FLORDELIZ H. FLORIDA PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS Adm. Case No. 2474 September 15, 2004 Eduardo M.

Cojuangco Jr. vs. Atty. Leo Palma FACTS: Respondent despite his subsisting marriage wed MariaLuisa Cojuangco, the daughter of complainant. Thus, the latter filed complaint disbarment against respondent. Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint. The court referred the case to OSG for investigation and recommendation. The Assistant Solicitor General heard the testimonies of the complainant and his witness in the presence of respondents counsel. Respondent filed with the OSG an urgent motion to suspend proceedings on the ground that the final actions of his civil case for the declaration of nullity of marriage between him and his wife Lisa, poses a prejudicial question to the disbarment proceeding, but it was denied. The OSG transferred the disbarment case to the IBP, the latter found respondent guilty of gross immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer, hence, was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years. In his motion for reconsideration, respondent alleged that he acted under a firm factual and legal conviction in declaring before the Hong Kong Marriage Registry that he is a bachelor because his first marriage is void even if there is judicial declaration of nullity. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent committed grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer and whether or not he should be disbarred. HELD: Undoubtedly, respondents act constitutes grossly immoral conduct, a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. He exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. In particular, he made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality. The interdict upon lawyers, as inscribed in Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, is that they shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. In sum, respondent committed grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer. The penalty of one (1) year suspension recommended by the IBP is not commensurate to the gravity of

his offense. The bulk of jurisprudence supports the imposition of the extreme penalty of disbarment. Respondent is found GUILTY of grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer, and is DISBARRED from the practice of law. Respondents name is stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.