Scribd
Upload
50 views

Royong v. Oblena Report

1) Josefina Royong filed a complaint against attorney Ariston Oblena for rape. An investigation found that Oblena took advantage of his legal knowledge to have illicit relations with Royong and had continuously cohabited with a married woman. 2) The issue is whether Oblena's illicit relations and open cohabitation are grounds for disbarment. 3) The court held that Oblena's moral depravity as shown by his actions and admission of illicit relations revealed he lacked the moral integrity expected of an attorney. Oblena did not possess good moral character when he applied to the bar and was disbarred.

Uploaded by

JESSIE JAMES YAPAO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
50 views

Royong v. Oblena Report

1) Josefina Royong filed a complaint against attorney Ariston Oblena for rape. An investigation found that Oblena took advantage of his legal knowledge to have illicit relations with Royong and had continuously cohabited with a married woman. 2) The issue is whether Oblena's illicit relations and open cohabitation are grounds for disbarment. 3) The court held that Oblena's moral depravity as shown by his actions and admission of illicit relations revealed he lacked the moral integrity expected of an attorney. Oblena did not possess good moral character when he applied to the bar and was disbarred.

Uploaded by

JESSIE JAMES YAPAO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

JESSIE JAMES O.

YAPAO LEGAL ETHICS


JD-IA

JOSEFINA ROYONG, complainant, vs. ATTY. ARISTON OBLENA, respondent


A.C. No. 376, April 30, 1963

FACTS
In a verified complaint filed with this Court on January 14, 1959, complainant
Josefina Royong charged the respondent Ariston J. Oblena, a member of the
Philippine Bar, with rape allegedly committed on her person in the manner
described therein. Upon requirement of this Court, the respondent filed his answer
denying all the allegations in the complaint and praying that he be not disbarred.
On February 3, 1959, this Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for
investigation, report and recommendation.
After hearing, the investigators submitted a report with the finding that: 1)
Respondent used his knowledge of the law to take advantage by having illicit
relations with complainant, knowing as he did, that by committing immoral acts on
her, he was free from any criminal liability; and 2) Respondent committed gross
immorality by continuously cohabiting with a married woman even after he became
a lawyer in 1955 to the present; and 3) That respondent falsified the truth as to his
moral character in his petition to take the 1954 bar examinations, being then
immorally (adulterously) in cohabitation with his common-law wife, Briccia Angeles,
a married woman. The investigators also recommended that the respondent be
disbarred or alternatively, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of
one year.

ISSUE:
Whether or not illicit relations with the complainant Josefina Royong the and
the open cohabitation with Briccia Angeles, a married woman, are sufficient
grounds to cause the respondent's disbarment.

HELD:
YES. The tendency of the decisions of this Court has been toward the
conclusion that a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from office as
a lawyer for other than statutory grounds. Indeed, the rule is so phrased as to be
broad enough to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer (In Re Pelaez, 44
Phil. 567). In the case at bar, the moral depravity of the respondent is most
apparent. His pretension that before complainant completed her eighteenth
birthday, he refrained from having sexual intercourse with her, so as not to incur
criminal liability, as he himself declared — and that he limited himself merely to
kissing and embracing her and sucking her tongue, indicates a scheming mind,
which together with his knowledge of the law, he took advantage of, for his lurid
purpose.
JESSIE JAMES O. YAPAO LEGAL ETHICS
JD-IA

Furthermore, the blunt admission of his illicit relations with the complainant
reveals the respondent to be a person who would suffer no moral compunction for
his acts if the same could be done without fear of criminal liability. He has, by
these acts, proven himself to be devoid of the moral integrity expected of a
member of the bar.
Respondent, therefore, did not possess a good moral character at the time
he applied for admission to the bar.

You might also like