Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Desiree Aranggo-Manguera

Case Assignment: ADM. CASE No. 3319 June 8, 2000

LESLIE UI, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO, Respondent.

“Rule 1.01, A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.”

Issue of the case which is a problem area in legal ethics

Whether or not a lawyer who married a married man is immoral as to warrant her
disbarment?

Decision of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

The complaint for Gross Immorality against Respondent is DISMISSED for lack
of merit.

The records will show that when respondent became aware the (sic) true civil
status of Carlos Ui, she left for the United States (in July of 1988). She broke off all
contacts with him. When she returned to the Philippines in March of 1989, she lived with
her brother, Atty. Teodoro Bonifacio, Jr. Carlos Ui and respondent only talked to each
other because of the children whom he was allowed to visit. At no time did they live
together.

Under the foregoing circumstances, the Commission fails to find any act on the
part of respondent that can be considered as unprincipled or disgraceful as to be
reprehensible to a high degree. To be sure, she was more of a victim that (sic) anything
else and should deserve compassion rather than condemnation. Without cavil, this sad
episode destroyed her chance of having a normal and happy family life, a dream
cherished by every single girl.

Discussion

One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must
possess good moral character. More importantly, possession of good moral character
must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice,
otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. It has been
held -

If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then the
continued possession of good moral character is also a requisite for retaining
membership in the legal profession. Membership in the bar may be terminated when a
lawyer ceases to have good moral character. (Royong vs. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865).

A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of

his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude". A member of the bar should
have moral integrity in addition to professional probity.

It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to

what is "grossly immoral conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency and
obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar.
The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-
laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment.

Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and
respectable members of the community." (7 C.J.S. 959). 

Disbarment and suspension of a lawyer, being the most severe forms of

disciplinary sanction, should be imposed with great caution and only in those cases
where the misconduct of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar is
established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. That is why just as someone
acted with immorality does not mean he or she will be disbarred.

In the case at bar, it is the claim of respondent Atty. Bonifacio that when she met
Carlos Ui, she knew and believed him to be single. Respondent fell in love with him and
they got married and as a result of such marriage, she gave birth to two (2) children.
Upon her knowledge of the true civil status of Carlos Ui, she left him.
 Simple as the facts of the case may sound, the effects of the actuations of
respondent are not only far from simple, they will have a rippling effect on how the
standard norms of our legal practitioners should be defined. Perhaps morality in our
liberal society today is a far cry from what it used to be before. This permissiveness
notwithstanding, lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are burdened with a higher degree
of social responsibility and thus must handle their personal affairs with greater caution.
The facts of this case lead us to believe that perhaps respondent would not have found
herself in such a compromising situation had she exercised prudence and been more
vigilant in finding out more about Carlos Ui's personal background prior to her intimate
involvement with him.

Surely, circumstances existed which should have at least aroused respondent's

suspicion that something was amiss in her relationship with Carlos Ui, and moved her to
ask probing questions. For instance, respondent admitted that she knew that Carlos Ui
had children with a woman from Amoy, China, yet it appeared that she never exerted
the slightest effort to find out if Carlos Ui and this woman were indeed unmarried. Also,
despite their marriage in 1987, Carlos Ui never lived with respondent and their first
child, a circumstance that is simply incomprehensible considering respondent's
allegation that Carlos Ui was very open in courting her.

All these taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that

respondent was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However, the fact
remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what
respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For
immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of
society and the opinion of good and respectable members of the
community.  Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same
must be "grossly immoral," that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree. 

We have held that "a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only
required to refrain from adulterous relationships . . . but must also so behave himself as
to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral
standards."  Respondent's act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon
discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves
that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal
profession. Complainant's bare assertions to the contrary deserve no credit. After all,
the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the Court will exercise its
disciplinary powers only if she establishes her case by clear, convincing and satisfactory
evidence. This, herein complainant miserably failed to do.

On the matter of the falsified Certificate of Marriage attached by respondent to her

Answer, we find improbable to believe the averment of respondent that she merely
relied on the photocopy of the Marriage Certificate which was provided her by Carlos Ui.
For an event as significant as a marriage ceremony, any normal bride would verily recall
the date and year of her marriage. It is difficult to fathom how a bride, especially a
lawyer as in the case at bar, can forget the year when she got married. Simply stated, it
is contrary to human experience and highly improbable.

Furthermore, any prudent lawyer would verify the information contained in an

attachment to her pleading, especially so when she has personal knowledge of the facts
and circumstances contained therein. In attaching such Marriage Certificate with an
intercalated date, the defense of good faith of respondent on that point cannot stand.

It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of

morality. The legal profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called
upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of
malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the
highest degree of morality.

Conclusion

Lawyers are mandated to live a moral life and to be extra cautious with their
dealings and affairs. This means that more than anyone else, lawyers should upheld
morality always in their dealings. Good moral character is necessary for a lawyer to
practice the profession. An attorney is expected not only to be professionally competent,
but to also have moral integrity. As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be
of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and
leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community.  As
such, grossly immoral conduct is a ground for disbarment.
However, to warrant an administrative penalty, a lawyer's immoral conduct must
be so gross as to be "willful, flagrant, or shameless," so much so that it "shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.
“Grossly immoral conduct must be an act that is "so corrupt and false as to constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree."
There is no fixed formula to define what constitutes grossly immoral conduct. The
determination depends on the circumstances. It is difficult to state with precision and to
fix an inflexible standard as to what is "grossly immoral conduct" or to specify the moral
delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of
the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the
straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment. There is an
area where a lawyer's conduct may not be in consonance with the canons of the moral
code but he is not subject to disciplinary action because his misbehavior or deviation
from the path of rectitude is not glaringly scandalous. It is in connection with a lawyer's
behavior to the opposite sex where the question of immorality usually arises. Whether a
lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage
should be characterized as "grossly immoral conduct" will depend on the surrounding
circumstances.

The important role of lawyers as ultimate guardians of the law means that the
legal profession has a huge responsibility in ensuring that rules of ethics are developed,
that lawyers and the public are educated about ethics and that ethics are made effective
through disciplinary mechanisms. Without ethics, trust in the legal profession and, as a
result, the justice system itself, is undermined.