never begot a child or children with her. Finally, respondent submits that all the
other allegations of Mrs. Narag are false and fabricated, x x x
xxxxxxxxx
III. Respondent never abandoned his family[.] Mrs. Narag and her two sons forcibly
drove respondent Narag out of the conjugal home. After that, Atty. Narag tried to
return to the conjugal home many times with the help of mutual friends to save the
marriage and the family from collapse. He tried several times to reconcile with Mrs.
Narag. In fact, in one of the hearings of the disbarment case, he offered to return
home and to reconcile with Mrs. Narag. But Mrs. Narag refused all these efforts of
respondent Narag. x x x
xxxxxxxxx
VI. Respondent Atty. Narag is now an old man - a senior citizen of 63 years - sickly,
abandoned, disgraced, weakened and debilitated by progressively degenerative
gout and arthritis, and hardly able to earn his own keep. His very physical, medical,
psychological, and economic conditions render him unfit and unable to do the things
attributed to him by the complainant. Please see the attached medical certificates,
x x x, among many other similar certificates touching on the same ailments.
Respondent is also suffering from hypertension.[23]
On July 18, 1997, the investigating officer submitted his report,[24] recommending
the indefinite suspension of Atty. Narag from the practice of law. The material
portions of said report read as follows:
b) Whether the denial under oath that his illegitimate children with Gina Espita
(Aurelle Dominic and Kyle Dominador) as appearing on paragraph 1(g) of
respondents Comment vis-a-vis his handwritten love letters, the due execution and
contents of which, although he objected to their admissibility for being allegedly
forgeries, were never denied by him on the witness stand much less presented and
offered proof to support otherwise.
Viewed from all the evidence presented, we find the respondent subject to
disciplinary action as a member of the legal profession.[25]
In its Resolution[26] issued on August 23, 1997, the IBP adopted and approved the
investigating commissioners recommendation for the indefinite suspension of the
respondent.[27] Subsequently, the complainant sought the disbarment of her
husband in a Manifestation/Comment she filed on October 20, 1997. The IBP
granted this stiffer penalty and, in its Resolution dated November 30, 1997, denied
respondents Motion for Reconsideration.
After a careful scrutiny of the records of the proceedings and the evidence
presented by the parties, we find that the conduct of respondent warrants the
imposition of the penalty of disbarment.
Rule 1.01-- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
CANON 7-- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03-- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Thus, good moral character is not only a condition precedent[28] to the practice of
law, but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar. Hence, when a lawyer
is found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.[29]
Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or
shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members
of the community.[30] Furthermore, such conduct must not only be immoral, but
grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree[31] or committed under such
We explained in Barrientos vs. Daarol[33] that, as officers of the court, lawyers must
not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good
moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of
the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not
only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses
but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the
belief that he is flouting those moral standards.
Respondent Narag is accused of gross immorality for abandoning his family in order
to live with Gina Espita. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the
Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if she establishes her case by clear,
convincing and satisfactory evidence.[34]
A Yes, sir.
ATTY. NARAG:
A Because he is the live-in partner of my sister and that they are now living
together as husband and wife and that they already have two children, Aurelle
Dominic and Kyle Dominador.
x x x x x x x x x [43]
Q Mr. Espita, you claim that Atty. Narag is now living with your sister as husband
and wife. You claim that?
A Yes, sir.
A Because at present you are living together as husband and wife and you have
already two children and I know that that is really an immoral act which you cannot
just allow me to follow since my moral values dont allow me that my sister is living
with a married man like you.
Q How do you know that Atty. Narag is living with your sister? Did you see them in
the house?
A Yes, si[r].
xxxxxxxxx
Q You said also that Atty. Narag and your sister have two children, Aurelle Dominic
and Kyle Dominador, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q How do you know that they are the children of Atty. Narag?
A Because you are staying together in that house and you have left your family.[44]
In addition, Charlie Espita admitted (1) that it was he who handed to Mrs. Narag the
love letters respondent had sent to his sister, and (2) that Atty. Narag tried to
dissuade him from appearing at the disbarment proceedings.[45]
xxxxxxxxx
Q And you specifically, categorically state under oath that this is the residence of
Atty. Narag?
A Yes, sir.
xxxxxxxxx
Q And under oath this is where Atty. Narag and Gina Espita are allegedly living as
husband and wife, is it not?
A Yes, sir.[46]
Witness Nieves Reyes, a neighbor and friend of the estranged couple, testified that
she learned from the Narag children -- Randy, Bong and Rowena -- that their father
left his family, that she and her husband prodded the complainant to accept the
respondent back, that the Narag couple again separated when the respondent went
back to his woman, and that Atty. Narag had maltreated his wife.[47]
On the strength of the testimony of her witnesses, the complainant was able to
establish that respondent abandoned his family and lived with another woman.
Absent any evidence showing that these witnesses had an ill motive to testify
falsely against the respondent, their testimonies are deemed worthy of belief.
Further, the complainant presented as evidence the love letters that respondent
had sent to Gina. In these letters, respondent clearly manifested his love for Gina
and her two children, whom he acknowledged as his own. In addition, complainant
also submitted as evidence the cards that she herself had received from him.
Guided by the rule that handwriting may be proved through a comparison of one set
While the burden of proof is upon the complainant, respondent has the duty not
only to himself but also to the court to show that he is morally fit to remain a
member of the bar. Mere denial does not suffice. Thus, when his moral character is
assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherished profession is
imperiled, he must meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to the
satisfaction of the investigating body and this Court, that he is morally fit to have
his name in the Roll of Attorneys.[49] This he failed to do.
Respondent adamantly denies abandoning his family to live with Gina Espita. At the
same time, he depicts his wife as a violent husband-beater, vitriolic and unbending,
and as an insanely and pathologically jealous woman, whose only obsession was to
destroy, destroy and destroy him as shown by her filing of a series of allegedly
unfounded charges against him (and Gina Espita). To prove his allegation, he
presented ninety-eight (98) pieces of documentary evidence[50] and ten (10)
witnesses.[51]
We note, however, that the testimonies of the witnesses of respondent did not
establish the fact that he maintained that moral integrity required by the profession
that would render him fit to continue practicing law. Neither did their testimonies
destroy the fact, as proven by the complainant, that he had abandoned his family
and lived with Gina Espita, with whom he had two children. Some of them testified
on matters which they had no actual knowledge of, but merely relied on information
from either respondent himself or other people, while others were presented to
impeach the good character of his wife.
Respondent may have provided well for his family -- they enjoyed a comfortable life
and his children finished their education. He may have also established himself as a
successful lawyer and a seasoned politician. But these accomplishments are not
sufficient to show his moral fitness to continue being a member of the noble
profession of law.
We remind respondent that parents have not only rights but also duties e.g., to
support, educate and instruct their children according to right precepts and good
example; and to give them love, companionship and understanding, as well as
moral and spiritual guidance.[52] As a husband, he is also obliged to live with his
wife; to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity; and to render help and support.
[53]
Respondent himself admitted that his work required him to be often away from
home. But the evidence shows that he was away not only because of his work;
instead, he abandoned his family to live with his paramour, who bore him two
children. It would appear, then, that he was hardly in a position to be a good
husband or a good father. His children, who grew up mostly under the care of their
mother, must have scarcely felt the warmth of their fathers love.
Respondents son, Jervis B. Narag, showed his resentment towards his fathers moral
frailties in his testimony:
Q My question is this, is there any sin so grievous that it cannot be forgiven, is there
a fault that is so serious that it is incapable of forgiveness?
A That depends upon the sin or fault, sir, but if the sin or fault is with the emotional
part of myself, I suppose I cannot forgive a person although I am a God-fearing
person, but I h[av]e to give the person a lesson in order for him or her to at least
realize his mistakes, sir.
xxxxxxxxx
COMR. JOSE:
I think it sounds like this. Assuming for the sake of argument that your father is the
worst, hardened criminal on earth, would you send him to jail and have him
disbarred? That is the question.
CONTINUATION.
A With the reputation that he had removed from us, I suppose he has to be given a
lesson. At this point in time, I might just forgive him if he will have to experience all
the pains that we have also suffered for quite sometime.
Q Dr. Narag, your father gave you life, his blood runs in your veins, his flesh is your
flesh, his bones are your bones and you now disown him because he is the worst
man on earth, is that what you are saying.
Q You are now telling that as far [as] you are concerned because your father has
sinned, you have no more father, am I correct?
A Long before, sir, I did not feel much from my father even when I was still a kid
because my father is not always staying with us at home. So, how can you say that?
Yes, he gave me life, why not? But for sure, sir, you did not give me love.[54]
Another son, Dominador Narag, Jr., narrated before the investigating officer the
trauma he went through:
Q In connection with that affidavit, Mr. Witness, which contains the fact that your
father is maintaining a paramour, could you please tell this Honorable Commission
the effect on you?
A This has a very strong effect on me and this includes my brothers and sisters,
especially my married life, sir. And it also affected my children so much, that I and
my wife ha[ve] parted ways. It hurts to say that I and my wife parted ways. This is
one reason that affected us.
Q Will you please tell us specifically why you and your wife parted ways?
A Because my wife wa[s] ashamed of what happened to my family and that she
could not face the people, our community, especially because my wife belongs to a
well-known family in our community.
Q How about the effect on your brothers and sisters? Please tell us what are those.
A Well, sir, this has also affected the health of my elder sister because she knows so
well that my mother suffered so much and she kept on thinking about my mother.
xxxxxxxxx
A The truth is because of the things that had happened in our family, Your Honor.
A What I meant by that is my father had an illicit relationship and that my father
went to the extent of scolding my wife and calling my wife a puta in provincial
government, which my mother-in-law hated him so much for this, which really
affected us. And then my wife knew for a fact that my father has an illicit
relationship with Gina Espita, whom he bore two children by the name of Aurelle
Dominic and Kyle Dominador, which I could prove and I stand firm to this, Your
Honor.[55]
Although respondent piously claims adherence to the sanctity of marriage, his acts
prove otherwise. A husband is not merely a man who has contracted marriage.
Rather, he is a partner who has solemnly sworn to love and respect his wife and
remain faithful to her until death.
We reiterate our ruling in Cordova vs. Cordova[56] The moral delinquency that
affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as 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 of marriage.
In Toledo vs. Toledo,[57] the respondent was disbarred from the practice of law,
when he abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with another woman who had
borne him a child.
Likewise, in Obusan vs. Obusan,[58] the respondent was disbarred after the
complainant proved that he had abandoned her and maintained an adulterous
relationship with a married woman. This Court declared that respondent failed to
maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a member of the
bar.
In the present case, the complainant was able to establish, by clear and convincing
evidence, that respondent had breached the high and exacting moral standards set
for members of the law profession. As held in Maligsa vs. Cabanting,[59] a lawyer
may be disbarred for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and
good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
SO ORDERED.