SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 3319. June 8, 2000]

LESLIE UI, complainant, vs. ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO, respondent.

DECISION

DE LEON, JR., J.:

Before us is an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio for allegedly carrying
on an immoral relationship with Carlos L. Ui, husband of complainant, Leslie Ui.

The relevant facts are:

On January 24, 1971 complainant Leslie Ui married Carlos L. Ui at the Our Lady of Lourdes Church in
Quezon City and as a result of their marital union, they had four (4) children, namely, Leilani, Lianni,
[1]

Lindsay and Carl Cavin, all surnamed Ui. Sometime in December 1987, however, complainant found
out that her husband, Carlos Ui, was carrying on an illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris
Bonifacio with whom he begot a daughter sometime in 1986, and that they had been living together at
No. 527 San Carlos Street, Ayala Alabang Village in Muntinlupa City. Respondent who is a graduate of
the College of Law of the University of the Philippines was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1982.

Carlos Ui admitted to complainant his relationship with the respondent. Complainant then visited
respondent at her office in the later part of June 1988 and introduced herself as the legal wife of Carlos
Ui. Whereupon, respondent admitted to her that she has a child with Carlos Ui and alleged, however,
that everything was over between her and Carlos Ui. Complainant believed the representations of
respondent and thought things would turn out well from then on and that the illicit relationship between
her husband and respondent would come to an end.

However, complainant again discovered that the illicit relationship between her husband and
respondent continued, and that sometime in December 1988, respondent and her husband, Carlos Ui,
had a second child. Complainant then met again with respondent sometime in March 1989 and pleaded
with respondent to discontinue her illicit relationship with Carlos Ui but to no avail. The illicit relationship
persisted and complainant even came to know later on that respondent had been employed by her
husband in his company.

A complaint for disbarment, docketed as Adm. Case No. 3319, was then filed on August 11, 1989 by
the complainant against respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (hereinafter, Commission) on the ground of immorality, more
particularly, for carrying on an illicit relationship with the complainants husband, Carlos Ui. In her
Answer, respondent averred that she met Carlos Ui sometime in 1983 and had known him all along to
[2]

be a bachelor, with the knowledge, however, that Carlos Ui had children by a Chinese woman in Amoy,
China, from whom he had long been estranged. She stated that during one of their trips abroad, Carlos
Ui formalized his intention to marry her and they in fact got married in Hawaii, USA in 1985 . Upon their
[3]

return to Manila, respondent did not live with Carlos Ui. The latter continued to live with his children in
their Greenhills residence because respondent and Carlos Ui wanted to let the children gradually to
know and accept the fact of his second marriage before they would live together. [4]

In 1986, respondent left the country and stayed in Honolulu, Hawaii and she would only return
occasionally to the Philippines to update her law practice and renew legal ties. During one of her trips to
Manila sometime in June 1988, respondent was surprised when she was confronted by a woman who
insisted that she was the lawful wife of Carlos Ui. Hurt and desolate upon her discovery of the true civil
status of Carlos Ui, respondent then left for Honolulu, Hawaii sometime in July 1988 and returned only
in March 1989 with her two (2) children. On March 20, 1989, a few days after she reported to work with
the law firm she was connected with, the woman who represented herself to be the wife of Carlos Ui
[5]

again came to her office, demanding to know if Carlos Ui has been communicating with her.

It is respondents contention that her relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit because they were married
abroad and that after June 1988 when respondent discovered Carlos Uis true civil status, she cut off all
her ties with him. Respondent averred that Carlos Ui never lived with her in Alabang, and that he
resided at 26 Potsdam Street, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila. It was respondent who lived in
Alabang in a house which belonged to her mother, Rosalinda L. Bonifacio; and that the said house was
built exclusively from her parents funds. By way of counterclaim, respondent sought moral damages in
[6]

the amount of Ten Million Pesos (Php10,000,000.00) against complainant for having filed the present
allegedly malicious and groundless disbarment case against respondent.

In her Reply dated April 6, 1990, complainant states, among others, that respondent knew perfectly
[7]

well that Carlos Ui was married to complainant and had children with her even at the start of her
relationship with Carlos Ui, and that the reason respondent went abroad was to give birth to her two (2)
children with Carlos Ui.

During the pendency of the proceedings before the Integrated Bar, complainant also charged her
husband, Carlos Ui, and respondent with the crime of Concubinage before the Office of the Provincial
Fiscal of Rizal, docketed as I.S. No. 89-5247, but the same was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence
to establish probable cause for the offense charged. The resolution dismissing the criminal complaint
against respondent reads:

Complainants evidence had prima facie established the existence of the "illicit
relationship" between the respondents allegedly discovered by the complainant in
December 1987. The same evidence however show that respondent Carlos Ui was still
living with complainant up to the latter part of 1988 and/or the early part of 1989.

It would therefore be logical and safe to state that the "relationship" of respondents
started and was discovered by complainant sometime in 1987 when she and respondent
Carlos were still living at No. 26 Potsdam Street, Northeast Greenhills, San Juan,
MetroManila and they, admittedly, continued to live together at their conjugal home up to
early (sic) part of 1989 or later 1988, when respondent Carlos left the same.

From the above, it would not be amiss to conclude that altho (sic) the relationship, illicit
as complainant puts it, had been prima facie established by complainants evidence, this
same evidence had failed to even prima facie establish the "fact of respondents
cohabitation in the concept of husband and wife at the 527 San Carlos St., Ayala
Alabang house, proof of which is necessary and indispensable to at least create
probable cause for the offense charged. The statement alone of complainant, worse, a
statement only of a conclusion respecting the fact of cohabitation does not make the
complainants evidence thereto any better/stronger (U.S. vs. Casipong and Mongoy, 20
Phil. 178).

It is worth stating that the evidence submitted by respondents in support of their

respective positions on the matter support and bolster the foregoing
conclusion/recommendation.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully recommended that the instant complaint be

dismissed for want of evidence to establish probable cause for the offense charged.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. [8]

Complainant appealed the said Resolution of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal to the Secretary of Justice,
but the same was dismissed on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to prove her allegation that
[9]

respondent and Carlos Ui lived together as husband and wife at 527 San Carlos Street, Ayala Alabang,
Muntinlupa, Metro Manila.

In the proceedings before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, complainant filed a Motion to Cite
Respondent in Contempt of the Commission wherein she charged respondent with making false
[10]

allegations in her Answer and for submitting a supporting document which was altered and intercalated.
She alleged that in the Answer of respondent filed before the Integrated Bar, respondent averred,
among others, that she was married to Carlos Ui on October 22, 1985 and attached a Certificate of
Marriage to substantiate her averment. However, the Certificate of Marriage duly certified by the
[11]

State Registrar as a true copy of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health, and duly
authenticated by the Philippine Consulate General in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA revealed that the date of
marriage between Carlos Ui and respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio was October 22, 1987, and not October
22, 1985 as claimed by respondent in her Answer. According to complainant, the reason for that false
allegation was because respondent wanted to impress upon the said IBP that the birth of her first child
by Carlos Ui was within the wedlock. It is the contention of complainant that such act constitutes a
[12]

violation of Articles 183 and 184 of the Revised Penal Code, and also contempt of the Commission;
[13] [14]

and that the act of respondent in making false allegations in her Answer and submitting an
altered/intercalated document are indicative of her moral perversity and lack of integrity which make her
unworthy to be a member of the Philippine Bar.

In her Opposition (To Motion To Cite Respondent in Contempt), respondent averred that she did not
[15]

have the original copy of the marriage certificate because the same was in the possession of Carlos Ui,
and that she annexed such copy because she relied in good faith on what appeared on the copy of the
marriage certificate in her possession.

Respondent filed her Memorandum on February 22, 1995 and raised the lone issue of whether or not
[16]

she has conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be barred from the practice
of law. Respondent averred that the complaint should be dismissed on two (2) grounds, namely:

(i) Respondent conducted herself in a manner consistent with the requirement of

good moral character for the practice of the legal profession; and

(ii) Complainant failed to prove her allegation that respondent conducted herself
in an immoral manner. [17]

In her defense, respondent contends, among others, that it was she who was the victim in this case and
not Leslie Ui because she did not know that Carlos Ui was already married, and that upon learning of
this fact, respondent immediately cut-off all her ties with Carlos Ui. She stated that there was no reason
for her to doubt at that time that the civil status of Carlos Ui was that of a bachelor because he spent so
much time with her, and he was so open in his courtship. [18]

On the issue of the falsified marriage certificate, respondent alleged that it was highly incredible for her
to have knowingly attached such marriage certificate to her Answer had she known that the same was
altered. Respondent reiterated that there was no compelling reason for her to make it appear that her
marriage to Carlos Ui took place either in 1985 or 1987, because the fact remains that respondent and
Carlos Ui got married before complainant confronted respondent and informed the latter of her earlier
marriage to Carlos Ui in June 1988. Further, respondent stated that it was Carlos Ui who testified and
admitted that he was the person responsible for changing the date of the marriage certificate from 1987
to 1985, and complainant did not present evidence to rebut the testimony of Carlos Ui on this matter.

Respondent posits that complainants evidence, consisting of the pictures of respondent with a child,
pictures of respondent with Carlos Ui, a picture of a garage with cars, a picture of a light colored car
with Plate No. PNS 313, a picture of the same car, and portion of the house and ground, and another
picture of the same car bearing Plate No. PNS 313 and a picture of the house and the garage, does [19]

not prove that she acted in an immoral manner. They have no evidentiary value according to her. The
pictures were taken by a photographer from a private security agency and who was not presented
during the hearings. Further, the respondent presented the Resolution of the Provincial Fiscal of Pasig
in I.S. Case No. 89-5427 dismissing the complaint filed by Leslie Ui against respondent for lack of
evidence to establish probable cause for the offense charged and the dismissal of the appeal by the
[20]

Department of Justice to bolster her argument that she was not guilty of any immoral or illegal act
[21]

because of her relationship with Carlos Ui. In fine, respondent claims that she entered the relationship
with Carlos Ui in good faith and that her conduct cannot be considered as willful, flagrant, or
shameless, nor can it suggest moral indifference. She fell in love with Carlos Ui whom she believed to
be single, and, that upon her discovery of his true civil status, she parted ways with him.

In the Memorandum filed on March 20, 1995 by complainant Leslie Ui, she prayed for the disbarment
[22]

of Atty. Iris Bonifacio and reiterated that respondent committed immorality by having intimate relations
with a married man which resulted in the birth of two (2) children. Complainant testified that
respondents mother, Mrs. Linda Bonifacio, personally knew complainant and her husband since the
late 1970s because they were clients of the bank where Mrs. Bonifacio was the Branch Manager. It [23]

was thus highly improbable that respondent, who was living with her parents as of 1986, would not
have been informed by her own mother that Carlos Ui was a married man. Complainant likewise
averred that respondent committed disrespect towards the Commission for submitting a photocopy of a
document containing an intercalated date.

In her Reply to Complainants Memorandum , respondent stated that complainant miserably failed to
[24]

show sufficient proof to warrant her disbarment. Respondent insists that contrary to the allegations of
complainant, there is no showing that respondent had knowledge of the fact of marriage of Carlos Ui to
complainant. The allegation that her mother knew Carlos Ui to be a married man does not prove that
such information was made known to respondent.

Hearing on the case ensued, after which the Commission on Bar Discipline submitted its Report and
Recommendation, finding that:

In the case at bar, it is alleged that at the time respondent was courted by Carlos Ui, the
latter represented himself to be single. The Commission does not find said claim too
difficult to believe in the light of contemporary human experience.

Almost always, when a married man courts a single woman, he represents himself to be
single, separated, or without any firm commitment to another woman. The reason
therefor is not hard to fathom. By their very nature, single women prefer single men.

The records will show that when respondent became aware the (sic) true civil status of
Carlos Ui, she left for the United States (in July of 1988). She broke off all contacts with
him. When she returned to the Philippines in March of 1989, she lived with her brother,
Atty. Teodoro Bonifacio, Jr. Carlos Ui and respondent only talked to each other because
of the children whom he was allowed to visit. At no time did they live together.

Under the foregoing circumstances, the Commission fails to find any act on the part of
respondent that can be considered as unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible
to a high degree. To be sure, she was more of a victim that (sic) anything else and
should deserve compassion rather than condemnation. Without cavil, this sad episode
destroyed her chance of having a normal and happy family life, a dream cherished by
every single girl.

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

Thereafter, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued a Notice of
Resolution dated December 13, 1997, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

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/Decision as Annex "A", and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and
rules, the complaint for Gross Immorality against Respondent is DISMISSED for lack of
merit. Atty. Iris Bonifacio is REPRIMANDED for knowingly and willfully attaching to her
Answer a falsified Certificate of Marriage with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same will merit a more severe penalty."

We agree with the findings aforequoted.

The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy the practice of the
legal profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject to
the mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. The
requisites for admission to the practice of law are:

a. he must be a citizen of the Philippines;

b. a resident thereof;

c. at least twenty-one (21) years of age;

d. a person of good moral character;

 e. he must show that no charges against him involving moral turpitude, are filed
or pending in court;

f. possess the required educational qualifications; and

g. pass the bar examinations. (Italics supplied)

[25]

Clear from the foregoing is that one of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant
must possess good moral character. More importantly, possession of good moral character must be
continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss
thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. It has been held -

If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then the continued
possession of good moral character is also a requisite for retaining membership in the
legal profession. Membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to
have good moral character. (Royong vs. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865).

A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction
of a crime involving moral turpitude". A member of the bar should have moral integrity in
addition to professional probity.

It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is "grossly
immoral conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render a
lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies that what
appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral
conduct that warrants disbarment.

Immoral conduct has been defined as "that 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." (7 C.J.S. 959). [26]

In the case at bar, it is the claim of respondent Atty. Bonifacio that when she met Carlos Ui, she knew
and believed him to be single. Respondent fell in love with him and they got married and as a result of
such marriage, she gave birth to two (2) children. Upon her knowledge of the true civil status of Carlos
Ui, she left him.

Simple as the facts of the case may sound, the effects of the actuations of respondent are not only far
from simple, they will have a rippling effect on how the standard norms of our legal practitioners should
be defined. Perhaps morality in our liberal society today is a far cry from what it used to be before. This
permissiveness notwithstanding, lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are burdened with a higher degree
of social responsibility and thus must handle their personal affairs with greater caution. The facts of this
case lead us to believe that perhaps respondent would not have found herself in such a compromising
situation had she exercised prudence and been more vigilant in finding out more about Carlos Uis
personal background prior to her intimate involvement with him.

Surely, circumstances existed which should have at least aroused respondents suspicion that
something was amiss in her relationship with Carlos Ui, and moved her to ask probing questions. For
instance, respondent admitted that she knew that Carlos Ui had children with a woman from Amoy,
China, yet it appeared that she never exerted the slightest effort to find out if Carlos Ui and this woman
were indeed unmarried. Also, despite their marriage in 1987, Carlos Ui never lived with respondent and
their first child, a circumstance that is simply incomprehensible considering respondents allegation that
Carlos Ui was very open in courting her.

All these taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that respondent was imprudent in
managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed
as it was with what respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For
immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of
good and respectable members of the community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary
[27]

action, the same must be "grossly immoral," that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. [28]
We have held that "a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from
adulterous relationships x x x but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards." Respondents act of immediately
[29]

distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral
indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the
legal profession. Complainants bare assertions to the contrary deserve no credit. After all, the burden of
proof rests upon the complainant, and the Court will exercise its disciplinary powers only if she
establishes her case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. This, herein complainant
[30]

miserably failed to do.

On the matter of the falsified Certificate of Marriage attached by respondent to her Answer, we find
improbable to believe the averment of respondent that she merely relied on the photocopy of the
Marriage Certificate which was provided her by Carlos Ui. For an event as significant as a marriage
ceremony, any normal bride would verily recall the date and year of her marriage. It is difficult to fathom
how a bride, especially a lawyer as in the case at bar, can forget the year when she got married. Simply
stated, it is contrary to human experience and highly improbable.

Furthermore, any prudent lawyer would verify the information contained in an attachment to her
pleading, especially so when she has personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances contained
therein. In attaching such Marriage Certificate with an intercalated date, the defense of good faith of
respondent on that point cannot stand.

It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality. The legal
profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of
the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of
the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality.

WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio, for alleged
immorality, is hereby DISMISSED.

However, respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED for attaching to her Answer a photocopy of her
Marriage Certificate, with an altered or intercalated date thereof, with a STERN WARNING that a more
severe sanction will be imposed on her for any repetition of the same or similar offense in the future.

SO ORDERED.

Ui vs. Bonifacio

Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000

Facts:

Complainant Lesli Ui found out that her husband Carlos Ui was carrying out an illicit relationship with
respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he begot two children. Hence, a complaint for disbarment was filed
by complainant against respondent before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines on the ground of immorality, more particularly, for carrying on an illicit relationship with the
complainant’s husband. It is respondent’s contention that her relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit because
they were married abroad and that after June 1988, when respondent discovered Carlos Ui’s true civil status,
she cut off all her ties with him. Respondent averred that Carlos Ui never lived with her.

Issue:

Whether or not she has conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be barred from the
practice of law.

Held:

The complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio, for alleged immorality, was dismissed.
All the facts taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that respondent was imprudent in managing
her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what
respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For immorality connotes conduct
that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable members of the
community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be “grossly immoral,”
that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible
to a high degree.

[A.C. No. 6486. September 22, 2004]

EMMA T. DANTES, complainant, vs. ATTY. CRISPIN G. DANTES, respondent.

DECISION
PER CURIAM:

Despite variations in the specific standards and provisions, one requirement remains constant in all
the jurisdictions where the practice of law is regulated: the candidate must demonstrate that he or she
has good moral character, and once he becomes a lawyer he should always behave in accordance with
the standard. In this jurisdiction too, good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the [1]

practice of law, but an unending requirement for all the members of the bar. Hence, when a lawyer is
found guilty of grossly immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred. [2]

In an Affidavit-Complaint dated June 6, 2001, filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
[3]

Emma T. Dantes, sought the disbarment of her husband, Atty. Crispin G. Dantes on the ground of
immorality, abandonment, and violation of professional ethics and law. The case was docketed as CBD
Case No. 01-851.
Complainant alleged that respondent is a philanderer. Respondent purportedly engaged in illicit
relationships with two women, one after the other, and had illegitimate children with them. From the time
respondents illicit affairs started, he failed to give regular support to complainant and their children, thus
forcing complainant to work abroad to provide for their childrens needs. Complainant pointed out that
these acts of respondent constitute a violation of his lawyers oath and his moral and legal obligation to
be a role model to the community.
On July 4, 2001, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued an Order requiring respondent to
[4]

submit his answer to the Affidavit-Complaint.

Respondent submitted his Answer on November 19, 2001. Though admitting the fact of marriage
[5]

with the complainant and the birth of their children, respondent alleged that they have mutually agreed to
separate eighteen (18) years before after complainant had abandoned him in their Balintawak residence
and fled to San Fernando, Pampanga. Respondent claimed that when complainant returned after
eighteen years, she insisted that she be accommodated in the place where he and their children were
residing. Thus, he was forced to live alone in a rented apartment.
Respondent further alleged that he sent their children to the best school he could afford and provided
for their needs. He even bought two lots in Pampanga for his sons, Dandelo and Dante, and gave
complainant adequate financial support even after she had abandoned him in 1983.
Respondent asserted that complainant filed this case in order to force him to remit seventy percent
(70%) of his monthly salary to her.
Subsequently, the IBP conducted its investigation and hearings on the complaint. Complainant
presented her evidence, both oral and documentary, to support the allegations in her Affidavit-Complaint.
[6]

From the evidence presented by the complainant, it was established that on January 19, 1979,
complainant and respondent were married and lived with the latters mother in Balintawak. At that time,
[7]

respondent was just a fourth year law student. To make ends meet, complainant engaged in the buy and
sell business and relied on dole-outs from the respondents mother.
Three children were born to the couple, namely, Dandelo, Dante and Daisy, who were born
on February 20, 1980, October 14, 1981 and August 11, 1983, respectively. Complainant narrated
[8] [9] [10]
that their relationship was marred by frequent quarrels because of respondents extra-marital
affairs. Sometime in 1983, she brought their children to her mother in Pampanga to enable her to work
[11]

because respondent had failed to provide adequate support. From 1986 to 2001, complainant worked
abroad as a domestic helper.
Denying that there was a mutual agreement between her and respondent to live separately,
complainant asseverated that she was just compelled to work abroad to support their children. When she
returned to the Philippines, she learned that respondent was living with another woman. Respondent,
then bluntly told her, that he did not want to live with her anymore and that he preferred his mistresses.
Complainant presented documentary evidence consisting of the birth certificates of Ray Darwin,
Darling, and Christian Dave, all surnamed Dantes, and the affidavits of respondent and his
[12]

paramour to prove the fact that respondent sired three illegitimate children out of his illicit affairs with
[13]

two different women. Letters of complainants legitimate children likewise support the allegation that
respondent is a womanizer. [14]

In an Order dated April 17, 2002, respondent was deemed to have waived his right to cross-examine
complainant, after he failed to appear during the scheduled hearings despite due notice. He, however,
submitted his Comment/Opposition to the Complainants Formal Offer of Evidence with Motion to Exclude
the Evidence from the Records of the Proceedings on August 1, 2002.
[15]

Subsequently, on May 29, 2003, respondent submitted a Motion to Adopt Alternative Dispute
Resolution Mechanism. Respondents motion was denied because it was filed after the complainant had
already presented her evidence. Respondent was given a final chance to present his evidence on July
[16]

11, 2003. Instead of presenting evidence, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to
Dismiss, which was likewise denied for being a prohibited pleading under the Rules of Procedure of the
Commission on Bar Discipline.Respondent submitted his Position Paper on August 4, 2003.
In respondents Position Paper, he reiterated the allegations in his Answer except that this time, he
[17]

argued that in view of the resolution of the complaint for support with alimonypendente lite filed against
[18]

him by the complainant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, the instant administrative
[19]

case should be dismissed for lack of merit.

On July 7, 2004, the IBP submitted to us through the Office of the Bar Confidant
its Report and Resolution No. XVI-2004-230 involving CBD Case No. 01-851. The IBP recommended
[20] [21]

that the respondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.

Except for the penalty, we find the above recommendation well-taken.
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.

The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. 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. To be the basis of disciplinary action, the lawyers conduct must not only be immoral, but
[22]

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 or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to
[23]

shock the common sense of decency. [24]

In Barrientos vs. Daarol, we ruled that as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of
[25]

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 keeping mistresses
but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is
flouting those moral standards. If the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its
basic ideals, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also,
in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. The requirement of good moral character is of much
greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning.
 It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character has three ostensible purposes,
namely: (i) to protect the public; (ii) to protect the public image of lawyers; and (iii) to protect prospective
clients. A writer added a fourth: to protect errant lawyers from themselves. [26]

Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also
throughout their legal career, in order to maintain their good standing in this exclusive and honored
fraternity. They may be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it
[27]

pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity
or good demeanor. [28]

Undoubtedly, respondents acts of engaging in illicit relationships with two different women during the
subsistence of his marriage to the complainant constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting the
imposition appropriate sanctions. Complainants testimony, taken in conjunction with the documentary
evidence, sufficiently established respondents commission of marital infidelity and immorality. Evidently,
respondent had breached the high and exacting moral standards set for members of the law
profession. He has made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and
dignity.
[29]

In Toledo vs. Toledo, we disbarred respondent for abandoning his lawful wife and cohabiting with
[30]

another woman who had borne him a child. Likewise, in Obusan vs. Obusan, we ruled that abandoning
[31]

ones wife and resuming carnal relations with a paramour fall within that conduct which is willful, flagrant,
or shameless, and which shows moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members
of the community.
We reiterate our ruling in Cordova vs. Cordova, that moral delinquency which affects the fitness of
[32]

a member of the bar to continue as such, includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral
standards of the community as exemplified by behavior which makes a mockery of the inviolable social
institution of marriage.
The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and only in a clear case of misconduct
that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member
of the bar. Where a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, could accomplish the end desired,
[33]

disbarment should never be decreed. However, in the present case, the seriousness of the offense
[34]

compels the Court to wield its power to disbar as it appears to be the most appropriate penalty.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing Atty. Crispin G. Dantes is hereby DISBARRED and his name
is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the
respondents record as a member of the Bar, and notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.

EMMA T. DANTES vs. ATTY. CRISPIN G. DANTES A.C. No. 6486. September 22, 2004

FACTS:

Mrs. Dantes alleged that his husband is a philanderer. Atty. Dantes purportedly engaged in illicit relatio
nships with two women, one after the other, and had illegitimate children with them. From the time res
pondents illicit affairs started, he failed to give regular support to his wife and their children, thus forci
ng her to work abroad to provide for their children’s needs.

Atty. Dantes admitted the fact of marriage with her and the birth of their children, but alleged that they
have mutually agreed to separate eighteen years before after his wife had abandoned him in their reside
nce. He further asserted that Mrs. Dantes filed the case just to force him to remit 70% of his monthly sal
ary to her.

Mrs. Dantes then presented documentary evidence consisting of the birth certificates of Ray Darwin, Da
rling, and Christian Dave, all surnamed Dantes, and the affidavits of his husband and his paramour to p
rove the fact that he sired three illegitimate children out of his illicit affairs with two different women.
ISSUE:

whether or not having an illicit relationship during the the subsistence of marriahe warrants the disbar
ment of a lawyer.

RULING: Yes.

The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct. 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.T
o be the basis of disciplinary action, the lawyers 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 or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common
sense of decency.

Undoubtedly, respondents acts of engaging in illicit relationships with two different women during the s
ubsistence of his marriage to the complainant constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting the impo
sition appropriate sanctions. Complainants testimony, taken in conjunction with the documentary evide
nce, sufficiently established respondents commission of marital infidelity and immorality.

Atty. Crispin G. Dantes has been DISBARRED.

EN BANC
EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., Adm. Case No. 2474
Complainant,

Present:

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.,

PUNO,

PANGANIBAN,
QUISUMBING,

YNARES-SANTIAGO,

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
- versus -
CARPIO,
*
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,

CORONA,

*CARPIO MORALES,

CALLEJO, SR.,

AZCUNA,

TINGA, and
**CHICO-NAZARIO,
JJ.

Promulgated:
ATTY. LEO J. PALMA,

Respondent.

September 15, 2004

X --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure up to certain rigid standards of
mental and moral fitness. For the admission of a candidate to the bar, the Rules of Court not only prescribe a
test of academic preparation but require satisfactory testimonials of good moral character. These standards
are neither dispensed with nor lowered after admission: the lawyer must continue to adhere to them or else
incur the risk of suspension or removal.[1]
 Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. filed with this Court the instant 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.

The facts are undisputed:

Complainant and respondent met sometime in the 70s. Complainant was a client of Angara
Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA) and respondent was the lawyer assigned to handle his
cases. Owing to his growing business concerns, complainant decided to hire respondent as his personal
counsel.

Consequently, respondents relationship with complainants family became intimate. He traveled and
dined with them abroad.[2] He frequented their house and even tutored complainants 22-year old daughter
Maria Luisa Cojuangco (Lisa), then a student of Assumption

Convent.

On June 22, 1982, without the knowledge of complainants family, respondent married Lisa in
Hongkong. It was only the next
day that respondent informed complainant and assured him that everything is legal. Complainant was
shocked, knowing fully well that respondent is a married man and has three children. Upon investigation,
complainant found that respondent courted Lisa during their tutoring sessions. Immediately, complainant
sent his two sons to Hongkong to convince Lisa to go home to Manila and discuss the matter with the
family. Lisa was persuaded.

Complainant also came to know that: (a) on the date of the supposed marriage, respondent requested from
his (complainants) office an airplane ticket to and from Australia, with stop-over in Hong
Kong; (b) respondent misrepresented himself as bachelor before the Hong Kong authorities to facilitate his
marriage with Lisa; and (c) respondent was married to Elizabeth Hermosisima and has three children, namely:
Eugene Philippe, Elias Anton and Eduardo Lorenzo.
On August 24, 1982, complainant filed with the Court of First
Instance, Branch XXVII, Pasay City a petition for declaration of
[3]

nullity of the marriage between respondent and Lisa, docketed as Civil Case No. Pq-0401-P. In the
Decision[4] dated November 2, 1982, the CFI declared the marriage null and void ab initio.

Thereafter, complainant filed with this Court the instant complaint[5] for disbarment, imputing to
respondent the following acts:

a. In grave abuse and betrayal of the trust and confidence reposed in him by
complainant and his family and taking undue advantage of his tutoring sessions with Maria
Luisa, respondent secretly courted her. The great disparity in intelligence, education, age,
experience and maturity between Maria Luisa and respondent gave the latter an
overwhelming moral ascendancy over Maria Luisa as to overcome her scruples and
apprehensions about respondents courtship and advances, considering that he is a
married man with three (3) children;

b. Respondent courted Maria Luisa with persistence and determination and even
pursued her in her travels abroad under false pretenses that he was traveling on official
business for complainant. To break down the final resistance of Maria Luisa and assuage
her pangs of guilt, he made representations that there was no legal impediment
whatsoever to his marrying;
 c. With his moral ascendancy over Maria Luisa and his misrepresentation that
there was no legal impediment or prohibition to his contracting a second marriage,
respondent succeeded in inducing and beguiling her into marrying him. Without complying
with the requirements of Philippine law that he should first obtain a judicial declaration of
nullity of his marriage to Elizabeth H. Palma and that the advice of Maria Luisas parents
should first be obtained she being only twenty-two (22) years of age, respondent
succeeded in contracting marriage with her in Hongkong on June 22, 1982 by falsely
representing himself before the Hongkong authorities that he is a bachelor. xx x.

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss[6] on the ground of lack of cause of action. He contended that
the complaint fails to allege acts constituting deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct or violation of his lawyers
oath. There is no allegation that he acted with wanton recklessness, lack of skill or ignorance of the law in
serving complainants interest. Anent the charge of grossly immoral conduct, he stressed that he married
complainants 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.

In the Resolution[7] dated March 2, 1983, we referred the case to the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) for investigation, report and recommendation. Former Assistant Solicitor General Oswaldo D.
Agcaoili conducted the investigation.

Meanwhile, on December 28, 1983, the First Division of this Court issued in G.R. No. 64538[8] a
Resolution[9] (a) setting aside the CFI Decision dated November 2, 1982 in Civil Case No. Pq0401-P
declaring the marriage between respondent and Lisa null and void ab initio; and (b) remanding the case to the
CFI for proper proceeding and determination. To this date, the records fail to disclose the outcome of this
case.

On March 19, 1984, respondent filed with the OSG an Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings[10] on
the ground that the final outcome of Civil Case No. Pq0401-P poses a prejudicial question to the disbarment
proceeding. It was denied.

Respondent sought refuge in this Court through an Urgent Motion for Issuance of a Restraining
Order.[11] In the Resolution dated December 19, 1984, we enjoined the OSG from continuing the investigation
of the disbarment proceedings.[12]

Thereafter, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline. On October 19, 1998, Commissioner Julio C. Elamparo issued
the following order:

Considering the length of time that this case has remained pending and as a
practical measure to ease the backlog of this Commission, the parties shall within
ten (10) days from notice, manifest whether or not they are still interested in
prosecuting this case or supervening events have transpired which render this case
moot and academic or otherwise, this case shall be deemed closed and
terminated.[13]
In his Manifestation,[14] complainant manifested and confirmed his continuing interest in prosecuting
his complaint for disbarment against respondent.
 On the other hand, respondent sought several postponements of hearing on the ground that he needed
more time to locate vital documents in support of his defense. The scheduled hearing of December 4, 2001
was reset for the last time on January 24, 2002, with a warning that should he fail to appear or present
deposition, the case will be deemed submitted for resolution.[15] Respondent again failed to appear on January
24, 2002; hence, the case was considered submitted for resolution.[16]

On March 20, 2003, Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan submitted a Report and
Recommendation finding respondent guilty of grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a
lawyer. She recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3)
years. Thus:

The main issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not respondent committed
the following acts which warrant his disbarment:

a) Grave abuse and betrayal of the trust and confidence reposed in him by
complainant;

b) His misrepresentation that there was no legal impediment or prohibition to

his contracting a second marriage;

c) The acts of respondent constitute deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in

office, grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer.

Respondent admits that he married Maria Luisa in Hongkong representing himself

as a bachelor, however, he claimed that the marriage certificate stated a condition no
different from term spinster with respect to Luisa.

There is no question that respondent as a lawyer well versed in the law knew fully
well that in marrying Maria Luisa he was entering into a bigamous marriage defined and
penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. The respondent betrayed the trust
reposed in him by complainant. He was treated as part of the family and was allowed to
tutor Maria Luisa.

For the foregoing reasons, it is submitted that respondent committed grossly

immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer, and it is recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years.

SO ORDERED.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the above Report and Recommendation, but it
reduced respondents penalty to only one (1) year suspension.

Except for the penalty, we affirm the IBPs Report and Recommendation.

At the outset, it must be stressed that the 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 lawyers
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.[17] 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.[18]

Respondent claims that he had served complainant to the best of his ability. In fact, the complaint
does not allege that he acted with wanton recklessness, lack of skill and ignorance of the law.
 While, complainant himself admitted that respondent was a good lawyer,[19] however, professional
competency alone does not make a lawyer a worthy member of the Bar. Good moral character is always an
indispensable requirement.

The ringing truth in this case is that respondent married Lisa while he has a subsisting marriage with
Elizabeth Hermosisima. The Certification[20] from the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City shows that he
married Elizabeth on December 19, 1971 at Cardials Private Chapel, Cebu City. On the other hand, the
Certificate of Marriage[21] from the Deputy Registrar of Marriages, Hong Kong, proves respondents
subsequent marriage with Lisa on July 9, 1982. That Elizabeth was alive at the time of respondents second
marriage was confirmed on the witness stand by Atty. Victor P. Lazatin, Elizabeths classmate and family
friend.[22]

Undoubtedly, respondents act constitutes grossly immoral conduct, a ground for disbarment
under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. He exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of
morality required of him as a member of the Bar. In particular, 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.[23]

This is not the first occasion that we censure immorality. Thus, we have somehow come up with a
common definition of what constitutes immoral conduct, i.e., that 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.[24] Measured against this definition, respondents 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.

Our rulings in the following cases are relevant:

1) In Macarrubo vs. Macarrubo,[25] respondent entered into multiple marriages and then resorted to legal
remedies to sever them. There, we ruled that [S]uch pattern of misconduct by respondent undermines the
institutions of marriage and family, institutions that this society looks to for the rearing of our children, for
the development of values essential to the survival and well-being of our communities, and for the
strengthening of our nation as a whole. As such, there can be no other fate that awaits respondent than to be
disbarred.

(2) In Tucay vs. Tucay,[26] respondent contracted marriage with another married woman and left
complainant with whom he has been married for thirty years. We ruled that such acts constitute a grossly
immoral conduct and only indicative of an extremely low regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession,
warranting respondents disbarment.

(3) In Villasanta vs. Peralta,[27] respondent married complainant while his first wife was still alive, their
marriage still valid and subsisting. We held that the act of respondent of contracting the second marriage is
contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality. Thus, lacking the good moral character required by the
Rules of Court, respondent was disqualified from being admitted to the bar.

(4) In Cabrera vs. Agustin,[28] respondent lured an innocent woman into a simulated marriage and
thereafter satisfied his lust. We held that respondent failed to maintain that degree of morality and integrity,
which at all times is expected of members of the bar. He is, therefore, disbarred from the practice of law.

(5) In Toledo vs. Toledo,[29] respondent abandoned his wife, who supported him and spent for his law
education, and thereafter cohabited with another woman. We ruled that he failed to maintain the highest
degree of morality expected and required of a member of the bar. For this, respondent was disbarred.
 (6) In Obusan vs. Obusan, Jr.,[30] respondent abandoned his lawful wife and child and resumed
cohabitation with his former paramour. Here, we ruled that abandoning ones wife and resuming carnal
relations with a former paramour, a married woman, constitute grossly immoral conduct warranting
disbarment.

The circumstances here speak of a clear case of betrayal of trust and abuse of confidence. It was
respondents closeness to the complainants family as well as the latters complete trust in him that made possible
his intimate relationship with Lisa. When his concern was supposed to be complainants legal affairs only, he
sneaked at the latters back and courted his daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the night, he attacked when
nobody was looking. Moreover, he availed of complainants resources by securing a plane ticket from
complainants office in order to marry the latters daughter in Hongkong. He did this without complainants
knowledge. Afterwards, he even had the temerity to assure complainant that everything is legal. Clearly,
respondent had crossed the limits of propriety and decency.

Respondent justified his conduct by professing he really loved Lisa and since he married her, he cannot
be charged with immorality. His reasoning shows a distorted mind and a brazen regard on the sanctity of
marriage. In such relationship, the man and the woman are obliged to live together, observe mutual
respect andfidelity.[31] How could respondent perform these obligations to Lisa when he was previously
married to Elizabeth? If he really loved her, then the noblest thing he could have done was to walk away.

Respondents culpability is aggravated by the fact that Lisa was just a 22-year old college student of
Assumption Convent and was under psychological treatment for emotional immaturity.[32] Naturally, she was
an easy prey.

Anent respondents argument that since the validity of his marriage to Lisa has not yet been determined
by the court with finality, the same poses a prejudicial question to the present disbarment proceeding. Suffice
it to say that a subsequent judgment of annulment of marriage has no bearing to the instant disbarment
proceeding. As we held in In re Almacen,[33] a disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely
criminal but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. Thus, if the acquittal of a
lawyer in a criminal action is not determinative of an administrative case against him, [34] or if an affidavit of
withdrawal of a disbarment case does not affect its course,[35] then the judgment of annulment of respondents
marriage does not also exonerate him from a wrongdoing actually committed. So long as the quantum of
proof --- clear preponderance of evidence --- in disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar is met,
then liability attaches.[36]

The interdict upon lawyers, as inscribed in Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, is
that they shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. This is founded on the
lawyers primordial duty to society as spelled out in Canon 1 which states:

CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes.

It is not by coincidence that the drafters of our Code of Professional Responsibility ranked the above
responsibility first in the enumeration. They knew then that more than anybody else, it is the lawyers -- the
disciples of law -- who are most obliged to venerate the law. As stated in Ex Parte Wall:[37]

Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold
the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate
and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and to ignore the very bonds of
society, argues recreancy to his position and office and sets a pernicious example to
the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic.
 Corollarily, the above responsibility is enshrined in the Attorneys Oath which every lawyer in the
country has to take before he is allowed to practice.

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.

WHEREFORE, respondent Leo J. Palma is found GUILTY of grossly immoral conduct and
violation of his oath as a lawyer, and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.

Let respondents name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys immediately. Furnish the Bar Confidant,
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts throughout the country with copies of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., complainant versus Atty. Leo J. Palma, respondent.

Adm. Case No. 2474 September 15, 2004

Facts:

Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. filed with this Court the instant 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.

Complainant was a client of Angara Concepcion Regala and Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA) and
respondent was the lawyer assigned to handle his cases. He hired respondent as his personal
counsel. Consequently, respondent’s relationship with complainant became intimate. On June
22, without the knowledge of complainant’s family, respondent married Lisa, the complainant’s
daughter in Hongkong. Complainant came to know that, a) on the date of the supposed marriage,
respondent requested from his (complainant’s) office and airplane ticket to and from Australia,
with stop-over in Hongkong; b) respondent misrepresented himself as bachelor in the Hongkong
authorities to facilitate his marriage with Lisa; and c) respondent was married to Elizabeth
Hermosisima and has three children. Complainant filed for the declaration of nullity of the
marriage between respondent and Lisa. The complainant contented that with the moral
ascendancy of the respondent over Maria Luisa and his misrepresentation that there was no legal
impediment or prohibition to his contracting a second marriage, respondent succeeded in
inducing and beguiling her into marrying him. Without complying with the requirements of the
Philippine law that he should first obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to
Elizabeth H. Palma and that the “advice” of Maria Luisa’s parents should first be obtained she
being only twenty-two (22) years of age, respondent succeeded in contracting marriage with her
in Hongkong in June 22, 1992 by falsely representing himself before the Hongkong authorities
that he is a “bachelor.”

The respondent contented that “….. 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 the marriage of respondent to Ma. Luisa is void ab initio.

Held:

To this date, the records fail to disclose the outcome of this case.
Respondent admits that he married Luisa in Hongkong representing himself as a bachelor;
however, he claimed that the marriage certificate stated a condition no different from the term
“spinster” with respect to Luisa. There is no question that respondent as a lawyer well versed in
the law knew fully well that in marrying Maria Luisa he was entering into a bigamous marriage
defined and penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.

The ringing truth in this case is that respondent married Lisa while he has a subsisting marriage
with Elizabeth Hermosisima. The Certification from the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City shows
that he married Elizabeth on December 19, 1971 at the Cardial’s Private Chapel, Cebu City. On
the other hand, the Certificate of Marriage from the Deputy Registrar of Marriages in Hongkong
proves respondent’s subsequent marriage with Lisa on July 9, 1982. That Elizabeth was alive at
the time of respondent’s second marriage was confirmed. In particular, 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.
Respondent justified his conduct by professing he really loved Lisa and since he married her, he
cannot be charged with immorality. His reasoning shows a distorted mind and a brazen regard
on the sanctity of marriage. In such relationship, the man and woman are obliged to live together,
observe mutual respect and fidelity. How could respondent perform these obligations to Lisa
when he was previously married to Elizabeth? If he really loved her, then the noblest thing he
could have done was to walk away.

Furthermore, (not stated in the case) under Article 35 paragraph 3 of the Family Code, “a
marriage solemnized without a marriage license is void ab initio except those covered by the
preceding chapter”. Though the marriage was solemnized in Hongkong, the intrinsic validity of
the marriage is governed by the national law of the contracting parties. In the case at bar, since
both of the parties are Filipino citizens, the validity of their marriage shall be governed by the
Philippine law. Under the Philippine law, absence of the essential and formal requisites of
marriage shall make the marriage void ab initio. Their marriage was contracted without the valid
marriage license, thus, the marriage of respondent and Ma. Luisa is void ab initio.

March 23, 1929

In re LUIS B. TAGORDA,

Duran & Lim for respondent.

Attorney-General Jaranilla and Provincial Fiscal Jose for the Government.

MALCOLM, J.:

The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a practising attorney and a member of the provincial board of Isabela,
admits that previous to the last general elections he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano,
which, in translation, reads as follows:

LUIS B. TAGORDA
Attorney
Notary Public
CANDIDATE FOR THIRD MEMBER
Province of Isabela

(NOTE. — As notary public, he can execute for you a deed of sale for the purchase of land as
required by the cadastral office; can renew lost documents of your animals; can make your
application and final requisites for your homestead; and can execute any kind of affidavit. As a
lawyer, he can help you collect your loans although long overdue, as well as any complaint for or
against you. Come or write to him in his town, Echague, Isabela. He offers free consultation, and is
willing to help and serve the poor.)

The respondent further admits that he is the author of a letter addressed to a lieutenant of barrio in his home
municipality written in Ilocano, which letter, in translation, reads as follows:
 ECHAGUE, ISABELA, September 18, 1928

MY DEAR LIEUTENANT: I would like to inform you of the approaching date for our induction into
office as member of the Provincial Board, that is on the 16th of next month. Before my induction into
office I should be very glad to hear your suggestions or recommendations for the good of the
province in general and for your barrio in particular. You can come to my house at any time here in
Echague, to submit to me any kind of suggestion or recommendation as you may desire.

I also inform you that despite my membership in the Board I will have my residence here in
Echague. I will attend the session of the Board of Ilagan, but will come back home on the following
day here in Echague to live and serve with you as a lawyer and notary public. Despite my election as
member of the Provincial Board, I will exercise my legal profession as a lawyer and notary public. In
case you cannot see me at home on any week day, I assure you that you can always find me there
on every Sunday. I also inform you that I will receive any work regarding preparations of documents
of contract of sales and affidavits to be sworn to before me as notary public even on Sundays.

I would like you all to be informed of this matter for the reason that some people are in the belief that
my residence as member of the Board will be in Ilagan and that I would then be disqualified to
exercise my profession as lawyer and as notary public. Such is not the case and I would make it
clear that I am free to exercise my profession as formerly and that I will have my residence here in
Echague.

I would request you kind favor to transmit this information to your barrio people in any of your
meetings or social gatherings so that they may be informed of my desire to live and to serve with you
in my capacity as lawyer and notary public. If the people in your locality have not as yet contracted
the services of other lawyers in connection with the registration of their land titles, I would be willing
to handle the work in court and would charge only three pesos for every registration.

Yours respectfully,

(Sgd.) LUIS TAGORDA

Attorney
Notary Public.

The facts being conceded, it is next in order to write down the applicable legal provisions. Section 21 of the
Code of Civil Procedure as originally conceived related to disbarments of members of the bar. In 1919 at the
instigation of the Philippine Bar Association, said codal section was amended by Act No. 2828 by adding at
the end thereof the following: "The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice."

The statute as amended conforms in principle to the Canons of Professionals Ethics adopted by the
American Bar Association in 1908 and by the Philippine Bar Association in 1917. Canons 27 and 28 of the
Code of Ethics provide:

27. ADVERTISING, DIRECT OR INDIRECT. — The most worthy and effective advertisement
possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a
well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but must
be the outcome of character and conduct. The publication or circulation of ordinary simple business
cards, being a matter of personal taste or local custom, and sometimes of convenience, is not per
se improper. But solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal
communications or interview not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional. It is equally
unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters of any kind, whether allied real
estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills or offering
retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer. Indirect
advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner
of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of the lawyer's position, and
all other like self-laudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are
intolerable.

28. STIRRING UP LITIGATION, DIRECTLY OR THROUGH AGENTS. — It is unprofessional for a

lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or
trust make it his duty to do so. Stirring up strife and litigation is not only unprofessional, but it is
indictable at common law. It is disreputable to hunt up defects in titles or other causes of action and
inform thereof in order to the employed to bring suit, or to breed litigation by seeking out those with
 claims for personal injuries or those having any other grounds of action in order to secure them as
clients, or to employ agents or runners for like purposes, or to pay or reward directly or indirectly,
those who bring or influence the bringing of such cases to his office, or to remunerate policemen,
court or prison officials, physicians, hospital attaches or others who may succeed, under the guise of
giving disinterested friendly advice, in influencing the criminal, the sick and the injured, the ignorant
or others, to seek his professional services. A duty to the public and to the profession devolves upon
every member of the bar having knowledge of such practices upon the part of any practitioner
immediately to inform thereof to the end that the offender may be disbarred.

Common barratry consisting of frequently stirring up suits and quarrels between individuals was a crime at
the common law, and one of the penalties for this offense when committed by an attorney was disbarment.
Statutes intended to reach the same evil have been provided in a number of jurisdictions usually at the
instance of the bar itself, and have been upheld as constitutional. The reason behind statutes of this type is
not difficult to discover. The law is a profession and not a business. The lawyer may not seek or obtain
employment by himself or through others for to do so would be unprofessional. (State vs. Rossman [1909],
53 Wash., 1; 17 Ann. Cas., 625; People vs. Mac Cabe [1893], 19 L. R. A., 231; 2 R. C. L., 1097.)

It becomes our duty to condemn in no uncertain terms the ugly practice of solicitation of cases by lawyers. It
is destructive of the honor of a great profession. It lowers the standards of that profession. It works against
the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar. It results in needless litigation
and in incenting to strife otherwise peacefully inclined citizens.

The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension. That should be
distinctly understood.

Giving application of the law and the Canons of Ethics to the admitted facts, the respondent stands
convicted of having solicited cases in defiance of the law and those canons. Accordingly, the only remaining
duty of the court is to fix upon the action which should here be taken. The provincial fiscal of Isabela, with
whom joined the representative of the Attorney-General in the oral presentation of the case, suggests that
the respondent be only reprimanded. We think that our action should go further than this if only to reflect our
attitude toward cases of this character of which unfortunately the respondent's is only one. The commission
of offenses of this nature would amply justify permanent elimination from the bar. But as mitigating,
circumstances working in favor of the respondent there are, first, his intimation that he was unaware of the
impropriety of his acts, second, his youth and inexperience at the bar, and, third, his promise not to commit a
similar mistake in the future. A modest period of suspension would seem to fit the case of the erring
attorney. But it should be distinctly understood that this result is reached in view of the considerations which
have influenced the court to the relatively lenient in this particular instance and should, therefore, not be
taken as indicating that future convictions of practice of this kind will not be dealt with by disbarment.

In view of all the circumstances of this case, the judgment of the court is that the respondent Luis B.
Tagorda be and is hereby suspended from the practice as an attorney-at-law for the period of one month
from April 1, 1929.

In Re: Luis Tagorda

53 Phil 37 – Legal Ethics – Malpractice – Solicitation of Legal Business – Advertisement in the Legal
Profession – Stirring Up of Litigation
In 1928, Luis Tagorda was a provincial board member of Isabela. Before his election, he campaigned
that he is a lawyer and a notary public; that as a notary public he can do notarial acts such as execution
of deeds of sale, etc.; that as a lawyer, he can help clients collect debts; that he offers free consultation;
that he is willing to serve the poor.
When he won, he wrote a letter to the barrio lieutenant of Echague, Isable advising the latter that even
though he was elected as a provincial board member, he can still practice law; that he wants the
lieutenant to tell the same to his people; that he is willing to receive works regarding preparations of sales
contracts and affidavits etc.; that he is willing to receive land registration cases for a charge of three
pesos.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tagorda is guilty of malpractice.
HELD: Yes. Tagorda admitted doing the foregoing acts. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially with his
brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well- merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to
trust. This cannot be forced, but must be the outcome of character and conduct. Solicitation of business
by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal
relations, is unprofessional. It is equally unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters
of any kind, whether allied real estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure the drawing of deeds
or wills or offering retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer.
Indirect advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the
manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interests involved, the importance of the lawyer’s position,
and all other like self-laudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are
intolerable.
It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of
blood, relationship or trust make it his duty to do so.
Tagorda’s liability is however mitigated by the fact that he is a young inexperienced lawyer and that he
was unaware of the impropriety of his acts. So instead of being disbarred, he was suspended from the
practice of law for a month.