[LEGAL

PROFESSION]
2nd semester, A.Y.
2014-2015

Guevarra v. Eala
A.C. No. 7136
Ponente: Per Curiam
Date: August 1, 2007
Petitioner: Joselano Guevarra
Respondent: Atty. Jose Manuel Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala
Relief: Complaint for disbarment
FACTS:

Guevarra first met Eala when Guevarras then-fiance Irene Moje introduced Eala to him as a friend who was married to Marianne Tantoco
with whom he had 3 children.

Guevarra and Irene got married, but then after a year, he noticed that his wife had been receiving cellphone calls and messages from Eala. (I
love you; I miss you; Meet you at Megamall). He also noticed that his wife habitually went home very late at night or early in the morning the
following day, and sometimes did not go home from work. (reply when asked of whereabouts: slept at parents house in Binangonan or busy
with work)

Guevarra saw his wife and Eala together on 2 occasions. On the 2nd occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the
conjugal house.

Guevarra went uninvited to Irenes birthday celebration and saw Eala celebrating with her family and friends. Following this incident, Irene
hauled off all her per personal belongings and share of household furniture and appliances.

Guevarra later found a folded I love you card with a handwritten note from Eala in the masters bedroom. (Eala admitted having sent this)

Guevarra also saw Eala and Irenes car constantly parked at a street in New Manila, where Irene was already residing. He also learned from
his friends that Irene attended a concert with Eala, and Irene was pregnant. (later on gave birth to baby girl Samantha Moje; Eala listed as the
babys father in the certificate of live birth)

Guevarra filed a complaint for disbarment before the IBP CBD against Eala for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the
lawyers oath for flaunting their adulterous relationship. (violation of Art XV Sec 2 of Consti: marriage as an inviolable social institution
mocked the institution of marriage, betrayed his own family, broke up Guevarras marriage, commits adultery with Irene, and degrades the
legal profession)

Ealas defense: his acts were purely personal and low profile; his relationship with Irene is neither under scandalous circumstance nor
tantamount to grossly immoral conduct as would be a ground for disbarment pursuant to Rule 138, Sec 23 of RoC; filed for dismissal of
complaint due to the pendency of civil case filed by Guevarra for the annulment of his marriage to Irene and a criminal complaint for adultery
against the 2

IBP-CBD Commissioner San Juans recommendation: Eala be disbarred for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. However, the IBP Board of Governors, by a Resolution, annulled and set aside the said recommendation
and accordingly dismissed the case for lack of merit.
ISSUE1: WON the IBP Board of Governors dismissal of the case was proper NO
HELD/RATIO1:
In setting aside the recommendation of the investigating Commissioner and dismissing the case for lack of merit, the IBP Board of Governors gave no
reason for its 33-word resolution.
In his comment, Ealas statements are an admission that there is indeed a special relationship between him and Irene, only that they are not flaunting it.
He also did not categorically denied being the father of Samantha, only that he ahs no personal knowledge of his name appearing in the certificate of live
birth of the child. Indeed, his answer does not deny carrying on an adulterous relationship with Irene (Art 333, RPC: Adultery that committed by any
married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by a man who has carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to be
married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void) Ealas denial is a negative pregnant with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in
the pleading. (negative pregnant - a form of negative expression which carries with it in affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the
adverse party)
ISSUE2: WON Eala should be disbarred? YES
Eala: disbarment does not lie because his relationship with Irene was not under Sec 27 of Rule 138 of RRoC
HELD/RATIO2:
Batac, Endaya, Lingat, Santos, Saturnino, Villafuerte, Yee

[LEGAL
PROFESSION]
2nd semester, A.Y.
2014-2015

The said rule uses the phrase grossly immoral conduct not under scandalous ciscumstances. Whether a lawyers sexual congress with a woman not
his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be characterized as grossly immoral conduct depends on the surrounding circumstances. The case at
bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is not is wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out
discreetly. Their sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage
and marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.
Violations: Lawyers Oath; Art XV Sec 2 of Consti; Family Code; Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of CPR
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Resolution No. XVII-2006-06 passed on January 28, 2006 by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule
1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Let a copy of this Decision, which is immediately executory, be made part of the records of respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court
of the Philippines. And let copies of the Decision be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and circulated to all courts.
This Decision takes effect immediately.
DOCTRINE:
Preponderance of evidence is the quantum of evidence needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.
Administrative cases against a lawyer belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of civil and criminal
cases.
*even if the petition for nullity of marriage was granted and Noli and Irene be acquitted of adultery, the same would not have been a bar to the present
administrative complaint

Batac, Endaya, Lingat, Santos, Saturnino, Villafuerte, Yee