DANTES VS.

DANTES

FACTS:

Emma the complainant married with Crispin the respondent when he was still in his fourth year in law school. To support their needs she engaged in buy and sell business and also relied from his mothers dole- out. They also lived with her (his mother). After the birth of their three (3 ) children they had frequent quarrels because of his extra- marital affairs. Further, she alleged that he abandoned them and failed to support them. And this drived her to work abroad. To sustain her allegations she presented both oral and documentary evidences, like the birth certificates of his three (3) illegitimate children. On his version, they had mutual agreement to separate for 18 years before after complainant abandoned him on their Balintawak residence. Further, he even gave financial support to complainant. Respondent avowed that complainant filed this case in order to force him to remit seventy percent (70%) of his monthly salary to her.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent commits grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer and must be disbarred.

RULING:

Based on the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:

Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show

indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. To be the basis of disciplinary action, the lawyers conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. The respondent on his acts of abandoning his family and having illicit affairs to different women and even fathered to them his children clearly violates the CPR. Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain their good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity. They may be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. For the violations he commits, suspension is only a minimal penalty and thus it is right to disbarred.
NOTE:

It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character has three ostensible purposes, namely: (i) to protect the public; (ii) to protect the public image of lawyers; and (iii) to protect prospective clients. A writer added a fourth: to protect errant lawyers from themselves.