
that can be revoked, subject to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his
oath and the dictates of legal ethics.
2) Possession of good moral character must be continuous as a requirement to the
enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the
revocation of such privilege.
3) If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then the continued
possession of good moral character is also a requisite for retaining membership in the legal
profession. Membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good
moral character. (Royong vs. oblena, 117 Phil. 865)
4) A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of
a crime involving moral turpitude. A member of the bar should have moral integrity in
addition to professional probity.

5) Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and which show a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable
members of the community.
6) For such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be grossly immoral
that is it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to
be reprehensible to a high degree.
It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of
morality. The legal profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called
upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of
malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the Court demand no less than the
highest degree of morality.

MORAL TURPITUDE
A.C. 6792 SORIANO VS. DIZON , JANUARY 25, 2006
Issues
WHETHER HIS CRIME OF FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE INVOLVES MORAL TURPITUDE, AND
WHETHER HIS GUILT WARRANTS DISBARMENT
RULINGS:
Moral turpitude has been defined as everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty
or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties

2
 which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty or good morals.

In the case of IRRI vs. NLRC, an employee was dismissed based on his conviction of
homicide. The Court held that having disregarded the attendant circumstances, the
employer should not have made the pronouncement. It can not determine conclusively
whether a crime involved moral turpitude. That DISCRETION BELONGED TO THE COURTS
AS EXPLAINED:
Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the crime.
Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown by every known and
intentional violation of statute, but whether any particular conviction involves moral
turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently depends on all the surrounding
circumstances.
(IRRI VS. NLRC, 221 SCRA 760, 767 May 12, 1993)
Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude may relate, not to the exercise of the
profession of lawyers, but certainly to their good moral character.
Where their misconduct outside of their professional dealings is so gross as to show them
morally unfit for their office and unworthy of the privileges conferred upon them by their
license and the law, the court may be justified in suspending or removing them from that
office.
Good moral character includes at least common honesty.

Lawyers must be ministers of truth. No moral qualification for bar membership is more
important than truthfulness. The rigorous ethics of the profession places a premium on
honesty and condemns duplicitous behavior. Hence, lawyers must not mislead the court or
allow it to be misled by any artifice. In all their dealings, they are expected to act in good
faith.

Law is a noble profession, and the privilege to practice it is bestowed only upon individuals
who are competent intellectually, academically and equally important, morally. Because
they are vanguards of the law and the legal system, lawyers must at all times conduct
themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with
honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
The purpose of a proceeding for disbarment is to protect the administration of justice by
requiring that those who exercise this important function be competent, honorable and
reliable-lawyers in whom courts and clients may impose confidence. Thus, whenever a
clear case of degenerate and vile behavior disturbs that vital yet fragile confidence we shall
not hesitate to rid our profession of odious members.
The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and that disbarment should
never be decreed when any lesser penalty would accomplish the end desired.
The legal profession is a PRIVILEGE demanding a high degree of good moral character, not
only as a condition precedent to admission, but also as a continuing requirement for the
practice of law.

On Moral Turpitude
G.R. 180363 TEVES VS. COMELEC AND TEVES, APRIL 28, 2009
(Concurring opinion of Justice Arturo Brion)

History of Moral Turpitude

- first took root under the US Immigration laws as far back as the 17 th century
In Jordan vs. de George, Sam de George, an Italian immigrant was convicted twice of
conspiracy to defraud the US government of taxes on distilled spirits. Subsequently, the
3
 Board of Immigration Appeals ordered De George deportation on the basis of the
Immigration Act provision that allows the deportation of aliens who commit multiple crimes
involving moral turpitude.
the decided cases made it plain that crimes in which FRAUD was an ingredient have
always been regarded as involving moral turpitude.
The Courts resorted to the dictionary definition, Blacks Law Dictionary:
an act of baseness, vileness, or the depravity in private and social duties which man
owes to his fellow man, or to society in general, contrary at the accepted and customary
rule of right and duty between man and man.
In re Basa, 1920 case:
The Court finding no exact definition turned to Bouviers Law Dictionary:
Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty, or good morals.
Thus, early on the Philippines followed the American lead and adopted a general dictionary
definition opening the way for a case-to-case approach in determining whether a crime
involved moral turpitude.
. Problems with the Definition of Moral Turpitude:
The current definition of the term is broad. In IRRI vs. NLRC, the Court declared that moral
turpitude is somewhat a vague and indefinite term, the meaning of which must be left to
the process of judicial inclusion or exclusion as the cases are reached.

The definition also assumes the existence of a universally recognized Code for socially
acceptable behavior- private and social duties which man owes to his fellow men, or to
society in general; moral turpitude is an act violating these duties. The PROBLEM is that
the definition does not state what these duties are, or provide examples of acts which
violate them. Instead, it provides terms such as baseness. vileness and depravity
which better described moral reactions to an act than the act itself.
Turpitude on the other hand, directly means depravity which can not be appreciated
without considering an acts degree of being right or wrong.
As a legal standard, moral turpitude fails to inform anyone of what it requires.
In the US case (Jordan)
Moral turpitude offered judges no clearer guideline than their own consciences, inviting
them to condemn all that we personally disapprove and for no better reason than that we
disapprove it.
This trait, however, can not be taken lightly, given that the consequences of committing a
crime involving moral turpitude can be severe.
CRIMES CATEGORIZED AS CRIMES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE

In Re Basa (1920) 41 Phil 275, 276 (1920) list, not necessarily complete of crimes involving
moral turpitude:
Abduction with consent
Bigamy
Concubinage
Smuggling
Rape
Estafa through falsification of a document
Attempted bribery
Profiteering
Robbery
Murder
Estafa
4
 Theft
Illicit and Sexual Relations with a Fellow Worker
Violation of BP Bldg 22
Falsification of Document
Intriguing against honor
Violation of the anti-fencing law
Violation of Dangerous drugs act of 1972 (drug pushing)
Perjury
Forgery
Direct Bribery
Frustrated Homicide
In Zari vs. Flores, Admin No. 2170 Nov. 21, 1979, 94 SCRA 317, 323 the list of crimes are as
follows:
Adultery
Concubinage
Rape
Arson
Evasion of income tax
Barratry
Bigamy
Blackmail
Bribery
Criminal conspiracy to smuggle opium
Dueling
Embezzlement
Extortion
Forgery
Libel
Making fraudulent proof of loss on insurance contract
Murder
Mutilation of public records
Fabrication of evidence
Offenses against pension laws
Perjury
Seduction under the promise of marriage
Estafa
Falsification of public document
Estafa thru falsification of public document
CRIMES NOT INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE:

Minor transgressions of the law (i.e. conviction for speeding)

Ng Teng Lin vs. Republic, 103 Phil 484 (1959)
Illegal Recruitment- Court Adm. Vs. Andres (A.M. No. P-89-345, May 31, 1991, 197 SCRa
704)
Slight Physical Injuries and carrying of deadly weapon (illegal possession of firearms)
People vs. Yambot, G.R. No. 120350, Oct. 13, 2000, 343 SCRA 20
Indirect Contempt
Garcia vs. de Vera, AC 6052, Dec. 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 27
In In Re Basa, the Key ELEMENT, directly derived from the word TURPITUDE is the
standard of depravity viewed from a scale of right and wrong.

The Objective Perspective Approach

3 Perspectives or Approaches:
Objective Perspective of the act itself, irrespective of whether or not the act is a crime
best expressed in Zari vs. Flores, where the Court saw the involvement of moral turpitude
when an act is intrinsically immoral, regardless of whether it is punishable by law or not.
The Court emphasized that Moral Turpitude goes beyond being merely MALA PROHIBITA; the
act itself must be inherently immoral.
Gambling is a malum prohibitum that it is not intrinsically evil, does not involve moral
turpitude. In OCA vs. Librado, the Court held that the use of drugs amounted to an act so
inherently eveil that no law was needed to deem it as such; it is an evil without need for a
law to call it evil.
an immoral act in itself regardless of whether it is punishable or not.
Perspective Approach
From the Perspective of the Crime Itself, as defined through its elements
In Paras vs. Vailoces, as a general rule, all crimes of which fraud is an element are
looked on as involving moral turpitude
The elements of the crime can be a critical factor in determining moral turpitude.
Anti-fencing, BP22,direct bribery are crimes involving moral turpitude considering the
elements of the crime.
The Subjective Approach
Third approach- SUBJECTIVE APPROACH
Essentially takes the offender and his acts into account in light of the attendant
circumstances of the crime: Was he motivated by ill will indicating depravity?
Soriano vs. Dizon- whether any particular conviction involves moral turpitude may be a
question of fact and frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances
The totality of the Facts unmistakably bears the earmarks of moral turpitude.
The safest approach to avoid being misled in ones conclusion is to apply all three
approaches, if possible, and to evaluate the results from each of the approaches.