Anda di halaman 1dari 21

SECOND DIVISION payment of annual dues for six months

shall warrant suspension of


[A.C No. 4749. January 20, 2000] membership in the Integrated Bar, and
default in such payment for one year
shall be a ground for the removal of the
SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR., complainant, vs. ATTY. name of the delinquent member from
FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, respondent. the Roll of Attorneys."

DECISION Among others, I seek clarification (e.g.


a certification) and appropriate action
MENDOZA, J.: on the bar standing of Atty. Francisco R.
Llamas both with the Bar Confidant and
This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non- with the IBP, especially its Rizal
payment of bar membership dues filed against Chapter of which Atty. Llamas purports
respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas. to be a member. Jksm

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.

.... In accordance with these provisions, respondent can


engage in the practice of law only by paying his dues,
The above cited provision of law is not and it does not matter that his practice is "limited."
applicable in the present case. In fact, While it is true that R.A. No. 7432, 4 grants senior
respondent admitted that he is still in citizens "exemption from the payment of individual
the practice of law when he alleged income taxes: provided, that their annual taxable
that the "undersigned since 1992 have income does not exceed the poverty level as
publicly made it clear per his Income determined by the National Economic and
tax Return up to the present time that Development Authority (NEDA) for that year," the
he had only a limited practice of law." exemption does not include payment of membership or
(par. 4 of Respondents Memorandum). association dues.

Therefore respondent is not exempt Second. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his


from paying his yearly dues to the pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public
Integrated Bar of the and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the
Philippines. Esmmis Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the Code
of Professional Responsibility which provides:
On the second issue, complainant
claims that respondent has misled the Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in
court about his standing in the IBP by unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
using the same IBP O.R. number in his deceitful conduct.
pleadings of at least six years and
therefore liable for his actions. CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL
Respondent in his memorandum did TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
not discuss this issue. DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION,
AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
First. Indeed, respondent admits that since 1992, he INTEGRATED BAR. Esmso
has engaged in law practice without having paid his IBP
dues. He likewise admits that, as appearing in the CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR,
pleadings submitted by complainant to this Court, he FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
indicated "IBP-Rizal 259060" in the pleadings he filed in COURT.
court, at least for the years 1995, 1996, and 1997, thus
misrepresenting that such was his IBP chapter Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any
membership and receipt number for the years in which falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
those pleadings were filed. He claims, however, that he any court; nor shall he mislead or allow
is only engaged in a "limited" practice and that he the court to be misled by any artifice.
believes in good faith that he is exempt from the
payment of taxes, such as income tax, under R.A. No.
7432, 4 as a senior citizen since 1992. Respondents failure to pay his IBP dues and his
misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in court
indeed merit the most severe penalty. However, in view
Rule 139-A provides: of respondents advanced age, his express willingness
to pay his dues and plea for a more temperate
Sec. 9. Membership dues. - Every application of the law,[8] we believe the penalty of one
member of the Integrated Bar shall pay year suspension from the practice of law or until he has
such annual dues as the Board of paid his IBP dues, whichever is later, is appropriate.
Governors shall determine with the
approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas is
sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR,
the collections from each Chapter shall or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later. Let
be set aside as a Welfare Fund for a copy of this decision be attached to Atty. Llamas
disabled members of the Chapter and personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and
the compulsory heirs of deceased copies be furnished to all chapters of the Integrated
members thereof. Bar of the Philippines and to all courts in the land.

Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. SO ORDERED.


- Subject to the provisions of Section 12
of this Rule, default in the payment of
annual dues for six months shall
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
DISBARMENT OF TELESFORO A. DIAO,
vs.
SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ, petitioner.

BENGZON, C.J.:

After successfully passing the corresponding


examinations held in 1953, Telesforo A. Diao was
admitted to the Bar.

About two years later, Severino Martinez charged him


with having falsely represented in his application for
such Bar examination, that he had the requisite
academic qualifications. The matter was in due course
referred to the Solicitor General who caused the charge
to be investigated; and later he submitted a report
recommending that Diao's name be erased from the
roll of attorneys, because contrary to the allegations in
his petition for examination in this Court, he (Diao) had
not completed, before taking up law subjects, the
required pre-legal education prescribed by the
Department of Private Education, specially, in the
following particulars:

(a) Diao did not complete his high school


training; and

(b) Diao never attended Quisumbing College,


and never obtained his A.A. diploma therefrom
which contradicts the credentials he had
submitted in support of his application for
examination, and of his allegation therein of
successful completion of the "required pre-legal
education".

Answering this official report and complaint, Telesforo


A. Diao, practically admits the first charge: but he
claims that although he had left high school in his third
year, he entered the service of the U.S. Army, passed
the General Classification Test given therein, which
(according to him) is equivalent to a high school
diploma, and upon his return to civilian life, the
educational authorities considered his army service as
the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year high school.

We have serious doubts, about the validity of this


claim, what with respondent's failure to exhibit any
certification to that effect (the equivalence) by the
proper school officials. However, it is unnecessary to
dwell on this, since the second charge is clearly
meritorious. Diao never obtained his A.A. from
Quisumbing College; and yet his application for
examination represented him as an A.A. graduate
(1940-1941) of such college. Now, asserting he had
obtained his A.A. title from the Arellano University in
April, 1949, he says he was erroneously certified, due
Republic of the Philippines to confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing College, in
SUPREME COURT his school records.
Manila
Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the
EN BANC foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and
approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to
A.C. No. 244 March 29, 1963 the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case
not covered by this stipulation of facts. 1wph1.t
This explanation is not acceptable, for the reason that Republic of the Philippines
the "error" or "confusion" was obviously of his own SUPREME COURT
making. Had his application disclosed his having Manila
obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it would also
have disclosed that he got it in April, 1949, thereby EN BANC
showing that he began his law studies (2nd semester
of 1948-1949) six months before obtaining his
Associate in Arts degree. And then he would not have VILLASANTA April 30, 1957
been permitted to take the bar tests, because our
Rules provide, and the applicant for the Bar In Re Charges of LILIAN F. VILLASANTA for
examination must affirm under oath, "That previous to Immorality,
the study of law, he had successfully and satisfactorily vs.
completed the required pre-legal education(A.A.) as HILARION M. PERALTA, respondent.
prescribed by the Department of Private Education,"
(emphasis on "previous"). Ramon J. Diaz for respondent.

Plainly, therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to PARAS, C. J.:


take the bar examinations; but due to his false
representations, he was allowed to take it, luckily
passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Bar. Such G.R. No. L-9513 has a direct bearing on the present
admission having been obtained under false pretenses complaint. Said case originated from a criminal action
must be, and is hereby revoked. The fact that he filed in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan by the
hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial. Passing complainant against the respondent for a violation of
such examinations is not the only qualification to Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code of which the
become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed respondent was found guilty. The verdict, when
courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally appealed to the Court of Appeals, was affirmed. The
essential.. appeal by certiorari taken to this Court by the
respondent was dismissed for lack of merit.
The Clerk is, therefore, ordered to strike from the roll of
attorneys, the name of Telesforo A. Diao. And the latter The complaint seeks to disqualify the respondent, a
is required to return his lawyer's diploma within thirty 1954 successful bar candidate, from being admitted to
days. So ordered. the bar. The basic facts are the same as those found by
the Court of Appeals, to wit: On April 16, 1939, the
respondent was married to Rizalina E. Valdez in Rizal,
Nueva Ecija. On or before March 8, 1951, he courted
the complainant who fell in love with him. To have
carnal knowledge of her, the respondent procured the
preparation of a fake marriage contract which was then
a blank document. He made her sign it on March 8,
1951. A week after, the document was brought back by
the respondent to the complainant, signed by the
Justice of the Peace and the Civil Registrar of San
Manuel, Tarlac, and by two witnesses. Since then the
complainant and the respondent lived together as
husband and wife. Sometime later, the complainant
insisted on a religious ratification of their marriage and
on July 7, 1951, the corresponding ceremony was
performed in Aparri by the parish priest of said
municipality. The priest no longer required the
production of a marriage license because of the civil
marriage contract shown to him. After the ceremony in
Aparri, the couple returned to Manila as husband and
wife and lived with some friends. The complainant then
discovered that the respondent was previously married
to someone else; whereupon, she filed the criminal
action for a violation of Article 350 of the Revised Penal
Code in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan and the
present complaint for immorality in this court..

Upon consideration of the records of G.R. No. L-9513


and the complaint, this Court is of the opinion that the
respondent is immoral. He made mockery of marriage
which is a sacred institution demanding respect and
dignity. His conviction in the criminal case involves
moral turpitude. The act of respondent in contracting
the second marriage (even his act in making love to
another woman while his first wife is still alive and their
marriage still valid and existing) is contrary to honesty,
justice, decency, and morality.

Thus lacking the good moral character required by the


Rules of Court, the respondent is hereby declared
disqualified from being admitted to the bar. So ordered.

EN BANC

[BAR MATTER No. 810. January 27, 1998]

IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE THE LAWYERS OATH BY


ARTHUR M. CUEVAS, JR.

RESOLUTION

FRANCISCO, J.:

Petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr., recently passed


the 1996 Bar Examinations.[1] His oath-taking was held
in abeyance in view of the Courts resolution dated
August 27, 1996 which permitted him to take the Bar
Examinations subject to the condition that should (he)
pass the same, (he) shall not be allowed to take the
lawyers oath pending approval of the Court x x x due
to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting In Homicide. The conviction stemmed from
petitioners participation in the initiation rites of the LEX
TALIONIS FRATERNITAS, a fraternity in the SAN BEDA
COLLEGE OF LAW, sometime in September 1991,
where Raul I. Camaligan, a neophyte, died as a result
of the personal violence inflicted upon him. Thereafter,
petitioner applied for and was granted probation. On
May 16, 1995, he was discharged from probation and
his case considered closed and terminated.

In this petition , received by the Court on May 5,


1997, petitioner prays that he be allowed to take his
lawyers oath at the Courts most convenient
time[2] attaching thereto the Order dated May 16, 1995
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 of Antique
discharging him from his probation, and certifications
attesting to his righteous, peaceful and law abiding
character issued by: (a) the Mayor of the Municipality
of Hamtic, Antique; (b) the Officer-in-Charge of Hamtic
Police Station; (c) the Sangguniang Kabataan of Pob. III,
Hamtic, through its chairman and officers; (d) a
member of the IBP Iloilo Chapter; (e) the Parish Priest
and Vicar General of St. Joseph Cathedral, San Jose,
Antique, and (f) the President of the Parish Pastoral
Council, Parish of Sta. Monica, Hamtic, Antique. On July
15, 1997, the Court, before acting on petitioners
application, resolved to require Atty. Gilbert D.
Camaligan, father of the deceased hazing victim Raul I.
Camaligan, to comment thereon. In compliance with
the Courts directive, Atty. Gilbert D. Camaligan filed his
comment which states as follows:

1 He fully appreciates the benign concern given by this


Hon. Court in allowing him to comment to the pending
petition of Arthur M. Cuevas to take the lawyers oath,
and hereby expresses his genuine gratitude to such
gesture.
2 He conforms completely to the observation of the petitioner a chance in the same manner that it recently
Hon. Court in its resolution dated March 19, 1997 in Bar allowed Al Caparros Argosino, petitioners co-accused
Matter No.712 that the infliction of severe physical below, to take the lawyers oath.[4]
injuries which approximately led to the death of the
unfortunate Raul Camaligan was deliberate (rather Petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr.s discharge from
than merely accidental or inadvertent) thus, indicating probation without any infraction of the attendant
serious character flaws on the part of those who conditions therefor and the various certifications
inflicted such injuries. This is consistent with his stand attesting to his righteous, peaceful and civic-oriented
at the outset of the proceedings of the criminal case character prove that he has taken decisive steps to
against the petitioner and his co-defendants that they purge himself of his deficiency in moral character and
are liable not only for the crime of homicide but atone for the unfortunate death of Raul I. Camaligan.
murder, since they took advantage of the neophytes The Court is prepared to give him the benefit of the
helpless and defenseless condition when they were doubt, taking judicial notice of the general tendency of
beaten and kicked to death like a useless stray dog, the youth to be rash, temerarious and uncalculating.
suggesting the presence of abuse of confidence, taking [5]
Let it be stressed to herein petitioner that the
advantage of superior strength and treachery (People lawyers oath is not a mere formality recited for a few
vs. Gagoco, 58 Phil. 524). minutes in the glare of flashing cameras and before the
presence of select witnesses. Petitioner is exhorted to
3 He, however, has consented to the accused-students conduct himself beyond reproach at all times and to
plea of guilty to the lesser offense of reckless live strictly according to his oath and the Code of
imprudence resulting to the homicide, including the Professional Responsibility. And, to paraphrase Mr.
petitioner, out of pity to their mothers and a pregnant Justice Padillas comment in the sister case of Re:
wife of the accused who went together at his house in Petition of Al Argosino To Take The Lawyers Oath, Bar
Lucena City, literally kneeling, crying and begging for Matter No. 712, March 19, 1997, [t]he Court sincerely
forgiveness for their sons, on a Christmas day in 1991 hopes that Mr. Cuevas, Jr., will continue with the
and on Maundy Thursday in 1992, during which they assistance he has been giving to his community. As a
reported that the father of one of the accused died of lawyer he will now be in a better position to render
heart attack upon learning of his sons involvement in legal and other services to the more unfortunate
the case. members of society.[6]

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

At the outset, the Court shares the sentiment of SECOND DIVISION


Atty. Gilbert D. Camaligan and commiserates with the
untimely death of his son. Nonetheless, Atty. Gilbert D.
Camaligan admits that [h]e is not, right now, in a A.C. No. 7022 June 18, 2008
position to say whether petitioner since then has
become morally fit x x x and submits petitioners plea MARJORIE F. SAMANIEGO, complainant,
to be admitted to the noble profession of law to the vs.
sound and judicious discretion of the Court. ATTY. ANDREW V. FERRER, respondent.

The petition before the Court requires the RESOLUTION


balancing of the reasons for disallowing petitioners
admission to the noble profession of law. His deliberate QUISUMBING, J.:
participation in the senseless beatings over a helpless
neophyte which resulted to the latters untimely demise
indicates absence of that moral fitness required for For resolution is the Complaint of Marjorie F. Samaniego
admission to the bar. And as the practice of law is a against respondent Atty. Andrew V. Ferrer for
privilege extended only to the few who possess the immorality, abandonment and willful refusal to give
high standards of intellectual and moral qualifications support to their daughter, filed before the Integrated
the Court is duty bound to prevent the entry of Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and docketed as CBD Case
undeserving aspirants, as well as to exclude those who No. 04-1184.
have been admitted but have become a disgrace to the
profession. The Court, nonetheless, is willing to give The facts are as follows:
Early in 1996, Ms. Samaniego was referred to Atty. We agree with the IBP on Atty. Ferrer's failure to give
Ferrer as a potential client. Atty. Ferrer agreed to support to his daughter with Ms. Samaniego. We also
handle her cases1 and soon their lawyer-client agree with the Office of the Bar Confidant that Atty.
relationship became intimate. Ms. Samaniego said Atty. Ferrer's affair with Ms. Samaniego showed his lack of
Ferrer courted her and she fell in love with him.2 He good moral character as a member of the bar. We
said she flirted with him and he succumbed to her dismiss, however, Ms. Samaniego's charge of
temptations.3 Thereafter, they lived together as abandonment since Atty. Ferrer did not abandon them.
"husband and wife" from 1996 to 1997,4 and on March He returned to his family.
12, 1997, their daughter was born.5 The affair ended in
20006 and since then he failed to give support to their Atty. Ferrer admitted his extra-marital affair; in his
daughter.7 words, his indiscretion which ended in 2000. We have
considered such illicit relation as a disgraceful and
Before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, Ms. immoral conduct subject to disciplinary action.15 The
Samaniego presented their daughter's birth and penalty for such immoral conduct is disbarment,16 or
baptismal certificates, and the photographs taken indefinite17 or definite18 suspension, depending on the
during the baptism. She testified that she knew that circumstances of the case. Recently, in Ferancullo v.
Atty. Ferrer was in a relationship but did not think he Ferancullo, Jr.,19 we ruled that suspension from the
was already married. She also testified that she was practice of law for two years was an adequate penalty
willing to compromise, but he failed to pay for their imposed on the lawyer who was found guilty of gross
daughter's education as agreed upon.8 Atty. Ferrer immorality. In said case, we considered the absence of
refused to appear during the hearing since he did not aggravating circumstances such as an adulterous
want to see Ms. Samaniego.9 relationship coupled with refusal to support his family;
or maintaining illicit relationships with at least two
In his position paper,10 Atty. Ferrer manifested his women during the subsistence of his marriage; or
willingness to support their daughter. He also admitted abandoning his legal wife and cohabiting with other
his indiscretion; however, he prayed that the IBP women.20
consider Ms. Samaniego's complicity as she was
acquainted with his wife and children. He further In this case, we find no similar aggravating
reasoned that he found it unconscionable to abandon circumstances. Thus we find the penalty recommended
his wife and 10 children to cohabit with Ms. Samaniego. by the IBP and Office of the Bar Confidant as adequate
sanction for the grossly immoral conduct of
In Resolution No. XVII-2005-13811 dated November 12, respondent.
2005, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the report
and recommendation of the Investigating On another point, we may agree with respondent's
Commissioner, and imposed upon Atty. Ferrer the contention that complainant was not entirely
penalty of six (6) months suspension from the practice blameless. She knew about his wife but blindly
of law for his refusal to support his daughter with Ms. believed him to be unmarried. However, that one
Samaniego. The IBP also admonished him to be a more complicit in the affair complained of immorality against
responsible member of the bar and to keep in mind his her co-principal does not make this case less serious
duties as a father. since it is immaterial whether Ms. Samaniego is in pari
delicto.21 We must emphasize that this Court's
On February 1, 2006, Atty. Ferrer filed a Motion for investigation is not about Ms. Samaniego's acts but
Reconsideration12 with prayer for us to reduce the Atty. Ferrer's conduct as one of its officers and his
penalty, to wit: fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.22

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

Needless to state, respondent ought always to keep in


mind the responsibilities of a father to all his children. If
there be a resultant hardship on them because of this
case, let it be impressed on all concerned that the
direct cause thereof was his own misconduct.

WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Andrew V.


Ferrer GUILTY of gross immorality and, as
recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and the Office of the Bar Confidant, SUSPEND him
from the practice of law for six (6) months effective
upon notice hereof, with WARNING that the same or
similar act in the future will be dealt with more
severely.

To enable us to determine the effectivity of the penalty


imposed, the respondent is DIRECTED to report the
date of his receipt of this Decision to this Court.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of


the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
and the courts all over the country. Let a copy of this
Decision likewise be attached to the personal records
of the respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines


SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

REBECCA B. ARNOBIT, A.C. No. 1481


Complainant, respondent to her, addressing her as Vending (Exhibit
Present: B-1), therein asking for forgiveness for the unhappiness
PUNO, C.J., he caused his family; and Melecio Navarro, husband of
QUISUMBING, Benita, who testified about how respondent took his
YNARES-SANTIAGO, wife Benita as a mistress, knowing fully well of their
CARPIO, lawful marriage.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
- versus - CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES, Rebecca also presented the affidavits of National
AZCUNA, Bureau of Investigation agents Eladio C. Velasco and
TINGA, Jose C. Vicente (Exhibits H-1 and H-2) to show the
CHICO-NAZARIO, existence of a prima facie case for adultery. The
VELASCO, JR., pictures and baptismal and birth certificates of Mary
NACHURA, Ann, Ma. Luisa, Caridad, and Ponciano Jr., all surnamed
REYES, Arnobit, were submitted to prove the fact that
ATTY. PONCIANO P. ARNOBIT, LEONARDO-DE respondent sired four illegitimate children out of his
CASTRO, and illicit cohabitation with Benita.[4]
Respondent. BRION, JJ.
Promulgated: According to the investigating commissioner,
October 17, 2008 respondent, despite due notice, repeatedly absented
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------- himself when it was his turn to present evidence,
--------------x adding that scheduled hearings had to be postponed
DECISION just to afford respondent ample opportunity to present
his side of the controversy. The investigating
PER CURIAM: commissioner also stated that, in most cases,
respondent would seek postponement, pleading illness,
on the very date of the hearing. And according to the
Rebecca B. Arnobit, in her affidavit- Commission, its several directives for respondent to
complaint[1] dated May 11, 1975, prays that the Court send by mail his affidavits and documentary exhibits in
exercise its disciplinary power over her husband, lieu of personal appearance so that the commission
respondent Atty. Ponciano Arnobit, on the grounds of could finish with the investigation proved futile.
Immorality and Abandonment. In its Report dated June 21, 1995, the
Commission found respondent liable for abandonment
In her complaint, Rebecca alleged that she and and recommended his suspension from the practice of
respondent were married on August 20, 1942. Twelve law for three (3) months. The recommendation portion
children were born out of this union. Rebecca further of the report reads, as follows:
alleged seeing respondent through law school,
continuously supporting him until he passed the bar WHEREFORE, it is respectfully
examinations and became a member of the Philippine recommended to the Board of
bar. Several years after, however, or in 1968, Governors that the respondent be
respondent left the conjugal home and started suspended from the practice of law for
cohabiting with one Benita Buenafe Navarro who later a period of three (3) months as a
bore him four more children. Respondents infidelity, lesson for him to change his ways. An
according to Rebecca, impelled her to file a complaint indefinite suspension is not
for legal separation and support. A criminal case for recommended because it has been
adultery against Benita and respondent later followed. gathered from complainant herself that
respondent supports himself through
In his Answer[2] dated July 31, 1975, respondent the practice of law which would be
admitted that Rebecca is his wedded wife and the cruel for us to curtail at this time when
mother of their 12 children. He denied, however, he is already advanced in age the
having cohabited with Benita. And he pointed to his penalty of three (3) months suspension
complaining wife as the cause of their separation, and recording of such penalty in his
stating the observation that she was always traveling record being sufficient to berate him as
all over the country, ostensibly for business purposes, to his lack of responsibility as
without his knowledge and consent, x x x thereby evidenced by his abandonment of the
neglecting her obligations toward her family.[3] children. [Report and Recommendation
rendered by Commissioner Vicente Q.
Issues having been joined, hearings were conducted Roxas]
before the Office of the Solicitor General and,
subsequently, before the Integrated Bar of the On January 27, 1996, the IBP Board of Governors
Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline passed Resolution No. XII-96-43 adopting and
(Commission). At the hearings, Rebecca presented both approving the Commission report aforementioned.
oral and documentary evidence to support her
allegations of abandonment and immorality. While the Court concurs with the inculpatory findings of
the IBP on the charge of abandonment, it cannot bring
Aside from her testimony, Rebecca presented two other itself to agree that respondent is liable only for that
witnesses, viz: Venancia M. Barrientos, her sister, who offense. As it were, the charge for gross immoral
identified a letter dated August 28, 1970 written by conduct has sufficiently been proven. Following
established jurisprudence, respondent deserves to be commission of marital infidelity and abandonment of
disbarred. his family.

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.:

This is a disbarment case filed by the Faculty members


and Staff of the Saint Louis University-Laboratory High
School (SLU-LHS) against Atty. Rolando C. Dela Cruz,
principal of SLU-LHS, predicated on the following
grounds:

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.

2) Grossly Immoral Conduct:


In contracting a second marriage despite the existence 8. Deed
of his first marriage; and of Sale[9] dated 17 August 1994,
executed by Woodrow Apurado in favor
3) Malpractice: of Jacinto Batara, notarized by
In notarizing documents despite the expiration of his Rolando Dela Cruz;
commission.
According to complainant, respondent was legally 9. Joint Affidavit by
married to Teresita Rivera on 31 May 1982 at Two Disinterested Parties[10] dated 1
Tuba, Benguet, before the then Honorable Judge Tomas June 1994, executed
W. Macaranas. He thereafter contracted a subsequent by Ponciano V. Abalos and Arsenio C. Si
marriage with one Mary Jane Pascua, before the bayan, subscribed and sworn to before
Honorable Judge Guillermo Purganan. On 4 October Rolando Dela Cruz;
1994, said second marriage was subsequently annulled
for being bigamous. 10. Absolute Deed of
Sale[11] dated 23 March 1995, executed
On the charge of malpractice, complainant alleged that by Eleanor D.Meridor in favor of
respondent deliberately subscribed and notarized Leonardo N. Benter, notarized by
certain legal documents on different dates from 1988 Rolando Dela Cruz;
to 1997, despite expiration of
respondents notarial commission on 31 December 11. Deed of Absolute
1987. A Certification[1] dated 25 May 1999 was issued Sale[12] dated 20 December 1996,
by the Clerk of Court of Regional Trial Court executed by Mandapat in favor of Mario
(RTC), Baguio City, to the effect that respondent had R. Mabalot, notarized by
not applied for commission as Notary Public for and in Rolando Dela Cruz;
the City of Baguio for the period 1988 to
1997. Respondent performed acts of notarization, as 12. Joint Affidavit By
evidenced by the following documents: Two Disinterested Parties[13] dated 17
April 1996, executed
1. Affidavit of by Villiam C. Ambong and Romeo
Ownership[2] dated 8 March 1991, L. Quiming, subscribed and sworn to
executed by Fernando T. Acosta, before Rolando Dela Cruz;
subscribed and sworn to before
Rolando Dela Cruz; 13. Conditional Deed of
Sale[14] dated 27 February 1997,
2. Affidavit[3] dated 2 executed by Aurelia Demot Cados in
6 September 1992, executed by Maria favor of Jose Ma. A. Pangilinan,
Cortez Atos, subscribed and sworn to notarized by Rolando Dela Cruz;
before Rolando Dela Cruz;
14. Memorandum of
3. Affidavit[4] dated 1 Agreement[15] dated 19 July 1996,
4 January 1992, executed executed by JARCO represented by Mr.
by Fanolex James A. Menos, subscribed Johnny Teope and AZTEC Construction
and sworn to before Rolando Dela Cruz; represented by Mr. George Cham,
notarized by Rolando Dela Cruz.
4. Affidavit[5] dated 2
3 December 1993, executed
by Ponciano V. Abalos, subscribed and Quite remarkably, respondent, in his comment, denied
sworn to before Rolando Dela Cruz; the charges of child abuse, illegal deduction of salary
and others which are still pending before the St. Louis
5. Absolute Date of University (SLU), National Labor Relations Commission
Sale[6] dated 23 June 1993, executed (NLRC) and the Prosecutors Office. He did not discuss
by Danilo Gonzales in favor anything about the allegations of immorality in
of Senecio C. Marzan, notarized by contracting a second marriage and malpractice in
Rolando Dela Cruz; notarizing documents despite the expiration of his
commission.
6. Joint Affidavit By
Two Disinherited Parties[7] dated 5 After the filing of comment, We referred[16] the case to
March 1994, executed by Evelyn the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), for
C. Canullas and Pastora C. Tacadena, investigation, report and recommendation.
subscribed and sworn to before The IBP conducted the mandatory preliminary
Rolando Dela Cruz; conference.

7. Sworn The complainants, thereafter, submitted their position


Statement[8] dated 31 May 1994, paper which is just a reiteration of their allegations in
executed by Felimon B. Rimorin, their complaint.
subscribed and sworn to before
Rolando Dela Cruz; Respondent, on his part, expressly admitted his second
marriage despite the existence of his first marriage,
and the subsequent nullification of the former. He also
admitted having notarized certain documents during This Court finds the recommendation of the IBP to fault
the period when his notarial commission had already respondent well taken, except as to the penalty
expired. However, he offered some extenuating contained therein.
defenses such as good faith, lack of malice and noble
intentions in doing the complained acts. At the threshold, it is worth stressing that the
practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed
After the submission of their position papers, the case by the State on those who show that they possess the
was deemed submitted for resolution. qualifications required by law for the conferment of
On 30 March 2005, Commissioner Acerey C. such privilege. Membership in the bar is a privilege
Pacheco submitted his report and recommended that: burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege
and right to practice law only during good behavior,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is and he can be deprived of it for misconduct
respectfully recommended that ascertained and declared by judgment of the court
respondent be administratively after opportunity to be heard has been afforded him.
penalized for the following acts: Without invading any constitutional privilege or right,
an attorneys right to practice law may be resolved by a
a. For contracting a proceeding to suspend, based on conduct rendering
second marriage him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties and
without taking the responsibilities of an attorney. It must be understood
appropriate legal steps that the purpose of suspending or disbarring him as an
to have the first attorney is to remove from the profession a person
marriage annulled first, whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be
he be suspended from entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging
the practice of law for to an office of attorney and, thus, to protect the public
one (1) year, and and those charged with the administration of justice,
rather than to punish an attorney. Elaborating on this,
b. For notarizing certain we said on Maligsa v. Atty. Cabanting,[19] that the Bar
legal documents should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as
despite full knowledge well as of honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings
of the expiration of honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing
his notarial commission his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his
, he be suspended from clients. A member of the legal fraternity should refrain
the practice of law for from doing any act which might lessen in any degree
another one (1) year or the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the
for a total of two (2) fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal
years.[17] profession. Towards this end, an attorney may be
disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath or
of his duties as an attorney and counselor, which
On 17 December 2005, the IBP Board of Governors, include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27,
approved and adopted the recommendation of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, all of these being broad
Commissioner Pacheco, thus: enough to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer
in his professional or private capacity.
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as
it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, Equally worthy of remark is that the law profession
the Report and Recommendation of the does not prescribe a dichotomy of standards among its
Investigating Commissioner of the members. There is no distinction as to whether the
above-entitled case, herein made part transgression is committed in the lawyers professional
of this Resolution as Annex A and, capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer
finding the recommendation fully may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney
supported by the evidence on record at one time and a mere citizen at another.[20] Thus, not
and the applicable laws and rules, and only his professional activities but even his private life,
considering that Respondent insofar as the latter may reflect unfavorably upon the
contracted a second marriage without good name and prestige of the profession and the
taking appropriate legal steps to have courts, may at any time be the subject of inquiry on
the first marriage annulled, Atty. the part of the proper authorities.[21]
Rolando C. dela Cruz is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law One of the conditions prior to admission to the
for one (1) year and for notarizing legal bar is that an applicant must possess good moral
documents despite full knowledge of character. Possession of such moral character as
the expiration of requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law
his notarial commission Atty. Rolando practice must be continuous. Otherwise, membership
C. dela Cruz is SUSPENDED from the in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to
practice of law for another one (1) have good moral conduct.[22]
year, for a total of two (2) years
Suspension from the practice of In the case at bench, there is no dispute
law.[18] that respondent and Teresita Rivera contracted
marriage on 31 May 1982 before Judge Tomas
W. Macaranas. In less than a year, they parted ways the first marriage was still in place, is contrary to
owing to their irreconcilable differences without honesty, justice, decency and morality.[25]
seeking judicial recourse. The union bore no However, measured against the definition, we
offspring. After their separation in-fact, respondent are not prepared to consider respondents act as grossly
never knew the whereabouts of TeresitaRivera since immoral. This finds support in the following
he had lost all forms of communication with her. Seven recommendation and observation of the IBP
years thereafter, respondent became attracted to one Investigator and IBP Board of Governors, thus:
Mary Jane Pascua, who was also a faculty member of
SLU-LHS.There is also no dispute over the fact that in The uncontested assertions of the
1989, respondent married Mary Jane Pascua in the respondent belies any intention to
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Baguio City, Branch flaunt the law and the high moral
68. Respondent even admitted this fact.When the standard of the legal profession, to wit:
second marriage was entered into, respondents prior
marriage with Teresita Rivera was still subsisting, no a. After his first failed marriage and
action having been initiated before the court to obtain prior to his second marriage or for a
a judicial declaration of nullity or annulment of period of almost seven (7) years, he
respondents prior marriage to Teresita Rivera or a has not been romantically involved
judicial declaration of presumptive death with any woman;
of Teresita Rivera.
Respondent was already a member of the Bar b. His second marriage was a show of
when he contracted the bigamous second marriage in his noble intentions and total love for
1989, having been admitted to the Bar in 1985. As his wife, whom he described to be very
such, he cannot feign ignorance of the mandate of the intelligent person;
law that before a second marriage may be validly
contracted, the first and subsisting marriage must first c. He never absconded from his
be annulled by the appropriate court. The second obligations to support his wife and
marriage was annulled only on 4 October 1994 before child;
the RTC of Benguet, Branch 9, or about five years after
respondent contracted his second marriage. The d. He never disclaimed paternity over
annulment of respondents second marriage has no the child and husbandry (sic) with
bearing to the instant disbarment proceeding. Firstly, relation to his wife;
as earlier emphasized, the annulment came after the e. After the annulment of his second
respondents second bigamous marriage. Secondly, as marriage, they have parted ways when
we held in In re: Almacen, a disbarment case the mother and child went to Australia;
is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely
criminal but is rather an investigation by the court into f. Since then up to now, respondent
the conduct of its officers. Thus, if the acquittal of a remained celibate.[26]
lawyer in a criminal action is not determinative of an
administrative case against him, or if an affidavit of
withdrawal of a disbarment case does not affect its In the case of Terre v. Terre,[27] respondent was
course, then neither will the judgment of annulment of disbarred because his moral character was deeply
respondents second marriage also exonerate him from flawed as shown by the following circumstances, viz:
a wrongdoing actually committed. So long as the he convinced the complainant that her prior marriage
quantum of proof - clear preponderance of evidence - to Bercenilla was null and void ab initio and that she
in disciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar was legally single and free to marry him. When
is met, then liability attaches.[23] complainant and respondent had contracted their
marriage, respondent went through law school while
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court cites being supported by complainant, with some assistance
grossly immoral conduct as a ground for disbarment. from respondents parents. After respondent had
finished his law course and gotten complainant
The Court has laid down with a common pregnant, respondent abandoned the complainant
definition of what constitutes immoral conduct, vis-- without support and without the wherewithal for
vis, grossly immoral conduct. Immoral conduct is that delivering his own child safely to a hospital.
conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and
which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the In the case of Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma,[28] respondent
good and respectable members of the was also disbarred for his grossly immoral acts such
community and what is grossly immoral, that is, it as: first, he abandoned his lawful wife and three
must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal children; second, he lured an innocent young woman
act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high into marrying him; third, he mispresented himself as a
degree.[24] bachelor so he could contract marriage in a foreign
land; and fourth, he availed himself of complainants
Undoubtedly, respondents act constitutes immoral resources by securing a plane ticket from complainants
conduct. But is it so gross as to warrant his office in order to marry the latters daughter. He did this
disbarment? Indeed, he exhibited a deplorable lack of without complainants knowledge. Afterwards, he even
that degree of morality required of him as a member of had the temerity to assure complainant that everything
the Bar. In particular, he made a mockery of marriage is legal.
which is a sacred institution demanding respect and
dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage while
Such acts are wanting in the case at bar. In violates Canon 7 of the same Code, which directs every
fact, no less than the respondent himself lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity
acknowledged and declared his abject apology for his of the legal profession.
misstep. He was humble enough to offer no defense In the case of Buensuceso v. Barera,[32] a
save for his love and declaration of his commitment to lawyer was suspended for one year when he notarized
his wife and child. five documents after his commission as Notary Public
had expired, to wit: a complaint for ejectment,
Based on the reasons stated above, we find the affidavit, supplemental affidavit, a deed of sale, and a
imposition of disbarment upon him to be unduly harsh. contract to sell. Guided by the pronouncement in said
The power to disbar must be exercised with great case, we find that a suspension of two (2) years is
caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of justified under the circumstances. Herein respondent
misconduct that seriously affects the standing and notarized a total of fourteen (14) documents [33] without
character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court. the requisite notarial commission.
Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser Other charges constituting respondents misconduct
penalty could accomplish the end desired. [29] In line such as the pending criminal case for child abuse
with this philosophy, we find that a penalty of two allegedly committed by him against a high school
years suspension is more appropriate. The penalty of student filed before the Prosecutors Office
one (1) year suspension recommended by the IBP is of Baguio City; the pending administrative case filed by
too light and not commensurate to the act committed the Teachers, Staff, Students and Parents before an
by respondent. Investigating Board created by SLU; and the pending
As to the charge of misconduct for having labor case filed by SLU-LHS Faculty before the NLRC,
notarized several documents during the years 1988- Cordillera Administrative Region, on alleged illegal
1997 after his commission as notary public had deduction of salary by respondent, need not be
expired, respondent humbly admitted having notarized discussed, as they are still pending before the proper
certain documents despite his knowledge that he no forums. At such stages, the presumption of innocence
longer had authority to do so. He, however, alleged still prevails in favor of the respondent.
that he received no payment in notarizing said
documents. WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty.
Rolando Dela Cruz guilty of immoral conduct, in
It has been emphatically stressed that notarization is disregard of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he
not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. On the is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
contrary, it is invested with substantive public interest, period of two (2) years, and another two (2) years for
such that only those who are qualified or authorized notarizing documents despite the expiration of his
may act as notaries public. Notarization of a private commission or a total of four (4) years of suspension.
document converts the document into a public one
making it admissible in court without further proof of Let copies of this Decision be furnished all the
its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled courts of the land through the Court Administrator, as
to full faith and credit upon its face and, for well as the IBP, the Office of the Bar Confidant, and
this reason, notaries public must observe with the recorded in the personal records of the respondent.
utmost care the basic requirements in the performance
of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public SO ORDERED.
in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be
undermined.[30]
The requirements for the issuance of a commission as
notary public must not be treated as a mere casual
formality. The Court has characterized a lawyers act of
notarizing documents without the requisite commission
to do so as reprehensible, constituting as it does not
only malpractice but also x x x the crime of falsification
of public documents.[31]

The Court had occasion to state that where the


notarization of a document is done by a member of the
Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization
or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected
to disciplinary action or one, performing a notarial act
without such commission is a violation of the lawyers
oath to obey the laws, more specifically,
the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that
he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all
legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate
falsehood, which the lawyers oath similarly
proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the
prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides: A lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. By acting as a notary public without
the proper commission to do so, the lawyer likewise
the case with another lawyer and needs (sic) to get
back the case folder from him. The communications
transpired was recorded in her cellular phone and read
as follows:

Sent by complainant - forget the


At 5:33:46 pm
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT replied by respondent - "does this
Manila at 6:16:11 pm (Does this m
anymore)
THIRD DIVISION
sent by complainant - I feel bad.
A.C. No. 7204 March 7, 2007 at 6:17:59 pm

Follow-up message - wrong to k


CYNTHIA ADVINCULA, Complainant, Sent by complainant with her.
vs. At 6:29:30 pm
ATTY. ERNESTO M. MACABATA, Respondent.
Replied by respondent - "Im veri sr
RESOLUTION At 6:32:43 pm an expressio
the situation
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Follow up message - Im s sri. Il
by respondent so sorry. Ill
Before Us is a complaint1 for disbarment filed by at 6:42:25 pm sincerity)
Cynthia Advincula against respondent Atty. Ernesto M.
Macabata, charging the latter with Gross Immorality.
On the following day, March 7, 2005 respondent sent
Complainant alleged the following: another message to complainant at 3:55:32 pm saying
"I dont know wat 2 do s u may 4give me. "Im realy sri.
Puede bati na tyo." (I dont know what to do so you
Sometime on 1st week of December 2004 complainant may forgive me. Im really sorry. Puede bati na tayo).
[Cynthia Advincula] seek the legal advice of the
respondent [Atty. Macabata], regarding her collectibles
from Queensway Travel and Tours. As promised, he Respondent replied "talk to my lawyer in due time."
sent Demand Letter dated December 11, 2004 (copy Then another message was received by her at 4:06:33
attached as Annex "I") to the concerned parties. pm saying "Ano k ba. Im really sri. Pls. Nxt ime bhave
n me." (Ano ka ba. Im really sorry. Please next time
behave na ko), which is a clear manifestation of
On February 10, 2005, met (sic) at Zensho Restaurant admission of guilt.2
in Tomas Morato, Quezon City to discuss the possibility
of filing the complaint against Queensway Travel and
Tours because they did not settle their accounts as In his answer,3 respondent admitted that he agreed to
demanded. After the dinner, respondent sent provide legal services to the complainant; that he met
complainant home and while she is about to step out of with complainant on 10 February 2005 and 6 March
the car, respondent hold (sic) her arm and kissed her 2005, to discuss the relevant matters relative to the
on the cheek and embraced her very tightly. case which complainant was intending to file against
the owners of Queensway Travel and Tours for
collection of a sum of money; that on both occasions,
Again, on March 6, 2005, at about past 10:00 in the complainant rode with him in his car where he held and
morning, she met respondent at Starbucks coffee shop kissed complainant on the lips as the former offered
in West Avenue, Quezon City to finalize the draft of the her lips to him; and, that the corner of Cooper Street
complaint to be filed in Court. After the meeting, and Roosevelt Avenue, where he dropped off the
respondent offered again a ride, which he usually did complainant, was a busy street teeming with people,
every time they met. Along the way, complainant was thus, it would have been impossible to commit the acts
wandering (sic) why she felt so sleepy where in fact imputed to him.
she just got up from bed a few hours ago. At along
Roosevelt Avenue immediately after corner of Felipe
St., in San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City when she By way of defense, respondent further elucidated that:
was almost restless respondent stopped his car and 1) there was a criminal case for Acts of Lasciviousness
forcefully hold (sic) her face and kissed her lips while filed by complainant against respondent pending
the other hand was holding her breast. Complainant before the Office of the City Prosecutor in Quezon City;
even in a state of shocked (sic) succeeded in resisting 2) the legal name of complainant is Cynthia Advincula
his criminal attempt and immediately manage (sic) to Toriana since she remains married to a certain Jinky
go (sic) out of the car. Toriana because the civil case for the nullification of
their marriage was archived pursuant to the Order
dated 6 December 2000 issued by the Regional Trial
In the late afternoon, complainant sent a text message Court of Maburao, Occidental Mindoro; 3) the
to respondent informing him that she decided to refer complainant was living with a man not her husband;
and 4) the complainant never bothered to discuss Rule 7.03-- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
respondents fees and it was respondent who always adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
paid for their bills every time they met and ate at a shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
restaurant. scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
A hearing was conducted by the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) As may be gleaned from above, the Code of
at the IBP Building, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, on 26 Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from
July 2005. engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
On 30 September 2005, Investigating Commissioner
Dennis A. B. Funa submitted his Report and Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded that their
Recommendation,4 recommending the imposition of possession of good moral character is a continuing
the penalty of one (1) month suspension on respondent condition to preserve their membership in the Bar in
for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. good standing. The continued possession of good
moral character is a requisite condition for remaining in
Thereafter, the IBP passed Resolution No. XVII-2006- the practice of law.6 In Aldovino v. Pujalte, Jr.,7 we
117 dated 20 March 2006, approving and adopting, emphasized that:
with modification, the recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner, thus: This Court has been exacting in its demand for integrity
and good moral character of members of the Bar. They
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby are expected at all times to uphold the integrity and
ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act
and Recommendation of the Investigating or omission which might lessen the trust and
Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity,
part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on Membership in the legal profession is a privilege. And
record and the applicable laws and rules, and whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no
considering the behavior of Respondent went beyond longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the public,
the norms of conduct required of a lawyer when it becomes not only the right but also the duty of this
dealing with or relating with a client, Atty. Ernesto A. Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him
Macabata is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for the privilege of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw
three (3) months.5 the privilege.

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

Anda mungkin juga menyukai