Conuangco vs Palma
which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and
Facts:
Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. filed a complaint
for disbarment against Atty. Leo J. Palma,
alleging as grounds “deceit, malpractice, gross
misconduct in office, violation of his oath as a
lawyer and grossly immoral conduct.”
Respondent Palma [from ACCRA Law Office]
was employed by petitioner as his personal
counsel. Respondent's excellence in managing
petitioner's legal affairs, prompted petitioner to
introduced respondent to his family. Since
respondent gained the trust of petitioner and
his family, their relationship became intimate.
Respondent then was allowed to tutor the 22
year old daughter of Petitioner.
However, when his concern was supposed
to be complainant’s legal affairs only, he
sneaked at the latter’s back and courted his
daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the
night, he attacked when nobody was
looking. He succeeded in misrepresenting
himself to Hong Kong officials as a bachelor
and successfully married petitioner's daughter,
eventhough he is legally married.
Respondent argued that, he cannot be
punished since there is no allegation that he
acted with “wanton recklessness,
lack of skill or ignorance of the law” in
serving complainant’s interest. Anent the
charge of grossly immoral conduct, he stressed
that he married complainant’s daughter with
“utmost sincerity and good faith” and that “it is
contrary to the natural course of things for an
immoral man to marry the woman he sincerely
loves.”
Issue:
Whether or not respondent's acts constitutes
gross immoral conduct so as to warrant his
disbarment from the legal profession.
Ruling:
Yes, the Court ruled respondent's action
constitutes gross immoral conduct. A gross
immoral conduct, the Court said, is a conduct
which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable members
of the community. Thus,
measured against this definition,
respondent’s act is manifestly
immoral. First, he abandoned his lawful wife
and three children. Second, he lured an
innocent young woman into marrying him. And
third, he misrepresented himself as a
“bachelor” so he could contract marriage in a
foreign land.
In particular, adds the Court, "he made a
mockery of marriage which is a sacred
institution demanding respect and dignity. His
act of contracting a second marriage is
contrary to honesty, justice, decency and
morality." Moreover, the circumstances here
speak of a clear case of betrayal of trust and
abuse of confidence. It was respondent’s
closeness to the complainant’s family as well as
the latter’s complete trust in him that made
possible his intimate relationship with Lisa.
When his concern was supposed to be
complainant’s legal affairs only, he sneaked at
the latter’s back and courted his
daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the
night, he attacked when nobody was
looking. Moreover, he availed of complainant’s
resources by securing a plane ticket from
complainant’s office in order to marry the
latter’s daughter in Hongkong. He did this
without complainant’s knowledge.
The Court stressed again the principle that
law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy
of standards among its members. There is no
distinction as to whether the transgression is
committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity
or in his private life. This is because a lawyer
may not divide his personality so as to be an
attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
another. Thus, not only his professional
activities but even his private life, insofar as the
latter may reflect unfavorably upon the good
name and prestige of the profession and the
courts, may at any time be the subject of
inquiry on the part of the proper authorities.
Respondent cannot rely on complainant's
admission that he is a good lawyer, because
professional competency alone does not make
a lawyer a worthy member of the Bar. Good
moral character is always an indispensable
requirement.
In sum, respondent committed grossly
immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a
lawyer. The penalty of one (1) year suspension
recommended by the IBP is not commensurate
to the gravity of his offense. The bulk of
jurisprudence supports the imposition of the
extreme penalty of disbarment.
Facts:
Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. filed a complaint
for disbarment against Atty. Leo J. Palma,
alleging as grounds “deceit, malpractice, gross
misconduct in office, violation of his oath as a
lawyer and grossly immoral conduct.”
Respondent Palma [from ACCRA Law Office]
was employed by petitioner as his personal
counsel. Respondent's excellence in managing
petitioner's legal affairs, prompted petitioner to
introduced respondent to his family. Since
respondent gained the trust of petitioner and
his family, their relationship became intimate.
Respondent then was allowed to tutor the 22
year old daughter of Petitioner.
However, when his concern was supposed
to be complainant’s legal affairs only, he
sneaked at the latter’s back and courted his
daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the
night, he attacked when nobody was
looking. He succeeded in misrepresenting
himself to Hong Kong officials as a bachelor
and successfully married petitioner's daughter,
eventhough he is legally married.
Respondent argued that, he cannot be
punished since there is no allegation that he
acted with “wanton recklessness,
lack of skill or ignorance of the law” in
serving complainant’s interest. Anent the
charge of grossly immoral conduct, he stressed
that he married complainant’s daughter with
“utmost sincerity and good faith” and that “it is
contrary to the natural course of things for an
immoral man to marry the woman he sincerely
loves.”
Issue:
Whether or not respondent's acts constitutes
gross immoral conduct so as to warrant his
disbarment from the legal profession.
Ruling:
Yes, the Court ruled respondent's action
constitutes gross immoral conduct. A gross
immoral conduct, the Court said, is a conduct
which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and
which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable members
of the community. Thus,
measured against this definition,
respondent’s act is manifestly
immoral. First, he abandoned his lawful wife
and three children. Second, he lured an
innocent young woman into marrying him. And
third, he misrepresented himself as a
“bachelor” so he could contract marriage in a
foreign land.
In particular, adds the Court, "he made a
mockery of marriage which is a sacred
institution demanding respect and dignity. His
act of contracting a second marriage is
contrary to honesty, justice, decency and
morality." Moreover, the circumstances here
speak of a clear case of betrayal of trust and
abuse of confidence. It was respondent’s
closeness to the complainant’s family as well as
the latter’s complete trust in him that made
possible his intimate relationship with Lisa.
When his concern was supposed to be
complainant’s legal affairs only, he sneaked at
the latter’s back and courted his
daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the
night, he attacked when nobody was
looking. Moreover, he availed of complainant’s
resources by securing a plane ticket from
complainant’s office in order to marry the
latter’s daughter in Hongkong. He did this
without complainant’s knowledge.

The Court stressed again the principle that

law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy
of standards among its members. There is no
distinction as to whether the transgression is
committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity
or in his private life. This is because a lawyer
may not divide his personality so as to be an
attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
another. Thus, not only his professional
activities but even his private life, insofar as the
latter may reflect unfavorably upon the good
name and prestige of the profession and the
courts, may at any time be the subject of
inquiry on the part of the proper authorities.

Respondent cannot rely on complainant's

admission that he is a good lawyer, because
professional competency alone does not make
a lawyer a worthy member of the Bar. Good
moral character is always an indispensable
requirement.

In sum, respondent committed grossly

immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a
lawyer. The penalty of one (1) year suspension
recommended by the IBP is not commensurate
to the gravity of his offense. The bulk of
jurisprudence supports the imposition of the
extreme penalty of disbarment.