EN BANC

[A.C. No. 5118. September 9, 1999]

MARILOU
SEBASTIAN, complainant,
CALIS, respondent.

vs.

ATTY.

DOROTHEO

DECISION
PER CURIAM:

For unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct as well as violation of his oath as
lawyer, respondent Atty. Dorotheo Calis faces disbarment.
The facts of this administrative case, as found by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),[1] in its Report, are as follows:

Complainant (Marilou Sebastian) alleged that sometime in November, 1992, she was
referred to the respondent who promised to process all necessary documents required
for complainants trip to the USA for a fee of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P150,000.00).
On December 1, 1992 the complainant made a partial payment of the required fee in
the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), which was received by Ester
Calis, wife of the respondent for which a receipt was issued.
From the period of January 1993 to May 1994 complainant had several conferences
with the respondent regarding the processing of her travel documents. To facilitate
the processing, respondent demanded an additional amount of Sixty Five Thousand
Pesos (P65,000.00) and prevailed upon complainant to resign from her job as
stenographer with the Commission on Human Rights.
On June 20, 1994, to expedite the processing of her travel documents complainant
issued Planters Development Bank Check No. 12026524 in the amount of Sixty Five
Thousand Pesos (P65,000.00) in favor of Atty. D. Calis who issued a receipt. After
receipt of said amount, respondent furnished the complainant copies of Supplemental

to U.S. Nonimmigrant Visa Application (Of. 156) and a list of questions which would
be asked during interviews.
When complainant inquired about her passport, Atty. Calis informed the former that
she will be assuming the name Lizette P. Ferrer married to Roberto Ferrer, employed
as sales manager of Matiao Marketing, Inc. the complainant was furnished documents
to support her assumed identity.
Realizing that she will be travelling with spurious documents, the complainant
demanded the return of her money, however she was assured by respondent that there
was nothing to worry about for he has been engaged in the business for quite
sometime; with the promise that her money will be refunded if something goes wrong.
Weeks before her departure respondent demanded for the payment of the required fee
which was paid by complainant, but the corresponding receipt was not given to her.
When complainant demanded for her passport, respondent assured the complainant
that it will be given to her on her departure which was scheduled on September 6,
1994. On said date complainant was given her passport and visa issued in the name of
Lizette P. Ferrer. Complainant left together with Jennyfer Belo and a certain Maribel
who were also recruits of the respondent.
Upon arrival at the Singapore International Airport, complainant together with
Jennyfer Belo and Maribel were apprehended by the Singapore Airport Officials for
carrying spurious travel documents; Complainant contacted the respondent through
overseas telephone call and informed him of by her predicament. From September 6
to 9, 1994, complainant was detained at Changi Prisons in Singapore.
On September 9, 1994 the complainant was deported back to the Philippines and
respondent fetched her from the airport and brought her to his residence at 872-A Tres
Marias Street, Sampaloc, Manila. Respondent took complainants passport with a
promise that he will secure new travel documents for complainant. Since complainant
opted not to pursue with her travel, she demanded for the return of her money in the
amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00).
On June 4, 1996, June 18 and July 5, 1996 respondent made partial refunds of
P15,000.00; P6,000.00; and P5,000.00.

On December 19, 1996 the complainant through counsel, sent a demand letter to
respondent for the refund of a remaining balance of One Hundred Fourteen Thousand
Pesos (P114,000.00) which was ignored by the respondent.
Sometime in March 1997 the complainant went to see the respondent, however his
wife informed her that the respondent was in Cebu attending to business matters.
In May 1997 the complainant again tried to see the respondent however she found out
that the respondent had transferred to an unknown residence apparently with
intentions to evade responsibility.
Attached to the complaint are the photocopies of receipts for the amount paid by complainant,
applications for U.S.A. Visa, questions and answers asked during interviews; receipts
acknowledging partial refunds of fees paid by the complainant together with demand letter for
the remaining balance of One Hundred Fourteen Thousand Pesos (P114,000.00); which was
received by the respondent.[2]
Despite several notices sent to the respondent requiring an answer to or comment on the
complaint, there was no response. Respondent likewise failed to attend the scheduled hearings
of the case. No appearance whatsoever was made by the respondent. [3] As a result of the
inexplicable failure, if not obdurate refusal of the respondent to comply with the orders of the
Commission, the investigation against him proceeded ex parte.
On September 24, 1998, the Commission on Bar Discipline issued its Report on the case,
finding that:

It appears that the services of the respondent was engaged for the purpose of securing
a visa for a U.S.A. travel of complainant. There was no mention of job placement or
employment abroad, hence it is not correct to say that the respondent engaged in
illegal recruitment.
The alleged proposal of the respondent to secure the U.S.A. visa for the complainant
under an assumed name was accepted by the complainant which negates deceit on the
part of the respondent. Noted likewise is the partial refunds made by the respondent
of the fees paid by the complainant. However, the transfer of residence without a
forwarding address indicates his attempt to escape responsibility.
In the light of the foregoing, we find that the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct
for violating Canon 1 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which

provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that ATTY.
DOROTHEO CALIS be SUSPENDED as a member of the bar until he fully refunds the fees
paid to him by complainant and comply with the order of the Commission on Bar Discipline
pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 6 of the Rules of Court.[4]
Pursuant to Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, this administrative case was
elevated to the IBP Board of Governors for review. The Board in a Resolution[5] dated December
4, 1998 resolved to adopt and approve with amendment the recommendation of the
Commission. The Resolution of the Board states:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and

APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in
the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decisions as Annex A;
and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
applicable laws and rules, with an amendment that Respondent Atty. Dorotheo Calis
beDISBARRED for having been found guilty of Gross Misconduct for engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
We are now called upon to evaluate, for final action, the IBP recommendation contained in
its Resolution dated December 4, 1998, with its supporting report.
After examination and careful consideration of the records in this case, we find the
resolution passed by the Board of Governors of the IBP in order. We agree with the finding of
the Commission that the charge of illegal recruitment was not established because complainant
failed to substantiate her allegation on the matter. In fact she did not mention any particular job
or employment promised to her by the respondent. The only service of the respondent
mentioned by the complainant was that of securing a visa for the United States.
We likewise concur with the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution, that herein
respondent is guilty of gross misconduct by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct contrary to Canon 1, Rule 101 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Respondent deceived the complainant by assuring her that he could give her visa
and travel documents; that despite spurious documents nothing untoward would happen; that he
guarantees her arrival in the USA and even promised to refund her the fees and expenses already
paid, in case something went wrong. All for material gain.

Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. They
reveal moral flaws in a lawyer. They are unacceptable practices. A lawyers relationship with
others should be characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor. This is
the essence of the lawyers oath. The lawyers oath is not mere facile words, drift and hollow,
but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable. [6] The nature of the office of an
attorney requires that he should be a person of good moral character.[7] This requisite is not only a
condition precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential
for remaining in the practice of law.[8] We have sternly warned that any gross misconduct of a
lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, puts his moral character in serious doubt
as a member of the Bar, and renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.[9]
It is dismaying to note how respondent so cavalierly jeopardized the life and liberty of
complainant when he made her travel with spurious documents. How often have victims of
unscrupulous travel agents and illegal recruiters been imprisoned in foreign lands because they
were provided fake travel documents? Respondent totally disregarded the personal safety of the
complainant when he sent her abroad on false assurances. Not only are respondents acts illegal,
they are also detestable from the moral point of view. His utter lack of moral qualms and
scruples is a real threat to the Bar and the administration of justice.
The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show
that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment
of such privilege.[10] We must stress that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions. A lawyer has the privilege to practice law only during good behavior. He can be
deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after
giving him the opportunity to be heard.[11]
Here, it is worth noting that the adamant refusal of respondent to comply with the orders of
the IBP and his total disregard of the summons issued by the IBP are contemptuous acts
reflective of unprofessional conduct. Thus, we find no hesitation in removing respondent
Dorotheo Calis from the Roll of Attorneys for his unethical, unscrupulous and unconscionable
conduct toward complainant.
Lastly, the grant in favor of the complainant for the recovery of the P114,000.00 she paid the
respondent is in order.[12] Respondent not only unjustifiably refused to return the complainants
money upon demand, but he stubbornly persisted in holding on to it, unmindful of the hardship
and humiliation suffered by the complainant.
WHEREFORE, respondent Dorotheo Calis is hereby DISBARRED and his name is
ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be FURNISHED to the
IBP and the Bar Confidant to be spread on the personal records of respondent. Respondent is

likewise ordered to pay to the complainant immediately the amount of One Hundred Fourteen
Thousand (P114,000.00) Pesos representing the amount he collected from her.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

A.C. No. 3405 June 29, 1998

JULIETA B. NARAG, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. DOMINADOR M. NARAG, respondent.

PER CURIAM:
Good moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member of
the bar. Thus, when a lawyer fails to meet the exacting standard of moral
integrity, the Supreme Court may withdraw his or her privilege to practice law.
On November 13, 1989, Mrs. Julieta B. Narag filed an administrative
complaint 1 for disbarment against her husband, Atty. Dominador M. Narag, whom she accused of
having violated Canons 1 and 6, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Ethics for Lawyers.

The complainant narrated:

The St. Louis College of Tuguegarao engaged the services of Atty.
Dominador M. Narag in the early seventies as a full-time college
instructor in the College of Arts and Sciences and as a professor in
the Graduate School. In 1984, Ms. Gina Espita, 17 years old and a
first year college student, enrolled in subjects handled by Atty.
Narag. Exerting his influence as her teacher, and as a prominent
member of the legal profession and then member of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Tuguegarao, Atty. Narag courted Ms. Espita,
gradually lessening her resistance until the student acceded to his
wishes.
They then maintained an illicit relationship known in various circles
in the community, but which they managed to from me. It therefore
came as a terrible embar[r]assment to me, with unspeakable grief
and pain when my husband abandoned us, his family, to live with
Ms. Espita, in utterly scandalous circumstances.
It appears that Atty. Narag used his power and influence as a
member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan to cause the
employment of Ms. Espita at the Department of Trade and Industry
Central Office at Makati, Metro Manila. Out of gratitude perhaps, for
this gesture, Ms. Espita agreed to live with Atty. Narag, her sense of
right[e]ousness and morals completely corrupted by a member of
the Bar.

It is now a common knowledge in the community that Atty.

Dominador M. Narag has abandoned us, his family, to live with a 22year-old woman, who was his former student in the tertiary level[.] 3
This Court, in a Resolution dated December 18, 1989, referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. 4
On June 26, 1990, the office of then Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan received
from complainant another letter seeking the dismissal of the administrative
complaint. She alleged therein that (1) she fabricated the allegations in her
complaint to humiliate and spite her husband; (2) all the love letters between the
respondent and Gina Espita were forgeries; and (3) she was suffering from
"emotional confusion arising from extreme jealousy." The truth, she stated, was
that her husband had remained a faithful and responsible family man. She further
asserted that he had neither entered into an amorous relationship with one Gina
Espita nor abandoned his family. 5 Supporting her letter were an Affidavit of Desistance 6 and a
Motion to Dismiss, 7 attached as Annexes A and B, which she filed before the IBP commission on bar
discipline. 8 In a Decision dared October 8, 1991, the IBP Board of Governors 9 dismissed the complaint
of Mrs. Narag for failure to prosecute. 10

The case took an unexpected turn when, on November 25, 1991, this
Court 11 received another letter 12 from the complainant, with her seven
children 13 as co-signatories, again appealing for the disbarment of her husband. She explained that she
had earlier dropped the case against him because of his continuous threats against her. 14

In his Comment on the complainant's letter of November 11, 1991, filed in

compliance with this Court's Resolution issued on July 6, 1992, 15 respondent prayed
that the decision of the Board of Governors be affirmed. Denying that he had threatened, harassed or
intimidated his wife, he alleged that she had voluntarily executed her Affidavit of Desistance 16 and Motion
to Dismiss, 17 even appearing before the investigating officer, Commissioner Racela, to testify under oath
"that she prepared the Motion to Dismiss and Affidavit of Desistance on her own free will and affirmed the
contents thereof."

In addition, he professed his love for his wife and his children and denied
abandoning his family to live with his paramour. However, he described his wife
as a person emotionally disturbed, viz:
What is pitiable here is the fact that Complainant is an incurably
jealous and possessive woman, and every time the streak of

jealousy rears its head, she fires off letters or complaints against her
husband in every conceivable forum, all without basis, and purely on
impulse, just to satisfy the consuming demands of her "loving"
jealousy. Then, as is her nature, a few hours afterwards, when her
jealousy cools off, she repents and feels sorry for her acts against
the Respondent. Thus, when she wrote the Letter of November 11,
1991, she was then in the grips of one of her bouts of jealousy.18
On August 24, 1992, this Court issued another Resolution referring the Comment
of respondent to the IBP. 19 In the hearing before IBP Commissioner Plaridel C. Jose, respondent
alleged the following: 20

2. Your Respondent comes from very poor parents who have left him
not even a square meter of land, but gave him the best legacy in life:
a purposeful and meaningful education. Complainant comes from
what she claims to be very rich parents who value material
possession more than education and the higher and nobler
aspirations in life. Complainant abhors the poor.
3. Your Respondent has a loving upbringing, nurtured in the gentle
ways of love, forgiveness, humility, and concern for the poor.
Complainant was reared and raised in an entirely different
environment. Her value system is the very opposite.
4. Your Respondent loves his family very dearly, and has done all he
could in thirty-eight (38) years of marriage to protect and preserve
his family. He gave his family sustenance, a comfortable home, love,
education, companionship, and most of all, a good and respected
name. He was always gentle and compassionate to his wife and
children. Even in the most trying times, he remained calm and never
inflicted violence on them. His children are all now full-fledged
professionals, mature, and gainfully employed. . . .
xxx xxx xxx
Your Respondent subscribes to the sanctity of marriage as a social
institution.

On the other hand, consumed by insane and unbearable jealousy,

Complainant has been systematically and unceasingly destroying
the very foundations of their marriage and their family. Their
marriage has become a torture chamber in which Your Respondent
has been incessantly BEATEN, BATTERED, BRUTALIZED,
TORTURED, ABUSED, and HUMILIATED, physically, mentally, and
emotionally, by the Complainant, in public and at home. Their
marriage has become a nightmare.
For thirty-eight years, your Respondent suffered in silence and bore
the pain of his misfortune with dignity and with almost infinite
patience, if only to preserve their family and their marriage. But this
is not to be. The Complainant never mellowed and never became
gentl[e], loving, and understanding. In fact, she became more fierce
and predatory.
Hence, at this point in time, the light at the tunnel for Your
Respondent does not seem in sight. The darkness continues to
shroud the marital and familial landscape.
Your Respondent has to undergo a catharsis, a liberation from
enslavement. Paraphrasing Dorfman in "Death and the Maiden", can
the torturer and the tortured co-exist and live together?
Hence, faced with an absolutely uncomprehending and
uncompromising mind whose only obsession now is to destroy,
destroy, and destroy, Your Respondent, with perpetual regret and
with great sorrow, filed a Petition for Annulment of Marriage, Spl.
Proc. No. 566, RTC, Branch III, Tuguegarao, Cagayan. . . .
5. Complainant is a violent husband-beater, vitriolic and unbending.
But your Respondent never revealed these destructive qualities to
other people. He preserved the good name and dignity of his wife.
This is in compliance with the marital vow to love, honor or obey
your spouse, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health . . .
Even in this case, Your Respondent never revealed anything
derogatory to his wife. It is only now that he is constrained to reveal
all these things to defend himself.

On the other hand, for no reason at all, except a jealous rage,

Complainant tells everyone, everywhere, that her husband is
worthless, good-for-nothing, evil and immoral. She goes to colleges
and universities, professional organizations, religious societies, and
all other sectors of the community to tell them how evil, bad and
immoral her husband is. She tells them not to hire him as professor,
as Counsel, or any other capacity because her husband is evil, bad,
and immoral. Is this love? Since when did love become an
instrument to destroy a man's dearest possession in life his good
name, reputation and dignity?
Because of Complainant's virulent disinformation campaign against
her husband, employing every unethical and immoral means to
attain his ends, Your Respondent has been irreparably and
irreversibly disgraced, shamed, and humiliated. Your Respondent is
not a scandalous man. It is he who has been mercilessly
scandalized and crucified by the Complainant. 21
To prove the alleged propensity of his wife to file false charges, respondent
presented as evidence the following list of the complaints she had filed against
him and Gina Espita:
3.1 Complaint for Immorality/Neglect of Duty . . .
3.2 Complaint for Immorality/Neglect of Duty, DILG,
Adm. Case No. P-5-90. . . .
3.3 Complaint for Concubinage. Provincial Prosecutor's
Office of Cagayan. I.S No. 89-114. . . .
3.4 Complaint for Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices and
concubinage. OMBUDSMAN Case No. 1-92-0083. . . .
3.5 Complaint for Civil Support. RTC, Tuguegarao, Civil
Case No. 4061. DISMISSED.
3.6 Complaint for Concubinage. Provincial Prosecutor's
Office of Cagayan. I.S. No. 92-109. DISMISSED. (. . .).

Complainant filed Motion for Reconsideration. DENIED.

(. . .).
3.7 Complaint for Disbarment (. . .) with S[upreme]
C[ourt]. Withdrawn (. . .). DISMISSED by IBP Board of
Governors (. . .). Re-instituted (. . .).
3.8 Complaint for Disbarment, again (. . .). Adm. Case
No. 3405. Pending.
3.9 Complaint for Concubinage, again (. . .). Third
MCTC, Tumauini, Isabela. Pending. . . . 22
In his desperate effort to exculpate himself, he averred:
I. That all the alleged love letters and envelopes (. . .), picture (. . .)
are inadmissible in evidence as enunciated by the Supreme Court in
"Cecilia Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals, et.al.", G.R. No. 107383,
February 20, 1996. (. . .).
xxx xxx xxx
II. That respondent is totally innocent of the charges: He never
courted Gina Espita in the Saint Louis College of Tuguegarao. He
never caused the employment of said woman in the DTI. He never
had or is having any illicit relationship with her anywhere, at any
time. He never lived with her as husband and wife anywhere at any
time, be it in Centro Tumauini or any of its barangays, or in any other
place. He never begot a child or children with her. Finally,
respondent submits that all the other allegations of Mrs. Narag are
false and fabricated, . . .
xxx xxx xxx
III. Respondent never abandoned his family[.] Mrs. Narag and her
two sons forcibly drove respondent Narag out of the conjugal home.
After that, Atty. Narag tried to return to the conjugal home many
times with the help of mutual friends to save the marriage and the
family from collapse. He tried several times to reconcile with Mrs.

Narag. In fact, in one of the hearings of the disbarment case, he

offered to return home and to reconcile with Mrs. Narag. But Mrs.
Narag refused all these efforts of respondent Narag. . . .
IV. Complainant Julieta B. Narag is an unbearably jealous, violent,
vindictive, scandalous, virulent and merciless wife since the
beginning of the marriage, who incessantly beat, battered,
brutalized, tortured, abuse[d], scandalized, and humiliated
respondent Atty. Narag, physically, mentally, emotionally, and
psychologically, . . .
V. Complainant Julieta Narag's claim in her counter-manifestation
dated March 28, 1996, to the effect that the affidavit of Dominador B.
Narag, Jr., dated February 27, 1996 was obtained through force and
intimidation, is not true. Dominador, Jr., executed his affidavit freely,
voluntarily, and absolutely without force or intimidation, as shown by
the transcript of stenographic notes of the testimonies of
Respondent Atty. Narag and Tuguegarao MTC Judge Dominador
Garcia during the trial of Criminal Case No. 12439, People vs.
Dominador M. Narag, et. al., before the Tuguegarao MTC on May 3,
1996. . . .
xxx xxx xxx
VI. Respondent Atty. Narag is now an old man a senior citizen of
63 years sickly, abandoned, disgraced, weakened and debilitated
by progressively degenerative gout and arthritis, and hardly able to
earn his own keep. His very physical, medical, psychological, and
economic conditions render him unfit and unable to do the things
attributed to him by the complainant. Please see the attached
medical certificates, . . ., among many other similar certificates
touching on the same ailments. Respondent is also suffering from
hypertension. 23
On July 18, 1997, the investigating officer submitted his report, 24 recommending the
indefinite suspension of Atty. Narag from the practice of law. The material portions of said report read as
follows:

Culled from the voluminous documentary and testimonial evidence

submitted by the contending parties, two (2) issues are relevant for
the disposition of the case, namely:
a) Whether there was indeed a commission of alleged abandonment
of respondent's own family and [whether he was] living with his
paramour, Gina Espita;
b) Whether the denial under oath that his illegitimate children with
Gina Espita (Aurelle Dominic and Kyle Dominador) as appearing on
paragraph 1(g) of respondent's Comment vis-a-vis his handwritten
love letters, the due execution and contents of which, although he
objected to their admissibility for being allegedly forgeries, were
never denied by him on the witness stand much less presented and
offered proof to support otherwise.
Except for the testimonies of respondent's witnesses whose
testimonies tend to depict the complaining wife, Mrs. Narag, as an
incurably jealous wife and possessive woman suffering everytime
with streaks of jealousy, respondent did not present himself on the
witness stand to testify and be cross-examined on his sworn
comment; much less did he present his alleged paramour, Gina
Espita, to disprove the adulterous relationship between him and their
having begotten their illegitimate children, namely: Aurelle Dominic
N. Espita and Kyle Dominador N. Espita. Worse, respondent's denial
that he is the father of the two is a ground for disciplinary sanction
(Morcayda v. Naz, 125 SCRA 467).
Viewed from all the evidence presented, we find the respondent
subject to disciplinary action as a member of the legal profession. 25
In its Resolution 26 issued on August 23, 1997, the IBP adopted and approved the investigating
commissioner's recommendation for the indefinite suspension of the respondent. 27 Subsequently the
complaint sought the disbarment of her husband in a Manifestation/Comment she filed on October 20,
1997. The IBP granted this stiffer penalty and, in its Resolution dated November 30, 1997, denied
respondent's Motion for Reconsideration.

After a careful scrutiny of the records of the proceedings and the evidence
presented by the parties, we find that the conduct of respondent warrants the
imposition of the penalty of disbarment.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 A lawyer shall at
all times uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the
activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not
engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor
should he, whether in public or
private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal
profession.
Thus, good moral character is not only a condition precedent 28 to the practice of law,
but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar. Hence, when a lawyer is found guilty of gross
immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.29

Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or
shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable
members of the community. 30 Furthermore, such conduct must not only be immoral,
but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to
be reprehensible to a high degree 31 or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as
to shock the common sense of decency. 32

We explained in Barrientos vs. Daarol 33 that, "as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in
fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in
accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar

and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of
mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that
he is flouting those moral standards."

Respondent Narag is accused of gross immorality for abandoning his family in

order to live with Gina Espita. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant,
and the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if she establishes her case
by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. 34
Presented by complainant as witnesses, aside from herself. 35 were: Charlie
Espita, 36 Magdalena Bautista, 37Bienvenido Eugenio, 38 Alice Carag, 39 Dr. Jervis B. Narag, 40 Dominador
Narag, Jr., 41 and Nieves F. Reyes. 42

Charlie Espita, brother of the alleged paramour Gina Espita, corroborated

complainant's charge against respondent in these categorical statements he
gave to the investigating officer:
Q Mr. Witness, do you know Atty. Narag?
A Yes, Your Honor, he is the live-in partner of my sister,
Gina Espita.
Q If Atty. Narag is here, can you point [to] him?
A Yes, sir.
(Witness pointed to the respondent, Atty. Dominador
Narag)
Q Why do you know Atty. Narag?
ATTY. NARAG:
Already answered. He said I am the live-in partner.
CONTINUATION OF THE DIRECT
A Because he is the live-in partner of my sister and that
they are now living together as husband and wife and
that they already have two children, Aurelle Dominic and
Kyle Dominador.

xxx xxx xxx

During cross-examination conducted by the respondent himself, Charlie Espita
repeated his account that his sister Gina was living with the respondent, with
whom she had two children:
Q Mr. Espita, you claim that Atty. Narag is now living
with your sister as husband and wife. You claim that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Why do you say that?
A Because at present you are living together as
husband and wife and you have already two children
and I know that is really an immoral act which you
cannot just allow me to follow since my moral values
don't allow me that my sister is living with a married
man like you.
Q How do you know that Atty. Narag is living with your
sister? Did you see them in the house?
A Yes, si[r].
xxx xxx xxx
Q You said also that Atty. Narag and your sister have
two children, Aurelle Dominic and Kyle Dominador, is it
not?
A Yes, sir.
Q How do you know that they are the children of Atty.
Narag?
A Because you are staying together in that house and
you have left your family. 44

In addition, Charlie Espita admitted (1) that it was he who handed to Mrs. Narag
the love letters respondent had sent to his sister, and (2) that Atty. Narag tried to
dissuade him from appearing at the disbarment proceedings. 45
Witness Bienvenido Eugenio strengthened the testimony of Charlie Espita in this
wise:
Q Mr. Witness, do you know the respondent in this
case?
A I know him very well, sir.
Q Could you please tell us why do you know him?
A Because he was always going to the house of my
son-in-law by the name of Charlie Espita.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Mr. Eugenio, do you know the residence of Atty.
Dominador M. Narag?
A At that time, he [was] residing in the house of
Reynaldo Angubong, sir.
Q And this is located where?
A Centro Tamauini, Isabela, sir.
Q And you specifically, categorically state under oath
that this is the residence of Atty. Narag?
A Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q And under oath this is where Atty. Narag and Gina
Espita are allegedly living as husband and wife, is it
not?

A Yes, sir. 46
Witness Nieves Reyes, a neighbor and friend of the estranged couple, testified
that she learned from the Narag children Randy, Bong and Rowena that
their father left his family, that she and her husband prodded the complainant to
accept the respondent back, that the Narag couple again separated when the
respondent "went back to his woman," and that Atty. Narag had maltreated his
wife. 47
On the strength of the testimony of her witnesses, the complainant was able to
establish that respondent abandoned his family and lived with another woman.
Absent any evidence showing that these witnesses had an ill motive to testify
falsely against the respondent, their testimonies are deemed worthy of belief.
Further, the complainant presented as evidence the love letters that respondent
had sent to Gina. In these letters, respondent clearly manifested his love for Gina
and her two children, whom he acknowledged as his own. In addition,
complainant, also submitted as evidence the cards that she herself had received
from him. Guided by the rule that handwriting may be proved through a
comparison of one set of writings with those admitted or treated by the
respondent as genuine, we affirm that the two sets of evidence were written by
one and the same person. 48Besides, respondent did not present any evidence to prove that the
love letters were not really written by him; he merely denied that he wrote them.

While the burden of proof is upon the complainant, respondent has the duty not
only to himself but also to the court to show that he is morally fit to remain a
member of the bar. Mere denial does not suffice. Thus, when his moral character
is assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherished profession is
imperiled, he must meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to the
satisfaction of the investigating body and this Court, that he is morally fit to have
his name in the Roll of Attorneys. 49 This he failed to do.
Respondent adamantly denies abandoning his family to live with Gina Espita. At
the same time, he depicts his wife as a "violent husband-beater, vitriolic and
unbending," and as an "insanely and pathologically jealous woman," whose only
obsession was to "destroy, destroy and destroy" him as shown by her filing of a
series of allegedly unfounded charges against him (and Gina Espita). To prove
his allegation, he presented ninety-eight (98) pieces of documentary
evidence 50 and ten (10) witnesses. 51

We note, however, that the testimonies of the witnesses of respondent did not
establish the fact that he maintained that moral integrity required by the
profession that would render him fit to continue practicing law. Neither did their
testimonies destroy the fact, as proven by the complainant, that he had
abandoned his family and lived with Gina Espita, with whom he had two children.
Some of them testified on matters which they had no actual knowledge of, but
merely relied on information from either respondent himself or other people, while
others were presented to impeach the good character of his wife.
Respondent may have provided well for his family they enjoyed a comfortable
life and his children finished their education. He may have also established
himself as a successful lawyer and a seasoned politician. But these
accomplishments are not sufficient to show his moral fitness to continue being a
member of the noble profession of law.
We remind respondent that parents have not only rights but also duties e.g., to
support, educate and instruct their children according to right precepts and good
example; and to give them love, companionship and understanding, as well as
moral and spiritual guidance. 52 As a husband, he is also obliged to live with his wife; to observe
mutual love, respect and fidelity; and to render help and support.

53

Respondent himself admitted that his work required him to be often away from
home. But the evidence shows that he was away not only because of his work;
instead, he abandoned his family to live with her paramour, who bore him two
children. It would appear, then, that he was hardly in a position to be a good
husband or a good father. His children, who grew up mostly under the care of
their mother, must have scarcely felt the warmth of their father's love.
Respondent's son, Jervis B. Narag, showed his resentment towards his father's
moral frailties in his testimony:
Q My question is this, is there any sin so grievous that it
cannot be forgiven, is there a fault that is so serious that
it is incapable of forgiveness?
A That depends upon the sin or fault, sir, but if the sin or
fault is with the emotional part of myself, I suppose I
cannot forgive a person although am a God-fearing

person, but I h[av]e to give the person a lesson in order

for him or her to at least realize his mistakes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
COMR. JOSE:
I think it sounds like this. Assuming for the sake of
argument that your father is the worst, hardened
criminal on earth, would you send him to jail and have
him disbarred? That is the question.
CONTINUATION.
A With the reputation that he had removed from us, I
suppose he has to be given a lesson. At this point in
time, I might just forgive him if he will have to
experience all the pains that we have also suffered for
quite sometime.
Q Dr. Narag, your father gave you life, his blood runs in
your veins, his flesh is your flesh, his bones are your
bones and you now disown him because he is the worst
man on earth, is that what you are saying.
A Sort of, sir.
Q You are now telling that as far [as] you are concerned
because your father has sinned, you have no more
father, am I correct?
A Long before, sir, I did not feel much from my father
even when I was still a kid because my father is not
always staying with us at home. So, how can you say
that? Yes, he gave me life, why not? But for sure, sir,
you did not give me love. 54
Another son, Dominador Narag, Jr., narrated before the investigating officer the
trauma he went through:

Q In connection with that affidavit, Mr. Witness, which

contains the fact that your father is maintaining a
paramour, could you please tell this Honorable
Commission the effect on you?
A This has a very strong effect on me and this includes
my brothers and sisters, especially my married life, sir.
And it also affected my children so much, that I and my
wife ha[ve] parted ways. It hurts to say that I and my
wife parted ways. This is one reason that affected us.
Q Will you please tell us specifically why you and your
wife parted ways?
A Because my wife wa[s] ashamed of what happened to
my family and that she could not face the people, our
community, especially because my wife belongs to a
well-known family in our community.
Q How about the effect on your brothers and sisters?
Please tell us what are those.
A Well, sir, this has also affected the health of my elder
sister because she knows so well that my mother
suffered so much and she kept on thinking about my
mother.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Why did your wife leave you?
A The truth is because of the things that had happened
in our family, Your Honor.
Q In your wife's family?
A In our family, sir.
Q And what do you mean by that?

A What meant by that is my father had an illicit

relationship and that my father went to the extent of
scolding my wife and calling my wife a "puta" in
provincial government, which my mother-in-law hated
him so much for this, which really affected us. And then
my wife knew for a fact that my father has an illicit
relationship with Gina Espita, whom he bore two
children by the name of Aurelle Dominic and Kyle
Dominador, which I could prove and I stand firm to this,
Your Honor. 55
Although respondent piously claims adherence to the sanctity of marriage, his
acts prove otherwise. A husband is not merely a man who has contracted
marriage. Rather, he is a partner who has solemnly sworn to love and respect his
wife and remain faithful to her until death.
We reiterate our ruling in Cordova vs. Cordova 56: "The moral delinquency that affects the
fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted
moral standards of the community, conduct for instance, which makes a mockery of the inviolable social
institution of marriage."

In Toledo vs. Toledo, 57 the respondent was disbarred from the practice of law, when he abandoned
his lawful wife and cohabited with another woman who had borne him a child.

Likewise, in Obusan vs. Obusan, 58 the respondent was disbarred after the complainant proved
that he had abandoned her and maintained an adulterous relationship with a married woman. This Court
declared that respondent failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a
member of the bar.

In the present case, the complainant was able to establish, by clear and
convincing evidence, that respondent had breached the high and exacting moral
standards set for members of the law profession. As held in Maligsa vs.
Cabanting, 59 "a lawyer may be disbarred for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court."

WHEREFORE, Dominador M. Narag is hereby DISBARRED and his name is

ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Let copies of this Decision be
in the personal record of Respondent Narag; and furnished to all courts of the
land, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Bar Confidant.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.C. No. 7136

August 1, 2007

JOSELANO GUEVARRA, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA, respondent.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Joselano Guevarra (complainant) filed on March 4, 2002 a Complaint for
Disbarment1 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar
Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala

(respondent) for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the

lawyer's oath."
In his complaint, Guevarra gave the following account:
He first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainant's) then-fiancee
Irene Moje (Irene) introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to
Marianne (sometimes spelled "Mary Ann") Tantoco with whom he had three
children.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, complainant noticed that from
January to March 2001, Irene had been receiving from respondent cellphone
calls, as well as messages some of which read "I love you," "I miss you," or
"Meet you at Megamall."
Complainant also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or
early in the morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from
work. When he asked about her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her
parents' house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and respondent together on
two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them following which
Irene abandoned the conjugal house.
On April 22, 2001, complainant went uninvited to Irene's birthday celebration at
which he saw her and respondent celebrating with her family and friends. Out of
embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately. Following
that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all her personal
belongings, pieces of furniture, and her share of the household appliances.
Complainant later found, in the master's bedroom, a folded social card bearing
the words "I Love You" on its face, which card when unfolded contained a
handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to Irene,
reading:
My everdearest Irene,
By the time you open this, you'll be moments away from walking down the
aisle. I will say a prayer for you that you may find meaning in what you're
about to do.
Sometimes I wonder why we ever met. Is it only for me to find fleeting
happiness but experience eternal pain? Is it only for us to find a true love

but then lose it again? Or is it because there's a bigger plan for the two of
us?
I hope that you have experienced true happiness with me. I have done
everything humanly possible to love you. And today, as you make your
vows . . . I make my own vow to YOU!
I will love you for the rest of my life. I loved you from the first time I laid
eyes on you, to the time we spent together, up to the final moments of your
single life. But more importantly, I will love you until the life in me is gone
and until we are together again.
Do not worry about me! I will be happy for you. I have enough memories of
us to last me a lifetime. Always remember though that in my heart, in my
mind and in my soul, YOU WILL ALWAYS
. . . AND THE WONDERFUL THINGS YOU DO!
BE MINE . . . . AND MINE ALONE, and I WILL ALWAYS BE YOURS AND
YOURS ALONE!
I LOVE YOU FOREVER, I LOVE YOU FOR ALWAYS. AS LONG AS I'M
LIVING MY TWEETIE YOU'LL BE!"2

Eternally yours,
NOLI

Complainant soon saw respondent's car and that of Irene constantly parked at
No. 71-B 11th Street, New Manila where, as he was to later learn sometime in
April 2001, Irene was already residing. He also learned still later that when his
friends saw Irene on or about January 18, 2002 together with respondent during
a concert, she was pregnant.
In his ANSWER,3 respondent admitted having sent the I LOVE YOU card on
which the above-quoted letter was handwritten.
On paragraph 14 of the COMPLAINT reading:
14. Respondent and Irene were even FLAUNTING THEIR ADULTEROUS
RELATIONSHIP as they attended social functions together. For instance,
in or about the third week of September 2001, the couple attended the

launch of the "Wine All You Can" promotion of French wines, held at the
Mega Strip of SM Megamall B at Mandaluyong City. Their attendance was
reported in Section B of the Manila Standard issue of 24 September 2001,
on page 21. Respondent and Irene were photographed together; their
picture was captioned: "Irene with Sportscaster Noli Eala." A photocopy
of the report is attached as Annex C.4 (Italics and emphasis in the original;
CAPITALIZATION of the phrase "flaunting their adulterous relationship"
supplied),
respondent, in his ANSWER, stated:
4. Respondent specifically denies having ever flaunted an adulterous
relationship with Irene as alleged in paragraph 14 of the Complaint, the
truth of the matter being that their relationship was low profile and known
only to the immediate members of their respective families, and that
Respondent, as far as the general public was concerned, was still known
to be legally married to Mary Anne Tantoco.5 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
On paragraph 15 of the COMPLAINT reading:
15. Respondent's adulterous conduct with the complainant's wife and his
apparent abandoning or neglecting of his own family, demonstrate his
gross moral depravity, making him morally unfit to keep his membership in
the bar. He flaunted his aversion to the institution of marriage, calling it a
"piece of paper." Morally reprehensible was his writing the love letter to
complainant's bride on the very day of her wedding, vowing to continue his
love for her "until we are together again," as now they are.6 (Underscoring
supplied),
respondent stated in his ANSWER as follows:
5. Respondent specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 15 of the
Complaint regarding his adulterousrelationship and that his acts
demonstrate gross moral depravity thereby making him unfit to keep his
membership in the bar, the reason being that Respondent's relationship
with Irene was not under scandalous circumstances and that as far as
his relationship with his own family:
5.1 Respondent has maintained a civil, cordial and peaceful relationship
with [his wife] Mary Anne as in fact they still occasionally meet in public,
even if Mary Anne is aware of Respondent's special friendship with Irene.

xxxx
5.5 Respondent also denies that he has flaunted his aversion to the
institution of marriage by calling the institution of marriage a mere piece of
paper because his reference [in his above-quoted handwritten letter to
Irene] to the marriage between Complainant and Irene as a piece of paper
was merely with respect to the formality of the marriage
contract.7 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Respondent admitted8 paragraph 18 of the COMPLAINT reading:
18. The Rules of Court requires lawyers to support the Constitution and
obey the laws. The Constitution regards marriage as an inviolable social
institution and is the foundation of the family (Article XV, Sec. 2).9
And on paragraph 19 of the COMPLAINT reading:
19. Respondent's grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the Constitution
and the laws he, as a lawyer, has been sworn to uphold. In pursuing
obsessively his illicit love for the complainant's wife, he mocked the
institution of marriage, betrayed his own family, broke up the
complainant's marriage, commits adultery with his wife, and degrades the
legal profession.10 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied),
respondent, in his ANSWER, stated:
7. Respondent specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of the
Complaint, the reason being thatunder the circumstances the acts of
Respondent with respect to his purely personal and low profile special
relationship with Irene is neither under scandalous circumstances
nor tantamount to grossly immoral conduct as would be a ground for
disbarment pursuant to Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of
Court.11 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
To respondent's ANSWER, complainant filed a REPLY,12 alleging that Irene gave
birth to a girl and Irene named respondent in the Certificate of Live Birth as the
girl's father. Complainant attached to the Reply, as Annex "A," a copy of a
Certificate of Live Birth13 bearing Irene's signature and naming respondent as the
father of her daughter Samantha Irene Louise Moje who was born on February
14, 2002 at St. Luke's Hospital.
Complainant's REPLY merited a REJOINDER WITH MOTION TO
DISMISS14 dated January 10, 2003 from respondent in which he denied having

"personal knowledge of the Certificate of Live Birth attached to the complainant's

Reply."15 Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint due to the pendency of a
civil case filed by complainant for the annulment of his marriage to Irene, and a
criminal complaint for adultery against respondent and Irene which was pending
before the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office.
During the investigation before the IBP-CBD, complainant's Complaint-Affidavit
and Reply to Answer were adopted as his testimony on direct
examination.16 Respondent's counsel did not cross-examine complainant.17
After investigation, IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan,
in a 12-page REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION18 dated October 26, 2004,
found the charge against respondent sufficiently proven.
The Commissioner thus recommended19 that respondent be disbarred for
violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility reading:
Rule 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct (Underscoring supplied),
and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code reading:
Rule 7.03: A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
(Underscoring supplied)
The IBP Board of Governors, however, annulled and set aside the
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and accordingly dismissed
the case for lack of merit, by Resolution dated January 28, 2006 briefly reading:
RESOLUTION NO. XVII-2006-06
CBD Case No. 02-936
Joselano C. Guevarra vs.
Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala
a.k.a. Noli Eala
RESOLVED to ANNUL and SET ASIDE, as it is hereby ANNULLED AND
SET ASIDE, the Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and
to APPROVE the DISMISSAL of the above-entitled case for lack of
merit.20 (Italics and emphasis in the original)

Hence, the present petition21 of complainant before this Court, filed pursuant to
Section 12 (c), Rule 13922 of the Rules of Court.
The petition is impressed with merit.
Oddly enough, the IBP Board of Governors, in setting aside the
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and dismissing the case for
lack of merit, gave no reason therefor as its above-quoted 33-word Resolution
shows.
Respondent contends, in his Comment23 on the present petition of complainant,
that there is no evidence against him.24 The contention fails. As the IBP-CBD
Investigating Commissioner observed:
While it may be true that the love letter dated October 7, 2000 (Exh. "C")
and the news item published in theManila Standard (Exh. "D"), even taken
together do not sufficiently prove that respondent is carrying on an
adulterous relationship with complainant's wife, there are other pieces of
evidence on record which support the accusation of complainant against
respondent.
It should be noted that in his Answer dated 17 October 2002,
respondent through counsel made the following statements to wit:
"Respondent specifically denies having [ever] flaunted an adulterous
relationship with Irene as alleged in paragraph [14] of the Complaint, the
truth of the matter being [that] their relationship was low profile and known
only to immediate members of their respective families . . . , and
Respondent specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of the
complaint, the reason being that under the circumstances the acts of the
respondents with respect to his purely personal and low profile relationship
with Irene is neither under scandalous circumstances nor tantamount to
grossly immoral conduct . . ."
These statements of respondent in his Answer are an admission that
there is indeed a "special" relationship between him and
complainant's wife, Irene, [which] taken together with the Certificate
of Live Birth of Samantha Louise Irene Moje (Annex "H-1")
sufficiently prove that there was indeed an illicit relationship between
respondent and Irene which resulted in the birth of the child
"Samantha". In the Certificate of Live Birth of Samantha it should be
noted that complainant's wife Irene supplied the information that
respondent was the father of the child. Given the fact that the
respondent admitted his special relationship with Irene there is no reason

to believe that Irene would lie or make any misrepresentation

regarding the paternity of the child. It should be underscored
that respondent has not categorically denied that he is the father of
Samantha Louise Irene Moje.25 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Indeed, from respondent's Answer, he does not deny carrying on an adulterous
relationship with Irene, "adultery" being defined under Art. 333 of the Revised
Penal Code as that "committed by any married woman who shall have sexual
intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal
knowledge of her, knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be
subsequently declared void."26 (Italics supplied) What respondent denies
ishaving flaunted such relationship, he maintaining that it was "low profile and
known only to the immediate members of their respective families."
In other words, respondent's denial is a negative pregnant,
a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the
pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. It was in effect an
admission of the averments it was directed at. Stated otherwise, a negative
pregnant is a form of negative expression which carries with it in
affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse
party. It is a denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial facts
alleged in the pleading. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying
language and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are
literally denied, it has been held that thequalifying circumstances alone
are denied while the fact itself is admitted.27 (Citations omitted;
emphasis and underscoring supplied)
A negative pregnant too is respondent's denial of having "personal knowledge" of
Irene's daughter Samantha Louise Irene Moje's Certificate of Live Birth. In said
certificate, Irene named respondent a "lawyer," 38 years old as the child's
father. And the phrase "NOT MARRIED" is entered on the desired information on
"DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE." A comparison of the signature attributed to
Irene in the certificate28 with her signature on the Marriage Certificate29 shows that
they were affixed by one and the same person. Notatu dignum is that, as the
Investigating Commissioner noted, respondent never denied being the father of
the child.
Franklin A. Ricafort, the records custodian of St. Luke's Medical Center, in his
January 29, 2003 Affidavit30 which he identified at the witness stand, declared that
Irene gave the information in the Certificate of Live Birth that the child's father is
"Jose Emmanuel Masacaet Eala," who was 38 years old and a lawyer.31

Without doubt, the adulterous relationship between respondent and Irene has
been sufficiently proven by more than clearly preponderant evidence that
evidence adduced by one party which is more conclusive and credible than that
of the other party and, therefore, has greater weight than the other32 which is
the quantum of evidence needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.
Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are
distinct from and they may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.
. . . of proof for these types of cases differ. In a criminal case, proof beyond
reasonable doubt is necessary; in an administrative case for disbarment or
suspension, "clearly preponderant evidence" is all that is
required.33 (Emphasis supplied)
Respondent insists, however, that disbarment does not lie because his
relationship with Irene was not, under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court, reading:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court,
grounds therefor. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a
competent court or other disciplinatory agency in a foreign jurisdiction
where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for his
disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the
acts hereinabove enumerated.
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary
agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or
suspension (Emphasis and underscoring supplied),
under scandalous circumstances.34
The immediately-quoted Rule which provides the grounds for disbarment or
suspension uses the phrase "grossly immoral conduct," not "under scandalous

circumstances." Sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances is, following

Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code reading:
ART. 334. Concubinage. - Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the
conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous
circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her
in any other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum
and medium periods.
x x x x,
an element of the crime of concubinage when a married man has sexual
intercourse with a woman elsewhere.
"Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the
benefit of marriage should be characterized as 'grossly immoral conduct'
depends on the surrounding circumstances."35 The case at bar involves a
relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is not his wife.
It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly. Apropos is the
following pronouncement of this Court in Vitug v. Rongcal:36
On the charge of immorality, respondent does not deny that he had an
extra-marital affair with complainant, albeit brief and discreet, and which
act is not "so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree" in order to merit
disciplinary sanction. We disagree.
xxxx
While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual
relations between two unmarriedadults is not sufficient to warrant
administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so with respect
tobetrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extramarital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside
marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifestsdeliberate
disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected
by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.37 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
And so is the pronouncement in Tucay v. Atty. Tucay:38
The Court need not delve into the question of whether or not the
respondent did contract a bigamous marriage . . . It is enough that the

records of this administrative case substantiate the findings of the

Investigating Commissioner, as well as the IBP Board of Governors, i.e.,
that indeed respondent has beencarrying on an illicit affair with
a married woman, a grossly immoral conduct and indicative of an
extremely low regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession.
This detestable behaviorrenders him regrettably unfit and
undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges which his license
confers upon him.39 (Underscoring supplied)
Respondent in fact also violated the lawyer's oath he took before admission to
practice law which goes:
I _________, having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in
the Philippines, do solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority
of the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its
Constitution andobey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I
will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity
as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this
voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
So help me God. (Underscoring supplied)
Respondent admittedly is aware of Section 2 of Article XV (The Family) of the
Constitution reading:
Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of
the family and shall be protected by the State.
In this connection, the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209), which echoes this
constitutional provision, obligates the husband and the wife "to live together,
observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support."40
Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct," and Rule 7.03 of Canon7 of the same
Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any "conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law."
Clutching at straws, respondent, during the pendency of the investigation of the
case before the IBP Commissioner, filed a Manifestation41 on March 22, 2005

informing the IBP-CBD that complainant's petition for nullity of his (complainant's)
marriage to Irene had been granted by Branch 106 of the Quezon City Regional
Trial Court, and that the criminal complaint for adultery complainant filed against
respondent and Irene "based on the same set of facts alleged in the instant
case," which was pending review before the Department of Justice (DOJ), on
petition of complainant, had been, on motion of complainant, withdrawn.
The Secretary of Justice's Resolution of January 16, 2004 granting complainant's
Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review reads:
Considering that the instant motion was filed before the final resolution of
the petition for review, we are inclined to grant the same pursuant to
Section 10 of Department Circular No. 70 dated July 3, 2000, which
provides that "notwithstanding the perfection of the appeal, the petitioner
may withdraw the same at any time before it is finally resolved, in which
case the appealed resolution shall stand as though no appeal has
been taken."42 (Emphasis supplied by complainant)
That the marriage between complainant and Irene was subsequently declared
void ab initio is immaterial. The acts complained of took place before the
marriage was declared null and void.43 As a lawyer, respondent should be aware
that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife are
presumed, unless proven otherwise, to have entered into a lawful contract of
marriage.44 In carrying on an extra-marital affair with Irene prior to the judicial
declaration that her marriage with complainant was null and void, and despite
respondent himself being married, he showed disrespect for an institution held
sacred by the law. And he betrayed his unfitness to be a lawyer.
As for complainant's withdrawal of his petition for review before the DOJ,
respondent glaringly omitted to state thatbefore complainant filed his December
23, 2003 Motion to Withdraw his Petition for Review, the DOJ had already
promulgated a Resolution on September 22, 2003 reversing the dismissal by
the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office of complainant's complaint for adultery. In
reversing the City Prosecutor's Resolution, DOJ Secretary Simeon Datumanong
held:
Parenthetically the totality of evidence adduced by complainant would, in
the fair estimation of the Department, sufficiently establish all the elements
of the offense of adultery on the part of both respondents. Indeed, early on,
respondent Moje conceded to complainant that she was going out on
dates with respondent Eala, and this she did when complainant confronted
her about Eala's frequent phone calls and text messages to her.
Complainant also personally witnessed Moje and Eala having a

rendezvous on two occasions. Respondent Eala never denied the fact that
he knew Moje to be married to complainant[.] In fact, he (Eala) himself was
married to another woman. Moreover, Moje's eventual abandonment of
their conjugal home, after complainant had once more confronted her
about Eala, only served to confirm the illicit relationship involving both
respondents. This becomes all the more apparent by Moje's subsequent
relocation in No. 71-B, 11th Street, New Manila, Quezon City, which was a
few blocks away from the church where she had exchange marital vows
with complainant.
It was in this place that the two lovers apparently cohabited. Especially
since Eala's vehicle and that of Moje's were always seen there. Moje
herself admits that she came to live in the said address whereas Eala
asserts that that was where he held office. The happenstance that it was in
that said address that Eala and Moje had decided to hold office for the firm
that both had formed smacks too much of a coincidence. For one, the said
address appears to be a residential house, for that was where Moje stayed
all throughout after her separation from complainant. It was both
respondent's love nest, to put short; their illicit affair that was carried out
there bore fruit a few months later when Moje gave birth to a girl at the
nearby hospital of St. Luke's Medical Center. What finally militates against
the respondents is the indubitable fact that in the certificate of birth of the
girl, Moje furnished the information that Eala was the father. This speaks
all too eloquently of the unlawful and damning nature of the
adulterous acts of the respondents. Complainant's supposed illegal
procurement of the birth certificate is most certainly beside the point for
bothrespondents Eala and Moje have not denied, in any categorical
manner, that Eala is the father of the child Samantha Irene Louise
Moje.45 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
It bears emphasis that adultery is a private offense which cannot be prosecuted
de oficio and thus leaves the DOJ no choice but to grant complainant's motion to
withdraw his petition for review. But even if respondent and Irene were to be
acquitted of adultery after trial, if the Information for adultery were filed in court,
the same would not have been a bar to the present administrative complaint.
Citing the ruling in Pangan v. Ramos,46 viz:
x x x The acquittal of respondent Ramos [of] the criminal charge is not a
bar to these [administrative] proceedings. The standards of legal
profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to
escape the penalties of x x x criminal law. Moreover, this Court, in

disbarment proceedings is acting in an entirely different capacity from that

which courts assume in trying criminal case47 (Italics in the original),
this Court in Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pools, Inc. v. Atty. Naldoza,48 held:
Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They
are distinct from and they mayproceed independently of civil and criminal
cases.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Resolution No. XVII-2006-06 passed
on January 28, 2006 by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral
conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Let a copy of this Decision, which is immediately executory, be made part of the
records of respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the
Philippines. And let copies of the Decision be furnished the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and circulated to all courts.
This Decision takes effect immediately.
SO ORDERED.