In a letter-complaint to this Court dated February 8, Please note that while Atty. Llamas
1997, complainant Soliman M. Santos, Jr., himself a indicates "IBP Rizal 259060"
member of the bar, alleged that: sometimes, he does not indicate any
PTR for payment of professional tax.
On my oath as an attorney, I wish to
bring to your attention and appropriate Under the Rules, particularly Rule 138,
sanction the matter of Atty. Francisco R. Sections 27 and 28, suspension of an
Llamas who, for a number of years attorney may be done not only by the
now, has not indicated the proper PTR Supreme Court but also by the Court of
and IBP O.R. Nos. and data (date & Appeals or a Regional Trial Court (thus,
place of issuance) in his pleadings. If at we are also copy furnishing some of
all, he only indicates "IBP Rizal 259060" these courts).
but he has been using this for at least
three years already, as shown by the Finally, it is relevant to note the track
following attached sample pleadings in record of Atty. Francisco R. Llamas, as
various courts in 1995, 1996 and 1997: shown by:
(originals available)
1........his dismissal as Pasay City Judge
per Supreme Court Admin. Matter No.
1037-CJ En Banc Decision on October
Anne "Ex-Parte Manifestation and Submission"
28,dated
1981December
( in SCRA )1,
x 1995 in Civil Case No. Q-95-25253, RTC, Br. 224, QC
A......
2........his conviction for estafa per
.-
Decision dated June 30, 1994 in Crim.
Case No. 11787, RTC Br. 66, Makati, MM
(see attached copy of the Order dated
February 14, 1995 denying the motion
Anne "Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation Motion"for reconsideration
dated November 13, of the conviction
x which
1996 in Sp. Proc. No. 95-030, RTC Br. 259 ( is purportedly on appeal in the
B...... MM Court of Appeals).
.-
Attached to the letter-complaint were the pleadings
dated December 1, 1995, November 13, 1996, and
January 17, 1997 referred to by complainant, bearing,
at the end thereof, what appears to be respondents
Anne "An Urgent and Respectful Plea for extension of Time to File
signature above his name, address and the receipt
x Required Comment and Opposition" dated January [1] 17, 1997 in
number "IBP Rizal 259060." Also attached was a copy
C...... CA-G.R. SP (not Civil Case) No. 42286, CA 6th Div.
of the order, dated February 14, 1995, issued by
[2]
.-
Judge Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 66, Makati, denying respondents motion for
reconsideration of his conviction, in Criminal Case No.
11787, for violation of Art. 316, par. 2 of the Revised
This matter is being brought in the Penal Code.
context of Rule 138, Section 1 which
qualifies that only a duly admitted
member of the bar "who is in good and On April 18, 1997, complainant filed a
regular standing, is entitled to practice certification[3] dated March 18, 1997, by the then
law". There is also Rule 139-A, Section president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Atty.
10 which provides that "default in the Ida R. Macalinao-Javier, that respondents "last payment
of his IBP dues was in 1991. Since then he has not paid Moreover, and more than anything
or remitted any amount to cover his membership fees else, respondent being a Senior Citizen
up to the present." since 1992, is legally exempt under
Section 4 of Rep. Act 7432 which took
On July 7, 1997, respondent was required to comment effect in 1992, in the payment of taxes,
on the complaint within ten days from receipt of notice, income taxes as an example. Being
after which the case was referred to the IBP for thus exempt, he honestly believe in
investigation, report and recommendation. In his view of his detachment from a total
comment-memorandum,[4] dated June 3, 1998, practice of law, but only in a limited
respondent alleged:[5] practice, the subsequent payment by
him of dues with the Integrated Bar is
covered by such exemption. In fact, he
3. That with respect to the never exercised his rights as an IBP
complainants absurd claim that for member to vote and be voted upon.
using in 1995, 1996 and 1997 the
same O.R. No. 259060 of the Rizal IBP,
respondent is automatically no longer a Nonetheless, if despite such honest
member in good standing. belief of being covered by the
exemption and if only to show that he
never in any manner wilfully and
Precisely, as cited under the context of deliberately failed and refused
Rule 138, only an admitted member of compliance with such dues, he is
the bar who is in good standing is willing at any time to fulfill and pay all
entitled to practice law. past dues even with interests, charges
and surcharges and penalties. He is
The complainants basis in claiming that ready to tender such fulfillment or
the undersigned was no longer in good payment, not for allegedly saving his
standing, were as above cited, the skin as again irrelevantly and
October 28, 1981 Supreme Court frustratingly insinuated for vindictive
decision of dismissal and the February purposes by the complainant, but as an
14, 1995 conviction for Violation of honest act of accepting reality if indeed
Article 316 RPC, concealment of it is reality for him to pay such dues
encumbrances. Chief despite his candor and honest belief in
all food faith, to the contrary. Esmsc
As above pointed out also, the
Supreme Court dismissal decision was On December 4, 1998, the IBP Board of Governors
set aside and reversed and respondent passed a resolution[6] adopting and approving the
was even promoted from City Judge of report and recommendation of the Investigating
Pasay City to Regional Trial Court Judge Commissioner which found respondent guilty, and
of Makati, Br. 150. recommended his suspension from the practice of law
for three months and until he pays his IBP dues.
Also as pointed out, the February 14, Respondent moved for a reconsideration of the
1995 decision in Crim. Case No. 11787 decision, but this was denied by the IBP in a resolution,
was appealed to the Court of Appeals
[7]
dated April 22, 1999. Hence, pursuant to Rule 139-B,
and is still pending. 12(b) of the Rules of Court, this case is here for final
action on the decision of the IBP ordering respondents
suspension for three months.
Complainant need not even file this
complaint if indeed the decision of
dismissal as a Judge was never set The findings of IBP Commissioner Alfredo Sanz are as
aside and reversed, and also had the follows:
decision of conviction for a light felony,
been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, Complainant has
Undersigned himself would surrender shown "respondents non-indication of
his right or privilege to practice law. the proper IBP O.R. and PTR numbers in
his pleadings (Annexes "A", "B" and "C"
4. That complainant capitalizes on the of the letter complaint, more
fact that respondent had been particularly his use of "IBP Rizal 259060
delinquent in his dues. for at least three years."
Undersigned since 1992 have publicly The records also show a "Certification
made it clear per his Income Tax dated March 24, 1997 from IBP Rizal
Return, up to the present, that he had Chapter President Ida R. Makahinud
only a limited practice of law. In fact, in Javier that respondents last payment of
his Income Tax Return, his principal his IBP dues was in 1991."
occupation is a farmer of which he is.
His 30 hectares orchard and pineapple While these allegations are neither
farm is located at Calauan, Laguna. denied nor categorically admitted by
respondent, he has invoked and cited warrant suspension of membership in
that "being a Senior Citizen since 1992, the Integrated Bar, and default in such
he is legally exempt under Section 4 of payment for one year shall be a ground
Republic Act No. 7432 which took effect for the removal of the name of the
in 1992 in the payment of taxes, delinquent member from the Roll of
income taxes as an example." Attorneys.
BENGZON, C.J.:
EN BANC
RESOLUTION
FRANCISCO, J.:
4 As a Christian, he has forgiven the petitioner and his ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby resolved to allow
co-defendants in the criminal case for the death of his petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr., to take the lawyers
son. But as a loving father, who lost a son in whom he oath and to sign the Roll of Attorneys on a date to be
has a high hope to become a good lawyer to succeed set by the Court, subject to the payment of appropriate
him, he still feels the pain of his untimely demise, and fees. Let this resolution be attached to petitioners
the stigma of the gruesome manner of taking his life. personal records in the Office of the Bar Confidant.
This he cannot forget.
SO ORDERED.
5 He is not, right now, in a position to say whether
petitioner, since then has become morally fit for
admission to the noble profession of the law. He Republic of the Philippines
politely submits this matter to the sound and judicious SUPREME COURT
discretion of the Hon. Court. [3] Manila
Without passing judgment on the correctness Finally, it is opportune to remind Atty. Ferrer and all
or incorrectness of the disposition of the members of the bar of the following norms under the
Honorable Commission on Bar Discipline, Code of Professional Responsibility:
herein respondent most humbly and
respectfully begs the compassion of the xxxx
Honorable Court and states that the gravity of
the penalty imposed and meted out, depriving Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in
herein respondent to earn a modest living for a unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
period of six (6) months, will further cause conduct.
extreme hardship to his family of ten (10)
children.13
xxxx
We referred the motion to the Office of the Bar
Confidant for evaluation. Upon finding that Atty. Ferrer Canon 7 - A lawyer shall at all times
lacked the degree of morality required of a member of uphold the integrity and dignity of the
the bar for his illicit affair with Ms. Samaniego, with legal profession and support the activities
whom he sired a child while he was lawfully married of the integrated bar.
and with 10 children, the Office of the Bar Confidant
recommended that we affirm Resolution No. XVII-2005- xxxx
138 and deny the prayer for reduced penalty.14
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or
private life, behave in a scandalous manner to
the discredit of the legal profession.
xxxx
SO ORDERED.
EN BANC
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: Although respondent in his answer denied abandoning
complainant and their children and offered an
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in explanation as to the cause of his and his wifes
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or separation, he opted not to take the witness stand and
deceitful conduct: be cross- examined on his sworn answer. Neither did he
bother to call and present his alleged paramour,
CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times Benita, who could have had disproved an existing
uphold the integrity and dignity of the adulterous relationship between them, or, at least,
legal profession and support the confirm his protestation about the paternity of her four
activities of the Integrated Bar. children. Significantly, Benitas husband, no less, risked
personal ridicule by testifying on the illicit liaison
Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in between his wife and respondent.
conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor should he, The fact that respondents philandering ways are far
whether in public or private life, removed from the exercise of his profession would not
behave in a scandalous manner to the save the day for him. For a lawyer may be suspended
discredit of the legal profession. or disbarred for any misconduct which, albeit unrelated
to the actual practice of his profession, would show him
to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges
As this Court often reminds members of the bar, the with which his license and the law invest him. [8] To
requirement of good moral character is of much borrow from Orbe v. Adaza, [t]he grounds expressed in
greater import, as far as the general public is Section 27, Rule 138,[9] of the Rules of Court are not
concerned, than the possession of legal learning. Good limitative and are broad enough to cover any
moral character is not only a condition precedent for misconduct x x x of a lawyer in his professional or
admission to the legal profession, but it must also private capacity.[10] To reiterate, possession of good
remain intact in order to maintain ones good standing moral character is not only a condition precedent to
in that exclusive and honored fraternity. Good moral the practice of law, but a continuing qualification for all
character is more than just the absence of bad members of the bar.
character. Such character expresses itself in the will to
do the unpleasant thing if it is right and the resolve not While the onus rests on the complainant proffering the
to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. This must be so charges to prove the same, respondent owes himself
because vast interests are committed to his care; he is and the Court the duty to show that he is morally fit to
the recipient of unbounded trust and confidence; he remain a member of the bar. Mere denial of
deals with his clients property, reputation, his life, his wrongdoing would not suffice in the face of clear
all.[5] evidence demonstrating unfitness.
Immoral conduct has been described as that conduct When ones moral character is assailed, such that his
which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show right to continue practicing his cherished profession is
indifference to the opinion of good and respectable imperiled, it behooves the individual concerned to
members of the community. To be the basis of meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to
disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be the satisfaction of the investigating body and this
immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so Court, that he is morally fit to keep his name in the Roll
corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act or so of Attorneys.[11] Respondent has not discharged the
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or burden in this regard. Although duly notified, he never
committed under such scandalous or revolting attended the hearings to rebut the serious charges
circumstances as to shock the common sense of brought against him, irresistibly suggesting that the
decency.[6] charges are true.
As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact Undoubtedly, respondents act of leaving his wife and
be of good moral character but must also be seen to be 12 children to cohabit and have children with another
of good moral character and leading lives in woman constitutes grossly immoral conduct. And to
accordance with the highest moral standards of the add insult to injury, there seems to be little attempt on
community.[7] A member of the bar and an officer of the the part of respondent to be discreet about his liaison
court is not only required to refrain from adulterous with the other woman.
relationships or keeping a mistress but must also so
behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by As we have already ruled, disbarment is warranted
creating the impression that he is flouting those moral against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife to
standards. maintain an illicit relationship with another woman who
had borne him a child. [12] In the instant case,
A review of the records readily reveals that despite the respondents grossly immoral conduct compels the
protracted delay in the hearings mainly caused by Court to wield its power to disbar. The penalty is most
respondents failure to appear, complainant relentlessly appropriate under the premises.
pursued this administrative case against her
husband. She was, to be sure, able to establish by WHEREFORE, Atty. Ponciano P. Arnobit is
clear, convincing, and preponderant evidence his hereby DISBARRED. Let a copy of this Decision be
entered into the records of respondent in the Office of ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY LABORATORY
the Bar Confidant and his name stricken from the Roll HIGH SCHOOL (SLU-LHS) FACULTY and
of Attorneys. Likewise, copies of this Decision shall be STAFF,
furnished the IBP and circulated by the Court Complainant,
Administrator to all appellate and trial courts.
- versus -
This Decision takes effect immediately.
ATTY. ROLANDO C. DELA CRUZ,
SO ORDERED. Respondent.
EN BANC
x----------------------------------------
----------x
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
1) Gross Misconduct:
From the records of the case, it appears that there is a
pending criminal case for child abuse allegedly
committed by him against a high school student filed
before the Prosecutors Office of Baguio City; a pending
administrative case filed by the Teachers, Staff,
Students and Parents before an Investigating Board
created by SLU for his alleged unprofessional and
unethical acts of misappropriating money supposedly
for the teachers; and the pending labor case filed by
SLU-LHS Faculty before the NLRC, Cordillera
Administrative Region, on alleged illegal deduction of
salary by respondent.
The issue to be resolved in this case is: whether It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere
respondent committed acts that are grossly immoral or unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality. The
which constitute serious moral depravity that would legal profession exacts from its members nothing less.
warrant his disbarment or suspension from the practice Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of
of law. the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of
malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the
court demand no less than the highest degree of
Simple as the facts of the case may be, the manner by morality.8 We explained in Barrientos v. Daarol9 that,
which we deal with respondents actuations shall have "as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact
a rippling effect on how the standard norms of our legal be of good moral character but must also be seen to be
practitioners should be defined. Perhaps morality in our of good moral character and leading lives in
liberal society today is a far cry from what it used to accordance with the highest moral standards of the
be. This permissiveness notwithstanding, lawyers, as community."
keepers of public faith, are burdened with a high
degree of social responsibility and, hence, must handle
their personal affairs with greater caution. Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of
morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also
throughout their legal career, in order to maintain their
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity.
They may be suspended from the practice of law or
CANON I x x x disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his
private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting
Rule 1.01-- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, in moral character, honesty, probity or good
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. demeanor.10
CANON 7-- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the In Bar Matter No. 1154,11 good moral character was
integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support defined as what a person really is, as distinguished
the activities of the Integrated Bar. from good reputation, or from the opinion generally
entertained of him, or the estimate in which he is held
by the public in the place where he is known. Moral
xxxx character is not a subjective term but one which
corresponds to objective reality.
It should be noted that the requirement of good moral February 10 iyan.
character has four ostensible purposes, namely: (1) to
protect the public; (2) to protect the public image of xxxx
lawyers; (3) to protect prospective clients; and (4) to
protect errant lawyers from themselves.12
ATTY. MACABATA:
In the case at bar, respondent admitted kissing
complainant on the lips. Okay. After that were through so I said lets go because
I have an appointment. So we went out, we went inside
my car and I said where to? Same place, she said, so
In his Answer,13 respondent confessed, thus: then at the same corner. So before she went down ,
before she opened the door of the car, I saw her
27. When she was about to get off the car, I said can I offered her left cheek. So I kissed her again.
kiss you goodnight. She offered her left cheek and I
kissed it and with my left hand slightly pulled her right COMM. FUNA:
face towards me and kissed her gently on the lips. We
said goodnight and she got off the car.
Pardon?
xxxx
ATTY. MACABATA:
35. When I stopped my car I said okay. I saw her
offered (sic) her left cheek and I lightly kissed it and I saw her offered her left cheek like that, so I kissed her
with my right hand slightly pulled her right cheek again and then with the use of my left hand, pushed a
towards me and plant (sic) a light kiss on her lips. little bit her face and then kissed her again softly on
There was no force used. No intimidation made, no the lips and thats it. x x x.14 (Emphases supplied.)
lewd designs displayed. No breast holding was done.
Everything happened very spontaneously with no It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an
reaction from her except saying "sexual harassment." inflexible standard as to what is "grossly immoral
conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency and
During the hearing held on 26 July 2005 at the 3rd obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing
floor, IBP Building, Dona Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas as a member of the bar. The rule implies that what
City, respondent candidly recalled the following events: appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-
laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants
disbarment.15
ATTY. MACABATA:
In Zaguirre v. Castillo,16 we reiterated the definition of
That time in February, we met I fetched her I should immoral conduct, as such conduct which is so willful,
say, somewhere along the corner of Edsa and flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the
Kamuning because it was then raining so we are opinion of good and respectable members of the
texting each other. So I parked my car somewhere community. Furthermore, for such conduct to warrant
along the corner of Edsa and Kamuning and I was there disciplinary action, the same must not simply be
about ten to fifteen minutes then she arrived. And so I immoral, but grossly immoral. It must be so corrupt as
said she opened my car and then she went inside so to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
I said, would you like that we have a Japanese dinner? reprehensible to a high degree or committed under
And she said yes, okay. So I brought her to Zensho such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock
which is along Tomas Morato. When we were there, we the common sense of decency.
discussed about her case, we ordered food and then a
little while I told her, would it be okay for you of I (sic)
order wine? She said yes so I ordered two glasses of The following cases were considered by this Court as
red wine. After that, after discussing matters about her constitutive of grossly immoral conduct:
case, so I said its about 9:00 or beyond that time
already, so I said okay, lets go. So when I said lets go In Toledo v. Toledo,17 a lawyer was disbarred from the
so I stood up and then I went to the car. I went ahead practice of law, when he abandoned his lawful wife and
of my car and she followed me then she rode on (sic) it. cohabited with another woman who had borne him a
So I told her where to? She told me just drop me at the child.
same place where you have been dropping me for the
last meetings that we had and that was at the corner of In Obusan v. Obusan, Jr.,18 a lawyer was disbarred after
Morato and Roosevelt Avenue. So, before she went complainant proved that he had abandoned her and
down, I told her can I kiss you goodnight? She offered maintained an adulterous relationship with a married
her left cheek and I kissed it and with the slight use of woman. This court declared that respondent failed to
my right hand, I ... should I say tilted her face towards maintain the highest degree of morality expected and
me and when shes already facing me I lightly kissed required of a member of the bar.
her on the lips. And then I said good night. She went
down the car, thats it.
In Dantes v. Dantes,19 respondents act of engaging in
illicit relationships with two different women during the
COMM. FUNA: subsistence of his marriage to the complainant
constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting the
imposition of appropriate sanctions. Complainants Guided by the definitions above, we perceived acts of
testimony, taken in conjunction with the documentary kissing or beso-beso on the cheeks as mere gestures of
evidence, sufficiently established that respondent friendship and camaraderie,27 forms of greetings,
breached the high and exacting moral standards set for casual and customary. The acts of respondent, though,
members of the law profession. in turning the head of complainant towards him and
kissing her on the lips are distasteful. However, such
In Delos Reyes v. Aznar,20 it was ruled that it was highly act, even if considered offensive and undesirable,
immoral of respondent, a married man with children, to cannot be considered grossly immoral.
have taken advantage of his position as chairman of
the college of medicine in asking complainant, a Complainants bare allegation that respondent made
student in said college, to go with him to Manila where use and took advantage of his position as a lawyer to
he had carnal knowledge of her under the threat that lure her to agree to have sexual relations with him,
she would flank in all her subjects in case she refused. deserves no credit. The burden of proof rests on the
complainant, and she must establish the case against
In Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma,21 respondent lawyer was the respondent by clear, convincing and satisfactory
disbarred when he abandoned his lawful wife and three proof,28 disclosing a case that is free from doubt as to
children, lured an innocent woman into marrying him compel the exercise by the Court of its disciplinary
and misrepresented himself as a "bachelor" so he could power.29 Thus, the adage that "he who asserts not he
contract marriage in a foreign land. who denies, must prove."30 As a basic rule in evidence,
the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the
allegationsei incumbit probation, qui decit, non qui
In Macarrubo v. Macarrubo,22 respondent entered into negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis
multiple marriages and then resorted to legal remedies probation nulla sit.31 In the case at bar, complainant
to sever them. There, we ruled that "[s]uch pattern of miserably failed to comply with the burden of proof
misconduct by respondent undermines the institutions required of her. A mere charge or allegation of
of marriage and family, institutions that this society wrongdoing does not suffice. Accusation is not
looks to for the rearing of our children, for the synonymous with guilt.32
development of values essential to the survival and
well-being of our communities, and for the
strengthening of our nation as a whole." As such, Moreover, while respondent admitted having kissed
"there can be no other fate that awaits respondent complainant on the lips, the same was not motivated
than to be disbarred." by malice. We come to this conclusion because right
after the complainant expressed her annoyance at
being kissed by the respondent through a cellular
In Tucay v. Tucay,23 respondent contracted marriage phone text message, respondent immediately
with another married woman and left complainant with extended an apology to complainant also via cellular
whom he has been married for thirty years. We ruled phone text message. The exchange of text messages
that such acts constitute "a grossly immoral conduct between complainant and respondent bears this out.
and only indicative of an extremely low regard for the
fundamental ethics of his profession," warranting
respondents disbarment. Be it noted also that the incident happened in a place
where there were several people in the vicinity
considering that Roosevelt Avenue is a major jeepney
In Villasanta v. Peralta,24 respondent married route for 24 hours. If respondent truly had malicious
complainant while his first wife was still alive, their designs on complainant, he could have brought her to
marriage still valid and subsisting. We held that "the a private place or a more remote place where he could
act of respondent of contracting the second marriage is freely accomplish the same.
contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality."
Thus, lacking the good moral character required by the
Rules of Court, respondent was disqualified from being All told, as shown by the above circumstances,
admitted to the bar. respondents acts are not grossly immoral nor highly
reprehensible to warrant disbarment or suspension.
In Cabrera v. Agustin,25 respondent lured an innocent
woman into a simulated marriage and thereafter The question as to what disciplinary sanction should be
satisfied his lust. We held that respondent failed to imposed against a lawyer found guilty of misconduct
maintain that degree of morality and integrity which, at requires consideration of a number of factors.33 When
all times, is expected of members of the bar. He is, deciding upon the appropriate sanction, the Court must
therefore, disbarred from the practice of law. consider that the primary purposes of disciplinary
proceedings are to protect the public; to foster public
confidence in the Bar; to preserve the integrity of the
Immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, profession; and to deter other lawyers from similar
but includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or misconduct.34 Disciplinary proceedings are means of
indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity and protecting the administration of justice by requiring
dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant, or shameless those who carry out this important function to be
conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of competent, honorable and reliable men in whom courts
respectable members of the community, and an and clients may repose confidence.35 While it is
inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public discretionary upon the Court to impose a particular
welfare.26 sanction that it may deem proper against an erring
lawyer, it should neither be arbitrary and despotic nor
motivated by personal animosity or prejudice, but grabbing a female client, kissing her, and raising her
should ever be controlled by the imperative need to blouse which constituted illegal conduct involving
scrupulously guard the purity and independence of the moral turpitude and conduct which adversely reflected
bar and to exact from the lawyer strict compliance with on his fitness to practice law.
his duties to the court, to his client, to his brethren in
the profession and to the public. Based on the circumstances of the case as discussed
and considering that this is respondents first offense,
The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be reprimand would suffice.
exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive
principle, with great caution and only for the most We laud complainants effort to seek redress for what
weighty reasons and only on clear cases of misconduct she honestly believed to be an affront to her honor.
which seriously affect the standing and character of Surely, it was difficult and agonizing on her part to
the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the come out in the open and accuse her lawyer of gross
Bar. Only those acts which cause loss of moral immoral conduct. However, her own assessment of the
character should merit disbarment or suspension, while incidents is highly subjective and partial, and surely
those acts which neither affect nor erode the moral needs to be corroborated or supported by more
character of the lawyer should only justify a lesser objective evidence.
sanction unless they are of such nature and to such
extent as to clearly show the lawyers unfitness to
continue in the practice of law. The dubious character WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment against
of the act charged as well as the motivation which respondent Atty. Ernesto Macabata, for alleged
induced the lawyer to commit it must be clearly immorality, is hereby DISMISSED. However, respondent
demonstrated before suspension or disbarment is is hereby REPRIMANDED to be more prudent and
meted out. The mitigating or aggravating cautious in his dealing with his clients with a STERN
circumstances that attended the commission of the WARNING that a more severe sanction will be imposed
offense should also be considered.36 on him for any repetition of the same or similar offense
in the future.
Censure or reprimand is usually meted out for an
isolated act of misconduct of a lesser nature. It is also SO ORDERED.
imposed for some minor infraction of the lawyers duty
to the court or the client.37 In the Matter of Darell
Adams,38 a lawyer was publicly reprimanded for