SECONDDIVISION

[A.C.No.3319.June8,2000]

LESLIEUI,complainant,vs.ATTY.IRISBONIFACIO,respondent.

DECISION
DELEON,JR.,J.:

BeforeusisanadministrativecomplaintfordisbarmentagainstAtty.IrisBonifacioforallegedly
carryingonanimmoralrelationshipwithCarlosL.Ui,husbandofcomplainant,LeslieUi.

Therelevantfactsare:

OnJanuary24,1971complainantLeslieUimarriedCarlosL.UiattheOurLadyofLourdes
ChurchinQuezonCity[1]andasaresultoftheirmaritalunion,theyhadfour(4)children,
namely,Leilani,Lianni,LindsayandCarlCavin,allsurnamedUi.SometimeinDecember1987,
however,complainantfoundoutthatherhusband,CarlosUi,wascarryingonanillicit
relationshipwithrespondentAtty.IrisBonifaciowithwhomhebegotadaughtersometimein
1986,andthattheyhadbeenlivingtogetheratNo.527SanCarlosStreet,AyalaAlabang
VillageinMuntinlupaCity.RespondentwhoisagraduateoftheCollegeofLawoftheUniversity
ofthePhilippineswasadmittedtothePhilippineBarin1982.

CarlosUiadmittedtocomplainanthisrelationshipwiththerespondent.Complainantthenvisited
respondentatherofficeinthelaterpartofJune1988andintroducedherselfasthelegalwifeof
CarlosUi.Whereupon,respondentadmittedtoherthatshehasachildwithCarlosUiand
alleged,however,thateverythingwasoverbetweenherandCarlosUi.Complainantbelieved
therepresentationsofrespondentandthoughtthingswouldturnoutwellfromthenonandthat
theillicitrelationshipbetweenherhusbandandrespondentwouldcometoanend.

However,complainantagaindiscoveredthattheillicitrelationshipbetweenherhusbandand
respondentcontinued,andthatsometimeinDecember1988,respondentandherhusband,
CarlosUi,hadasecondchild.ComplainantthenmetagainwithrespondentsometimeinMarch
1989andpleadedwithrespondenttodiscontinueherillicitrelationshipwithCarlosUibuttono
avail.Theillicitrelationshippersistedandcomplainantevencametoknowlateronthat
respondenthadbeenemployedbyherhusbandinhiscompany.

Acomplaintfordisbarment,docketedasAdm.CaseNo.3319,wasthenfiledonAugust11,
1989bythecomplainantagainstrespondentAtty.IrisBonifaciobeforetheCommissiononBar
DisciplineoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(hereinafter,Commission)onthegroundof
immorality,moreparticularly,forcarryingonanillicitrelationshipwiththecomplainants
husband,CarlosUi.InherAnswer,[2]respondentaverredthatshemetCarlosUisometimein
1983andhadknownhimallalongtobeabachelor,withtheknowledge,however,thatCarlos
UihadchildrenbyaChinesewomaninAmoy,China,fromwhomhehadlongbeenestranged.
Shestatedthatduringoneoftheirtripsabroad,CarlosUiformalizedhisintentiontomarryher
andtheyinfactgotmarriedinHawaii,USAin1985[3].UpontheirreturntoManila,respondent
didnotlivewithCarlosUi.ThelattercontinuedtolivewithhischildrenintheirGreenhills
residencebecauserespondentandCarlosUiwantedtoletthechildrengraduallytoknowand
acceptthefactofhissecondmarriagebeforetheywouldlivetogether.[4]

In1986,respondentleftthecountryandstayedinHonolulu,Hawaiiandshewouldonlyreturn
occasionallytothePhilippinestoupdateherlawpracticeandrenewlegalties.Duringoneof
hertripstoManilasometimeinJune1988,respondentwassurprisedwhenshewasconfronted
byawomanwhoinsistedthatshewasthelawfulwifeofCarlosUi.Hurtanddesolateuponher
discoveryofthetruecivilstatusofCarlosUi,respondentthenleftforHonolulu,Hawaii
sometimeinJuly1988andreturnedonlyinMarch1989withhertwo(2)children.OnMarch20,
1989,afewdaysaftershereportedtoworkwiththelawfirm[5]shewasconnectedwith,the
womanwhorepresentedherselftobethewifeofCarlosUiagaincametoheroffice,demanding
toknowifCarlosUihasbeencommunicatingwithher.

ItisrespondentscontentionthatherrelationshipwithCarlosUiisnotillicitbecausetheywere
marriedabroadandthatafterJune1988whenrespondentdiscoveredCarlosUistruecivil
status,shecutoffallhertieswithhim.RespondentaverredthatCarlosUineverlivedwithher
inAlabang,andthatheresidedat26PotsdamStreet,Greenhills,SanJuan,MetroManila.It
wasrespondentwholivedinAlabanginahousewhichbelongedtohermother,RosalindaL.
Bonifacioandthatthesaidhousewasbuiltexclusivelyfromherparentsfunds.[6]Bywayof
counterclaim,respondentsoughtmoraldamagesintheamountofTenMillionPesos
(Php10,000,000.00)againstcomplainantforhavingfiledthepresentallegedlymaliciousand
groundlessdisbarmentcaseagainstrespondent.

InherReply[7]datedApril6,1990,complainantstates,amongothers,thatrespondentknew
perfectlywellthatCarlosUiwasmarriedtocomplainantandhadchildrenwithherevenatthe
startofherrelationshipwithCarlosUi,andthatthereasonrespondentwentabroadwastogive
birthtohertwo(2)childrenwithCarlosUi.

DuringthependencyoftheproceedingsbeforetheIntegratedBar,complainantalsocharged
herhusband,CarlosUi,andrespondentwiththecrimeofConcubinagebeforetheOfficeofthe
ProvincialFiscalofRizal,docketedasI.S.No.895247,butthesamewasdismissedfor
insufficiencyofevidencetoestablishprobablecausefortheoffensecharged.Theresolution
dismissingthecriminalcomplaintagainstrespondentreads:

Complainantsevidencehadprimafacieestablishedtheexistenceofthe"illicit
relationship"betweentherespondentsallegedlydiscoveredbythecomplainantin
December1987.ThesameevidencehowevershowthatrespondentCarlosUi
wasstilllivingwithcomplainantuptothelatterpartof1988and/ortheearlypartof
1989.

Itwouldthereforebelogicalandsafetostatethatthe"relationship"of
respondentsstartedandwasdiscoveredbycomplainantsometimein1987when
sheandrespondentCarloswerestilllivingatNo.26PotsdamStreet,Northeast
Greenhills,SanJuan,MetroManilaandthey,admittedly,continuedtolivetogether
attheirconjugalhomeuptoearly(sic)partof1989orlater1988,when
respondentCarlosleftthesame.

Fromtheabove,itwouldnotbeamisstoconcludethataltho(sic)therelationship,
illicitascomplainantputsit,hadbeenprimafacieestablishedbycomplainants
evidence,thissameevidencehadfailedtoevenprimafacieestablishthe"factof
respondentscohabitationintheconceptofhusbandandwifeatthe527San
CarlosSt.,AyalaAlabanghouse,proofofwhichisnecessaryandindispensableto
 atleastcreateprobablecausefortheoffensecharged.Thestatementaloneof
complainant,worse,astatementonlyofaconclusionrespectingthefactof
cohabitationdoesnotmakethecomplainantsevidencetheretoanybetter/stronger
(U.S.vs.CasipongandMongoy,20Phil.178).

Itisworthstatingthattheevidencesubmittedbyrespondentsinsupportoftheir
respectivepositionsonthemattersupportandbolstertheforegoing
conclusion/recommendation.

WHEREFORE,itismostrespectfullyrecommendedthattheinstantcomplaintbe
dismissedforwantofevidencetoestablishprobablecausefortheoffense
charged.

RESPECTFULLYSUBMITTED.[8]

ComplainantappealedthesaidResolutionoftheProvincialFiscalofRizaltotheSecretaryof
Justice,butthesamewasdismissed[9]onthegroundofinsufficiencyofevidencetoproveher
allegationthatrespondentandCarlosUilivedtogetherashusbandandwifeat527SanCarlos
Street,AyalaAlabang,Muntinlupa,MetroManila.

IntheproceedingsbeforetheIBPCommissiononBarDiscipline,complainantfiledaMotionto
CiteRespondentinContemptoftheCommission[10]whereinshechargedrespondentwith
makingfalseallegationsinherAnswerandforsubmittingasupportingdocumentwhichwas
alteredandintercalated.SheallegedthatintheAnswerofrespondentfiledbeforethe
IntegratedBar,respondentaverred,amongothers,thatshewasmarriedtoCarlosUion
October22,1985andattachedaCertificateofMarriagetosubstantiateheraverment.However,
theCertificateofMarriage[11]dulycertifiedbytheStateRegistrarasatruecopyoftherecord
onfileintheHawaiiStateDepartmentofHealth,anddulyauthenticatedbythePhilippine
ConsulateGeneralinHonolulu,Hawaii,USArevealedthatthedateofmarriagebetweenCarlos
UiandrespondentAtty.IrisBonifaciowasOctober22,1987,andnotOctober22,1985as
claimedbyrespondentinherAnswer.Accordingtocomplainant,thereasonforthatfalse
allegationwasbecauserespondentwantedtoimpressuponthesaidIBPthatthebirthofher
firstchildbyCarlosUiwaswithinthewedlock.[12]Itisthecontentionofcomplainantthatsuch
actconstitutesaviolationofArticles183[13]and184[14]oftheRevisedPenalCode,andalso
contemptoftheCommissionandthattheactofrespondentinmakingfalseallegationsinher
Answerandsubmittinganaltered/intercalateddocumentareindicativeofhermoralperversity
andlackofintegritywhichmakeherunworthytobeamemberofthePhilippineBar.

InherOpposition(ToMotionToCiteRespondentinContempt),[15]respondentaverredthatshe
didnothavetheoriginalcopyofthemarriagecertificatebecausethesamewasinthe
possessionofCarlosUi,andthatsheannexedsuchcopybecauseshereliedingoodfaithon
whatappearedonthecopyofthemarriagecertificateinherpossession.

RespondentfiledherMemorandum[16]onFebruary22,1995andraisedtheloneissueof
whetherornotshehasconductedherselfinanimmoralmannerforwhichshedeservestobe
barredfromthepracticeoflaw.Respondentaverredthatthecomplaintshouldbedismissedon
two(2)grounds,namely:

(i)Respondentconductedherselfinamannerconsistentwiththe
requirementofgoodmoralcharacterforthepracticeofthelegalprofession
and
 (ii)Complainantfailedtoproveherallegationthatrespondentconducted
herselfinanimmoralmanner.[17]

Inherdefense,respondentcontends,amongothers,thatitwasshewhowasthevictiminthis
caseandnotLeslieUibecauseshedidnotknowthatCarlosUiwasalreadymarried,andthat
uponlearningofthisfact,respondentimmediatelycutoffallhertieswithCarlosUi.Shestated
thattherewasnoreasonforhertodoubtatthattimethatthecivilstatusofCarlosUiwasthatof
abachelorbecausehespentsomuchtimewithher,andhewassoopeninhiscourtship.[18]

Ontheissueofthefalsifiedmarriagecertificate,respondentallegedthatitwashighlyincredible
forhertohaveknowinglyattachedsuchmarriagecertificatetoherAnswerhadsheknownthat
thesamewasaltered.Respondentreiteratedthattherewasnocompellingreasonforherto
makeitappearthathermarriagetoCarlosUitookplaceeitherin1985or1987,becausethe
factremainsthatrespondentandCarlosUigotmarriedbeforecomplainantconfronted
respondentandinformedthelatterofherearliermarriagetoCarlosUiinJune1988.Further,
respondentstatedthatitwasCarlosUiwhotestifiedandadmittedthathewastheperson
responsibleforchangingthedateofthemarriagecertificatefrom1987to1985,and
complainantdidnotpresentevidencetorebutthetestimonyofCarlosUionthismatter.

Respondentpositsthatcomplainantsevidence,consistingofthepicturesofrespondentwitha
child,picturesofrespondentwithCarlosUi,apictureofagaragewithcars,apictureofalight
coloredcarwithPlateNo.PNS313,apictureofthesamecar,andportionofthehouseand
ground,andanotherpictureofthesamecarbearingPlateNo.PNS313andapictureofthe
houseandthegarage,[19]doesnotprovethatsheactedinanimmoralmanner.Theyhaveno
evidentiaryvalueaccordingtoher.Thepicturesweretakenbyaphotographerfromaprivate
securityagencyandwhowasnotpresentedduringthehearings.Further,therespondent
presentedtheResolutionoftheProvincialFiscalofPasiginI.S.CaseNo.895427dismissing
thecomplaintfiledbyLeslieUiagainstrespondentforlackofevidencetoestablishprobable
causefortheoffensecharged[20]andthedismissaloftheappealbytheDepartmentofJustice
[21]
tobolsterherargumentthatshewasnotguiltyofanyimmoralorillegalactbecauseofher
relationshipwithCarlosUi.Infine,respondentclaimsthatsheenteredtherelationshipwith
CarlosUiingoodfaithandthatherconductcannotbeconsideredaswillful,flagrant,or
shameless,norcanitsuggestmoralindifference.ShefellinlovewithCarlosUiwhomshe
believedtobesingle,and,thatuponherdiscoveryofhistruecivilstatus,shepartedwayswith
him.

IntheMemorandum[22]filedonMarch20,1995bycomplainantLeslieUi,sheprayedforthe
disbarmentofAtty.IrisBonifacioandreiteratedthatrespondentcommittedimmoralitybyhaving
intimaterelationswithamarriedmanwhichresultedinthebirthoftwo(2)children.Complainant
testifiedthatrespondentsmother,Mrs.LindaBonifacio,personallyknewcomplainantandher
husbandsincethelate1970sbecausetheywereclientsofthebankwhereMrs.Bonifaciowas
theBranchManager.[23]Itwasthushighlyimprobablethatrespondent,whowaslivingwithher
parentsasof1986,wouldnothavebeeninformedbyherownmotherthatCarlosUiwasa
marriedman.Complainantlikewiseaverredthatrespondentcommitteddisrespecttowardsthe
Commissionforsubmittingaphotocopyofadocumentcontaininganintercalateddate.

InherReplytoComplainantsMemorandum[24],respondentstatedthatcomplainantmiserably
failedtoshowsufficientprooftowarrantherdisbarment.Respondentinsiststhatcontrarytothe
allegationsofcomplainant,thereisnoshowingthatrespondenthadknowledgeofthefactof
marriageofCarlosUitocomplainant.TheallegationthathermotherknewCarlosUitobea
marriedmandoesnotprovethatsuchinformationwasmadeknowntorespondent.

Hearingonthecaseensued,afterwhichtheCommissiononBarDisciplinesubmitteditsReport
andRecommendation,findingthat:

Inthecaseatbar,itisallegedthatatthetimerespondentwascourtedbyCarlos
Ui,thelatterrepresentedhimselftobesingle.TheCommissiondoesnotfindsaid
claimtoodifficulttobelieveinthelightofcontemporaryhumanexperience.

Almostalways,whenamarriedmancourtsasinglewoman,herepresentshimself
tobesingle,separated,orwithoutanyfirmcommitmenttoanotherwoman.The
reasonthereforisnothardtofathom.Bytheirverynature,singlewomenprefer
singlemen.

Therecordswillshowthatwhenrespondentbecameawarethe(sic)truecivil
statusofCarlosUi,sheleftfortheUnitedStates(inJulyof1988).Shebrokeoff
allcontactswithhim.WhenshereturnedtothePhilippinesinMarchof1989,she
livedwithherbrother,Atty.TeodoroBonifacio,Jr.CarlosUiandrespondentonly
talkedtoeachotherbecauseofthechildrenwhomhewasallowedtovisit.Atno
timedidtheylivetogether.

Undertheforegoingcircumstances,theCommissionfailstofindanyactonthe
partofrespondentthatcanbeconsideredasunprincipledordisgracefulastobe
reprehensibletoahighdegree.Tobesure,shewasmoreofavictimthat(sic)
anythingelseandshoulddeservecompassionratherthancondemnation.Without
cavil,thissadepisodedestroyedherchanceofhavinganormalandhappyfamily
life,adreamcherishedbyeverysinglegirl.

x..........................x..........................x"

Thereafter,theBoardofGovernorsoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesissuedaNoticeof
ResolutiondatedDecember13,1997,thedispositiveportionofwhichreadsasfollows:

RESOLVEDtoADOPTandAPPROVE,asitisherebyADOPTEDand
APPROVED,theReportandRecommendationoftheInvestigatingCommissioner
intheaboveentitledcase,hereinmadepartofthisResolution/DecisionasAnnex
"A",and,findingtherecommendationfullysupportedbytheevidenceonrecord
andtheapplicablelawsandrules,thecomplaintforGrossImmoralityagainst
RespondentisDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.Atty.IrisBonifaciois
REPRIMANDEDforknowinglyandwillfullyattachingtoherAnswerafalsified
CertificateofMarriagewithasternwarningthatarepetitionofthesamewillmerit
amoreseverepenalty."

Weagreewiththefindingsaforequoted.

Thepracticeoflawisaprivilege.Abarcandidatedoesnothavetherighttoenjoythepractice
ofthelegalprofessionsimplybypassingthebarexaminations.Itisaprivilegethatcanbe
revoked,subjecttothemandateofdueprocess,oncealawyerviolateshisoathandthe
dictatesoflegalethics.Therequisitesforadmissiontothepracticeoflaware:

a.hemustbeacitizenofthePhilippines
 b.aresidentthereof

c.atleasttwentyone(21)yearsofage

d.apersonofgoodmoralcharacter

e.hemustshowthatnochargesagainsthiminvolvingmoralturpitude,are
filedorpendingincourt

f.possesstherequirededucationalqualificationsand

g.passthebarexaminations.[25](Italicssupplied)

Clearfromtheforegoingisthatoneoftheconditionspriortoadmissiontothebaristhatan
applicantmustpossessgoodmoralcharacter.Moreimportantly,possessionofgoodmoral
charactermustbecontinuousasarequirementtotheenjoymentoftheprivilegeoflawpractice,
otherwise,thelossthereofisagroundfortherevocationofsuchprivilege.Ithasbeenheld

Ifgoodmoralcharacterisasinequanonforadmissiontothebar,thenthe
continuedpossessionofgoodmoralcharacterisalsoarequisiteforretaining
membershipinthelegalprofession.Membershipinthebarmaybeterminated
whenalawyerceasestohavegoodmoralcharacter.(Royongvs.Oblena,117
Phil.865).

Alawyermaybedisbarredfor"grosslyimmoralconduct,orbyreasonofhis
convictionofacrimeinvolvingmoralturpitude".Amemberofthebarshouldhave
moralintegrityinadditiontoprofessionalprobity.

Itisdifficulttostatewithprecisionandtofixaninflexiblestandardastowhatis
"grosslyimmoralconduct"ortospecifythemoraldelinquencyandobliquitywhich
renderalawyerunworthyofcontinuingasamemberofthebar.Theruleimplies
thatwhatappearstobeunconventionalbehaviortothestraightlacedmaynotbe
theimmoralconductthatwarrantsdisbarment.

Immoralconducthasbeendefinedas"thatconductwhichiswillful,flagrant,or
shameless,andwhichshowsamoralindifferencetotheopinionofthegoodand
respectablemembersofthecommunity."(7C.J.S.959).[26]

Inthecaseatbar,itistheclaimofrespondentAtty.BonifaciothatwhenshemetCarlosUi,she
knewandbelievedhimtobesingle.Respondentfellinlovewithhimandtheygotmarriedand
asaresultofsuchmarriage,shegavebirthtotwo(2)children.Uponherknowledgeofthetrue
civilstatusofCarlosUi,shelefthim.

Simpleasthefactsofthecasemaysound,theeffectsoftheactuationsofrespondentarenot
onlyfarfromsimple,theywillhavearipplingeffectonhowthestandardnormsofourlegal
practitionersshouldbedefined.Perhapsmoralityinourliberalsocietytodayisafarcryfrom
whatitusedtobebefore.Thispermissivenessnotwithstanding,lawyers,askeepersofpublic
faith,areburdenedwithahigherdegreeofsocialresponsibilityandthusmusthandletheir
personalaffairswithgreatercaution.Thefactsofthiscaseleadustobelievethatperhaps
respondentwouldnothavefoundherselfinsuchacompromisingsituationhadsheexercised
prudenceandbeenmorevigilantinfindingoutmoreaboutCarlosUispersonalbackground
priortoherintimateinvolvementwithhim.
Surely,circumstancesexistedwhichshouldhaveatleastarousedrespondentssuspicionthat
somethingwasamissinherrelationshipwithCarlosUi,andmovedhertoaskprobing
questions.Forinstance,respondentadmittedthatsheknewthatCarlosUihadchildrenwitha
womanfromAmoy,China,yetitappearedthatsheneverexertedtheslightestefforttofindout
ifCarlosUiandthiswomanwereindeedunmarried.Also,despitetheirmarriagein1987,Carlos
Uineverlivedwithrespondentandtheirfirstchild,acircumstancethatissimply
incomprehensibleconsideringrespondentsallegationthatCarlosUiwasveryopenincourting
her.

Allthesetakentogetherleadstotheinescapableconclusionthatrespondentwasimprudentin
managingherpersonalaffairs.However,thefactremainsthatherrelationshipwithCarlosUi,
clothedasitwaswithwhatrespondentbelievedwasavalidmarriage,cannotbeconsidered
immoral.Forimmoralityconnotesconductthatshowsindifferencetothemoralnormsofsociety
andtheopinionofgoodandrespectablemembersofthecommunity.[27]Moreover,forsuch
conducttowarrantdisciplinaryaction,thesamemustbe"grosslyimmoral,"thatis,itmustbeso
corruptandfalseastoconstituteacriminalactorsounprincipledastobereprehensibletoa
highdegree.[28]

Wehaveheldthat"amemberoftheBarandofficerofthecourtisnotonlyrequiredtorefrain
fromadulterousrelationshipsxxxbutmustalsosobehavehimselfastoavoidscandalizingthe
publicbycreatingthebeliefthatheisfloutingthosemoralstandards."[29]Respondentsactof
immediatelydistancingherselffromCarlosUiupondiscoveringhistruecivilstatusbeliesjust
thatallegedmoralindifferenceandprovesthatshehadnointentionofflauntingthelawandthe
highmoralstandardofthelegalprofession.Complainantsbareassertionstothecontrary
deservenocredit.Afterall,theburdenofproofrestsuponthecomplainant,andtheCourtwill
exerciseitsdisciplinarypowersonlyifsheestablisheshercasebyclear,convincingand
satisfactoryevidence.[30]This,hereincomplainantmiserablyfailedtodo.

OnthematterofthefalsifiedCertificateofMarriageattachedbyrespondenttoherAnswer,we
findimprobabletobelievetheavermentofrespondentthatshemerelyreliedonthephotocopy
oftheMarriageCertificatewhichwasprovidedherbyCarlosUi.Foraneventassignificantasa
marriageceremony,anynormalbridewouldverilyrecallthedateandyearofhermarriage.Itis
difficulttofathomhowabride,especiallyalawyerasinthecaseatbar,canforgettheyear
whenshegotmarried.Simplystated,itiscontrarytohumanexperienceandhighlyimprobable.

Furthermore,anyprudentlawyerwouldverifytheinformationcontainedinanattachmenttoher
pleading,especiallysowhenshehaspersonalknowledgeofthefactsandcircumstances
containedtherein.InattachingsuchMarriageCertificatewithanintercalateddate,thedefense
ofgoodfaithofrespondentonthatpointcannotstand.

Itistheboundendutyoflawyerstoadhereunwaveringlytothehigheststandardsofmorality.
Thelegalprofessionexactsfromitsmembersnothingless.Lawyersarecalleduponto
safeguardtheintegrityoftheBar,freefrommisdeedsandactsconstitutiveofmalpractice.Their
exaltedpositionsasofficersofthecourtdemandnolessthanthehighestdegreeofmorality.

WHEREFORE,thecomplaintfordisbarmentagainstrespondentAtty.IrisL.Bonifacio,for
allegedimmorality,isherebyDISMISSED.

However,respondentisherebyREPRIMANDEDforattachingtoherAnsweraphotocopyofher
MarriageCertificate,withanalteredorintercalateddatethereof,withaSTERNWARNINGthat
amoreseveresanctionwillbeimposedonherforanyrepetitionofthesameorsimilaroffense
inthefuture.

SOORDERED.

Bellosillo,(ChairmanandActingC.J.),Mendoza,Quisumbing,andBuena,JJ.,concur.

[1]Records,Vol.I,p.5.
[2]Records,VolIII,p.8.
[3]Records,Vol.III,p.17.
[4]Records,Vol.III,pp.1011.
[5]RillorazaAfricaDeOcampo&AfricaLawOffices.
[6]Records,Vol.III,p.12.
[7]Records,Vol.III,p.26.
[8]Records,Vol.III,pp.71,7374.
[9]Records,Vol.III,pp.7578.
[10]Records,Vol.III,pp.113117.
[11]Records,Vol.III,pp.125126.
[12]Records,Vol.III,pp.114115.

[13]
Art.183.Falsetestimonyinothercasesandperjuryinsolemnaffirmation.Thepenaltyofarrestomayorinitsmaximum
periodtoprisioncorreccionalinitsminimumperiodshallbeimposeduponanypersonwho,knowinglymakinguntruthful
statementsandnotbeingincludedintheprovisionsofthenextprecedingarticles,shalltestifyunderoath,ormakeanaffidavit,
uponanymaterialmatterbeforeacompetentpersonauthorizedtoadministeranoathincasesinwhichthelawsorequires.

Anypersonwho,incaseofasolemnaffirmationmadeinlieuofanoath,shallcommitanyofthefalsehoodsmentionedinthis
andthethreeprecedingarticlesofthissection,shallsuffertherespectivepenaltiesprovidedtherein.
[14]Art.184.Offeringfalsetestimonyinevidence.Anypersonwhoshallknowinglyofferinevidenceafalsewitnessor
testimonyinanyjudicialorofficialproceeding,shallbepunishedasguiltyoffalsetestimonyandshallsuffertherespective
penaltiesprovidedinthissection.
[15]Records,Vol.III,p.133.
[16]Records,Vol.III,pp.265287.
[17]Records,Vol.III,pp.275,281.
[18]Records,p.278citingTSNdatedJanuary22,1993,p.52.
[19]Records,Vol.III,pp.52,5456.
[20]Records,Vol.III,pp.7174.
[21]ResolutionNo.030,Seriesof1992oftheDepartmentofJusticedatedDecember18,1991,Records,Vol.III,pp.7578.
[22]Records,Vol.III,pp.289300.
[23]Records,Vol.III,p.296.
[24]Records,Vol.III,pp.317321.
[25]RubenE.Agpalo,LegalEthics,(1985)
[26]Arcigavs.Maniwang,106SCRA591,594(1981)
[27]Naragvs.Narag,291SCRA454,464(1998)
[28]Reyesvs.Wong,63SCRA667,673citingSection27,Rule138,NewRulesofCourtSoberanovs.Villanueva,6SCRA
893,895Mortelvs.Aspiras,December28,1956,100Phil.587,591593Royongvs.Oblena,April30,1963,7SCRA869
870Bolivarvs.Simbol,April29,1966,16SCRA623,630andQuingwavs.Puno,February28,1967,19SCRA439440,
444445)
[29]Ibid.
[30]Ibid.