LESLIE UI, complainant, vs. ATTY. IRIS legal wife of Carlos Ui.
of Carlos Ui. Whereupon, children by a Chinese woman in Amoy, China,
BONIFACIO, respondent. respondent admitted to her that she has a child from whom he had long been estranged. She with Carlos Ui and alleged, however, that stated that during one of their trips abroad, DECISION everything was over between her and Carlos Carlos Ui formalized his intention to marry her Ui. Complainant believed the representations of and they in fact got married in Hawaii, USA in DE LEON, JR., J.: respondent and thought things would turn out 1985[3]. Upon their return to Manila, respondent Before us is an administrative complaint for well from then on and that the illicit did not live with Carlos Ui. The latter disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio for relationship between her husband and continued to live with his children in their allegedly carrying on an immoral relationship respondent would come to an end. Greenhills residence because respondent and with Carlos L. Ui, husband of complainant, Carlos Ui wanted to let the children gradually However, complainant again discovered that to know and accept the fact of his second Leslie Ui. the illicit relationship between her husband and marriage before they would live together.[4] The relevant facts are: respondent continued, and that sometime in December 1988, respondent and her husband, In 1986, respondent left the country and stayed On January 24, 1971 complainant Leslie Ui Carlos Ui, had a second child. Complainant in Honolulu, Hawaii and she would only return married Carlos L. Ui at the Our Lady of then met again with respondent sometime in occasionally to the Philippines to update her Lourdes Church in Quezon City[1] and as a March 1989 and pleaded with respondent to law practice and renew legal ties. During one of result of their marital union, they had four (4) discontinue her illicit relationship with Carlos her trips to Manila sometime in June 1988, children, namely, Leilani, Lianni, Lindsay and Ui but to no avail. The illicit relationship respondent was surprised when she was Carl Cavin, all surnamed Ui. Sometime in persisted and complainant even came to know confronted by a woman who insisted that she December 1987, however, complainant found later on that respondent had been employed by was the lawful wife of Carlos Ui. Hurt and out that her husband, Carlos Ui, was carrying her husband in his company. desolate upon her discovery of the true civil on an illicit relationship with respondent Atty. status of Carlos Ui, respondent then left for Iris Bonifacio with whom he begot a daughter A complaint for disbarment, docketed as Adm. Honolulu, Hawaii sometime in July 1988 and sometime in 1986, and that they had been Case No. 3319, was then filed on August 11, returned only in March 1989 with her two (2) living together at No. 527 San Carlos Street, 1989 by the complainant against respondent children. On March 20, 1989, a few days after Ayala Alabang Village in Muntinlupa City. Atty. Iris Bonifacio before the Commission on she reported to work with the law firm[5] she Respondent who is a graduate of the College of Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the was connected with, the woman who Law of the University of the Philippines was Philippines (hereinafter, Commission) on the represented herself to be the wife of Carlos Ui admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1982. ground of immorality, more particularly, for again came to her office, demanding to know if carrying on an illicit relationship with the Carlos Ui has been communicating with her. Carlos Ui admitted to complainant his complainants husband, Carlos Ui. In her relationship with the respondent. Complainant Answer,[2] respondent averred that she met It is respondents contention that her then visited respondent at her office in the later Carlos Ui sometime in 1983 and had known relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit because part of June 1988 and introduced herself as the him all along to be a bachelor, with the they were married abroad and that after June knowledge, however, that Carlos Ui had 1988 when respondent discovered Carlos Uis true civil status, she cut off all her ties with Complainants evidence had prima facie It is worth stating that the evidence submitted him. Respondent averred that Carlos Ui never established the existence of the "illicit by respondents in support of their respective lived with her in Alabang, and that he resided relationship" between the respondents allegedly positions on the matter support and bolster the at 26 Potsdam Street, Greenhills, San Juan, discovered by the complainant in December foregoing conclusion/recommendation. Metro Manila. It was respondent who lived in 1987. The same evidence however show that Alabang in a house which belonged to her respondent Carlos Ui was still living with WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully mother, Rosalinda L. Bonifacio; and that the complainant up to the latter part of 1988 and/or recommended that the instant complaint be said house was built exclusively from her the early part of 1989. dismissed for want of evidence to establish parents funds.[6]By way of counterclaim, probable cause for the offense charged. respondent sought moral damages in the It would therefore be logical and safe to state that the "relationship" of respondents started RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.[8] amount of Ten Million Pesos (Php10,000,000.00) against complainant for and was discovered by complainant sometime Complainant appealed the said Resolution of having filed the present allegedly malicious and in 1987 when she and respondent Carlos were the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal to the Secretary groundless disbarment case against respondent. still living at No. 26 Potsdam Street, Northeast of Justice, but the same was dismissed [9] on the Greenhills, San Juan, MetroManila and they, ground of insufficiency of evidence to prove In her Reply[7] dated April 6, 1990, admittedly, continued to live together at their her allegation that respondent and Carlos Ui complainant states, among others, that conjugal home up to early (sic) part of 1989 or lived together as husband and wife at 527 San respondent knew perfectly well that Carlos Ui later 1988, when respondent Carlos left the Carlos Street, Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa, was married to complainant and had children same. Metro Manila. with her even at the start of her relationship with Carlos Ui, and that the reason respondent From the above, it would not be amiss to In the proceedings before the IBP Commission went abroad was to give birth to her two (2) conclude that altho (sic) the relationship, illicit on Bar Discipline, complainant filed a Motion children with Carlos Ui. as complainant puts it, had been prima facie to Cite Respondent in Contempt of the established by complainants evidence, this Commission [10] wherein she charged During the pendency of the proceedings before same evidence had failed to even prima facie respondent with making false allegations in her the Integrated Bar, complainant also charged establish the "fact of respondents cohabitation Answer and for submitting a supporting her husband, Carlos Ui, and respondent with in the concept of husband and wife at the 527 document which was altered and intercalated. the crime of Concubinage before the Office of San Carlos St., Ayala Alabang house, proof of She alleged that in the Answer of respondent the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, docketed as I.S. which is necessary and indispensable to at least filed before the Integrated Bar, respondent No. 89-5247, but the same was dismissed for create probable cause for the offense charged. averred, among others, that she was married to insufficiency of evidence to establish probable The statement alone of complainant, worse, a Carlos Ui on October 22, 1985 and attached a cause for the offense charged. The resolution statement only of a conclusion respecting the Certificate of Marriage to substantiate her dismissing the criminal complaint against fact of cohabitation does not make the averment. However, the Certificate of respondent reads: complainants evidence thereto any Marriage [11] duly certified by the State better/stronger (U.S. vs. Casipong and Mongoy, Registrar as a true copy of the record on file in 20 Phil. 178). the Hawaii State Department of Health, and averred that the complaint should be dismissed 1988. Further, respondent stated that it was duly authenticated by the Philippine Consulate on two (2) grounds, namely: Carlos Ui who testified and admitted that he General in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA revealed was the person responsible for changing the that the date of marriage between Carlos Ui and (i) Respondent conducted herself in a manner date of the marriage certificate from 1987 to respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio was October consistent with the requirement of good moral 1985, and complainant did not present evidence 22, 1987, and not October 22, 1985 as claimed character for the practice of the legal to rebut the testimony of Carlos Ui on this by respondent in her Answer. According to profession; and matter. complainant, the reason for that false allegation (ii) Complainant failed to prove her allegation Respondent posits that complainants evidence, was because respondent wanted to impress that respondent conducted herself in an consisting of the pictures of respondent with a upon the said IBP that the birth of her first immoral manner.[17] child, pictures of respondent with Carlos Ui, a child by Carlos Ui was within the wedlock.[12] It is the contention of complainant picture of a garage with cars, a picture of a light In her defense, respondent contends, among that such act constitutes a violation of Articles colored car with Plate No. PNS 313, a picture others, that it was she who was the victim in 183[13] and 184[14] of the Revised Penal Code, of the same car, and portion of the house and this case and not Leslie Ui because she did not and also contempt of the Commission; and that ground, and another picture of the same car know that Carlos Ui was already married, and the act of respondent in making false bearing Plate No. PNS 313 and a picture of the that upon learning of this fact, respondent allegations in her Answer and submitting an house and the garage,[19] does not prove that immediately cut-off all her ties with Carlos Ui. altered/intercalated document are indicative of she acted in an immoral manner. They have no She stated that there was no reason for her to her moral perversity and lack of integrity which evidentiary value according to her. The pictures doubt at that time that the civil status of Carlos make her unworthy to be a member of the were taken by a photographer from a private Ui was that of a bachelor because he spent so Philippine Bar. security agency and who was not presented much time with her, and he was so open in his during the hearings. Further, the respondent courtship.[18] In her Opposition (To Motion To Cite presented the Resolution of the Provincial Respondent in Contempt),[15] respondent On the issue of the falsified marriage Fiscal of Pasig in I.S. Case No. 89-5427 averred that she did not have the original copy certificate, respondent alleged that it was highly dismissing the complaint filed by Leslie Ui of the marriage certificate because the same incredible for her to have knowingly attached against respondent for lack of evidence to was in the possession of Carlos Ui, and that she such marriage certificate to her Answer had she establish probable cause for the offense annexed such copy because she relied in good known that the same was altered. Respondent charged [20] and the dismissal of the appeal by faith on what appeared on the copy of the reiterated that there was no compelling reason the Department of Justice [21] to bolster her marriage certificate in her possession. for her to make it appear that her marriage to argument that she was not guilty of any Carlos Ui took place either in 1985 or 1987, immoral or illegal act because of her Respondent filed her Memorandum [16] on relationship with Carlos Ui. In fine, respondent because the fact remains that respondent and February 22, 1995 and raised the lone issue of claims that she entered the relationship with Carlos Ui got married before complainant whether or not she has conducted herself in an Carlos Ui in good faith and that her conduct confronted respondent and informed the latter immoral manner for which she deserves to be cannot be considered as willful, flagrant, or of her earlier marriage to Carlos Ui in June barred from the practice of law. Respondent shameless, nor can it suggest moral a married man does not prove that such reprehensible to a high degree. To be sure, she indifference. She fell in love with Carlos Ui information was made known to respondent. was more of a victim that (sic) anything else whom she believed to be single, and, that upon and should deserve compassion rather than her discovery of his true civil status, she parted Hearing on the case ensued, after which the condemnation. Without cavil, this sad episode ways with him. Commission on Bar Discipline submitted its destroyed her chance of having a normal and Report and Recommendation, finding that: happy family life, a dream cherished by every In the Memorandum [22] filed on March 20, single girl. 1995 by complainant Leslie Ui, she prayed for In the case at bar, it is alleged that at the time the disbarment of Atty. Iris Bonifacio and respondent was courted by Carlos Ui, the latter x..........................x..........................x" reiterated that respondent committed represented himself to be single. The immorality by having intimate relations with a Commission does not find said claim too Thereafter, the Board of Governors of the married man which resulted in the birth of two difficult to believe in the light of contemporary Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued a (2) children. Complainant testified that human experience. Notice of Resolution dated December 13, 1997, respondents mother, Mrs. Linda Bonifacio, the dispositive portion of which reads as Almost always, when a married man courts a follows: personally knew complainant and her husband single woman, he represents himself to be since the late 1970s because they were clients single, separated, or without any firm RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it of the bank where Mrs. Bonifacio was the commitment to another woman. The reason is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Branch Manager.[23] It was thus highly therefor is not hard to fathom. By their very Report and Recommendation of the improbable that respondent, who was living nature, single women prefer single men. Investigating Commissioner in the above- with her parents as of 1986, would not have entitled case, herein made part of this been informed by her own mother that Carlos The records will show that when respondent Resolution/Decision as Annex "A", and, Ui was a married man. Complainant likewise became aware the (sic) true civil status of finding the recommendation fully supported by averred that respondent committed disrespect Carlos Ui, she left for the United States (in July the evidence on record and the applicable laws towards the Commission for submitting a of 1988). She broke off all contacts with him. and rules, the complaint for Gross Immorality photocopy of a document containing an When she returned to the Philippines in March against Respondent is DISMISSED for lack of intercalated date. of 1989, she lived with her brother, Atty. merit. Atty. Iris Bonifacio is REPRIMANDED Teodoro Bonifacio, Jr. Carlos Ui and for knowingly and willfully attaching to her In her Reply to Complainants respondent only talked to each other because of Answer a falsified Certificate of Marriage with Memorandum [24], respondent stated that the children whom he was allowed to visit. At a stern warning that a repetition of the same complainant miserably failed to show sufficient no time did they live together. will merit a more severe penalty." proof to warrant her disbarment. Respondent insists that contrary to the allegations of Under the foregoing circumstances, the We agree with the findings aforequoted. complainant, there is no showing that Commission fails to find any act on the part of respondent had knowledge of the fact of respondent that can be considered as The practice of law is a privilege. A bar marriage of Carlos Ui to complainant. The unprincipled or disgraceful as to be candidate does not have the right to enjoy the allegation that her mother knew Carlos Ui to be practice of the legal profession simply by possession of good moral character is also a knowledge of the true civil status of Carlos Ui, passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege requisite for retaining membership in the legal she left him. that can be revoked, subject to the mandate of profession. Membership in the bar may be due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good Simple as the facts of the case may sound, the the dictates of legal ethics. The requisites for moral character. (Royong vs. Oblena, 117 Phil. effects of the actuations of respondent are not admission to the practice of law are: 865). only far from simple, they will have a rippling effect on how the standard norms of our legal a. he must be a citizen of the Philippines; A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly practitioners should be defined. Perhaps immoral conduct, or by reason of his morality in our liberal society today is a far cry b. a resident thereof; conviction of a crime involving moral from what it used to be before. This turpitude". A member of the bar should have permissiveness notwithstanding, lawyers, as c. at least twenty-one (21) years of age; moral integrity in addition to professional keepers of public faith, are burdened with a d. a person of good moral character; probity. higher degree of social responsibility and thus must handle their personal affairs with greater e. he must show that no charges against him It is difficult to state with precision and to fix caution. The facts of this case lead us to believe involving moral turpitude, are filed or pending an inflexible standard as to what is "grossly that perhaps respondent would not have found in court; immoral conduct" or to specify the moral herself in such a compromising situation had delinquency and obliquity which render a she exercised prudence and been more vigilant f. possess the required educational lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of in finding out more about Carlos Uis personal qualifications; and the bar. The rule implies that what appears to background prior to her intimate involvement be unconventional behavior to the straight- with him. g. pass the bar examinations.[25] (Italics laced may not be the immoral conduct that supplied) warrants disbarment. Surely, circumstances existed which should have at least aroused respondents suspicion that Clear from the foregoing is that one of the Immoral conduct has been defined as "that something was amiss in her relationship with conditions prior to admission to the bar is that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, Carlos Ui, and moved her to ask probing an applicant must possess good moral and which shows a moral indifference to the questions. For instance, respondent admitted character. More importantly, possession of opinion of the good and respectable members that she knew that Carlos Ui had children with good moral character must be continuous as a of the community." (7 C.J.S. 959).[26] a woman from Amoy, China, yet it appeared requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege that she never exerted the slightest effort to find of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a In the case at bar, it is the claim of respondent out if Carlos Ui and this woman were indeed ground for the revocation of such privilege. It Atty. Bonifacio that when she met Carlos Ui, unmarried. Also, despite their marriage in has been held - she knew and believed him to be single. 1987, Carlos Ui never lived with respondent Respondent fell in love with him and they got If good moral character is a sine qua non for and their first child, a circumstance that is married and as a result of such marriage, she admission to the bar, then the continued simply incomprehensible considering gave birth to two (2) children. Upon her respondents allegation that Carlos Ui was very establishes her case by clear, convincing and WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment open in courting her. satisfactory evidence.[30] This, herein against respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio, for complainant miserably failed to do. alleged immorality, is hereby DISMISSED. All these taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that respondent was On the matter of the falsified Certificate of However, respondent is hereby imprudent in managing her personal affairs. Marriage attached by respondent to her REPRIMANDED for attaching to her Answer a However, the fact remains that her relationship Answer, we find improbable to believe the photocopy of her Marriage Certificate, with an with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what averment of respondent that she merely relied altered or intercalated date thereof, with a respondent believed was a valid marriage, on the photocopy of the Marriage Certificate STERN WARNING that a more severe cannot be considered immoral. For immorality which was provided her by Carlos Ui. For an sanction will be imposed on her for any connotes conduct that shows indifference to the event as significant as a marriage ceremony, repetition of the same or similar offense in the moral norms of society and the opinion of good any normal bride would verily recall the date future. and respectable members of the and year of her marriage. It is difficult to community.[27] Moreover, for such conduct to fathom how a bride, especially a lawyer as in SO ORDERED. warrant disciplinary action, the same must be the case at bar, can forget the year when she got A.C. No. 389 February 28, 1967 "grossly immoral," that is, it must be so corrupt married. Simply stated, it is contrary to human and false as to constitute a criminal act or so experience and highly improbable. IN RE: DISBARMENT OF ARMANDO unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high PUNO. degree.[28] Furthermore, any prudent lawyer would verify FLORA QUINGWA complainant, the information contained in an attachment to vs. We have held that "a member of the Bar and her pleading, especially so when she ARMANDO PUNO, respondent. officer of the court is not only required to has personal knowledge of the facts and refrain from adulterous relationships x x x but circumstances contained therein. In attaching Domingo T. Zavalla for complainant. must also so behave himself as to avoid such Marriage Certificate with an intercalated Armando Puno for and in his own behalf as scandalizing the public by creating the belief date, the defense of good faith of respondent on respondent. that he is flouting those moral that point cannot stand. standards."[29] Respondents act of immediately REGALA, J.: distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere discovering his true civil status belies just that unwaveringly to the highest standards of On April 16, 1959, Flora Quingwa filed before alleged moral indifference and proves that she morality. The legal profession exacts from its this Court a verified complaint charging had no intention of flaunting the law and the members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon Armando Puno, a member of the Bar, with high moral standard of the legal profession. to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from gross immorality and misconduct. In his Complainants bare assertions to the contrary misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. answer, the respondent denied all the material deserve no credit. After all, the burden of proof Their exalted positions as officers of the court allegations of the complaint, and as a special rests upon the complainant, and the Court will demand no less than the highest degree of defense averred that the allegations therein do exercise its disciplinary powers only if she morality. not constitute grounds for disbarment or suspension under section 25, Rule 127 of the by love of respondent and the respondent's marriage but respondent refused to comply; former Rules of Court. promise of marriage, complainant acquiesced, that on February 20, 1959, complainant gave and before they entered the hotel room birth to a child. The case was referred to the Solicitor General respondent registered and signed the registry on June 3, 1958, for investigation, report and book as 'Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno; that after That the acts of the respondent in having carnal recommendation. Hearings were held by the registering at the hotel, respondent shoved knowledge with the complainant through a then Solicitor Roman Cancino, Jr., during complainant inside the room; that as soon as promise of marriage which he did not fulfill which the complainant, assisted by her counsel, they were inside the room, someone locked the and has refused to fulfill up to the present presented evidence both oral and documentary. door from outside and respondent proceeded to constitute a conduct which shows that The respondent, as well as his counsel, cross- the bed and undressed himself; that respondent is devoid of the highest degree of examined the complainant's witnesses. The complainant begged respondent not to molest morality and integrity which at all times is respondent likewise testified. He denied having her but respondent insisted, telling her: 'anyway expected of and must be possessed by members sexual intercourse with complainant at the I have promised to marry you'; and respondent, of the Philippine Bar. Silver Moon Hotel on June 1, 1958, disclaimed still noticing the reluctance of complainant to the handwriting "Mr. & Mrs. A. Puno" The Solicitor General asked for the disbarment his overtures of love, again assured appearing in the hotel register, and disowned of the respondent. complainant that 'you better give up. Anyway I Armando Quingwa Puno, Jr. to be his child. promised that I will marry you'; that thereupon A copy of this complaint was served on respondent pulled complainant to the bed, respondent on May 3, 1962. Thereupon, he After the hearing, the Solicitor General filed a removed her panty, and then placed himself on answered the complaint on June 9, 1962, again complaint, formally charging respondent with top of her and held her hands to keep her flat on denying that he took complainant to the Silver immorality. The complaint recites: the bed; that when respondent was already on Moon Hotel and that on the promise of That on June 1, 1958, at a time when top of complainant the latter had no other marriage, succeeded twice in having sexual complainant Flora Quingwa and respondent recourse but to submit to respondent's demand intercourse with her. He, however, admitted Armando Puno were engaged to be married, the and two (2) sexual intercourse took place from that sometime in June, 1955, he and the said respondent invited the complainant to 3:00 o'clock until 7:00 o'clock that same complainant became sweethearts until attend a movie but on their way the respondent evening when they left the hotel and proceeded November, 1955, when they broke off, told the complainant that they take refreshment to a birthday party together; that after the following a quarrel. He left for Zamboanga before going to the Lyric Theater; that they sexual act with complainant on June 1, 1958, City in July, 1958, to practice law. Without proceeded to the Silver Moon Hotel at R. respondent repeatedly proposed to have some stating in his answer that he had the intention of Hidalgo, Manila; that while at the restaurant on more but complainant refused telling that they introducing additional evidence, respondent the first floor of the said Silver Moon Hotel, had better wait until they were married; that prayed that the complaint be dismissed. respondent proposed to complainant that they after their said sexual intimacy on June 1, 1958 go to one of the rooms upstairs assuring her and feeling that she was already on the family This case was set for hearing in this Court on that 'anyway we are getting married; that with way, complainant repeatedly implored July 20, 1962. On the day of the hearing reluctance and a feeling of doubt engendered respondent to comply with his promise of Solicitor Ceferino E. Gaddi who appeared for the complainant submitted the case for decision that year telling him that she was in trouble. (Exh. E) shows that he used to ask for money without oral argument. There was no Again she wrote him a letter in September and from the complainant. appearance for the respondents. another one in October of the same year, telling him that she was pregnant and she requested The lengthy cross-examination to which Since the failure of respondent to make known him to come. Receiving no replies from complainant was subjected by the respondent in his answer his intention to present additional respondent, she went to Zamboanga City in himself failed to discredit complainant's evidence in his behalf is deemed a waiver of November, 1958, where she met the respondent testimony. the right to present such evidence (Toledo vs. and asked him to comply with his promise to Toledo, Adm. Case No. 266, April 27, 1963), In his answer to the complaint of the Solicitor marry her.1äwphï1.ñët the evidence produced before the Solicitor General, the respondent averred that he and General in his investigation, where respondent Respondent admitted that he left for complainant were sweethearts up to November, had an opportunity to object to the evidence Zamboanga City in July, 1958, and that he and 1955 only. The fact that they reconciled and and cross-examine the witnesses, may now be complainant met in Zamboanga City in were sweethearts in 1958 is established by the considered by this Court, pursuant to Section 6, November, 1958. The fact that complainant testimony of Fara Santos, a witness of the Rule 139 of the Rules of Court. sent him a telegram and letters was likewise complainant (pp. 12 & 17, t.s.n.); respondent's admitted in respondent's letter to the letter to the complainant dated November 3, After reviewing the evidence, we are convinced complainant dated November 3, 1958 (Exh. E), 1958 (Exh. E); and respondent's own testimony that the facts are as stated in the complaint. which was duly identified by the respondent to (pp. 249 & 255, t.s.n.) be his. Complainant is an educated woman, having Complainant submitted to respondent's plea for been a public school teacher for a number of Complainant gave birth to a baby boy on sexual intercourse because of respondent's years. She testified that respondent took her to February 20, 1959, at the Maternity and promise of marriage and not because of a desire the Silver Moon Hotel on June 1, 1958, signing Children's Hospital. This is supported by a for sexual gratification or of voluntariness and the hotel register as "Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno," certified true copy of a birth certificate issued mutual passion. (Cf. Tanjanco vs. Court of and succeeded in having sexual intercourse by the Deputy Local Civil Registrar of Manila, Appeals, G.R. No. L-18630, December 17, with her on the promise of marriage. The hotel and a certificate of admission of complainant to 1966) . register of the Silver Moon Hotel (Exh. B-1 and the Maternity and Children's Hospital issued by Exh. B-2) shows that "Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno" One of the requirements for all applicants for the medical records clerk of the hospital. arrived at that hotel on June 1, 1958 at 3:00 admission to the Bar is that the applicant must P.M. and departed at 7:00 P.M. To show how intimate the relationship between produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory the respondent and the complainant was, the evidence of good moral character (Section 2, Complainant also testified that she last saw latter testified that she gave money to the Rule 127 of the old Rules of Court, now section respondent on July 5, 1958, when the latter respondent whenever he asked from her. This 2, Rule 138). If that qualification is a condition went to Zamboanga City. When she learned was corroborated by the testimony of Maria precedent to a license or privilege to enter upon that respondent had left for Zamboanga City, Jaca a witness for the complainant. Even the practice of law, it is essential during the she sent him a telegram sometime in August of respondent's letter dated November 3, 1958 continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege. (Royong vs. Oblena, Adm. Case for disbarment or suspension of a member of candidates unfit or unqualified because No. 376, April 30, 1963, citing In re Pelaez, 44 the Bar as enumerated in section 25 of Rule deficient in either moral character or education. Phil. 567). When his integrity is challenged by 127 of the (old) Rules of Court, it is already a He should strive at all times to uphold the evidence, it is not enough that he denies the settled rule that the statutory enumeration of the honor and to maintain the dignity of the charges against him; he must meet the issue grounds for disbarment or suspension is not to profession and to improve not only the law but and overcome the evidence for the relator be taken as a limitation on the general power of the administration of justice. (Legal and Judicial Ethics, by Malcolm, p. 93) courts to suspend or disbar a lawyer. The and show proofs that he still maintains the inherent powers of the court over its officers Wherefore, respondent Armando Puno is highest degree of morality and integrity, which can not be restricted. Times without number, hereby disbarred and, as a consequence, his at all times is expected of him. Respondent our Supreme Court held that an attorney will be name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of denied that he took complainant to the Silver removed not only for malpractice and Attorneys. Moon Hotel and had sexual intercourse with dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross A.C. No. 376 April 30, 1963 her on June 1, 1958, but he did not present misconduct, which shows him to be unfit for evidence to show where he was on that date. In the office and unworthy of the privileges which JOSEFINA ROYONG, complainant, the case of United States vs. Tria, 17 Phil. 303, his license and the law confer upon him. (In vs. Justice Moreland, speaking for the Court, said: re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 567, citing In re Smith ATTY. ARISTON OBLENA, respondent. [1906] 73 Kan 743; Balinon vs. de Leon Adm. An accused person sometimes owes a duty to Case No. 104, January 28, 1954; 50 O.G. 583; BARRERA, J.: himself if not to the State. If he does not Mortel vs. Aspiras, Adm. Case No. 145, perform that duty he may not always expect the December 28, 1956, 53 O.G. 627). As a matter In a verified complaint filed with this Court on State to perform it for him. If he fails to meet of fact, "grossly immoral conduct" is now one January 14, 1959, complainant Josefina the obligation which he owes to himself, when of the grounds for suspension or disbarment. Royong charged the respondent Ariston J. to meet it is the easiest of easy things, he is (Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court). Oblena, a member of the Philippine Bar, with hardly indeed if he demand and expect that rape allegedly committed on her person in the same full and wide consideration which the Under the circumstances, we are convinced that manner described therein. Upon requirement of State voluntarily gives to those who by the respondent has committed a grossly this Court, the respondent filed his answer reasonable effort seek to help themselves. This immoral act and has, thus disregarded and denying all the allegations in the complaint and is particularly so when he not only declines to violated the fundamental ethics of his praying that he be not disbarred. On February help himself but actively conceals from the profession. Indeed, it is important that members 3, 1959, this Court referred the case to the State the very means by which it may assist of this ancient and learned profession of law Solicitor General for investigation, report and him. must conform themselves in accordance with recommendation. the highest standards of morality. As stated in With respect to the special defense raised by paragraph 29 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics: On July 10, 1961, the Solicitor General the respondent in his answer to the charges of submitted his report on the case with the the complainant that the allegations in the ... The lawyer should aid in guarding the bar recommendation that the respondent "be complaint do not fall under any of the grounds against the admission to the profession of permanently removed from his office lawyer that she still frequented the respondent's house house and sometimes in his house whenever and his name be stricken from the roll of after August 5, 1959, sometimes when he was they had the opportunity. He intended to marry attorneys". The pertinent part of the report alone, ran errands for him, cooked his coffee, her when she could legally contract marriage reads as follows: and received his mail for him. Once, on without her foster parents' intervention, 'in case November 14, 1958, when respondent was sick occasion will permit ... because we cannot ask The complainant testified that after lunch on of influenza, she was left alone with him in his permission to marry, for her foster parents will August 5, 1958, Cecilia Angeles, her foster house while her aunt Briccia Angeles left for object and even my common-law wife, will mother, left her alone in their house and went Manila to buy medicine (pp. 11, 14-18, 24, object.' After the discovery of their relationship down to the pig sty to feed the pigs. At about t.s.n., hearing of August 5, 1959). by the complainant's foster parents, he 1:00 p.m., while she" (complainant) was confessed the affair to Briccia, explaining that ironing clothes on the second floor of the house The respondent on the witness stand denied that he wanted to have a child, something she the respondent entered and read a newspaper at he raped the complainant (p. 3, t.s.n., hearing of (Briccia) could not give him. (pp. 14-16, 19-25, her back. Suddenly he covered her mouth with March 25 1960). He testified that after lunch on t.s.n., hearing of March 25, 1960). one hand and with the other hand dragged her August 5, 1958, he went to the Commission Of to one of the bedrooms of the house and forced Civil Service to follow up his appointment as xxx xxx xxx her to lie down on the floor. She did not shout technical assistant in the office of the mayor of for help because he threatened her and her Makati, Rizal, and read the record of the FINDINGS AND COMMENT family with death. He next undressed as she lay administrative case against Buenaventura Perez There is no controversy that the respondent had on the floor, then had sexual intercourse with (pp. 23, 24, 34, t.s.n., hearing of March 25, carnal knowledge of the complainant. The her after he removed her panties and gave her 1960, Exhs. 1 and 2). complainant claims she surrendered to him hard blows on the thigh with his fist to subdue The respondent, however, admitted that he had under circumstances of violence and her resistance. After the sexual intercourse, he illicit relations with the complainant from intimidation, but the undersigned are convinced warned her not to report him to her foster January, 1957 to December, 1958, when their that the sexual intercourse was performed not parents, otherwise, he would kill her and all the clandestine affair was discovered by the once but repeatedly and with her consent. From members of her family. She resumed ironing complainant's foster parents, but to avoid her behaviour before and after the alleged rape, clothes after he left until 5:00 o'clock that criminal liability for seduction, according to she appears to have been more a sweetheart afternoon when she joined her foster mother on him, he limited himself to kissing and than of the victim of an outrage involving her the first floor of the house. As a result of the embracing her and sucking her tongue before honor .... sexual intercourse she became pregnant and gave birth to a baby on June 2, 1959 (pp. 4-8, she completed her eighteenth birthday. They But the foregoing observations 21, 23, 26, 27, t.s.n., hearing of Aug. 5, 1959). had their first sexual intercourse on May 11, notwithstanding, the undersigned cannot in 1958, after she had reached eighteen, and the conscience recommend respondent's She admitted that had she shouted for help she second one week later, on May 18. The last exoneration. The respondent tempted Briccia would have been heard by the neighbors that intercourse took place before Christmas in Angeles to live maritally with him not long she did not report the outrage to anyone December, 1958. In all, they had sexual after she and her husband parted, and it is not because of the threat made by the respondent; intercourse about fifty times, mostly in her improbable that the spouses never reconciled concubine is a married woman and that her adulterously with Briccia Angeles at the same because of him. His own evidence shows that, marriage still subsists. This fact permanently time maintaining illicit relations with the tiring of her after more than fifteen years of disqualified him from taking the bar complainant Josefina Royong, niece of Briccia, adulterous relationship with her and on the examinations, and had it been known to the thus rendering him unworthy of public convenient excuse that she, Briccia Angeles, Supreme Court in 1954, he would not have confidence and unfit and unsafe to manage the could not bear a child, he seduced Josefina been permitted to take the bar examinations legal business of others, and praying that this Andalis, then 17 or 18 years of age, resulting in that year or thereafter, or to take his oath of Court render judgment ordering "the permanent her pregnancy and the birth of a child, on June office as a lawyer. As he was then permanently removal of the respondent ... from his office as 2, 1959. The seduction was accomplished with disqualified from admission to the Philippine a lawyer and the cancellation of his name from grave abuse of confidence and by means of Bar by reason of his adulterous relations with a the roll of attorneys." promises of marriage which he knew he could married woman, it is submitted that the same not fulfill without grievous injury to the woman misconduct should be sufficient ground for his In his answer to this formal complaint, who forsook her husband so that he, permanent disbarment, unless we recognize a respondent alleged the special defense that "the respondent, could have all of her. He also took double standard of morality, one for complaint does not merit action", since the advantage of his moral influence over her. membership to the Philippine Bar and another causes of action in the said complaint are From childhood, Josefina Andalis, treated him for disbarment from the office of a lawyer. different and foreign from the original cause of as an uncle and called him 'tata' (uncle), action for rape and that "the complaint lacks the undoubtedly because he is the paramour of a xxx xxx xxx necessary formalities called for in Sec. 1, Rule sister of her mother. Considering her age (she 128 of the Rules of Court." Respondent prayed RECOMMENDATION that after due notice and hearing for additional was 17 or 18 years old then), it is not difficult to see why she could not resist him. evidence, the complaint be dismissed. Wherefore, the undersigned respectfully recommend that after due hearing, respondent On September 13, 1961, this Court designated The evidence further shows that on July 22, Ariston J. Oblena be permanently removed the Court Investigators to receive the additional 1954, the respondent filed a sworn petition from his office as a lawyer and his name be evidence. Accordingly the case was set for dated May 22, 1954 alleging "that he is a stricken from the roll of attorneys. hearing of which the parties were duly notified. person of good moral character" (Par. 3) and praying that the Supreme Court permit him "to On September 29, 1961, respondent asked In view of his own findings as a result of his take the bar examinations to be given on the leave to submit a memorandum which was investigation, that even if respondent did not first Saturday of August, 1954, or at any time granted, and on October 9, 1961 the same was commit the alleged rape nevertheless he was as the Court may fix.." filed, alleging the following: 1) That the charge guilty of other misconduct, the Solicitor of rape has not been proven; 2) That no act of General formulated another complaint which he But he was not then the person of good moral seduction was committed by the respondent; 3) appended to his report, charging the respondent character he represented himself to be. From That no act of perjury or fraudulent of falsely and deliberately alleging in his 1942 to the present, he has continuously lived concealment was committed by the respondent application for admission to the bar that he is a an adulterous life with Briccia Angeles whose when he filed his petition for admission to the person of good moral character; of living husband is still alive, knowing that his bar; and 4) That the respondent is not morally after their arrival thereat, but she did not go her; that on February 21, 1942, he found unfit to be a member of the bar. with her because she and respondent 'had Briccia alone in his house, who told him that already a good understanding'(sexual relations) her sister, Cecilia, had gone to Pagsanjan with Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the [t.s.n. 27]. Later, she left Cavinti and went to the other evacuees; that from said date foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and her hometown in Iriga, Camarines Sur, because (February 21), to the present, he and Briccia approved by this Honorable Court, without respondent was already reluctant to live with had been living together as common-law prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence her and he told her it was better for her to go husband and wife; that 2 or 3 weeks thereafter, to prove their case not covered by this home to Iriga (t.s.n. 25). Arriving at Iriga, she he asked Briccia to marry him, but she stipulation of facts. 1äwphï1.ñët met her legitimate husband (Arines), who told confessed she was already married, and maybe her he had already a wife, named Conching her husband (Arines) was still living in Iriga; At the hearing on November 16, 1961, Guevara (t.s.n. 28-29). She then went back to that he could not then drive Briccia away, respondent presented his common-law wife, Cavinti (in 1943), with her father, and lived because she was a stranger in the place, nor Briccia Angeles, who testified as follows: with respondent (t.s.n. 29). Respondent could he urge her to join her sister Cecilia, as ... Respondent is her common-law husband eventually agreed that she live with him (t.s.n. the latter had left Pagsanjan; that in 1943 she (t.s.n. 23). She first met respondent on 35); in fact, she is still presently living with told Briccia to separate from him and to return December 16, 1941 at Cavinti, Laguna (t.s.n. respondent (t.s.n. 35) [Report of Court to Iriga, and urged her never to see him again; 23). She and her sister Cecilia Angeles-Royong Investigators, March 6, 1962, pp. 5-6]." that contrary to his expectations, Briccia were evacuated to Cavinti by the Red Cross returned to Cavinti 3 months thereafter; that Thereafter, respondent requested permission to Briccia strongly insisted to live with him again, (t.s.n. 23). She was already married (to Teodoro submit an affidavit at a later date, which telling him that she cannot separate from him Arines) at the time (t.s.n. 24). She and Arines request was also granted. The affidavit was anymore, as he was ashamed; that Briccia's are from Iriga, Camarines Sur (t.s.n. 24). filed on December 16, 1961, the respondent father told him that Briccia's husband (Arines) Respondent and one Mr. Flores registered them averring, among others, the following:. had agreed not to molest them as in fact he (t.s.n. 24) as evacuees. When Mr. Flores asked her about her status she told him she was (Arines) was already living with another ... That he never committed any act or crime of 'single' (t.s.n. 25). She and her sister, Cecilia, woman; that he had 'no choice but to live with seduction against the complainant, because the were then told to stay at respondent's house, her' (Briccia) again; that when he filed his latter was born on February 19, 1940, and his respondent courted her (t.s.n. 26). Respondent petition to take the bar examinations in 1954, first sexual intercourse with her took place on asked her if she was married and she told him he 'did not have the slightest intention to hide' May 11, 1958, when she was already above 18 'we will talk about that later on' (t.s.n. 26). She from this Court the fact of his 'open years of age; that he had been living with his told respondent she was married (to Arines) cohabitation with a married woman' (Briccia common-law wife, Briccia Angeles, for almost when she and respondent were already living Angeles); that he did not state said fact in his 20 years, but from the time he began courting together as 'husband and wife', in 1942( t.s.n. petition, because he did not see in the form of her, he 'had no intention to alienate' her love for 26). Respondent asked her to marry him, when the petition being used in 1954 that the fact her husband, Arines, or to commit the crime of they were living as husband and wife (t.s.n. must be stated; and that since his birth, he adultery; that he courted Briccia on October 16, 27). Her sister Cecilia left Cavinti 2 months thought and believed he was a man of good 1941, and was shortly thereafter accepted by moral character, and it was only from the It is an admitted and uncontroverted fact that that will give the party be disbarred a fair trial Solicitor General that he first learned he was the respondent had sexual relations with the and a fair opportunity to be heard. (1 Francisco, not so; and that he did not commit perjury or complainant several times, and as a Rules of Court [1958 ed.] 698, citing In Re fraudulent concealment when he filed his consequence she bore him a child on June 2, Pelaez, 44 Phil. 567). Although it is a well petition to take the bar examinations in 1954." 1959; and that he likewise continuously settled rule that the legislature (or the Supreme (Report of the Court Investigators, pp. 6-8, cohabited with Briccia Angeles, in an Court by virtue of its rule-making power) may March 6, 1962). adulterous manner, from 1942 up to the provide that certain acts or conduct shall present. require disbarment, the accepted doctrine is that After hearing, the investigators submitted a statutes and rules merely regulate the power to report with the finding that: 1) Respondent used The main point in issue is thus limited illicit disbar instead of creating it, and that such his knowledge of the law to take advantage by relations with the complainant Josefina Royong statutes (or rules) do not restrict the general having illicit relations with complainant, the and the open cohabitation with Briccia powers of the court over attorneys, who are its knowing as he did, that by committing immoral Angeles, a married woman, are sufficient officers, and that they may be removed for acts on her, he was free from any criminal grounds to cause the respondent's disbarment. other than statutory grounds (7 C.J.S. 734). In liability; and 2) Respondent committed gross the United States, where from our system of immorality by continuously cohabiting with a It is argued by the respondent that he is not legal ethics is derived, "the continued married woman even after he became a lawyer liable for disbarment notwithstanding his illicit possession of a fair private and professional in 1955 to the present; and 3) That respondent relations with the complainant and his open character or a good moral character is a falsified the truth as to his moral character in cohabitation with Briccia Angeles, a married requisite condition for the rightful continuance his petition to take the 1954 bar examinations, woman, because he has not been convicted of in the practice of law for one who has been being then immorally (adulterously) in any crime involving moral turpitude. It is true admitted, and its loss requires suspension or cohabitation with his common-law wife, that the respondent has not been convicted of disbarment even though the statutes do not Briccia Angeles, a married woman. The rape, seduction, or adultery on this count, and specify that as a ground of disbarment". The investigators also recommended that the that the grounds upon which the disbarment moral turpitude for which an attorney may be respondent be disbarred or alternatively, be proceedings is based are not among those disbarred may consist of misconduct in either suspended from the practice of law for a period enumerated by Section 25, Rule 127 of the his professional or non-professional activities of one year. Rules of Court for which a lawyer may be (5 Am. Jur. 417). The tendency of the decisions disbarred. But it has already been held that this of this Court has been toward the conclusion Upon the submission of this report, a copy of enumeration is not exclusive and that the power that a member of the bar may be removed or which was served on respondent, through his of the courts to exclude unfit and unworthy suspended from office as a lawyer for other counsel of record, the case was set for hearing members of the profession is inherent; it is a than statutory grounds. Indeed, the rule is so before the Court on April 30, 1962. Respondent necessary incident to the proper administration phrased as to be broad enough to cover asked leave to file his memorandum in lieu of of justice; it may be exercised without any practically any misconduct of a lawyer (In Re oral argument. This was granted and the special statutory authority, and in all proper Pelaez, 44 Phil. 567). In the case at bar, the corresponding memorandum was duly filed. cases unless positively prohibited by statute; moral depravity of the respondent is most and the power may be exercised in any manner apparent. His pretension that before have followed since the ruling in In Re Pelaez, seduction of his paramour's niece did not and complainant completed her eighteenth birthday, 44 Phil. 567, where this Court quoted with do not disqualify him from continuing with his he refrained from having sexual intercourse approval the following portion of the decision office of lawyer, this Court would in effect be with her, so as not to incur criminal liability, as of the Supreme Court of Kansas in the case of requiring moral integrity as an essential he himself declared — and that he limited Peyton's Appeal (12 Kan. 398, 404), to wit:. prerequisite for admission to the bar, only to himself merely to kissing and embracing her later on tolerate and close its eyes to the moral and sucking her tongue, indicates a scheming The nature of the office, the trust relation which depravity and character degeneration of the mind, which together with his knowledge of the exists between attorney and client, as well as members of the bar. law, he took advantage of, for his lurid purpose. between court and attorney, and the statutory rule prescribing the qualifications of attorneys, The decisions relied upon by the respondent in Moreover, his act becomes more despicable uniformly require that an attorney be a person justifying his stand that even if he admittedly considering that the complainant was the niece of good moral character. If that qualification is committed fornication, this is no ground for of his common-law wife and that he enjoyed a a condition precedent to a license or privilege disbarment, are not controlling. Fornication, if moral ascendancy over her who looked up to to enter upon the practice of the law, it would committed under such scandalous or revolting him as her uncle. As the Solicitor General seem to be equally essential during the circumstances as have proven in this case, as to observed: "He also took advantage of his moral continuance of the practice and the exercise of shock common sense of decency, certainly may influence over her. From childhood, Josefina the privilege. So it is held that an attorney will justify positive action by the Court in Andalis (Royong), treated him as an uncle and be removed not only for malpractice and protecting the prestige of the noble profession called him 'tata' (uncle), undoubtedly because dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross of the law. The reasons advanced by the he is the paramour of a sister of her mother. misconduct not connected with his professional respondent why he continued his adulterous Considering her age (she was 17 or 18 years duties, which shows him to be unfit for the relations with Briccia Angeles, in that she old then), her inexperience and his moral office and unworthy of the privileges which his helped him in some way finish his law studies, ascendency over her, it is not difficult to see license and the law confer upon him. and that his "sense of propriety and Christian why she could not resist him." Furthermore, the (Emphasis supplied). charity" did not allow him to abandon her after blunt admission of his illicit relations with the his admission to the bar after almost 13 years of complainant reveals the respondent to be a Respondent's conduct though unrelated to his cohabitation, are hardly an excuse for his moral person who would suffer no moral office and in no way directly bearing on his dereliction. The means he employed, as he compunction for his acts if the same could be profession, has nevertheless rendered him unfit stated, in order to extricate himself from the done without fear of criminal liability. He has, and unworthy of the privileges of a lawyer. We predicament he found himself in, by courting by these acts, proven himself to be devoid of cannot give sanction to his acts. For us to do so the complainant and maintaining sexual the moral integrity expected of a member of the would be — as the Solicitor General puts it — relations with her makes his conduct more bar. recognizing "a double standard of morality, one revolting. An immoral act cannot justify for membership to the Philippine Bar, and another immoral act. The noblest means he The respondent's misconduct, although another for disbarment from the office of the could have employed was to have married the unrelated to his office, may constitute sufficient lawyer." If we concede that respondent's complainant as he was then free to do so. But to grounds for disbarment. This is a principle we adulterous relations and his simultaneous continue maintaining adulterous relations with corresponding complaint, accompanied with all practice law is required to show good moral a married woman and simultaneously the evidence introduced in his investigation, character, or what he really is, as distinguished maintaining promiscuous relations with the with the Supreme Court, and the respondent from good reputation, or from the opinion latter's niece is moral perversion that can not be shall be served by the clerk of the Supreme generally entertained of him, the estimate in condoned. Respondent's conduct therefore Court with a copy of the complaint with which he is held by the public in the place renders him unfit and unworthy for the direction to answer the same within fifteen where he is known. As has been said, ante the privileges of the legal profession. As good days. standard of personal and professional integrity character is an essential qualification for which should be applied to persons admitted to admission of an attorney to practice, he may be The contention is devoid of merit. Nothing in practice law is not satisfied by such conduct as removed therefrom whenever he ceases to the language of the foregoing rules requires the merely enables them to escape the penalties of possess such character (7 C.J.S. 735). Solicitor General to charge in his complaint the criminal law. Good moral character includes at same offense charged in the complaint least common honesty (3 Moran, Comments on The respondent further maintains that the originally filed by the complainant for the Rules of Court, [1957 ed.] 626, citing In Solicitor General exceeded his authority in disbarment. Precisely, the law provides that Re Weinstein, 42 P. [2d] 744 B.L.D., Cooper v. filing the present complaint against him for should the Solicitor General find sufficient Greeley. 1 Den. [N.Y.] 3447; In Re Del seduction, adultery and perjury, as it charges an grounds to proceed against the respondent, he Rosario, 52 Phil. 399; and People v. Macauley, offense or offenses different from those shall file the corresponding complaint, 82 N.E. 612). Respondent, therefore, did not originally charged in the complaint of January accompanied by the evidence introduced in his possess a good moral character at the time he 14, 1959 for rape, and cites as authority investigation. The Solicitor General therefore is applied for admission to the bar. He lived an Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 128 of the Rules of at liberty to file any case against the respondent adulterous life with Briccia Angeles, and the Court, which state:. he may be justified by the evidence adduced fact that people who knew him seemed to have during the investigation.. acquiesced to his status, did not render him a SEC. 4. Report of the Solicitor General.— person of good moral character. It is of no Based upon the evidence adduced at the The respondent also maintains that he did not moment that his immoral state was discovered hearing, if the Solicitor General finds no falsify his petition to take the bar examinations then or now as he is clearly not fit to remain a sufficient ground to proceed against the in 1954 since according to his own opinion and member of the bar. respondent, he shall submit a report to the estimation of himself at that time, he was a Supreme Court containing his findings of fact person of good moral character. This WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby entered and conclusion, whereupon the respondent contention is clearly erroneous. One's own striking the name of herein respondent, Ariston shall be exonerated unless the court orders approximation of himself is not a gauge to his J. Oblena, from the roll of attorneys. differently. moral character. Moral character is not a subjective term, but one which corresponds to A.C. No. 377 April 29, 1966 SEC. 5. Complaint of the Solicitor General. objective reality. Moral character is what a Answer of the respondent. — If the Solicitor person really is, and not what he or other CONCEPCION BOLIVAR, complainant, General finds sufficient ground to proceed people think he is. As former Chief Justice vs. against the respondent, he shall file the Moran observed: An applicant for license to ABELARDO SIMBOL Y On November 27, 1963, Castro wrote this At the hearing set by this Court for February 3, MANUEL, respondent. Court: 1964, Solicitor Sumilang V. Bernardo and Atty. Tomas Yumul for complainant appeared. They Office of the Solicitor General for the In connection with the transmittal letter dated submitted the case for decision without oral complainant. October 31, 1963, addressed to Mr. Abelardo argument. There was no appearance for Valentino Castro for the respondent. Simbol, c/o the undersigned, ... please be respondent. informed that since sometime in September or SANCHEZ, J.: October, 1960, after Miss Concepcion Bolivar 1. The problem that at once projects itself is: and Atty. Abelardo Simbol had executed a Can we proceed further on the face of the facts Disbarment proceedings on moral grounds. compromise agreement in Civil Case No. that: first, there is no answer to the complaint This Court referred the case to the Solicitor 01700 of the Juvenile & Domestic Relations of the Solicitor General; and, second, at the General for investigation, report and Court, the undersigned ceased to hear from hearing before this Court neither respondent recommendation. Complainant, the sole Atty. A. Simbol. Notwithstanding this, upon nor counsel appeared? The controlling statute, witness at said investigation, wound up her receiving your said letter of transmittal, I tried Section 30, Rule 138, Rules of Court, reads: testimony on September 4, 1959. Then to get in touch with Atty. A. Simbol at 1877-A followed several postponements of hearing. SEC. 30. Attorney to be heard before removal Tayuman Street, Tondo, Manila, which is the The last was on August 4, 1960. or suspension.—No attorney shall be removed address appearing in my files. I was, however, informed that Atty. A. Simbol reportedly or suspended from the practice of his There is a vacuum in the record as to what resides at 232 Maria Cristina Street, profession, until he has had full opportunity happened thereafter. But on October 28, 1963, Dumaguete City. upon reasonable notice to answer the charges the Solicitor General filed his report against him, to produce witnesses in his own stating, inter alia, that complainant made a It is, therefore, respectfully requested that copy behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel. sworn withdrawal and desistance. In view of of the complaint filed by the Hon. Solicitor But if upon reasonable notice he fails to appear the facts found, however, he recommended that General, against Atty. Abelardo Simbol in and answer the accusation, the court may respondent be disciplined and simultaneously Adm. Case No. 377 be sent directly to said proceed to determine the matter ex parte. filed the corresponding complaint1 asking for respondent at 232 Maria Cristina Street, his suspension "for a period of at least five (5) The pattern of behaviour pursued by Dumaguete City. . . . . years. respondent requires articulation. Complainant's On December 6, 1963, a copy of the complaint testimony was completed on September 4, On October 31, 1963, the Clerk of this Court was sent by registered mail direct to Simbol at 1959. Then followed a series of postponements: sent by registered mail to respondent, thru Atty. 232 Maria Cristina St., Dumaguete City. It was November 13, 1959; January 15, 1960; Valentino G. Castro, his counsel of record, a returned to this Court with the notation on the February 24, 1960; April 4, 1960; May 9, 1960; letter, with a copy of the foregoing complaint, envelope that said respondent was no longer in July 1, 1960; August 4, 1960. In the interim, requiring answer thereto in 15 days. that city. negotiations were had. Result — amicable settlement and complainant's withdrawal and desistance. That respondent did not take the trouble to fiscal in Pangasinan. The fiscal rendered the is correct. The second is at war with the proven answer the Solicitor General's complaint is now report on the merits finding respondent guilty facts. Religious differences never did mar the unimportant. The directive for him to answer of malpractice and recommending that relations between the two. As the Solicitor was first served on his lawyer. Then it was sent disbarment charges be filed. The Solicitor General pointedly remarked, "It is unbelievable to him personally at his address in Dumaguete General thereafter lodged a formal complaint for a Filipino woman to refuse to marry a man City; but the registered mail was unclaimed. before this Court. Notices sent by this Court she had lived with for 3 or 4 years trusting in Neither will he profit by non-appearance on the directing respondent to answer were all the man's promise to marry on the ground of date of hearing before this Court (February 3, returned because he could not be located at his irreconcilable religious belief", else she "would 1964). Because, notice of hearing was sent to given address, San Vicente, Alcala, not have complained if this were so". Indeed, him at both his Manila and Dumaguete Pangasinan. His attorney of record was also settlement of the case and the consequent addresses; and he did not bother to get it from required to answer; instead, he asked that he be withdrawal obviously were part of an overall the post-office. Even his two attorneys of relieved as counsel for respondent. Counsel, plan calculated to purge respondent from record, who received said notice, did not appear however, appeared in oral argument. This mischief and to insulate him from disciplinary before this Court. Court there held: action. To conform to this arrangement is to wink at wrongdoing. Respondent knew that the disbarment The respondent avoided attending the hearings proceedings were pending. His right to practice conducted by the Provincial Fiscal of This Court had heretofore ruled3 that, "Any his profession was at stake. He could ill afford Pangasinan. Even in this Court, his person may bring to this Court's attention the to just stand by and wait. It was his duty to whereabouts are totally unknown. His misconduct of any lawyer, and action will inquire as to his fate. He was hide-bound by his knowledge that a disbarment proceeding had usually be taken regardless of interest or lack of obligation to inform this Court of his been filed or pending against him imposes upon interest of the complainant, if the facts proven whereabouts, to the end that notices could the duty to make himself or his presence so warrant". The power to discipline lawyers — reach him. In all these, he failed. On the face of available to this Court for a fair trial. That he officers of court — may not be cut short by a the environmental facts, respondent gave this could not be located at his known address compound of compromise and withdrawal of Court ample reason to believe that he without asking his whereabouts known implies charges.4 purposedly stayed away.1äwphï1.ñët that he had chosen to waive every right and opportunity to put up his defense. 3. The preliminaries out of the way, we now go We, accordingly, hold that respondent has had to the core of the case. Here are the facts5: full opportunity to defend himself, and that he 2. The next point that logically crops up is the has waived his right to be heard. weight to be accorded complainant's Concepcion Bolivar was 27 years old at the withdrawal and desistance, made long after her time she took the stand. Her schooling ended in In a previous case2 this Court has had occasion testimony in full had been taken down at the sixth grade. She testified in Tagalog. She to pass upon a similar question. There, Solicitor General's office. Reasons given: first, became acquainted with respondent in April, respondent and counsel, after a series of non- they threshed out their differences; and, second, 1952. By December following, respondent appearances and postponements at their behest, the irreconciliability of religious beliefs alleged started to court her. Convinced by his promise failed to finally appear before the investigating caused the marriage plans to miscarry. The first to marry, she accepted him in February, 1953. By April 7, 1953, the two lived as husband and travelled to Angeles, Pampanga, ostensibly to latter discovered the bitter truth. Even then, wife. Respondent had been "telling his get married. The marriage was put off, so respondent had the temerity to deny his classmates" that she "was his wife". On April respondent gave complainant to understand, marriage and to appease complainant with the 22, 1957, they bore a child baptized Eduardo because there was nobody to solemnize. And palaver that "the woman was not his wife but Bolivar Simbol. then, dangling a piece of paper, he told her that the wife of his cousin". the license had already expired. In early 1954, Came November 12, 1957. The two separated. respondent told complainant "to wait until he In January of 1958, respondent kept asking For, complainant learned from respondent's finished his studies", anyway, they were complainant to live with him again because he brother-in-law, one Turing Mendoza, and "practically husband and wife". Then he asked was going to marry her and "leave his wife"; others, that respondent married another girl, her to hold the marriage till after delivery, that he "did not really love the girl he married". Lydia Lingat. Complainant investigated. At the because "it was shameful to appear in church" He also asked for money. This met with rebuff. Iglesia ni Kristo and in the Local Civil Register when she was "on the family way". The child Respondent got angry and threatened her. of Angeles, Pampanga, her worst fears were was born. Now, marriage became conditioned confirmed. Respondent and Lydia Lingat were And now, to the appropriate action. We part on his securing a job for he was ashamed as really married in Angeles on January 5, 1957. with the premise that this Court has inherent complainant "was spending for him". Came jurisdiction to suspend or disbar an attorney for June of 1957.6 Respondent informed When the two first met, respondent was a sufficient cause.7 On this point, the Solicitor complainant that he secured a job as an jobless first year law student. He remained General aptly observed.8 assistant attorney in the Fernandez Law office jobless during his student days. Since June, and that he would start earning money. Never Undoubtedly, respondent's actuations in 1953, complainant helped respondent in his running out of explanations, this time it was: making a dupe of complainant, living on her studies, gave him money to buy his books and "cases take long to finish, but as soon as he bounty and allowing her to spend for his to pay his matriculation fees and for "other earns thousands of pesos he was going to marry schooling and other personal necessities while things he needed in his studies". At one point in me". Again she agreed. When on cross- dangling before her the mirage of a marriage, her testimony complainant stated, "I had been examination, she was quiried why she accepted marrying another girl as soon as he had working nights (ang gabi ay ginagawang araw) all the excuses inspite of the birth of the child, finished his studies, keeping his marriage a and even on Sundays and then afterwards he she answered: "... because he told me that now secret while continuing to demand money from made me suffer all kinds of embarrassments [that] we have a child I can no longer deceive complainant, and trying to sponge on her and and shame". Respondent became a member of you because the child is more than a mere persuade her to resume their broken the bar, and found work in a law office. Yet, marriage". relationship after the latter's discovery of his she continued giving him money. She gave respondent a total of around P8,000.00. perfidy, are indicative of a character not worthy These avowals notwithstanding, respondent of a member of the bar. The fact that turned around and married another. Adding All along, respondent fed complainant with complainant has withdrawn her complaint insult to injury, he concealed the fact of his assurances that he would marry her. To ward against respondent does not wipe out the marriage and continued to live with off celebration of marriage respondent offered grievous offense he had committed, making complainant for several more months until the varied excuses. There was a time when they complainant and her child with him virtual outcasts of society. This, respondent should not in Manila; that the respondent David D.C. Paz, became pregnant but due to causes beyond her be allowed to do with impunity. answered the telephone call and volunteered his control, the pregnancy was lost; that sometime legal services; that believing that the in the third week of April 1971, one Virginia Respondent, we are persuaded to say, "has respondent had the necessary legal experience, Paz was introduced to the complainant by the failed to maintain the highest degree of the complainant confided her legal problems to respondent; that said Virginia Paz was the morality expected and required of a member of him: that after the termination of the divorce woman previously referred to by the the bar".9 He is, indeed, guilty of "grossly case, the respondent became exceedingly respondent as his wife with whom he had immoral conduct" within the meaning of friendly with the complainant and started to contracted a forced civil marriage; that said Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court. 10 profess his love for her; that at the start, the Virginia Paz, in the course of the meeting, complainant was hesitant in continuing the informed the complainant that there had been In the light of the entire record, we vote to cordial relations between her and the actually two marriages between Virginia Paz suspend respondent Abelardo Simbol y Manuel respondent but the respondent made her believe and the respondent, one under the civil law and from the practice of law for a period of five (5) that although he was living with another one under the church law; that upon being years. 11 So ordered. woman, his relations with said woman were no confronted by the complainant, the respondent A.M. No. 997 September 10, 1979 impediment that the respondent convinced the made no explanation whatsoever and merely complainant that he had been compelled to kept silent; that since that time, the respondent PILAR ABAIGAR, complainant, contract a civil marriage with the woman and had done nothing to make amends for having vs. that since it was not a marriage under the deceived the complainant and for having taken DAVID D.C. PAZ, respondent. church laws, it was no bar for him to get advantage of her; and that the complainant has married under the church laws with the no other recourse but to ask for the disbarment complainant; that the respondent proposed of the respondent who is a member of the marriage to the complainant; that believing in Philippine Bar and an officer of the courts of FERNANDEZ, J.: this good faith, the complainant accepted the justice. 1 On April 27, 1971, Pilar Abaigar filed this proposal of the respondent; that sometime in the latter part of November 1970, an In his answer filed on June 10, 1971, the administrative case for disbarment against application for the issuance of a marriage respondent denied having had any illicit David D. C. Paz, a member of the Philippine license to the complainant and the respondent relations with the complainant and alleged that Bar. was made and executed: that thereafter, the when the complainant called by telephone The verified complaint alleged that sometime respondent convinced the complainant that Congressman Ramon D. Bagatsing, the in March 1970, the complainant, Pilar Abaigar since they were going to get married anyway, respondent advised complainant to come to the sought the aid of a legal counsel regarding her they should act as husband and wife; that office; that on the next day when the divorce case filed by her husband in the because of the confidence which the complainant came to the office of Congressman Superior Court of California, County of complainant reposed upon the respondent, she Bagatsing, she was at first referred to Atty. Alameda, U.S.A.; that she called on the reluctantly acceded to said demands; that as a Geronimo Flores of the Legal Assistance telephone the office of Congressman Bagatsing result of their being together, the complainant Service to handle the case; that two or three days thereafter, the complainant requested the statement of her mother, Mrs. Cecilia Abaigar fall under the category of deceit and grossly respondent to personally handle her case; that that he accompanied the complainant to the immoral conduct as found in Section 27, Rule on October 30, 1970, the respondent prepared a Fiscal's Office at Pasig, Rizal and to the 138 of the Rules of Court. letter to complainant's husband, Samuel L. Municipal Court of Mandaluyong, Rizal where Navales, which letter was signed by Criminal Case No. 23994 entitled "People of Assuming for the moment that there had been Congressman Bagatsing; that sometime in the the Philippines vs. Vilma Abaigar was filed by sexual intercourse between complainant and latter part of October 1970, the complainant her mother; that the respondent also helped the respondent, the first inquiry, we respectfully borrowed from the respondent the sum of mother of the complainant to prepare and file a submit, is whether respondent Paz practiced P200.00 to complete the payment for the petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court demotion on complainant by making her hospitalization and treatment of her brother, of First Instance of Rizal; that by reason of said believe that notwithstanding their subsisting Eric, at the Makati Medical Center: that as a act petition for habeas corpus, the mother of the marriages to their respective spouses, they of pity, the respondent gave her the loan; that complainant was able to take Vilma Abaigar could legally get married to each other and after the election for delegates to the into her custody although the petition was based on his promise of marriage, she Constitutional Convention in November 1970, denied; that the respondent had never informed consented to go to bed with him. the complainant called at the residence of the the complainant that he was compelled to Complainant admitted that during her alleged respondent and asked help in filing a case contract a civil marriage with his wife; that the romantic liason with respondent, she was against the assailant of her brother who was respondent never proposed marriage to the married to a certain Samuel Navales, also a stabbed in Olongapo City; that the wound complainant; that the respondent has no Filipino, who divorced her in the U.S.A. sustained by complainant's brother was only recollection of the supposed application for the sometime in the middle of 1970 (par. 2, superficial and he could not Identify his issuance of a marriage license in the latter part Complaint; p. 46, t.s.n., November 18, 1971). assailant, hence, no criminal case was filed; of November 1970; that respondent and She also admitted that before she submitted that after the trip to Olongapo, the complainant complainant had never acted as husband and herself to his sexual desires, she was informed requested the help of the respondent to wife; and that the respondent had not deceived by him that, he had a wife with whom he was recommend her admission to a hospital because complainant nor taken advantage of her. 2 civilly married but that the marriage was void of abdominal and chest pains; that the In a resolution dated August 20, 1971, this because it was either fake or 'forced' (sic). respondent recommended complainant to be admitted to the Singian Clinic located at Court referred this case to the Solicitor General Whether there was deceit hinges on whether General Solano Street, San Miguel Manila; that for investigation, report and recommendation. 3 complainant actually believed the on December 20, 1970, the complainant caged representation of respondent that they could After hearing the parties, the Solicitor General up the respondent at his residence by telephone legally marry. Highly intelligent that she is and submitted on June 30, 1973 his report and and requested him to assist her mother, Mrs. with the educational background that she has, it recommendation containing the following Cecilia Abaigar to file a criminal action against is difficult to accept the proposition that she findings: her minor sister, Vilma Abaigar for swallowed hook, line and sinker his supposed disobedience; that the respondent prepares a The complaint seeks the disbarment of assurances that notwithstanding full awareness complaint on the same night and a sworn respondent Paz on grounds that may properly by both of the existence of each other's previous marriages, no legal impediment stood lawyer to know that she could not legally marry Q How about the State, do you know that the in the way of their getting married respondent. It is of no little significance that State recognize divorce? ecclesiastically. It is worthwhile repeating that some persons utilized by complainant as complainant was a fifth placer in the Board witnesses on her behalf because of their A As far as my knowledge, I do not think that Examinations for Chemical Engineering. She supposed knowledge of her relations with our laws permit divorce. was licensed as a chemical engineer in 1964 or respondent, were themselves aware that divorce Continuing with his testimony, Fr. de los 1965, after which she taught at one time or is not recognized in this country. Thus Mrs. Santos stated: another in different schools and colleges in Paler categorically stated that she knew for a Manila. In 1970 or 1971 when she was fact that divorce obtained abroad is not Q Did not the fact that complainant's husband supposedly tricked into surrendering her body recognized in the Philippines (p. 19, t.s.n., is still have and that divorce is not recognized on a promise of marriage, she was already in November 23, 1971). The same admission was in ' the Philippines be considered an her late twenties. It is improbable that at this elicited from Fr. Troy de los Santos, another impediment to complainant's marriage to age, she was still ignorant of the law regarding witness for the complainant. Fr. de los Santos anyone? indissolubility of marriage. Before jumping who used to be her spiritual adviser admitted at headlong into accepting respondent's proposal one point of his testimony that divorce obtained A Yes. that they act as husband and wife, she should abroad cannot be recognized in the Philippines have pondered upon the serious legal insofar as state laws are concerned and Q Did you inform her so? implications and complications of a second complainant knew about this (pp. 33-34, t.s.n., A She knows about that. marriage for both of them. She could have November 23, 1971). Thus, the Jesuit priest easily asked a lawyer for advice on the matter. declared under cross-examination: (33,34, t.s.n., Id.) Complainant's own neighbor in Mandaluyong, Rizal is a lawyer by the name of Atty. Paler Q Do you know that complainant's husband is Again, granting that complainant did not whose wife testified on her behalf. According still alive? actually comprehend the existence of a legal to Mrs. Paler, her husband and complainant bar to her remarriage, 'not being steeped in the A Yes. used to converse (p. 18, t.s.n., November 23, intricacies of the law'. just the mere realization 1971). In these conversations complainant Q Up to the present? that both respondent's wife and her own could have asked, perhaps in a casual manner, husband being still have was enough to stir her Mrs. Paler's husband as to the legal effects of a A Yes. mind and to impel her to make her own divorce obtained abroad by a Filipino citizen or investigation. She could have, for instance, the effects of a marriage brought about through Q Do you know that divorce is not recognized made discreet inquiries as to who was the the use of force and intimidation in order to in the Philippines? woman respondent was married to and verified settle whatever doubts she had in her mind. his claim whether he was forced into the A I know, but the church does not recognize marriage. Or, perhaps, she could simply have The truth however, of the matter is that divorce. asked Congressman Bagatsing about complainant did not even have to consult a respondent's personal status. After all she was competent enough to prepare, without anyone's documents were not presented, complainant this score, we are inclined to believe that help her own affidavit, Exhibit 'A', and making the excuse that respondent tricked her evidence has been sufficiently adduced to resourceful enough to make research in the into giving him the envelope containing the establish that intimacy between complainant Supreme Court's Library on the subject of evidence. Such explanation, however, staggers and respondent took place once in the Tower disbarment (pp. 63, 89, t.s.n., November 18, human credulity considering that the supposed Hotel and once in the Sulo Hotel. As the 1971). documents were vital to establish the case. It is Honorable Court has stated, when the lawyer's simply preposterous that she would easily Dart integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not What conclusion then can a reasonable mind with the documents and give them to no other enough that he denies the charges against him; draw from the given premises? Either than the respondent himself . Be that as it may, he must meet the issues and overcome the complainant was so helplessly naive as to be if respondent had made an offer of marriage, it evidence for the relator and to show proof that beguiled by respondent's blandishments or. is not clearly established that complainant's he still maintains the highest degree of morality comprehending fully the legal impossibility of submission to his sexual desires was not on and integrity which at all times he is expected the fulfillment of his marriage proposals, she account of the offer but for the gratification of of him (Quingwa vs. Puno, Adm. Case No. unconditionally laid herself prostrate to his her mundane human longings. 389, Feb. 28, 1967; 19 SCRA 439). Insofar as charms, too much enamored of him to care this point is concerned, the evidence of the about anything else. For, as philosopher Blaise The next question is whether there was sexual complainant as to the trysts they had in the two Pascal has so pithily stated of the profundity of intimacy between complainant and respondent. hotels has not been met and overthrown by human love, 'love has reasons that reason Complainant testified that she acceded to his respondent. 4 cannot explain.' Since complainant cannot hide proposal that they live as husband and wife and behind the camouflage of innocence, as a matter of fact they had three sexual Upon considering the report and considering her intellectual capacity and intercourses that took place in the Tower Hotel recommendation filed by the Solicitor General, educational background, no other conclusion is and Singian Clinic in Manila and in the Sulo this Court, in a resolution dated July 29, 1972, possible 'except that she voluntarily submitted Hotel in Quezon City. While there is no proof resolved to require the Solicitor General to file to sexual intimacy with respondent without that sexual intimacy took place in Singian the corresponding complaint against the entertaining any illusion or hope of sublimating Clinic except her testimony, her allegation that respondent, David D.C. Paz, pursuant to the illicit relations by legal union. they had trysts at the Tower Hotel and Sulo Section 5 of Rule 139 of the Revised Rules of Hotel was supported by the guest cards at said Court. 5 The question is intriguing whether respondent hotels, Exhibits 'A' and 'B'. Notwithstanding ever made vehement protestations of love and respondent's denial that the 'Mrs.' stated in the On September 4, 1975, the Solicitor General actually made an offer of marriage to entry in said guest cards was a 'good-time' filed the corresponding complaint against complainant. If there was, the evidence woman, not the complainant, common sense David D.C. Paz praying that the respondent be adduced does not clearly show. Complainant will tell us that complainant could not have suspended for a period of at least six months asserted that she had evidence in the form of known that respondent lodged in said hotels on from the practice of law, with a warning that love letters and the marriage application form those particular dates unless she was the similar transgressions in the future win be dealt showing respondent's sustained courtship and woman whom respondent brought there. On with more severely. offer of marriage. However, such purported Meanwhile the complainant sent a verified and that their relationship was aboveboard just 41 SCRA 44). This Court likewise held that letter-petition dated March 29, 1974 to the then like any engaged couple. And finally, she avers where there is no proof that respondent lawyer Chief Justice Querube C. Makalintal wherein that she was only after the collection of the loan was guilty of any unethical conduct, the complainant asked this Court to look into which the respondent got from her and not for harassment and malpractice, the disbarment the suspicious activities of a certain Rodolfo revenge for his deception. case against him should be dismissed (Ricafort del Prado, who allegedly in connivance with vs. Baltazar, A.C. No. 661, June 26, 1967, 20 the respondent, David D.C. Paz, made her sign It has been held that the power of this Court to SCRA 418; Delos Santos vs. Bolanos A.C. No. an affidavit prejudicial to her interest. Among disbar a lawyer should be exercised with 483, July 21, 1967, 20 SCRA 763). 9 other allegations, the complainant stated in her caution because of its serious verified complaint the following. consequences. 7 The burden of proof rests upon The evidence adduced by the complainant has the complainant and the case against a failed to establish any cause for disciplinary 6. That there never is an illicit relationship respondent must be established by convincing action against the respondent. As the Solicitor between Atty. Paz and me at present because I proof. 8 General said in his report, "From all believed all along that he was single and able to indications, there is little room for doubt that marry me. In fact, our relationship is above- In Arboleda vs. Gatchalian, this Court held: she filed his disbarment case not in redress of a board just like any engaged couple. wrong, for there was no wrong committed. It The Court has held that in disbarment was a voluntary act of indiscretion between two 7. That I was made to understand by the proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the consenting adults who were fully aware of the Citizens Legal Assistant Office that the tenor of complainant and the charge against the lawyer consequences of their deed and for which they the affidavit made by Mr. Rudolfo Del Prado is must be established by convincing proof (Go were responsible only to their own private such that the consideration for the illicit vs. Candoy, A.C. No. 736, Oct. 23, 1967, 21 consciences." relationship was promissory note which to all SCRA 439; Toquib vs. Tomol, Jr., A.C. No. intents and purposes is immoral and illegal. 554, March 25, 1970, 32 SCRA 156; in re Atty. WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint Felizardo M. de Guzman, A.C. No. 838, Jan. for disbarment is hereby DISMISSED. 8. That I am only after the collection of the loan 21. 1974, 55 SCRA 139). The record must which Atty. Paz got from me and not revenge disclose as free from doubt a case which SO ORDERED. for his deception. 6 compels the exercise by this Court of its disciplinary powers. The corrupt character of A.M. No. 3360 January 30, 1990 The foregoing portions of her letter militate the act done must be clearly demonstrated. against the credibility of the complainant. PEOPLE OF THE Moreover' considering the serious PHILIPPINES, complainant consequences, of the disbarment or suspension In her complainant for disbarment, she pictured vs. of a member of the Bar, We have consistently the respondent as morally perverse. However, ATTY. FE T. TUANDA, respondent. held that clearly preponderant evidence is in the aforementioned letter, she states that necessary to justify the imposition of either there never was an illicit relationship between penalty (De Guzman vs. Tadeo, 68 Phil. 554; her and the respondent, Atty. David D.C. Paz, Lim vs. Antonio, A.C. No. 848, Sept. 30, 1971, PER CURIAM: Consequently, four (4) informations were filed The pertinent portion of the decision read as against respondent with the Regional Trial follows: In a Motion to Lift Order of Suspension dated Court of Manila: (a) one for estafa, docketed as 12 July 1989, respondent Fe T. Tuanda, a Criminal Case No. 85-38358; and (b) three (3) For reasons above stated and finding the member of the Philippine Bar, asks this Court for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, docketed evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction, to lift the suspension from the practice of law respectively as Criminal Cases Nos. 85-38359, the judgment is hereby AFFIRMED subject to imposed upon her by a decision of the Court of 85-38360 and 85-38361. In due time, after trial, this modification. Appeals dated 17 October 1988 in C.A.-G.R. the trial court rendered a decision dated 25 CR No. 05093. It appearing from the records that the accused August 1987 which: Fe Tuanda is a member of the Bar, and the On 17 December 1983, respondent received (a) acquitted respondent of the charge of estafa; offense for (sic) which she is found guilty from one Herminia A. Marquez several pieces and involved moral turpitude, she is hereby ordered of jewelry, with a total stated value of suspended from the practice of law and shall P36,000.00, for sale on a commission basis, (b) convicted respondent of violation of B.P. not practice her profession until further action with the condition that the respondent would Blg. 22 in all three (3) cases, and sentenced from the Supreme Court, in accordance with turn over the sales proceeds and return the respondent to pay a fine of P6,000.00, with Sections 27 and 28 of Rule 138 of the Rules of unsold items to Ms. Marquez on or before 14 subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency Court. A copy of this decision must be February 1984. Sometime in February 1984, and to indemnify the complainant in the forwarded to the Supreme Court as required by respondent, instead of returning the unsold amount of P5,400.00 in Criminal Case No. Section 29 of the same Rule. pieces of jewelry which then amounted to 8538359; approximately P26,250.00, issued three checks: SO ORDERED. 1 (a) a check dated 16 February 1984 for the to pay a fine of P 6,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to On 16 December 1988, respondent filed a amount of P5,400.00; (b) a check dated 23 indemnify the complainant in the amount of Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals. February 1984 also for the amount of P5,400.00, in Criminal Case No. 85-38360; and The Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated 9 P5,400.00; and (c) a check dated 25 February January 1989, noted respondent's Notice of 1984 for the amount of P15,450.00. Upon to pay a fine of P16,000.00, with subsidiary Appeal and advised her "to address her Notice presentment for payment within ninety (90) imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to of Appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court, the days after their issuance, all three (3) checks indemnify the complainant in the amount of proper forum." On 1 February 1989, respondent were dishonored by the drawee bank, Traders P15,450.00, in Criminal Case No. 85-38361, filed with this Court a Notice of Appeal. Royal Bank, for insufficiency of funds. and to pay the costs in all three (3) cases. Notwithstanding receipt of the notice of In a Resolution dated 31 May 1989, the dishonor, respondent made no arrangements On appeal, the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. Supreme Court noted without action with the bank concerning the honoring of CR No. 05093 affirmed in toto the decision of respondent's Notice of Appeal and declared that checks which had bounced and made no effort the trial court but, in addition, suspended the Court of Appeals' decision of 17 October to settle her obligations to Ms. Marquez. respondent Tuanda from the practice of law. 1988 had become final and executory upon expiration of the period for filing a petition for Blg. 22 is a serious criminal offense which Respondent was thus correctly suspended from review on certiorari on 16 December 1988. In deleteriously affects public interest and public the practice of law because she had been that Resolution, the Court found that order. In Lozano v. Martinez,2 the Court convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. respondent had lost her right to appeal explained the nature of the offense of violation Sections 27 and 28 of Rule 138 of the Revised by certiorari when she posted with this Court a of B.P. Blg. 22 in the following terms: Rules of Court provide as follows: Notice of Appeal instead of filing a petition for review on certiorari under Section 1, Rule 45 xxx xxx xxx Sec. 27. Attorneys renewed or suspended by of the Revised Rules of Court within the Supreme Court on what grounds. A member of The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. the bar may be removed or suspended from his reglementary period. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a office as attorney by the Supreme Court of any In the instant Motion to Lift Order of worthless check or a check that is dishonored deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct Suspension, respondent states: upon its presentation for payment. . . . The in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by thrust of the law is to prohibit under pain of reason of his conviction of a crime involving that suspension from the practice of law is penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath indeed a harsh if not a not painful penalty and putting them in circulation. Because of its which he is required to take before admission aggravating the lower court's penalty of fine deleterious effects on the public interest, the to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any considering that accused-appellant's action on practice is prescribed by the law. The law lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly the case during the trial on the merits at the punishes the act not as an offense against or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party lower court has always been motivated purely property but an offense against public order. to a case without authority so to do. The by sincere belief that she is innocent of the practice of soliciting cases at law for the offense charged nor of the intention to cause xxx xxx xxx purpose of gain, either personally or through damage to the herein plaintiff-appellee. paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of the parties (Italics supplied) We read the above statement as a claim by the respondent that, she had not violated her oath directly involved in the transaction and touches Sec. 28. Suspension of attorney by the Court of as a member of the Philippine Bar upon the the interests of the community at large. The Appeals or a Court of First Instance. — The ground that when she issued the checks which mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance bounced, she did not intend to cause damage to payee or holder, but also an injury to the may suspend an attorney from practice for any complainant Ms. Marquez. public. The harmful practice of putting of the causes named in the last preceding valueless commercial papers in circulation, section, and after such suspension such attorney The Court affirms the suspension from the multiplied a thousandfold, can very well pollute shall not practice his profession until further practice of law imposed by the Court of the channels of trade and commerce, injure the action of the Supreme Court in the premises. Appeals upon respondent Tuanda. The Court of banking system and eventually hurt the welfare (Italics supplied) Appeals correctly ruled that "the offense [of] of society and the public interest. 3(Italics which she is found guilty involved moral supplied) We should add that the crimes of which turpitude." We should add that violation of B.P. respondent was convicted also import deceit and violation of her attorney's oath and the Before this Court is a complaint for disbarment In his defense, Araneta claimed it was in fact Code of Professional Responsibility under both against Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta for deceit and Moreno who sought to borrow P2,500 from of which she was bound to "obey the laws of nonpayment of debts. him. To accommodate her, he allegedly the land." Conviction of a crime involving endorsed to her the Treasury Warrant in moral turpitude might not (as in the instant The complaint,[1] dated 25 September 1972, question, worth P2,177, which he received case, violation of B.P. Blg. 22 does not) relate was filed in this Court by Maria Elena Moreno from Lira, Inc., as part of his attorneys fees, to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer; on two causes of action. The first cause of and gave her an additional P323 in cash. however, it certainly relates to and affects the action involved Treasury Warrant No. B- good moral character of a person convicted of 02997354 issued by the Land Registration Araneta also denied borrowing any amount such offense. In Melendrez v. Decena, 4 this Commission in favor of Lira, Inc., and indorsed from Moreno. He admitted that he issued the Court stressed that: by Araneta, purportedly as president of the said two undated checks in her favor, but maintains corporation, to Moreno, in consideration of the that he had no intention of negotiating them. He the nature of the office of an attorney at law amount of P2,177. The complaint alleged that avers that he gave them to Moreno, allegedly requires that she shall be a person of good almost a year later, the warrant was dishonored. upon her request, only so she could show the moral character.1âwphi1This qualification is bank where she was working that she had not only a condition precedent to an admission The second cause of action involved Aranetas money coming to her. Araneta further claims to the practice of law; its continued possession nonpayment of debts in the amount of P11,000. that he warned her that the checks belonged to is also essential for remaining in the practice of Moreno alleged that sometime in October 1972, the unused portion of a closed account and law. 5 Araneta borrowed P5,000 from her, purportedly could not be encashed. To protect himself, he to show to his associates, with the assurance asked the complainant to issue a check in the ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DENY that he would return the said amount within the amount of P11,000 to offset the two borrowed the Motion to Lift Order of Suspension. shortest possible time. Again in May 1972, checks. The respondent offered this check in Respondent shall remain suspended from the Araneta borrowed P6,000 for the same purpose evidence. practice of law until further orders from this and with the same assurance. Thereafter, since Court. A copy of this Resolution shall be he failed to make good on both promises, Moreno, however, contended[2] that this check forwarded to the Bar Confidant and to the Moreno sought repayment in the aggregate for P11,000 belonged to the Philippine Leasing Integrated Bar of the Philippines and spread on amount of P11,000. Araneta issued two Bank Corporation, which she managed when her the record of respondent. of America checks in her favor, the first dated father passed away. She claimed she signed the 30 June 1972 for P6,000, and the other dated 15 check in blank sometime in 1969 when she fell MARIA ELENA MORENO, complainant, July 1972 for P5,000. However, when Moreno seriously ill and gave them to Araneta who was vs. ATTY. ERNESTO tried to encash the checks, the same were then helping her in the management of the ARANETA, respondent. dishonored and returned to her marked Account corporation. She concluded that Araneta falsely Closed. She referred the matter to a lawyer, filled up the check in a desperate bid to turn the DECISION who sent Araneta a demand letter. Araneta, tables on her.[3] PER CURIAM: however, ignored the same. On 01 December 1972, the case was referred to case were forwarded to the IBP Commission on Treasury Warrant is a signature which the Solicitor General for investigation, report Bar Discipline pursuant to Rule 139-B of the complainant claims to be that of the respondent and recommendation.[4] Rules of Court. Two days later, the beneath which is the word President and above Commission notified[8] both parties of a hearing the signature are the words Lira, Inc. but an The case was first set for hearing on 22 January to be held on 2 November 1988, on which date ocular examination of said signature in relation 1973 at nine oclock in the morning, when the neither of the parties nor the complainants to the signature on the checks Exhibits G and H complainant and her counsel appeared. Araneta counsel appeared despite due notice. It appears do not show definitely that they were the was absent despite due notice. Upon motion, that notice could not be served on Araneta, as signatures of one and the same person, so there however, of Moreno, and to give the he no longer resided in his indicated address, is no basis to form the conclusion that the respondent a chance to defend himself, the and his whereabouts were unknown. An respondent did sign the treasury warrant as hearing was reset to 23 and 24 January 1973, inquiry[9] made at his IBP chapter yielded president of Lira, Inc. The testimony of the both at nine oclock in the morning. Service of negative results. The Commission reset the complainant was merely that [the] same the notice for the new dates of hearing were hearing to 18 November 1988 at two oclock in treasury warrant was given to her by Atty. effected to the respondent through a certain the afternoon.[10] Again on this date, none of the Araneta, which she deposited [in] her account. Mely Magsipoc on 22 January 1973.[5] On 23 parties appeared. Thus on the basis of the There is no evidence to prove that she saw him January 1973, Araneta once more did not evidence so far adduced, the case was sign it. appear, so the case was called again the submitted for resolution on such date.[11] following day, 24 January 1973. There is no evidence of a letter of the On 28 December 1988, IBP Commissioner complainant informing the respondent about In the absence of respondent Araneta, an ex- Concepcion Buencamino submitted her the stop payment or even any written demand parte hearing was conducted on 24 January Report,[12] which reads in part: by the complainant to the respondent that the 1973 with the complainant, Moreno, taking the payment of the treasury warrant having been stand.[6] On 27 February 1973, Araneta The evidence of the complainant was not stopped he should reimburse her with what he appeared for the scheduled hearing, only to ask formally offered in evidence. Be that as it may, received as consideration for this check. for a postponement to prepare his defense.[7] No it is worthwhile considering. The stop payment further hearings appear to have been conducted of Treasury Warrant No. B-02997354 was an Same considered, there is no cause to fault the thereafter. A hearing is shown to have been act of Lira, Inc. and not that of the respondent. respondent for the first cause of action. scheduled on 28 May 1973, however, on said There was a subpoena issued for the date, Araneta filed a joint motion for appearance of Lilia Echaus, alleged President On the other hand, the respondent admits postponement with the conform of Morenos of Lira, Inc. and Simplicio Uy Seun, the alleged having issued the two checks, one for lawyer, as he, Araneta, was earnestly pursuing Secretary/Treasurer of Lira, Inc. to explain P5,000.00 and the other for P6,000.00 to the a possible clarification of complainants basic about why the stop payment of the treasury complainant for her to show to her creditors grievance. warrant was done but neither witness appeared that money was coming her way, when in fact (as evidenced by the records) before the Office he is presumed to have been aware when he Thereafter, nothing was heard from respondent of the Solicitor General to testify. At the dorsal issued said checks that his account with the Araneta. On 14 September 1988, records of the portion of Exh. B, the photocopy of the bank against which [these] checks were drawn was already closed, as was discovered from the The IBP Board of Governors adopted[13] the require the said petitioner to SHOW CAUSE fact that the checks were dishonored for said above report, but increased its recommended within ten days from notice why he should not reason. period of suspension from three months to six be disbarred. months. Even disregarding the complainants evidence Verification conducted by the Office of the Bar and considering the answer of the respondent, Over ten years later, on 15 October 2002, IBP Confidant revealed that the above case had the act of the respondent in issuing the two Director for Bar Discipline Victor C. been archived on 20 November 1992. checks, one for P5,000.00 and the other for Fernandez, transmitted[14] the records of this P6,000.00 which he gave to the complainant for case back to this Court pursuant to Rule 139-B, It therefore appears that in the intervening time her to show to her creditors that money was Sec. 12(b) of the Rules of Court.[15] On 8 July between herein respondents last filed pleading coming her way, when there was none and the 2003, the Office of the Bar Confidant filed a dated 28 May 1973, when he sought a respondent knew such fact was an act of Report[16] regarding various aspects of the case. postponement of the scheduled hearing on this connivance of the respondent with the The Report further made mention of a case to settle matters amicably between himself complainant to make use of these useless Resolution[17] from this Court indefinitely and Moreno, and the present, Araneta had been commercial documents to deceive the public. suspending the respondent for having been found guilty and convicted by final judgment of However beneficial it may have been to the convicted by final judgment of estafa through a crime involving moral turpitude, and complainant, this act of the respondent as a falsification of a commercial document. The indefinitely suspended. lawyer is abhorrent and against the exacting Resolution, which was attached to the report, We find no reason to disturb the findings of standards of morality and decency required of a states: Commissioner Buencamino. However, we member of the Bar. L-46550 (Ernesto S. Araneta vs. Court of disagree with the penalty sought to be imposed. The personal actuations of a member of the bar Appeals, et. al.) Considering that the motion of Whether or not the complainant sufficiently the like of which was, as in this case, petitioner Ernesto S. Araneta for proved that Araneta failed to pay his debts is committed by the respondent, belittles the reconsideration of the resolution of September irrelevant, because by his own admission, the confidence of the public in him and reflects 16, 1977 which denied the petition for review respondent issued two checks in favor of upon his integrity and morality. In the Bar, on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Moreno knowing fully well that the same were moral integrity as a virtue is a necessity which Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 18553-R which drawn against a closed account. And though the respondent lacks. affirmed the decision of the Court of First Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 had not yet been Instance of Manila convicting the said The above considered, it is respectfully passed at that time, the IBP correctly found this petitioner of the crime of estafa thru recommended that as a lesson the respondent act abhorrent and against the exacting standards falsification of commercial document, was be suspended from the practice of law for three of morality and decency required of a member denied in the resolution dated October 17, 1977 (3) months arising from his irresponsible of the Bar, which belittles the confidence of the of the Second Division of this Court for lack of conduct as a member of the bar to take effect public in him and reflects upon his integrity merit, which denial is final, the Court upon notice by him of the decision of and morality. Resolved: (a) to SUSPEND petitioner Ernesto suspension. S. Araneta from the practice of law and (b) to Indeed, in recent cases, we have held that the found guilty by final judgment of estafa thru WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ernesto S. issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross falsification of a commercial document, a crime Araneta is hereby DISBARRED and his name misconduct,[18] as the effect transcends the involving moral turpitude, for which he has is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of private interests of the parties directly involved been indefinitely suspended. Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be in the transaction and touches the interests of entered in the respondents record as a member the community at large. The mischief it creates Moral turpitude includes everything which is of the Bar, and notice of the same be served on is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the also an injury to the public since the circulation good morals.[24] It involves an act of baseness, Office of the Court Administrator for of valueless commercial papers can very well vileness, or depravity in the private duties circulation to all courts in the country. pollute the channels of trade and commerce, which a man owes his fellow men, or to society injure the banking system and eventually hurt in general, contrary to the accepted and SO ORDERED. the welfare of society and the public interest. customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, In the matter of the estate of Crescenciano Thus, paraphrasing Black's definition, a drawer honesty, modesty, or good morals.[25] Abesamis, deceased. who issues an unfunded check deliberately CONCORDIA CUEVAS reneges on his private duties he owes his fellow Considering that he had previously committed ( aliasCONCORDIA ABESAMIS), executrix- men or society in a manner contrary to a similarly fraudulent act, and that this case appellant, vs. PEDRO ABESAMIS, 2. oET accepted and customary rule of right and duty, likewise involves moral turpitude, we are AL., oppositors-appellees. justice, honesty or good morals.[19] constrained to impose a more severe penalty. Villasan, Valenton and Santiago for appellant. Thus, we have held that the act of a person in In fact, we have long held[26] that disbarment is Angel Cecilio for appellees. issuing a check knowing at the time of the the appropriate penalty for conviction by final issuance that he or she does not have sufficient LAUREL, J.: chanrobles virtual law library judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude. funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the As we said in In The Matter of Disbarment payment of the check in full upon its This is an appeal from the decision of the Court Proceedings v. Narciso N. Jaramillo,[27] [t]he presentment, is also a manifestation of moral of First Instance of Nueva Ecija dated May 27, review of respondent's conviction no longer turpitude.[20] 1937, the dispositive part of which reads as rests upon us. The judgment not only has follows: In Co v. Bernardino[21] and Lao v. Medel,[22] we become final but has been executed. No held that for issuing worthless checks, a lawyer elaborate argument is necessary to hold the Wherefore, the court sustains the opposition to may be sanctioned with one years suspension respondent unworthy of the privilege bestowed the approval of the amended project of partition from the practice of law, or a suspension of six on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it to say presented by the executrix and hereby orders months upon partial payment of the that, by his conviction, the respondent has the latter to present another inventory and obligation.[23] proved himself unfit to protect the another project of partition which shall include administration of justice.[28] only the property adjudicated to the defendants In the instant case, however, herein respondent in the final decision of this court in case No. has, in the intervening time, apparently been 4816, consisting of only one-eight (1/8) of the On May 13, 1928, Pedro Abesamis and the On March 3, 1931, the partition commissioners three parcels of land described in the will of the other oppositors did institute civil case No. submitted their report, upon which the court deceased Crescenciano Abesamis. 4816 in the Court of First Instance of Nueva declared that "no hay lugar a aprobar por ahora Ecija against the estate of Crescenciano el informe de los comisionados partidores hasta On February 11, 1928, Crescenciano Cuevas Abesamis, Concordia Nuevas, Francisco que se haya verificado la particion en dicha submitted for probate in the court of First Abesamis and Isaias Abesamis for the partition, testamentaria en la cual pueden las partes de Instance of Nueva Ecija the last will and alleging that said properties belonged, in the esta causa hacer valer los derechos que testament of her deceased natural father, first instance, to Anacleto Mercado, their pudieran tener sobre los terrenos en cuestion." Crescenciano Abesamis, which bequeathed common causante, who entrusted them to A motion for reconsideration having been three parcels of land, one share of stock in the Crescenciano Abesamis with the understanding denied on September 15, 1932, plaintiffs, on "Gallera de Peñaranda" of a par value of P100, that they were not to be subdivided as long as February 14, 1934, moved for the approval of and two carabaos worth P100 to Concordia the minor children of her other deceased son, the project of partition filed by the Cuevas ( alias Concordia Abesamis), Francisco Teodorico Abesamis, were living with the commissioners . On February 26, 1934, the Abesamis, Perpetua Abesamis, Isaias Abesamis Crescenciano. A demurrer interposed by the court ordered the suspension of the approval of and Pedro Abesamis in the manner and under defendants on the ground that there was another the partition of the properties until the the conditions stated pending action involving the same subject termination of the testamentary therein.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles matter was sustained after which the plaintiffs proceedings.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanro virtual law library were required to amend their complaint, the bles virtual law library amendment consisting simply in eliminating On March 15, 1928, however, Pedro Abesamis On January 9, 1937, Concordia Cuevas therefrom the estate of Crescenciano Abesamis and twenty-five others entered their opposition presented to the probate court a partition plan and leaving as party defendants Concordia to the distribution of the properties described in adjudicating the three lots and the two carabaos Cuevas, Francisco Abesamis and Isaias the will, for the reason that "a que dichos in favor of the legatees mentioned in the will. Abesamis. As these defendants failed to answer bienes son de propiedad pro indiviso entre los This was rejected by the court for the reason the amended complaint, they were declared in aqui opositores y la testamentaria," and that it was not in conformity with the inventory default and , on July 3, 1930, judgment was simultaneously informed the court that they had of the estate and the decision in civil case No. rendered adjudicating seven-eights (7/8) of the commenced an action for the partition of said 4816. On January 26, 1937, the executrix properties in favor of the plaintiffs and the properties.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobl submitted an amended inventory and later other one-eight (1/8) for the defendants. On es virtual law library another project of partition distributing the February 7, 1931, the court ordered the commissioners of partition to declare as sole properties of the estate in accordance with the On May 14, 1928, the will was admitted to heiress Concordia Cuevas to the exclusion of terms of the will, which were objected by the probate and Concordia Cuevas was appointed Francisco and Isaias defendants, because these included their executrix with a bond of Abesamis.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanroble legitimate shares under the decision in civil P1,000.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles s virtual law library case No. 4816. The opposition was upheld by virtual law library the court in kits decision of May 27, 1937, the dispositive part of which is quoted in the estate.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles stands legally in the shoes of the latter. beginning of this virtual law library (Ilustre vs. Alaras Frondosa, 17 Phil., 321; opinion.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles Dais vs. Court of First Instance of Capiz, 51 virtual law library 4. The court erred in not holding that the Phil., 396.) In the absence of a special oppositors have no personality to object to the proceeding for the settlement of the estate, The executrix-appellant assigns the following project of partition presented by the executrix there is no necessity of a previous declaration errors: on February 8, 1937, which was drafted in of status and the heir or heirs can sue and be accordance with the provision of the will of the sued in that capacity (Arsenio de Vera et al. vs. 1. The court erred in not holding that the deceased Crescenciano Abesamis. Cleotilde Galauran, 37 Off. Gaz., 1821). This decision in civil case No. 4816 of the Court of disposes likewise of the second assignment of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, declaring that the Under the first assignment of error, appellant error.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles estate of Crescenciano Abesamis is entitled impugns the validity of the decision of the virtual law library only to one-eight (1/8) of the property lower court in civil case No. 4816 declaring described in the will, is a nullity and can not that the legatees here, defendants in that action, With reference to the third assignment of error, bind the estate of Crescenciano are entitled only to one-eight of the property on it should be observed that the oppositors Abesamis.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanroble the ground that the estate of Crescenciano instituted a separate action (civil case No. s virtual law library Abesamis was not a party in said proceeding. It 4816) for the partition of the properties should be noted that all the coheirs, except described in the will of Crescenciano 2. The court erred in not approving the Perpetua Abesamis, were defendants therein, Abesamis. No question of ownership, therefore, amended project of partition presented by the and that by order of the court, in its instructions was in fact determined in the testamentary executrix on February 8, 1937, and in not to the partition commissioners dated February proceedings (civil case No. 4797) by the distributing the estate of the deceased 7, 1931, the herein executrix-appellant was probate court. It results that when, on February Crescenciano Abesamis according to the pronounced by the sole heiress of the deceased. 8, 1937, the court disapproved the project provision of the As said defendants were declared in default and partition filed by the executrix, it did not decide will.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles are, to be sure, bound by the decision in that adverse claims of proprietorship but only lent virtual law library case, we are of the opinion that the appellant force and effect to the decision rendered in civil cannot now be permitted to assail its virtuality case No. 3. The court erred in not finding that it has no not to regard it as totally ineffectual against the 4816.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles jurisdiction as a probate court to decide the testate estate. The rights to the succession of a virtual law library question of ownership of the property involved person are transmitted from the moment of in these proceedings part of which is claimed death(article 657, Civil Code), and where, as in Under the fourth and last assignment of errors, by the oppositors to be their property not by this case the heir is of legal age and the estate is it is vigorously contended that only heirs or virtue of any right of inheritance from the not burdened with any debts, said heir legatees may present an opposition, and that deceased Crescenciano Abesamis but by title immediately succeeds, by force of law, to the only inasmuch as the oppositors-appellees are adverse to that of the deceased and his dominio n, ownership and possession of the not heirs or legatees, they have no legal properties of his predecessor, and consequently personality to object to the approval of the project of partition. By virtue of the judgment Callejo, Sr., violates Canon 1 of Rule 1.01 of the Code of in civil case No. 4816 adjudicating seven-eights Professional Responsibility;[2]and constitutes of the property in their favor, the herein Azcuna, sufficient ground for his disbarment under oppositors had the right to oppose any project Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.[3] Tinga, of partition which, in effect, would divest them of their right of ownership. To conclude Chico-Nazario, and otherwise would be to permit the executrix to Because of the failure of Atty. Dizon to submit enrich herself at the expense of the Garcia, JJ his Answer to the Complaint, the CBD issued a oppositors.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobl Notice dated May 20, 2004, informing him that es virtual law library he was in default, and that an ex-parte hearing The decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, Atty. MANUEL DIZON, Promulgated: had been scheduled for June 11, 2004.[4] with costs against the appellants. So ordered. After that hearing, complainant manifested that Respondent. January 25, 2006 he was submitting the case on the basis of the ROBERTO SORIANO, A.C. No. 6792 Complaint and its attachments.[5] Accordingly, x-------------------------------------------------------- the CBD directed him to file his Position Paper, Complainant, -------------------------x which he did on July 27, 2004.[6] Afterwards, the case was deemed submitted for resolution. Present:
Panganiban, CJ,
DECISION On December 6, 2004, Commissioner Teresita
Puno, J. Herbosa rendered her Report and Quisumbing, Recommendation, which was later adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its Ynares-Santiago, PER CURIAM: Resolution No. XVI-2005-84 dated March 12, 2005. Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Before us is a Complaint-Affidavit[1] for the
disbarment of Atty. Manuel Dizon, filed by In his Complaint-Affidavit, Soriano alleged - versus - Austria-Martinez, Roberto Soriano with the Commission on Bar that respondent had violated Canon 1, Rule Discipine (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the 1.01 of the Code of Professional Corona, Philippines (IBP). Complainant alleges that the Responsibility; and that the conviction of the conviction of respondent for a crime involving latter for frustrated homicide,[7] which involved Carpio Morales, moral turpitude, together with the circumstances surrounding the conviction, moral turpitude, should result in his The taxi driver held on to the accused until he The trial court promulgated its Decision dated disbarment. could be pacified and then released him. The November 29, 2001. On January 18, 2002, accused went back to his car and got his respondent filed an application for probation, The facts leading to respondents conviction revolver making sure that the handle was which was granted by the court on several were summarized by Branch 60 of the Regional wrapped in a handkerchief. The taxi driver was conditions. These included satisfaction of the Trial Court of Baguio City in this wise: on his way back to his vehicle when he noticed civil liabilities imposed by [the] court in favor the eyeglasses of the accused on the ground. He of the offended party, Roberto Soriano.[10] picked them up intending to return them to the x x x. The accused was driving his brown accused. But as he was handing the same to the Toyota Corolla and was on his way home after accused, he was met by the barrel of the gun According to the unrefuted statements of gassing up in preparation for his trip to held by the accused who fired and shot him complainant, Atty. Dizon, who has yet to Concepcion, Tarlac with his wife. Along hitting him on the neck. He fell on the thigh of comply with this particular undertaking, even Abanao Street, a taxi driver overtook the car the accused so the latter pushed him out and appealed the civil liability to the Court of driven by the accused not knowing that the sped off. The incident was witnessed by Appeals.[11] driver of the car he had overtaken is not just Antonio Billanes whose testimony corroborated someone, but a lawyer and a prominent that of the taxi driver, the complainant in this member of the Baguio community who was case, Roberto Soriano.[8] under the influence of liquor. Incensed, the In her Report and Recommendation, accused tailed the taxi driver until the latter Commissioner Herbosa recommended that stopped to make a turn at [the] Chugum and respondent be disbarred from the practice of Carino Streets. The accused also stopped his law for having been convicted of a crime car, berated the taxi driver and held him by his It was the prosecution witness, Antonio involving moral turpitude. shirt. To stop the aggression, the taxi driver Billanes, who came to the aid of Soriano and forced open his door causing the accused to fall brought the latter to the hospital. Because the to the ground. The taxi driver knew that the bullet had lacerated the carotid artery on the The commissioner found that respondent had accused had been drinking because he smelled left side of his neck,[9] complainant would have not only been convicted of such crime, but that of liquor. Taking pity on the accused who surely died of hemorrhage if he had not the latter also exhibited an obvious lack of looked elderly, the taxi driver got out of his car received timely medical assistance, according good moral character, based on the following to help him get up. But the accused, by now to the attending surgeon, Dr. Francisco facts: enraged, stood up immediately and was about Hernandez, Jr. Soriano sustained a spinal cord to deal the taxi driver a fist blow when the injury, which caused paralysis on the left part latter boxed him on the chest instead. The of his body and disabled him for his job as a accused fell down a second time, got up again taxi driver. 1. He was under the influence of liquor while and was about to box the taxi driver but the driving his car; latter caught his fist and turned his arm around. 2. He reacted violently and attempted to assault We agree with the findings and in International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) Complainant only because the latter, driving a recommendations of Commissioner Herbosa, as v. NLRC,[15] a labor case concerning an taxi, had overtaken him; approved and adopted by the IBP Board of employee who was dismissed on the basis of Governors. his conviction for homicide. Considering the 3. Complainant having been able to ward off particular circumstances surrounding the his attempted assault, Respondent went back to commission of the crime, this Court rejected his car, got a gun, wrapped the same with a the employers contention and held that handkerchief and shot Complainant[,] who was Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of homicide in that case did not involve moral unarmed; Court, conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude. (If it did, the crime would have been turpitude is a ground for disbarment or violative of the IRRIs Employment 4. When Complainant fell on him, Respondent suspension. By such conviction, a lawyer is Policy Regulations and indeed a ground for simply pushed him out and fled; deemed to have become unfit to uphold the dismissal.) The Court explained that, having administration of justice and to be no longer 5. Despite positive identification and disregarded the attendant circumstances, the possessed of good moral character.[13] In the overwhelming evidence, Respondent denied employer made a pronouncement that was instant case, respondent has been found guilty; that he had shot Complainant; precipitate. Furthermore, it was not for the and he stands convicted, by final judgment, of latter to determine conclusively whether a frustrated homicide. Since his conviction has 6. Apart from [his] denial, Respondent also lied crime involved moral turpitude. That discretion already been established and is no longer open when he claimed that he was the one mauled by belonged to the courts, as explained thus: to question, the only issues that remain to be Complainant and two unidentified persons; determined are as follows: 1) whether his crime and, of frustrated homicide involves moral 7. Although he has been placed on probation, turpitude, and 2) whether his guilt warrants x x x. Homicide may or may not involve moral Respondent has[,] to date[,] not yet satisfied his disbarment. turpitude depending on the degree of the civil liabilities to Complainant.[12] crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown by every known and intentional violation of statute, but whether Moral turpitude has been defined as everything any particular conviction involves moral which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or turpitude may be a question of fact and good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or frequently depends on all the surrounding On July 8, 2005, the Supreme Court received depravity in the private and social duties which circumstances. x x x.[16] (Emphasis supplied) for its final action the IBP Resolution adopting a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in the Report and Recommendation of the general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, Investigating Commissioner. or good morals.[14]
The question of whether the crime of homicide
involves moral turpitude has been discussed In the IRRI case, in which the crime of The present case is totally different. As the IBP like a god on the road, who deserved to be homicide did not involve moral turpitude, the correctly found, the circumstances clearly venerated and never to be slighted. Clearly, his Court appreciated the presence of incomplete evince the moral turpitude of respondent and inordinate reaction to a simple traffic incident self-defense and total absence of aggravating his unworthiness to practice law. reflected poorly on his fitness to be a member circumstances. For a better understanding of of the legal profession. His overreaction also that Decision, the circumstances of the crime Atty. Dizon was definitely the aggressor, as he evinced vindictiveness, which was definitely an are quoted as follows: pursued and shot complainant when the latter undesirable trait in any individual, more so in a least expected it. The act of aggression shown lawyer. In the tenacity with which he pursued by respondent will not be mitigated by the fact complainant, we see not the persistence of a that he was hit once and his arm twisted by person who has been grievously wronged, but x x x. The facts on record show that Micosa complainant. Under the circumstances, those the obstinacy of one trying to assert a false [the IRRI employee] was then urinating and were reasonable actions clearly intended to sense of superiority and to exact revenge. had his back turned when the victim drove his fend off the lawyers assault. fist unto Micosa's face; that the victim then forcibly rubbed Micosa's face into the filthy urinal; that Micosa pleaded to the victim to stop It is also glaringly clear that respondent the attack but was ignored and that it was while We also consider the trial courts finding of seriously transgressed Canon 1 of the Code of Micosa was in that position that he drew a fan treachery as a further indication of the skewed Professional Responsibility through his illegal knife from the left pocket of his shirt and morals of respondent. He shot the victim when possession of an unlicensed firearm[18]and his desperately swung it at the victim who released the latter was not in a position to defend unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities.[19] his hold on Micosa only after the latter had himself. In fact, under the impression that the He has thus brazenly violated the law and stabbed him several times. These facts show assault was already over, the unarmed disobeyed the lawful orders of the courts. We that Micosa's intention was not to slay the complainant was merely returning the remind him that, both in his attorneys victim but only to defend his person. The eyeglasses of Atty. Dizon when the latter oath[20] and in the Code of Professional appreciation in his favor of the mitigating unexpectedly shot him. To make matters worse, Responsibility, he bound himself to obey the circumstances of self-defense and voluntary respondent wrapped the handle of his gun with laws of the land. surrender, plus the total absence of any a handkerchief so as not to leave fingerprints. aggravating circumstance demonstrate that In so doing, he betrayed his sly intention to Micosa's character and intentions were not escape punishment for his crime. All told, Atty. Dizon has shown through this inherently vile, immoral or unjust.[17] incident that he is wanting in even a basic sense of justice. He obtained the benevolence of the The totality of the facts unmistakably bears the trial court when it suspended his sentence and earmarks of moral turpitude. By his conduct, granted him probation. And yet, it has been respondent revealed his extreme arrogance and four years[21] since he was ordered to settle his feeling of self-importance. As it were, he acted civil liabilities to complainant. To date, respondent remains adamant in refusing to In the case at bar, respondent consistently fulfill that obligation. By his extreme displayed dishonest and duplicitous behavior. impetuosity and intolerance, as shown by his As found by the trial court, he had sought, with violent reaction to a simple traffic altercation, the aid of Vice-Mayor Daniel Farias, an out-of- Lawyers must be ministers of truth. No moral he has taken away the earning capacity, good court settlement with complainants qualification for bar membership is more health, and youthful vigor of his victim. Still, family.[25] But when this effort failed, important than truthfulness.[29] The rigorous Atty. Dizon begrudges complainant the measly respondent concocted a complete lie by making ethics of the profession places a premium on amount that could never even fully restore what it appear that it was complainants family that honesty and condemns duplicitous the latter has lost. had sought a conference with him to obtain his behavior.[30] Hence, lawyers must not mislead referral to a neurosurgeon.[26] the court or allow it to be misled by any artifice. In all their dealings, they are expected Conviction for a crime involving moral to act in good faith. turpitude may relate, not to the exercise of the The lies of Atty Dizon did not end there. He profession of lawyers, but certainly to their went on to fabricate an entirely implausible good moral character.[22] Where their story of having been mauled by complainant The actions of respondent erode rather than misconduct outside of their professional and two other persons.[27] The trial court had enhance public perception of the legal dealings is so gross as to show them morally this to say: profession. They constitute moral turpitude for unfit for their office and unworthy of the which he should be disbarred. Law is a noble privileges conferred upon them by their license profession, and the privilege to practice it is and the law, the court may be justified in The physical evidence as testified to by no less bestowed only upon individuals who are suspending or removing them from that than three (3) doctors who examined [Atty. competent intellectually, office.[23] Dizon] does not support his allegation that academically and, equally important, morally. three people including the complainant helped Because they are vanguards of the law and the each other in kicking and boxing him. The legal system, lawyers must at all times conduct We also adopt the IBPs finding that respondent injuries he sustained were so minor that it is themselves, especially in their dealings with displayed an utter lack of good moral character, improbable[,] if not downright unbelievable[,] their clients and the public at large, with which is an essential qualification for the that three people who he said were bent on honesty and integrity in a manner beyond privilege to enter into the practice of law. Good beating him to death could do so little damage. reproach.[31] moral character includes at least common On the contrary, his injuries sustain the honesty.[24] complainants version of the incident particularly when he said that he boxed the The foregoing abhorrent acts of respondent are accused on the chest. x x x.[28] not merely dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral flaw. Considering the depravity of the offense he committed, we find the penalty We stress that membership in the legal recommended by the IBP proper and profession is a privilege demanding a high commensurate. degree of good moral character, not only as a condition precedent to admission, but also as a continuing requirement for the practice of law. Sadly, herein respondent has fallen short of the The purpose of a proceeding for disbarment is exacting standards expected of him as a to protect the administration of justice by vanguard of the legal profession. requiring that those who exercise this important function be competent, honorable and reliable - In sum, when lawyers are convicted of - lawyers in whom courts and clients may frustrated homicide, the attending repose confidence.[32] Thus, whenever a clear circumstances not the mere fact of their case of degenerate and vile behavior disturbs conviction would demonstrate their fitness to that vital yet fragile confidence, we shall not remain in the legal profession. In the present hesitate to rid our profession of odious case, the appalling vindictiveness, treachery, members. and brazen dishonesty of respondent clearly show his unworthiness to continue as a member of the bar. We remain aware that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and that disbarment should never be decreed when any WHEREFORE, RESPONDENT MANUEL lesser penalty would accomplish the end DIZON is hereby DISBARRED, and his name desired. In the instant case, however, the Court is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of cannot extend that munificence to respondent. Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be His actions so despicably and wantonly entered in his record as a member of the Bar; disregarded his duties to society and his and let notice of the same be served on the profession. We are convinced that meting out a Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the lesser penalty would be irreconcilable with our Office of the Court Administrator for lofty aspiration for the legal profession -- that circulation to all courts in the country. every lawyer be a shining exemplar of truth and justice.