11/16/2015

A.C. No. 7136

TodayisMonday,November16,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
A.C.No.7136August1,2007
JOSELANOGUEVARRA,complainant,
vs.
ATTY.JOSEEMMANUELEALA,respondent.
DECISION
PERCURIAM:
JoselanoGuevarra(complainant)filedonMarch4,2002aComplaintforDisbarment1beforetheIntegratedBarof
the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala
(respondent)for"grosslyimmoralconductandunmitigatedviolationofthelawyer'soath."
Inhiscomplaint,Guevarragavethefollowingaccount:
He first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainant's) thenfiancee Irene Moje (Irene) introduced
respondenttohimasherfriendwhowasmarriedtoMarianne(sometimesspelled"MaryAnn")Tantocowithwhom
hehadthreechildren.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, complainant noticed that from January to March 2001, Irene had
beenreceivingfromrespondentcellphonecalls,aswellasmessagessomeofwhichread"Iloveyou,""Imissyou,"
or"MeetyouatMegamall."
ComplainantalsonoticedthatIrenehabituallywenthomeverylateatnightorearlyinthemorningofthefollowing
day,andsometimesdidnotgohomefromwork.Whenheaskedaboutherwhereabouts,sherepliedthatsheslept
atherparents'houseinBinangonan,Rizalorshewasbusywithherwork.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and respondent together on two occasions. On the second
occasion,heconfrontedthemfollowingwhichIreneabandonedtheconjugalhouse.
OnApril22,2001,complainantwentuninvitedtoIrene'sbirthdaycelebrationatwhichhesawherandrespondent
celebratingwithherfamilyandfriends.Outofembarrassment,angerandhumiliation,heleftthevenueimmediately.
Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all her personal belongings, pieces of
furniture,andhershareofthehouseholdappliances.
Complainantlaterfound,inthemaster'sbedroom,afoldedsocialcardbearingthewords"ILoveYou"onitsface,
whichcardwhenunfoldedcontainedahandwrittenletterdatedOctober7,2000,thedayofhisweddingtoIrene,
reading:
MyeverdearestIrene,
Bythetimeyouopenthis,you'llbemomentsawayfromwalkingdowntheaisle.Iwillsayaprayerforyouthat
youmayfindmeaninginwhatyou'reabouttodo.
SometimesIwonderwhyweevermet.Isitonlyformetofindfleetinghappinessbutexperienceeternalpain?
Isitonlyforustofindatruelovebutthenloseitagain?Orisitbecausethere'sabiggerplanforthetwoof
us?
Ihopethatyouhaveexperiencedtruehappinesswithme.Ihavedoneeverythinghumanlypossibletolove
you.Andtoday,asyoumakeyourvows...ImakemyownvowtoYOU!
Iwillloveyoufortherestofmylife.IlovedyoufromthefirsttimeIlaideyesonyou,tothetimewespent
together,uptothefinalmomentsofyoursinglelife.Butmoreimportantly,Iwillloveyouuntilthelifeinmeis
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/ac_7136_2007.html

1/9

11/16/2015

A.C. No. 7136

goneanduntilwearetogetheragain.
Donotworryaboutme!Iwillbehappyforyou.Ihaveenoughmemoriesofustolastmealifetime.Always
rememberthoughthatinmyheart,inmymindandinmysoul,YOUWILLALWAYS
...ANDTHEWONDERFULTHINGSYOUDO!
BEMINE....ANDMINEALONE,andIWILLALWAYSBEYOURSANDYOURSALONE!
ILOVEYOUFOREVER,ILOVEYOUFORALWAYS.ASLONGASI'MLIVINGMYTWEETIEYOU'LLBE!"2
Eternallyyours,
NOLI
Complainant soon saw respondent's car and that of Irene constantly parked at No. 71B 11thStreet,NewManila
where,ashewastolaterlearnsometimeinApril2001,Irenewasalreadyresiding.Healsolearnedstilllaterthat
when his friends saw Irene on or about January 18, 2002 together with respondent during a concert, she was
pregnant.
In his ANSWER,3 respondent admitted having sent the I LOVE YOU card on which the abovequoted letter was
handwritten.
Onparagraph14oftheCOMPLAINTreading:
14.RespondentandIrenewereevenFLAUNTINGTHEIRADULTEROUSRELATIONSHIPastheyattended
socialfunctionstogether.Forinstance,inoraboutthethirdweekofSeptember2001,thecoupleattendedthe
launchofthe"WineAllYouCan"promotionofFrenchwines,heldattheMegaStripofSMMegamallBat
MandaluyongCity.TheirattendancewasreportedinSectionBoftheManilaStandardissueof24September
2001, on page 21. Respondent and Irene were photographed together their picture was captioned: "Irene
withSportscasterNoliEala."AphotocopyofthereportisattachedasAnnexC.4(Italicsandemphasisin
theoriginalCAPITALIZATIONofthephrase"flauntingtheiradulterousrelationship"supplied),
respondent,inhisANSWER,stated:
4.Respondentspecificallydenieshaving ever flaunted an adulterous relationship with Irene as alleged in
paragraph 14 of the Complaint, the truth of the matter being that their relationship was low profile and
knownonlytotheimmediatemembersoftheirrespectivefamilies,andthatRespondent,asfarasthe
generalpublicwasconcerned,wasstillknowntobelegallymarriedtoMaryAnneTantoco.5(Emphasisand
underscoringsupplied)
Onparagraph15oftheCOMPLAINTreading:
15.Respondent'sadulterousconductwiththecomplainant'swifeandhisapparentabandoningorneglecting
ofhisownfamily,demonstratehisgrossmoraldepravity,makinghimmorallyunfittokeephismembershipin
the bar. He flaunted his aversion to the institution of marriage, calling it a "piece of paper." Morally
reprehensiblewashiswritingthelovelettertocomplainant'sbrideontheverydayofherwedding,vowingto
continuehisloveforher"untilwearetogetheragain,"asnowtheyare.6(Underscoringsupplied),
respondentstatedinhisANSWERasfollows:
5.Respondentspecificallydeniestheallegationsinparagraph15oftheComplaintregardinghisadulterous
relationship and that his acts demonstrate gross moral depravity thereby making him unfit to keep his
membership in the bar, the reason being that Respondent's relationship with Irene was not under
scandalouscircumstancesandthatasfarashisrelationshipwithhisownfamily:
5.1Respondenthasmaintainedacivil,cordialandpeacefulrelationshipwith[hiswife]MaryAnneasinfact
they still occasionally meet in public, even if Mary Anne is aware of Respondent's special friendship with
Irene.
xxxx
5.5 Respondent also denies that he has flaunted his aversion to the institution of marriage by calling the
institutionofmarriageamerepieceofpaperbecausehisreference[inhisabovequotedhandwrittenletterto
Irene] to the marriage between Complainant and Irene as a piece of paper was merely with respect to the
formalityofthemarriagecontract.7(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/ac_7136_2007.html

2/9

11/16/2015

A.C. No. 7136

Respondentadmitted8paragraph18oftheCOMPLAINTreading:
18. The Rules of Court requires lawyers to support the Constitution and obey the laws. The Constitution
regardsmarriageasaninviolablesocialinstitutionandisthefoundationofthefamily(ArticleXV,Sec.2).9
Andonparagraph19oftheCOMPLAINTreading:
19.Respondent'sgrosslyimmoralconductruns afoul of the Constitution and the laws he, as a lawyer,
hasbeensworntouphold.Inpursuingobsessivelyhisillicitloveforthecomplainant'swife,hemockedthe
institutionofmarriage,betrayedhisownfamily,brokeupthecomplainant'smarriage,commitsadulterywith
hiswife,anddegradesthelegalprofession.10(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied),
respondent,inhisANSWER,stated:
7. Respondent specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of the Complaint, the reason being that
underthecircumstancestheactsofRespondentwithrespecttohispurelypersonalandlowprofilespecial
relationshipwithIreneisneitherunderscandalouscircumstancesnortantamounttogrosslyimmoral
conduct as would be a ground for disbarment pursuant to Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.11
(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
Torespondent'sANSWER,complainantfiledaREPLY,12allegingthatIrenegavebirthtoagirlandIrenenamed
respondentintheCertificateofLiveBirthasthegirl'sfather.ComplainantattachedtotheReply,asAnnex"A,"a
copyofaCertificateofLiveBirth13bearingIrene'ssignatureandnamingrespondentasthefatherofherdaughter
SamanthaIreneLouiseMojewhowasbornonFebruary14,2002atSt.Luke'sHospital.
Complainant's REPLY merited a REJOINDER WITH MOTION TO DISMISS14 dated January 10, 2003 from
respondent in which he denied having "personal knowledge of the Certificate of Live Birth attached to the
complainant'sReply."15 Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint due to the pendency of a civil case filed by
complainantfortheannulmentofhismarriagetoIrene,andacriminalcomplaintforadulteryagainstrespondentand
IrenewhichwaspendingbeforetheQuezonCityProsecutor'sOffice.
DuringtheinvestigationbeforetheIBPCBD,complainant'sComplaintAffidavitandReplytoAnswerwereadopted
ashistestimonyondirectexamination.16Respondent'scounseldidnotcrossexaminecomplainant.17
After investigation, IBPCBD Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, in a 12page REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION18datedOctober26,2004,foundthechargeagainstrespondentsufficientlyproven.
TheCommissionerthusrecommended19 that respondent be disbarred for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the
CodeofProfessionalResponsibilityreading:
Rule 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Underscoring
supplied),
andRule7.03ofCanon7ofthesameCodereading:
Rule7.03:Alawyershallnotengageinconductthatadverselyreflectsonhisfitnesstopracticelaw,norshall
he,whetherinpublicorprivatelife,behaveinascandalousmannertothediscreditofthelegalprofession.
(Underscoringsupplied)
The IBP Board of Governors, however, annulled and set aside the Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissionerandaccordinglydismissedthecaseforlackofmerit,byResolutiondatedJanuary28,2006briefly
reading:
RESOLUTIONNO.XVII200606
CBDCaseNo.02936
JoselanoC.Guevarravs.
Atty.JoseEmmanuelM.Eala
a.k.a.NoliEala
RESOLVEDtoANNULandSETASIDE,asitisherebyANNULLEDANDSETASIDE,theRecommendation
oftheInvestigatingCommissioner,andtoAPPROVEtheDISMISSALoftheaboveentitledcaseforlackof
merit.20(Italicsandemphasisintheoriginal)
Hence,thepresentpetition21ofcomplainantbeforethisCourt,filedpursuanttoSection12(c),Rule13922 of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/ac_7136_2007.html

3/9

11/16/2015

A.C. No. 7136

RulesofCourt.
Thepetitionisimpressedwithmerit.
Oddlyenough,theIBPBoardofGovernors,insettingasidetheRecommendationoftheInvestigatingCommissioner
anddismissingthecaseforlackofmerit,gavenoreasonthereforasitsabovequoted33wordResolutionshows.
Respondentcontends,inhisComment23onthepresentpetitionofcomplainant,thatthereisnoevidenceagainst
him.24Thecontentionfails.AstheIBPCBDInvestigatingCommissionerobserved:
WhileitmaybetruethattheloveletterdatedOctober7,2000(Exh."C")andthenewsitempublishedinthe
ManilaStandard(Exh."D"),eventakentogetherdonotsufficientlyprovethatrespondentiscarryingonan
adulterousrelationshipwithcomplainant'swife,thereareotherpiecesofevidenceonrecordwhichsupport
theaccusationofcomplainantagainstrespondent.
It should be noted that in his Answer dated 17 October 2002, respondent through counsel made the
following statements to wit: "Respondent specifically denies having [ever] flaunted an adulterous
relationshipwithIreneasallegedinparagraph[14]oftheComplaint,thetruthofthematterbeing[that]their
relationship was low profile and known only to immediate members of their respective families . . . , and
Respondentspecificallydeniestheallegationsinparagraph19ofthecomplaint,thereasonbeingthatunder
thecircumstancestheactsoftherespondentswithrespecttohispurelypersonalandlowprofilerelationship
withIreneisneitherunderscandalouscircumstancesnortantamounttogrosslyimmoralconduct..."
These statements of respondent in his Answer are an admission that there is indeed a "special"
relationshipbetweenhimandcomplainant'swife,Irene,[which]takentogetherwiththeCertificateof
Live Birth of Samantha Louise Irene Moje (Annex "H1") sufficiently provethattherewasindeedan
illicitrelationshipbetweenrespondentandIrenewhichresultedinthebirthofthechild"Samantha".Inthe
Certificate of Live Birth of Samantha it should be noted that complainant's wife Irene supplied the
informationthatrespondentwasthefatherofthechild.Giventhefactthattherespondentadmittedhis
special relationship with Irene there is no reason to believe that Irene would lie or make any
misrepresentationregardingthepaternityofthechild.Itshouldbeunderscoredthatrespondenthasnot
categoricallydeniedthatheisthefatherofSamanthaLouiseIreneMoje.25(Emphasisandunderscoring
supplied)
Indeed, from respondent's Answer, he does not deny carrying on an adulterous relationship with Irene, "adultery"
beingdefinedunderArt.333oftheRevisedPenalCodeasthat"committedbyanymarriedwomanwhoshallhave
sexualintercoursewithamannotherhusbandandbythemanwhohascarnalknowledgeofher,knowinghertobe
married,evenifthemarriagebesubsequentlydeclaredvoid."26(Italicssupplied)Whatrespondentdeniesishaving
flauntedsuchrelationship,hemaintainingthatitwas"lowprofileandknownonlytotheimmediatemembersoftheir
respectivefamilies."
Inotherwords,respondent'sdenialisanegativepregnant,
a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not
squarely denied. It was in effect an admission of the averments it was directed at. Stated otherwise, a
negativepregnantisaformofnegativeexpressionwhichcarrieswithitinaffirmationoratleastanimplication
ofsomekindfavorabletotheadverseparty.Itisadenialpregnantwithanadmissionofthesubstantialfacts
allegedinthepleading.Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of the
allegationassoqualifiedormodifiedareliterallydenied,ithasbeenheldthatthequalifyingcircumstances
alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted.27 (Citations omitted emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
Anegativepregnanttooisrespondent'sdenialofhaving"personalknowledge"ofIrene'sdaughterSamanthaLouise
IreneMoje'sCertificateofLiveBirth.Insaidcertificate,Irenenamedrespondenta"lawyer,"38yearsoldasthe
child'sfather.Andthephrase"NOTMARRIED"isenteredonthedesiredinformationon"DATEANDPLACEOF
MARRIAGE."AcomparisonofthesignatureattributedtoIreneinthecertificate28withhersignatureontheMarriage
Certificate29showsthattheywereaffixedbyoneandthesameperson.Notatudignumisthat,astheInvestigating
Commissionernoted,respondentneverdeniedbeingthefatherofthechild.
FranklinA.Ricafort,therecordscustodianofSt.Luke'sMedicalCenter,inhisJanuary29,2003Affidavit30whichhe
identifiedatthewitnessstand,declaredthatIrenegavetheinformationintheCertificateofLiveBirththatthechild's
fatheris"JoseEmmanuelMasacaetEala,"whowas38yearsoldandalawyer.31
Withoutdoubt,theadulterousrelationshipbetweenrespondentandIrenehasbeensufficientlyprovenbymorethan
clearlypreponderantevidence that evidence adduced by one party which is more conclusive and credible than
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/ac_7136_2007.html

4/9

11/16/2015

A.C. No. 7136

that of the other party and, therefore, has greater weight than the other32 which is the quantum of evidence
neededinanadministrativecaseagainstalawyer.
Administrativecasesagainstlawyersbelongtoaclassoftheirown.Theyaredistinctfromandtheymayproceed
independentlyofcivilandcriminalcases.
...ofproofforthesetypesofcasesdiffer.Inacriminalcase,proofbeyondreasonabledoubtisnecessaryin
an administrative case for disbarment or suspension, "clearly preponderant evidence" is all that is
required.33(Emphasissupplied)
Respondent insists, however, that disbarment does not lie because his relationship with Irene was not, under
Section27ofRule138oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,reading:
SEC.27.DisbarmentorsuspensionofattorneysbySupremeCourt,groundstherefor.Amemberofthebar
maybedisbarredorsuspendedfromhisofficeasattorneybytheSupremeCourtforanydeceit,malpractice,
orothergrossmisconductinsuchoffice,grosslyimmoralconduct,orbyreasonofhisconvictionofacrime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice,orforawillfuldisobedienceappearingasanattorneyforapartytoacasewithoutauthoritysotodo.
The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers,constitutesmalpractice.
ThedisbarmentorsuspensionofamemberofthePhilippineBarbyacompetentcourtorotherdisciplinatory
agencyinaforeignjurisdictionwherehehasalsobeenadmittedasanattorneyisagroundforhisdisbarment
orsuspensionifthebasisofsuchactionincludesanyoftheactshereinaboveenumerated.
Thejudgment,resolutionororderoftheforeigncourtordisciplinaryagencyshallbeprimafacieevidenceof
thegroundfordisbarmentorsuspension(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied),
underscandalouscircumstances.34
TheimmediatelyquotedRulewhichprovidesthegroundsfordisbarmentorsuspensionusesthephrase"grossly
immoralconduct,"not"underscandalouscircumstances."Sexualintercourseunderscandalouscircumstancesis,
followingArticle334oftheRevisedPenalCodereading:
ART. 334. Concubinage. Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or, shall have
sexualintercourse,underscandalouscircumstances,withawomanwhoisnothiswife,orshallcohabitwith
herinanyotherplace,shallbepunishedbyprisioncorreccionalinitsminimumandmediumperiods.
xxxx,
anelementofthecrimeofconcubinagewhenamarriedmanhassexualintercoursewithawomanelsewhere.
"Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be
characterizedas'grosslyimmoralconduct'dependsonthesurroundingcircumstances."35Thecaseatbarinvolves
arelationshipbetweenamarriedlawyerandamarriedwomanwhoisnothiswife.Itisimmaterialwhethertheaffair
wascarriedoutdiscreetly.AproposisthefollowingpronouncementofthisCourtinVitugv.Rongcal:36
Onthechargeofimmorality,respondentdoesnotdenythathehadanextramaritalaffairwithcomplainant,
albeit brief and discreet, and which act is not "so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipledastobereprehensibletoahighdegree"inordertomeritdisciplinarysanction.Wedisagree.
xxxx
While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between two unmarried
adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to
betrayalsofthemaritalvowoffidelity.Evenifnotallformsofextramaritalrelationsarepunishableunder
penallaw,sexualrelationsoutsidemarriageisconsidereddisgracefulandimmoralasitmanifestsdeliberate
disregardofthesanctityofmarriageandthemaritalvowsprotectedbytheConstitutionandaffirmedby
ourlaws.37(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
AndsoisthepronouncementinTucayv.Atty.Tucay:38
The Court need not delve into the question of whether or not the respondent did contract a bigamous
marriage . . . It is enough that the records of this administrative case substantiate the findings of the
Investigating Commissioner, as well as the IBP Board of Governors, i.e., that indeed respondent has been
carrying on an illicit affair with a married woman, a grossly immoral conduct and indicative of an
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/ac_7136_2007.html

5/9

11/16/2015

A.C. No. 7136

extremelylowregardforthefundamentalethicsofhisprofession.Thisdetestablebehaviorrendershim
regrettably unfit and undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges which his license confers
uponhim.39(Underscoringsupplied)
Respondentinfactalsoviolatedthelawyer'soathhetookbeforeadmissiontopracticelawwhichgoes:
I_________,havingbeenpermittedtocontinueinthepracticeoflawinthePhilippines,dosolemnlyswear
that I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines I will support its Constitution and
obeythelawsaswellasthelegalordersofthedulyconstitutedauthoritiesthereinIwilldonofalsehood,nor
consent to the doing of any in court I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawfulsuit,norgiveaidnorconsenttothesameIwilldelaynomanformoneyormalice,andwillconduct
myselfasalawyeraccordingtothebestofmyknowledgeanddiscretionwithallgoodfidelityaswellastothe
courtsastomyclientsandIimposeuponmyselfthisvoluntaryobligationwithoutanymentalreservationor
purposeofevasion.SohelpmeGod.(Underscoringsupplied)
RespondentadmittedlyisawareofSection2ofArticleXV(TheFamily)oftheConstitutionreading:
Section2.Marriage,asaninviolablesocialinstitution,isthefoundationofthefamilyandshallbeprotectedby
theState.
Inthisconnection,theFamilyCode(ExecutiveOrderNo.209),whichechoesthisconstitutionalprovision,obligates
the husband and the wife "to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and
support."40
Furthermore,respondentviolatedRule1.01ofCanon1oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitywhichproscribes
a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct," and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the
same Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practicelaw."
Clutchingatstraws,respondent,duringthependencyoftheinvestigationofthecasebeforetheIBPCommissioner,
filed a Manifestation41 on March 22, 2005 informing the IBPCBD that complainant's petition for nullity of his
(complainant's)marriagetoIrenehadbeengrantedbyBranch106oftheQuezonCityRegionalTrialCourt,andthat
thecriminalcomplaintforadulterycomplainantfiledagainstrespondentandIrene"basedonthesamesetoffacts
alleged in the instant case," which was pending review before the Department of Justice (DOJ), on petition of
complainant,hadbeen,onmotionofcomplainant,withdrawn.
The Secretary of Justice's Resolution of January 16, 2004 granting complainant's Motion to Withdraw Petition for
Reviewreads:
Considering that the instant motion was filed before the final resolution of the petition for review, we are
inclinedtograntthesamepursuanttoSection10ofDepartmentCircularNo.70datedJuly3,2000,which
providesthat"notwithstandingtheperfectionoftheappeal,thepetitionermaywithdrawthesameatanytime
beforeitisfinallyresolved,inwhichcasetheappealedresolutionshallstandasthoughnoappealhas
beentaken."42(Emphasissuppliedbycomplainant)
ThatthemarriagebetweencomplainantandIrenewassubsequentlydeclaredvoidabinitioisimmaterial.Theacts
complained of took place before the marriage was declared null and void.43 As a lawyer, respondent should be
awarethatamanandawomandeportingthemselvesashusbandandwifearepresumed,unlessprovenotherwise,
to have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.44 In carrying on an extramarital affair with Irene prior to the
judicial declaration that her marriage with complainant was null and void, and despite respondent himself being
married, he showed disrespect for an institution held sacred by the law. And he betrayed his unfitness to be a
lawyer.
Asforcomplainant'swithdrawalofhispetitionforreviewbeforetheDOJ,respondentglaringlyomittedtostatethat
beforecomplainantfiledhisDecember23,2003MotiontoWithdrawhisPetitionforReview,theDOJhadalready
promulgatedaResolutiononSeptember22,2003reversingthedismissalbytheQuezonCityProsecutor'sOffice
of complainant's complaint for adultery. In reversing the City Prosecutor's Resolution, DOJ Secretary Simeon
Datumanongheld:
Parenthetically the totality of evidence adduced by complainant would, in the fair estimation of the
Department,sufficientlyestablishalltheelementsoftheoffenseofadulteryonthepartofbothrespondents.
Indeed,earlyon,respondentMojeconcededtocomplainantthatshewasgoingoutondateswithrespondent
Eala,andthisshedidwhencomplainantconfrontedheraboutEala'sfrequentphonecallsandtextmessages
to her. Complainant also personally witnessed Moje and Eala having a rendezvous on two occasions.
RespondentEalaneverdeniedthefactthatheknewMojetobemarriedtocomplainant[.]Infact,he(Eala)
himselfwasmarriedtoanotherwoman.Moreover,Moje'seventualabandonmentoftheirconjugalhome,after
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/ac_7136_2007.html

6/9

11/16/2015

A.C. No. 7136

complainanthadoncemoreconfrontedheraboutEala,onlyservedtoconfirmtheillicitrelationshipinvolving
both respondents. This becomes all the more apparent by Moje's subsequent relocation in No. 71B, 11th
Street, New Manila, Quezon City, which was a few blocks away from the church where she had exchange
maritalvowswithcomplainant.
Itwasinthisplacethatthetwoloversapparentlycohabited.EspeciallysinceEala'svehicleandthatofMoje's
werealwaysseenthere.MojeherselfadmitsthatshecametoliveinthesaidaddresswhereasEalaasserts
thatthatwaswhereheheldoffice.ThehappenstancethatitwasinthatsaidaddressthatEalaandMojehad
decidedtoholdofficeforthefirmthatbothhadformedsmackstoomuchofacoincidence.Forone,thesaid
addressappearstobearesidentialhouse,forthatwaswhereMojestayedallthroughoutafterherseparation
fromcomplainant.Itwasbothrespondent'slovenest,toputshorttheirillicitaffairthatwascarriedoutthere
bore fruit a few months later when Moje gave birth to a girl at the nearby hospital of St. Luke's Medical
Center.Whatfinallymilitatesagainsttherespondentsistheindubitablefactthatinthecertificateofbirthof
the girl, Moje furnished the information that Eala was the father. This speaks all too eloquently of the
unlawfulanddamningnatureoftheadulterousactsoftherespondents.Complainant'ssupposedillegal
procurement of the birth certificate is most certainly beside the point for both respondents Eala and Moje
havenotdenied,inanycategoricalmanner,thatEalaisthefatherofthechildSamanthaIreneLouise
Moje.45(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
ItbearsemphasisthatadulteryisaprivateoffensewhichcannotbeprosecuteddeoficioandthusleavestheDOJ
no choice but to grant complainant's motion to withdraw his petition for review. But even if respondent and Irene
weretobeacquittedofadulteryaftertrial,iftheInformationforadulterywerefiledincourt,thesamewouldnothave
beenabartothepresentadministrativecomplaint.
CitingtherulinginPanganv.Ramos,46viz:
x x x The acquittal of respondent Ramos [of] the criminal charge is not a bar to these [administrative]
proceedings. The standards of legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to
escape the penalties of x x x criminal law. Moreover, this Court, in disbarment proceedings is acting in an
entirelydifferentcapacityfromthatwhichcourtsassumeintryingcriminalcase47(Italicsintheoriginal),
thisCourtinGatchalianPromotionsTalentsPools,Inc.v.Atty.Naldoza,48held:
Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may
proceedindependentlyofcivilandcriminalcases.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.ResolutionNo.XVII200606passedonJanuary28,2006bytheBoardof
GovernorsoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesisANNULLEDandSETASIDE.
Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of
office,andviolationofCanon1,Rule1.01andCanon7,Rule7.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
LetacopyofthisDecision,whichisimmediatelyexecutory,bemadepartoftherecordsofrespondentintheOffice
oftheBarConfidant,SupremeCourtofthePhilippines.AndletcopiesoftheDecisionbefurnishedtheIntegrated
BarofthePhilippinesandcirculatedtoallcourts.
ThisDecisiontakeseffectimmediately.
SOORDERED.
Puno,ChiefJustice,Quisumbing,YnaresSantiago,SandovalGutierrez,Carpio,AustriaMartinez,Corona,Carpio
Morales,Azcuna,Tinga,ChicoNazario,Garcia,Velasco,Jr.,Nachura,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1Rollo,pp.18.
2Id.at23Exhibit"C,"p.10.
3Id.at3135.
4Id.at6.
5Id.at32.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/ac_7136_2007.html

7/9

11/16/2015

A.C. No. 7136

6Id.at6.
7Id.at3233.
8Id.at31.
9Id.at7.
10Ibid.
11Id.at33.
12Id.at3742Exhibit"E."
13Id.at43Exhibit"F."
14Id.at7176.
15Id.at71.
16Id.at199200TSN,February21,2003,pp.4142.
17Id.at200TSN,February21,2003,p.42.
18Id.at333344.
19Rollo,pp.340344.
20Id.at332.
21Id.at345354.
22RulesofCourt,Rule139B,Section12(c):

IftherespondentisexoneratedbytheBoardorthedisciplinarysanctionimposedbyitislessthan
suspensionordisbarment(suchasadmonition,reprimand,orfine)itshallissueadecisionexonerating
respondentorimposingsuchsanction.Thecaseshallbedeemedterminatedunlessuponpetitionofthe
complainantorotherinterestedpartyfiledwiththeSupremeCourtwithinfifteen(15)daysfromnoticeofthe
Board'sresolution,theSupremeCourtordersotherwise.
23Rollopp.429445.
24Id.at434440.
25Id.at342343.
26RevisedPenalCode,Article333.
27Republicv.Sandiganbayan,453Phil.1059,1107(2003).
28Id.at43Exhibits"F"and"F3"TSN,December2,2003,pp.226227.
29Id.at9Exhibit"B."
30Id.at63.
31Id.at63,215219TSN,December2,2003,pp.1214,videp.43.
32HabagatGrillv.DMCUrbanPropertyDeveloper,Inc.,G.R.No.155110,March31,2003,454SCRA653,

664665,citingMunicipalityofMoncadav.Cajuigan,21Phil.184(1912)StrongholdInsuranceCompany,
Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,173SCRA619,May29,1989MetroManilaTransitCorp.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.
No.104408,June21,1993,223SCRA521,534.
33GatchalianPromotionsTalentsPool,Inc.v.Naldoza,374Phil.1,910(1999).
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/ac_7136_2007.html

8/9

11/16/2015

A.C. No. 7136

34Viderollo,p.443.
35Arcigav.Maniwang,193Phil.731,735736(1981).
36A.C.No.6313,September7,2006,501SCRA166.
37Id.at177178.
38376Phil.336(1999).
39Id.at340.
40Article68.
41Rollo,pp.233246.
42Id.at455456.
43Id.at18,277283.
44RulesofCourt,Rule131,Section3(aa)Sevillav.Cardenas,G.R.No.167684,July31,2006,497SCRA

428,443445.
45Rollo,pp.481482.
46107SCRA1(1981).
47Id.at67.
48374Phil.1,9(1999).
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/ac_7136_2007.html

9/9