Constitutional Law I

Cordova v. Cordova

Key words: 2 mistresses, good moral character

A.M. no. 3249, November 29, 1989

Ponente:
I. Terms
February 1987: Upon returning home from a trip
II.
to Manila necessitated by hospitalization of her
III. Reliefs Sought
daughter, Salvacion discovers that Laurence
Complaint by Salvacion Delizo against Atty.
had their home for another mistress, Luisita
Laurence Cordova, her husband, for disbarment
Magallanes, and had taken their other daughter,
for immorality and acts unbecoming of a
Melanie with him.
member of the Bar.
April 14, 1988: Salvacion submitted her
IV. Facts
complaint against Atty. Laurence Cordova for
June 6, 1976: Salvacion Delizo and Laurence
immorality and acts unbecoming a member of
Cordova got married, and had 2 children out of
the bar.
the marriage.
December 1, 1998: Laurence Cordova was
1985: The couple lived in the Quirino province,
found to be in default for failure to file an answer
but in the same year Cordova left his family, and
to Salvacions complaint.
his job as Clerk of Court of the RTC, and went
The hearing was moved many times, because
to live with Fely Holgado, who was also married
both of them failed to appear. In April 6, 1989,
and had left her family, in Surigao del Sur, living
the complainant informed the Commission that
as husband in wife in public.
they had already reconciled.
April 6, 1986: Cordova and his wife had an
V.
apparent reconciliation with Cordova promising VI. Issue/s and Held
to leave Fely. He brought his family to Surigao
1. Whether or not Atty. Laurence Cordova was guilty
del Sur, but frequently came home drunk and
for immorality and acts unbecoming a member of
failed to support his family.
the bar?
<SURNAME> | 1C

Constitutional Law I

VII.
VIII.

Held: Yes. He was suspended indefinitely until

he presents evidence that he has continued
supporting his family, and has given up immoral
conduct.
IX.
X.
As a requirement to the admission in the
Bar, a candidate must show that he is of good
moral character. As held in In Mortel v. Aspiras, 1
this Court, following the rule in the United States,
held that "the continued possession ... of a good
moral character is a requisite condition for the

rightful continuance in the practice of the law ... and

its loss requires suspension or disbarment, even
though the statutes do not specify that as a ground
for disbarment. " Good moral character is not
limited to the discharge of ones duties as a laywer.
XI.
Clearly, respondent flaunted his disregard of
the fundamental institution of marriage and its
elementary obligations before his own daughter
and the community at large.
XII.

Separate Opinions
XIII.
None.

<SURNAME> | 1C