Constitutional Law I 1
Cordova v. Cordova
A.M. no. 3249, November 29, 1989
Ponente:
I. Terms
II. Reliefs Sought
 Complaint by Salvacion Delizo against Atty.
Laurence Cordova, her husband, for disbarment
for immorality and acts unbecoming of a
member of the Bar.
III. Facts
 June 6, 1976: Salvacion Delizo and Laurence
Cordova got married, and had 2 children out of
the marriage.
 1985: The couple lived in the Quirino province,
but in the same year Cordova left his family,
and his job as Clerk of Court of the RTC, and
went to live with Fely Holgado, who was also
married and had left her family, in Surigao del
Sur, living as husband in wife in public.
 April 6, 1986: Cordova and his wife had an
apparent reconciliation with Cordova promising
to leave Fely. He brought his family to Surigao
del Sur, but frequently came home drunk and
failed to support his family.
 February 1987: Upon returning home from a trip
to Manila necessitated by hospitalization of her
daughter, Salvacion discovers that Laurence
had their home for another mistress, Luisita
Magallanes, and had taken their other daughter,
Melanie with him.
Key words: 2 mistresses, good moral character
 April 14, 1988: Salvacion submitted her
complaint against Atty. Laurence Cordova for
immorality and acts unbecoming a member of
the bar.
 December 1, 1998: Laurence Cordova was
found to be in default for failure to file an answer
to Salvacion’s complaint.
 The hearing was moved many times, because
both of them failed to appear. In April 6, 1989,
the complainant informed the Commission that
they had already reconciled.
IV. Issue/s and Held
1. Whether or not Atty. Laurence Cordova was guilty
for immorality and acts unbecoming a member of
the bar?
Held: Yes. He was suspended indefinitely until he
presents evidence that he has continued
supporting his family, and has given up immoral
conduct.
As a requirement to the admission in the Bar, a
candidate must show that he is of good moral
character. As held in In Mortel v. Aspiras, 1 this
Court, following the rule in the United States, held
that "the continued possession ... of a good moral
character is a requisite condition for the rightful
continuance in the practice of the law ... and its loss
<SURNAME> | 1C
 Constitutional Law I 2

requires suspension or disbarment, even though

the statutes do not specify that as a ground for
disbarment. " Good moral character is not limited to
the discharge of one’s duties as a laywer.

Clearly, respondent flaunted his disregard of the

fundamental institution of marriage and its
elementary obligations before his own daughter
and the community at large.

V. Separate Opinions
None.

<SURNAME> | 1C