G.R. No.

L-22320

July 29, 1968

MERCEDES RUTH COBB-PERE !"# D$M$SO P. PERE , petitioners, vs. HON. GREGOR%O L$NT%N, Ju#&' o( )*' Cou+) o( ,-+.) %".)!"/' o( M!"-l!, R%C$RDO P. HERMOSO !"# )*' C%T0 SHER%,, O, M$N%L$, respondents. Crispin D. Baizas and Associates for petitioners. Isidro T. Almeda for respondents. C$STRO, J.: This is a motion for partial reconsideration of this Court's decision of May 22, 1968, specifically directed against the follo ing o!servation therein made" #e feel compelled to o!serve that during the protracted litigation !elo , the petitioners resorted to a series of actions and petitions, at some stages alternatingly, a!etted !y their counsel, for the sole purpose of th arting the e$ecution of a simple money %udgment hich has long !ecome final and e$ecutory. &ome of the actions ere filed, only to !e a!andoned or ithdra n. The petitioners and their counsel, far from vie ing courts as sanctuaries for those ho see' %ustice, have tried to use them to su!vert the very ends of %ustice. Corollarily, this Court assessed tre!le costs against the petitioners, to (!e paid !y their counsel.(. The herein movants, )ttys. Crispin *. +ai,as and ). -. +olinas, counsels for the petitioners, hile su!mitting to the %udgment on the merits, see' reconsideration of the decision in so far as it reflects adversely upon their (professional conduct( and condemns them to pay the tre!le costs ad%udged against their clients. )t first !lush, the motion for reconsideration presents a sem!lance of merit. )fter mature deli!eration and patient repro!ing into the records of the case, ho ever, e are of the firmer conviction that the protracted litigation, alluded to in the a!ove./uoted portion of our decision, as designed to cause delay, and the active participation of the petitioners' counsels in this adventure is patent. )fter -ovem!er 10, 1962 hen the Court of )ppeals rendered %udgment sustaining *amaso 1ere,' position ith respect to the e$tent of the levy, the su!se/uent proceedings interposed alternatingly !y the petitioner spouses ere o!viously /ui$otic maneuvers e$pected to !e overthro n !y the courts !ut calculated to delay an e$ecution long overdue. 2ad the petitioners and their counsels seriously !elieved that the levied shares of stoc' ere con%ugal property, hy did they not adopt this position from the very start, or, at the latest, in C).3.4. 29962.4, herein *amaso 1ere, challenged the legality of the levy's coverage, in order to end the litigation ith reasona!le dispatch5 They chose, ho ever, to attac' the e$ecution in a piecemeal fashion, causing the postponement of the pro%ected e$ecution sale si$ times. More than eight years after the finality of the %udgment have passed, and the same has yet to !e satisfied. 6n a determined effort to prolong the litigation, the 1ere, spouses, as represented !y their counsels, sought the issuance of preliminary in%unctions to restrain the e$ecution of the final %udgment in civil case 7989: from courts hich did not have %urisdiction and hich ould, as e$pected, initially or ultimately deny their prayer. ;or instance, after *amaso 1ere, !o ed out temporarily from the scene follo ing the rendition of the aforementioned Court of )ppeals decision, his ife, Mercede,, 4uth Co!!.1ere,, intruded into the controversy and as'ed for an e$ parte rit of preliminary in%unction from the Court of ;irst 6nstance of 4i,al in connection ith civil case :072 hich she filed ith the said court, 'no ing fully ell

that the !asic civil case 7989: as decided !y the Court of ;irst 6nstance of Manila <+ranch =66 presided !y the respondent >udge ?antin@, hich latter court as the proper forum for any action relative to the e$ecution. >udge Aulogio Mencias of the Court of ;irst 6nstance of 4i,al, loo'ing to )costa vs. )lvendia <?.18098, Bcto!er 71, 1969@, hich held that courts of first instance have no po er to restrain acts outside their territorial %urisdictions, lifted on Bcto!er 8, 1967 the e$ parte rit hich he previously issued en%oining the respondent sheriff from carrying out the e$ecution sale. 6t is clear, ho ever, that Mrs. 1ere, and her counsels, the movants, 'ne or ought to have 'no n !eforehand that the Court of ;irst 6nstance of 4i,al did not have %urisdiction to issue the rit hich Mrs. 1ere, herself sought, and, anticipating the recall of the rit improvidently issued, on &eptem!er 7, 1967, a month !efore the said rit as actually lifted, filed in the !asic civil case 7989: an urgent motion to lift the rit of e$ecution issued on )ugust 10, 1961, alleging as %ustification the con%ugal nature of the levied shares of stoc' and the personal nature of *amaso 1ere,' %udgment de!t, the very same reasons advanced in civil case :072 hich as then still pending in the Court of ;irst 6nstance of 4i,al. 6ncidentally, Mrs. 1ere, failed to adduce any evidence in support of her aforesaid urgent motion, as in fact neither she nor her counsels appeared during the scheduled hearing, prompting the respondent %udge to issue the follo ing order" #hen the urgent motion to recall or lift rit of e$ecution as called this morning for hearing, counsel for the movant did not appear despite the fact that he had !een duly notified of the motion for hearing. 6n vie thereof the court assumes that he is aiving his right to present evidence in support of his urgent motion to recall or lift rit of e$ecution. &aid urgent motion is therefore deemed su!mitted for resolution. *espite the recall of the aforementioned rit of in%unction !y >udge Mencias on a disclaimer of %urisdiction <since the e$ecution sought to !e en%oined as ordered !y another tri!unal@, Mrs. 1ere,, no assisted !y her hus!and ho had staged a come!ac', prayed for the issuance of another in%unction, this time from +ranch CC66 of the Court of ;irst 6nstance of Manila <not the same +ranch hich issued the controverted rit of e$ecution@, in connection ith civil case :072, then still pending in the Court of ;irst 6nstance of 4i,al. )s most pro!a!ly anticipated ane !y the 1ere, spouses and their counsels, >udge )li'pala, presiding %udge of +ranch CC66, on -ovem!er 8, 1967 denied the preliminary in%unction sought, on the ground, among others, that he had no po er to interfere !y in%unction ith the %udgment or decree of a court of concurrent or coordinate %urisdiction. Bn the very day the in%unction as denied, *amaso 1ere,, as if e$pecting the reversal from >udge )li'pala, as already prepared ith another (remedy,( as in fact on that day, -ovem!er 8, 1967, he filed in the !asic civil case 7989: an (Drgent Motion for 4econsideration( of the order of Bcto!er 19, 1967, hich denied his ife's a!ove.mentioned motion to recall the controverted rit of e$ecution. The foregoing motion, far from seriously see'ing the reconsideration of the order of Bcto!er 19, 1967, hich in the first place *amaso 1ere, could not legally do for he as not even a party to the denied (Drgent Motion to 4ecall #rit of A$ecution( <filed !y his ife alone@, as merely an offer to replace the levied stoc's ith supposed cash dividends due to the 1ere, spouses as stoc'holders in the 4epu!lic +an'.1 )s a matter of fact, hen the motion as set for hearing on *ecem!er 21, 1967, the counsels for *amaso 1ere, promised to produce the said cash dividends ithin five days, !ut the promise as never fulfilled.2 Conse/uently, the respondent >udge on >anuary 8, 1968, denied the said motion for reconsideration. The a!ove e$position of the circumstances relative to the protracted litigation clearly negates the avo al of the movants that (in none of the various incidents in the case at !ar has any particular counsel of petitioners acted ith deli!erate aforethought to delay the enforcement of the %udgment in Civil Case -o. 7989:.( ;rom the chronology of antecedent events, the fact !ecomes inescapa!le that the 1ere, spouses, coached !y their counsels, had sallied forth on a strategem of (remedies( pro%ected to foil the la ful e$ecution of a simple money %udgment. 6t is e/ually o!vious that they foreshado ed their o n reversals in the (remedies( they ventured to adopt, such that even !efore, one remedy had !een e$hausted, they interposed another until the case reached this Court for the second time. 7 Mean hile, %ustice as delayed, and more than one mem!er of this Court are persuaded that %ustice as practically aylaid.

The movants also contend that even this Court sanctions the aforesaid civil cases :072 and 00292 as the (proper remedy( hen e said that. 6n reality, hat they attac'ed is not the rit of e$ecution, the validity and regularity of hich are unchallenged, !ut the levy made !y the respondent &heriff. 6n this regard, the remedy is not the recall of the rit, !ut an independent action to en%oin the &heriff from proceeding ith the pro%ected sale, in which action the conjugal nature of the levied stocks should be established as a basis for the subse uent issuance of a permanent injunction! in the event of a successful claim. Incidentall"! in the course of the protracted litigation! the petitioners had alread" availed of this remed" in civil cases #$%& and $$&'&! only to a!andon it as they incessantly sought other, and often simultaneous, devices of th arting satisfaction of the %udgment de!t. <Amphasis supplied@ . )nd !ecause of this statement, they no counter that the said cases could not !e !randed as having !een instituted for delay. The reference e made to civil cases :072 and 00292 in the a!ove./uoted statement must not !e considered out of conte$t. #e said that the petitioners incidentall" had already availed of the suggested remedy only in the sense that said civil cases :072 and 00292 ere apparentl" instituted to prove the con%ugal nature of the levied shares of stoc's in /uestion. #e used the ord incidentall" advisedly to sho that in their incessant search for devices to th art the controverted e$ecution, they accidentally stum!led on the suggested remedy. +ut the said civil cases ere definitely not the (proper remedy( in so far as they sought the issuance of rits of preliminary in%unction from the Court of ;irst 6nstance of 4i,al and the Court of ;irst 6nstance of Manila <+ranch CC66@ here civil cases :072 and 00292 ere filed respectively, for the said courts did not have %urisdiction to restrain the enforcement of the rit of e$ecution issued !y the Court of ;irst 6nstance of Manila <+ranch =66@ under the settled doctrines that Courts are ithout po er to restrain acts outside of their territorial %urisdiction 8 or interfere ith the %udgment or decree of a court of concurrent or coordinate %urisdiction. 0 2o ever, the recall and the denial of the rits of preliminary in%unction in civil cases :072 and 00292 did not amount to the termination or dismissal of the principal action in each case. 2ad the 1ere, spouses desired in earnest to continue ith the said cases they could have done so. +ut the fact is that Mrs. 1ere, practically a!andoned civil case :072 hen she instituted the a!ove mentioned urgent motion to recall rit of e$ecution in the !asic civil case 7989:, anchored on the same grounds hich she advanced in the former case, until the said civil case :072 as dismissed on -ovem!er 9, 1967, upon her own motion. )nent civil case 00292, the 1ere, spouses virtually deserted the same hen they instituted the herein petition for certiorari ith urgent rit of preliminary in%unction !ased on the same grounds proffered in the said civil case E until the latter as also dismissed on March 29, 1968, ith the consent of the parties !ecause of the pendency then of the aforesaid petition for certiorari. The movants further contend that (6f there as delay, it as !ecause petitioners' counsel happened to !e more assertive ... a /uality of the la yers < hich@ is not to !e condemned.( ) counsel's assertiveness in espousing ith candour and honesty his client's cause must !e encouraged and is to !e commendedF hat e do not and cannot countenance is a la yer's insistence despite the patent futility of his client's position, as in the case at !ar. 6t is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and vagaries of the la , on the merit or lac' of merit of his case. 6f he finds that his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his !ounden duty to advise the latter to ac/uiesce and su!mit, rather than traverse the incontroverti!le. ) la yer must resist the hims and caprices of his client, and temper his client's propensity to litigate. ) la yer's oath to uphold the cause of %ustice is superior to his duty to his clientF its primacy is indisputa!le. The movants finally state that the (1etitioners have several counsel in this case !ut the participation of each counsel as rather limited implying that the decision of this Court ordering that (tre!le costs are assessed against the petitioners, hich shall !e paid !y their counsel( is not clear. The ord (counsel(

may !e either singular or plural in construction, so that hen e said (counsel( e meant the counsels on record of the petitioners ho ere responsi!le for the inordinate delay in the e$ecution of the final %udgment in the !asic civil case 7989:, after the Court of )ppeals had rendered its aforementioned decision of -ovem!er 10, 1962. )nd it is on record that the movants are such counsels. )tty. +olinas, upon his o n admission, (entered his appearance in the case at !ar a!out the time the Court of ;irst 6nstance of Manila dismissed the petitioners' 1etition for 4elief in Civil Case -o. 7989:,( or a!out )ugust 7, 1961 and even prior to the Court of )ppeals decision a!ove.mentioned. )tty. +ai,as claims that he (!ecame petitioners' counsel only in Bcto!er, 1967 hen he filed, ith )tty. ).-. +olinao, >r. Civil Case -o. 00292 !efore the Court of ;irst 6nstance of Manila presided !y the 2on. >udge )li'pala although it appears on record that the urgent motion to recall rit of e$ecution filed !y Mrs. 1ere, in the !asic civil case 7989: on &eptem!er 7, 1967, as over the signature of one 4u!y Gaida of the la firm of (Crispin +ai,as H )ssociates( as counsel for Mrs. 1ere,. 6t is to !e recalled that the said urgent motion is the same motion discussed a!ove, hich, curiously enough, antedated !y at least one month the lifting of the rit of preliminary in%unction issued in civil case :072. )CCB4*6-3?I, the motion for partial reconsideration is denied. Bur decision of May 22, 1968 is here!y modified in the sense that )ttys. Crispin *. +ai,as and ).-. +olinao, >r. shall pay %ointly and severally the tre!le costs assessed against the petitioners. (e"es! ).B.*.! Dizon! +akalintal! ,aldivar! -anchez! and Angeles! )).! concur. Concepcion C.).! voted for denial of the motion for reconsideration. .ernando! ).! took no part.

$#1. C!.' No. 1392 $2+-l 2, 1983 PREC%OS$ R. OBUS$N, complainant, vs. GENEROSO B. OBUS$N, JR., respondent. (oger Castuciano for complainant. (oemo ). Callejo for respondent.

$4U%NO, J.:+.wph!1 This is a dis!arment case filed in 19:8 !y 1reciosa 4a,on against her hus!and 3eneroso +. B!usan, >r. on the ground of adultery or grossly immoral conduct. 2e as admitted to the !ar in 1968. 6n 196:, hen 3eneroso +. B!usan, >r. as or'ing in the 1eoples 2omesite and 2ousing Corporation, he !ecame ac/uainted ith -atividad Asta!illo ho represented to him that she as a ido . They had carnal relations. 2e !egot ith her a son ho as !orn on -ovem!er 2:, 19:2. 2e as named >ohn B!usan <A$h. *@. 3eneroso came to 'no that -atividad's marriage to Tony 3arcia as su!sisting or undissolved.

.our da"s after the !irth of the child or on *ecem!er 1, 19:2, 3eneroso, 77, married 1reciosa, 7:, in a civil ceremony. The marriage as ratified in a religious ceremony held on *ecem!er 79,19:2 <A$h. C and C.1@ The couple lived ith the ife's mother at 997 &to. Cristo &treet, Tondo, Manila for more than one year. 6n the evening of )pril 17, 19:8, hen his ife as out of the house, la yer B!usan as'ed permission from his mother.in.la to leave the house and ta'e a vacation in his hometo n, *aet, Camarines -orte. &ince then, he has never returned to the con%ugal a!ode. 1reciosa immediately started loo'ing for her hus!and. )fter much patient investigation and surveillance, she discovered that he as living and coha!iting ith -atividad in an apartment located at 80.) ;eli$ Manalo &treet, Cu!ao, Jue,on City. 2e had !rought his car to that place. The fact that B!usan and -atividad lived as hus!and and ife as corro!orated !y ?inda *elfin, their housemaid in 19:8F 4emedios +ernal, a laundress, and Arnesto +ernal, a plum!er, their neigh!ors staying at 98 ;eli$ Manalo &treet. The three e$ecuted the affidavits, A$hi!its ), + and ;, hich ere confirmed !y their testimonies. 4omegil J. Magana, a pook leader, testified that B!usan introduced himself as the head of the family <20.79 tsn -ov. 26, 19:6@. 2is name is at the head of the !arangay list <A$h. A, 3 and 2@. -ieves Cacnio the o ner of the apartment, came to 'no B!usan as Mr. Asta!illo. &he 6dentified five photographs, A$hi!its 6 to 6.* here respondent B!usan appeared as the man earing eyeglasses. 4espondent's defense as that his relationship ith -atividad as terminated hen he married 1reciosa. 2e admitted that from time to time he ent to 80.) ;eli$ Manalo &treet !ut only for the purpose of giving financial assistance to his son, >un.>un. ?a yer 4ogelio 1anotes, the ninong of >un.>un, corro!orated respondent's testimony. 2e denied the testimonies of the maid, the laundress and the plum!er. 2e claims that they ere paid itnesses. 2e declared that he did not live ith -atividad. 2e resided ith his sister at Cypress =illage, &an ;rancisco del Monte, Jue,on City. Bn the other hand, he claimed that he as constrained to leave the con%ugal home !ecause he could not endure the nagging of his ife, their violent /uarrels, her a!sences from the con%ugal home <she allegedly ent to +aguio, ?uneta and &an )ndres &treet@ and her interference ith his professional o!ligations. The case as investigated !y the Bffice of the &olicitor 3eneral. 2e filed a complaint for dis!arment against the respondent. B!usan did not ans er the complaint. 2e aived the presentation of additional evidence. 2is la yer did not file any memorandum. )fter an e$amination of the record, e find that the complainant has sustained the !urden of proof. &he has proven his a!andonment of her and his adulterous relations ith a married oman separated from her o n hus!and. 4espondent as not a!le to overcome the evidence of his ife that he as guilty of grossly immoral conduct. )!andoning one's ife and resuming carnal relations ith a former paramour, a married oman, fails ithin (that conduct hich is illful, flagrant, or shameless, and hich sho s a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respecta!le mem!ers of the community( <: C.>.&. 909F )rciga vs. Mani ang )dm. Case -o. 1698, )ugust 18, 1981, 196 &C4) 091@. Thus, a la yer as dis!arred hen he a!andoned his la ful ife and coha!ited ith another oman ho had !orne him a child. 2e failed to maintain the highest degree of morality e$pected and re/uired of a mem!er of the !ar <Toledo vs. Toledo, 11: 1hil. :68@.

#2A4A;B4A, respondent is dis!arred. 2is name is stric'en off the 4oll of )ttorneys. &B B4*A4A*./0wph1/.23t +akasiar! Actg. C.).! Concepcion! )r.! 4uerrero! Abad -antos! De Castro! +elencio56errera! 7lana! 8scolin (elova! 4utierrez! )r. and De la .uente! )).! concur.

$.C. No. 389

,'5+u!+y 28, 1966

%N RE7 D%SB$RMENT O, $RM$NDO PUNO. ,LOR$ 4U%NG8$ complainant, vs. $RM$NDO PUNO, respondent. Domingo T. ,avalla for complainant. Armando 7uno for and in his own behalf as respondent. REG$L$, J.: Bn )pril 16, 1909, ;lora Juing a filed !efore this Court a verified complaint charging )rmando 1uno, a mem!er of the +ar, ith gross immorality and misconduct. 6n his ans er, the respondent denied all the material allegations of the complaint, and as a special defense averred that the allegations therein do not constitute grounds for dis!arment or suspension under section 20, 4ule 12: of the former 4ules of Court. The case as referred to the &olicitor 3eneral on >une 7, 1908, for investigation, report and recommendation. 2earings ere held !y the then &olicitor 4oman Cancino, >r., during hich the complainant, assisted !y her counsel, presented evidence !oth oral and documentary. The respondent, as ell as his counsel, cross.e$amined the complainant's itnesses. The respondent li'e ise testified. 2e denied having se$ual intercourse ith complainant at the &ilver Moon 2otel on >une 1, 1908, disclaimed the hand riting (Mr. H Mrs. ). 1uno( appearing in the hotel register, and diso ned )rmando Juing a 1uno, >r. to !e his child. )fter the hearing, the &olicitor 3eneral filed a complaint, formally charging respondent ith immorality. The complaint recites" That on >une 1, 1908, at a time hen complainant ;lora Juing a and respondent )rmando 1uno ere engaged to !e married, the said respondent invited the complainant to attend a movie !ut on their ay the respondent told the complainant that they ta'e refreshment !efore going to the ?yric TheaterF that they proceeded to the &ilver Moon 2otel at 4. 2idalgo, ManilaF that hile at the restaurant on the first floor of the said &ilver Moon 2otel, respondent proposed to complainant that they go to one of the rooms upstairs assuring her that 'any ay e are getting marriedF that ith reluctance and a feeling of dou!t engendered !y love of respondent and the respondent's promise of marriage, complainant ac/uiesced, and !efore they entered the hotel room respondent registered and signed the registry !oo' as 'Mr. and Mrs. ). 1unoF that after registering at the hotel, respondent shoved complainant inside the roomF that as soon as they ere inside the room, someone loc'ed the door from outside and respondent proceeded to the !ed and undressed himselfF that complainant !egged respondent not to molest her !ut respondent insisted, telling her" 'any ay 6 have promised to marry you'F and respondent, still

noticing the reluctance of complainant to his overtures of love, again assured complainant that 'you !etter give up. )ny ay 6 promised that 6 ill marry you'F that thereupon respondent pulled complainant to the !ed, removed her panty, and then placed himself on top of her and held her hands to 'eep her flat on the !edF that hen respondent as already on top of complainant the latter had no other recourse !ut to su!mit to respondent's demand and t o <2@ se$ual intercourse too' place from 7"99 o'cloc' until :"99 o'cloc' that same evening hen they left the hotel and proceeded to a !irthday party togetherF that after the se$ual act ith complainant on >une 1, 1908, respondent repeatedly proposed to have some more !ut complainant refused telling that they had !etter ait until they ere marriedF that after their said se$ual intimacy on >une 1, 1908 and feeling that she as already on the family ay, complainant repeatedly implored respondent to comply ith his promise of marriage !ut respondent refused to complyF that on ;e!ruary 29, 1909, complainant gave !irth to a child. That the acts of the respondent in having carnal 'no ledge ith the complainant through a promise of marriage hich he did not fulfill and has refused to fulfill up to the present constitute a conduct hich sho s that respondent is devoid of the highest degree of morality and integrity hich at all times is e$pected of and must !e possessed !y mem!ers of the 1hilippine +ar. The &olicitor 3eneral as'ed for the dis!arment of the respondent. ) copy of this complaint as served on respondent on May 7, 1962. Thereupon, he ans ered the complaint on >une 9, 1962, again denying that he too' complainant to the &ilver Moon 2otel and that on the promise of marriage, succeeded t ice in having se$ual intercourse ith her. 2e, ho ever, admitted that sometime in >une, 1900, he and the complainant !ecame s eethearts until -ovem!er, 1900, hen they !ro'e off, follo ing a /uarrel. 2e left for Gam!oanga City in >uly, 1908, to practice la . #ithout stating in his ans er that he had the intention of introducing additional evidence, respondent prayed that the complaint !e dismissed. This case as set for hearing in this Court on >uly 29, 1962. Bn the day of the hearing &olicitor Ceferino A. 3addi ho appeared for the complainant su!mitted the case for decision ithout oral argument. There as no appearance for the respondents. &ince the failure of respondent to ma'e 'no n in his ans er his intention to present additional evidence in his !ehalf is deemed a aiver of the right to present such evidence <Toledo vs. Toledo, )dm. Case -o. 266, )pril 2:, 1967@, the evidence produced !efore the &olicitor 3eneral in his investigation, here respondent had an opportunity to o!%ect to the evidence and cross.e$amine the itnesses, may no !e considered !y this Court, pursuant to &ection 6, 4ule 179 of the 4ules of Court. )fter revie ing the evidence, e are convinced that the facts are as stated in the complaint. Complainant is an educated oman, having !een a pu!lic school teacher for a num!er of years. &he testified that respondent too' her to the &ilver Moon 2otel on >une 1, 1908, signing the hotel register as (Mr. and Mrs. ). 1uno,( and succeeded in having se$ual intercourse ith her on the promise of marriage. The hotel register of the &ilver Moon 2otel <A$h. +.1 and A$h. +.2@ sho s that (Mr. and Mrs. ). 1uno( arrived at that hotel on >une 1, 1908 at 7"99 1.M. and departed at :"99 1.M. Complainant also testified that she last sa respondent on >uly 0, 1908, hen the latter ent to Gam!oanga City. #hen she learned that respondent had left for Gam!oanga City, she sent him a telegram sometime in )ugust of that year telling him that she as in trou!le. )gain she rote him a letter in &eptem!er and another one in Bcto!er of the same year, telling him that she as pregnant and she re/uested him to come. 4eceiving no replies from respondent, she ent to Gam!oanga City in -ovem!er, 1908, here she met the respondent and as'ed him to comply ith his promise to marry her. /0wph1/.23t

4espondent admitted that he left for Gam!oanga City in >uly, 1908, and that he and complainant met in Gam!oanga City in -ovem!er, 1908. The fact that complainant sent him a telegram and letters as li'e ise admitted in respondent's letter to the complainant dated -ovem!er 7, 1908 <A$h. A@, hich as duly identified !y the respondent to !e his. Complainant gave !irth to a !a!y !oy on ;e!ruary 29, 1909, at the Maternity and Children's 2ospital. This is supported !y a certified true copy of a !irth certificate issued !y the *eputy ?ocal Civil 4egistrar of Manila, and a certificate of admission of complainant to the Maternity and Children's 2ospital issued !y the medical records cler' of the hospital. To sho ho intimate the relationship !et een the respondent and the complainant as, the latter testified that she gave money to the respondent henever he as'ed from her. This as corro!orated !y the testimony of Maria >aca a itness for the complainant. Aven respondent's letter dated -ovem!er 7, 1908 <A$h. A@ sho s that he used to as' for money from the complainant. The lengthy cross.e$amination to hich complainant as su!%ected !y the respondent himself failed to discredit complainant's testimony. 6n his ans er to the complaint of the &olicitor 3eneral, the respondent averred that he and complainant ere s eethearts up to -ovem!er, 1900 only. The fact that they reconciled and ere s eethearts in 1908 is esta!lished !y the testimony of ;ara &antos, a itness of the complainant <pp. 12 H 1:, t.s.n.@F respondent's letter to the complainant dated -ovem!er 7, 1908 <A$h. A@F and respondent's o n testimony <pp. 289 H 200, t.s.n.@ Complainant su!mitted to respondent's plea for se$ual intercourse !ecause of respondent's promise of marriage and not !ecause of a desire for se$ual gratification or of voluntariness and mutual passion. < Cf. Tan%anco vs. Court of )ppeals, 3.4. -o. ?.18679, *ecem!er 1:, 1966@ . Bne of the re/uirements for all applicants for admission to the +ar is that the applicant must produce !efore the &upreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character <&ection 2, 4ule 12: of the old 4ules of Court, no section 2, 4ule 178@. 6f that /ualification is a condition precedent to a license or privilege to enter upon the practice of la , it is essential during the continuance of the practice and the e$ercise of the privilege. <4oyong vs. B!lena, )dm. Case -o. 7:6, )pril 79, 1967, citing In re 1elae,, 88 1hil. 06:@. #hen his integrity is challenged !y evidence, it is not enough that he denies the charges against himF he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence for the relator <?egal and >udicial Athics, !y Malcolm, p. 97@ and sho proofs that he still maintains the highest degree of morality and integrity, hich at all times is e$pected of him. 4espondent denied that he too' complainant to the &ilver Moon 2otel and had se$ual intercourse ith her on >une 1, 1908, !ut he did not present evidence to sho here he as on that date. 6n the case of 9nited -tates vs. Tria, 1: 1hil. 797, >ustice Moreland, spea'ing for the Court, said" )n accused person sometimes o es a duty to himself if not to the &tate. 6f he does not perform that duty he may not al ays e$pect the &tate to perform it for him. 6f he fails to meet the o!ligation hich he o es to himself, hen to meet it is the easiest of easy things, he is hardly indeed if he demand and e$pect that same full and ide consideration hich the &tate voluntarily gives to those ho !y reasona!le effort see' to help themselves. This is particularly so hen he not only declines to help himself !ut actively conceals from the &tate the very means !y hich it may assist him. #ith respect to the special defense raised !y the respondent in his ans er to the charges of the complainant that the allegations in the complaint do not fall under any of the grounds for dis!arment or suspension of a mem!er of the +ar as enumerated in section 20 of 4ule 12: of the <old@ 4ules of Court, it is already a settled rule that the statutory enumeration of the grounds for dis!arment or suspension is not to !e ta'en as a limitation on the general po er of courts to suspend or dis!ar a la yer. The inherent

po ers of the court over its officers can not !e restricted. Times ithout num!er, our &upreme Court held that an attorney ill !e removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, !ut also for gross misconduct, hich sho s him to !e unfit for the office and un orthy of the privileges hich his license and the la confer upon him. <In re 1elae,, 88 1hil. 06:, citing In re &mith K1996L :7 Man :87F +alinon vs. de ?eon )dm. Case -o. 198, >anuary 28, 1908F 09 B.3. 087F Mortel vs. )spiras, )dm. Case -o. 180, *ecem!er 28, 1906, 07 B.3. 62:@. )s a matter of fact, (grossly immoral conduct( is no one of the grounds for suspension or dis!arment. <&ection 2:, 4ule 178, 4ules of Court@. Dnder the circumstances, e are convinced that the respondent has committed a grossly immoral act and has, thus disregarded and violated the fundamental ethics of his profession. 6ndeed, it is important that mem!ers of this ancient and learned profession of la must conform themselves in accordance ith the highest standards of morality. )s stated in paragraph 29 of the Canons of >udicial Athics" ... The la yer should aid in guarding the !ar against the admission to the profession of candidates unfit or un/ualified !ecause deficient in either moral character or education. 2e should strive at all times to uphold the honor and to maintain the dignity of the profession and to improve not only the la !ut the administration of %ustice. #herefore, respondent )rmando 1uno is here!y dis!arred and, as a conse/uence, his name is ordered stric'en off from the 4oll of )ttorneys. Concepcion! C.).! (e"es! ).B.*.! Dizon! +akalintal! Bengzon! ).7.! ,aldivar! -anchez and Castro! )).! concur.

G.R. No. L-9192

D'/'15'+ 28, 1996

JOSE,%N$ MORTEL, plaintiff.appellant, vs. $N$CLETO ,. $SP%R$S, !"# CES$R $SP%R$S, defendants.appelle. Concepcion ,acarias for appellant. Anacleto .. Aspiras in his own behalf and for his co5appellee.

BENG ON, J.: 6n Bcto!er 1908 >osefina Mortel filed in the Manila court of first instance a complaint against )nacleto ;. )spiras and Cesar )spiras <Civil Case -o. 28818@ alleging su!stantially" That posing as a !achelor )nacleto courted her in 1902 in 4om!lon province, and persuaded her to come to manila for their eddingF that for such purposes he arrived in the city, and stayed in the house of her sister in 1asay, here )nacleto, repeating his assurances of marriage lived ith her as her hus!andF that su!se/uently, heeding plaintiff's insistence on the edding, )nacleto accompanied her to the City 2all to o!tain a marriage licenseF that there he introduced her son Cesar to her as a nephe , and then left them !oth in the !uilding, after saying that Cesar already 'ne hat to doF that ith the help of )tty. Moises Aspino !oth o!tained a marriage licenseF that several days later plaintiff as made to marry Cesar )spiras in the presence of )nacleto, ho led her to !elieve she as really marrying him thru Cesar

)spiras as a pro$yF that after such marriage ceremony she continued to live ith )nacleto as his ife E never ith Cesar, ith hom she never had amorous relationsF and that she had a !a!y !orn >anuary 28, 1908 of defendant )nacleto )spiras, ho turned out to !e married to another oman. &he as'ed annulment of her marriage to Cesar )spiras, and for %udgment re/uiring defendants to pay her, %ointly and severally, a monthly allo ance of 1109.99 and damages in the total sum of 1:2,089.99. Bn -ovem!er 9, 1908 defendants filed a motion to dismiss on t o grounds" no cause of action, and prior %udgment in Civil Case -o. 19110 of the same court. . Bn ;e!ruary 11, 1900, the court issued an order saying, Dpon motion of the defendants this case is dismissed it !eing a repetition of civil Case -o. 19110 <>osefina Mortel vs. )nacleto )spiras and Cesar )spiras@ hich as dismissed upon separate motions of the parties in the order of this Court of )pril 11, 1907. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration, !ut her motion as denied in a court resolution e$plaining that this case (is a reiteration su!stantially of the old case -o. 19110( . . . hich as (dismissed upon separate motions of !oth parties( and such (dismissal operates as an ad%udication on the merits in accordance ith the provisions of &ec. 8, 4ule 79 of the 4ules of Court(. Conse/uently the plaintiff appealed to this Court alleging error in the application of 4ule 79 section 8, inasmuch as the matter as governed !y sec. 1 of same 4ule 79. Civil Case -o. 19110 as admittedly filed March 1907. The allegations of the complaint therein ere practically the same as those in the present litigationF !efore filing of the ans er, plaintiff >osefina Mortel su!mitted on )pril 9, 1907 a motion to dismiss her complaint (stating that she as in fact and in truth married to the defendant Cesar )spiras and )nacleto ;. )spiras participated in the solemni,ation of the marriage as the father of Cesar )spiras, and that she filed her said complaint at the height of anger and thus the contents thereof did not represent her true sentiments( <29 4ecord on )ppeal@. 6t is also admitted that on )pril 1, 1907 the defendants in said Civil Case -o. 19110 presented a motion to dismiss, asserting the plaintiff had no cause of action !ecause she ( as a school teacher, 'ne that she contracted the marriage ith Cesar )spiras and that there ere no misrepresentation or fraud perpetrated against her.( <10, 29 4ecord on )ppeal.@ There is no /uestion that on )pril 11, 1907 the court issued, in said civil case, an order stating, (upon separate motions of !oth parties the complaint is here!y dismissed(. ;or the sa'e of clearness the rules cited !y !oth sides are /uoted" &ACT6B- 1. Dismissal b" the plaintiff . E )n action may !e dismissed !y the plaintiff ithout order of court !y filing a notice of dismissal at any time !efore service of the ans er. Dnless other ise stated in the notice, the dismissal is ithout pre%udice, e$cept that. . . . &AC. 8. 8ffect of dismissal on the grounds. E Dnless other ise ordered !y the court, any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lac' of %urisdiction, operates an ad%udication upon the merits. <4ule 79, 4ules of Court.@ There is another reason that may !e pertinent" &AC. 2. B" order of the court. E A$cept as provided in the preceeding section, an action shall not !e dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and

conditions as the court deems proper. . . . Dnless other ise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph shall !e ithout pre%udice. . . . 6n the light of the a!ove provisions, let us e$amine hat transpired in Civil Case -o. 19110. +efore the ans er as made, plaintiff filed a (Motion to #ithdra andNor *ismiss(F and she as'ed the court (that the complaint . . . !e ithdra n andNor dismissed(. )t first glance her pleading does not fall e$actly within the letter of the (notice( contemplated !y section 1. 6n addition it asked for a court order of dismissal. +ut if it does not fall under section 1, it may !e considered as a motion hich the court could dispose of under section 2. #hen acting under such section to court could consult the ishes of the defendant. The defendant may objectF !ut the court may order dismissal, and such order is ithout pre%udice. #herefore if the defendant agrees, the order is a fortiori also ithout pre%udice. Dnless other ise e$pressly stated, of course./awphil.net -o then, the defendant's motion to dismiss in )pril 1907 could in legal contemplation !e deemed a conformity to plaintiff's motion to ithdra . Therefore, the court's order upon !oth motions should !e ithout pre%udice, under section 2. Bn the other hand, vie ing the pleading ith li!erality a and seeing thru the form to the su!stance, the plaintiff's (motion to ithdra or dismiss( of )pril 9 amounted practically to a (notice( of dismissal, !efore service of the ans er, !ecause it advised the defendants of plaintiff's desire to ithdra . 6ts caption did not alter nor disguise its nature as plaintiff's statement of her determination to drop the matter. 6t contemplated, it is true, a court order of dismissalF !ut it as not there!y ta'en out of the purvie of section 1, since even after a (notice( given under said section, a court's order of dismissal ould not !e incongrous. *efendant's conformity, if openly given, ould !e surplusage, and ould not modify the ensuing %uridical situation. )s e see section 1, hen the plaintiff files the notice, the matter is dismissed ithout the necessit" of a court orderF !ut a court order may su!se/uently !e entered definitely ta'ing cogni,ance of the ithdra al and shelving the e:pediente, ithout there!y thro ing the matter out of the scope of said section 1 < b@. +eing then of the opinion that the proceedings in Civil Case -o. 19110 could !e classified either under section 1 or under section 2, e cannot !ut declare section 8 to the inapplica!le. 6n other ords, e hold the dismissal to !e ithout pre%udice. )t most, defendants may contend that the order of )pril 11, 1907 as also an order sustaining their motion to dismiss for lac' of cause of action, such order !arring su!se/uent litigation. 6n fact such as their contention in the court !elo . <p. 2: 4ecord on )ppeal.@ 2o ever, e do not !elieve that the court's order meant to declare that plaintiff had no cause of action. 6t did not say, (;or the reasons stated in defendant's motion( the case is dismissed. 6t merely stated (upon separate motions of !oth parties the complaint is dismissed( E hich ordinarily could mean (since !oth parties as' for dismissal, the case is dismissed(. 6n all pro!a!ility the court did not stop to consider the merits of the controversy. 6ndeed it ould !e a de!ata!le point hether the court could still properly delve into the merits of the case after plaintiff had ithdra n. ! )ny ay, even granting that the court's order also held that no cause of action e$isted, the situation ould !e one herein the order as !oth provisional and final in character <if that is legally possi!le@. Then it ould not !e fair to apply such finality to plaintiff, since she ould there!y !e forever !arred from su!mitting her claim to the courts, although she had reasons to !elieve the order as a provisional dismissal. Bn the other hand, considering the order as provisional, defendants ould not !e unduly pre%udiced nor definitely harmed, !ecause they are not deprived of the opportunity to defend themselves. *efendants should have insisted either that the court ma'e a specific ruling upon their motion or that the dismissal !e e$pressly made with pre%udice.lawphil.net 6t may !e stated that in this connection that e are all the more inclined to permit this ne litigation, !ecause in another e$pediente e have %ust decided, <of hich e may ta'e %udicial notice@ <)dm. Case

-o. 108, Mortel vs. )spiras@, evidence has !een introduced indicating that the plaintiff's motion for dismissal had !een prepared at the re/uest of defendant )nacleto )spiras ho promised plaintiff full support, E and that there is prima facie merit to her claims for annulment and damages. This is verily one instance re/uiring li!eral construction of the 4ules for the purpose of assisting the parties to o!tain %ust, speedy and ine$pensive determination of their controversies E ithout regard to technical o!%ections that do not s/uare ith the ends of %ustice. The appealed order is here!y reversed and the case remanded to the lo er court for further proceedings. 7aras! C.).! 7adilla! Bautista Angelo! *abrador! Concepcion! (e"es! ).B.*.! 8ndencia and .eli:! )).! concur.

,oo)"o)'. a 1leadings to !e li!erally construed. &ec. 1: 4ule 10. ! 6t might !e argued that under section 1 of the notice automatically dismissed the case ( ithout pre%udice( and the order of the court as a surplusage, in no ay construa!le as implying dismissal ith pre%udice.

$.M. No. 2339 July 3, 1992 DOROTH0 B. TERRE, complainant, vs. $TT0. JORD$N TERRE, respondent.

PER CUR%$M7 6n a s orn complaint filed ith this Court on 28 *ecem!er 1981, complainant *orothy +. Terre charged respondent >ordan Terre, a mem!er of the 1hilippine +ar ith (grossly immoral conduct,( consisting of contracting a second marriage and living ith another oman other than complainant, hile his prior marriage ith complainant remained su!sisting. The Court resolved to re/uire respondent to ans er the complaint. 1 4espondent successfully evaded five <0@ attempts to serve a copy of the Court's 4esolution and of the complaint !y moving from one place to another, such that he could not !e found nor reached in his alleged place of employment or residence. 2 Bn 28 )pril 1980, that is after three <7@ years and a half, ith still no ans er from the respondent, the Court noted respondent's success in evading service of the complaint and the Court's 4esolution and thereupon resolved to (suspend respondent )tty. >ordan Terre from the practice of la until after he appears andNor files his ans er to the complaint against him( in the instant case. 3

Bn 28 &eptem!er 1980, respondent finally filed an )ns er ith a Motion to &et )side andNor ?ift &uspension Brder. 6n his )ns er, )tty. Terre averred that he had contracted marriage ith complainant *orothy Terre on 18 >une 19:: upon her representation that she as singleF that he su!se/uently learned that *orothy as married to a certain Merlito ). +ercenilla sometime in 1968F that hen he confronted *orothy a!out her prior marriage, *orothy drove him out of their con%ugal residenceF that *orothy had moc'ingly told him of her private meetings ith Merlito ). +ercenilla and that the child she as then carrying <i.e., >ason Terre@ as the son of +ercenillaF that !elieving in good faith that his marriage to complainant as null and void ab initio, he contracted marriage ith 2elina Malicdem at *asol, 1angasinan. 3 6n her 4eply, complainant *orothy denied that >ason Terre as the child of Merlito ). +ercenilla and insisted that >ason as the child of respondent >ordan Terre, as evidenced !y >ason's +irth Certificate and physical resem!lance to respondent. *orothy further e$plained that hile she had given !irth to >ason Terre at the 1);32 registered as a dependent of Merlito +ercenilla, she had done so out of e$treme necessity and to avoid ris' of death or in%ury to the fetus hich happened to !e in a difficult !reech position. )ccording to *orothy, she had then already !een a!andoned !y respondent >ordan Terre, leaving her penniless and ithout means to pay for the medical and hospital !ills arising !y reason of her pregnancy. The Court denied respondent's Motion to &et )side or ?ift the &uspension Brder and instead referredF !y a 4esolution dated 6 >anuary 1986, the complaint to the Bffice of the &olicitor 3eneral for investigation, report and recommendation. 9 Then &olicitor 1io C. 3uerrero as appointed investigator !y the Bffice of the &olicitor 3eneral. 2e set the case for hearing on : >uly 1986 ith notice to !oth parties. Bn : >uly 1986, complainant *orothy appeared and presented her evidence e: parte, since respondent did not so appear. 6 The 6nvestigating &olicitor scheduled and held another hearing on 19 )ugust 1986, here he put clarificatory /uestions to the complainantF respondent once again did not appear despite notice to do so. Complainant finally offered her evidence and rested her case. The &olicitor set still another hearing for 2 Bcto!er 1986, notifying respondent to present his evidence ith a arning that should he fail once more to appear, the case ould !e deemed su!mitted for resolution. 4espondent did not appear on 2 Bcto!er 1986. The 6nvestigating &olicitor accordingly considered respondent to have aived his right to present evidence and declared the case su!mitted for resolution. The parties ere given time to su!mit their respective memoranda. Complainant *orothy did so on 8 *ecem!er 1986. 4espondent Terre did not file his memorandum. Bn 26 ;e!ruary 1999, the Bffice of the &olicitor 3eneral su!mitted its (4eport and 4ecommendation( to this Court. The 4eport summari,ed the testimony of the complainant in the follo ing manner" Complainant *orothy Terre too' the itness stand and testified su!stantially as follo s" she and respondent met for the first time in 19:9 as fourth year high school classmates in Cadi, City 2igh &chool <tsn, >uly :, 1986, p. 9@F she as then married to Merlito +ercenilla, hile respondent as single <id.@F respondent as a are of her marital status <ibid, p. 18@F it as then that respondent started courting her !ut nothing happened of the courtship <ibid, p. 19@F they Kcomplainant and respondentL moved to Manila ere they respectively pursued their education, respondent as a la student at the ?yceum Dniversity <tsn, >uly :, 1986, p. 12, 10.16@F respondent continued courting her, this time ith more persistence <ibid, p. 11@F she decided nothing ould come of it since she as married !ut he KrespondentL e$plained to her that their marriage as void ab initio since she and her first hus!and ere first cousins <ibid, p. 12@F convinced !y his e$planation and having secured favora!le advice from her mother and e$.in.la s, she agreed to marry him KrespondentL <ibid, 12.17, 16@F in their marriage license, despite her Kcomplainant'sL o!%ection, he KrespondentL rote (single( as her status e$plaining that since her marriage as void ab initio, there as no need to go to court to declare it as such <ibid, 18.10@F they ere married !efore >udge 1riscilla Mi%ares

of the City Court of Manila on >une 18, 19:: <A$hi!it )F tsn, >uly :, 1986, pp. 16.1:@F >ason Terre as !orn of their union on >une 20, 1981 <A$hi!it +, tsn, >uly :, 1986, p. 18@F all through their married state up to the time he KrespondentL disappeared in 1981, complainant supported respondent, in addition to the allo ance the latter as getting from his parents <ibid, pp. 19.29@F she as una are of the reason for his disappearance until she found out later that respondent married a certain =ilma KsicL Malicdem <A$hi!it C, tsn, >uly :, 1986, pp. 21.22@F she then filed a case for a!andonment of minor ith the City ;iscal of 1asay City <ibid, p. 27@ hich as su!se/uently filed !efore +ranch 66 of the City Court of 1asay City as Criminal Case -o. 816109 <A$hi!it *F tsn, >uly :, 1986, p. 28@F she li'e ise filed a case for !igamy against respondent and 2elina Malicdem ith the office of the 1rovincial ;iscal of 1angasinan, here a prima facie case as found to e$ist <A$hi!it AF tsn, >uly :, pp. 20.26@F additionally, complainant filed an administrative case against respondent ith the Commission on )udit here he as employed, hich case ho ever as considered closed for !eing moot and academic hen respondent as considered automatically separated from the service for having gone on a!sence ithout official leave <A$hi!it ;F tsn, >uly :, 1986, pp. 28.29@. 6 There is no dispute over the fact that complainant *orothy Terre and respondent >ordan Terre contracted marriage on 18 >uly 19:: !efore >udge 1riscilla Mi%ares. There is further no dispute over the fact that on 7 May 1981, respondent >ordan Terre married 2elina Malicdem in *asol, 1angasinan. #hen the second marriage as entered into, respondent's prior marriage ith complainant as su!sisting, no %udicial action having !een initiated or any %udicial declaration o!tained as to the nullity of such prior marriage of respondent ith complainant. 4espondent >ordan Terre sought to defend himself !y claiming that he had !elieved in good faith that his prior marriage ith complainant *orothy Terre as null and void ab initio and that no action for a %udicial declaration of nullity as necessary. The Court considers this claim on the part of respondent >ordan Terre as a spurious defense. 6n the first place, respondent has not re!utted complainant's evidence as to the !asic facts hich underscores the !ad faith of respondent Terre. 6n the second place, that pretended defense is the same argument !y hich he had inveigled complainant into !elieving that her prior marriage to Merlito ). +ercenilla !eing incestuous and void ab initio <*orothy and Merlito !eing allegedly first cousins to each other@, she as free to contract a second marriage ith the respondent. 4espondent >ordan Terre, !eing a la yer, 'ne or should have 'no n that such an argument ran counter to the prevailing case la of this Court hich holds that for purposes of determining hether a person is legally free to contract a second marriage, a %udicial declaration that the first marriage as null and void ab initio is essential. 8 Aven if e ere to assume, arguendo merely, that >ordan Terre held that mista'en !elief in good faith, the same result ill follo . ;or if e are to hold >ordan Terre to his o n argument, his first marriage to complainant *orothy Terre must !e deemed valid, ith the result that his second marriage to 2elina Malicdem must !e regarded as !igamous and criminal in character. That the moral character of respondent >ordan Terre as deeply fla ed is sho n !y other circumstances. )s noted, he convinced the complainant that her prior marriage to +ercenilla as null and void ab initio, that she as still legally single and free to marry him. #hen complainant and respondent had contracted their marriage, respondent ent through la school hile !eing supported !y complainant, ith some assistance from respondent's parents. )fter respondent had finished his la course and gotten complainant pregnant, respondent a!andoned the complainant ithout support and ithout the here ithal for delivering his o n child safely in a hospital. Thus, e agree ith the &olicitor 3eneral that respondent >ordan Terre, !y his actions, (elo/uently displayed, not only his unfitness to remain as a mem!er of the +ar, !ut li'e ise his inade/uacy to uphold the purpose and responsi!ility of his gender( !ecause marriage is a !asic social institution. 9

6n 7omperada v. )ochico, 10 the Court, in re%ecting a petition to !e allo ed to ta'e the oath as a mem!er of the +ar and to sign the 4oll of )ttorneys, said through Mme. >ustice Melencio.2errera" 6t is evident that respondent fails to meet the standard of moral fitness for mem!ership in the legal profession. #hether the marriage as a %o'e as respondent claims, or a tric' played on her as claimed !y complainant, it does not spea' ell of respondent's moral values. 4espondent had made a moc'ery of marriage, a !asic social institution hich pu!lic policy cherishes and protects <)rticle 216, Civil Code@. 11 6n Bolivar v. -imbol, 12 the Court found the respondent there guilty of (grossly immoral conduct( !ecause he made a dupe of complainant, living on her !ounty and allo ing her to spend for his schooling and other personal necessities hile dangling !efore her the mirage of a marriage, marrying another girl as soon as he had finished his studies, 'eeping his marriage a secret hile continuing to demand money from complainant. . . . .( The Court held such acts (indicative of a character not orthy of a mem!er of the +ar.( 13 #e !elieve and so hold that the conduct of respondent >ordan Terre in inveigling complainant *orothy Terre to contract a second marriage ith himF in a!andoning complainant *orothy Terre after she had cared for him and supported him through la school, leaving her ithout means for the safe delivery of his o n childF in contracting a second marriage ith 2elina Malicdem hile his first marriage ith complainant *orothy Terre as su!sisting, constituted (grossly immoral conduct( under &ection 2: of 4ule 178 of the 4ules of Court, affording more than sufficient !asis for dis!arment of respondent >ordan Terre. 2e as un orthy of admission to the +ar in the first place. The Court ill correct this error forth ith. #2A4A;B4A, the Court 4esolved to *6&+)4 respondent >ordan Terre and to &T46MA BDT his name from the 4oll of )ttorneys. ) copy of this decision shall !e spread on the personal record of respondent >ordan Terre in the +ar Confidant's Bffice. ) copy of this resolution shall also !e furnished to the 6ntegrated +ar of the 1hilippines and shall !e circulari,ed to all the courts of the land. &B B4*A4A*. ;arvasa! C.).! 4utierrez! )r.! Cruz! 7aras! .eliciano! 7adilla! Bidin! 4ri2o5A uino! +edialdea! (egalado! Davide! )r.! (omero! ;ocon and Bellosillo! )).! concur.

$.M. No. 1333 No:'15'+ 28, 1989 ROS$R%O DELOS RE0ES, complainant, vs. $TT0. JOSE B. $ N$R, respondent. .ederico A. Bla" for complainant. *uciano Babiera for respondent. 4A&B?DT6B-

PER CUR%$M7 This is a complaint for dis!arment filed against respondent on the ground of gross immorality. Complainant, a second year medical student of the &outh estern Dniversity <Ce!u@, alleged in her verified complaint that respondent )tty. >ose +. ),nar, then chairman of said university, had carnal 'no ledge of her for several times under threat that she ould fail in her 1athology su!%ect if she ould not su!mit to respondent's lustful desires. Complainant further alleged that hen she !ecame pregnant, respondent, through a certain *r. 3il 4amas, had her undergo forced a!ortion. 6n compliance ith the 4esolution of the Court dated >uly 9, 19:8, respondent filed his )ns er denying any personal 'no ledge of complainant as ell as all the allegations contained in the complaint and !y ay of special defense, averred that complainant is a oman of loose morality. Bn &eptem!er 2, 19:8, the Court 4esolved to refer the case to the &olicitor 3eneral for investigation, report and recommendation. The findings of the &olicitor 3eneral is summari,ed as follo s" A=6*A-CA ;B4 T2A CBM1?)6-)-T Complainant 4osario delos 4eyes testified that" 1@ she as a second year medical student of the &outh estern Dniversity, the Chairman of the +oard of hich as respondent >ose +. ),nar <pp. 11, 10, tsn, >une 6, 19:0@F 2@ she ho ever failed in her 1athology su!%ect hich prompted her to approach respondent in the latter's house ho assured her that she ould pass the said su!%ect <pp. 10,16, 26, 77, tsn, >une 6, 19:0@F 7@ despite this assurance, ho ever, she failed <p. 77, tsn, >une 6, 19:0@F 8@ sometime in ;e!ruary, 19:7, respondent told her that she should go ith him to Manila, other ise, she ould flun' in all her su!%ects <pp. 82, 09, tsn, >une 6, 19:0@F ... ... ... F 0@ on ;e!ruary 12, 19:7, !oth respondent and complainant !oarded the same plane <A$h. ()(@ for ManilaF from the Manila *omestic )irport, they proceeded to 4oom 990, 9th ;loor of the )m!assador 2otel here they stayed for three days <A$hs. (M(, (M.1( to (M.6(F p. 00, tsn, >une 6, 1 9:0@F 6@ after arriving at the )m!assador 2otel, they dined at a &panish restaurant at &an Marcelino, Malate, Manila for around three hours <pp 06.0:, tsn, >une 6, 19:0@F :@ they returned to the hotel at around t elve o'cloc' midnight, here respondent had carnal 'no ledge of her t ice and then thrice the ne$t morning <p. 09, tsn, >une 6, 19:0F pp. 108, 100 H 10:, tsn, >uly 18, 19:0@F

8@ complainant consented to the se$ual desires of respondent !ecause for her, she ould sacrifice her personal honor rather than fail in her su!%ects <p.6l, tsn, >une 6, 19:0@F ... ... ...F 9@ sometime in March, 19:7, complainant told respondent that she as suspecting pregnancy !ecause she missed her menstruation <p. :6, tsn, >uly 1:, 19:0@F ... ... ...F 19@ later, she as informed !y *r. Monsanto <an instructor in the college of medicine@ that respondent anted that an a!ortion !e performed upon her <p.82, tsn, >uly l:, 19:0@F ... ... ... F 11@ thereafter, 4u!en Cru,, a confidant of respondent, and *r. Monsato fetched her at her !oarding house on the prete$t that she ould !e e$amined !y *r. 3il 4amas <pp. 8:.88, tsn, >uly 1:, 19:0@F 12@ upon reaching the clinic of *r. 4amas she as given an in%ection and an inhalation mas' as placed on her mouth and nose <pp. 88.99, tsn, >uly 1:, 1 9:0@F 17@ as a result, she lost consciousness and hen she o'e up, an a!ortion had already !een performed upon her and she as ea', !leeding and felt pain all over her !ody <pp. 99.91, tsn, >uly 1:, 19:0@F ... ... ... <4ollo, pp. 78.89@ Monica 3utierre, Tan testified that she met complainant and a man hom complainant introduced as )tty. ),nar in front of the )m!assador 2otel <pp. 187.188, tsn, &ept. 19, 19:0F 4ollo, p. 81@. *r. 4e!ecca 3ucor and *r. )rtemio 6ngco, itnesses for the complainant, testified that a!dominal e$aminations and $.ray e$amination of the lum!ro.sacral region of complainant sho ed no signs of a!normality <4ollo, p. 82@. The evidence for the respondent as reported !y the &olicitor 3eneral is summari,ed as follo s" Adil!erto Ca!an testified that" 1. 6n *ecem!er, 19:2, respondent )tty. ),nar stayed at )m!assador 2otel ith his ife and childrenF respondent never came to Manila e$cept in *ecem!er, 19:2F <pp. 8.9,. tsn, -ov. 28, 19::@F 2. 2e usually slept ith respondent everytime the latter comes to Manila <p. 17, tsn, -ov. 28, 19::F 4ollo, pp. 82.87@. Bscar &alangsang, another itness for the respondent stated that" 1. 6n ;e!ruary, 19:7, he ent to )m!assador 2otel to meet respondentF the latter had male companions at the hotel !ut he did not see any oman companion of respondent ),narF 2. 2e usually slept ith respondent at the )m!assador 2otel and ate ith him outside the hotel together ith Ca!an <pp. 8.9, 17.10, tsn, >an. 17, 19:8F 4ollo, p. 87@.

The Court notes that throughout the period of the investigation conducted !y the &olicitor 3eneral, respondent ),nar as never presented to refute the allegations made against him. 6n his )ns er, respondent ),nar alleges that he does not have any 'no ledge of the allegations in the complaint. )s special defense, respondent further alleged that the charge levelled against him is in furtherance of complainant's vo to rec' vengeance against respondent !y reason of the latter's approval of the recommendation of the +oard of Trustees !arring complainant from enrollment for the school year 19:7.19:8 !ecause she failed in most of her su!%ects. 6t is li'e ise contended that the defense did not !other to present respondent in the investigation conducted !y the &olicitor 3eneral !ecause nothing has !een sho n in the hearing to prove that respondent had carnal 'no ledge of the complainant. Contrary to respondent's averments, the &olicitor 3eneral made a categorical finding to the effect that respondent had carnal 'no ledge of complainant, to it" ;rom the foregoing, it is clear that complainant as compelled to go to Manila ith respondent upon the threat of respondent that if she failed to do so, she ould flun' in all her su!%ects and she ould never !ecome a medical intern <pp. 82, 09, tsn, >une 6, 19:0@. )s respondent as Chairman of the College of Medicine, complainant had every reason to !elieve him. 6t has !een esta!lished also that complainant as !rought !y respondent to )m!assador 2otel in Manila for three days here he repeatedly had carnal 'no ledge of her upon the threat that if she ould not give in to his lustful desires, she ould fail in her 1athology su!%ect <A$hs. ()(, (M(, (M.1( to (M.6( pp. 01, 02, 00.09, tsn, >une 6, 19:0@F $$$ $$$ $$$ Bn the other hand, respondent did not !other to appear during the hearing. 6t is true that he presented Adil!erto Ca!an and Bscar &alangsang ho testified that respondent usually slept ith them every time the latter came to Manila, !ut their testimony <sic@ is not much of help. -one of them mentioned during the hearing that they stayed and slept ith respondent on ;e!ruary 12 to ;e!ruary 18, 19:7 at )m!assador 2otel. ... ... ... +esides, Adil!erto Ca!an testified that respondent stayed at )m!assador 2otel ith his ife and children in *ecem!er, 19:2. The dates in /uestion, ho ever, are ;e!ruary 12 to 18, 19:7, inclusive. 2is <Ca!an's@ testimony, therefore, is immaterial to the present case( <4ollo, pp. 87.88@. 6n effect, the &olicitor 3eneral found that the charge of immorality against respondent ),nar has !een su!stantiated !y sufficient evidence !oth testimonial and documentaryF hile finding insufficient and uncorro!orated the accusation of intentional a!ortion. The &olicitor 3eneral then recommends the suspension of respondent from the practice of la for a period of not less than three <7@ years. Bn March 16, 1989, the Court 4esolved to re/uire the parties to Move in the premises to determine hether any intervening event occurred hich ould render the case moot and academic <4ollo, p. 69@. Bn )pril 12, 1989, the &olicitor 3eneral filed a manifestation and motion praying that the case at !ar !e considered su!mitted for decision on the !ases of the report and recommendation previously su!mitted together ith the record of the case and the evidence adduced <4ollo, p. :0@. )fter a thorough revie of the records, the Court agrees ith the finding of the &olicitor 3eneral that respondent ),nar, under the facts as stated in the 4eport of the investigation conducted in the case, is guilty of (grossly immoral conduct( and may therefore !e removed or suspended !y the &upreme Court for conduct un!ecoming a mem!er of the +ar <&ec. 2:, 4ule 178, 4ules of Court@.

4espondent failed to adduce evidence sufficient to engender dou!t as to his culpa!ility of the offense imputed upon him. #ith the e$ception of the self.serving testimonies of t o itnesses presented on respondent's !ehalf, the records are !ereft of evidence to e$onerate respondent of the act complained of, much less contradict, on material points, the testimonies of complainant herself. #hile respondent denied having ta'en complainant to the )m!assador 2otel and there had se$ual intercourse ith the latter, he did not present any evidence to sho here he as at that date. #hile this is not a criminal proceeding, respondent ould have done more than 'eep his silence if he really felt un%ustly traduced. 6t is the duty of a la yer, henever his moral character is put in issue, to satisfy this Court that he is a fit and proper person to en%oy continued mem!ership in the +ar. 2e cannot dispense ith nor do ngrade the high and e$acting moral standards of the la profession <3o v. Candoy, 21 &C4) 879 K196:L@. )s once pronounced !y the Court" #hen his integrity is challenged !y evidence, it is not enough that he denies the charges against himF he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence for the relator <?egal and >udicial Athics, !y Malcolm, p. 97@ and sho proofs that he still maintains the highest degree of morality and integrity, hich at all times is e$pected of him. ... 6n the case of 9nited -tates v. Tria! 1: 1hil. 797, >ustice Moreland, spea'ing for the Court, said" )n accused person sometimes o es a duty to himself if not to the &tate. 6f he does not perform that duty, he may not al ays e$pect the &tate to perform it for him. 6f he fails to meet the o!ligation hich he o es to himself, hen to meet it is the easiest of easy things, he is hardy indeed if he demand and e$pect that same full and ide consideration hich the &tate voluntarily gives to those ho !y reasona!le effort see' to help themselves. This is particularly so hen he not only declines to help himself !ut actively conceals from the &tate the very means !y hich it may assist him <Juing a &C4) 879 K196:L@. The &olicitor 3eneral recommends that since the complainant is partly to !lame for having gone ith respondent to Manila 'no ing fully ell that respondent is a married man , ith children, respondent should merely !e suspended from the practice of la for not less than three <7@ years <4ollo, p. 8:@. Bn the other hand, respondent in his manifestation and motion dated )pril 18, 1989 alleges that since a period of a!out ten <19@ years had already elapsed from the time the &olicitor 3eneral made his recommendation for a three <7@ years suspension and respondent is not practicing his profession as a la yer, the court may no consider the respondent as having !een suspended during the said period and the case dismissed for !eing moot and academic. #e disagree. Complainant filed the instant case for dis!arment not !ecause respondent reneged on a promise to marry <Juing a v. 1uno, supra@. More importantly. complainant's 'no ledge of of respondent's marital status is not at issue in the case at !ar. Complainant su!mitted to respondent's solicitation for se$ual intercourse not !ecause of a desire for se$ual gratification !ut !ecause of respondent's moral ascendancy over her and fear that if she ould not accede, she ould flun' in her su!%ects. )s chairman of the college of medicine here complainant as enrolled, the latter had every reason to !elieve that respondent could ma'e good his threats. Moreover, as counsel for respondent ould deem it ( orth hile to inform the the Court that the respondent is a scion of a rich family and a very rich man in his o n right and in fact is not practicing his profession !efore the court( <4ollo, p. :9@, mere suspension for a limited period, per se, ould therefore serve no redeeming purpose. The fact that he is a rich man and does not practice his profession as a la yer, does not render respondent a person of good moral character. Avidence of good moral character precedes admission to !ar <&ec.2, 4ule 178, 4ules of Court@ and such re/uirement is not

dispensed ith upon admission thereto. 3ood moral character is a continuing /ualification necessary to entitle one to continue in the practice of la . The ancient and learned profession of la e$acts from its mem!ers the highest standard of morality <Juing a v. 1uno, supra@. Dnder &ection 2:, 4ule 178, (<a@ mem!er of the !ar may !e removed or suspended from his office as attorney !y the &upreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or !y reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath hich he is re/uired to ta'e !efore admission to practice, ... ( 6n Arciga v. +aniwang <196 &C4) 091, K1981L@, this Court had occasion to define the concept of immoral conduct, as follo s" ) la yer may !e dis!arred for grossly immoral conduct, or !y reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. ) mem!er of the !ar should have moral integrity in addition to professional pro!ity. 6t is difficult to state ith precision and to fi$ an infle$i!le standard as to hat is grossly immoral conduct or to specify the moral delin/uency and o!li/uity hich render a la yer un orthy of continuing as a mem!er of the !ar. The rule implies that hat appears to !e unconventional !ehavior to the straight.laced may not !e the immoral conduct that arrants dis!arment. 6mmoral conduct has !een defined as 'that hich is illful, flagrant, or shameless, and hich sho s a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respecta!le mem!ers of the community' <: C.>.&. 909@. #here an unmarried female d arf possessing the intellect of a child !ecame pregnant !y reason of intimacy ith a married la yer ho as the father of si$ children, dis!arment of the attorney on the ground of immoral conduct as %ustified <6n re 2ic's 29 1ac. 2nd 896@. 6n the present case, it as highly immoral of respondent, a married man ith children, to have ta'en advantage of his position as chairman of the college of medicine in as'ing complainant, a student in said college, to go ith him to Manila here he had carnal 'no ledge of her under the threat that she ould flun' in all her su!%ects in case she refused. #2A4A;B4A, respondent >ose +. ),nar is here!y *6&+)44A* and his name is ordered stric'en off from the 4oll of )ttorneys. &B B4*A4A*. ;arvasa! 4utierrez! )r.! Cruz! 7aras! .eliciano! 7adilla! 4anca"co! Bidin! -armiento! Cortes! 4ri2o5 A uino! +edialdea and (egalado! )).! concur. .ernan <C.).=! took no part. +elencio56errera! ).! is on leave.

$.C. No. 366

$2+-l 30, 1963

JOSE,%N$ RO0ONG, complainant, vs. $TT0. $R%STON OBLEN$, respondent. B$RRER$, J.: 6n a verified complaint filed ith this Court on >anuary 18, 1909, complainant >osefina 4oyong charged the respondent )riston >. B!lena, a mem!er of the 1hilippine +ar, ith rape allegedly committed on her person in the manner descri!ed therein. Dpon re/uirement of this Court, the respondent filed his ans er denying all the allegations in the complaint and praying that he !e not dis!arred. Bn ;e!ruary 7, 1909, this Court referred the case to the &olicitor 3eneral for investigation, report and recommendation. Bn >uly 19, 1961, the &olicitor 3eneral su!mitted his report on the case ith the recommendation that the respondent (!e permanently removed from his office la yer and his name !e stric'en from the roll of attorneys(. The pertinent part of the report reads as follo s" The complainant testified that after lunch on )ugust 0, 1908, Cecilia )ngeles, her foster mother, left her alone in their house and ent do n to the pig sty to feed the pigs. )t a!out 1"99 p.m., hile she( <complainant@ as ironing clothes on the second floor of the house the respondent entered and read a ne spaper at her !ac'. &uddenly he covered her mouth ith one hand and ith the other hand dragged her to one of the !edrooms of the house and forced her to lie do n on the floor. &he did not shout for help !ecause he threatened her and her family ith death. 2e ne$t undressed as she lay on the floor, then had se$ual intercourse ith her after he removed her panties and gave her hard !lo s on the thigh ith his fist to su!due her resistance. )fter the se$ual intercourse, he arned her not to report him to her foster parents, other ise, he ould 'ill her and all the mem!ers of her family. &he resumed ironing clothes after he left until 0"99 o'cloc' that afternoon hen she %oined her foster mother on the first floor of the house. )s a result of the se$ual intercourse she !ecame pregnant and gave !irth to a !a!y on >une 2, 1909 <pp. 8.8, 21, 27, 26, 2:, t.s.n., hearing of )ug. 0, 1909@. &he admitted that had she shouted for help she ould have !een heard !y the neigh!ors that she did not report the outrage to anyone !ecause of the threat made !y the respondentF that she still fre/uented the respondent's house after )ugust 0, 1909, sometimes hen he as alone, ran errands for him, coo'ed his coffee, and received his mail for him. Bnce, on -ovem!er 18, 1908, hen respondent as sic' of influen,a, she as left alone ith him in his house hile her aunt +riccia )ngeles left for Manila to !uy medicine <pp. 11, 18.18, 28, t.s.n., hearing of )ugust 0, 1909@. The respondent on the itness stand denied that he raped the complainant <p. 7, t.s.n., hearing of March 20 1969@. 2e testified that after lunch on )ugust 0, 1908, he ent to the Commission Bf Civil &ervice to follo up his appointment as technical assistant in the office of the mayor of Ma'ati, 4i,al, and read the record of the administrative case against +uenaventura 1ere, <pp. 27, 28, 78, t.s.n., hearing of March 20, 1969, A$hs. 1 and 2@. The respondent, ho ever, admitted that he had illicit relations ith the complainant from >anuary, 190: to *ecem!er, 1908, hen their clandestine affair as discovered !y the complainant's foster parents, !ut to avoid criminal lia!ility for seduction, according to him, he limited himself to 'issing and em!racing her and suc'ing her tongue !efore she completed her eighteenth !irthday. They had their first se$ual intercourse on May 11, 1908, after she had reached eighteen, and the second one ee' later, on May 18. The last intercourse too' place !efore Christmas in *ecem!er, 1908. 6n all, they had se$ual intercourse a!out fifty times, mostly in her house and sometimes in his house henever they had the opportunity. 2e intended to marry her hen she could legally contract marriage ithout her foster parents' intervention, 'in case occasion ill permit ... !ecause e cannot as' permission to marry, for her foster parents ill o!%ect and even

my common.la ife, ill o!%ect.' )fter the discovery of their relationship !y the complainant's foster parents, he confessed the affair to +riccia, e$plaining that he anted to have a child, something she <+riccia@ could not give him. <pp. 18.16, 19.20, t.s.n., hearing of March 20, 1969@. $$$ $$$ $$$

;6-*6-3& )-* CBMMA-T There is no controversy that the respondent had carnal 'no ledge of the complainant. The complainant claims she surrendered to him under circumstances of violence and intimidation, !ut the undersigned are convinced that the se$ual intercourse as performed not once !ut repeatedly and ith her consent. ;rom her !ehaviour !efore and after the alleged rape, she appears to have !een more a s eetheart than of the victim of an outrage involving her honor .... +ut the foregoing o!servations not ithstanding, the undersigned cannot in conscience recommend respondent's e$oneration. The respondent tempted +riccia )ngeles to live maritally ith him not long after she and her hus!and parted, and it is not impro!a!le that the spouses never reconciled !ecause of him. 2is o n evidence sho s that, tiring of her after more than fifteen years of adulterous relationship ith her and on the convenient e$cuse that she, +riccia )ngeles, could not !ear a child, he seduced >osefina )ndalis, then 1: or 18 years of age, resulting in her pregnancy and the !irth of a child, on >une 2, 1909. The seduction as accomplished ith grave a!use of confidence and !y means of promises of marriage hich he 'ne he could not fulfill ithout grievous in%ury to the oman ho forsoo' her hus!and so that he, respondent, could have all of her. 2e also too' advantage of his moral influence over her. ;rom childhood, >osefina )ndalis, treated him as an uncle and called him 'tata' <uncle@, undou!tedly !ecause he is the paramour of a sister of her mother. Considering her age <she as 1: or 18 years old then@, it is not difficult to see hy she could not resist him. The evidence further sho s that on >uly 22, 1908, the respondent filed a s orn petition dated May 22, 1908 alleging (that he is a person of good moral character( <1ar. 7@ and praying that the &upreme Court permit him (to ta'e the !ar e$aminations to !e given on the first &aturday of )ugust, 1908, or at any time as the Court may fi$..( +ut he as not then the person of good moral character he represented himself to !e. ;rom 1982 to the present, he has continuously lived an adulterous life ith +riccia )ngeles hose hus!and is still alive, 'no ing that his concu!ine is a married oman and that her marriage still su!sists. This fact permanently dis/ualified him from ta'ing the !ar e$aminations, and had it !een 'no n to the &upreme Court in 1908, he ould not have !een permitted to ta'e the !ar e$aminations that year or thereafter, or to ta'e his oath of office as a la yer. )s he as then permanently dis/ualified from admission to the 1hilippine +ar !y reason of his adulterous relations ith a married oman, it is su!mitted that the same misconduct should !e sufficient ground for his permanent dis!arment, unless e recogni,e a dou!le standard of morality, one for mem!ership to the 1hilippine +ar and another for dis!arment from the office of a la yer. $$$ $$$ $$$

4ACBMMA-*)T6B#herefore, the undersigned respectfully recommend that after due hearing, respondent )riston >. B!lena !e permanently removed from his office as a la yer and his name !e stric'en from the roll of attorneys. 6n vie of his o n findings as a result of his investigation, that even if respondent did not commit the alleged rape nevertheless he as guilty of other misconduct, the &olicitor 3eneral formulated another

complaint hich he appended to his report, charging the respondent of falsely and deli!erately alleging in his application for admission to the !ar that he is a person of good moral characterF of living adulterously ith +riccia )ngeles at the same time maintaining illicit relations ith the complainant >osefina 4oyong, niece of +riccia, thus rendering him un orthy of pu!lic confidence and unfit and unsafe to manage the legal !usiness of others, and praying that this Court render %udgment ordering (the permanent removal of the respondent ... from his office as a la yer and the cancellation of his name from the roll of attorneys.( 6n his ans er to this formal complaint, respondent alleged the special defense that (the complaint does not merit action(, since the causes of action in the said complaint are different and foreign from the original cause of action for rape and that (the complaint lac's the necessary formalities called for in &ec. 1, 4ule 128 of the 4ules of Court.( 4espondent prayed that after due notice and hearing for additional evidence, the complaint !e dismissed. Bn &eptem!er 17, 1961, this Court designated the Court 6nvestigators to receive the additional evidence. )ccordingly the case as set for hearing of hich the parties ere duly notified. Bn &eptem!er 29, 1961, respondent as'ed leave to su!mit a memorandum hich as granted, and on Bcto!er 9, 1961 the same as filed, alleging the follo ing" 1@ That the charge of rape has not !een provenF 2@ That no act of seduction as committed !y the respondentF 7@ That no act of per%ury or fraudulent concealment as committed !y the respondent hen he filed his petition for admission to the !arF and 8@ That the respondent is not morally unfit to !e a mem!er of the !ar. #herefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts !e admitted and approved !y this 2onora!le Court, ithout pre%udice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered !y this stipulation of facts. /0wph1/.23t )t the hearing on -ovem!er 16, 1961, respondent presented his common.la testified as follo s" ife, +riccia )ngeles, ho

... 4espondent is her common.la hus!and <t.s.n. 27@. &he first met respondent on *ecem!er 16, 1981 at Cavinti, ?aguna <t.s.n. 27@. &he and her sister Cecilia )ngeles.4oyong ere evacuated to Cavinti !y the 4ed Cross <t.s.n. 27@. &he as already married <to Teodoro )rines@ at the time <t.s.n. 28@. &he and )rines are from 6riga, Camarines &ur <t.s.n. 28@. 4espondent and one Mr. ;lores registered them <t.s.n. 28@ as evacuees. #hen Mr. ;lores as'ed her a!out her status she told him she as 'single' <t.s.n. 20@. &he and her sister, Cecilia, ere then told to stay at respondent's house, respondent courted her <t.s.n. 26@. 4espondent as'ed her if she as married and she told him ' e ill tal' a!out that later on' <t.s.n. 26@. &he told respondent she as married <to )rines@ hen she and respondent ere already living together as 'hus!and and ife', in 1982< t.s.n. 26@. 4espondent as'ed her to marry him, hen they ere living as hus!and and ife <t.s.n. 2:@. 2er sister Cecilia left Cavinti 2 months after their arrival thereat, !ut she did not go ith her !ecause she and respondent 'had already a good understanding'<se$ual relations@ Kt.s.n. 2:L. ?ater, she left Cavinti and ent to her hometo n in 6riga, Camarines &ur, !ecause respondent as already reluctant to live ith her and he told her it as !etter for her to go home to 6riga <t.s.n. 20@. )rriving at 6riga, she met her legitimate hus!and <)rines@, ho told her he had already a ife, named Conching 3uevara <t.s.n. 28.29@. &he then ent !ac' to Cavinti <in 1987@, ith her father, and lived ith respondent <t.s.n. 29@. 4espondent eventually agreed that she live ith him <t.s.n. 70@F in fact, she is still presently living ith respondent <t.s.n. 70@ K4eport of Court 6nvestigators, March 6, 1962, pp. 0.6L.( Thereafter, respondent re/uested permission to su!mit an affidavit at a later date, hich re/uest as also granted. The affidavit as filed on *ecem!er 16, 1961, the respondent averring, among others, the follo ing". ... That he never committed any act or crime of seduction against the complainant, !ecause the latter as !orn on ;e!ruary 19, 1989, and his first se$ual intercourse ith her too' place on May

11, 1908, hen she as already a!ove 18 years of ageF that he had !een living ith his common. la ife, +riccia )ngeles, for almost 29 years, !ut from the time he !egan courting her, he 'had no intention to alienate' her love for her hus!and, )rines, or to commit the crime of adulteryF that he courted +riccia on Bcto!er 16, 1981, and as shortly thereafter accepted !y herF that on ;e!ruary 21, 1982, he found +riccia alone in his house, ho told him that her sister, Cecilia, had gone to 1agsan%an ith the other evacueesF that from said date <;e!ruary 21@, to the present, he and +riccia had !een living together as common.la hus!and and ifeF that 2 or 7 ee's thereafter, he as'ed +riccia to marry him, !ut she confessed she as already married, and may!e her hus!and <)rines@ as still living in 6rigaF that he could not then drive +riccia a ay, !ecause she as a stranger in the place, nor could he urge her to %oin her sister Cecilia, as the latter had left 1agsan%anF that in 1987 she told +riccia to separate from him and to return to 6riga, and urged her never to see him againF that contrary to his e$pectations, +riccia returned to Cavinti 7 months thereafterF that +riccia strongly insisted to live ith him again, telling him that she cannot separate from him anymore, as he as ashamedF that +riccia's father told him that +riccia's hus!and <)rines@ had agreed not to molest them as in fact he <)rines@ as already living ith another omanF that he had 'no choice !ut to live ith her' <+riccia@ againF that hen he filed his petition to ta'e the !ar e$aminations in 1908, he 'did not have the slightest intention to hide' from this Court the fact of his 'open coha!itation ith a married oman' <+riccia )ngeles@F that he did not state said fact in his petition, !ecause he did not see in the form of the petition !eing used in 1908 that the fact must !e statedF and that since his !irth, he thought and !elieved he as a man of good moral character, and it as only from the &olicitor 3eneral that he first learned he as not soF and that he did not commit per%ury or fraudulent concealment hen he filed his petition to ta'e the !ar e$aminations in 1908.( <4eport of the Court 6nvestigators, pp. 6.8, March 6, 1962@. )fter hearing, the investigators su!mitted a report ith the finding that" 1@ 4espondent used his 'no ledge of the la to ta'e advantage !y having illicit relations ith complainant, 'no ing as he did, that !y committing immoral acts on her, he as free from any criminal lia!ilityF and 2@ 4espondent committed gross immorality !y continuously coha!iting ith a married oman even after he !ecame a la yer in 1900 to the presentF and 7@ That respondent falsified the truth as to his moral character in his petition to ta'e the 1908 !ar e$aminations, !eing then immorally <adulterously@ in coha!itation ith his common.la ife, +riccia )ngeles, a married oman. The investigators also recommended that the respondent !e dis!arred or alternatively, !e suspended from the practice of la for a period of one year. Dpon the su!mission of this report, a copy of hich as served on respondent, through his counsel of record, the case as set for hearing !efore the Court on )pril 79, 1962. 4espondent as'ed leave to file his memorandum in lieu of oral argument. This as granted and the corresponding memorandum as duly filed. 6t is an admitted and uncontroverted fact that the respondent had se$ual relations ith the complainant several times, and as a conse/uence she !ore him a child on >une 2, 1909F and that he li'e ise continuously coha!ited ith +riccia )ngeles, in an adulterous manner, from 1982 up to the present. The main point in issue is thus limited illicit relations ith the complainant >osefina 4oyong the and the open coha!itation ith +riccia )ngeles, a married oman, are sufficient grounds to cause the respondent's dis!arment. 6t is argued !y the respondent that he is not lia!le for dis!arment not ithstanding his illicit relations ith the complainant and his open coha!itation ith +riccia )ngeles, a married oman, !ecause he has not !een convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. 6t is true that the respondent has not !een convicted of rape, seduction, or adultery on this count, and that the grounds upon hich the dis!arment proceedings is !ased are not among those enumerated !y &ection 20, 4ule 12: of the 4ules of Court for hich a la yer may !e dis!arred. +ut it has already !een held that this enumeration is not e$clusive and that the po er of the courts to e$clude unfit and un orthy mem!ers of the profession is inherentF it is a necessary incident to the proper administration of %usticeF it may !e e$ercised ithout any special

statutory authority, and in all proper cases unless positively prohi!ited !y statuteF and the po er may !e e$ercised in any manner that ill give the party !e dis!arred a fair trial and a fair opportunity to !e heard. <1 ;rancisco, 4ules of Court K1908 ed.L 698, citing 6n 4e 1elae,, 88 1hil. 06:@. )lthough it is a ell settled rule that the legislature <or the &upreme Court !y virtue of its rule.ma'ing po er@ may provide that certain acts or conduct shall re/uire dis!arment, the accepted doctrine is that statutes and rules merely regulate the po er to dis!ar instead of creating it, and that such statutes <or rules@ do not restrict the general po ers of the court over attorneys, ho are its officers, and that they may !e removed for other than statutory grounds <: C.>.&. :78@. 6n the Dnited &tates, here from our system of legal ethics is derived, (the continued possession of a fair private and professional character or a good moral character is a re/uisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice of la for one ho has !een admitted, and its loss re/uires suspension or dis!arment even though the statutes do not specify that as a ground of dis!arment(. The moral turpitude for hich an attorney may !e dis!arred may consist of misconduct in either his professional or non.professional activities <0 )m. >ur. 81:@. The tendency of the decisions of this Court has !een to ard the conclusion that a mem!er of the !ar may !e removed or suspended from office as a la yer for other than statutory grounds. 6ndeed, the rule is so phrased as to !e !road enough to cover practically any misconduct of a la yer <6n 4e 1elae,, 88 1hil. 06:@. 6n the case at !ar, the moral depravity of the respondent is most apparent. 2is pretension that !efore complainant completed her eighteenth !irthday, he refrained from having se$ual intercourse ith her, so as not to incur criminal lia!ility, as he himself declared E and that he limited himself merely to 'issing and em!racing her and suc'ing her tongue, indicates a scheming mind, hich together ith his 'no ledge of the la , he too' advantage of, for his lurid purpose. Moreover, his act !ecomes more despica!le considering that the complainant as the niece of his common.la ife and that he en%oyed a moral ascendancy over her ho loo'ed up to him as her uncle. )s the &olicitor 3eneral o!served" (2e also too' advantage of his moral influence over her. ;rom childhood, >osefina )ndalis <4oyong@, treated him as an uncle and called him 'tata' <uncle@, undou!tedly !ecause he is the paramour of a sister of her mother. Considering her age <she as 1: or 18 years old then@, her ine$perience and his moral ascendency over her, it is not difficult to see hy she could not resist him.( ;urthermore, the !lunt admission of his illicit relations ith the complainant reveals the respondent to !e a person ho ould suffer no moral compunction for his acts if the same could !e done ithout fear of criminal lia!ility. 2e has, !y these acts, proven himself to !e devoid of the moral integrity e$pected of a mem!er of the !ar. The respondent's misconduct, although unrelated to his office, may constitute sufficient grounds for dis!arment. This is a principle e have follo ed since the ruling in In (e 7elaez! >> 7hil. $?#, here this Court /uoted ith approval the follo ing portion of the decision of the &upreme Court of Mansas in the case of 1eyton's )ppeal <12 Man. 798, 898@, to it". The nature of the office, the trust relation hich e$ists !et een attorney and client, as ell as !et een court and attorney, and the statutory rule prescri!ing the /ualifications of attorneys, uniformly re/uire that an attorney !e a person of good moral character. If that ualification is a condition precedent to a license or privilege to enter upon the practice of the la , it ould seem to !e e/ually essential during the continuance of the practice and the e$ercise of the privilege. &o it is held that an attorney ill !e removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, !ut also for gross misconduct not connected ith his professional duties, hich sho s him to !e unfit for the office and un orthy of the privileges hich his license and the la confer upon him. <Amphasis supplied@. 4espondent's conduct though unrelated to his office and in no ay directly !earing on his profession, has nevertheless rendered him unfit and un orthy of the privileges of a la yer. #e cannot give sanction to his acts. ;or us to do so ould !e E as the &olicitor 3eneral puts it E recogni,ing (a dou!le standard of morality, one for mem!ership to the 1hilippine +ar, and another for dis!arment from the office of the la yer.( 6f e concede that respondent's adulterous relations and his simultaneous seduction of his paramour's niece did not and do not dis/ualify him from continuing ith his office of la yer, this Court ould in effect !e re/uiring moral integrity as an essential prere/uisite for admission to the !ar, only to

later on tolerate and close its eyes to the moral depravity and character degeneration of the mem!ers of the !ar. The decisions relied upon !y the respondent in %ustifying his stand that even if he admittedly committed fornication, this is no ground for dis!arment, are not controlling. ;ornication, if committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as have proven in this case, as to shoc' common sense of decency, certainly may %ustify positive action !y the Court in protecting the prestige of the no!le profession of the la . The reasons advanced !y the respondent hy he continued his adulterous relations ith +riccia )ngeles, in that she helped him in some ay finish his la studies, and that his (sense of propriety and Christian charity( did not allo him to a!andon her after his admission to the !ar after almost 17 years of coha!itation, are hardly an e$cuse for his moral dereliction. The means he employed, as he stated, in order to e$tricate himself from the predicament he found himself in, !y courting the complainant and maintaining se$ual relations ith her ma'es his conduct more revolting. )n immoral act cannot %ustify another immoral act. The no!lest means he could have employed as to have married the complainant as he as then free to do so. +ut to continue maintaining adulterous relations ith a married oman and simultaneously maintaining promiscuous relations ith the latter's niece is moral perversion that can not !e condoned. 4espondent's conduct therefore renders him unfit and un orthy for the privileges of the legal profession. )s good character is an essential /ualification for admission of an attorney to practice, he may !e removed therefrom henever he ceases to possess such character <: C.>.&. :70@. The respondent further maintains that the &olicitor 3eneral e$ceeded his authority in filing the present complaint against him for seduction, adultery and per%ury, as it charges an offense or offenses different from those originally charged in the complaint of >anuary 18, 1909 for rape, and cites as authority &ections 8 and 0 of 4ule 128 of the 4ules of Court, hich state". &AC. 8. (eport of the -olicitor 4eneral.E +ased upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, if the &olicitor 3eneral finds no sufficient ground to proceed against the respondent, he shall su!mit a report to the &upreme Court containing his findings of fact and conclusion, hereupon the respondent shall !e e$onerated unless the court orders differently. &AC. 0. Complaint of the -olicitor 4eneral. Answer of the respondent . E 6f the &olicitor 3eneral finds sufficient ground to proceed against the respondent, he shall file the corresponding complaint, accompanied ith all the evidence introduced in his investigation, ith the &upreme Court, and the respondent shall !e served !y the cler' of the &upreme Court ith a copy of the complaint ith direction to ans er the same ithin fifteen days. The contention is devoid of merit. -othing in the language of the foregoing rules re/uires the &olicitor 3eneral to charge in his complaint the same offense charged in the complaint originally filed !y the complainant for dis!arment. 1recisely, the la provides that should the &olicitor 3eneral find sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondent, he shall file the corresponding complaint, accompanied !y the evidence introduced in his investigation. The &olicitor 3eneral therefore is at li!erty to file any case against the respondent he may !e %ustified !y the evidence adduced during the investigation.. The respondent also maintains that he did not falsify his petition to ta'e the !ar e$aminations in 1908 since according to his o n opinion and estimation of himself at that time, he as a person of good moral character. This contention is clearly erroneous. Bne's o n appro$imation of himself is not a gauge to his moral character. Moral character is not a su!%ective term, !ut one hich corresponds to o!%ective reality. Moral character is hat a person really is, and not hat he or other people thin' he is. )s former Chief >ustice Moran o!served" )n applicant for license to practice la is re/uired to sho good moral character, or hat he really is, as distinguished from good reputation, or from the opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in hich he is held !y the pu!lic in the place here he is 'no n. )s has !een said, ante the standard of personal and professional integrity hich should !e applied to persons admitted to practice la is not satisfied !y such conduct as merely ena!les them to escape the penalties of criminal la . 3ood moral character includes at least common honesty <7 Moran, Comments on the

4ules of Court, K190: ed.L 626, citing In (e #einstein, 82 1. K2dL :88 +.?.*., Cooper v. 3reeley. 1 *en. K-.I.L 788:F 6n 4e *el 4osario, 02 1hil. 799F and 1eople v. Macauley, 82 -.A. 612@. 4espondent, therefore, did not possess a good moral character at the time he applied for admission to the !ar. 2e lived an adulterous life ith +riccia )ngeles, and the fact that people ho 'ne him seemed to have ac/uiesced to his status, did not render him a person of good moral character. 6t is of no moment that his immoral state as discovered then or no as he is clearly not fit to remain a mem!er of the !ar. #2A4A;B4A, %udgment is here!y entered stri'ing the name of herein respondent, )riston >. B!lena, from the roll of attorneys. Bengzon! C.).! Bautista Angelo! *abrador! Concepcion! 7aredes! (egala and +akalintal! )).! concur. 7adilla! (e"es! ).B.*.! and Dizon! )).! took no part.

$.M. No. 3039 D'/'15'+ 3, 1989 PERL$ 0. L$GU%T$N, complainant, vs. $TT0. S$L;$DOR ,. T%N%O, respondent. )oanes 4. Caacba" for respondent. 4A&B?DT6B-

PER CUR%$M7 6n the instant 1etition for *is!arment dated 21 May 198:, petitioner 1erla I. ?aguitan charged )tty. &alvador ;. Tinio ith immorality and acts un!ecoming a mem!er of the +ar. )fter ans er as filed on 2: Bcto!er 198:, the Court, in its 4esolution dated 16 -ovem!er 198:, referred the 1etition to the &olicitor 3eneral for 6nvestigation, 4eport and 4ecommendation. *uring the initial hearing of this case !y the &olicitor 3eneral on 1: ;e!ruary 1988, only respondent and his counsel appearedF it turned out that complainant had not !een duly served ith notice of the hearing. The hearing scheduled for 28 March 1988 as li'e ise reset to 2: )pril 1988 upon motion of respondent and upon failure of complainant to appear !efore the Bffice of the &olicitor 3eneral. This case as eventually transmitted !y the &olicitor 3eneral to the 6ntegrated +ar of the 1hilippines, Commission on +ar *iscipline <Commission@ for investigation and proper action. Thus, in an order dated 18 )ugust 1988, the Commission set the case for hearing on 9 &eptem!er 1988 and re/uired !oth complainant and respondent to su!mit additional copies of their pleadings ithin ten <19@ days from notice. The initial hearing set !y the Commission for 9 &eptem!er 1988 as reset to 29 &eptem!er 1988 !ecause only complainant appeared, respondent having failed to present himself despite due notice to him. The hearing of 29 &eptem!er 1988 as again reset to 29 Bcto!er 1988 !ecause neither complainant nor her counsel appeared. The hearing for 29 Bcto!er 1988 as once again reset to 18

-ovem!er 1988 as only complainant appeared, ;inally, the hearing for 18 -ovem!er 1988 as rescheduled t o <2@ more times, first to 10 *ecem!er 1988 and second to 1: >anuary 1989. 6n its Brder dated 2: >anuary 1989, the Commission, upon the une$plained failure of respondent to appear at the hearing on 1: >anuary 1989, re/uired petitioner to ma'e a formal offer of evidence e: parte! and thereafter su!mit the case for resolution. The Brder as duly received !y respondent's counsel on 71 >anuary 1989. Bn 9 ;e!ruary 1989, petitioner formally offered her e$hi!its as follo s" 1. A$h. ')' E Certificate of ?ive +irth of &heila ?aguitan Tinio. 1urpose" To sho and prove the filiation of the child as sho n on the documentF 2. A$h. '+' ECertificate of ?ive +irth of +enedict ?aguitan. 1urpose" To sho and prove li'e ise the filiation of the child as sho n on the document" 7. A$h. 'C' to 'C.6' E 4eceipts issued !y the Mt. Carmel Maternity and Children's 2ospital. 1urpose" To prove that petitioner herein gave !irth to a !a!y girl at the Mt. Carmel Maternity and Children's 2ospital and for hich respondent paid the !ills for the hospitali,ation, medicines and professional fees of doctorsF 8. A$h. '*' to '*.2' E 4eceipts issued !y the 1aulino Medical Clinic. 1urpose" To sho and prove that petitioner again gave !irth to a !a!y !oy at said clinic and for hich respondent paid the !ill for hospitali,ation, medicines and professional fees of doctorsF 0. A$h. 'A' to 'A.l' E +aptismal certificates of &heila ?. Tinio and +enedict ?. Tinio, respectively 1urpose" To sho children" and prove that respondent admits his paternity of the

6. A$h. ';' to ';.8' E The family pictures sho ing respondent either singly or ith the rest of the family during happier times. 1urpose" To sho and prove that petitioner and respondent really lived together as hus!and and ife and !egot t o children and the respondent admits these through the pictures"

:. A$h. '3' to '3.7' E The school records of &heila ?. Tinio at the &t. Mary's )cademy. 1urpose" To sho and prove that respondent as supporting the schooling of the children as he himself signed the correspondence and as mar'ed as A$h. '3.2.)'. 1 +ased on the afore/uoted e$hi!its, the 6ntegrated +ar of the 1hilippines +oard of 3overnors su!mitted to us its findings and recommendation, hich may !e summed up as follo s" &ometime in >une 19:8, complainant and respondent Tinio met each other and in time !ecame lovers. +eginning in 19:6, the parties lived together as hus!and and ife. )s a result, complainant !ore respondent t o <2@ children" &heila, no a!out ten <19@ years old and +enedict, no appro$imately nine <9@ years old. 6n the course of this relationship, petitioner discovered that respondent Tinio, !efore meeting her, had contracted marriage ith someone else and that the prior marriage as su!sisting. -onetheless, complainant continued living in ith respondent until eventually, ten <19@ years later, she and her children !y respondent Tinio ere a!andoned !y the latter in -ovem!er 1986. ;eeling helpless and aggrieved, she sought the help of respondent's parents in supporting her children ho ere then already in school. 4espondent's parents gave her 1899.99 and advised her not to see them again. )fter e$amination of the record of this case and noting that respondent Tinio appeared !efore the 6+1 6nvestigating Commissioner and candidly admitted his illicit relationship ith complainant and his having !egotten t o <2@ children !y her, and promised the Commissioner that he ould support his illegitimate children !ut had not lived to his promise, e agree ith the findings of fact of the 6+1 +oard. The 6+1 +oard recommends that respondent Tinio !e suspended from the practice of la (not for having coha!ited ith the complainant, !ut for refusal to support his illegitimate children,( the suspension to remain in effect until respondent Tinio complies ith his o!ligation of support. The Court agrees that respondent Tinio deserves to !e suspended from the practice of la !ut not merely !ecause he has failed in his o!ligation to support the children complainant !ore him !ut also !ecause for a prolonged period of time, he lived in concu!inage ith complainant, a course of conduct inconsistent ith the re/uirement of good moral character that is re/uired for the continued right to practice la as a mem!er of the 1hilippine +ar, 2 Concu!inage imports moral turpitude and entails a pu!lic assault upon the !asic social institution of marriage. )CCB4*6-3?I, the Court 4esolved to &D&1A-* respondent &alvador ;. Tinio from the practice of la until further orders from this Court. The Court ill consider lifting the suspension upon evidence satisfactory to the Commission and to this Court that respondent is supporting or has made provision for the support of his illegitimate children and that he has given up his immoral course of conduct. .ernan! C.).! ;arvasa! 4utierrez! )r.! Cruz! 7aras! .eliciano! 4anca"co! 7adilla! Bidin! -armiento! Cortes! 4ri2o5A uino! +edialdea and (egalado! )).! concur. +elencio56errera! ).! is on *eave. ,oo)"o)'. 1 4ollo, p. 28. 2 Mortel v. )spiras, 199 1hil. 086 <1906@F 4oyong v. B!lena, 11: 1hil. 860 <1967@F and Cordova v. Cordovan )dm. Case -o. 7289, promulgated 28 -ovem!er 1989.

-ovem!er 29, 1989 ).M. -o. 7289 S$L;$C%ON DEL% O CORDO;$, complainant, vs. $TT0. L$URENCE D. CORDO;$, respondent. (8-@*9TI@; , J.7 6n an uns orn letter.complaint dated 18 )pril 1988 addressed to then Mr. Chief >ustice Claudio Teehan'ee, complainant &alvacion *eli,o charged her hus!and, )tty. ?aurence *. Cordova, ith immorality and acts un!ecoming a mem!er of the +ar. The letter.complaint as for arded !y the Court to the 6ntegrated +ar of the 1hilippines, Commission on +ar *iscipline <OCommissionP@, for investigation, report and recommendation. The Commission, !efore acting on the complaint, re/uired complainant to su!mit a verified complaint ithin ten <19@ days from notice. Complainant complied and su!mitted to the Commission on 2: &eptem!er 1988 a revised and verified version of her long and detailed complaint against her hus!and charging him ith immorality and acts un!ecoming a mem!er of the +ar. 6n an Brder of the Commission dated 1 *ecem!er 1988, respondent as declared in default for failure to file an ans er to the complaint ithin fifteen <10@ days from notice. The same Brder re/uired complainant to su!mit !efore the Commission her evidence e: parte, on 16 *ecem!er 1988. Dpon the telegraphic re/uest of complainant for the resetting of the 16 *ecem!er 1988 hearing, the Commission scheduled another hearing on 20 >anuary 1989. The hearing scheduled for 20 >anuary 1989 as rescheduled t o <2@ more times.first, for 20 ;e!ruary 1989 and second, for 19 and 11 )pril 1989. The hearings never too' place as complainant failed to appear. 4espondent Cordova never moved to set aside the order of default, even though notices of the hearings scheduled ere sent to him. 6n a telegraphic message dated 6 )pril 1989, complainant informed the Commission that she and her hus!and had already OreconciledP. 6n an order dated 1: )pril 1989, the Commission re/uired the parties <respondent and complainant@ to appear !efore it for confirmation and e$planation of the telegraphic message and re/uired them to file a formal motion to dismiss the complaint ithin fifteen <10@ days from notice. -either party responded and nothing as heard from either party since then. Complainant having failed to su!mit her evidence e: parte !efore the Commission, the 6+1 +oard of 3overnors su!mitted to this Court its report reprimanding respondent for his acts, admonishing him that any further acts of immorality in the future ill !e dealt ith more severely, and ordering him to support his legitimate family as a responsi!le parent should. The findings of the 6+1 +oard of 3overnors may !e summed up as follo s" Complainant and respondent Cordova ere married on 6 >une 19:6 and out of this marriage, t o <2@ children ere !orn. 6n 1980, the couple lived some here in Juirino 1rovince. 6n that year, respondent Cordova left his family as ell as his %o! as +ranch Cler' of Court of the 4egional Trial Court, Ca!arroguis, Juirino 1rovince, and ent to Mangagoy, +islig, &urigao del &ur ith one ;ely 3. 2olgado.

;ely 3. 2olgado as herself married and left her o n hus!and and children to stay ith respondent. 4espondent Cordova and ;ely 3. 2olgado lived together in +islig as hus!and and ife, ith respondent Cordova introducing ;ely to the pu!lic as his ife, and ;ely 2olgado using the name ;ely Cordova. 4espondent Cordova gave ;ely 2olgado funds ith hich to esta!lish a sari.sari store in the pu!lic mar'et at +islig, hile at the same time failing to support his legitimate family. Bn 6 )pril 1986, respondent Cordova and his complainant ife had an apparent reconciliation. 4espondent promised that he ould separate from ;ely 2olgado and !rought his legitimate family to +islig, &urigao del &ur. 4espondent ould, ho ever, fre/uently come home from !eerhouses or ca!arets, drun', and continued to neglect the support of his legitimate family. 6n ;e!ruary 198:, complainant found, upon returning from a trip to Manila necessitated !y hospitali,ation of her daughter ?oraine, that respondent Cordova as no longer living ith her <complainantQs@ children in their con%ugal homeF that respondent Cordova as living ith another mistress, one ?uisita Magallanes, and had ta'en his younger daughter Melanie along ith him. 4espondent and his ne mistress hid Melanie from the complinant, compelling complainant to go to court and to ta'e !ac' her daughter !y habeas corpus. The 4egional Trial Court, +islig, gave her custody of their children. -ot ithstanding respondentQs promises to reform, he continued to live hus!and and continued to fail to give support to his legitimate family. ith ?uisita Magallanes as her

;inally the Commission received a telegram message apparently from complainant, stating that complainant and respondent had !een reconciled ith each other. )fter a revie of the record, e agree ith the findings of fact of the 6+1 +oard. #e also agree that the most recent reconciliation !et een complainant and respondent, assuming the same to !e real, does not e$cuse and ipe a ay the misconduct and immoral !ehavior of the respondent carried out in pu!lic, and necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a mem!er of the +ar and upon the 1hilippine +ar itself. )n applicant for admission to mem!ership in the !ar is re/uired to sho that he is possessed of good moral character. That re/uirement is not e$hausted and dispensed ith upon admission to mem!ership of the !ar. Bn the contrary, that re/uirement persists as a continuing condition for mem!ership in the +ar in good standing. 6n Mortel v. )spiras, 1 this Court, follo ing the rule in the Dnited &tates, held that Othe continued possession R of a good moral character is a re/uisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice of the la R and its loss re/uires suspension or dis!arment, even though the statutes do not specify that as a ground for dis!arment. P 2 6t is important to note that the lac' of moral character that e here refer to as essential is not limited to good moral character relating to the discharge of the duties and responsi!ilities of an attorney at la . The moral delin/uency that affects the fitness of a mem!er of the !ar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct for instance, hich ma'es Oa moc'ery of the inviola!le social institution or marriage.P 7 6n Mortel, the respondent !eing already married, ooed and on the heart of a single, 21.year old teacher ho su!se/uently coha!ited ith him and !ore him a son. +ecause respondentQs conduct in Mortel as particularly morally repulsive, involving the marrying of his mistress to his o n son and thereafter coha!iting ith the ife of his o n son after the marriage he had himself arranged, respondent as dis!arred. 6n 4oyong v. B!lena, 8 the respondent as declared unfit to continue as a mem!er of the !ar !y reason of his immoral conduct and accordingly dis!arred. 2e as found to have engaged in se$ual relations ith the complainant ho conse/uently !ore him a sonF and to have maintained for a num!er of years an adulterous relationship ith another oman. 6n the instant case, respondent Cordova maintained for a!out t o <2@ years an adulterous relationship ith a married oman not his ife, in full vie of the general pu!lic, to the humiliation and detriment of his legitimate family hich he, ru!!ing salt on the ound, failed or refused to support. )fter a !rief period of

OreformP respondent too' up again ith another oman not his ife, coha!iting ith her and !ringing along his young daughter to live ith them. Clearly, respondent flaunted his disregard of the fundamental institution of marriage and its elementary o!ligations !efore his o n daughter and the community at large. #2A4A;B4A, the Court 4esolved to &D&1A-* respondent from the practice of la indefinitely and until farther orders from this Court. The Court ill consider lifting his suspension hen respondent Cordova su!mits proof satisfactory to the Commission and this Court that he has and continues to provide for the support of his legitimate family and that he has given up the immoral course of conduct that he has clung to. ;ernan, C.>., -arvasa, 3utierre,, >r., Cru,, 1aras, ;eliciano, 3ancayco, 1adilla, +idin, &armiento, Cortes, 3riSo.)/uino, Medialdea and 4egalado, >>., concur. Melencio.2errera, >., is on leave.

$DM. C$SE No. 9292

M!y 20, 2003

PR%SC%LL$ . ORBE, complainant, vs. $TT0. HENR0 $D$ $, respondent. *AC6&6B;%TUG, J.: Bn 2: March 2999, Mrs. 1riscilla G. Br!e charged respondent )tty. 2enry )da,a ith gross misconduct and as !eing unfit to continue his mem!ership in the +ar. 6n a three.page complaint.affidavit complainant averred that respondent o!tained a loan from the former and, to secure the repayment thereof, dre and issued t o +16 ;amily +an' chec's. #hen the first chec' <-o. 97099:7@ as presented for payment upon maturity, the same as dishonored for insufficient funds. )ccording to complainant, respondent, acting ith malice and deceit, dated the second chec' (>anuary 28, 1996,( so that, once presented for payment, it ould !e, considering, in passing, that the loan as incurred on 27 -ovem!er 1996, a stale chec'. &he alleged that, despite repeated ver!al and ritten demands, respondent had failed to ma'e good his o!ligation. )cting on the complaint, the Court re/uired respondent to comment thereon ithin ten <19@ days from notice. 6n a letter, dated 26 &eptem!er 2999, complainant as'ed that the complaint !e no considered su!mitted for resolution in vie of the failure of )tty. )da,a to comply ith the order of the Court re/uiring him to file his comment. 6n a resolution, dated 96 *ecem!er 2999, the Court noted the letter of complainant, and it directed that the complaint !e there!y referred to the 6ntegrated +ar of the 1hilippines <6+1@ for investigation, report and recommendation. *espite proper notice to respondent re/uiring him to file his ans er to the complaint, respondent continued to ignore the matter. ;inally, on 29 ;e!ruary 2992, the case as set for hearing !y the 6+1 Commission on +ar *iscipline. The complainant appeared. 4espondent did not sho up despite his having !een duly notified of the hearing !y personal service effected on 12 ;e!ruary 2992. 4espondentQs failure to appear prompted the Commission on +ar *iscipline to grant the re/uest of complainant to allo her to adduce evidence e$.parte. )n order as issued setting the proceedings on 18 March 2992 for such

reception of evidence. ) copy of the order as served on respondent on 28 ;e!ruary 2992 at his given address. Bn 21 ;e!ruary 2992, the Commission received a letter from )tty. )da,a, sent via the facilities of 1TT, re/uesting for a resetting of the hearing from 18 March to 18 )pril 2992, claiming that he as already committed to attend a hearing at the 4egional Trial Court, +ranch :, of *ipolog City on 29 March 2992. The proceedings set for 18 March 2992 for the reception of complainantQs evidence e$.parte as held, !ut the same as ithout loss of right on the part of respondent to conduct, if desired, a cross. e$amination of the itness. The evidence of complainant sho ed that complainant used to avail of the notarial services of )tty. )da,a at his la office at 1adre ;aura, Armita, Manila. 6n 1990, respondent re/uested complainant, and the latter agreed, to !e the primary sponsor in the !aptismal of his daughter. 6n -ovem!er 1996, respondent accompanied !y a certain )rlene ent to the residence of complainant to see' a loan. The latter lent respondent the sum of 169,999.99 paya!le ith interest at 0T a month. 4espondent issued t o <2@ +16 ;amily +an' Chec's -o. 709:7 and -o. 709:6, each for 171,899.99, dated 27 *ecem!er 1996 and 28 >anuary 1996, respectively. #hen presented for collection Chec' -o. 9709:7 as dishonored !y the dra ee !an' for having !een dra n against insufficient funds. The other chec', Chec' -o. 9709:6, !earing the date 28 >anuary 1996, as not accepted for !eing a stale chec'. Afforts ere e$erted !y complainant to see respondent !ut her efforts proved to !e futile. &everal demand letters ere sent to the respondent !y )tty. Arnesto >acinto, complainantQs la yer, !ut these letters also failed to elicit any response. ) criminal complaint for violation of +atas 1am!ansa +lg. 22 as filed ith the Bffice of the 1rosecutor of Jue,on City for Chec' -o. 9709:7. ;inding pro!a!le cause, the complaint as su!se/uently elevated to the Metropolitan Trial Court. ) arrant of arrest as issued !y the court, !ut respondent someho succeeded in evading apprehension. &ometime in -ovem!er 2999, respondent ent to the house of complainant and promised to pay the chec's ithin a monthQs time. Complainant agreed to have the service of the arrant of arrest ithheld !ut, again, respondent failed to ma'e good his promise. The cross.e$amination of complainant 1riscilla Br!e as set on 22 May 2992. The stenographer as directed to transcri!e the stenographic notes as soon as possi!le for the !enefit of )tty. )da,a. )n order as issued to this effect, and a copy thereof as served upon respondent on 99 )pril 2992. Bn 22 May 2992, the complainant appeared for cross.e$amination !ut )tty. )da,a did not appear despite due notice. 6n light of the manifestation of complainant that she had no other itness to present and as ready to close her evidence, she as given a period of fifteen <10@ days ithin hich to file a formal offer and respondent as given a li'e period to thereupon su!mit his comment andNor opposition thereto. The order, dated 22 May 2992, as served on )tty. )da,a on 28 May 2992. The formal offer of complainantQs evidence as deemed su!mitted for resolution on 20 >une 2992 pending proof of service of a copy thereof upon respondent and the filing of the necessary comment or opposition thereto !y the latter. 6n an order, dated 16 Bcto!er 2992, the Commission set the reception of evidence for respondent on 17 -ovem!er 2992 in order to give him another opportunity to re!ut the evidence of complainant. 4espondent again failed to appear on the date set therefor, prompting the Commission to rule on the admissi!ility of A$hi!its ()( to (*( ith their su!mar'ings. There !eing no appearance on the part of respondent despite due notice, the case as considered su!mitted for resolution !y the Commission in its order of 26 ;e!ruary 2997. The Commission su!mitted its report and recommendation, dated 28 May 2997, recommending the suspension of respondent )tty. 2enry )da,a from the practice of la for a period of one <1@ year, and that he !e ordered to pay to complainant the value of the t o unpaid chec's he issued to complainant. The Court adopts the recommendation.

) mem!er of the !ar may !e so removed or suspended from office as an attorney for any deceit, malpractice, or misconduct in office.1 The ord (conduct( used in the rules is not limited to conduct e$hi!ited in connection ith the performance of the la yerQs professional duties !ut it also refers to any misconduct, although not connected ith his professional duties, that ould sho him to !e unfit for the office and un orthy of the privileges hich his license and the la confer upon him. The grounds e$pressed in &ection 2:, 4ule 178, of the 4ules of Court are not limitative 2 and are !road enough to cover any misconduct, including dishonesty, of a la yer in his professional or private capacity. 7 &uch misdeed puts his moral fi!er, as ell as his fitness to continue in the advocacy of la , 8 in serious dou!t. 4espondentQs issuance of orthless chec's and his contumacious refusal to comply ith his %ust o!ligation for nearly eight years is appalling0 and hardly deserves compassion from the Court. #2A4A;B4A, respondent 2enry M. )da,a is found guilty of gross misconduct, and he is here!y ordered suspended from the practice of la for a period of B-A <1@ IA)4 effective upon receipt hereof. This decision is ithout pre%udice to the outcome of the Criminal Case for =iolation of +atas 1am!ansa +lg. 22 filed against him. ?et copies of this decision !e spread on his record in the +ar ConfidantQs Bffice and furnished the 6ntegrated +ar of the 1hilippines and the Bffice of the Court )dministrator for proper dissemination to all courts. &B B4*A4A*. -andoval54utierrez! Corona! and Carpio5+orales! )).! concur.

$.C. No. 8392 Ju"' 29, 2010 < ,o+1'+ly CBD C!.' No. 08-2169 = ROS$R%O T. MEC$R$L, Complainant, vs. $TT0. D$N%LO S. ;EL$S4UE , 4espondent. *AC6&6BPer Curiam: 4osario T. Mecaral <complainant@ charged )tty. *anilo &. =elas/ue, <respondent@ !efore the 6ntegrated +ar of the 1hilippines <6+1@ Committee on +ar *iscipline <C+*@ 1 ith 3ross Misconduct and 3ross 6mmoral Conduct hich she detailed in her 1osition 1aper 2 as follo s" )fter respondent hired her as his secretary in 2992, she !ecame his lover and common.la ife. 6n Bcto!er 299:, respondent !rought her to the mountainous Dpper &an )gustin in Cai!iran, +iliran here he left her ith a religious group 'no n as the ;aith 2ealers )ssociation of the 1hilippines, of hich he as the leader. )lthough he visited her daily, his visits !ecame scarce in -ovem!er to *ecem!er 299:, prompting her to return home to -aval, +iliran. ;urious, respondent !rought her !ac' to &an )gustin here, on his instruction, his follo ers tortured, !rain ashed and in%ected her ith drugs. #hen she tried to escape on *ecem!er 28, 299:, the mem!ers of the group tied her spread.eagled to a !ed. Made to ear only a T.shirt and diapers and fed stale food, she as guarded 28 hours a day !y the omen mem!ers including a certain +ernardita Tadeo.

2er mother, *elia Tam!is =da. *e Mecaral <*elia@, having received information that she as ea', pale and al'ing !arefoot along the streets in the mountainous area of Cai!iran, sought the help of the 1rovincial &ocial #elfare *epartment hich immediately dispatched t o omen volunteers to rescue her. The religious group refused to release her, ho ever, ithout the instruction of respondent. 6t too' 1B7 *elan 3. ?ee <1B7 ?ee@ and 1B1 )rnel &. 4o!edillo <1B1 4o!edillo@ to rescue and reunite her ith her mother. 2ence, the present dis!arment complaint against respondent. )dditionally, complainant charges respondent ith !igamy for contracting a second marriage to ?eny 2. ),ur on )ugust 2, 1996, despite the su!sistence of his marriage to his first ife, Ma. &hirley 3. Iun,al. 6n support of her charges, complainant su!mitted documents including the follo ing" )ffidavit 7 of *elia dated ;e!ruary 0, 2998F )ffidavit of 1B7 ?ee and 1B1 4o!edillo 8 dated ;e!ruary 18, 2998F photocopy of the Certificate of Marriage0 !et een respondent and ?eny 2. ),urF photocopy of the Marriage Contract 6 !et een respondent and &hirley 3. Iun,alF -ational &tatistics Bffice Certification : dated )pril 27, 2998 sho ing the marriage of Ma. &hirley 3. Iun,al to respondent on )pril 2:, 1999 in Jue,on City and the marriage of ?eny 2. ),ur to respondent on )ugust 2, 1996 in Mandaue City, Ce!uF and certified machine copy of the 4esolution8 of the Bffice of the 1rovincial 1rosecutor of -aval, +iliran and the 6nformation 9 lodged ith the 4TC.+ranch 7:.Cai!iran, -aval, +iliran, for &erious 6llegal *etention against respondent and +ernardita Tadeo on complaint of herein complainant. *espite respondentQs receipt of the ;e!ruary 22, 2998 Brder19 of the *irector for +ar *iscipline for him to su!mit his )ns er ithin 10 days from receipt thereof, and his e$pressed intent to (properly ma'e KhisL defense in a verified pleading,(11 he did not file any )ns er./avvphi/ Bn the scheduled Mandatory Conference set on &eptem!er 2, 2998 of hich the parties ere duly notified, only complainantQs counsel as present. 4espondent and his counsel failed to appear. 6nvestigating Commissioner ;elimon C. )!elita 666 of the C+*, in his 4eport and 4ecommendation 12 dated &eptem!er 29, 2998, found that" KrespondentQsL acts of converting his secretary into a mistressF contracting t o marriages ith &hirley and ?eny, are grossly immoral hich no civili,ed society in the orld can countenance. The su!se/uent detention and torture of the complainant is gross misconduct K hichL only a !east may !e a!le to do. Certainly, the respondent had violated Canon 1 of the Code of 1rofessional 4esponsi!ility hich reads" C)-B- 1 U ) la yer shall uphold the constitution, o!ey the la s of the land and promote respect for la and legal processes. $$$$ 6n the long line of cases, the &upreme Court has consistently imposed severe penalty for grossly immoral conduct of a la yer li'e the case at !ar. 6n the cele!rated case of >oselano 3uevarra vs. )tty. >ose Manuel Aala, the KCourtL ordered the dis!arment of the respondent for maintaining e$tra.marital relations ith a married oman, and having a child ith her. 6n the instant case, not only did the respondent commit !igamy for contracting marriages ith &hirley Iun,al in 1999 and ?eny ),ur in 1996, !ut the respondent also made his secretary <complainant@ his mistress and su!se/uently, tortured her to the point of death. )ll these circumstances sho ed the moral fi!er respondent is made of, hich KleaveL the undersigned ith no choice !ut to recommend the dis!arment of )tty. *anilo &. =elas/ue,. 17 <emphasis and underscoring supplied@ The 6+1 +oard of 3overnors of 1asig City, !y 4esolution 18 dated *ecem!er 11, 2998, )*B1TA* the 6nvestigating CommissionerQs findings and )114B=A* the recommendation for the dis!arment of respondent.

)s did the 6+1 +oard of 3overnors, the Court finds the 6+1 CommissionerQs evaluation and recommendation ell ta'en. The practice of la is not a right !ut a privilege !esto ed !y the state upon those ho sho that they possess, and continue to possess, the /ualifications re/uired !y la for the conferment of such privilege.10 #hen a la yerQs moral character is assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, it !ehooves him to meet the charges s/uarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the investigating !ody and this Court, that he is morally fit to 'eep his name in the 4oll of )ttorneys.16 4espondent has not discharged the !urden. 2e never attended the hearings !efore the 6+1 to re!ut the charges !rought against him, suggesting that they are true. 1: *espite his letter dated March 28, 2998 manifesting that he ould come up ith his defense (in a verified pleading,( he never did. )side then from the 6+1Qs finding that respondent violated C!"o" 1 of the Code of 1rofessional 4esponsi!ility, he also violated the ?a yerQs Bath reading" 6 VVVVVVVVV, having !een permitted to continue in the practice of la in the 1hilippines, do solemnly s ear that 6 recogni,e the supreme authority of the 4epu!lic of the 1hilippinesF 6 ill support its Constitution and o!ey the la s as ell as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities thereinF 6 ill do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in courtF 6 ill not ittingly or illingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unla ful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the sameF 6 ill delay no man for money or malice, and ill conduct myself as a la yer according to the !est of my 'no ledge and discretion ith all good fidelity as ell as to the courts as to my clientsF and 6 impose upon myself this voluntary o!ligation ithout any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. &o help me 3od, <underscoring supplied@, and 4ule :.97, Canon : of the same Code reading" 4ule :.97 U ) la yer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice la , nor shall he, hether in pu!lic or private life, !ehave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. The )pril 79, 2998 4esolution18 of the 1rovincial 1rosecutor on complainantQs charge against respondent and +ernardita Tadeo for &erious 6llegal *etention !ears special noting, vi," KTLhe counter.affidavit of $ $ $ +ernardita C. Tadeo <co.accused in the complaint@ has the effect of strengthening the allegations against )tty. *anilo =elas/ue,. 6ndeed, it is clear no that there as really physical restraint employed !y )tty. =elas/ue, upon the person of 4osario Mecaral. Aven as he claimed that on the day private complainant as fetched !y the t o omen and police officers, complainant as already freely roaming around the place and thus, could not have !een physically detained. 2o ever, it is not really necessary that 4osario !e physically 'ept ithin an enclosure to restrict her freedom of locomotion. 6n fact, she as al ays accompanied herever she ould ander, that it could !e impossi!le for her to escape especially considering the remoteness and the distance !et een Dpper &an )gustin, Cai!iran, +iliran to -aval, +iliran here she is a resident. The people from the ;aith 2ealers )ssociation had the e$press and implied orders coming from respondent )tty. *anilo =elas/ue, to 'eep guarding 4osario Mecaral and not to let her go freely. That can !e gleaned from the affidavit of co.respondent +ernardita Tadeo. The latter !eing reprimanded henever )tty. =elas/ue, ould learn that complainant had untangled the cloth tied on her rists and feet.19 <emphasis and underscoring supplied@ That, as reflected in the immediately./uoted 4esolution in the criminal complaint against respondent, his therein co.respondent corro!orated the testimonies of complainantQs itnesses, and that the allegations against him remain unre!utted, sufficiently prove the charges against him !y clearly preponderant evidence, the /uantum of evidence needed in an administrative case against a la yer. 29

6n fine, !y engaging himself in acts hich are grossly immoral and acts hich constitute gross misconduct, respondent has ceased to possess the /ualifications of a la yer. 21 #2A4A;B4A, respondent, )tty. *anilo &. =elas/ue,, is *6&+)44A* ! and his name B4*A4A* &T46CMA- from the 4oll of )ttorneys. This *ecision is immediately e$ecutory and ordered to !e part of the records of respondent in the Bffice of the +ar Confidant, &upreme Court of the 1hilippines. ?et copies of the *ecision !e furnished the 6ntegrated +ar of the 1hilippines and circulated to all courts. &B B4*A4A*. REN$TO C. CORON$ Chief >ustice $NTON%O T. C$RP%O )ssociate >ustice PRESB%TERO J. ;EL$SCO, JR. )ssociate >ustice TERES%T$ J. LEON$RDO-DE C$STRO )ssociate >ustice M$R%$NO C. DEL C$ST%LLO )ssociate >ustice LUC$S P. BERS$M%N )ssociate >ustice M$RT%N S. ;%LL$R$M$, JR. )ssociate >ustice CONCH%T$ C$RP%O MOR$LES )ssociate >ustice $NTON%O EDU$RDO B. N$CHUR$ )ssociate >ustice D%OSD$DO M. PER$LT$ )ssociate >ustice $RTURO D. BR%ON )ssociate >ustice ROBERTO $. $B$D )ssociate >ustice JOSE PORTUG$L PERE )ssociate >ustice

JOSE C$TR$L MENDO $ )ssociate >ustice

$DM. C$SE No. 3319

Ju"' 8, 2000

LESL%E U%, complainant, vs. $TT0. %R%S BON%,$C%O, respondent. DE LEON, JR., J.: +efore us is an administrative complaint for dis!arment against )tty. 6ris +onifacio for allegedly carrying on an immoral relationship ith Carlos ?. Di, hus!and of complainant, ?eslie Di.

The relevant facts are" Bn >anuary 28, 19:1 complainant ?eslie Di married Carlos ?. Di at the Bur ?ady of ?ourdes Church in Jue,on City1 and as a result of their marital union, they had four <8@ children, namely, ?eilani, ?ianni, ?indsay and Carl Cavin, all surnamed Di. &ometime in *ecem!er 198:, ho ever, complainant found out that her hus!and. Carlos Di, as carrying on an illicit relationship ith respondent )tty. 6ris +onifacio ith hom he !egot a daughter sometime in 1986, and that they had !een living together at -o. 02: &an Carlos &treet, )yala )la!ang =illage in Muntinlupa City. 4espondent ho is a graduate of the College of ?a of the Dniversity of the 1hilippines as admitted to the 1hilippine +ar in 1982. Carlos Di admitted to complainant his relationship ith the respondent. Complainant then visited respondent at her office in the later part of >une 1988 and introduced herself as the legal ife of Carlos Di. #hereupon, respondent admitted to her that she has a child ith Carlos Di and alleged, ho everF that everything as over !et een her and Carlos Di. Complainant !elieved the representations of respondent and thought things ould turn out ell from then on and that the illicit relationship !et een her hus!and and respondent ould come to an end. 2o ever, complainant again discovered that the illicit relationship !et een her hus!and and respondent continued, and that sometime in *ecem!er 1988, respondent and her hus!and, Carlos Di, had a second child. Complainant then met again ith respondent sometime in March 1989 and pleaded ith respondent to discontinue her illicit relationship ith Carlos Di !ut to no avail. The illicit relationship persisted and complainant even came to 'no later on that respondent had !een employed !y her hus!and in his company. ) complaint for dis!arment, doc'eted as )dm. Case -o. 7719, as then filed on )ugust 11, 1989 !y the complainant against respondent )tty. 6ris +onifacio !efore the Commission on +ar *iscipline of the 6ntegrated +ar of the 1hilippines <hereinafter, Commission@ on the ground of immorality, more particularly, for carrying on an illicit relationship ith the complainant's hus!and, Carlos Di. 6n her )ns er, 2 respondent averred that she met Carlos Di sometime in 1987 and had 'no n him all along to !e a !achelor, ith the 'no ledge, ho ever, that Carlos Di had children !y a Chinese oman in )moy, China, from hom he had long !een estranged. &he stated that during one of their trips a!road, Carlos Di formali,ed his intention to marry her and they in fact got married in 2a aii, D&) in 1980 7. Dpon their return to Manila, respondent did not live ith Carlos Di. The latter continued to live ith his children in their 3reenhills residence !ecause respondent and Carlos Di anted to let the children gradually to 'no and accept the fact of his second marriage !efore they ould live together. 8 6n 1986, respondent left the country and stayed in 2onolulu, 2a aii and she ould only return occasionally to the 1hilippines to update her la practice and rene legal ties. *uring one of her trips to Manila sometime in >une 1988, she as confronted !y a oman ho insisted that she as the la ful ife of Carlos Di. 2urt and desolate upon her discovery of the true civil status of Carlos Di, respondent then left for 2onolulu, 2a aii sometime in >uly 1988 and returned only in March 1989 ith her t o <2@ children. Bn March 29, 1989, a fe days after she reported to or' ith the la firm 0 she as connected ith, the oman ho represented herself to !e the ife of Carlos Di again came to her office, demanding to 'no if Carlos Di has !een communicating ith her. 6t is respondent's contention that her relationship ith Carlos Di is not illicit !ecause they ere married a!road and that after >une 1988, hen respondent discovered Carlos Di's true civil status, she cut off all her ties ith him. 4espondent averred that Carlos Di never lived ith her in )la!ang, and that he resided at 26 1otsdam &treet, 3reenhills, &an >uan, Metro Manila. 6t as respondent ho lived in )la!ang in a house hich !elonged to her mother, 4osalinda ?. +onifacioF and that the said house as !uilt e$clusively from her parents' funds.6 +y ay of counterclaim, respondent sought moral damages in the amount of Ten Million 1esos <1hp19,999,999.99@ against complainant for having filed the present allegedly malicious and groundless dis!arment case against respondent.

6n her 4eply: dated )pril 6, 1999, complainant states, among others, that respondent 'ne perfectly ell that Carlos Di as married to complainant and had children ith her even at the start of her relationship ith Carlos Di, and that the reason respondent ent a!road as to give !irth to her t o <2@ children ith Carlos Di. *uring the pendency of the proceedings !efore the 6ntegrated +ar, complainant also charged her hus!and, Carlos Di, and respondent ith the crime of Concu!inage !efore the Bffice of the 1rovincial ;iscal of 4i,al, doc'eted as 6.&. -o. 89.028:, !ut the same as dismissed for insufficiency of evidence to esta!lish pro!a!le cause for the offense charged. The resolution dismissing the criminal complaint against respondent reads" Complainant's evidence had prima facie esta!lished the e$istence of the (illicit relationship( !et een the respondents allegedly discovered !y the complainant in *ecem!er 198:. The same evidence ho ever sho that respondent Carlos Di as still living ith complainant up to the latter part of 1988 andNor the early part of 1989. 6t ould therefore !e logical and safe to state that the (relationship( of respondents started and as discovered !y complainant sometime in 198: hen she and respondent Carlos ere still living at -o. 26 1otsdam &treet, -ortheast 3reenhills, &an >uan, Metro Manila and they, admittedly, continued to live together at their con%ugal home up to early < sic@ part of 1989 or later 1988, hen respondent Carlos left the same. ;rom the a!ove, it ould not !e amiss to conclude that altho < sic@ the relationship, illicit as complainant puts it, had !een prima facie esta!lished !y complainant's evidence, this same evidence had failed to even prima facie esta!lish the (fact of respondent's coha!itation in the concept of hus!and and ife at the 02: &an Carlos &t., )yala )la!ang house, proof of hich is necessary and indispensa!le to at least create pro!a!le cause for the offense charged. The statement alone of complainant, orse, a statement only of a conclusion respecting the fact of coha!itation does not ma'e the complainant's evidence thereto any !etterNstronger <D.&. vs. Casipong and Mongoy, 29 1hil. 1:8@. 6t is orth stating that the evidence su!mitted !y respondents in support of their respective positions on the matter support and !olster the foregoing conclusionNrecommendation. #2A4A;B4A, it is most respectfully recommended that the instant complaint !e dismissed for ant of evidence to esta!lish pro!a!le cause for the offense charged. 4A&1ACT;D??I &D+M6TTA*.8 Complainant appealed the said 4esolution of the 1rovincial ;iscal of 4i,al to the &ecretary of >ustice, !ut the same as dismissed9 on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to prove her allegation that respondent and Carlos Di lived together as hus!and and ife at 02: &an Carlos &treet, )yala )la!ang, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. 6n the proceedings !efore the 6+1 Commission on +ar *iscipline, complainant filed a Motion to Cite 4espondent in Contempt of the Commission 19 herein she charged respondent ith ma'ing false allegations in her )ns er and for su!mitting a supporting document hich as altered and intercalated. &he alleged that in the )ns er of respondent filed !efore the 6ntegrated +ar, respondent averred, among others, that she as married to Carlos Di on Bcto!er 22, 1980 and attached a Certificate of Marriage to su!stantiate her averment. 2o ever, the Certificate of Marriage 11 duly certified !y the &tate 4egistrar as a true copy of the record on file in the 2a aii &tate *epartment of 2ealth, and duly authenticated !y the 1hilippine Consulate 3eneral in 2onolulu, 2a aii, D&) revealed that the date of marriage !et een Carlos Di and respondent )tty. 6ris +onifacio as Bcto!er 22, 198:, and not Bcto!er 22, 1980 as claimed !y respondent in her )ns er. )ccording to complainant, the reason for that false allegation as !ecause

respondent anted to impress upon the said 6+1 that the !irth of her first child !y Carlos Di as ithin the edloc'. 12 6t is the contention of complainant that such act constitutes a violation of )rticles 187 17 and 188 18 of the 4evised 1enal Code, and also contempt of the CommissionF and that the act of respondent in ma'ing false allegations in her )ns er and su!mitting an alteredNintercalated document are indicative of her moral perversity and lac' of integrity hich ma'e her un orthy to !e a mem!er of the 1hilippine +ar. 6n her Bpposition <To Motion To Cite 4espondent in Contempt@, 10 respondent averred that she did not have the original copy of the marriage certificate !ecause the same as in the possession of Carlos Di, and that she anne$ed such copy !ecause she relied in good faith on hat appeared on the copy of the marriage certificate in her possession. 4espondent filed her Memorandum 16 on ;e!ruary 22, 1990 and raised the lone issue of hether or not she has conducted herself in an immoral manner for hich she deserves to !e !arred from the practice of la . 4espondent averred that the complaint should !e dismissed on t o <2@ grounds, namely" <i@ 4espondent conducted herself in a manner consistent ith the re/uirement of good moral character for the practice of the legal professionF and <ii@ Complainant failed to prove her allegation that respondent conducted herself in an immoral manner. 6n her defense, respondent contends, among others, that it as she ho as the victim in this case and not ?eslie Di !ecause she did not 'no that Carlos Di as already married, and that upon learning of this fact, respondent immediately cut.off all her ties ith Carlos Di. &he stated that there as no reason for her to dou!t at that time that the civil status of Carlos Di as that of a !achelor !ecause he spent so much time ith her, and he as so open in his courtship. 18 Bn the issue of the falsified marriage certificate, respondent alleged that it as highly incredi!le for her to have 'no ingly attached such marriage certificate to her )ns er had she 'no n that the same as altered. 4espondent reiterated that there as no compelling reason for her to ma'e it appear that her marriage to Carlos Di too' place either in 1980 or 198:, !ecause the fact remains that respondent and Carlos Di got married !efore complainant confronted respondent and informed the latter of her earlier marriage to Carlos Di in >une 1988. ;urther, respondent stated that it as Carlos Di ho testified and admitted that he as the person responsi!le for changing the date of the marriage certificate from 198: to 1980, and complainant did not present evidence to re!ut the testimony of Carlos Di on this matter. 4espondent posits that complainant's evidence, consisting of the pictures of respondent ith a child, pictures of respondent ith Carlos Di, a picture of a garage ith cars, a picture of a light colored car ith 1late -o. 1-& 717, a picture of the same car, and portion of the house and ground, and another picture of the same car !earing 1late -o. 1-& 717 and a picture of the house and the garage, 19 does not prove that she acted in an immoral manner. They have no evidentiary value according to her. The pictures ere ta'en !y a photographer from a private security agency and ho as not presented during the hearings. ;urther, the respondent presented the 4esolution of the 1rovincial ;iscal of 1asig in 6.&. Case -o. 89. 082: dismissing the complaint filed !y ?eslie Di against respondent for lac' of evidence to esta!lish pro!a!le cause for the offense charged 29 and the dismissal of the appeal !y the *epartment of >ustice 21 to !olster her argument that she as not guilty of any immoral or illegal act !ecause of her relationship ith Carlos Di. 6n fine, respondent claims that she entered the relationship ith Carlos Di in good faith and that her conduct cannot !e considered as illful, flagrant, or shameless, nor can it suggest moral indifference. &he fell in love ith Carlos Di hom she !elieved to !e single, and, that upon her discovery of his true civil status, she parted ays ith him. 6n the Memorandum 22 filed on March 29, 1990 !y complainant ?eslie Di, she prayed for the dis!arment of )tty. 6ris +onifacio and reiterated that respondent committed immorality !y having intimate relations ith a

married man hich resulted in the !irth of t o <2@ children. Complainant testified that respondent's mother, Mrs. ?inda +onifacio, personally 'ne complainant and her hus!and since the late 19:9s !ecause they ere clients of the !an' here Mrs. +onifacio as the +ranch Manager. 27 6t as thus highly impro!a!le that respondent, ho as living ith her parents as of 1986, ould not have !een informed !y her o n mother that Carlos Di as a married man. Complainant li'e ise averred that respondent committed disrespect to ards the Commission for su!mitting a photocopy of a document containing an intercalated date. 6n her 4eply to Complainant's Memorandum 28, respondent stated that complainant misera!ly failed to sho sufficient proof to arrant her dis!arment. 4espondent insists that contrary to the allegations of complainant, there is no sho ing that respondent had 'no ledge of the fact of marriage of Carlos Di to complainant. The allegation that her mother 'ne Carlos Di to !e a married man does not prove that such information as made 'no n to respondent. 2earing on the case ensued, after hich the Commission on +ar *iscipline su!mitted its 4eport and 4ecommendation, finding that" 6n the case at !ar, it is alleged that at the time respondent as courted !y Carlos Di, the latter represented himself to !e single. The Commission does not find said claim too difficult to !elieve in the light of contemporary human e$perience. )lmost al ays, hen a married man courts a single oman, he represents himself to !e single, separated, or ithout any firm commitment to another oman. The reason therefor is not hard to fathom. +y their very nature, single omen prefer single men. The records ill sho that hen respondent !ecame a are the < sic@ true civil status of Carlos Di, she left for the Dnited &tates <in >uly of 1988@. &he !ro'e off all contacts ith him. #hen she returned to the 1hilippines in March of 1989, she lived ith her !rother, )tty. Teodoro +onifacio, >r. Carlos Di and respondent only tal'ed to each other !ecause of the children hom he as allo ed to visit. )t no time did they live together. Dnder the foregoing circumstances, the Commission fails to find any act on the part of respondent that can !e considered as unprincipled or disgraceful as to !e reprehensi!le to a high degree. To !e sure, she as more of a victim that <sic@ anything else and should deserve compassion rather than condemnation. #ithout cavil, this sad episode destroyed her chance of having a normal and happy family life, a dream cherished !y every single girl. $$$ $$$ $$$

Thereafter, the +oard of 3overnors of the 6ntegrated +ar of the 1hilippines issued a -otice of 4esolution dated *ecem!er 17, 199:, the dispositive portion of hich reads as follo s" 4A&B?=A* to )*B1T and )114B=A, as it is here!y )*B1TA* and )114B=A*, the 4eport and 4ecommendation of the 6nvestigating Commissioner in the a!ove.entitled case, herein made part of this 4esolutionN*ecision as )nne$ ()(, and, finding the recommendation fully supported !y the evidence on record and the applica!le la s and rules, the complaint for 3ross 6mmorality against 4espondent is *6&M6&&A* for lac' of merit. )tty. 6ris +onifacio is 4A146M)-*A* for 'no ingly and illfully attaching to her )ns er a falsified Certificate of Marriage ith a stern arning that a repetition of the same ill merit a more severe penalty. #e agree ith the findings afore/uoted.

The practice of la is a privilege. ) !ar candidate does not have the right to en%oy the practice of the legal profession simply !y passing the !ar e$aminations. 6t is a privilege that can !e revo'ed, su!%ect to the mandate of due process, once a la yer violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. The re/uisites for admission to the practice of la are" a. he must !e a citi,en of the 1hilippinesF !. a resident thereofF c. at least t enty.one <21@ years of ageF d. a person of good moral characterF e. he must sho courtF that no charges against him involving moral turpitude, are filed or pending in

f. possess the re/uired educational /ualificationsF and g. pass the !ar e$aminations. 20 <Amphasis supplied@ Clear from the foregoing is that one of the conditions prior to admission to the !ar is that an applicant must possess good moral character. More importantly, possession of good moral character must !e continuous as a re/uirement to the en%oyment of the privilege of la practice, other ise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. 6t has !een held E 6f good moral character is a sine ua non for admission to the !ar, then the continued possession of good moral character is also a re/uisite for retaining mem!ership in the legal profession. Mem!ership in the !ar may !e terminated hen a la yer ceases to have good moral character. <4oyong vs. B!lena, 11: 1hil. 860@. ) la yer may !e dis!arred for (grossly immoral conduct, or !y reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude(. ) mem!er of the !ar should have moral integrity in addition to professional pro!ity. 6t is difficult to state ith precision and to fi$ an infle$i!le standard as to hat is (grossly immoral conduct( or to specify the moral delin/uency and o!li/uity hich render a la yer un orthy of continuing as a mem!er of the !ar. The rule implies that hat appears to !e unconventional !ehavior to the straight.laced may not !e the immoral conduct that arrants dis!arment. 6mmoral conduct has !een defined as (that conduct hich is illful, flagrant, or shameless, and hich sho s a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respecta!le mem!ers of the community.( <: C.>.&. 909@. 26 6n the case at !ar, it is the claim of respondent )tty. +onifacio that hen she met Carlos Di, she 'ne and !elieved him to !e single. 4espondent fell in love ith him and they got married and as a result of such marriage, she gave !irth to t o <2@ children. Dpon her 'no ledge of the true civil status of Carlos Di, she left him. &imple as the facts of the case may sound, the effects of the actuations of respondent are not only far from simple, they ill have a rippling effect on ho the standard norms of our legal practitioners should !e defined. 1erhaps morality in our li!eral society today is a far cry from hat it used to !e !efore. This permissiveness not ithstanding, la yers, as 'eepers of pu!lic faith, are !urdened ith a higher degree of social responsi!ility and thus must handle their personal affairs ith greater caution. The facts of this case

lead us to !elieve that perhaps respondent ould not have found herself in such a compromising situation had she e$ercised prudence and !een more vigilant in finding out more a!out Carlos Di's personal !ac'ground prior to her intimate involvement ith him. &urely, circumstances e$isted hich should have at least aroused respondent's suspicion that something as amiss in her relationship ith Carlos Di, and moved her to as' pro!ing /uestions. ;or instance, respondent admitted that she 'ne that Carlos Di had children ith a oman from )moy, China, yet it appeared that she never e$erted the slightest effort to find out if Carlos Di and this oman ere indeed unmarried. )lso, despite their marriage in 198:, Carlos Di never lived ith respondent and their first child, a circumstance that is simply incomprehensi!le considering respondent's allegation that Carlos Di as very open in courting her. )ll these ta'en together leads to the inescapa!le conclusion that respondent as imprudent in managing her personal affairs. 2o ever, the fact remains that her relationship ith Carlos Di, clothed as it as ith hat respondent !elieved as a valid marriage, cannot !e considered immoral. ;or immorality connotes conduct that sho s indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respecta!le mem!ers of the community. 2: Moreover, for such conduct to arrant disciplinary action, the same must !e (grossly immoral,( that is, it must !e so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to !e reprehensi!le to a high degree. 28 #e have held that (a mem!er of the +ar and officer of the court is not only re/uired to refrain from adulterous relationships . . . !ut must also so !ehave himself as to avoid scandali,ing the pu!lic !y creating the !elief that he is flouting those moral standards.( 29 4espondent's act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Di upon discovering his true civil status !elies %ust that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the la and the high moral standard of the legal profession. Complainant's !are assertions to the contrary deserve no credit. )fter all, the !urden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the Court ill e$ercise its disciplinary po ers only if she esta!lishes her case !y clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. 79 This, herein complainant misera!ly failed to do. Bn the matter of the falsified Certificate of Marriage attached !y respondent to her )ns er, e find impro!a!le to !elieve the averment of respondent that she merely relied on the photocopy of the Marriage Certificate hich as provided her !y Carlos Di. ;or an event as significant as a marriage ceremony, any normal !ride ould verily recall the date and year of her marriage. 6t is difficult to fathom ho a !ride, especially a la yer as in the case at !ar, can forget the year hen she got married. &imply stated, it is contrary to human e$perience and highly impro!a!le. ;urthermore, any prudent la yer ould verify the information contained in an attachment to her pleading, especially so hen she has personal 'no ledge of the facts and circumstances contained therein. 6n attaching such Marriage Certificate ith an intercalated date, the defense of good faith of respondent on that point cannot stand. 6t is the !ounden duty of la yers to adhere un averingly to the highest standards of morality. /avvphi/ The legal profession e$acts from its mem!ers nothing less. ?a yers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the +ar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their e$alted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality. #2A4A;B4A, the complaint for dis!arment against respondent )tty. 6ris ?. +onifacio, for alleged immorality, is here!y *6&M6&&A*. 2o ever, respondent is here!y 4A146M)-*A* for attaching to her )ns er a photocopy of her Marriage Certificate, ith an altered or intercalated date thereof, ith a &TA4- #)4-6-3 that a more severe sanction ill !e imposed on her for any repetition of the same or similar offense in the future.

&B B4*A4A*. Bellosillo! +endoza! Auisumbing and Buena! )).! concur.

$.M. No. >2160-MC? P-1396 No:'15'+ 21, 1969 HON. REM%G%O E. $R%, complainant, vs. D%OSD$DO S. ,LORES, respondent.

,ERN$NDE , J.: 6n a letter dated >uly 10, 19:6 addressed to the &upreme Court, 2on. 4emigio A. Gari, 1residing >udge of +ranch =6. City Court of Jue,on City, recommended the dismissal from the service of Mr. *iosdado &. ;lores, *eputy Cler' of Court of +ranch =6, City Court, on the follo ing grounds" 1. Conviction for li!el on )pril 28, 196:, <Criminal Case -o. J. :1:1@, +ranch 6=, Court of ;irst 6nstance, Jue,on City@, a crime involving moral turpitude. 2e as sentenced to pay a fine of 1099.99, hich he paid on >uly 18, 19:8, under 4eceipt -o. 8:76818. 2. 1resistent attempts to unduly influence the undersigned amounting to undue interest in cases pending !efore +ranch =6 as sho n !y his hand ritten notes to the undersigned and to my present deputy cler' of Court, )tty. 4eynaldo Alcano. Bn March 8, 19:6, Mr. ;lores as relieved from his position as *eputy Cler' of Court upon re/uest of the undersigned primarily to dissociate myself from these actuations of Mr. ;lores, hich 6 strongly disapproved of, and to avail my Court of the services of a full. fledged la yer ith un/uestiona!le integrity. )fter his transfer, as can !e seen from his hand ritten notes, he persisted in ta'ing this un arranted course of action in at least three <7@ cases of +ranch =6. 7. 3ross discourtesy to superior officers as manifested !y his uncalled for and un%ustified use of strong and contemptuous language in addressing the City >udges, hen he rote a letter, dated March 11, 19:6. 1 6n a resolution of this Court dated >uly 29, 19:6, *eputy Cler' of Court *iosdado &. ;lores as re/uired to file his ans er to the letter of >udge 4emigio A. Gari and this case as transferred to the ;irst *ivision.
2

The respondent filed his ans ers 3 on )ugust 12, 19:6 herein he alleged, among others, that his conviction for li!el did not involve moral turpitudeF that the then Commissioner )!elardo &u!ido, ho as also convicted of the crime of li!el and as fined 10,999.99, had approved his appointment as *eputy Cler' of Court of +ranch =6 of the City Court of Jue,on CityF that the respondent never tried to unduly influence the complainant in the discharge of the latter's duties and responsi!ilitiesF that hile respondent's language in his letter dated March 11, 19:6 is strong, the same could not !e considered contemptuous either directly or indirectly, in as much as he as merely e$pressing the sentiments of an

aggrieved employee ho deserves a !etter treatment from his superior after more than si$ years and nine months of highly dedicated and very efficient service in the City Court of Jue,on CityF that if ever respondent re/uested favors from his superior, these ere all done in the spirit of friendship hich the complainant professed to him !efore he left +ranch =6 of the City Court of Jue,on City on March 9, 19:6F that from Bcto!er 10, 19:0 up to his illegal transfer on March 8, 19:6, the respondent as practically doing the or' of the complainantF that the respondent has tutored the complainant on the fine interpretation and application of the la F that it as >udge Gari ho tried to corrupt him as may !e gathered from the follo ing instances" Bn >anuary 8, 19:6, after the trial in Criminal Case -o =6.0:87 vs. >uanito Chua and t o criminal cases against Amerito ?im, >udge Gari instructed the respondent to conduct an ocular inspection on the illegal constructions, su!%ect of the casesF that >udge Gari, li'e ise, told the respondent to %oin him for lunch at )lfredo's &tea'house in Jue,on CityF that after conducting the ocular inspection, the respondent proceeded to )lfredo's &tea'house here he %oined >udge Gari, ;iscal ?o%a and the defense counsel of Chua and ?imF that thereafter, >udge Gari directed the respondent not to prepare anymore his report on the ocular inspection to the siteF that up to the time of his illegal transfer, the respondent did not see the records of said cases anymoreF that in Criminal Case -o. =6.166628 vs. Cora,on and Macaria Tolentino, for the crime of estafa, the respondent as instructed to convict !oth the accused !ecause the complainant as a relative of a certain >udge ArochiF and that in Criminal Cases -os. =6.1:9682 and =6.1:9689 versus 3erundio =illanueva y Ala,o, *ominador 3arcia y Brte,a and +al!ino *omingo y 4amos, for the crime of theft, he as instructed !y >udge Gari to convict the accused *ominador 3arcia y Brte,a !ecause according to said %udge, the complainant is )=A&CB. 6n a resolution dated &eptem!er 1, 19:6, 3 this Court re/uired >udge Gari to file a reply to the ans er of the respondent ithin ten <19@ days from notice thereof. The complainant alleged in his reply to the ans er of the respondent that he had not allo ed the respondent to interfere in the preparation of orders and decisionsF that hile the complainant is a are of his limitations, he is certainly not so naive as to allo someone not a mem!er of the 1hilippine +ar to (tutor( and give him finer interpretation of the la F that he admits that Criminal Cases -os. =6.0:87 against >uanito Chua and =6.0:88.0:89 against Amerito ?im are pending !efore this courtF that he did not call the respondent to his cham!er and instruct him to conduct an ocular inspection on the illegal constructionsF that he did not invite the respondent for lunch that dayF that the truth as that after the trial, he ent to )lfredo's &tea'house in the company of his fiscal, ;iscal 3uillermo ?o%aF that hile in the said place, the complainant as surprised to see the respondent in the company of the accusedF that he counseled the respondent to !e more circumspect as these people had cases !efore his salaF that it is true that from then on up to the relief of the respondent on March 8, 19:6, the records of the aforesaid case could not !e found !y the respondent !ecause the complainant had the records !rought inside his cham!er in order to forestall any attempt on the part of the respondent to manipulate the recordsF that he did not instruct the respondent to convict the accused in Criminal Case -o. =6.166628 and in Criminal Cases -os. =6. 1:9682 and =6.1:9689 %ust !ecause the complainant is a relative of a certain >udge Arochi and )=A&CB, respectivelyF and that he re/uested )tty. 4eynaldo Alcano to affi$ his initial in all orders, decisions and sentences in order to pinpoint responsi!ility. 9 6n his reply, the complainant additionally charged that hen the respondent applied for the position of *eputy Cler' of Court, +ranch =6, City Court of Jue,on City, he su!mitted, among others, an affidavit dated >une 19, 1969 that contains the follo ing statement (That 6 am a person of good moral character and integrity and have no administrative, criminal or police recordF( that the respondent also accomplished Civil &ervice ;orm -o. 212 <1960@ hich as su!scri!ed and s orn to !efore then >udge Bscar ). 6nocentesF that in the aforesaid data sheet, the respondent admits having acted as counsel for three companiesF and that the giving of legal advice !y notaries and others ho are not admitted to the practice of la is dangerous to the elfare of the community, !ecause such persons have not demonstrated their capacity !y su!mitting to e$aminations la fully esta!lished in the practice of la . This administrative case as referred to the A$ecutive >udge of 4i,al, Jue,on City, for investigation, report and recommendation after City >udge Minerva 3enovea and City >udge )loysius )lday had !een

allo ed to inhi!it themselves from investigating this case. 6 *istrict >udge &ergio ). ;. )postol ho conducted the investigation of this administrative case recommended that the respondent !e separated from the service on the follo ing findings" The first charge is (conviction for li!el hich is a crime allegedly involving moral turpitude.( 1residential *ecree -o. 89:, &ec. 76<!@ -o. 19 provides that one of the grounds for disciplinary action is (conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.( Avidence adduced !y the complainant hich as admitted !y the respondent as that on )pril 28, 196: respondent as convicted of the crime of ?i!el in Criminal Case -o. J. :1:1 of +ranch 6= of the Court of ;irst 6nstance of Jue,on City. 4espondent as sentenced to pay a fine of 10,999.99 hich he paid on >uly 18, 19:8 under Bfficial 4eceipt -o. 2:6818. Moral turpitude has !een defined as including any act done contrary to %ustice, honesty, modesty or good morals. 6 &ome of the particular crimes hich have !een held to involve moral turpitude are adultery, concu!inage, 8 rape, arson, evasion of income ta$, !arratry, !igamy, !lac'mail, !ri!ery, 9 criminal conspiracy to smuggle opium, dueling, em!e,,lement, e$tortion, forgery, li!el, ma'ing fraudulent proof of loss on insurance contract, murder, mutilation of pu!lic records, fa!rication of evidence, offenses against pension la s, per%ury, seduction under promise of marriage, 10 estafa, 11 falsification of pu!lic document, 12 estafa thru falsification of pu!lic document. 13 (Moral turpitude( has !een defined as an act of !aseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties hich a man o es his fello men, to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty !et een man and oman or conduct contrary to %ustice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. 13 6t implies something immoral in itself, regardless of the fact that it is punisha!le !y la or not. 6t must not merely !e mala prohi!ita !ut, the act itself must !e inherently immoral. The doing of the act itself, and not its prohi!ition !y statute fi$es the moral turpitude. 19 Moral turpitude does not, ho ever, include such acts as are not of themselves immoral !ut hose illegality lies in the fact of their !eing positively prohi!ited. 16 2ence, the crime of illegal possession of firearm or ammunition does not involve moral turpitude for under our la s, hat is punisha!le is the possession of a firearm or ammunition ithout a license or authority. 16 +ri!ery is admittedly a felony involving moral turpitude.
18

2o ever in another, the &upreme Court seems to imply that li!el is not a crime involving moral turpitude. The mere filing of an information for li!el, or serious slander, against a municipal officer is not a ground for suspending him from office, as such offenses do not necessarily involve moral turpitude. 19

#hen respondent su!mitted his application for the position of *eputy Cler' of Court of +ranch =6, City Court of Jue,on City, he su!mitted among others an affidavit dated >une 19, 1969, hich reads as follo s" That 6 am a person of good moral character and integrity and have no administrative, criminal or police record. Bn !lan' space of a personal data sheet opposite /uestion -o. 19, hich as'ed if applicant has previously !een convicted of a criminal offense, accused placed no. 6t as later discovered that accused as previously convicted of theft. )ccused as ac/uitted of falsification of pu!lic document under )rt. 1:1, par. 8, !ecause there is no legal o!ligation to reveal previous conviction. 20 2o ever he may!e guilty of per%ury under )rt. 187. 21 Bne of the grounds for disciplinary action under 1* 89:, &ec. 76<!@ under -o. 17 is (falsification of pu!lic documents.( The second charge is (persistent attempts to unduly influence the complainant amounting to undue interest in cases pending !efore +ranch =6 as sho n !y his hand ritten notes to the complainant and to his present *eputy Cler' of Court, )tty. 4eynaldo Alcano.( 4espondent admitted that in riting the four <8@ notes <A$hi!its (;(, (;.1(, (;.2(, H (;.7(@, he intervened for and in !ehalf of 3a Chin in Criminal Case -o. =6.6196 pending !efore the sala of the complainant !ecause the accused as a compadre of his friend, &alvador Astrada. Bn the other hand, the defense of the respondent is that he as practically doing the or' of the complainant and tutoring him in the finer interpretation and application of the la , and he as preparing the decisions in !oth criminal and civil cases. Thus he as not trying to influence the complainant. The notes mar'ed as A$hi!its (;(, (;.1, (;.2(, H (;.7( spea' for themselves. There is no need for the undersigned to /uote the same. ) proposition !y an attorney to his client to visit ith his ife the family of the %udge !efore hom the client's cause is to !e heard, and to endeavor, in conversation thus to !e had in advance of the hearing, to commit the %udge to an e$pression of opinion favora!le to the client's case arrants his dismissal from the !ar. 22 The acts of the respondent amounts to conducts pre%udicial to the !est interest of the service. 23 The Third charge is (discourtesy to superior Bfficers as manifested !y respondent in calling for and un%ust use of strong and contemptuous language in addressing the city %udges hen he rote the letter, dated March 11, 19:6.( To /uote the pertinent provisions of A$hi!it (*(" '+y the tenor of your reply, you have made the change of heart and have developed cold feet. Iou have !adly sha'en my !elief in your credi!ility.

6ndeed, you are truly a oman, very fic'le and unpredicta!le, !ut very impulsive. 6 ta'e this as a clear indication of your desire to enlist the sympathies and, if possi!le, li'e the other five <0@ %udges, involved them in the mess originally of your o n ma'ing and design and align them ith you against me, hoping to impress upon me that !y the tyranny of num!ers, 6 ill !e convinced that mine is a lost cause. 2o ever, 6 regret to inform the si$ of you that !y your conduct, you have dismally failed to live up to your oaths, ... Mindly pardon me if 6 say that, the si$ of you must !e out of your its hen you all decided to lay the !lame on me and condemned ithout trial for the alleged inefficiency. Ies, hen you all decided to sacrifice me you are all la!oring under deep and nagging hallucinations, induced and prompted !y your serious concern to save the face of a colleague. +y the ay, could any of the 2onora!le >udges of +ranches 6, 666, = H 6C honestly and truthfully say the pu!lic service in their respective !ranches is efficient, so that they could no come to the succor of a colleague and are also competent to promote the efficiency in +ranch =6. My 3od, if that is true, promotions of >udges in the City Court ould !e fast, the 1urge in the >udiciary ould not have affected Jue,on City and the unprepared and the ine$perienced ould not have come to the +ench.' 4espondent reasoned out that the use of strong language !y him in his letter as %ustified and very much called for it !eing the indu!ita!le manifestation of the indignation and disgust of the respondent, urged upon him !y the complainant ho engineered the respondent's illegal transfer from +ranch =6 of the City Court of Jue,on City hich he holds a valid and su!sisting appointment to the )ppeal and *oc'et *ivision, !y virtue of a letter of the A$ecutive >udge <A$hi!it (87(@, to /uote the pertinent provision of hich" 'as a measure to promote more efficient pu!lic service, after due and circumspect deli!eration !y and among the %udges. ' pursuant to the authority granted to the e$ecutive %udge under )dministrative Brder -o. 6 of the &upreme Court hich provides as follo s" To re.assign temporarily the personnel of one !ranch <sala@ to another !ranch <sala@ or to the Bffice of the Cler' of Court, in case of vacancy in the position of 1residing >udge of a !ranch <sala@, or hen the interest of the service re/uires. 6n the latter case, the assignment shall !e made in consultation ith the 1residing >udge of the !ranch <sala@ concernedF and in case of disagreement, the assignment of the A$ecutive >udge shall !e effective immediately, unless revo'ed !y the &upreme Court. The transfer as made in consultation ith the presiding %udge of the !ranch concerned ho is the complainant in this case.

) detail is the movement of an employee from one agency to another ithout the issuance of an appointment and shall !e allo ed, only for a limited period in the case of employees occupying professional, technical and scientific positions. 6f the employee !elieves that there is no %ustification for the detail, he may appeal his case to the commission. 1ending appeal, the decision to detail the employee shall !e e$ecutory unless other ise ordered !y the commission. 23 )n employee may !e reassigned from one organi,ational unit to another in the same agency. 1rovided" That such reassignment shall not involve reduction in ran', status or salary. 29 6n the instant case there as actually a reassignment of employee from one !ranch to the Bffice of the Cler' of Court in accordance ith )dministrative Brder -o. 6 of the &upreme Court and in consonance ith 1* 89:. The language of attorney in his motion for reconsideration referring to the &upreme Court as a (Civili,ed, democratic tri!unal,( !ut !y innuendo ould suggest that it is notF in his motion to inhi!it, categori,ing the Court's decision as (false, erroneous and illegal( and accusing t o %ustices for !eing interested in the decision of the case ithout any !asis in factF as'ing the other mem!ers of the Court to inhi!it themselves for favors or !enefits received from any of the petitioners including the 1resident E constitute disrespectful language to the Court. 6t undermines and degrades the administration of %ustice. The language is necessary for the defense of client is no %ustification. 6t ill !ehooves an attorney to %ustify his disrespectful language ith the statement that it as necessary for the defense of his client. ) client's cause does not permanent an attorney to cross the line !et een li!erty and license. ?a yers must al ays 'eep in perspective the thought that (since la yers are administrators of %ustice, oath!ound servants of society, their first duty is not to their clients, as many suppose, !ut to the administration of %usticeF to this their client's success is holly su!ordinateF and their conduct ought to and must !e scrupulously o!servant of la and ethics. 26 Thru the use of uncalled language, respondent had committed insu!ordination, a ground for disciplinary action. 26 The evidence of record supports the findings of the investigating %udge. 6t is a fact that the respondent as convicted of li!el in Criminal Case -o. J.:1:1 of the Court of ;irst 6nstance of 4i,al, +ranch 6=, at Jue,on City. 6 #hile this fact alone is not sufficient to arrant disciplinary action, the respondent's conviction for li!el sho s his propensity to spea' ill of others. 2is letter dated March 11, 19:6 to >udge Minerva C. 3enovea, then A$ecutive >udge of the City Court of Jue,on City 8 contains defamatory and uncalled for language. The hand ritten notes of the respondent regarding different cases pending in +ranch =6 of the City Court of Jue,on City, presided !y the complainant, >udge 4emigio A. Gari, sho that the respondent had e$erted undue influence in the disposition of the cases mentioned therein. 9

6t is true that conviction for li!el does not automatically %ustify removal of a pu!lic officer. 10 2o ever, the fact of conviction for li!el of the respondent, ta'en together ith the letter he rote to then A$ecutive City >udge of the City Court of Jue,on City, >udge Minerva C. 3enovea, sho s the tendency of the respondent to malign people. 4espondent's act of interfering in the cases pending !efore +ranch =6 of the City Court of Jue,on City presided !y the complainant is inimical to the service. This alone arrants severe disciplinary measures. 6n his affidavit su!scri!ed and s orn to !efore then City >udge Bscar ). 6nocentes on >une 19, 1969, the respondent stated (That 6 am a person of good moral character and integrity and have no administrative, criminal or police record. ( This averment is not true !ecause the respondent had !een convicted of li!el in Criminal Case -o. J.:1:1, of the Court of ;irst 6nstance of 4i,al, +ranch 6=, in a sentence dated )pril 28, 196:. This prevarication in a s orn statement is another ground for serious disciplinary action. The removal from the service of the respondent is arranted !y the evidence adduced during the investigation conducted !y >udge &ergio ). ;. )postol of the Court of ;irst 6nstance of 4i,al, +ranch C=6, Jue,on City. #2A4A;B4A, the respondent, *iosdado &. ;lores, is here!y *6&M6&&A* as *eputy Cler' of Court of +ranch =6 of the City Court of Jue,on City, ith forfeiture of all retirement privileges and ith pre%udice to reinstatement in the national and local governments, as ell as, in any government instrumentality or agency including government o ned or controlled corporations effective upon the finality of this decision. ?et a copy of this decision !e attached to his personal record. &B B4*A4A*. Teehankee! <Chairman=! +akasiar! 4uerrero! De Castro and +elencio56errera! )).! concur.