Ui v.

Bonifacio
A.C. No. 3319. June 8, 2000
Petitioner: Leslie Ui
Respondent: Atty. Iris Bonifacio

Facts of the case:

Leslie Ui filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio on grounds
of immoral conduct. Atty. Bonifacio allegedly is having an illicit relationship with Carlos Ui,
husband of Leslie Ui, whom they begot two children. According to petitioner, Carlos Ui
admitted to him about the relationship between them and Atty. Bonifacio. This led Leslie Ui
to confront said respondent to stop their illicit affair but of to no avail. According however to
respondent, she is a victim in the situation. When respondent met Carlos Ui, she
had known him to be a bachelor but with children to an estranged Chinese
woman who is already in Amoy, China. Moreover, the two got married in Hawaii,
USA therefore legalizing their relationship. When respondent knew of the real status of
Carlos Ui, she stopped their relationship. Respondent further claims that she and Carlos Ui
never lived together as the latter lived with his children to allow them to gradually accept
the situation. Respondent however presented a misrepresented copy of her marriage
contract.

Issue:

Did the respondent conduct herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be
barred from the practice of law?

Held:

NO. The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy the
practice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that
can be revoked, subject to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and
the dictates of legal ethics. If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar,
then the continued possession of good moral character is also requisite for retaining
membership in the legal profession.

Membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good moral
character. A lawyer may be disbarred for “grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude”. A member of the bar should have moral
integrity in addition to professional probity.
Circumstances existed which should have aroused respondent’s suspicion that something
was amiss in her relationship with Ui, and moved her to ask probing questions. Respondent
was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her
relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what respondent believed was a valid
marriage, cannot be considered as an immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that shows
indifference to the moral norms of society and to opinion of good and respectable member
of the community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must
be grossly immoral, that is it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or
so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.

A member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous
relationships . . . but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.

Respondents act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true
civil status belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of
flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession.