(Case Digest #6)

EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., Complainant

vs.
ATTY. LEO J. PALMA, Respondent
A.C. No. 2474
September 15, 2004

FACTS:

Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Leo J. Palma, alleging as grounds “deceit,
malpractice, gross misconduct in office, violation of his oath as a lawyer and grossly immoral conduct.”

Respondent Palma [from ACCRA Law Office] was employed by petitioner as his personal counsel. Respondent's
excellence in managing petitioner's legal affairs, prompted petitioner to introduced respondent to his family. Since
respondent gained the trust of petitioner and his family, their relationship became intimate. Respondent then was
allowed to tutor the 22 year old daughter of Petitioner.

However, when his concern was supposed to be complainant’s legal affairs only, he sneaked at the latter’s back and
courted his daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the night, he attacked when nobody was looking. He succeeded in
misrepresenting himself to Hong Kong officials as a bachelor and successfully married petitioner's daughter, even
though he is legally married.

Respondent argued that, he cannot be punished since there is no allegation that he acted with “wanton recklessness,
lack of skill or ignorance of the law” in serving complainant’s interest. Anent the charge of grossly immoral
conduct, he stressed that he married complainant’s daughter with “utmost sincerity and good faith” and that “it is
contrary to the natural course of things for an immoral man to marry the woman he sincerely loves.”

ISSUE:

WON respondent's acts constitute gross immoral conduct so as to warrant his disbarment from the legal profession.
RULING:

Yes, the Court ruled respondent's action constitutes gross immoral conduct. A gross immoral conduct, the Court said,
is a conduct which is wilful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good
and respectable members of the community. Thus, measured against this definition, respondent’s act is
manifestly immoral. First, he abandoned his lawful wife and three children. Second, he lured an innocent young
woman into marrying him. And third, he misrepresented himself as a “bachelor” so he could contract marriage in a
foreign land.

In particular, adds the Court, "he made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and
dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality." Moreover, the
circumstances here speak of a clear case of betrayal of trust and abuse of confidence. It was respondent’s closeness to
the complainant’s family as well as the latter’s complete trust in him that made possible his intimate relationship with
Lisa. When his concern was supposed to be complainant’s legal affairs only, he sneaked at the latter’s back and courted
his daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the night, he attacked when nobody was looking. Moreover, he availed of
complainant’s resources by securing a plane ticket from complainant’s office in order to marry the latter’s daughter in
Hongkong. He did this without complainant’s knowledge.

The Court stressed again the principle that law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy of standards among its
members. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or
in his private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a
mere citizen at another. Thus, not only his professional activities but even his private life, insofar as the latter may
reflect unfavorably upon the good name and prestige of the profession and the courts, may at any time be the subject of
inquiry on the part of the proper authorities.

Respondent cannot rely on complainant's admission that he is a good lawyer, because professional competency alone
does not make a lawyer a worthy member of the Bar. Good moral character is always an indispensable requirement.

In sum, respondent committed grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer. The penalty of one (1)
year suspension recommended by the IBP is not commensurate to the gravity of his offense. The bulk of jurisprudence
supports the imposition of the extreme penalty of disbarment.