EN BANC

[Adm. Case No. 266. December 11, 1985]

IN THE MATTER OF; REINSTATEMENT IN THE PHILIPPINE BAR, JESUS B.
TOLEDO, petitioner.
RESOLUTION
ALAMPAY, J.:
In Administrative Case No. 266 of this Court, a decision was rendered on April 27, 1963
finding that Atty. Jesus B. Toledo, the petitioner herein, had abandoned his lawful wife,
Mrs. Paz Arellano Toledo and having cohabited with another woman who had borne him
a child, had not maintained the degree of morality expected and required of a member of
the Bar. He was disbarred from the practice of law.
On December 10, 1981, or after a lapse of more than eighteen (18) years since he was
disbarred, Jesus B. Toledo filed a petition before this Court in the same Administrative
Case No. 266, praying that he be reinstated as member of the Philippine Bar, submitting
that he had already repented and sufficiently atoned for the mistake he had committed;
that he had since then reformed his life; that there are no pending charges against him,
whether criminal, civil, administrative, involving moral turpitude as can be attested to by
the Certificates of Clearance he had attached to and made a part of his petition, among
which are the Certification of the Personnel Officer of the Bureau of Lands, and a
Clearance from the National Bureau of Investigation.
Petitioner further included various attestations as to his good moral character, among
which are; the Affidavit of Jose S. Batongbakal, President of the Association of Barangay
Captains of the Province of Bulacan; the affidavit of Atty. Apolinario B. Santos, 1st
President, IBP Bulacan Chapter; the affidavit of Barangay Captain Celestino Guansing;
the affidavit of Atty. Paquito Ochoa, 2nd President, IBP Bulacan Chapter; and affidavit of
Atty. Manuel P. Punzalan, 5th and incumbent President, IBP Bulacan Chapter; in his
petition, he also mentioned the various awards and commendations given to him by the
Director of the Bureau of Lands for being the outstanding District Land Officer of Region
III for the years 1973 to 1976.
Furthermore, petitioner has submitted to establish the good moral character and
reputation he now enjoys so as to support his petition for reinstatement the affidavit of his
office superior in the government service, Director Ramon Casanova of the Bureau of
Lands; the affidavit of Monsignor Cirilo Almario, Jr., D.D., Bishop of the Diocese of
Malolos, Bulacan; the affidavit of Rev. Fr. Cesar Dayrit, the Parish Priest of San
Clemente, Tarlac, the hometown of movant-petitioner; and Monsignor Manuel del
Rosario, Parish Priest of San Roque Church, Blumentrit, Manila, to which parish the city
residence of movant belongs to.

In the said petition, Atty. Jesus B. Toledo manifested that almost twenty (20) years have
already elapsed since his disbarment and he has been punished for his mistake and
suffered so much. He assures the Court that he will continue leading an upright life and
prays for compassion from the Court so that he may be given a new lease in his
professional life as he is about to retire as a District Land Officer of the Bureau of Lands,
and upon his retirement he would like to practice law to continue being of service to the
Republic of the Philippines along his line of specialization on law on public lands and
land registration.
In our resolution of January 12, 1982, petitioner's wife, Paz Arellano Toledo, the
complainant in Administrative Case No. 266, was required to comment on the aforesaid
petition for reinstatement to the Philippine Bar. However, no Comment appears to have
been submitted by Mrs. Paz Arellano Toledo to whom the resolution (with copy of the
petition) was sent.
On September 5, 1984, petitioner was prompted to submit an Ex-Parte Motion for Early
Resolution of his petition for reinstatement to the Philippine Bar, inviting attention
particularly to the fact that in the letter of the Philippine Consul General Alejandro F.
Holigores, dated May 28, 1963, addressed to Petitioner's counsel, it is indicated therein
that complainant Paz Arellano Toledo had remarried and is now Mrs. Paz Labrador.
(Annex B of Motion for Reconsideration, filed on June 4, 1963 (Rollo, Adm. Case No,
266). The case records indeed reflect that on December 11, 1962, complainant Paz
Arellano Toledo obtained a divorce from Atty. Jesus B. Toledo at Las Vegas, Nevada and
on the same day married a naturalized American citizen. A photostat copy of the decree
of divorce granted to Paz Guting Arellano (also known as Paz Guting Toledo) is with the
case records and from the information given by the complainant herself to Consul
General Alejandro F. Holigores, she has now established her permanent residence in the
United States after divorcing respondent Jesus Toledo and contracting a second marriage.
In a subsequent motion dated September 4, 1984, for early resolution of his said petition
for reinstatement, Mr. Jesus B. Toledo manifested therein "that on June 6, 1985 he will
attain the age of 65 and will be compulsorily retired from the Bureau of Lands as District
Land Officer. He would like to spend the remaining years of his life in the private
practice of law to continue being of service to the Republic of the Philippines along his
time of specialization - law on public lands and land registration." On June 19, 1985,
another motion for early resolution of his petition for reinstatement to the Philippine Bar
was submitted by said movant-petitioner stating therein that "he is now retired from the
government service but he does not yet receive his retirement fees; neither does he
receive salary. It is, therefore, very urgently necessary that he has to practice law along
his line of specialization - law on public lands and land registration - in order to have a
decent living." On October 17, 1985, another ex-parte petition for early resolution (the
Fourth) of his petition for reinstatement, was submitted for consideration of the Court.
Considering that movant Jesus B. Toledo has already undergone the penalty of
disbarment imposed on him by the Court for over twenty (20) years and has sufficiently
established that since then he has been conducting himself beyond reproach and that he

had served the government for a considerable number of years until his retirement last
June, 1985, as a District Land Officer; that understandably he would now have need of
engaging himself in a gainful occupation; and finding that the complainant-wife in
Administrative Case No. 266 had obtained a divorce from the herein movant since
December 11, 1962, and had in fact already remarried an American naturalized citizen
and keeps her permanent residence in the United States; and in accord with the resolutions taken by the Court in similar instances (Adm. Case No. 389, Quingwa vs. Puno,
promulgated on January 31, 1972; and Adm. Case No. 2237, Juan T. Publico, Petitioner,
promulgated on February 20, 1981) the Court therefore RESOLVED to GRANT the
Petition for reinstatement to the Philippine Bar filed by Mr. Jesus B. Toledo.
WHEREFORE, respondent Jesus B. Toledo is hereby ordered reinstated in the practice
of law as a member of the Philippine Bar and included anew in the Roll of Attorneys.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, Plana, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De La
Fuente, Cuevas, and Patajo, JJ., concur.
Aquino, C.J., no part.
Melencio-Herrera, J., absent.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.C. No. 266

April 27, 1963

PAZ ARELLANO TOLEDO, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. JESUS B. TOLEDO, respondent.
PADILLA, J.:
This is a disbarment proceedings under Rule 128 of the Rules of Court.
On 9 July 1956 Paz Arellano Toledo filed in this Court a sworn complaint in the form of a
letter alleging that she is the wife of Jesus B. Toledo, a member of the Bar;1 that they
were married on 27 December 1946 while he was still a second year student of law; that
she supported him and spent for his studies; that after passing the bar examination and
becoming a full-fledged member of the Bar he abandoned her; that he is at present
employed in the Bureau of Mines2 and stationed at Cagayan de Oro City; and that he is
cohabiting with another woman who had borne him three children. She prayed that the
respondent be disbarred from the practice of law. On 11, July 1956, this Court directed
the respondent to answer the complaint within ten days from receipt of notice and a copy
of the complaint.3 The respondent mailed his answer in the form of a letter, which was
received in this Court on 4, October 1956, averring that the complaint was not in due
form because "It does not set out distinctly, clearly and concisely the legal causes for the
suspension or disbarment of a member of the Philippine Bar as provided in the Rules of
Court hence his "answer could not be made in the logical sequence of a formal pleading;"
that there seems to be an irregularity in the filing of the complaint because while the
letter-complaint was dated 25, June 1956, and received at the Docket Section of this
Court on 2, July 1956, by an employee whose initials are "A.L."4 It was subscribed and
sworn to before a notary public on a later date, 5 July 1956; and the alleged information
furnished by Esperanza D. Almonte that the respondent was cohabiting with another
woman who had borne him three children is not true because her very informant, whose
true name is Leoncia D. Almonte, executed an affidavit to the effect that the respondent
was employed in the Bureau of Lands, not in the Bureau of Mines, and that the three
children referred to by the complainant were the children of Mr. and Mrs. Ruperto Ll.
Jose, with whom the respondent was boarding. Attached to his answer are the affidavit of
Leoncia D. Almonte and a copy of his answer to a complaint filed by the complainant
with the Director of Lands for abandonment and immorality. In 9 October 1956, this
Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and
recommendation and on 11 October 1956 the record of the case was received by the
Office of the Solicitor General. On 19 November 1956, 10 December 1956, 7, 8, 14, and
15 February 1957, 18 March 1957 and 5 August 1957, the office of the Solicitor General

conducted hearings during which the complainant presented her evidence both oral and
documentary and the respondent, who appeared in his own behalf, cross-examined her
witnesses. The respondent did not present evidence in his behalf but reserved the right to
present it under the provisions of Section 6, Rule 128. After finding that there is sufficient
ground to proceed against the respondent, on 24 July 1958 the Solicitor General filed a
complaint in this Court charging the respondent with abandonment of his wife and
immorality for cohabiting with another woman by whom he has a child, and praying that
he be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law. On 30 July 1958 the Clerk of
Court sent to the respondent by mail a copy of the complaint filed by the Solicitor
General and directed him to answer the same within 15 days from receipt thereof,
pursuant to Section 5, Rule 128. On 28 August 1958 the respondent filed in this Court a
motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground "that the charges contained therein are not
based on and supported by the facts and evidence adduced at the investigation conducted
by the Office of the Solicitor General." On 2 September 1958 this Court set the case for
hearing on 17 September 1958 at 9:30 o'clock in the morning. On 13 September 1958 the
respondent filed a motion praying that his motion to dismiss filed on 28 August 1958 be
first resolved or, that, should it be denied, he be given a period of ten days within which
to file an answer; that upon receipt of his answer the case be returned to the Solicitor
General for reception of his evidence pursuant to Section 6, Rule 128; and that the
hearing of the case set for 17 September 1958 at 9:30 o'clock in the morning be held in
abeyance pending resolution of his motion. At the hearing of the case on 17 September
1958, counsel for the respondent appeared and was given a period of 15 days within
which to submit a written memorandum in lieu of oral argument, and the Solicitor
General the same period of time from receipt of a copy of the respondent's memorandum
within which to reply. On 22 October 1958, within the extension of time previously
granted, the respondent filed his memorandum and on 17 November 1958, also within the
extension of time previously granted, the Solicitor General, his memorandum in reply.
Section 6, Rule 128, provides:
The evidence produced before the Solicitor General in his investigation may be
considered, by the Supreme Court in the final decision of the case, if the
respondent had an opportunity to object and cross-examine. If in the respondent's
answer no statement is made as to any intention of introducing additional
evidence, the case shall be set down for hearing, upon the filing of such answer
or upon the expiration of the time to file the same. (Emphasis supplied)
The above-quoted rule in no uncertain terms requires the respondent in disbarment or
suspension proceedings from the practice of law to file an answer to the complaint filed
by the Solicitor General after investigation and, should he desire to present evidence in
his behalf, to expressly say so in the answer. Instead of doing what the rule requires, the
respondent filed a motion to dismiss without stating that he intended to present evidence
in his behalf, thereby waiving his right. The fact that at the close of the hearing conducted
by the Solicitor General, he made of record his desire to present evidence in his behalf, is
not sufficient. The correct manner and proper time for him to make known his intention is
by and in the answer seasonably filed in this Court.

The complainant testified as follows: On 27 December 1946 she, a dentist by profession,

and the respondent, then a second year law student, were married civilly in Camiling,
Tarlac, by the Justice of the Peace (Exhibit A). For a period of two weeks after their
wedding, they lived in the house of her parents at No. 76 General del Pilar street in
Camiling. After two weeks, the respondent went to Manila to resume his studies at the
Far Eastern University,5 and she remained in Camiling to practice her profession. While
the respondent was still studying, he either returned to Camiling once a week or she came
to Manila twice a week to visit with each other. Sometimes the respondent stayed with
her in Camiling for a week, and when she came to Manila to buy dental materials she
slept with him at his boarding house or at the house on Economia street where he on lived
with his brother Cleto and Aniceto and cousin Felisa Bacera, who cooked their meals for
them. They were in good terms until about three or four months before his graduation. On
the day of his graduation, he showed her indifference and humiliated and embarrassed her
by calling her a "provinciana" and telling her that she was a nuisance whenever she came
to see him. Nevertheless, being his wife, she continued to see him while he was
reviewing for the bar examinations. She specifically mentioned that three days before the
last examination, she came to see him. A week after the bar examinations, she again came
to see him. Since then they became actually separated and she never saw him again until
the hearing of the case. Through Mrs. Esperanza Almonte, she learned that the respondent
was employed in the Bureau of Lands and stationed at Cagayan de Oro City. The
respondent never wrote to her and asked her to follow him at his place of work and she
did not care to either.
Marina Payot gave the following testimony: From 28 February to 3 June 1955 she lived
and worked as maid, laundress and cook for the respondent, his family composed of
himself, Mrs. Corazon Toledo and their child in Malaybalay, Bukidnon. The respondent
and Corazon Toledo lived as husband and wife, and have a child named Angie who was
less than a year old at the time she lived with them. The couple slept together in the same
room with their daughter Angie and ate their meals together although sometimes Corazon
ate alone when the respondent was out somewhere. The respondent used to call Corazon
"Honey" and Corazon used to call the respondent "Jess". Corazon Toledo is not the same
person as the complainant.
Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted
and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other
evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts. 1wph1.t
Lino Domingo testified in the following manner: He is employed as operator-mechanic in
the Bureau of Public Highways in Malaybalay, Bukidnon, and has resided there since
1952. He knows the respondent because he headed a survey party that surveyed public
lands in Malaybalay for distribution to the landless. Sometime in March 1955 he went to
the respondent's place of residence and office at Moreno street, where his friend Mr.
Nieva, an Ilocano, also resided to apply for a parcel of public land, and about ten times he
went to the respondent's place of residence and office. Among those who lived with the
respondent were Mrs. Corazon Toledo, Mr. Nieva, a maid and Mr. Abad (the latter only
slept at the place whenever he was in town). He knew that Corazon Toledo, who is not

the same person as Paz Arellano Toledo, was the wife of the respondent. At the
respondent's place of residence and office, he saw a room where the respondent, Corazon
and a baby slept and where man's pajamas and shirts were hung. One day at about 2:00
o'clock in the afternoon, while the respondent and his (the witness') friend Mr. Abad were
repairing the front mudguard and seats of a station wagon behind the respondent's place
of residence and office, his friend Mr. Abad introduced him to the respondent. He helped
Abad place the seats of the station wagon in their proper places and while he was helping
Abad, he heard the respondent address Corazon as "Mama" and ask her for money to buy
cigarettes. His friends Nieva and Abad used to address Corazon as "Mrs. Toledo."
The respondent admits that he is married to the complainant (p. 14, t.s.n.).The fact that he
is cohabiting with another woman who had borne him a child has been established by the
testimony of Marina Payot and Lino Domingo, whose sincerity and truthfulness have
been put to a severe and searching test by the investigating Solicitor in the presence of the
respondent who appeared in his own behalf and cross-examined the witnesses during the
investigation. Asked by the investigating Solicitor how she came to testify at the
investigation, or whether anybody taught or coached her on what to testify or whether she
testified because of any promise of reward or consideration, Marina Payot without
hesitation and in a straight forward manner answered that the complainant, Mr. Domingo
and Mr. Reyes (the latter is the complainant's counsel) spoke to her and told her to tell
nothing but the truth about the respondent's affair with his paramour in Malaybalay; that
nobody taught or coached her on what to testify at the investigation; and that she was not
promised anything by way of reward or consideration or given money for testifying.
Going further in his investigation, the Solicitor asked the witness how she was treated by
the respondent to find out if she harbors any ill-feeling or grudge against him and his
alleged paramour, which could be a motive for falsely testifying against them, and she
answered that she was well treated by the Toledos; that they considered her a sister; that
they paid regularly her salary of P15 a month; that they bought her a dress during the
town fiesta on May 15; that Corazon never scolded her for she was a woman of few
words, was kind and did not know how to get angry; and that the reason she left them
was because she just felt lonesome for her parents. Further testing her credibility, the
Solicitor asked how the respondent's paramour looked, and she described her as a woman
of fair complexion. Comparing her (Corazon) to the complainant, she said that the
complainant was more beautiful but Corazon was not ugly and that the latter had a nicer
figure, because she was stouter and taller than the complainant. To find out if it was
another and not the respondent who lived with Corazon, the Solicitor asked her if she had
not seen Teodoro Nieva, who lived with the respondent and Corazon in the same house,
kiss or embrace Corazon, and she replied that she had not.
Testing the credibility of Lino Domingo, the investigating Solicitor asked him whether he
was related to Claudio Arellano, brother of the complainant, and Lino readily answered
that he is his brother-in-law and added that he (Lino) is the cousin of the wife of Claudio.
Asked if he had been asked by the complainant to testify at the hearing, he frankly
answered in the affirmative. Questioned as to the description of the respondent's
paramour, the witness stated that Corazon is fair in complexion, five feet tall; that she is

taller and fairer in complexion, more beautiful and has a nicer figure than the
complainant.
The testimony of these two witnesses are worthy of credence. Marina Payot is a simple
girl of eighteen years, a mere maid, scant in education, and understands little English. She
did not even finish the sixth grade of the elementary course. The sharp and incisive
questions propounded to her by the investigating Solicitor and the lengthy crossexamination to which she was subjected by the respondent himself would have revealed
herself if she was lying. The apparent inconsistencies in her answers may be attributed to
her innocence and simple-mindedness and her failure to understand the questions
propounded to her. Moreover, she could not be expected to remember the dates asked of
her in the same way that a person of more than average intelligence would. Add to this
the fact that she was subjected to a thorough examination by three lawyers and her
confusion was compounded. Lino Domingo's frank and ready answers to the questions
propounded by the Solicitor show sincerity and do not reveal any intention to pervert the
truth. And even if his testimony be discarded, still the testimony of Marina Payot stands
unrebutted.
The annexes attached to the respondent's memorandum cannot be taken into
consideration for they were not properly introduced in evidence during the investigation.
The respondent, by abandoning his lawful wife and cohabiting with another woman who
had borne him a child, has failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and
required of a member of the Bar.6
THEREFORE, the respondent is disbarred from the practice of law.
Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala
and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Bengzon, C.J., took no part.
Footnotes
1

He took and passed the bar examinations given by this Court in August 1949 (46
Off. Gaz. 4948, 4951) and was admitted to the practice of law on 16 May 1950
(47 Off. Gaz. 1221, 1226).
2

In a letter dated 17 July 1956, she informed the Court that the respondent is
employed in the Bureau of Lands and not in the Bureau of Mines.
3

According to the respondent, he received notice of the order requiring him to

answer the complaint on 18 September 1956.
4

The complainant's letter dated 25 June 1956 was received in the Docket Section
of this Court on 2 July 1956. It was returned to her because it was not duly sworn

to before a person authorized to administer oath. On 9 July 1956 the complainant

again filed in this Court the same letter duly sworn to before a notary public.
5

Later on he transferred to the MLQ school of Law where he finished the law
course.
6

Mortel vs. Aspiras, Adm. Case No. 145, 28 December 1956 andSarmiento vs.
Cui, Adm. Case No. 141, 29 March 1957.