1) Royong v Oblena

Facts:
Complainant Josefina Royong charged Atty. Ariston J. Oblena, member
of the Philippine Bar with rape. Based from the report of the Solicitor General,
the complainant was raped after lunch when her mother left her alone. The
respondent entered, when behind her, covered her mouth with one hand and
dragged her to the bedroom. She tried to resist, but resulted to her receiving hard
blows on the thigh with his fist and threats to kill her and her family. After the
sexual intercourse, he threatened her not to tell her foster father, otherwise, he
would kill her and all the members of her family. This resulted to her pregnancy.
Eventually, she gave birth to the child. The respondent, however, allege he did
not rape her since he was at the Commission of Civil Service at the time of the
commission of the crime. He also admitted that he had an illicit relationship with
the complainant for one year when he stopped since it was discovered by her
foster parents. In order to avoid a criminal liability of seduction, he limited
himself to kissing and embracing her and sucking her tongue before she became
18 years of age. Based from the findings, The Solicitor general concluded that
there was carnal knowledge of the complainant and it was consensual.
In view of his findings, even if respondent did not commit the alleged
rape, he was still guilty of other misconduct. He was living an adulterous life
with Briccia Angeles at the same time maintaining illicit relationship with
Josefina Royong, niece of Briccia, thus making him unworthy of public
confidence
After the hearing, the investigators submitted the report with the finding
that:
1)

Respondent used his knowledge of the law to take advantage by having

illicit relationship with the complainant, committing immoral acts which
rendered him free from criminal liability;
2) Respondent committed gross immorality by continuously cohabitating
with a married woman even after he became a lawyer;

Rodriguez, CAA, Block G06

3) That respondent falsified the truth as to his moral character in his

petition to take the bar examination, due to the immorality of
cohabitating with his common-law wife, Briccia Angeles, a married
woman. He is recommended to be disbarred or suspended for one year.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty Ariston Oblena should be disbarred or suspended on the
grounds of his moral character?
Held:
The open cohabitation with Briccia, a married woman, is a sufficient ground for
disbarment. The respondents misconduct, although unrelated to his office, may
constitute sufficient grounds for disbarment. The decisions relied upon by the
respondent in justifying his stand is that even if he admittedly committed
fornification, this is no ground for disbarment, is not controlling. Fornification, if
committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances justify positive
action by the court in protecting the prestige of the noble profession of law. The
reason why he continued relationship with Angeles was to finish law school and
stayed with her after being admitted to the bar due to his sense of propriety and
Christian charity.
Ones approximation of himself is not a gauge to his moral character. Moral
Character is not a subjective term, but which correspondents to objective reality.
Moral Character is what a person really is, and not what he or people think of
him. The standard of personal and profession integrity which should be applied
to persons admitted to practice law is not satisfied by such conduct as merely
enabled them to escape penalties of criminal law. Good Moral Character includes
at least common honesty.
Respondent did not possess a good moral character at the time of his applied for
his admission to the bar. He lived an adulterous life with Briccia Angeles, and
even if people knew him to have status. It did not render him a person of good
moral character. He is therefore disbarred