1. JOSE TOLOSA, complainant, vs.ALFREDO CARGO, respondent.

Facts;
Complainant filed a disbarment case towards respondent claiming immorality. Alleging further that Atty.
Alfredo Cargo and his wife is having an affair and that his wife even left their conjugal home to live and
rent in a place paid by the respondent.
Several issues were also raised alleging immorality and altercations between the complainant and the
respondent.

Issue;
WON Atty. Alfredo Cargo be disbarred.
Ruling;
The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusion of the Solicitor General in not finding the respondent
guilty of immorality due to lack of sufficient evidence. However, the court ruled further to WARN Atty.
Alfredo Cargo and REPRIMAND him of conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar and an officer of the
court.

2. Delos Reyes vs Aznar

Facts: Complainant is a second year medical student of the Southwestern University in which
respondent Atty. Aznar is the then Chairman of the College of Medicine. Complainant was
compelled to go to Manila with respondent for three days where he repeatedly had carnal
knowledge of her upon the threat of respondent that if she would not give in to his lustful
desires, she would flunk in all her subjects and she would never become a medical intern. After
due investigation, the Solicitor General found the respondent guilty of gross immoral conduct
and recommends that since the complainant is partly to blame for having gone with respondent
to Manila knowing fully well that respondent is a married man ,with children, a rich man and is
not practicing his profession before the court, he should merely be suspended from the practice
of law for not less than three (3) years,

ISSUE:
Whether or not the imposition of the penalty is proper.

HELD: NO.
The fact that he is a rich man and does not practice his profession as a lawyer,
does not render respondent a person of good moral character. Evidence of good moral character
precedes admission to bar (Sec.2, Rule 138, Rules of Court) and such requirement is not
dispensed with upon admission thereto. Good moral character is a continuing qualification
necessary to entitle one to continue in the practice of law.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court enumerates the grounds for
disbarment or suspension from his office as attorney, among others, by grossly immoral conduct.
Immoral conduct has been defined as that which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which
shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the
community.
In the present case, it was highly immoral of respondent to have taken advantage
of his position in asking complainant to go with him under the threat that she would flunk in all
her subjects in case she refused.
Respondent Jose B. Aznar is DISBARRED.