Narag v.

Narag Facts: -Complainant filed administrative complaint for gross immorality for husbands courting his former student (Gina Espita) and eventually leaving her and her children to cohabit with the latter. -Complainant/wife then sought dismissal of the administrative case on the following grounds: (1) she fabricated allegations on the complaint to humiliate her husband; (2) letters from alleged paramour were forgeries; (3) she suffered from emotional confusion from extreme jealousy and claimed her husband to be responsible and faithful. IBP then dismissed complaint for failure to prosecute. -Wife filed disbarment case again stating that she dropped the former disbarment case because she was continuously threatened by respondent. -Respondent prayed for IBP to affirm its decision (dismissal) and alleged that the first case was dropped by complainant on her own will. Husband professed his love for his wife and children and alleged that his wife is an incurably jealous woman who incessantly beat, battered, brutalized, tortured, scandalized and humiliated respondent. -Complainant presented witnesses, among them are Charlie Espita, Brother of alleged paramour of respondent Gina Espita, as well as two of Atty. Narag's sons. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses all point out that the respondent lived in and bore 2 children with Gina Espita. -Complainant also presented respondents love letters to his paramour proclaiming his love for the latter and claiming her (Ginas) children as his own. The handwriting on these letters was compared to cards given by the respondent to the petitioner. The court affirmed that the letters and cards were written by one and the same person. ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of gross misconduct and thus deserves to be disbarred? RULING: Respondent DISBARRED and his name ORDERED STRICKEN of the Roll of Attorneys. REASONING: -Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law (pursuant to the Code of Professional Responsibility) but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar. -Testimonies provided by witnesses for the complainant regarding his abandonment of his family and living in with another woman were strong. And since it can't be shown that the witnesses had an I'll motive to testify against respondent, their testimonies are deemed worthy of belief. -Respondent did not present any evidence to counter the allegation that he wrote the letters that complainant claims he wrote for his paramour. He just denied the allegations. Mere denial does not sufficiently show that respondent is still morally fit to remain a member of the bar. -Parents have duties e.g. to support, educate and instruct their children according to right precepts etc. As a husband, respondent is obliged to live with his wife; to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity; and to render help and support. (Articles 220 and 68, FC) -The evidence and witnesses presented by respondent failed to debunk the claim of complainant that he had an illicit relationship with Gina Espita. Also, some of the witnesses he presented relied only on information fed by him or other people but actually do not have actual knowledge of the issue.