You are on page 1of 5

Case Study Legal Profession

Submitted by: TORRALBA, JOSEPH CHR STOPHER T! Se"tion: #$

A!%! $o! &'() $o*ember '), #)+) SAL,AC O$ -EL .O COR-O,A, complainant, vs ATT/! LA0RE$CE -! COR-O,A, respondent. ! 1ACTS:

Salvacion Delizo charged her husband Atty. Laurence D. Cordova in an unsworn lettercomplaint addressed to then Chie !ustice Claudio "eehan#ee, with immorality and acts unbecoming a member o the $ar. "he letter-complaint was orwarded by the Court to the %ntegrated $ar o the &hilippines, Commission on $ar Discipline '(Commission(), or investigation, report and recommendation. "he Commission, be ore acting on the complaint, re*uired complainant to submit a veri ied complaint within ten '+,) days rom notice. Complainant complied and submitted to the Commission a veri ied version o her long and detailed complaint against her husband charging him with immorality and acts unbecoming a member o the $ar. -espondent was declared in de ault or ailure to ile an answer to the complaint within i teen days rom notice. %n a telegraphic message, complainant in ormed the Commission that she and her husband had already (reconciled.. "he Commission re*uired the parties to appear be ore it or con irmation and e/planation o the telegraphic message and re*uired them to ile a ormal motion to dismiss the complaint within i teen days rom notice. 0either party responded1 nothing was heard rom either party since then. Complainant having ailed to submit her evidence ex parte be ore the Commission, the %$& $oard o 2overnors submitted to this Court its report reprimanding respondent or his acts, admonishing him that any urther acts o immorality in the uture will be dealt with more severely, and ordering him to support his legitimate amily as a responsible parent should.

o "he indings o the %$& $oard o 2overnors are stated in the case as ollows3
Complainant and respondent Cordova were married on 6 June 1976 and out of this marriage, two (2) hildren were !orn" #n 19$%, the ouple lived somewhere in &uirino 'rovin e" #n that (ear, respondent Cordova left his famil( as well as his )o! as *ran h Cler+ of Court of the ,egional -rial Court, Ca!arroguis, &uirino 'rovin e, and went to .angago(, *islig, /urigao del /ur with one 0el( 1" 2olgado" 0el( 1" 2olgado was herself married and left her own hus!and and hildren to sta( with respondent" ,espondent Cordova and 0el( 1" 2olgado lived together in *islig as hus!and and wife, with respondent Cordova introdu ing 0el( to the pu!li as his wife, and 0el( 2olgado using the name 0el( Cordova" ,espondent Cordova gave 0el( 2olgado funds with whi h to esta!lish a sari3sari store in the pu!li mar+et at *islig, while at the same time failing to support his legitimate famil(" 4n 6 5pril 19$6, respondent Cordova and his omplainant wife had an apparent re on iliation" ,espondent promised that he would separate from 0el( 2olgado and !rought his legitimate famil( to *islig, /urigao del /ur" ,espondent would, however, fre6uentl( ome home from !eerhouses or a!arets, drun+, and ontinued to negle t the support of his legitimate famil(" #n 0e!ruar( 19$7, omplainant found, upon returning from a trip to .anila ne essitated !( hospitali7ation of her daughter 8oraine, that respondent Cordova was no longer living with her ( omplainant9s) hildren in their on)ugal home: that respondent Cordova was living with another mistress, one 8uisita .agallanes, and had ta+en his (ounger daughter .elanie along with him" ,espondent and his new mistress hid .elanie from the omplainant, ompelling omplainant to go to ourt and to ta+e !a + her daughter !( ha!eas orpus" -he ,egional -rial Court, *islig, gave her ustod( of their hildren" ;otwithstanding respondent9s promises to reform, he ontinued to live with 8uisita .agallanes as her hus!and and ontinued to fail to give support to his legitimate famil(" 0inall( the Commission re eived a telegram message apparentl( from omplainant, stating that omplainant and respondent had !een re on iled with ea h other" 1<

SS0E:
4hether or not the actions o Atty. Cordova 'husband) are enough to be sanctioned by the Commission $ar Discipline o the %$&.

5"." ;o" =2>9, 29 ;ovem!er 19$9"

R0L $2:
%n the instant case, the husband 'Atty. Cordova) maintained 5 adulterous relationships with women not his wi e. "his situation lasted or years although re ormation happened a ter his relationship with the irst concubine. "his de initely humiliated and resulted to the detriment o his legitimate amily. A ter a brie period o (re orm( respondent too# up again with another woman not his wi e, cohabiting with her and bringing along his young daughter to live with them. 6e even ailed to support his own amily notwithstanding the maintenance he is giving his second concubine. Clearly, respondent launted his disregard o the undamental institution o marriage and its elementary obligations be ore his own daughter and the community at large. "he court there ore, agrees with the indings o act o the %$& $oard. %t also agrees that the most recent reconciliation between the couple assuming the same to be real, does not e/cuse the misconduct and immoral behavior o the respondent carried out in public, and necessarily adversely re lecting upon him as a member o the $ar and upon the &hilippine $ar.

"hus, the Court resolved to S7S&80D respondent rom the practice o law inde initely and until arther orders. "he Court will consider li ting his suspension when respondent Cordova submits proo satis actory to the Commission and this Court that he has and continues to provide or the support o his legitimate amily and that he has given up the immoral course o conduct that he has clung to.

,!

REACT O$: "he disciplinary action against the respondent is 9ust right. %n my humble opinion, the ruling in the instant case was lenient in a way because this must have been a criminal case but % thin# it did not prosper or the reason o the couple:s ;reconciliation.. %n the instant case, % believe that the respondent has completely violated the #ntegrated *ar of the 'hilippines Code of 'rofessional ,esponsi!ilit(, Chapter 1, Canon 1 whi h states?

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. ,ule 1"@1 3 5 law(er shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or de eitful ondu t" ,ule 1"@2 3 5 law(er shall not ounsel or a!et a tivities aimed at defian e of the law or at lessening onfiden e in the legal s(stem" ,ule 1"@= 3 5 law(er shall not, for an( orrupt motive or interest, en ourage an( suit or pro eeding or dela( an( manAs ause" ,ule 1"@> 3 5 law(er shall en ourage his lients to avoid, end or settle a ontrovers( if it will admit of a fair settlement" 2<

8ven the lawyer:s code states a rule that should:ve been unwritten because o public policy. An applicant or admission to membership in the bar is re*uired to show that he is possessed o good moral character. "hat re*uirement is not e/hausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership o the bar. <n the contrary, that re*uirement persists as a continuing condition or membership in the $ar in good standing. "hus, the immorality and misconduct o the respondent is a ground or suspension or even disbarment, depending on the discretion o the commission and the court.

#ntegrated *ar of the 'hilippines Code of 'rofessional ,esponsi!ilit(, Chapter 1, Canon 1

You might also like