Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Upholding Integrity of the Profession for the family of complainant, spoke to the father of
complainant and asked that he be given the title over
TEODORO R. RIVERA VS. ATTY. SERGIO ANGELES a property owned by complainant located in Pinugay,
A.C. No. 2519. August 29, 2000 Antipolo, Rizal and covered by TCT No. M-3023,
Emancipation Patent No. 410414, because he
FACTS: Atty. Sergio Angeles was the legal counsel of allegedly had to verify the proper measurements of
Teodoro Rivera and 2 others in a civil case. Rivera and the subject property. Sometime in November, 1991,
his 2 co-plaintiffs received a favorable decision. Atty. however, complainant and his family were surprised
Angeles received almost Php 50,000 from one of the when several people entered the subject property
defendants in the case as partial fulfillment of the and, when confronted by the companions of
judgement against the latter. Atty. Angeles, however, complainant, the latter were told that they were
never told his clients of the amount he had received workers of Canares and were there to construct a
and never remitted the same to him, leaving them to piggery. Complainant complained to the barangay
discover such fact on their own. Rivera and his co- authorities in Pinugay and narrated the incident but
plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint for respondent Canares did not appear before it and
disbarment against Atty. Angeles. continued with the construction of the piggery in the
presence of armed men who were watching over the
HELD: GUILTY. Atty. Angeles was not disbarred but the construction. Complainant then went to respondent
Court ruled that his act amounted to serious Villalon to complain about the people of respondent
misconduct. The Court has repeatedly stressed the Canares but nothing was done.
importance of integrity and good moral character as
part of a lawyer’s equipment in the practice of his Complainant then filed a case for ejectment against
profession. For it cannot be denied that the respect of respondent Canares. In his Reply however, the latter
litigants for the profession is inexorably diminished answered that the subject property was already sold
whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust and by complainant to respondent Canares in the amount
confidence. The Court is not oblivious of the right of a of P450,000.00 as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute
lawyer to be paid for the legal services he has Sale of Real Property dated December 5, 1991 and
extended to his client but such right should not be notarized by respondent Atty. Crispulo
exercised whimsically by appropriating to himself the Ducusin. Complainant, however, averred that he
money intended for his clients. There should never be never sold the property, signed any document nor
an instance where the victor in litigation loses received any money therefor, and he also denied
everything he won to the fees of his own lawyer. For having appeared before respondent Ducusin who
deceit in dealing with his client, Atty. Angeles was was the notary public for the Deed of Absolute
suspended from the practice of law for 1 year. Sale. Complainant discovered that respondent Villalon
claimed that complainants father allegedly gave the
JOSE S. DUCAT, JR. VS. ATTYS. ARSENIO C. VILLALON, subject property to him (respondent Villalon) as
JR. AND CRISPULO DUCUSIN evidenced by a document of sale purportedly signed
by complainant.
DE LEON, JR., J.:
In his Comment,[4] respondent Villalon denied that
Before us is a verified letter-complaint[1] for
allegations of the complainant and in turn, he alleged
disbarment against Attys. Arsenio C. Villalon, Jr.;
that the property was given voluntarily by Jose Ducat,
Andres Canares, Jr. and Crispulo Ducusin for deceit
Sr. to him out of close intimacy and for past legal
and gross misconduct in violation of the lawyers
services rendered. Thereafter, respondent Villalon, with
oath. Investigation proceeded only against
the knowledge and consent of Jose Ducat, Sr.,
respondent Villalon because it was discovered that
allowed the subject property to be used by Andres
Andres Canares was not a lawyer while Atty. Crispulo Canares to start a piggery business without any
Ducusin passed away on February 3, 1996.[2]
monetary consideration. A Deed of Sale of Parcel of
Land was then signed by Jose Ducat, Sr. to evidence
In the letter-complaint,[3] complainant alleged that
that he has conveyed the subject property to
on October 29, 1991, respondent Villalon, as counsel
respondent Villalon with the name of respondent
Canares included therein as protection because of recommendation of its Investigating Commissioner
the improvements to be introduced in the subject who found respondent Atty. Villalon guilty, and
property. Upon presenting the title covering the recommended his suspension from the practice of law
subject property, it was discovered that the property for two (2) years and likewise directed respondent
was registered in the name of Jose Ducat, Jr. and not Atty. Villalon to deliver to the complainant his TCT No.
Jose Ducat, Sr., but the latter told respondents Villalon M-3023 within ten (10) days from receipt of notice,
and Canares not to worry because the land was otherwise, this will result in his disbarment.
actually owned by him and that he merely placed the
name of his son, Jose Ducat, Jr. Jose Ducat, Sr. then The findings of IBP Investigating Commissioner Victor C.
suggested that the subject property be transferred Fernandez are as follows:
directly from Jose Ducat, Jr. to respondent Canares;
hence, he (Ducat, Sr.) got the title and guaranteed Complainant and his witness, Jose Ducat, Sr., testified
that he would return the document already signed in a straightforward, spontaneous and candid
and notarized, which he did the following manner. The sincerity and demeanor they displayed
day. According to respondent Canares, the trouble while testifying before the Commission inspire belief as
began when Jose Ducat, Sr. came to his office to the truth of what they are saying. More importantly,
demanding to know why he was not allowed to cut respondent failed to impute any ill-motive on the part
the trees inside the subject property by the caretaker of the complainant and his witness which can impel
of respondent Canares. them to institute the instant complaint and testify
falsely against him. To be sure, the testimony of the
On January 21, 1993, Jose Ducat, Jr. wrote[5] to this complainant and his witness deserves the
Court and averred that he neither signed the Deed of Commissions full faith and credence.
Sale covering the subject property nor did he appear
before the notary public Crispulo Ducusin, who Respondents evidence, on the other hand, leaves
notarized the same. He averred that respondents much to be desired. His defense (that he considered
Villalon and Ducusin should be disbarred from the himself the owner of the subject property which was
practice of law and respondent Villalon be imprisoned allegedly given to him by Jose Ducat, Sr.) rings hollow
for forging his signature and selling the subject in the face of a welter of contravening and
property without his consent. incontrovertible facts.
In his Rejoinder[6], respondent Villalon denied the FIRST, the registered owner of the subject property is
allegations of complainant and maintained that he is complainant Jose Ducat, Jr. Accordingly, respondent
a member of good standing of the Integrated Bar and (being a lawyer) knew or ought to know that Jose
that he has always preserved the high standards of Ducat, Sr. could not possibly give to him the said
the legal profession. Respondent Villalon expressed his property unless the former is duly authorized by the
willingness to have the Deed of Sale examined by the complainant through a Special Power of Attorney. No
National Bureau of Investigation and reiterated that such authorization has been given. Moreover, Jose
the subject property was orally given to him by Jose Ducat, Sr. has vigorously denied having given the
Ducat, Sr. and it was only in October, 1991 that the subject property to the respondent. This denial is not
conveyance was reduced in writing. He added that too difficult to believe considering the fact that he
the complainant knew that his father, Jose Ducat, Sr., (Jose Ducat, Sr.) is not the owner of said property.
was the person who signed the said document for and
in his behalf and that this was done with his consent SECOND, being a lawyer, respondent knew or ought
and knowledge. to know that conveyance of a real property, whether
gratuitously or for a consideration, must be in
This Court referred[7] the case to the Integrated Bar of writing. Accordingly, it is unbelievable that he would
the Philippines for investigation, report and consider himself the owner of the subject property on
recommendation. the basis of the verbal or oral giving of the property by
Jose Ducat, Sr. no matter how many times the latter
On May 17, 1997, the IBP Board of Governors passed a may have said that.
resolution adopting and approving the report and
THIRD, the Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land (Exh. 1 for After a careful consideration of the record of the
the respondent and Exh. A-2 for the complainant) instant case, it appears that the findings of facts and
allegedly executed by Jose Ducat, Sr. in favor of observations of the Investigating Commissioner,
respondent Atty. Arsenio Villalon and/or Andres Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which were all
Canares, Jr. covering the subject parcel of land which adopted by its Board of Governors, are well-taken, the
respondent prepared allegedly upon instruction of same being supported by the evidence adduced.
Jose Ducat, Sr. is of dubious character. As earlier
adverted to, Jose Ducat, Sr. is not the owner of said The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin lawyers
property. Moreover, said Deed of Sale of Parcel of to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair
Land is a falsified document as admitted by the play and nobility in the course of his practice of law. A
respondent himself when he said that the signature lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any
over the typewritten name Maria Cabrido (wife of misconduct, whether in his professional or private
Jose Ducat, Sr.) was affixed by Jose Ducat, Sr. Being a capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral
lawyer, respondent knew or ought to know that the character, in honesty, in probity and good demeanor,
act of Jose Ducat, Sr. in affixing his wifes signature is thus rendering unworthy to continue as an officer of
tantamount to a forgery. Accordingly, he should have the court.[9] Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
treated the said Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land has Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall at all times
(sic) a mere scrap of worthless paper instead of relying uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
on the same to substantiate his claim that the subject profession. The trust and confidence necessarily
property was given to him by Jose Ducat, Sr. Again, of reposed by clients require in the lawyer a high
note is the fact that Jose Ducat, Sr. has vigorously standard and appreciation of his duty to them. To this
denied having executed said document which denial end, nothing should be done by any member of the
is not too difficult to believe in the light of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any
circumstances already mentioned. degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity,
honesty, and integrity of the profession.[10]
FOURTH, the Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property
(Exh. 2 for the respondent and Exh. A-3 for the It has been established that the subject parcel of land,
complainant) allegedly executed by Jose Ducat, Jr. in with an area of five (5) hectares located in Barrio
favor of Andres Canares, Jr. over the subject property Pinugay, Antipolo, Rizal, is owned by and registered in
(which respondent claims he prepared upon the name of complainant herein, Jose Ducat,
instruction of Jose Ducat, Sr.) is likewise of questionable Jr. Respondent Villalon insists nonetheless that the
character. Complainant Jose Ducat, Jr. has vigorously property was orally given to him by complainants
denied having executed said document. He claims father, Jose Ducat, Sr., allegedly with the complete
that he has never sold said property to Andres knowledge of the fact that the subject property
Canares, Jr. whom he does not know; that he has belonged to his son, Jose Ducat, Jr. It is basic law,
never appeared before Atty. Crispulo Ducusin to however, that conveyance or transfer of any titled
subscribe to the document; and that he has never real property must be in writing, signed by the
received the amount of P450,000.00 representing the registered owner or at least by his attorney-in-fact by
consideration of said transaction. More importantly, virtue of a proper special power of attorney and duly
the infirmity of the said Deed of Absolute Sale of Real notarized. Respondent Villalon, as a lawyer, is
Property was supplied by the respondent no less when presumed to know, or ought to know, this
he admitted that there was no payment of process. Worse, when the transfer was first reduced in
P450,000.00 and that the same was placed in the writing in October, 1991 per Deed of Sale of Parcel of
document only to make it appear that the Land,[11] purportedly in favor of Atty. Arsenio C.
conveyance was for a consideration. Accordingly, Villalon and/or Andres Canares, Jr., respondent
and being a lawyer, respondent knew or ought to Villalon knew that it was Jose Ducat, Sr. who signed
know the irregularity of his act and that he should the said document of sale without any Special Power
have treated the document as another scrap of of Attorney from the registered owner thereof, Jose
worthless paper instead of utilizing the same to Ducat, Jr.; and that Jose Ducat, Sr. also signed it for his
substantiate his defense.[8] wife, Maria Cabrido, under the word Conforme. As
regards the subsequent Deed of Absolute Sale of Real
Property dated December 5, 1991, covering the same when he subscribed the deed; (5) he knew that Isabel
property, this time purportedly in favor of Andres died in Metro Manila soon after her confinement; and
Canares, Jr. only, respondent Villalon admitted that (6) he did not give the seller a copy of the questioned
there was in fact no payment of P450,000.00 and that deed of sale.[14]
the said amount was placed in that document only to
make it appear that the conveyance was for a Unlike the circumstances prevailing in the said case
consideration. of Aportadera, the record does not show that
respondent Villalon had any direct participation in the
All these taken together, coupled with complainant notarization by respondent notary public Crispulo
Jose Ducat, Jr.s strong and credible denial that he Ducusin of the Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property
allegedly sold the subject property to respondent dated December 5, 1991,[15] which was supposedly
Villalon and/or Andres Canares, Jr. and that he signed by complainant Jose Ducat, Jr. who, however,
allegedly appeared before respondent notary public strongly denied having signed the same. The earlier
Ducusin, convince us that respondent Villalons acts Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land dated this ___day of
herein complained of which constitute gross October 1991, allegedly signed by Jose S. Ducat, Sr.,
misconduct were duly proven. as vendor, covering the same property, in favor of
respondent Arsenio S. Villalon and/or Andres Canares,
Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded Jr. was not notarized. The record also shows that Jose
by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a Ducat, Sr. and complainant Jose Ducat, Jr. are father
member of the Bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and and son and that they live in the same house at 912
comport himself in such a manner that would promote Leo Street, Sampaloc, Manila. It is not also disputed
public confidence in the integrity of the legal that respondent Villalon has been the lawyer for a
profession. Members of the Bar are expected to number of years of the family of Jose Ducat, Sr.
always live up to the standards of the legal profession
as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. ARSENIO C. VILLALON,
inasmuch as the relationship between an attorney JR. is hereby found guilty of gross misconduct, and he
and his client is highly fiduciary in nature and demands is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
utmost fidelity and good faith.[12] ONE (1) YEAR with a warning that a repetition of the
same or similar act will be dealt with more
We find, however, the IBPs recommended penalty of severely. Respondent Villalon is further directed to
two (2) years suspension to be imposed upon deliver to the registered owner, complainant Jose
respondent Atty. Villalon too severe in the light of the Ducat Jr., the latters TCT No. M-3023 covering the
facts obtaining in the case at bar. In Cesar V. Roces subject property within a period of sixty (60) days from
vs. Atty. Jose G. Aportadera,[13] this Court suspended receipt of this Decision, at his sole expense; and that
therein respondent Atty. Aportadera for a period of failure on his part to do so will result in his disbarment.
two (2) years from the practice of law for two main
reasons: Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty.
Villalons personal record in the Office of the Bar
(i)....His dubious involvement in the preparation and Confidant and copies thereof be furnished the
notarization of the falsified sale of his clients property Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
merits the penalty of suspension imposed on him by
the IBP Board of Governors; and SO ORDERED.
We are satisfied that the present case easily comes If it is true that Bar Examination questions, for some
under the phrase "interest of the state." Under reason or another, find their way out and get into the
constitutional provision, article VIII, section 13, hands of Bar examinees before the examinations are
Constitution of the Philippines, the Supreme Court actually given, and as a result thereof some
takes charge of the admission of members to the examinees succeed in illegally and improperly
Philippine Bar. By its Rules of Court, it has prescribed obtaining passing grades and are later admitted to
the qualifications of the candidates to the Bar the Bar and to the practice of law, when otherwise
Examinations, and it has equally prescribed the they should not be, then the present members of the
subject of the said Bar Examinations. Every year, the legal profession would have reason to resent and be
Supreme Court appoints the Bar examiners who alarmed; and if this is continued it would not be long
prepare the questions, then correct the examination before the legal profession will have fallen into
papers submitted by the examinees, and later make disrepute. The public would naturally lose confidence
their report to the Supreme Court. Only those Bar in the lawyers, specially in the new ones, because a
Examination candidates who are found to have person contemplating to go to court to seek redress or
obtained to passing grade are admitted to the Bar to defend himself before it would not know whether a
and licensed to practice law. There are now particular lawyer to whom he is entrusting his case has
thousands of members of the Philippine Bar, scattered legally passed the Bar Examinations because of
all over the Philippines, practicing law or occupying sufficient and adequate preparation and training, and
important Government posts requiring membership in that he is honest, or whether he was one of those who
the Bar as a prerequisite, and every year, quite a had succeeded in getting hold of Bar Examination
number, sometimes several hundreds, are added to questions in advance, passed the Bar Examinations
the legal fold. The Supreme Court and the Philippine illegally, and then started his legal career with this act
Bar have always tried to maintain a high standard for of dishonesty. Particularly, the Bar examinees who, by
the legal profession, both in academic preparation intense study and conscientious preparations, have
and legal training, as well as in honesty and fair honestly passed the Bar Examinations and are
dealing. The Court and the licensed lawyers admitted to practice law, would be affected by this
themselves are vitally interested in keeping this high anomaly, because they would ever be under a cloud
standard; and one of the ways of achieving this end is of suspicion, since from the point of view of the public,
to admit to the practice of this noble profession only they might be among those who had made use of Bar
those persons who are known to be honest, possess Examination questions obtained before hand. And,
good moral character, and show proficiency in and incidentally, the morale of the hundreds of students
knowledge of the law by the standard set by this and graduates of the different law schools, studying
Court by passing the Bar Examinations honestly and in law and later preparing for the Bar Examinations,
the regular and usual manner. It is of public would be affected, even disastrously, for in them may
knowledge that perhaps by general inclination or the be born the idea that there is no need of much law
conditions obtaining in this country, or the great study and preparation inasmuch as it is possible and
demand for the services of licensed lawyers, law as not difficult to obtain copies of questions before the
compared to other professions, is the most popular in examinations and pass them and be admitted to the
these islands. The predominantly greater number of Bar.
members of the Bar, schools and colleges of law as
compared to those of other learned professions, attest The cloud of suspicion would, equally, hang over the
to this fact. And one important thing to bear in mind is Bar examiners themselves, eight eminent lawyers who
that the Judiciary, from the Supreme Court down to in a spirit of public service and civic spirit, have
the Justice of the Peace Courts, provincial fiscalships consented to serve on the Committee of Examiners at
and other prosecuting attorneys, and the legal the request and designation of this Court. They would
departments of the Government, draw exclusively be suspected, — one or two or more of them — that
from the Bar to fill their positions. Consequently, any through negligence, or connivance, or downright
charge or insinuation of anomaly in the conduct of Bar corruption, they have made possible the release if
they have not themselves actually released, before effective denunciation, with expectation of results, the
examination day, the questions they had prepared. right place to air their grievance was the Supreme
The employees of the Supreme Court in charge of the Court itself, not a newspaper; and if they truly wanted
Bar Examinations, specially those who copy or an investigation, they should have come forward and
mimeograph the original copies furnished by the Bar furnished or stood ready to furnish the facts on which
examiners, would all be under suspicion. And, lastly, to base and from which to start an investigation,
and more important still, the Supreme Court itself instead of concealing themselves behind the curtain
which has to overall supervision and control over the of press immunity.
examinations, would share the suspicion, as a result of
which the confidence of the people in this High Examining the news item in question, it is therein
Tribunal, which public confidence, the members of this claimed and assured that Bar Examination questions in
Court like to think and believe, it still enjoys, might be at least one subject had been obtained and used by
affected and shaken. All these considerations of vital bar examinees coming from a certain university, one
importance, in our opinion, can and will sufficiently week before the examinations were actually held.
cause the present case to fall and be included within Parazo in his statements and answers during the
the meaning of the phrase "interest of the state," investigation said that examination questions in several
involving as it does, not only the interests of students subjects were involved in the anomaly. But no copy or
and graduates of the law schools and colleges, and copies of said examination questions were furnished
of the entire legal profession of this country as well as us. No one is willing to testify that he actually saw said
the good name and reputation of the members of the alleged copies of examination questions; that they
Committee of Bar Examiners, including the employees were actually and carefully compared with the
of the Supreme Court having charge of and legitimate examination questions given out on the day
connections with said examinations, but also the of the examination and found to be identical; no one
highest Tribunal of the land itself which represents one is ready and willing to reveal the identity of the
of the three coordinate and independent branches or persons or bar examinees said to have been seen with
departments of the Philippine Government. the said Bar Examination questions, although they as
well as the university where they came from, was
In support of if not in addition to the power granted by known; and even the law subjects to which the
section 1 of Republic Act. No. 53 to this Court, we questions pertained are not disclosed; and, lastly, we
have the inherent power of courts in general, specially are not allowed to know even the identity of
of the Supreme Court as representative of the Judicial respondent Parazo's informants who claim to have
Department, to adopt proper and adequate seen all these things.
measures to preserve their integrity, and render
possible and facilitate the exercise of their functions, In this connection it may be stated that in the las Bar
including, as in the present case, the investigation of Examinations held in August, 1948, approximately nine
charges of error, abuse or misconduct of their officials hundred candidates took them, each candidate
and subordinates, including lawyers, who are officers writing his answers in a book for each subject. There
of the Court. (Province of Tarlac vs. Gale, 26 Phil., 350; were eight subjects, each belonging to and
21 C.J.S. 41, 138.) As we have previously stated, the corresponding to each one of the eight bar
revelation demanded of the respondent, of the examiners. There were therefore eight sets of bar
identity of his informants, is essential and necessary to examination questions, and multiplying these eight
the investigation of the charge contained in the sets of questions by nine hundred candidates, gives a
publication already mentioned. total of seven thousand two hundred (7,200)
examination papers involved, in the hand of eight
It will be noticed from Parazo's news item as quoted in different examiners. The examination books or papers
the first part of this decision, that, informants, law bear no names or identifications of their writers or
graduates and bar examinees, were denouncing the owners and said ownership and identification will not
supposed anomaly — consisting of the alleged be known until the books or papers are all corrected
leakage of the Bar Examination questions — to the and graded. Without definite assurance based on
Supreme Court for due investigation. If those persons reliable witnesses under oath that the alleged
really meant and intended to make a bona fide and anomaly had actually been committed, — evidence
on the identity of the persons in possession of the anomaly, or irregularity allegedly committed, it was its
alleged copies of questions prematurely released or intention not only to adopt the necessary measures to
illegally obtained and made use of, the law subjects punish the guilty parties, if the charges are found to be
or subjects involved, the university from which said true, but also even to annul the examinations
persons come, this Court does not feel capable of or themselves, in justice to the innocent parties who had
warranted in taking any step, such as blindly and taken but did not pass the examinations. We say this
desperately revising each and every one of the 7,200 because in every examination, whether conducted
examination books with the fond but forlorn hope of by the Government or by a private institution, certain
finding any similarity or identity in the answers of any standards are unconsciously adopted on which to
group of examinees and basing thereon any definite base the passing grade. For instance, if, as a result of
finding or conclusion. Apart from the enormity of the the correction of many or all of the examination
task and its hopelessness, this Court may not and papers, it is found that only very few have passed it,
cannot base its findings and conclusions, especially in the examiner might reasonably think that the
any serious and delicate matter as is the present, on questions he gave were unduly difficult or hard to
that kind of evidence. Under these circumstances, this understand, or too long, as a result of which he may
Court, for lack of basis, data and information, is be more liberal and be more lenient and make
unable to conduct, nay, even start, an investigation; allowances. On the hand, if too many obtain passing
and, unless and until the respondent herein reveals the grade, the examiner may think that the examination
identities of his informants, and those informants and questions were too easy and constitute an
or others with facts and reliable evidence, aid and inadequate measure of the legal knowledge and
cooperate with the Court in its endeavor to further training required to be a lawyer, and so he may raise
examine and probe into the charges contained in the his standard and become more strict in his correction
news items, said charges are considered and held to of the papers and his appreciation of the answers. So,
be without basis, proof or foundation. in a case where examinees, especially if many,
succeed in getting hold of questions long before
When the Supreme Court decided to demand of the examinations day, and study and prepare the answers
respondent herein that he reveal the names of his to those questions, it may result that when the
informants, it was not impelled or motivated by mere examiner finds that many of the examinees have
idle curiosity. It truly wanted information on which to easily and correctly answered the questions, he may
start an investigation because it is vitally interested in think that said questions were too easy, raise the
keeping the Bar Examinations clean and above board standard by being strict in his correction of the papers,
and specially, not only to protect the members of the thereby giving a grade below passing to a number of
Bar and those aspiring for membership therein and the examinees who otherwise would have validly passed
public dealing with the members thereof and the Bar the examinations.
Examiners who cooperate with and act as agents of
this Court in preparing the examination questions and In conclusion, we find that the interest of the state in
correcting the examination papers, but also, as the present case demands that the respondent Angel
already stated, to keep the confidence of the people J. Parazo reveal the source or sources of his
in this High Tribunal as regards the discharge of its information which formed the basis of his news items or
function relative to the admission to the practice of story in the September 14, 1948 issue of the Star
law. These, it can only do by investigating any Bar Reporter, quoted at the beginning of his decision, and
Examination anomaly, fixing responsibility and that, in refusing to make the revelation which this
punishing those found guilty, even annulling Court required of him, he committed contempt of
examinations already held, or else declaring the Court. The respondent repeatedly stated during the
charges as not proven, if, as a result of the investigation that he knew the names and identities of
investigation, it is found that there is insufficiency or the persons who furnished him the information. In other
lack of evidence. In demanding from the respondent words, he omitted and still refuses to do an act
that he reveal the sources of his information, this Court commanded by this Court which is yet in his power to
did not intend to punish those informants or hold them perform. (Rule 64, section 7, Rules of Court.)Ordinarily,
liable. It merely wanted their help and cooperation. In in such cases, he can and should be imprisoned
this Court's endeavor to probe thoroughly the indefinitely until he complied with the demand.
However, considering that case like the present are together with a woman and a child who was later
not common or frequent, in this jurisdiction, and that identified as Atty. Ramona Paguida Valencia and
there is no reason and immediate necessity for Angeli Ramona Valencia Garrido, respectively x x x
imposing a heavy penalty, as may be done in other
cases where it is advisable or necessary to mete out 5. xxxx
severe penalties to meet a situation of an alarming
number of cases of a certain offense or a crime wave, 6. That I did not stop from unearthing the truth until I
and, considering further the youthful age of the was able to secure the Certificate of Live Birth of the
respondent, the majority of the members of this Court child, stating among others that the said child is their
have decided to order, as it hereby orders, his daughter and that Atty. Angel Escobar Garrido and
immediate arrest and confinement in jail for a period Atty. Romana Paguida Valencia were married at
of one (1) month, unless, before the expiration of that Hongkong sometime on 1978.
period he makes to this Court the revelation
demanded of him. So ordered. 7. That on June 1993, my husband left our conjugal
home and joined Atty. Ramona Paguida Valencia at
their residence x x x
Atty. Garrido emphasized that all his marriages were Third, Maelotisea filed a motion for the dismissal of the
contracted before he became a member of the bar complaints she filed against the respondents, arguing
on May 11, 1979, with the third marriage contracted that she wanted to maintain friendly relations with
after the death of Constancia on December 26, 1977. Atty. Garrido, who is the father of her six (6)
Likewise, his children with Maelotisea were born before children.[10] The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
he became a lawyer. likewise denied this motion.[11]
In her Counter-Affidavit,[5] Atty. Valencia denied that On April 13, 2004, Investigating Commissioner Milagros
she was the mistress of Atty. Garrido. She explained V. San Juan (Investigating Commissioner San Juan)
that Maelotisea was not the legal wife of Atty. Garrido submitted her Report and Recommendation for the
since the marriage between them was void from the respondents disbarment.[12] The Commission on Bar
beginning due to the then existing marriage of Atty. Discipline of the IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board of
Garrido with Constancia. Atty. Valencia claimed that Governors) approved and adopted this
Maelotisea knew of the romantic relationship between recommendation with modification under Resolution
her and Atty. Garrido, as they (Maelotisea and No. XVI-2004-375 dated July 30, 2004. This resolution in
Atty. Valencia) met in 1978. Maelotisea kept silent part states:
about her relationship with Atty. Garrido and had
maintained this silence when she (Atty. Valencia) x x x finding the recommendation fully supported by
financially helped Atty. Garrido build a house for his the evidence on record and the applicable laws and
second family. Atty. Valencia alleged that Maelotisea rules, and considering that Atty. Garrido exhibited
was not a proper party to this suit because of her conduct which lacks the degree of morality required
silence; she kept silent when things were favorable as members of the bar, Atty. Angel E. Garrido is
and beneficial to her. Atty. Valencia also alleged that hereby DISBARRED for gross immorality. However, the
Maelotisea had no cause of action against her. case against Atty. Romana P. Valencia is
hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit of the complaint.
In the course of the hearings, the parties filed the
following motions before the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline: Atty. Garrido moved to reconsider this resolution, but
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline denied his motion
First, the respondents filed a Motion for Suspension of under Resolution No. XVII-2007-038 dated January 18,
Proceedings[6] in view of the criminal complaint for 2007.
concubinage Maelotisea filed against them, and the
Petition for Declaration of Nullity[7] (of marriage) Atty. Atty. Garrido now seeks relief with this Court through
Garrido filed to nullify his marriage to Maelotisea. The the present petition for review. He submits that under
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline denied this motion for the circumstances, he did not commit any gross
lack of merit. immorality that would warrant his disbarment. He also
argues that the offenses charged have prescribed
Second, the respondents filed a Motion to under the IBP rules.
Dismiss[8] the complaints after the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City declared the marriage between Atty. Additionally, Atty. Garrido pleads that he be allowed
Garrido and Maelotisea an absolute nullity. Since on humanitarian considerations to retain his profession;
Maelotisea was never the legal wife of Atty. Garrido, he is already in the twilight of his life, and has kept his
the respondents argued that she had no personality to promise to lead an upright and irreproachable life
file her complaints against them.The respondents also notwithstanding his situation.
alleged that they had not committed any immoral act
since they married when Atty. Garrido was already a In compliance with our Resolution dated August 25,
widower, and the acts complained of were 2009, Atty. Alicia A. Risos-Vidal (Atty. Risos-Vidal),
Director of the Commission on Bar Discipline, filed her qualification to be a member of the legal
Comment on the petition. She recommends a profession. From this perspective, it is not important
modification of the penalty from disbarment to that the acts complained of were committed before
reprimand, advancing the view that disbarment is very Atty. Garrido was admitted to the practice of law.
harsh considering that the 77-year old Atty. Garrido As we explained in Zaguirre v. Castillo,[17] the
took responsibility for his acts and tried to mend his possession of good moral character is both a
ways by filing a petition for declaration of nullity of his condition precedent and a continuing requirement to
bigamous marriage. Atty. Risos-Vidal also notes that warrant admission to the bar and to retain
no other administrative case has ever been filed membership in the legal profession. Admission to the
against Atty. Garrido. bar does not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry,
upon proper complaint, into any question concerning
the mental or moral fitness of the respondent before
THE COURTS RULING he became a lawyer.[18] Admission to the practice
only creates the rebuttable presumption that the
applicant has all the qualifications to become a
After due consideration, we resolve to adopt the lawyer; this may be refuted by clear and convincing
findings of the IBP Board of Governors against Atty. evidence to the contrary even after admission to the
Garrido, and to reject its recommendation with Bar.[19]
respect to Atty. Valencia.
Parenthetically, Article VIII Section 5(5) of the
General Considerations Constitution recognizes the disciplinary authority of the
Court over the members of the Bar to be merely
Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure incidental to the Court's exclusive power to admit
such as the verification of pleadings and prejudicial applicants to the practice of law. Reinforcing the
questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the implementation of this constitutional authority
filing of affidavits of desistance by the complainant do is Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which
not apply in the determination of a lawyers expressly states that a member of the bar may be
qualifications and fitness for membership in the disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by
Bar.[13] We have so ruled in the past and we see no the Supreme Court for, among others, any deceit,
reason to depart from this ruling.[14] First, admission to grossly immoral conduct, or violation of the oath that
the practice of law is a component of the he is required to take before admission to the practice
administration of justice and is a matter of public of law.
interest because it involves service to the In light of the public service character of the practice
public.[15] The admission qualifications are also of law and the nature of disbarment proceedings as a
qualifications for the continued enjoyment of the public interest concern, Maelotiseas affidavit of
privilege to practice law. Second, lack of desistance cannot have the effect of discontinuing or
qualifications or the violation of the standards for the abating the disbarment proceedings. As we have
practice of law, like criminal cases, is a matter of stated, Maelotisea is more of a witness than a
public concern that the State may inquire into through complainant in these proceedings. We note further
this Court. In this sense, the complainant in a that she filed her affidavits of withdrawal only after she
disbarment case is not a direct party whose interest in had presented her evidence; her evidence are now
the outcome of the charge is wholly his or her available for the Courts examination and
own;[16] effectively, his or her participation is that of a consideration, and their merits are not affected by her
witness who brought the matter to the attention of the desistance. We cannot fail to note, too, that
Court. Mealotisea filed her affidavit of desistance, not to
disown or refute the evidence she had submitted, but
As applied to the present case, the time that elapsed solely becuase of compassion (and, impliedly, out of
between the immoral acts charged and the filing of concern for her personal financial interest in
the complaint is not material in considering the continuing friendly relations with Atty. Garrido).
qualification of Atty. Garrido when he applied for
admission to the practice of law, and his continuing
Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, warrants his disbarment. His conduct was not only
or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to corrupt or unprincipled; it was reprehensible to the
the opinion of the upright and respectable members highest degree.
of the community.[20] Immoral conduct is gross when
it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so First, Atty. Garrido admitted that he left Constancia to
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, pursue his law studies; thereafter and during the
or when committed under such scandalous or marriage, he had romantic relationships with other
revolting circumstances as to shock the communitys women. He had the gall to represent to this Court that
sense of decency.[21] We make these distinctions as the study of law was his reason for leaving his wife;
the supreme penalty of disbarment arising from marriage and the study of law are not mutually
conduct requires grossly immoral, not simply immoral, exclusive.
conduct.[22]
Second, he misrepresented himself to Maelotisea as a
In several cases, we applied the above standard in bachelor, when in truth he was already married to
considering lawyers who contracted an unlawful Constancia.[26] This was a misrepresentation given as
second marriage or multiple marriages. an excuse to lure a woman into a prohibited
relationship.
In Macarrubo v. Macarrubo,[23] the respondent
lawyer entered into multiple marriages and Third, Atty. Garrido contracted his second marriage
subsequently used legal remedies to sever them. We with Maelotisea notwithstanding the subsistence of his
ruled that the respondents pattern of misconduct first marriage. This was an open admission, not only of
undermined the institutions of marriage and family an illegal liaison, but of the commission of a crime.
institutions that this society looks up to for the rearing of
our children, for the development of values essential Fourth, Atty. Garrido engaged in an extra-marital affair
to the survival and well-being of our communities, and with Atty. Valencia while his two marriages were in
for the strengthening of our nation as a whole. In this place and without taking into consideration the moral
light, no fate other than disbarment awaited the and emotional implications of his actions on the two
wayward respondent. women he took as wives and on his six (6) children by
his second marriage.
In Villasanta v. Peralta,[24] the respondent lawyer
married the complainant while his marriage with his Fifth, instead of making legal amends to validate his
first wife was subsisting. We held that the respondents marriage with Maelotisea upon the death of
act of contracting the second marriage was contrary Constancia, Atty. Garrido married Atty. Valencia who
to honesty, justice, decency and morality. The lack of bore him a daughter.
good moral character required by the Rules of Court
disqualified the respondent from admission to the Bar. Sixth, Atty. Garrido misused his legal knowledge and
convinced Atty. Valencia (who was not then a lawyer)
Similar to Villasanta was the case of Conjuangco, that he was free to marry, considering that his
Jr. v. Palma,[25] where the respondent secretly marriage with Maelotisea was not valid.
contracted a second marriage with the daughter of
his client in Hongkong. We found that the respondent Seventh, as the evidence on record implies, Atty.
exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality Garrido married Atty. Valencia in Hongkong in an
required of members of the Bar. In particular, he made apparent attempt to accord legitimacy to a union
a mockery of marriage a sacred institution that entered into while another marriage was in place.
demands respect and dignity. We also declared his
act of contracting a second marriage contrary to Eighth, after admission to the practice of law, Atty.
honesty, justice, decency and morality. Garrido simultaneously cohabited and had sexual
relations with two (2) women who at one point were
In this case, the undisputed facts gathered from the both his wedded wives. He also led a double life with
evidence and the admissions of Atty. Garrido two (2) families for a period of more than ten (10)
established a pattern of gross immoral conduct that years.
case, he also used the law to free him from unwanted
Lastly, Atty. Garrido petitioned for the nullity of his relationships.
marriage to Maelotisea. Contrary to the position
advanced by Atty. Alicia A. Risos-Vidal, this was not an The Court has often reminded the members of the bar
act of facing up to his responsibility or an act of to live up to the standards and norms expected of the
mending his ways. This was an attempt, using his legal legal profession by upholding the ideals and principles
knowledge, to escape liability for his past actions by embodied in the Code of Professional
having his second marriage declared void after the Responsibility.[31] Lawyers are bound to maintain not
present complaint was filed against him. only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of
morality, including honesty, integrity and fair
By his actions, Garrido committed multiple violations dealing.[32] Lawyers are at all times subject to the
relating to the legal profession, specifically, violations watchful public eye and community
of the bar admission rules, of his lawyers oath, and of approbation.[33] Needless to state, those whose
the ethical rules of the profession. conduct both public and private fail this scrutiny have
to be disciplined and, after appropriate proceedings,
He did not possess the good moral character required accordingly penalized.[34]
of a lawyer at the time of his admission to the
Bar.[27] As a lawyer, he violated his lawyers Atty. Valencia
oath,[28] Section 20(a) of Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court,[29] and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional We agree with the findings of Investigating
Responsibility,[30] all of which commonly require him Commissioner San Juan that Atty. Valencia should be
to obey the laws of the land. In marrying Maelotisea, administratively liable under the circumstances for
he committed the crime of bigamy, as he entered this gross immorality:
second marriage while his first marriage with
Constancia was subsisting. He openly admitted his x x x The contention of respondent that they were not
bigamy when he filed his petition to nullify his marriage yet lawyers in March 27, 1978 when they got married
to Maelotisea. shall not afford them exemption from sanctions, for
good moral character is required as a condition
He violated ethical rules of the profession, precedent to admission to the Bar. Likewise there is no
specifically, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional distinction whether the misconduct was committed in
Responsibility, which commands that he shall not the lawyers professional capacity or in his private life.
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful Again, the claim that his marriage to complainant was
conduct; Canon 7 of the same Code, which demands void ab initio shall not relieve respondents from
that [a] lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity responsibility x x x Although the second marriage of
and dignity of the legal profession; Rule 7.03 of the the respondent was subsequently declared null and
Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides void the fact remains that respondents exhibited
that, [a] lawyer shall not engage in conduct that conduct which lacks that degree of morality required
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor of them as members of the Bar.[35]
should he, whether in public or private life, behave in
a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal Moral character is not a subjective term but one that
profession. corresponds to objective reality.[36] To have good
moral character, a person must have the personal
As a lawyer, his community looked up to Atty. Garrido characteristics of being good. It is not enough that he
with the expectation and that he would set a good or she has a good reputation, i.e., the opinion
example in promoting obedience to the Constitution generally entertained about a person or the estimate
and the laws. When he violated the law and distorted in which he or she is held by the public in the place
it to cater to his own personal needs and selfish where she is known.[37] The requirement of good
motives, he discredited the legal profession and moral character has four general purposes, namely:
created the public impression that laws are mere tools (1) to protect the public; (2) to protect the public
of convenience that can be used, bended and image of lawyers; (3) to protect prospective clients;
abused to satisfy personal whims and desires. In this and (4) to protect errant lawyers from
themselves.[38] Each purpose is as important as the The records show that Atty. Valencia consented to be
other. married in Hongkong, not within the country. Given
that this marriage transpired before the declaration of
Under the circumstances, we cannot overlook that the nullity of Atty. Garridos second marriage, we can
prior to becoming a lawyer, Atty. Valencia already only call this Hongkong marriage a clandestine
knew that Atty. Garrido was a married man (either to marriage, contrary to the Filipino tradition of
Constancia or to Maelotisea), and that he already celebrating a marriage together with family. Despite
had a family. As Atty. Garridos admitted confidante, Atty. Valencias claim that she agreed to marry Atty.
she was under the moral duty to give him proper Garrido only after he showed her proof of his capacity
advice; instead, she entered into a romantic to enter into a subsequent valid marriage, the
relationship with him for about six (6) years during the celebration of their marriage in Hongkong[39] leads us
subsistence of his two marriages. In 1978, she married to the opposite conclusion; they wanted to marry in
Atty. Garrido with the knowledge that he had an Hongkong for the added security of avoiding any
outstanding second marriage. These circumstances, charge of bigamy by entering into the subsequent
to our mind, support the conclusion that she lacked marriage outside Philippine jurisdiction. In this regard,
good moral character; even without being a lawyer, a we cannot help but note that
person possessed of high moral values, whose Atty. Valencia afterwards opted to retain and use her
confidential advice was sought by another with surname instead of using the surname of her
respect to the latters family problems, would not husband. Atty. Valencia, too, did not appear to mind
aggravate the situation by entering into a romantic that her husband did not live and cohabit with her
liaison with the person seeking advice, thereby under one roof, but with his second wife and the
effectively alienating the other persons feelings and family of this marriage. Apparently, Atty. Valencia did
affection from his wife and family. not mind at all sharing her husband with another
woman. This, to us, is a clear demonstration of Atty.
While Atty. Valencia contends that Atty. Garridos Valencias perverse sense of moral values.
marriage with Maelotisea was null and void, the fact
remains that he took a man away from a woman who Measured against the definition of gross immorality,
bore him six (6) children. Ordinary decency would we find Atty. Valencias actions grossly immoral. Her
have required her to ward off Atty. Garridos actions were so corrupt as to approximate a criminal
advances, as he was a married man, in fact a twice- act, for she married a man who, in all appearances,
married man with both marriages subsisting at that was married to another and with whom he has a
time; she should have said no to Atty. Garrido from the family. Her actions were also unprincipled and
very start. Instead, she continued her liaison with Atty. reprehensible to a high degree; as the confidante of
Garrido, driving him, upon the death of Constancia, Atty. Garrido, she preyed on his vulnerability and
away from legitimizing his relationship with Maelotisea engaged in a romantic relationship with him during
and their children. Worse than this, because of Atty. the subsistence of his two previous marriages. As
Valencias presence and willingness, Atty. Garrido already mentioned, Atty. Valencias conduct could
even left his second family and six children for a third not but be scandalous and revolting to the point of
marriage with her. This scenario smacks of immorality shocking the communitys sense of decency; while she
even if viewed outside of the prism of law. professed to be the lawfully wedded wife, she helped
the second family build a house prior to her marriage
We are not unmindful of Atty. Valencias expressed to Atty. Garrido, and did not object to sharing her
belief that Atty. Garridos second marriage to husband with the woman of his second marriage.
Maelotisea was invalid; hence, she felt free to marry
Atty. Garrido. While this may be correct in the strict We find that Atty. Valencia violated Canon 7 and Rule
legal sense and was later on confirmed by the 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as her
declaration of the nullity of Atty. Garridos marriage to behavior demeaned the dignity of and discredited
Maelotisea, we do not believe at all in the honesty of the legal profession. She simply failed in her duty as a
this expressed belief. lawyer to adhere unwaveringly to the highest
standards of morality.[40] In Barrientos v.
Daarol,[41] we held that lawyers, as officers of the
court, must not only be of good moral character but WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves
must also be seen to be of good moral character and to:
must lead lives in accordance with the highest moral
standards of the community. Atty. Valencia failed to (1) DISBAR Atty. Angel E. Garrido from the practice of
live up to these standards before she was admitted to law for gross immorality, violation of the Lawyers Oath;
the bar and after she became a member of the legal and violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of
profession. the Code of Professional Responsibility; and
Conclusion
(2) DISBAR Atty. Romana P. Valencia from the practice
Membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with of law for gross immorality, violation of Canon 7 and
conditions. As a privilege bestowed by law through Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be
withdrawn where circumstances concretely show the Let a copy of this Decision be attached to the
lawyers lack of the essential qualifications required of personal records of Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty.
lawyers. We resolve to withdraw this privilege from Romana P. Valencia in the Office of the Bar
Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Rowena P. Valencia Confidant, and another copy furnished the Integrated
for this reason. Bar of the Philippines.
In imposing the penalty of disbarment upon the The Clerk of Court is directed to strike out the names
respondents, we are aware that the power to disbar is of Angel E. Garrido and Rowena P. Valencia from the
one to be exercised with great caution and only in Roll of Attorneys.
clear cases of misconduct that seriously affects the
standing and character of the lawyer as a legal SO ORDERED.
professional and as an officer of the Court.[42]
EVANGELINE ARGAÑOZA VS. BENITO P. TUBACES
We are convinced from the totality of the evidence
on hand that the present case is one of them. The FERNANDO, J.:
records show the parties pattern of grave and immoral
Complainant Evangeline Argañoza sent a telegram to
misconduct that demonstrates their lack of mental
this Court on April 7, 1970 requesting that "the oath-
and emotional fitness and moral character to qualify
taking of Atty. Benito P. Tubaces be held in
them for the responsibilities and duties imposed on
abeyance." It was therein further stated that the
lawyers as professionals and as officers of the court.
reason relied upon was immorality and that a letter
would follow. Subsequently, four days later, a letter
While we are keenly aware of Atty. Garridos plea for
duly subscribed and sworn by the complainant was
compassion and his act of supporting his children with
receivedby this Court. It was therein alleged: "In 1966, I
Maelotisea after their separation, we cannot grant his
agreed to live with Benito who was then a sophomore
plea. The extent of his demonstrated violations of his
student in Cebu and we had a child. Per his request, I
oath, the Rules of Court and of the Code of
left with our kid in July 1967 so he can muster the usual
Professional Responsibility overrides what under other
financial support from his parents. As agreed I
circumstances are commendable traits of character.
sacrificed almost two years of painful
seclusionalthough, I received constant
In like manner, Atty. Valencias behavior over a long
communication from him as he likewise did from me.
period of time unequivocally demonstrates a basic
We saw each other again in 1968 when he came to
and serious flaw in her character, which we cannot
Manila for his review and participation in the bar
simply brush aside without undermining the dignity of
examinations. In November of the same year,
the legal profession and without placing the integrity
however, he returned to his home province, leaving
of the administration of justice into question. She was
me and the kid behind giving flimsy excuse the
not an on-looker victimized by the circumstances, but
uncertainty of his passing in the exam."1 The next
a willing and knowing full participant in a love triangle
paragraph of such letter was worded thus: "He did
whose incidents crossed into the illicit.
flunk in the first exam and having decidedto take the
next, he further requested me to stop communicating complainant was received on September 21, 1970. It
with him untilthe examination was over. I wrote him was stated therein: "In reply thereto, I amhereby
several letters immediately after especially when I informing your good office that I am objecting to said
delivered our second baby but I constantly faced a lawyer's oathtaking of Mr. Benito P. Tubaces on
blank wall. This never put me off, though. Instead, my grounds of immorality on one hand and deceit on the
eagerness to hear from him kept on mounting until either. Accordingly, I thereby request that my letter
that eventful day came — the release of the results dated August 26, 1970 to your Office be withdrawn
ofthe bar examinations. He made the grade this time and considered without force and effect. Evidently, I
and I was no more glad than my folks. We sent him am reviving my complaint against Mr. Benito P.
two congratulatory messages and again we were Tubaces on grounds of immorality because of his
disappointed to hear no word from him."2This Court refusal, upon my request, to put in writing the
was likewise informed therein that they met fulfillment of his promise to marry me not later than
accidentally, on which occasion she tried to convince December 21, 1971."7 This Court, however, on
him that they should live together but instead of September 28, 1970, considering the petition of
agreeing, his proposal was just to get the two children respondent Tubaces praying that he be allowed to
to live with him and for them to separate for take the lawyer's oath in view of the withdrawal of the
good.3 She would plead then that "he be barred from complaint filed against him and the comment therein,
membership in the Philippine Bar." denied the petition, respondent being further required
tofile an answer on the charges lodged against him
This Court, on April 16, 1970, resolved: "... (a) to note ten days from notice. There was a motion for the
the contents of the telegram of Evangeline Argañoza reconsideration of the above action taken by this
requesting that the oath-taking of Benito P. Tubaces Court filed by respondent on October 21, 1970,
be withheld on the ground of immorality; (b) to require wherein he justified his failure to file an answer thus:
that a copyof the letter of Evangeline Argañoza be "The petitioner, in view of the retraction or withdrawal
sent to Benito P. Tubaces and (c) require respondent of complainant, felt it needless to file his answer to her
Tubaces to answer said letter-complaint, within 10 complaint as required by the resolution of this Court as
daysfrom notice hereof."4 Instead of answering, there is no more to answer for the complaint was
respondent Benito P. Tubaces waited until August 26, withdrawn and instead file this motion for
1970 when he filed a petition alleging that reconsideration which filing is delayed because of the
complainantwas retracting or withdrawing her honest and innocent belief that the letter of
complaint and that therefore he should be allowed to withdrawal or retraction is already sufficient and will
take the lawyer's oath. Enclosed in such petition is a serve as petition of the undersigned to take the oath
letter signedby Evangeline Argañoza where, after of attorney."8 The prayer in such motion for
referring to the complaint filed by her against reconsideration was a reiteration of his plea that he be
respondent, there was this declaration of retraction or allowed to take the oath of an attorney. The above
withdrawal. Thus: "Without pressure nor influence motion for reconsideration was referred to
exerted upon me, I voluntarily, irrevocably, and complainant for comment in a resolution of October
unconditionally retract or withdraw the said complaint 26, 1970. The comment came on November 16, 1970,
on theground that we have applied and was granted complainant "retracting or withdrawing [her]
a marriage license having agreed to get married on complaint against Mr. Tubaces on the reasons stated
December of this year. The marriage license was in [her] letter of withdrawal and [interposing] no
issued on the 21st day of August, 1970 by the Quezon objection to his oath-taking in the earliest time
City Civil Registrar."5 possible, as prayed for in his motion."9
Then came the resolution of this Court of August 31, Both complainant and respondent were required by
1970 to the following effect: "Complainant is required resolution of this Court of November 18, 1970 it on
to comment, within 10 days from notice hereof,on the appear personally before it on December 16, 1970.
petition of the respondent with the latter's affidavit Both complainant and respondent duly appeared
attached thereto,praying that he be allowed to take and informed the Court thatthey had settled their
the lawyer's oath in view of the complainants differences and were intending to get married. Five
withdrawal of her complaint."6 The reply of dayslater, on December 21, 1970, in a pleading filed
with this Court by respondent,there was an allegation Manila with respondent for three days where he
of such marriage having taken place on December repeatedly had carnal knowledge of her upon the
18, 1970 with City Judge Oscar A. Inocentes of Quezon threat of respondent that if she would not give in to his
City having performed the ceremony, a photostat lustful desires, she would flunk in all her subjects and
copy of the marriage contract accompanying such she would never become a medical intern. After due
manifestation. To satisfy itself, this Court resolved, on investigation, the Solicitor General found the
January, 5, 1971, torequire that both complainant and respondent guilty of gross immoral conduct and
respondent appear before it on Monday, February 22, recommends that since the complainant is partly to
1971. At such a date, the parties appeared before this blame for having gone with respondent to Manila
Court withthe additional information that they knowing fully well that respondent is a married man
intended to get married in a religious ceremony, such ,with children, a rich man and is not practicing his
a marriage to take place on March 1, 1971 in the profession before the court, he should merely be
Immaculate Concepcion Parish Church with Rev. Fr. suspended from the practice of law for not less than
Emilio Castro officiating. A photostat copy of the three (3) years.
marriage contract was submitted by complainant and
respondent in an urgent joint motion praying that the ISSUE:
respondent be allowed to take the oath of attorney,
Whether or not the imposition of the penalty is proper?
filed with this Court on March 3, 1971. Included in such
motion is a photostat copy of the marriage contract HELD:
resulting from the religious ceremony.
NO. The fact that he is a rich man and does not
This Court takes due cognizance that respondent practice his profession as a lawyer, does not render
Benito P. Tubaces appears to have mended his ways respondent a person of good moral character.
and that a satisfactorily long period had elapsed from Evidence of good moral character precedes
the time the results of the 1969 bar examinations were admission to bar (Sec.2, Rule 138, Rules of Court) and
announced on March 5, 1970. Under the such requirement is not dispensed with upon
circumstances, it is of the opinion that his plea to be admission thereto. Good moral character is a
allowed to take the lawyer's oath may be favorably continuing qualification necessary to entitle one to
acted on. Respondent is admonished to be duly continue in the practice of law.
mindful of the standard of rectitude to which a
memberof the bar is expected to live up to. The delay Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
in his being duly admitted to the practice of his enumerates the grounds for disbarment or suspension
profession, a matter traceable solely to his far-from- from his office as attorney, among others, by grossly
exemplary conduct, ought to admonish him to immoral conduct. Immoral conduct has been defined
observe with fidelity itscanons of behavior. He must by as that which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and
this time be fully cognizant that a failure to do so which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the
would be sufficient cause for the appropriate good and respectable members of the community.
disciplinary action.