A.M. No.

3249 November 29, 1989 The findings of the IBP Board of Governors may be summed up as follows:

SALVACION DELIZO CORDOVA, complainant, Complainant and respondent Cordova were married on 6 June 1976 and out of this
vs. marriage, two (2) children were born. In 1985, the couple lived somewhere in Quirino
ATTY. LAURENCE D. CORDOVA, respondent. Province. In that year, respondent Cordova left his family as well as his job as Branch
Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Cabarroguis, Quirino Province, and went to
RESOLUTION Mangagoy, Bislig, Surigao del Sur with one Fely G. Holgado. Fely G. Holgado was herself
married and left her own husband and children to stay with respondent. Respondent
PER CURIAM: Cordova and Fely G. Holgado lived together in Bislig as husband and wife, with
respondent Cordova introducing Fely to the public as his wife, and Fely Holgado using the
name Fely Cordova. Respondent Cordova gave Fely Holgado funds with which to establish
In an unsworn letter-complaint dated 14 April 1988 addressed to then Mr. Chief Justice a sari-sari store in the public market at Bislig, while at the same time failing to support his
Claudio Teehankee, complainant Salvacion Delizo charged her husband, Atty. Laurence D. legitimate family.
Cordova, with immorality and acts unbecoming a member of the Bar. The letter-complaint
was forwarded by the Court to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Commission on Bar
Discipline ("Commission"), for investigation, report and recommendation. On 6 April 1986, respondent Cordova and his complainant wife had an apparent
reconciliation. Respondent promised that he would separate from Fely Holgado and
brought his legitimate family to Bislig, Surigao del Sur. Respondent would, however,
The Commission, before acting on the complaint, required complainant to submit a verified frequently come home from beerhouses or cabarets, drunk, and continued to neglect the
complaint within ten (10) days from notice. Complainant complied and submitted to the support of his legitimate family. In February 1987, complainant found, upon returning from
Commission on 27 September 1988 a revised and verified version of her long and detailed a trip to Manila necessitated by hospitalization of her daughter Loraine, that respondent
complaint against her husband charging him with immorality and acts unbecoming a Cordova was no longer living with her (complainant's) children in their conjugal home; that
member of the Bar. respondent Cordova was living with another mistress, one Luisita Magallanes, and had
taken his younger daughter Melanie along with him. Respondent and his new mistress hid
In an Order of the Commission dated 1 December 1988, respondent was declared in default Melanie from the complinant, compelling complainant to go to court and to take back her
for failure to file an answer to the complaint within fifteen (15) days from notice. The same daughter by habeas corpus. The Regional Trial Court, Bislig, gave her custody of their
Order required complainant to submit before the Commission her evidence ex parte, on 16 children.
December 1988. Upon the telegraphic request of complainant for the resetting of the 16
December 1988 hearing, the Commission scheduled another hearing on 25 January 1989. Notwithstanding respondent's promises to reform, he continued to live with Luisita
The hearing scheduled for 25 January 1989 was rescheduled two (2) more times-first, for Magallanes as her husband and continued to fail to give support to his legitimate family.
25 February 1989 and second, for 10 and 11 April 1989. The hearings never took place as
complainant failed to appear. Respondent Cordova never moved to set aside the order of
default, even though notices of the hearings scheduled were sent to him. Finally the Commission received a telegram message apparently from complainant, stating
that complainant and respondent had been reconciled with each other.
In a telegraphic message dated 6 April 1989, complainant informed the Commission that
she and her husband had already "reconciled". In an order dated 17 April 1989, the After a review of the record, we agree with the findings of fact of the IBP Board. We also
Commission required the parties (respondent and complainant) to appear before it for agree that the most recent reconciliation between complainant and respondent, assuming
confirmation and explanation of the telegraphic message and required them to file a formal the same to be real, does not excuse and wipe away the misconduct and immoral behavior
motion to dismiss the complaint within fifteen (15) days from notice. Neither party of the respondent carried out in public, and necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a
responded and nothing was heard from either party since then. member of the Bar and upon the Philippine Bar itself. An applicant for admission to
membership in the bar is required to show that he is possessed of good moral character.
That requirement is not exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership of
Complainant having failed to submit her evidence ex parte before the Commission, the IBP the bar. On the contrary, that requirement persists as a continuing condition for
Board of Governors submitted to this Court its report reprimanding respondent for his acts, membership in the Bar in good standing.
admonishing him that any further acts of immorality in the future will be dealt with more
severely, and ordering him to support his legitimate family as a responsible parent should.
In Mortel v. Aspiras,1 this Court, following the rule in the United States, held that "the PRECIOSA R. OBUSAN, complainant,
continued possession ... of a good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful vs.
continuance in the practice of the law ... and its loss requires suspension or disbarment, GENEROSO B. OBUSAN, JR., respondent.
even though the statutes do not specify that as a ground for disbarment. " 2 It is important to
note that the lack of moral character that we here refer to as essential is not limited to good Roger Castuciano for complainant.
moral character relating to the discharge of the duties and responsibilities of an attorney at
law. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as Roemo J. Callejo for respondent.
such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the
community, conduct for instance, which makes "a mockery of the inviolable social
institution or marriage." 3 In Mortel, the respondent being already married, wooed and won
the heart of a single, 21-year old teacher who subsequently cohabited with him and bore
him a son. Because respondent's conduct in Mortel was particularly morally repulsive, AQUINO, J.:ñé+.£ªwph!1
involving the marrying of his mistress to his own son and thereafter cohabiting with the
wife of his own son after the marriage he had himself arranged, respondent was disbarred. This is a disbarment case filed in 1974 by Preciosa Razon against her husband Generoso B.
Obusan, Jr. on the ground of adultery or grossly immoral conduct. He was admitted to the
In Royong v. Oblena, 4 the respondent was declared unfit to continue as a member of the bar in 1968.
bar by reason of his immoral conduct and accordingly disbarred. He was found to have
engaged in sexual relations with the complainant who consequently bore him a son; and to In 1967, when Generoso B. Obusan, Jr. was working in the Peoples Homesite and Housing
have maintained for a number of years an adulterous relationship with another woman. Corporation, he became acquainted with Natividad Estabillo who represented to him that
she was a widow. They had carnal relations. He begot with her a son who was born on
In the instant case, respondent Cordova maintained for about two (2) years an adulterous November 27, 1972. He was named John Obusan (Exh. D). Generoso came to know that
relationship with a married woman not his wife, in full view of the general public, to the Natividad's marriage to Tony Garcia was subsisting or undissolved.
humiliation and detriment of his legitimate family which he, rubbing salt on the wound,
failed or refused to support. After a brief period of "reform" respondent took up again with Four days after the birth of the child or on December 1, 1972, Generoso, 33, married
another woman not his wife, cohabiting with her and bringing along his young daughter to Preciosa, 37, in a civil ceremony. The marriage was ratified in a religious ceremony held
live with them. Clearly, respondent flaunted his disregard of the fundamental institution of on December 30,1972 (Exh. C and C-1)
marriage and its elementary obligations before his own daughter and the community at
large. The couple lived with the wife's mother at 993 Sto. Cristo Street, Tondo, Manila for more
than one year. In the evening of April 13, 1974, when his wife was out of the house, lawyer
WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law Obusan asked permission from his mother-in-law to leave the house and take a vacation in
indefinitely and until farther orders from this Court. The Court will consider lifting his his hometown, Daet, Camarines Norte. Since then, he has never returned to the conjugal
suspension when respondent Cordova submits proof satisfactory to the Commission and abode.
this Court that he has and continues to provide for the support of his legitimate family and
that he has given up the immoral course of conduct that he has clung to. Preciosa immediately started looking for her husband. After much patient investigation and
surveillance, she discovered that he was living and cohabiting with Natividad in an
Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, apartment located at 85-A Felix Manalo Street, Cubao, Quezon City. He had brought his
Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur. car to that place.

Melencio-Herrera, J., is on leave. The fact that Obusan and Natividad lived as husband and wife was corroborated by Linda
Delfin, their housemaid in 1974; Remedios Bernal, a laundress, and Ernesto Bernal, a
Adm. Case No. 1392 April 2, 1984 plumber, their neighbors staying at 94 Felix Manalo Street. The three executed the
affidavits, Exhibits A, B and F, which were confirmed by their testimonies.
Romegil Q. Magana, a pook leader, testified that Obusan introduced himself as the head of Makasiar, Actg. C.J., Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-
the family (25-30 tsn Nov. 26, 1976). His name is at the head of the barangay list (Exh. E, Herrera, Plana, Escolin Relova, Gutierrez, Jr. and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.
G and H). Nieves Cacnio the owner of the apartment, came to know Obusan as Mr.
Estabillo. She Identified five photographs, Exhibits I to I-D where respondent Obusan A.M. No. 2697             April 19, 1991
appeared as the man wearing eyeglasses.
ATTY. JOSE S. SANTOS, complainant,
Respondent's defense was that his relationship with Natividad was terminated when he vs.
married Preciosa. He admitted that from time to time he went to 85-A Felix Manalo Street ATTY. CIPRIANO A. TAN, respondent.
but only for the purpose of giving financial assistance to his son, Jun-Jun. Lawyer Rogelio
Panotes, the ninong of Jun-Jun, corroborated respondent's testimony. RESOLUTION

He denied the testimonies of the maid, the laundress and the plumber. He claims that they
were paid witnesses. He declared that he did not live with Natividad. He resided with his
sister at Cypress Village, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City.

On the other hand, he claimed that he was constrained to leave the conjugal home because PER CURIAM:
he could not endure the nagging of his wife, their violent quarrels, her absences from the
conjugal home (she allegedly went to Baguio, Luneta and San Andres Street) and her Complainant Atty. Jose S. Santos instituted on November 20, 1984 these disbarment
interference with his professional obligations. proceedings against respondent Atty. Cipriano A. Tan for alleged gross misconduct.

The case was investigated by the Office of the Solicitor General. He filed a complaint for Specifically, the complainant who was then Acting Director of the Bureau of Agrarian
disbarment against the respondent. Obusan did not answer the complaint. He waived the Legal Assistance under the Ministry (now Department) of Agrarian Reform, charged the
presentation of additional evidence. His lawyer did not file any memorandum. respondent with having committed acts of immorality, falsification, and bigamy.

After an examination of the record, we find that the complainant has sustained the burden In the said complaint, Atty. Santos stated that the respondent, while employed as Trial
of proof. She has proven his abandonment of her and his adulterous relations with a Attorney IV, with the Judicial Cases Division under the aforesaid Department, maintained
married woman separated from her own husband. amorous relationship with a married clerk, a certain Norma O. Pihid (nee Olea), who was
then directly under him. Eventually, the respondent got married to Norma O. Pihid on April
Respondent was not able to overcome the evidence of his wife that he was guilty of grossly 27, 1981 before the Municipal Mayor of Meycauayan, Bulacan, purportedly in an attempt
immoral conduct. Abandoning one's wife and resuming carnal relations with a former to cover up their illicit relations.1
paramour, a married woman, fails within "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and The complainant, moreover, alleged that the respondent falsified his marriage contract with
respectable members of the community" (7 C.J.S. 959; Arciga vs. Maniwang Adm. Case Norma O. Pihid by deliberately misrepresenting himself as single, thus, deceiving the said
No. 1608, August 14, 1981, 106 SCRA 591). mayor into solemnizing the said marriage.2 In the information sheet, however, prepared and
filed by the respondent prior to his employment, he clearly stated therein that he was
Thus, a lawyer was disbarred when he abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with married to one Emilia Benito Tan and had begotten eight (8) children with the latter.3
another woman who had borne him a child. He failed to maintain the highest degree of
morality expected and required of a member of the bar (Toledo vs. Toledo, 117 Phil. 768). Consequently, the complainant likewise charged the respondent with bigamy since it
appears from the records of the Local Civil Registrar that he had previously contracted
WHEREFORE, respondent is disbarred. His name is stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. marriage with the said Emilia A. Benito on January 6, 1941. The complainant asserted that
the said marriage continued to be valid and binding between the said contracting parties
when the respondent entered into a subsequent manage with Norma O. Pihid on April 27,
SO ORDERED.1äwphï1.ñët 1981.4
Finally, the complainant averred that the respondent's second wife, Norma O. Pihid, gave x x x           x x x          x x x
birth to a child by the respondent on November 21, 1981 at the Children's Medical Center
in Quezon City, as evidenced by the birth certificate of the said child indicating his name to A thorough review of the record of the case duly heard before the Office of the
be Noel Olea Tan.5 Solicitor General in several protracted hearings, reveals the existence of a ground
for disbarment against respondent.
On January 9, 1985, the Court acting on the said complaint for disbarment required the
respondent to submit his Answer. Aside from claiming that the documents presented by complainant were allegedly
unauthenticated, hearsay, self-serving, and his defense of alibi at the time of the
The respondent in an Answer dated February 28, 1985, denied having married Norma O. marriage on April 27, 1981, respondent has miserably failed in refuting the same
Pihid on April 27, 1981 and having fathered a child by the name of Noel Olea Tan, and at the same time presenting strong evidence to convince the Solicitor General
although he admitted being married to Emilia A. Benito.6 of the falsity of the charges against him.

As regards the charges of bigamy and falsification of official documents, the respondent On April 27, 1981 respondent claims that he was attending a government case at
argued that the same were issues that were properly the subject of a criminal case filed by the then CFI of Caloocan City (Exh. 9-A, rec.) while his alleged second wife was
the complainant against him which was pending before the Regional Trial Court of at the Court of Appeals on official business (Exhs. 6 & 11 A, rec.).
Malolos, Bulacan, Branch VI, and therefore raised a prejudicial question in the present
controversy.7 There are serious doubts in entertaining the aforesaid defense.

Anent the charge of maintaining amorous relationship with Norma O. Pihid, the respondent A glance at the daily time records (Exhs. 9-A and 11-A, rec.) reveals that both
contended that the same charge had been previously resolved in an Order dated October 1, entries of respondent and Norma Olea were indicated on the line covering April
1982 issued by the Minister (now Secretary) of the Ministry (now Department) of Agrarian 26, 1981; secondly, penmanship of the alleged entries for April 27, 1981 are the
Reform. In the said order, the allegation of immorality which was originally the content of same; thirdly, the indicated time in's of respondent and Norma Olea were the
an anonymous letter-complaint was dismissed for being devoid of merit. same, i.e., 8:01 a.m.; fourthly, probability that they were together is high because
they were both out of the office.
The respondent, in turn, suggested that the real and actual motive behind the said complaint
was traceable to the strong resentment harbored by the complainant against the former Assuming, arguendo, respondent's alibi that they were married in Meycauayan,
whose services as Chief Trial Attorney of the said Ministry (now Department) was Bulacan, it was highly probable and possible for both to proceed to Meycauayan,
extended even beyond his retirement age at the request of the then Minister (now Bulacan on April 27, 1981 since the places where they were allegedly then is [sic]
Secretary) Conrado F. Estrella. The respondent contended that he and the complainant did not impossibly far from Meycauayan Bulacan.
not see eye to eye with respect to the handling and prosecution of agrarian cases. 8
Respondent even failed to specify the alleged government case he was attending at
By way of a counter-complaint, the respondent charged the complainant with acts the CFI of Caloocan either by mentioning the title of the case or by presenting
unbecoming of a lawyer and a member of the Philippine Bar such as obtaining and utilizing other evidence aside from his self-serving testimony.
confidential documents without the necessary authorization, introducing a falsified
document as evidence in a court proceeding, and executing an affidavit-complaint With respect to the Birth Certificate (Exh. A) of respondent's alleged son, the
containing false statements. The respondent further assailed the complainant for filing the former has not made a categorical denial that Noel Olea Tan is NOT his son. He
said complaint based on inadmissible and unfounded charges.9 only argues that the birth certificate is not authentic. Evidence for complainant,
however, shows that Exhibit A-5 was presented to show the authenticity of the
On March 25, 1985, the Court resolved to refer the said complaint to the Solicitor General Birth Certificate contrary to respondent's claim (pls. see Certification dated July
for investigation, report and recommendation. 24, 1985 found at the back of the Birth Certificate). Likewise, respondent has not
made any categorical denial of his amorous relationship with Norma Olea despite
The Report and Recommendation submitted by the Solicitor General on February 23, 1990, the existence of his first marriage with Emilia Benito Tan.
in part, states:
 For immorality to be a ground for disbarment, it must be so gross, e.g., it is so As regards the respondent's counter-complaint, the Solicitor General in compliance with
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as the Court's Resolution dated October 1, 1990, submitted his Supplemental Report and
to be reprehensible to a high degree (Reyes v. Wong, 63 SCRA 667 [1975]). Recommendation on November 22, 1990, and found that the charges against the
complainant for acts unbecoming a member of the Philippine Bar were all unsubstantiated.
The circumstances of the case definitely has put respondent's moral character in We agree with his findings and recommendation on this regard which state:
doubt despite non-conviction of the criminal case for bigamy against respondent.
The reputation of a lawyer must be such that he be of good moral character during No misconduct has been committed by Atty. Santos contrary to Atty. Tan's
the continuance of his practice and the exercise of the privilege. accusations which will warrant disciplinary action.1âwphi1 If at all, Atty. Tan's
charges were merely in defense of the charges against him (immorality) which the
The findings are clear and convincing that respondent entered into a second Solicitor General has found to be supported by the evidence. (cf.: Report and
marriage despite the existence of his first marriage and that he begot a child with Recommendation dated February 23, 1990, pp. 46-52, Records-Adm. Cases)
the second woman. Definitely, such factual findings have put serious doubt on
respondent's moral character. Respondent's main defense of alibi is rather too IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, it is respectfully
weak a reason that he did not engage in an immoral act. As earlier said, recommended that Atty. Tan's counter-complaint against Atty. Santos be
respondent has neither categorically denied that Norma Olea is his wife nor Noel DISMISSED for being unsubstantiated.11
Olea Tan is his son with Norma.
WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Cipriano A. Tan guilty of immoral conduct in
It appears, however, that respondent has retired from government service on disregard of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the
March 27, 1983. He was sixty-five (65) years old on September 16, 1982 (Exh. active practice of law for a period of one (1) year. The counter-complaint against
13, rec.), and therefore, e. the time of the rendition of this report, respondent is complainant Atty. Jose S. Santos is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
now seventy two (72) years old.
Let this Decision be spread upon the personal records of the respondent and copies thereof
Considering that respondent has retired and is in the twilight of his life, furnished to all courts.
disbarment would be too harsh a penalty to impose on respondent. Suspension
from the practice of law would be proper for humanitarian reasons if respondent is SO ORDERED.
still actively engaged in practice.
Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano,
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, it is respectfully Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Grino-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado and Davide,
recommended that respondent be adjudged guilty of immoral conduct, Jr., JJ., concur.
unbecoming of a lawyer, and accordingly impose the penalty of one (1) year
suspension from the active practice of law.10 A.M. No. 1608 August 14, 1981

We agree with the said findings of the Solicitor General including his favorable and MAGDALENA T. ARCIGA complainant,
compassionate consideration of the advanced age of the respondent. Specifically, Rule 1.01 vs.
of Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall not SEGUNDINO D. MANIWANG respondent.
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

Whatever the alleged motives of the complainant are, the respondent has failed to
controvert and refute the charges made by the former. Even granting arguendo that the
complainant was not well-motivated in instituting these disbarment proceedings, the same AQUINO, J.:
does not exculpate him from any liability resulting from his grossly immoral conduct.
Magdalena T. Arciga in her complaint of February 24, 1976 asked for the disbarment of
lawyer Segundino D. Maniwang (admitted to the Bar in 1975 ) on the ground of grossly
immoral conduct because he refused to fulfill his promise of marriage to her. Their illicit In December, 1975 she made another trip to Davao but failed to see Segundino who was
relationship resulted in the birth on September 4, 1973 of their child, Michael Dino then in Malaybalay, Bukidnon. She followed him there only to be told that their marriage
Maniwang. could not take place because he had married Erlinda Ang on November 25, 1975. She was
broken-hearted when she returned to Davao.
Magdalena and Segundino got acquainted sometime in October, 1970 at Cebu City.
Magdalena was then a medical technology student in the Cebu Institute of Medicine while Segundino followed her there and inflicted physical injuries upon her because she had a
Segundino was a law student in the San Jose Recoletos College. They became sweethearts confrontation with his wife, Erlinda Ang. She reported the assault to the commander of the
but when Magdalena refused to have a tryst with Segundino in a motel in January, 1971, Padada police station and secured medical treatment in a hospital (Exh. I and J).
Segundino stopped visiting her.
Segundino admits in his answer that he and Magdalena were lovers and that he is the father
Their paths crossed again during a Valentine's Day party in the following month. They of the child Michael. He also admits that he repeatedly promised to marry Magdalena and
renewed their relationship. After they had dinner one night in March, 1971 and finding that he breached that promise because of Magdalena's shady past. She had allegedly been
themselves alone (like Adam and Eve) in her boarding house since the other boarders had accused in court of oral defamation and had already an illegitimate child before Michael
gone on vacation, they had sexual congress. When Segundino asked Magdalena why she was born.
had refused his earlier proposal to have sexual intercourse with him, she jokingly said that
she was in love with another man and that she had a child with still another man. The Solicitor General recommends the dismissal of the case. In his opinion, respondent's
Segundino remarked that even if that be the case, he did not mind because he loved her cohabitation with the complainant and his reneging on his promise of marriage do not
very much. warrant his disbarment.

Thereafter, they had repeated acts of cohabitation. Segundino started telling his An applicant for admission to the bar should have good moral character. He is required to
acquaintances that he and Magdalena were secretly married. produce before this Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character and that no
charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court.
In 1972 Segundino transferred his residence to Padada, Davao del Sur. He continued his
law studies in Davao City. .Magdalena remained in Cebu. He sent to her letters and If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then the continued
telegrams professing his love for her (Exh. K to Z). 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
When Magdalena discovered in January, 1973 that she was pregnant, she and Segundino moral character (Royong vs. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865).
went to her hometown, Ivisan, Capiz, to apprise Magdalena's parents that they were
married although they were not really so. Segundino convinced Magdalena's father to have A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a
the church wedding deferred until after he had passed the bar examinations. He secured his crime involving moral turpitude". A member of the bar should have moral integrity in
birth certificate preparatory to applying for a marriage license. addition to professional probity.

Segundino continued sending letters to Magdalena wherein he expressed his love and It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is "grossly
concern for the baby in Magdalena's womb. He reassured her time and again that he would immoral conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer
marry her once he passed the bar examinations. He was not present when Magdalena gave unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be
birth to their child on September 4, 1973 in the Cebu Community Hospital. He went to unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that
Cebu in December, 1973 for the baptism of his child. warrants disbarment.

Segundino passed the bar examinations. The results were released on April 25, 1975. Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless,
Several days after his oath-taking, which Magdalena also attended, he stopped and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members
corresponding with Magdalena. Fearing that there was something amiss, Magdalena went of the community" (7 C.J.S. 959).
to Davao in July, 1975 to contact her lover. Segundino told her that they could not get
married for lack of money. She went back to Ivisan.
Where an unmarried female dwarf possessing the intellect of a child became pregnant by relationship after the latter's discovery of his perfidy are indicative of a character not
reason of intimacy with a married lawyer who was the father of six children, disbarment of worthy of a member of the bar (Bolivar vs. Simbol, 123 Phil. 450).
the attorney on the ground of immoral conduct was justified (In re Hicks 20 Pac. 2nd 896).
(5) Where Flora Quingwa, a public school teacher, who was engaged to lawyer Armando
There is an area where a lawyer's conduct may not be inconsonance with the canons of the Puno, was prevailed upon by him to have sexual congress with him inside a hotel by telling
moral code but he is not subject to disciplinary action because his misbehavior or deviation her that it was alright to have sexual intercourse because, anyway, they were going to get
from the path of rectitude is not glaringly scandalous. It is in connection with a lawyer's married. She used to give Puno money upon his request. After she became pregnant and
behavior to the opposite sex where the question of immorality usually arises. Whether a gave birth to a baby boy, Puno refused to marry her. (Quingwa vs. Puno, Administrative
lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage Case No. 389, February 28, 1967, 19 SCRA 439).
should be characterized as "grossly immoral conduct," will depend on the surrounding
circumstances. (6) Where lawyer Anacleto Aspiras, a married man, misrepresenting that he was single and
making a promise of marriage, succeeded in having sexual intercourse with. Josefina
This Court in a decision rendered in 1925, when old-fashioned morality still prevailed, Mortel. Aspiras faked a marriage between Josefina and his own son Cesar. Aspiras wrote to
observed that "the legislator well knows the frailty of the flesh and the ease with which a Josefina: "You are alone in my life till the end of my years in this world. I will bring you
man, whose sense of dignity, honor and morality is not well cultivated, falls into temptation along with me before the altar of matrimony." "Through thick and thin, for better or for
when alone with one of the fair sex toward whom he feels himself attracted. An occasion is worse, in life or in death, my Josephine you will always be the first, middle and the last in
so inducive to sin or crime that the saying "A fair booty makes many a thief" or "An open my life." (Mortel vs. Aspiras, 100 Phil. 586).
door may tempt a saint" has become general." (People vs. De la Cruz, 48 Phil. 533, 535).
(7) Where lawyer Ariston Oblena, who had been having adulterous relations for fifteen
Disbarment of a lawyer for grossly immoral conduct is illustrated in the following cases: years with Briccia Angeles, a married woman separated from her husband, seduced her
eighteen-year-old niece who became pregnant and begot a child. (Royong vs. Oblena, 117
(1) Where lawyer Arturo P. Lopez succeeded in having carnal knowledge of Virginia C. Phil. 865).
Almirez, under promise of marriage, which he refused to fulfill, although they had already
a marriage license and despite the birth of a child in consequence of their sexual The instant case can easily be differentiated from the foregoing cases. This case is similar
intercourse; he married another woman and during Virginia's pregnancy, Lopez urged her to the case of Soberano vs. Villanueva, 116 Phil. 1206, where lawyer Eugenio V.
to take pills to hasten the flow of her menstruation and he tried to convince her to have an Villanueva had sexual relations with Mercedes H. Soberano before his admission to the bar
abortion to which she did not agree. (Almirez vs. Lopez, Administrative Case No. 481, in 1954. They indulged in frequent sexual intercourse. She wrote to him in 1950 and 1951
February 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 169. See Sarmiento vs. Cui, 100 Phil. 1102). several letters making reference to their trysts in hotels.

(2) Where lawyer Francisco Agustin made Anita Cabrera believe that they were married On letter in 1951 contain expressions of such a highly sensual, tantalizing and vulgar
before Leoncio V. Aglubat in the City Hall of Manila, and, after such fake marriage, they nature as to render them unquotable and to impart the firm conviction that, because of the
cohabited and she later give birth to their child (Cabrera vs. Agustin, 106 Phil. 256). close intimacy between the complainant and the respondent, she felt no restraint
whatsoever in writing to him with impudicity.
(3) Where lawyer Jesus B. Toledo abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with another
women who had borne him a child (Toledo vs. Toledo, 117 Phil. 768. As to disbarment for According to the complainant, two children were born as a consequence of her long
contracting a bigamous marriage, see Villasanta vs. Peralta, 101 Phil. 313). intimacy with the respondent. In 1955, she filed a complaint for disbarment against
Villanueva.
(4) The conduct of Abelardo Simbol in making a dupe of Concepcion Bolivar by living on
her bounty and allowing her to spend for his schooling and other personal necessities, This Court found that respondent's refusal to marry the complainant was not so corrupt nor
while dangling before her the mirage of a marriage, marrying another girl as soon as he had unprincipled as to warrant disbarment. (See Montana vs. Ruado, Administrative Case No.
finished his studies, keeping his marriage a secret while continuing to demand money from 507, February 24, 1975, 62 SCRA 382; Reyes vs. Wong, Administrative Case No. 547,
the complainant, and trying to sponge on her and persuade her to resume their broken January 29, 1975, 63 SCRA 667, Viojan vs. Duran, 114 Phil. 322; Abaigar vs. Paz,
Administrative Case No. 997, September 10, 1979,93 SCRA 91).
Considering the facts of this case and the aforecited precedents, the complaint for the case for the purpose of reception of additional evidence before its Legal Officer-
disbarment against the respondent is hereby dismissed. Investigator.

SO ORDERED. Meanwhile, on September 7, 1979, the Court, speaking through Justice Felix Antonio,
severely REPRIMANDED respondent Dionisio Ramos, with warning that a repetition of
A.M. No. 1053 August 31, 1981 the same overt act may warrant his suspension or disbarment from the practice of
law. 4 The reprimand was administered because respondent used the name "Pedro Dionisio
SANTA PANGAN, complainant, Ramos" in connection with Criminal Case No. 35906. He averred that he had a right to do
vs. so because in his Birth Certificate his name is "Pedro Dionisio Ramos," and his parents are
ATTY. DIONISIO RAMOS, respondent. Pedro Ramos and Carmen Dayaw, and that the D.D. in "Pedro DD Ramos" is but an
abbreviation of "Dionisio Dayaw" his other given name and maternal surname. The Court
opined that respondent in effect resorted to deception. He demonstrated "lack of candor in
RE S O L U T I O N dealing with the courts."

  At the hearing of October 23, 1979, Solicitor Celia Reyes appeared submitting the decision
of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXI, in Criminal Case No. 15528,
DE CASTRO, J.: acquitting respondent of the charges of bigamy on grounds of insufficiency of evidence, for
having contracted the second marriage with the complainant.
On November 29, 1971, Santa Pangan filed before this Court a verified complaint charging
respondent Atty. Dionisio Ramos with gross immorality, the latter having misrepresented On January 15, 1980, the Legal Officer-Investigator submitted his report concurring in the
himself as still "single" when he started courting complainant, proposed marriage to her findings of the Solicitor General, although he recommended a penalty of a minimum five-
and finally succeeded in marrying her even with full consciousness that his first marriage to year suspension from the practice of law, with prospect for the imposition of a total
his first wife was still valid and subsisting. 1 (A Criminal Case for bigamy was also filed by disbarment from the practice of law, as the Court finds fit and appropriate. 5
the complainant against the respondent in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch
XXI, docketed as Criminal Case No. 15528). On February 27, 1981, counsel for complainant filed its motion to expedite disposition of
the case, further alleging that respondent Ramos is still using the name of Pedro Dionisio
In his answer to the complaint, respondent denied the material allegations thereof for being Ramos and PDD Ramos in two pleadings filed before the Court of First Instance of Manila,
without legal or factual basis. He prayed for the dismissal of the complaint for failure to disregarding the Resolution of this Court dated September 7, 1979. 6 Commenting,
state cause of action against respondent. 2 respondent admitted the allegations of complainant's counsel but alleged that he signed the
pleadings inadvertently because of poor eyesight.
The case was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for report, investigation and
recommendation. On June 1, 1976, the Solicitor General submitted his report finding The facts, as found by the Solicitor General who investigated the case, and the Legal
respondent Ramos guilty as charged, with a recommendation for suspension from the Officer-Investigator before whom the additional evidence was presented, are as follows:
practice of law for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to Section 7, Rule 138 of the Rules Respondent was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1964. He was legally married to and
of Court. 3 Subsequently, the corresponding complaint for his suspension from the practice living with Editha Encarnado the marriage with her having been celebrated on September
of law was filed. 4, 1963. Both complainant and respondent were officemates in the Office of Councilor Lito
Puyat, City Hall, Manila since 1967. With the convenience thus offered, respondent,
On September 13, 1976, respondent filed his answer to the complaint and moved for the representing himself to be "single," began courting complainant, proposed civil marriage to
appointment of a commissioner to hear and take additional evidence in his behalf, which, her to be later followed with a church celebration after which they will live together as
however, was denied by the Court per its Resolution of October 6, 1976. At the hearing of husband and wife. From January 1968 to February 1971, they had carnal knowledge of
February 25, 1977, respondent, acting as counsel for his own behalf, moved for the each other in various hotels in Manila, particularly the Golden Gate Motel and Salem
presentation of additional evidence, which was, however, opposed by complainant's Motel. Sometime in June 1970, complainant informed respondent that she was pregnant.
counsel on the ground that respondent is resorting to dilatory tactics. At the hearing of Whereupon, both agreed to get a quick marriage. Accordingly, complainant and respondent
September 2, 1977, complainant and respondent appeared and the Court set the hearing of filed their respective applications for a marriage license (Exhs. "H", "H-1" and "H-2") and
based thereon, they obtained a marriage license issued on June 16, 1970 (Exh. "D") and and existing, this Court held: "the act of respondent of contracting the second marriage
celebrated their marriage before Minister Isidro Dizon on June 18, 1970 (Exh. "B"). After (even his act in making love to another woman while his first wife is still alive and their
the marriage, complainant and respondent agreed to have a church marriage before they marriage still valid and existing) is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality.
live together as husband and wife, although they continued to have sexual trysts. Respondent made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect
Respondent was invited by complainant to meet the latter's mother to whom respondent and dignity."
expressed his desire to marry complainant, to which proposal complainant's mother agreed,
provided respondent bring his parents with him to ask for complainant's hand. Several It is of importance that members of the ancient and learned profession of law must conform
weeks had passed and respondent failed to bring his parents to complainant's home. with the highest standards of morality. As stated in paragraph 29 of the Canons of Judicial
Complainant and her mother became suspicious. They made inquiries about the personal Ethics: "The lawyer should aid in guarding the Bar against the admission to the profession
status of respondent and they ultimately discovered that respondent was already married to of candidates unfit or unqualified because deficient in either moral character or education.
one Editha Encarnado (Exhs. "C" and "E"). After discovering that respondent was a He should strive at all times to uphold the honor and to maintain the dignity of the
married man, complainant resigned from her job as receptionist from the office of profession and to improve not only the law but also the administration of justice." 8
Councilor Lito Puyat. She stopped having intimate relationship with respondent and
because of the humiliation and embarassment she suffered before her friends and Respondent, however, submits that having been acquitted by the Court of First Instance of
officemates, she filed the present disbarment case. Manila, Branch XXI, of the charge of bigamy, the immorality charges filed against him in
this disbarment case should be dismissed. The acquittal of respondent Ramos upon the
Upon the other-hand, respondent tried to prove, through his affidavit subscribed before criminal charge is not a bar to these proceedings. The standards of legal profession are not
Asst. City Fiscal Primitivo Peñaranda of Manila, that he never misrepresented himself to be satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties of the criminal law.
"single" and that complainant knew at the outset of his married status; that it was purely Moreover, this Court in disbarment proceedings is acting in an entirely different capacity
complainant's wish to carry on a love affair with him as described in his affidavit; that he from that which courts assume in trying criminal cases. 9
was threatened and forced to sign blank marriage contract forms and applications for
marriage license by the brothers of the complainant who are allegedly notorious police This Court has already severely reprimanded respondent from using a name other than
characters; that his signature in the marriage contract (Exh. "B") was forged and falsified; authorized name in the "Roll of Attorneys" and was warned that a repetition of the same
that the marriage contract was only celebrated as a cover-up of the pregnancy of the overt act may warrant his suspension of disbarment from office in the future.
complainant; and that the disbarment proceedings were initiated by complainant because he Notwithstanding such reprimand and warning, however, respondent repeated the same
refused to elope with complainant and abandon his wife Editha Encarnado and he stopped overt act of using an unauthorized name in two pleadings filed before the Court of First
giving her money and avoided seeing her again. Instance of Manila. His explanation that he had done so inadvertently because of poor
eyesight appears unsatisfactory. He should have employed more caution and prudence in
Upon a review of the record, We are convinced that respondent Dionisio Ramos is guilty of filing pleadings before courts considering the fact that he had already been warned and
grossly immoral conduct which warrants proper action from this Court. His own reprimanded by this Court. Respondent's conduct, thus, suggests lack of candor and respect
declarations in his affidavit corroborate this imputation of immorality. Thus, in his affidavit in his dealing with this Court. He has violated his oath of office of assuming the duty of
subscribed before Asst. Fiscal Primitive Peñaranda of Manila on Feb. 22, 1967, respondent good faith and honorable dealings with the court, of being respectful to it and of being
frankly admitted having carnal relations with complainant for several times. What is more, obedient to its rules and lawful orders.
respondent claimed that he was threatened and forced by complainant's brothers to
celebrate the marriage dated June 18, 1980, but in the same breath, he admitted having In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that respondent committed a grossly immoral
carnal affairs with complainant after the celebration of the marriage. Worse still, act, as found both by the Solicitor General and this Court's Legal Officer-Investigator, and
respondent misrepresented his civil status as "single", courted complainant, proposed as recommended by the Solicitor General, respondent is hereby suspended from the
marriage to her — knowing his legal impediments to marry complainant, respondent's practice of law for a period of three (3) years, for gross immorality, and an additional one
motives were clearly and grossly immoral — won her confidence and married her while his (1) year for his willful disregard of a lawful order against his using an unauthorized name,
first marriage to his present wife still validly subsists. in serious disrespect of this Court.

In Villasanta vs. Peralta, 7 where respondent was disbarred because he made love with SO ORDERED.
complainant, procured the preparation of a false marriage contract and arranged a false
wedding with complainant while his first wife was still alive and their marriage still valid
Barredo (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr. and Guerrero, * JJ., concur.
Abad Santos, J., is on leave. Complainant Rosario delos Reyes testified that:

  1) she was a second year medical student of the

Southwestern University, the Chairman of the Board of
A.M. No. 1334 November 28, 1989 which was respondent Jose B. Aznar (pp. 11, 15, tsn,
June 6, 1975);
ROSARIO DELOS REYES, complainant,
vs. 2) she however failed in her Pathology subject which
ATTY. JOSE B. AZNAR, respondent. prompted her to approach respondent in the latter's
house who assured her that she would pass the said
Federico A. Blay for complainant. subject (pp. 15,16, 26, 33, tsn, June 6, 1975);

Luciano Babiera for respondent. 3) despite this assurance, however, she failed (p. 33,
tsn, June 6, 1975);
RESOLUTION
4) sometime in February, 1973, respondent told her
that she should go with him to Manila, otherwise, she
would flunk in all her subjects (pp. 42, 50, tsn, June 6,
1975); ... ... ... ;
PER CURIAM:
5) on February 12, 1973, both respondent and
This is a complaint for disbarment filed against respondent on the ground of gross complainant boarded the same plane (Exh. "A") for
immorality. Manila; from the Manila Domestic Airport, they
proceeded to Room 905, 9th Floor of the Ambassador
Complainant, a second year medical student of the Southwestern University (Cebu), Hotel where they stayed for three days (Exhs. "K", "K-
alleged in her verified complaint that respondent Atty. Jose B. Aznar, then chairman of said 1" to "K-6"; p. 55, tsn, June 6, 1 975);
university, had carnal knowledge of her for several times under threat that she would fail in
her Pathology subject if she would not submit to respondent's lustful desires. Complainant 6) after arriving at the Ambassador Hotel, they dined at
further alleged that when she became pregnant, respondent, through a certain Dr. Gil a Spanish restaurant at San Marcelino, Malate, Manila
Ramas, had her undergo forced abortion. for around three hours (pp 56-57, tsn, June 6, 1975);

In compliance with the Resolution of the Court dated July 9, 1974, respondent filed his 7) they returned to the hotel at around twelve o'clock
Answer denying any personal knowledge of complainant as well as all the allegations midnight, where respondent had carnal knowledge of
contained in the complaint and by way of special defense, averred that complainant is a her twice and then thrice the next morning (p. 59, tsn,
woman of loose morality. June 6, 1975; pp. 154, 155 & 157, tsn, July 18, 1975);

On September 2, 1974, the Court Resolved to refer the case to the Solicitor General for 8) complainant consented to the sexual desires of
investigation, report and recommendation. respondent because for her, she would sacrifice her
personal honor rather than fail in her subjects (p.6l, tsn,
The findings of the Solicitor General is summarized as follows: June 6, 1975); ... ... ...;

EVIDENCE FOR THE COMPLAINANT 9) sometime in March, 1973, complainant told

respondent that she was suspecting pregnancy because
 she missed her menstruation (p. 76, tsn, July 17, 1975); 2. He usually slept with respondent everytime the latter
... ... ...; comes to Manila (p. 13, tsn, Nov. 24, 1977; Rollo, pp.
42-43).
10) later, she was informed by Dr. Monsanto (an
instructor in the college of medicine) that respondent Oscar Salangsang, another witness for the respondent stated that:
wanted that an abortion be performed upon her (p.82,
tsn, July l7, 1975); ... ... ... ; 1. In February, 1973, he went to Ambassador Hotel to
meet respondent; the latter had male companions at the
11) thereafter, Ruben Cruz, a confidant of respondent, hotel but he did not see any woman companion of
and Dr. Monsato fetched her at her boarding house on respondent Aznar;
the pretext that she would be examined by Dr. Gil
Ramas (pp. 87-88, tsn, July 17, 1975); 2. He usually slept with respondent at the Ambassador
Hotel and ate with him outside the hotel together with
12) upon reaching the clinic of Dr. Ramas she was Caban (pp. 8-9, 13-15, tsn, Jan. 13, 1978; Rollo, p. 43).
given an injection and an inhalation mask was placed
on her mouth and nose (pp. 88-90, tsn, July 17, 1 975); The Court notes that throughout the period of the investigation conducted by the Solicitor
General, respondent Aznar was never presented to refute the allegations made against him.
13) as a result, she lost consciousness and when she
woke up, an abortion had already been performed upon In his Answer, respondent Aznar alleges that he does not have any knowledge of the
her and she was weak, bleeding and felt pain all over allegations in the complaint. As special defense, respondent further alleged that the charge
her body (pp. 90-91, tsn, July 17, 1975); ... ... ... (Rollo, levelled against him is in furtherance of complainant's vow to wreck vengeance against
pp. 38-40) respondent by reason of the latter's approval of the recommendation of the Board of
Trustees barring complainant from enrollment for the school year 1973-1974 because she
Monica Gutierrez Tan testified that she met complainant and a man failed in most of her subjects. It is likewise contended that the defense did not bother to
whom complainant introduced as Atty. Aznar in front of the Ambassador present respondent in the investigation conducted by the Solicitor General because nothing
Hotel (pp. 183-184, tsn, Sept. 10, 1975; Rollo, p. 41). has been shown in the hearing to prove that respondent had carnal knowledge of the
complainant.
Dr. Rebecca Gucor and Dr. Artemio Ingco, witnesses for the complainant, testified that
abdominal examinations and x-ray examination of the lumbro-sacral region of complainant Contrary to respondent's averments, the Solicitor General made a categorical finding to the
showed no signs of abnormality (Rollo, p. 42). effect that respondent had carnal knowledge of complainant, to wit:

The evidence for the respondent as reported by the Solicitor General is summarized as From the foregoing, it is clear that complainant was compelled to go to
follows: Manila with respondent upon the threat of respondent that if she failed to
do so, she would flunk in all her subjects and she would never become a
Edilberto Caban testified that: medical intern (pp. 42, 50, tsn, June 6, 1975). As respondent was
Chairman of the College of Medicine, complainant had every reason to
1. In December, 1972, respondent Atty. Aznar stayed believe him.
at Ambassador Hotel with his wife and children;
respondent never came to Manila except in December, It has been established also that complainant was brought by respondent
1972; (pp. 8-9,. tsn, Nov. 24, 1977); to Ambassador Hotel in Manila for three days where he repeatedly had
carnal knowledge of her upon the threat that if she would not give in to
his lustful desires, she would fail in her Pathology subject (Exhs. "A",
"K", "K-1" to "K-6" pp. 51, 52, 55-59, tsn, June 6, 1975);
 xxx xxx xxx that date. While this is not a criminal proceeding, respondent would have done more than
keep his silence if he really felt unjustly traduced.
On the other hand, respondent did not bother to appear during the
hearing. It is true that he presented Edilberto Caban and Oscar It is the duty of a lawyer, whenever his moral character is put in issue, to satisfy this Court
Salangsang who testified that respondent usually slept with them every that he is a fit and proper person to enjoy continued membership in the Bar. He cannot
time the latter came to Manila, but their testimony (sic) is not much of dispense with nor downgrade the high and exacting moral standards of the law profession
help. None of them mentioned during the hearing that they stayed and (Go v. Candoy, 21 SCRA 439 [1967]). As once pronounced by the Court:
slept with respondent on February 12 to February 14, 1973 at
Ambassador Hotel. ... ... ... Besides, Edilberto Caban testified that When his integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not enough that he
respondent stayed at Ambassador Hotel with his wife and children in denies the charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the
December, 1972. The dates in question, however, are February 12 to 14, evidence for the relator (Legal and Judicial Ethics, by Malcolm, p. 93)
1973, inclusive. His (Caban's) testimony, therefore, is immaterial to the and show proofs that he still maintains the highest degree of morality and
present case" (Rollo, pp. 43-44). integrity, which at all times is expected of him. ... In the case of United
States v. Tria, 17 Phil. 303, Justice Moreland, speaking for the Court,
In effect, the Solicitor General found that the charge of immorality against respondent said:
Aznar has been substantiated by sufficient evidence both testimonial and documentary;
while finding insufficient and uncorroborated the accusation of intentional abortion. The An accused person sometimes owes a duty to himself if not to the State.
Solicitor General then recommends the suspension of respondent from the practice of law If he does not perform that duty, he may not always expect the State to
for a period of not less than three (3) years. perform it for him. If he fails to meet the obligation which he owes to
himself, when to meet it is the easiest of easy things, he is hardy indeed if
On March 16, 1989, the Court Resolved to require the parties to Move in the premises to he demand and expect that same full and wide consideration which the
determine whether any intervening event occurred which would render the case moot and State voluntarily gives to those who by reasonable effort seek to help
academic (Rollo, p. 69). themselves. This is particularly so when he not only declines to help
himself but actively conceals from the State the very means by which it
On April 12, 1989, the Solicitor General filed a manifestation and motion praying that the may assist him (Quingwa SCRA 439 [1967]).
case at bar be considered submitted for decision on the bases of the report and
recommendation previously submitted together with the record of the case and the evidence The Solicitor General recommends that since the complainant is partly to blame for having
adduced (Rollo, p. 75). gone with respondent to Manila knowing fully well that respondent is a married man ,with
children, respondent should merely be suspended from the practice of law for not less than
After a thorough review of the records, the Court agrees with the finding of the Solicitor three (3) years (Rollo, p. 47).
General that respondent Aznar, under the facts as stated in the Report of the investigation
conducted in the case, is guilty of "grossly immoral conduct" and may therefore be On the other hand, respondent in his manifestation and motion dated April 18, 1989 alleges
removed or suspended by the Supreme Court for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar that since a period of about ten (10) years had already elapsed from the time the Solicitor
(Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court). General made his recommendation for a three (3) years suspension and respondent is not
practicing his profession as a lawyer, the court may now consider the respondent as having
Respondent failed to adduce evidence sufficient to engender doubt as to his culpability of been suspended during the said period and the case dismissed for being moot and
the offense imputed upon him. With the exception of the self-serving testimonies of two academic.
witnesses presented on respondent's behalf, the records are bereft of evidence to exonerate
respondent of the act complained of, much less contradict, on material points, the We disagree.
testimonies of complainant herself.
Complainant filed the instant case for disbarment not because respondent reneged on a
While respondent denied having taken complainant to the Ambassador Hotel and there had promise to marry (Quingwa v. Puno, supra). More importantly. complainant's knowledge
sexual intercourse with the latter, he did not present any evidence to show where he was at of of respondent's marital status is not at issue in the case at bar. Complainant submitted to
respondent's solicitation for sexual intercourse not because of a desire for sexual In the present case, it was highly immoral of respondent, a married man with children, to
gratification but because of respondent's moral ascendancy over her and fear that if she have taken advantage of his position as chairman of the college of medicine in asking
would not accede, she would flunk in her subjects. As chairman of the college of medicine complainant, a student in said college, to go with him to Manila where he had carnal
where complainant was enrolled, the latter had every reason to believe that respondent knowledge of her under the threat that she would flunk in all her subjects in case she
could make good his threats. Moreover, as counsel for respondent would deem it refused.
"worthwhile to inform the the Court that the respondent is a scion of a rich family and a
very rich man in his own right and in fact is not practicing his profession before the court" WHEREFORE, respondent Jose B. Aznar is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered
(Rollo, p. 70), mere suspension for a limited period, per se, would therefore serve no stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.
redeeming purpose. The fact that he is a rich man and does not practice his profession as a
lawyer, does not render respondent a person of good moral character. Evidence of good SO ORDERED.
moral character precedes admission to bar (Sec.2, Rule 138, Rules of Court) and such
requirement is not dispensed with upon admission thereto. Good moral character is a
continuing qualification necessary to entitle one to continue in the practice of law. The Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Gancayco, Bidin, Sarmiento,
ancient and learned profession of law exacts from its members the highest standard of Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.
morality (Quingwa v. Puno, supra).
Fernan (C.J.), took no part.
Under Section 27, Rule 138, "(a) member of the bar may be removed or suspended from
his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross Melencio-Herrera, J., is on leave.
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before admission to practice, ... " In Arciga v. Maniwang (106 SCRA 591, [1981]),
this Court had occasion to define the concept of immoral conduct, as follows: 1. PCGG case 2. Cordova vs Cordova 179 scra 837 3. Obusan vs obusan 128 scra
485 4. Santos vs Tan 196 scra 16 5. Almirez vs Lopez 27 scra 169 6. Pangan vs
A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of Ramos 107 scra 1 7. De los Reyes vs Aznar 179 scra 653
his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. A member of the bar
should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity. 2. 65 scra 893

It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to 3. 62 scra 382
what is grossly immoral conduct or to specify the moral delinquency and
obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of
4. 106 scra 591
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. 5. 125 scra 466

Immoral conduct has been defined as 'that which is willful, flagrant, or 6. 75 scra 869
shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the
good and respectable members of the community' (7 C.J.S. 959).

Where an unmarried female dwarf possessing the intellect of a child

became pregnant by reason of intimacy with a married lawyer who was
the father of six children, disbarment of the attorney on the ground of
immoral conduct was justified (In re Hicks 20 Pac. 2nd 896).