1

EN BANC

SBC Case No. 519 July 31, 1997
PATRICIA FIGUEROA, complainant,
vs.
SIMEON BARRANCO, JR., respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N

ROMERO, J.:
In a complaint made way ac! in "#$", %atricia &i'(eroa petitioned t)at respondent Simeon Barranco, *r.
e denied admission to t)e le'al pro+ession. Respondent )ad passed t)e "#$, ar e-aminations on t)e
+o(rt) attempt, a+ter (ns(ccess+(l attempts in "#.., "#.$ and "#./. Be+ore e co(ld ta!e )is oat),
)owever, complainant +iled t)e instant petition averrin' t)at respondent and s)e )ad een sweet)earts,
t)at a c)ild o(t o+ wedloc! was orn to t)em and t)at respondent did not +(l+ill )is repeated promises to
many )er.
T)e +acts were mani+ested in )earin's )eld e+ore Investi'ator 0ictor &. Sevilla in *(ne and *(ly "#$".
Respondent and complainant were townmates in *ani(ay, Iloilo. Since "#12, w)en t)ey were ot) in t)eir
teens, t)ey were steadies. Respondent even acted as escort to complainant w)en s)e rei'ned as 3(een
at t)e "#12 town +iesta. Complainant +irst acceded to se-(al con'ress wit) respondent sometime in "#.,.
T)eir intimacy yielded a son, Ra+ael Barranco, orn on 4ecemer "", "#.5.
1
It was a+ter t)e c)ild was
orn, complainant alle'ed, t)at respondent +irst promised )e wo(ld marry )er a+ter )e passes t)e ar
e-aminations. T)eir relations)ip contin(ed and respondent alle'edly made more t)an twenty or t)irty
promises o+ marria'e. 6e 'ave only %",.,, +or t)e c)ild on t)e latter7s irt)days. 6er tr(st in )im and t)eir
relations)ip ended in "#$", w)en s)e learned t)at respondent married anot)er woman. 6ence, t)is
petition.
Upon complainant7s motion, t)e Co(rt a(t)ori8ed t)e ta!in' o+ testimonies o+ witnesses y deposition in
"#$9. On &er(ary "/, "#$5, respondent +iled a :ani+estation and :otion to 4ismiss t)e case
citin' complainant7s +ail(re to comment on t)e motion o+ *(d'e C(ello see!in' to e relieved +rom t)e
d(ty to ta!e a+oresaid testimonies y deposition. Complainant +iled )er comment re;(ired and t)at s)e
remains interested in t)e resol(tion o+ t)e present case. On *(ne "/, "#$5, t)e Co(rt denied respondent7s
motion to dismiss.
On Octoer 9, "#/,, t)e Co(rt once a'ain denied a motion to dismiss on t)e 'ro(nd o+ aandonment +iled
y respondent on Septemer "$, "#$#.

Respondent7s t)ird motion to dismiss was noted in t)e Co(rt7s
Resol(tion dated Septemer "1, "#/9.
3
In "#//, respondent repeated )is re;(est, citin' )is election as a
memer o+ t)e San''(nian' Bayan o+ *ani(ay, Iloilo +rom "#/,<"#/., )is active participation in civic
or'ani8ations and 'ood standin' in t)e comm(nity as well as t)e len't) o+ time t)is case )as een
pendin' as reasons to allow )im to ta!e )is oat) as a lawyer.
!
On Septemer 9#, "#//, t)e Co(rt resolved to dismiss t)e complaint +or +ail(re o+ complainant to
prosec(te t)e case +or an (nreasonale period o+ time and to allow Simeon Barranco, *r. to ta!e t)e
lawyer7s oat) (pon payment o+ t)e re;(ired +ees.
5
Respondent7s )opes were a'ain das)ed on Novemer "$, "#// w)en t)e Co(rt, in response to
2
complainant7s opposition, resolved to cancel )is sc)ed(led oat)<ta!in'. On *(ne ", "##2, t)e Co(rt
re+erred t)e case to t)e Inte'rated Bar o+ t)e %)ilippines =IB%> +or investi'ation, report and
recommendation.
T)e IB%7s report dated :ay "$, "##$ recommended t)e dismissal o+ t)e case and t)at respondent e
allowed to ta!e t)e lawyer7s oat).
?e a'ree.
Respondent was prevented +rom ta!in' t)e lawyer7s oat) in "#$" eca(se o+ t)e c)ar'e o+ 'ross
immorality made y complainant. To recapit(late, respondent ore an ille'itimate c)ild wit) )is
sweet)eart, %atricia &i'(eroa, w)o also claims t)at )e did not +(l+ill )is promise to marry )er a+ter )e
passes t)e ar e-aminations.
?e +ind t)at t)ese +acts do not constit(te 'ross immorality warrantin' t)e permanent e-cl(sion o+
respondent +rom t)e le'al pro+ession. 6is en'a'in' in premarital se-(al relations wit) complainant and
promises to marry s(''ests a do(t+(l moral c)aracter on )is part (t t)e same does not constit(te
'rossly immoral cond(ct. T)e Co(rt )as )eld t)at to @(sti+y s(spension or disarment t)e act complained
o+ m(st not only e immoral, (t 'rossly immoral. AA 'rossly immoral act is one t)at is so corr(pt and
+alse as to constit(te a criminal act or so (nprincipled or dis'race+(l as to e repre)ensile to a )i')
de'ree.A
"
It is a will+(l, +la'rant, or s)ameless act w)ic) s)ows a moral indi++erence to t)e opinion o+
respectale memers o+ t)e comm(nity.
7
?e +ind t)e r(lin' in Arciga v. Maniwang
#
;(ite relevant eca(se mere intimacy etween a man and a
woman, ot) o+ w)om possess no impediment to marry, vol(ntarily carried on and devoid o+ any deceit on
t)e part o+ respondent, is neit)er so corr(pt nor so (nprincipled as to warrant t)e imposition o+ disciplinary
sanction a'ainst )im, even i+ as a res(lt o+ s(c) relations)ip a c)ild was orn o(t o+ wedloc!.
9
Respondent and complainant were sweet)earts w)ose se-(al relations were evidently consens(al. ?e
do not +ind complainant7s assertions t)at s)e )ad een +orced into se-(al interco(rse, credile. S)e
contin(ed to see and e respondent7s 'irl+riend even a+ter s)e )ad 'iven irt) to a son in "#.5 and (ntil
"#$". All t)ose years o+ amicale and intimate relations re+(te )er alle'ations t)at s)e was +orced to )ave
se-(al con'ress wit) )im. Complainant was t)en an ad(lt w)o vol(ntarily and actively p(rs(ed t)eir
relations)ip and was not an innocent yo(n' 'irl w)o co(ld e easily led astray. Un+ort(nately, respondent
c)ose to marry and settle permanently wit) anot)er woman. ?e cannot casti'ate a man +or see!in' o(t
t)e partner o+ )is dreams, +or marria'e is a sacred and perpet(al ond w)ic) s)o(ld e entered into
eca(se o+ love, not +or any ot)er reason.
?e cannot )elp viewin' t)e instant complaint as an act o+ reven'e o+ a woman scorned, itter and
(n+or'ivin' to t)e end. It is also intended to ma!e respondent s(++er severely and it seems, perpet(ally,
sacri+icin' t)e pro+ession )e wor!ed very )ard to e admitted into. Even ass(min' t)at )is past
indiscretions are i'nole, t)e twenty<si- years t)at respondent )as een prevented +rom ein' a lawyer
constit(te s(++icient p(nis)ment t)ere+or. 4(rin' t)is time t)ere appears to e no ot)er indiscretion
attri(ted to )im.
1$
Respondent, w)o is now si-ty<two years o+ a'e, s)o(ld t)(s e allowed, aleit
elatedly, to ta!e t)e lawyer7s oat).
?6ERE&ORE, t)e instant petition is )erey 4IS:ISSE4. Respondent Simeon Barranco, *r. is
ALLO?E4 to ta!e )is oat) as a lawyer (pon payment o+ t)e proper +ees.
SO OR4ERE4.
Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco and
Panganiban, JJ., concur.
3
arvasa, !.J., "er#osisi#a, Jr. and $orres Jr., JJ., are on leave.
Foo%&o%es