pale cases batch 2

8/11/2019 Pale Cases Batch 2

1/33

[SBC Case No. 519. July 31, 1997]

PATRICIA FIGUER A, complainant, vs. SI!E NBARRANC , JR., respondent.

R E S " U T I N

R !ER , J.#

In a complaint made way back in 1971, PatriciaFigueroa petitioned that respondent Simeon Barranco, Jr be denied admission to the legal pro!ession"espondent had passed the 197# bar e$aminations onthe !ourth attempt, a!ter unsuccess!ul attempts in19%%, 19%7 and 19%& Be!ore he could take his oath,howe'er, complainant (led the instant petitiona'erring that respondent and she had beensweethearts, that a child out o! wedlock was born tothem and that respondent did not !ul(ll his repeatedpromises to marry her

)he !acts were mani!ested in hearings held be!oreIn'estigator *ictor F Se'illa in June and July 1971"espondent and complainant were townmates in

Janiuay, Iloilo Since 19+ , when they were both intheir teens, they were steadies "espondent e'enacted as escort to complainant when she reigned as-ueen at the 19+ town (esta .omplainant (rstacceded to se$ual congress with respondent sometimein 19%# )heir intimacy yielded a son, "a!ael Barranco,born on /ecember 11, 19%0 i 12 It was a!ter the childwas born, complainant alleged, that respondent (rstpromised he would marry her a!ter he passes the bare$aminations )heir relationship continued andrespondent allegedly made more than twenty or thirtypromises o! marriage 3e ga'e only P1# ## !or thechild on the latter4s birthdays 3er trust in him andtheir relationship ended in 1971, when she learned that

respondent married another woman 3ence, thispetition

5pon complainant4s motion, the .ourt authori6ed thetaking o! testimonies o! witnesses by deposition in197 8n February 1&, 1970, respondent (led a

ani!estation and otion to /ismiss the case citingcomplainant4s !ailure to comment on the motion o!

Judge .uello seeking to be relie'ed !rom the duty totake a!oresaid testimonies by deposition .omplainant(led her comment stating that she had :usti(ablereasons in !ailing to (le the earlier comment re;uiredand that she remains interested in the resolution o! thepresent case 8n June 1&, 1970, the .ourt denied

respondent4s motion to dismiss

8n 8ctober , 19, the .ourt once again denied amotion to dismiss on the ground o! abandonment (ledby respondent on September 17, 1979 ii 2 "espondent4s third motion to dismiss was noted in the.ourt4s "esolution dated September 1+, 19& iii 2 In19&&, respondent repeated his re;uest, citing hiselection as a member o! the Sangguniang Bayan o!

Janiuay, Iloilo !rom 19


2/33

his dreams, !or marriage is a sacred and perpetualbond which should be entered into because o! lo'e, not!or any other reason

@e cannot help 'iewing the instant complaint as an acto! re'enge o! a woman scorned, bitter and un!orgi'ingto the end It is also intended to make respondentsuEer se'erely and it seems, perpetually, sacri(cingthe pro!ession he worked 'ery hard to be admittedinto 'en assuming that his past indiscretions are

ignoble, the twenty1#? days !rom notice .omplainant compliedand submitted to the .ommission on 7 September19&& a re'ised and 'eri(ed 'ersion o! her long anddetailed complaint against her husband charging himwith immorality and acts unbecoming a member o! theBar

In an 8rder o! the .ommission dated 1 /ecember19&&, respondent was declared in de!ault !or !ailure to(le an answer to the complaint within (!teen >1+? days!rom notice )he same 8rder re;uired complainant tosubmit be!ore the .ommission her e'idence ex parte ,on 1% /ecember 19&& 5pon the telegraphic re;uest o! complainant !or the resetting o! the 1% /ecember 19&&hearing, the .ommission scheduled another hearing on

+ January 19&9 )he hearing scheduled !or + January19&9 was rescheduled two > ? more times


3/33

respondent .ordo'a was no longer li'ing with her>complainantMs? children in their con:ugal homeN thatrespondent .ordo'a was li'ing with another mistress,one Huisita agallanes, and had taken his youngerdaughter elanie along with him "espondent and hisnew mistress hid elanie !rom the complinant,compelling complainant to go to court and to take backher daughter by habeas corpus )he "egional )rial.ourt, Bislig, ga'e her custody o! their children

=otwithstanding respondentMs promises to re!orm, hecontinued to li'e with Huisita agallanes as herhusband and continued to !ail to gi'e support to hislegitimate !amily

Finally the .ommission recei'ed a telegram messageapparently !rom complainant, stating that complainantand respondent had been reconciled with each other

!ter a re'iew o! the record, we agree with the (ndingso! !act o! the IBP Board @e also agree that the mostrecent reconciliation between complainant andrespondent, assuming the same to be real, does note$cuse and wipe away the misconduct and immoral

beha'ior o! the respondent carried out in public, andnecessarily ad'ersely reDecting upon him as a membero! the Bar and upon the Philippine Bar itsel! napplicant !or admission to membership in the bar isre;uired to show that he is possessed o! good moralcharacter )hat re;uirement is not e$hausted anddispensed with upon admission to membership o! thebar 8n the contrary, that re;uirement persists as acontinuing condition !or membership in the Bar in goodstanding

In ortel ' spiras, 1 this .ourt, !ollowing the rule inthe 5nited States, held that the continuedpossession o! a good moral character is a re;uisite

condition !or the right!ul continuance in the practice o!the law and its loss re;uires suspension ordisbarment, e'en though the statutes do not speci!ythat as a ground !or disbarment It is important tonote that the lack o! moral character that we here re!erto as essential is not limited to good moral characterrelating to the discharge o! the duties andresponsibilities o! an attorney at law )he moraldelin;uency that aEects the (tness o! a member o! thebar to continue as such includes conduct that outragesthe generally accepted moral standards o! thecommunity, conduct !or instance, which makes amockery o! the in'iolable social institution ormarriage In ortel, the respondent being alreadymarried, wooed and won the heart o! a single, 1


4/33

)his case was e'entually transmitted by the SolicitorKeneral to the Integrated Bar o! the Philippines,.ommission on Bar /iscipline >.ommission? !orin'estigation and proper action )hus, in an orderdated 1& ugust 19&&, the .ommission set the case !orhearing on 9 September 19&& and re;uired bothcomplainant and respondent to submit additionalcopies o! their pleadings within ten >1#? days !romnotice

)he initial hearing set by the .ommission !or 9September 19&& was reset to # September 19&&because only complainant appeared, respondentha'ing !ailed to present himsel! despite due notice tohim )he hearing o! # September 19&& was againreset to # 8ctober 19&& because neither complainantnor her counsel appeared )he hearing !or # 8ctober19&& was once again reset to 10 =o'ember 19&& asonly complainant appeared, Finally, the hearing !or 10=o'ember 19&& was rescheduled two > ? more times,(rst to 1+ /ecember 19&& and second to 17 January19&9

In its 8rder dated 7 January 19&9, the .ommission,upon the une$plained !ailure o! respondent to appearat the hearing on 17 January 19&9, re;uired petitionerto make a !ormal oEer o! e'idence ex parte, andtherea!ter submit the case !or resolution )he 8rderwas duly recei'ed by respondentMs counsel on 1

January 19&9

8n 9 February 19&9, petitioner !ormally oEered here$hibits as !ollowsL

1 $h M M .erti(cate o! Hi'e Birth o!Sheila Haguitan )inio

PurposeL )o show and pro'e the (liation

o! the child as shown on the documentN

$h MBM .erti(cate o! Hi'e Birth o!Benedict Haguitan

PurposeL )o show and pro'e likewisethe (liation o! the child as shown onthe documentL

$h M.M to M. ? childrenL Sheila, now about ten >1#?years old and Benedict, now appro$imately nine >9?years old In the course o! this relationship, petitionerdisco'ered that respondent )inio, be!ore meeting her,had contracted marriage with someone else and thatthe prior marriage was subsisting =onetheless,complainant continued li'ing in with respondent untile'entually, ten >1#? years later, she and her childrenby respondent )inio were abandoned by the latter in=o'ember 19&% Feeling helpless and aggrie'ed, shesought the help o! respondentMs parents in supportingher children who were then already in school"espondentMs parents ga'e her P0## ## and ad'isedher not to see them again

!ter e$amination o! the record o! this case and notingthat respondent )inio appeared be!ore the IBPIn'estigating .ommissioner and candidly admitted hisillicit relationship with complainant and his ha'ingbegotten two > ? children by her, and promised the.ommissioner that he would support his illegitimatechildren but had not li'ed to his promise, we agree withthe (ndings o! !act o! the IBP Board )he IBP Boardrecommends that respondent )inio be suspended !romthe practice o! law not !or ha'ing cohabited with thecomplainant, but !or re!usal to support his illegitimatechildren, the suspension to remain in eEect until


5/33

respondent )inio complies with his obligation o!support

)he .ourt agrees that respondent )inio deser'es to besuspended !rom the practice o! law but not merelybecause he has !ailed in his obligation to support thechildren complainant bore him but also because !or aprolonged period o! time, he li'ed in concubinage withcomplainant, a course o! conduct inconsistent with there;uirement o! good moral character that is re;uired

!or the continued right to practice law as a member o!the Philippine Bar, .oncubinage imports moralturpitude and entails a public assault upon the basicsocial institution o! marriage

..8"/I=KHO, the .ourt "esol'ed to S5SP =/respondent Sal'ador F )inio !rom the practice o! lawuntil !urther orders !rom this .ourt )he .ourt willconsider li!ting the suspension upon e'idencesatis!actory to the .ommission and to this .ourt thatrespondent is supporting or has made pro'ision !or thesupport o! his illegitimate children and that he hasgi'en up his immoral course o! conduct

ernan, C.J., Nar!asa, Gut"erre#, Jr., Cru#, $aras,e%"c"ano, Gancayco, $ad"%%a, &"d"n, Sar'"ento, Cortes,Gr"(o)*+u"no, ed"a%dea and Re-a%ado, JJ., concur.

e%enc"o) errera, J., "s on Lea!e.

A.!. No. 897 A /2l 19, 1991

ATT). J SE S. SANT S, o- la2 a 4,s.

ATT). CIPRIAN A. TAN, /es o 6e 4.

R E S " U T I N

PER CURIA!# p

.omplainant tty Jose S Santos instituted on=o'ember #, 19&0 these disbarment proceedingsagainst respondent tty .ipriano )an !or allegedgross misconduct

Speci(cally, the complainant who was then cting

/irector o! the Bureau o! grarian Hegal ssistanceunder the inistry >now /epartment? o! grarian"e!orm, charged the respondent with ha'ingcommitted acts o! immorality, !alsi(cation, and bigamy

In the said complaint, tty Santos stated that therespondent, while employed as )rial ttorney I*, withthe Judicial .ases /i'ision under the a!oresaid/epartment, maintained amorous relationship with amarried clerk, a certain =orma 8 Pihid >nee 8lea?, whowas then directly under him 'entually, therespondent got married to =orma 8 Pihid on pril 7,19&1 be!ore the unicipal ayor o! eycauayan,

Bulacan, purportedly in an attempt to co'er up theirillicit relations 1

)he complainant, moreo'er, alleged that therespondent !alsi(ed his marriage contract with =orma8 Pihid by deliberately misrepresenting himsel! assingle, thus, decei'ing the said mayor into solemni6ingthe said marriage In the in!ormation sheet, howe'er,prepared and (led by the respondent prior to hisemployment, he clearly stated therein that he was

married to one milia Benito )an and had begotteneight >&? children with the latter 3

.onse;uently, the complainant likewise charged therespondent with bigamy since it appears !rom therecords o! the Hocal .i'il "egistrar that he hadpre'iously contracted marriage with the said milia Benito on January %, 1901 )he complainant assertedthat the said marriage continued to be 'alid andbinding between the said contracting parties when therespondent entered into a subse;uent manage with=orma 8 Pihid on pril 7, 19&1 +

Finally, the complainant a'erred that the respondentMs

second wi!e, =orma 8 Pihid, ga'e birth to a child bythe respondent on =o'ember 1, 19&1 at the.hildrenMs edical .enter in -ue6on .ity, as e'idencedby the birth certi(cate o! the said child indicating hisname to be =oel 8lea )an 5

8n January 9, 19&+, the .ourt acting on the saidcomplaint !or disbarment re;uired the respondent tosubmit his nswer

)he respondent in an nswer dated February &, 19&+,denied ha'ing married =orma 8 Pihid on pril 7,19&1 and ha'ing !athered a child by the name o! =oel8lea )an, although he admitted being married to milia

Benito 8

s regards the charges o! bigamy and !alsi(cation o!oGcial documents, the respondent argued that thesame were issues that were properly the sub:ect o! acriminal case (led by the complainant against himwhich was pending be!ore the "egional )rial .ourt o!

alolos, Bulacan, Branch *I, and there!ore raised apre:udicial ;uestion in the present contro'ersy 7

nent the charge o! maintaining amorous relationshipwith =orma 8 Pihid, the respondent contended thatthe same charge had been pre'iously resol'ed in an8rder dated 8ctober 1, 19& issued by the inister>now Secretary? o! the inistry >now /epartment? o!

grarian "e!orm In the said order, the allegation o!immorality which was originally the content o! ananonymous letternow Secretary? .onrado F


6/33

strella )he respondent contended that he and thecomplainant did not see eye to eye with respect to thehandling and prosecution o! agrarian cases 0

By way o! a counter


7/33

It appears, howe'er, that respondenthas retired !rom go'ernment ser'ice on

arch 7, 19& 3e was si$ty7 ? years old

.onsidering that respondent hasretired and is in the twilight o! his li!e,

disbarment would be too harsh apenalty to impose on respondentSuspension !rom the practice o! lawwould be proper !or humanitarianreasons i! respondent is still acti'elyengaged in practice

I= *I @ 8F )3 F8" K8I=K.8=SI/ " )I8=S, it is respect!ullyrecommended that respondent bead:udged guilty o! immoral conduct,unbecoming o! a lawyer, andaccordingly impose the penalty o! one>1? year suspension !rom the acti'epractice o! law 1*

@e agree with the said (ndings o! the Solicitor Keneralincluding his !a'orable and compassionateconsideration o! the ad'anced age o! the respondentSpeci(cally, "ule 1 #1 o! .anon I o! the .ode o!Pro!essional "esponsibility pro'ides that a lawyer shallnot engage in unlaw!ul, dishonest, immoral or deceit!ulconduct

@hate'er the alleged moti'es o! the complainant are,the respondent has !ailed to contro'ert and re!ute thecharges made by the !ormer 'en granting arguendothat the complainant was not wellimmorality? whichthe Solicitor Keneral has !ound to besupported by the e'idence >c! L "eportand "ecommendation dated February

, 199#, pp 0%+?attempts to ser'e a copy o! the .ourtMs "esolution ando! the complaint by mo'ing !rom one place to another,such that he could not be !ound nor reached in hisalleged place o! employment or residence 8n 0

pril 19&+, that is a!ter three > ? years and a hal!, withstill no answer !rom the respondent, the .ourt notedrespondentMs success in e'ading ser'ice o! thecomplaint and the .ourtMs "esolution and thereuponresol'ed to suspend respondent tty Jordan )erre!rom the practice o! law until a!ter he appears andRor(les his answer to the complaint against him in theinstantcase 3


8/33


9/33

udit where he was employed, whichcase howe'er was considered closed!or being moot and academic whenrespondent was consideredautomatically separated !rom theser'ice !or ha'ing gone on absencewithout oGcial lea'e > $hibit FN tsn,

July 7, 19&%, pp &< 9? 7

)here is no dispute o'er the !act that complainant

/orothy )erre and respondent Jordan )erre contractedmarriage on 10 July 1977 be!ore Judge Priscilla i:ares )here is !urther no dispute o'er the !act that on ay19&1, respondent Jordan )erre married 3elina alicdemin /asol, Pangasinan @hen the second marriage wasentered into, respondentMs prior marriage withcomplainant was subsisting, no :udicial action ha'ingbeen initiated or any :udicial declaration obtained as tothe nullity o! such prior marriage o! respondent withcomplainant

"espondent Jordan )erre sought to de!end himsel! byclaiming that he had belie'ed in good !aith that hisprior marriage with complainant /orothy )erre was nulland 'oid ab "n"t"o and that no action !or a :udicialdeclaration o! nullity was necessary

)he .ourt considers this claim on the part o!respondent Jordan )erre as a spurious de!ense In the(rst place, respondent has not rebutted complainantMse'idence as to the basic !acts which underscores thebad !aith o! respondent )erre In the second place, thatpretended de!ense is the same argument by which hehad in'eigled complainant into belie'ing that her priormarriage to erlito Bercenilla being incestuous and'oid ab "n"t"o >/orothy and erlito being allegedly (rstcousins to each other?, she was !ree to contract asecond marriage with the respondent "espondent

Jordan )erre, being a lawyer, knew or should ha'eknown that such an argument ran counter to thepre'ailing case law o! this .ourt which holds that !orpurposes o! determining whether a person is legally!ree to contract a second marriage, a :udicialdeclaration that the (rst marriage was null and 'oid ab"n"t"o is essential 0 'en i! we were to assume,ar-uendo merely, that Jordan )erre held that mistakenbelie! in good !aith, the same result will !ollow For i! weare to hold Jordan )erre to his own argument, his (rstmarriage to complainant /orothy )erre must bedeemed 'alid, with the result that his second marriageto 3elina alicdem must be regarded as bigamous andcriminal in character

)hat the moral character o! respondent Jordan )errewas deeply Dawed is shown by other circumstances snoted, he con'inced the complainant that her priormarriage to Bercenilla was null and 'oid ab "n"t"o , thatshe was still legally single and !ree to marry him @hencomplainant and respondent had contracted theirmarriage, respondent went through law school whilebeing supported by complainant, with some assistance!rom respondentMs parents !ter respondent had(nished his law course and gotten complainantpregnant, respondent abandoned the complainantwithout support and without the wherewithal !ordeli'ering his own child sa!ely in a hospital

)hus, we agree with the Solicitor Keneral thatrespondent Jordan )erre, by his actions, elo;uentlydisplayed, not only his un(tness to remain as amember o! the Bar, but likewise his inade;uacy touphold the purpose and responsibility o! his genderbecause marriage is a basic social institution 9

In $o'perada !. Joch"co , 1* the .ourt, in re:ecting apetition to be allowed to take the oath as a member o!the Bar and to sign the "oll o! ttorneys, said through

me Justice elencio


10/33

[A.C. No. +1+0. July 3*, 1990]

RE!E'I S RA!IRE( TAPUCAR, o- la2 a 4, s.ATT). "AUR ". TAPUCAR, /es o 6e 4.

' E C I S I N

PER CURIA!#

In a letter=ow Keneral Santos .ity?, wherehis last three children were born and where hepracticed his pro!ession until his appointment as a .FI

Judge in Butuan .ity on January #, 197%

In ugust, 197%, shortly a!ter being appointed as .FI Judge, respondent began cohabiting with a certain

lena >3elen? Pe a, in =asipit, gusan /el =orte 8n/ecember &, 1977 lena ga'e birth to their (rst child,named 8!elia Sembrano Pe a

In 'iew o! this cohabitation, a certain tty )ran;uilino.alo (led an administrati'e complaint againstrespondent !or immorality !ter in'estigation, thepenalty o! suspension !rom oGce !or a period o! si$months without pay was meted by this .ourt uponrespondent +2

/espite this penalty, respondent still continued tocohabit with lena, gi'ing rise to another charge o!

immorality and other administrati'e cases, such asconduct unbecoming an oGcer o! the court, andgrossly immoral conduct )hese cases wereconsolidated and a!ter in'estigation, this .ourt orderedhis dismissal and separation !rom the ser'ice %2

But his dismissal as a :udge did not impel respondentto mend his ways 3e continued li'ing with lena,which resulted in the birth on September #, 19&9, o!

their second child named Haella Pe a )apucaroreo'er, he completely abandoned complainant andhis children by her

"espondent later mo'ed !rom =asipit, gusan del=orte back to ntipolo, "i6al, bringing along lena andtheir two children nd on arch +, 199 , respondentcontracted marriage with lena in a ceremonysolemni6ed by etropolitan )rial .ourt Judge Isagani Keronimo o! ntipolo, "i6al )his was done while therespondent4s marriage to complainant subsists, asnothing on record shows the dissolution thereo!

.omplainant, in the meanwhile, had migrated to 5nitedStates o! merica upon her retirement !rom thego'ernment ser'ice in 199# 3owe'er, her children,who remained in ntipolo, kept her posted o! themisery they allegedly suEered because o! their !ather4sacts, including deception and intrigues against them

)hus, despite ha'ing pre'iously withdrawn a similarcase which she (led in 197%, complainant was !orcedto (le the present petition !or disbarment under thecompulsion o! the material impulse to shield andprotect her children !rom the despotic and cruel acts o! their own !ather .omplainant secured the assistanceo! her eldest daughter, tty a Susana )apucar3elen? Pe a, now my wi!eBeing ordered separated in later administrati'e case


11/33

constitute double :eopardy I! now disbarred !ormarrying s lena Pe a will constitute triple :eopardyI! that4s the law so be it C &2

Based on said report, the Board o! Ko'ernors o! theIntegrated Bar o! the Philippines, passed on ay 17,1997, a "esolution adopting the .ommissioner4srecommendation, as !ollowsL

A" S8H5)I8= =8 TII


12/33

intended to aEord the parties thereto !ull opportunityto 'indicate their cause be!ore disciplinary action istaken, to assure the general public that those who aretasked with the duty o! administering :ustice arecompetent, honorable, trustworthy men and women inwhom the .ourts and the clients may repose !ullcon(dence

In the case o! 8busan 's 8busan, Jr , 192 a complaint

!or disbarment was (led against a member o! the barby his wi!e She was able to pro'e that he hadabandoned his wi!e and their sonN and that he hadadulterous relations with a married but separatedwoman "espondent was not able to o'ercome thee'idence presented by his wi!e that he was guilty o!grossly immoral conduct In another case, #2 alawyer was disbarred when he abandoned his law!ulwi!e and cohabited with another woman who had bornehim a child )he .ourt held that respondent !ailed tomaintain the highest degree o! morality e$pected andre;uired o! a member o! a bar

In the present case, the record shows that despitepre'ious sanctions imposed upon by this .ourt,respondent continued his illicit liaison with a womanother than law!ully


13/33


14/33

In (nding respondent liable !or Immorality, the .B/relied hea'ily on the uncontro'erted sworn aGda'it1? month when theytrans!erred to another house

1 I mysel! le!t the house and returned to Bindoy,=egros 8riental some time in June 19&9

1 Sometime in January 199 , on a Saturday atabout noontime, I went to the house o! Justo J Paras toconsult him about a abataang Barangay matterin'ol'ing my son @hen I arri'ed at his house, I noticedthat the same was closed and there was no one there

10 =eeding to consult him about the abo'e ? years old, walking aroundthe sala, whom I later came to know as .yndee "ose,the daughter o! Justo J Paras and a Jocelyn .hing

!ter our con'ersation was (nished, Justo JParas told me to see him at this oGce at San Jose

$tension, /umaguete .ity, the !ollowing onday todiscuss the matter some more

I then bid them goodbye and went home toBindoy, =egros 8riental

0 I am e$ecuting this aGda'it as a supplement tomy aGda'it dated July 199 pp +&p &+, "ollo, nne$ 3 ? *ailoces, on the other hand,deposed that she was asked by respondent Paras todeli'er money to s .hing !or the payment o! thehospital bill a!ter she ga'e birth to .yndee "ose*ailoces was also asked by respondent to procure

.yndee "ose ParasM baptismal certi(cate a!ter thelatter was bapti6ed in the house o! respondentN she!urther testi(ed that in said baptismal certi(cate,respondent appears as the !ather o! .yndee "osewhich e$plains why the latter is using the surname

Paras >p &7, nne$ I , "ollo?

)he (ndings and the recommendations o! the .B/ aresubstantiated by the e'identiary record

8= )3 .3 "K 8F F HSIFI. )I8= 8F .8 PH I= =)MS SIK= )5"


17/33


18/33

his ten thousand shares o! stock with 3aru Ken !orP1,###,### ## .omplainant alleges that although hehad !ully paid !or the shares, as e'idenced by receiptsacknowledged by respondent, the latter !ailed andre!used to deli'er the certi(cates !or the purchasedshares

.omplainant also alleges that respondent persuadedhim to buy three > ? parcels o! land belonging to thelatter !or P ,%%#,# ## lthough he paid respondentP , ##,### ##, the latter reneged on his obligation todeli'er the certi(cates o! title co'ering the purchasedproperties

)o !urther complicate his woes, in the course o! FI. I4smanagement o! )win "ock Beach "esort, se'eralcomplaints were (led against him by !ormer employeeso! the beach resort "espondent acted as his counseland in the course o! their pro!essional relationshiprespondent asked !or se'eral sums o! moneypurportedly to be gi'en to the :udges hearing hiscases In one o! his letters to complainant, respondentwrote the :udge >whom he did not identi!y? was notcontented o! the P%,### ## claiming that he dismissedtwo > ? cases I suggest that you gi'e additional

P+,### ## In another letter he reported tocomplainant that Judge Barsaga has already renderedthe decision in my case regarding the three > ? parcelso! land 3e is asking Z.hristmas gi!t4

.omplainant also claims that respondent representedhim in the special proceedings in'ol'ing the settlemento! the estate o! the deceased iharu atsu6awa wherehe >complainant? was appointed administrator

)herea!ter howe'er their relationship turned sour andrespondent did not only se'er their pro!essionalrelationship but went !urther and mo'ed !or there'ocation o! complainant4s appointment asadministrator chanrob1es 'irtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Hastly, complainant charges respondent withimmorality !or Daunting his illicit relationship with acertain Hudy atien6o despite his being legally marriedto one "osita *elasco .omplainant declares that theaEaire d4 amour, which was common knowledge in theplace, produced three > ? children, namely, Jesebeth,

Jenny and Jenneth, all o! whom were acknowledged byrespondent as his own

"espondent denies the allegations and insists that hecould not ha'e decei'ed complainant in their businessdealings inasmuch as the latter was represented in alltheir transactions by tty "icardo B Purog, Jr Inso!aras the charge o! non ? years

ainly, the recommendation was premised on the

ground that notwithstanding complainant4s !ailure tosupport his allegation that respondent duped him intheir business transactions, the e'idence on recordsupports the charge o! immorality against Respondent

lso, respondent by writing letters to complainantboasting about being able to inDuence :udgesundermined the integrity o! the :udiciary chanrob1es'irtua1 1aw 1ibrary

5pon a re'iew o! the records, we are con'inced thatrespondent4s conduct lea'es much to be desired @ehowe'er agree with the (ndings o! the In'estigating.ommissioner that complainant was as not as gulliblein his business dealings with respondent as hepresented himsel! to be )he .ommission !ound itunlikely !or complainant to ha'e been decei'ed byrespondent inasmuch as the !ormer was representedby his own counsel tty Purog, Jr in all his businesstransactions with the latter )hus, complainant couldnot ha'e been misled by respondent with respect tothe import o! their contracts regarding the sale o! theshares o! stock with 3aru Ken as well as the sale o! thethree > ? parcels o! land =onetheless, respondentmust still be chastised !or his grossly immoral conduct

"espondent tty ngeles *elasco has been li'ing anadulterous li!e with Hudy atien6o with whom he hasthree > ? children )he children bear respondent4ssurnameN their school records e'en re!er to their

mother Hudy atien6o as Hudy *elasco ByDaunting his relationship with a woman not his wi!erespondent has transgressed the high moral standardre;uired !or membership in the bar

5nder "ule 1 #1 o! the .ode o! Pro!essional"esponsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlaw!ul,dishonest, immoral or deceit!ul conduct It may bediGcult to speci!y the degree o! moral delin;uency thatmay ;uali!y an act as immoral, yet, !or purposes o!disciplining a lawyer, immoral conduct has beende(ned as that conduct which is will!ul, Dagrant, orshameless, and which shows a moral indiEerence tothe opinion o! respectable members o! the community


19/33

7 )hus, in se'eral cases, the .ourt did not hesitate todiscipline a lawyer !or keeping a mistress in de(ance o! the mores and sense o! morality o! the community &

s keepers o! the public !aith, lawyers are burdenedwith the highest degree o! social responsibility andthus must handle their personal aEairs with thegreatest caution )hey are e$pected at all times tomaintain due regard !or public decency in thecommunity where they li'e )heir e$alted positions asoGcers o! the court demand no less than the highestdegree o! morality Indeed, those who ha'e taken theoath to assist in the dispensation o! :ustice should bemore possessed o! the consciousness and the will too'ercome the weakness o! the Desh

@hat is more, respondent has 'iolated another basictenet o! legal ethics he has gi'en complainant theimpression that he was in a position to inDuence thecourt 9 )hus, in a series o! letters presented bycomplainant, which respondent meekly claimed werepri'ate communications between them, respondenttrumpeted his connection with :udges and theirsupposed demand !or money lawyer is duty bound toa'oid improprieties which gi'e the appearance o!

inDuencing the court "espondent4s actions could notbut place the integrity o! the administration o! :usticein peril, hence the need !or strict disciplinaryaction chanrob1es 'irtual law library

8n these considerations, we !eel strongly the impulseto purge respondent !rom the ranks o! our noblepro!ession 3owe'er, considering that he is in thedeclining years o! his li!e 1# and has rendered years o!ser'ice to the Integrated Bar o! the Philippines asPresident o! the *irac, .atanduanes .hapter, we !eelthat disbarment would be too harsh a penalty !or him3ence, a suspension o! two > ? years, as recommendedby the .ommission on Bar /iscipline, would suGce as apuniti'e but compassionate disciplinary measure

Indeed, no pro!ession oEers greater opportunity !orpublic ser'ice than that o! a lawyer For the pri'ilegecon!erred upon him, a lawyer is tasked with the e;uallygreat responsibility o! upholding the ethics and idealsestablished by the learned lawyers o! ancient timesInto his hands are entrusted the li!e, liberty andproperty o! a trusting man )he only guarantee thatthis trust will be carried with honor isNthe character o!the lawyer Such character, on the other hand, can onlybe obser'ed through one4s reputation and conduct

)hus, when a lawyer so deports himsel! thatcon(dence can no longer be rested in him without !ear,his use!ulness to the court and to the society ceases

@3 " F8" , respondent tty ngeles *elasco isS5SP =/ / !rom the practice o! law !or two > ? years!rom notice, with warning that a repetition o! the actscharged will be dealt with more se'erely "espondent is!urther ordered to noti!y this .ourt o! his receipt o! this/ecision

Het copies o! this /ecision be !urnished all courts in theland, the Integrated Bar o! the Philippines, the 8Gce o! the Bar .on(dant, and let it be spread in respondent4spersonal record

S8 8"/ " /

/a'ide, Jr , C.J. , Puno, *itug, Panganiban, -uisumbing, Onares


20/33

? she howe'er !ailed in her Pathology sub:ectwhich prompted her to approach respondent inthe latterMs house who assured her that shewould pass the said sub:ect >pp 1+,1%, %, ,tsn, June %, 197+?N

? despite this assurance, howe'er, she !ailed>p , tsn, June %, 197+?N

0? sometime in February, 197 , respondenttold her that she should go with him to anila,otherwise, she would Dunk in all her sub:ects>pp 0 , +#, tsn, June %, 197+?N N

+? on February 1 , 197 , both respondent andcomplainant boarded the same plane > $h ?!or anilaN !rom the anila /omestic irport,they proceeded to "oom 9#+, 9th Floor o! the

mbassador 3otel where they stayed !or threedays > $hs , p +9, tsn, June %, 197+N pp 1+0,1++ Q 1+7, tsn, July 1&, 197+?N

&? complainant consented to the se$ual desireso! respondent because !or her, she wouldsacri(ce her personal honor rather than !ail inher sub:ects >p %l, tsn, June %, 197+?N N

9? sometime in arch, 197 , complainant toldrespondent that she was suspecting pregnancybecause she missed her menstruation >p 7%,tsn, July 17, 197+?N N

1#? later, she was in!ormed by /r onsanto>an instructor in the college o! medicine? thatrespondent wanted that an abortion beper!ormed upon her >p & , tsn, July l7,197+?N N

11? therea!ter, "uben .ru6, a con(dant o!respondent, and /r onsato !etched her at her

boarding house on the prete$t that she wouldbe e$amined by /r Kil "amas >pp &7


21/33

.ontrary to respondentMs a'erments, the SolicitorKeneral made a categorical (nding to the eEect thatrespondent had carnal knowledge o! complainant, towitL

From the !oregoing, it is clear that complainantwas compelled to go to anila with respondentupon the threat o! respondent that i! she !ailedto do so, she would Dunk in all her sub:ects andshe would ne'er become a medical intern >pp

0 , +#, tsn, June %, 197+? s respondent was.hairman o! the .ollege o! edicine,complainant had e'ery reason to belie'e him

It has been established also that complainantwas brought by respondent to mbassador3otel in anila !or three days where herepeatedly had carnal knowledge o! her uponthe threat that i! she would not gi'e in to hislust!ul desires, she would !ail in her Pathologysub:ect > $hs , , ? years

8n arch 1%, 19&9, the .ourt "esol'ed to re;uire theparties to o'e in the premises to determine whetherany inter'ening e'ent occurred which would render thecase moot and academic >"ollo, p %9?

8n pril 1 , 19&9, the Solicitor Keneral (led amani!estation and motion praying that the case at barbe considered submitted !or decision on the bases o!the report and recommendation pre'iously submittedtogether with the record o! the case and the e'idenceadduced >"ollo, p 7+?

!ter a thorough re'iew o! the records, the .ourtagrees with the (nding o! the Solicitor Keneral thatrespondent 6nar, under the !acts as stated in the"eport o! the in'estigation conducted in the case, isguilty o! grossly immoral conduct and may there!orebe remo'ed or suspended by the Supreme .ourt !orconduct unbecoming a member o! the Bar >Sec 7,"ule 1 &, "ules o! .ourt?

"espondent !ailed to adduce e'idence suGcient to

engender doubt as to his culpability o! the oEenseimputed upon him @ith the e$ception o! the sel!Ko' .andoy, 1 S." 0 9 19%72? s once pronouncedby the .ourtL

@hen his integrity is challenged bye'idence, it is not enough that hedenies the charges against himN hemust meet the issue and o'ercome the

e'idence !or the relator >Hegal and Judicial thics, by alcolm, p 9 ? andshow proo!s that he still maintains thehighest degree o! morality andintegrity, which at all times is e$pectedo! him In the case o! Un"ted States!. Tr"a, 17 Phil # , Justice oreland,speaking !or the .ourt, saidL

n accused person sometimes owes aduty to himsel! i! not to the State I! hedoes not per!orm that duty, he may notalways e$pect the State to per!orm it!or him I! he !ails to meet theobligation which he owes to himsel!,when to meet it is the easiest o! easythings, he is hardy indeed i! he demandand e$pect that same !ull and wideconsideration which the State'oluntarily gi'es to those who byreasonable eEort seek to helpthemsel'es )his is particularly sowhen he not only declines to helphimsel! but acti'ely conceals !rom theState the 'ery means by which it mayassist him >-uingwa S." 0 9 19%72?


22/33

)he Solicitor Keneral recommends that since thecomplainant is partly to blame !or ha'ing gone withrespondent to anila knowing !ully well thatrespondent is a married man ,with children, respondentshould merely be suspended !rom the practice o! law!or not less than three > ? years >"ollo, p 07?

8n the other hand, respondent in his mani!estation andmotion dated pril 1&, 19&9 alleges that since a periodo! about ten >1#? years had already elapsed !rom the

time the Solicitor Keneral made his recommendation!or a three > ? years suspension and respondent is notpracticing his pro!ession as a lawyer, the court maynow consider the respondent as ha'ing beensuspended during the said period and the casedismissed !or being moot and academic

@e disagree

.omplainant (led the instant case !or disbarment notbecause respondent reneged on a promise to marry>-uingwa ' Puno, supra ? ore importantlycomplainantMs knowledge o! o! respondentMs maritalstatus is not at issue in the case at bar .omplainant

submitted to respondentMs solicitation !or se$ualintercourse not because o! a desire !or se$ualgrati(cation but because o! respondentMs moralascendancy o'er her and !ear that i! she would notaccede, she would Dunk in her sub:ects s chairman o! the college o! medicine where complainant wasenrolled, the latter had e'ery reason to belie'e thatrespondent could make good his threats oreo'er, ascounsel !or respondent would deem it worthwhile toin!orm the the .ourt that the respondent is a scion o! arich !amily and a 'ery rich man in his own right and in!act is not practicing his pro!ession be!ore the court>"ollo, p 7#?, mere suspension !or a limited period, perse, would there!ore ser'e no redeeming purpose )he!act that he is a rich man and does not practice hispro!ession as a lawyer, does not render respondent aperson o! good moral character 'idence o! goodmoral character precedes admission to bar >Sec , "ule1 &, "ules o! .ourt? and such re;uirement is notdispensed with upon admission thereto Kood moralcharacter is a continuing ;uali(cation necessary toentitle one to continue in the practice o! law )heancient and learned pro!ession o! law e$acts !rom itsmembers the highest standard o! morality >-uingwa 'Puno, supra ?

5nder Section 7, "ule 1 &, >a? member o! the barmay be remo'ed or suspended !rom his oGce asattorney by the Supreme .ourt !or any deceit,malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such oGce,grossly immoral conduct, or by reason o! his con'ictiono! a crime in'ol'ing moral turpitude, or !or any'iolation o! the oath which he is re;uired to take be!oreadmission to practice, In *rc"-a !. an"0an- >1#%S." +91, 19&12?, this .ourt had occasion to de(nethe concept o! immoral conduct, as !ollowsL

lawyer may be disbarred !or grosslyimmoral conduct, or by reason o! hiscon'iction o! a crime in'ol'ing moralturpitude member o! the bar should

ha'e moral integrity in addition topro!essional probity

It is diGcult to state with precision andto ($ an inDe$ible standard as to whatis grossly immoral conduct or to speci!ythe moral delin;uency and obli;uitywhich render a lawyer unworthy o!continuing as a member o! the bar )herule implies that what appears to be

uncon'entional beha'ior to thestraight7 . J S 9+9?

@here an unmarried !emale dwar!possessing the intellect o! a childbecame pregnant by reason o!

intimacy with a married lawyer whowas the !ather o! si$ children,disbarment o! the attorney on theground o! immoral conduct was

:usti(ed >In re 3icks # Pac nd &9%?

In the present case, it was highly immoral o!respondent, a married man with children, to ha'e takenad'antage o! his position as chairman o! the college o!medicine in asking complainant, a student in saidcollege, to go with him to anila where he had carnalknowledge o! her under the threat that she would Dunkin all her sub:ects in case she re!used

@3 " F8" , respondent Jose B 6nar is hereby/ISB "" / and his name is ordered stricken oE !romthe "oll o! ttorneys

S8 8"/ " /

Nar!asa, Gut"erre#, Jr., Cru#, $aras, e%"c"ano, $ad"%%a,Gancayco, &"d"n, Sar'"ento, Cortes, Gr"(o)*+u"no,

ed"a%dea and Re-a%ado, JJ., concur.

ernan 1C.J.2, too3 no part.

e%enc"o) errera, J., "s on %ea!e.

A.C. No. 151 Ja ua/y 9, 1993

&ICT RIA BARRIENT S, complainant,'sTRANSFIGURACI N 'AAR ", respondent


23/33

" S 8 H 5 ) I 8 =

PER CURIA!#

In a sworn complaint (led with this .ourt on ugust #,197+, complainant *ictoria . Barrientos seeks thedisbarment o! respondent )rans(guracion /aarol, ;; amember o! the Philippine Bar, on grounds o! deceit andgrossly immoral conduct

!ter respondent (led his answer > Ro%%o, p 1 ?, the.ourt "esol'ed to re!er the case to the SolicitorKeneral !or in'estigation, report and recommendation>Ro%%o, p 1&?

s per recommendation o! the Solicitor Keneral and !orthe con'enience o! the parties and their witnesses whowere residing in the pro'ince o! [amboanga del =orte,the Pro'incial Fiscal o! said pro'ince was authori6ed toconduct the in'estigation and to submit a report,together with transcripts o! stenographic notes ande$hibits submitted by the parties, i! any > Ro%%o, p #?

8n =o'ember 9, 19&7, the 8Gce o! the SolicitorKeneral submitted its "eport and "ecommendation,!"# L

'idence o! the complainantL

complainant *ictoria Barrientos wassingle and a resident o! Boni!acio St ,/ipolog .ityN that when she was still ateenager and (rst year in college shecame to know respondent

)rans(guracion /aarol in 19%9 as he

used to go to their house being a !riendo! her sister =ormaN that they alsobecame !riends, and she knew therespondent as being single and li'ingalone in Kalas, /ipolog .ityN that hewas the Keneral anager o![amboanga del =orte lectric.ooperati'e, Inc >[ = .8? andsubse;uently trans!erred his residenceto the [ = .8 compound at HagunaBl'd at /el Pilar St , /ipolog .ity >pp1#9pp 119 p2, 1 , tsn,"d ?, then he pleaded, /ay, :ust gi'ethis to me, do not be a!raid > "b"d?, andagain reiterated his promise andassurances, at the same time pullingdown her pantyN that she told him thatshe was a!raid because they were notyet married, but because she lo'ed himshe (nally agreed to ha'e se$ualintercourse with him at the back seato! the :eepN that a!ter the intercourseshe wept and respondent againreiterated his promises and assurancesnot to worry because anyway he wouldmarry herN and at about 1 L##


24/33

midnight they went home >pp1 p

1 9, tsn, "d ?N respondent toldcomplainant to deli'er their child in

anila and assured her o! a monthlysupport o! P +# ## >p 10#, tsn, "d ?Nrespondent returned to /ipolog .ityand actually sent the promisedsupportN he came back to anila in

January 1970 and went to seecomplainantN when asked about theannulment o! his pre'ious marriage, hetold complainant that it would soon beappro'ed >pp 101tsn 0&pp


25/33


26/33

!rom June & to #, 197 , and he usedto !etch her at her residence in themorning and took her home !rom thecon'ention site a!ter each dayMsacti'itiesN

0 )hat respondent courtedcomplainant, and a!ter a week o!courtship, complainant acceptedrespondentMs lo'e on July 7, 197 N that

in the e'ening o! ugust #, 197 ,complainant with her parentsMpermission was respondentMs partnerduring the .hamber o! .ommerceaEair at the Hope6 Skyroom in the/ipolog .ity, and at about 1#L##oMclock that e'ening, they le!t the placebut be!ore going home, they went tothe airport at Sicayab, /ipolog .ity andparked the :eep at the beach, wherethere were no houses aroundN thata!ter the usual preliminaries, theyconsummated the se$ual act and atabout midnight they went homeN thata!ter the (rst se$ual act, respondentused to ha'e :oy ride with complainantwhich usually ended at the airportwhere they used to make lo'e twice orthree times a weekN that as a result o!her intimate relations, complainantbecame pregnantN

+ )hat a!ter a con!erence amongrespondent, complainant andcomplainantMs parents, it was agreedthat complainant would deli'er herchild in anila, where she went withher mother on 8ctober , 197 byboat, arri'ing in anila on the +th

and, stayed with her brother)S=, p #9, January 1 ,1977N Ro%%o, p 07? @orse, he e'en suggested abortion

)ruly, respondentMs moral sense is so seriouslyimpaired that we cannot maintain his membership inthe Bar In $an-an !. Ra'os >1#7 S." 1 19&12?, weheld thatL

> ?'en his act in making lo'e toanother woman while his (rst wi!e isstill ali'e and their marriage still 'alidand e$isting is contrary to honesty,

:ustice, decency and morality"espondent made a mockery o!marriage which is a sacred institutiondemanding respect and dignity

Finally, respondent e'en had the temerity to allegethat he is a oslem con'ert and as such, could enterinto multiple marriages and has in;uired into the


27/33

possibility o! marrying complainant > Ro%%o, p 1+? srecords indicate, howe'er, his claim o! ha'ingembraced the Islam religion is not supported by anye'idence sa'e that o! his sel!0? wi'es, as he is now claiming, whydid he not marry complainantY )heanswer is supplied by respondenthimsel! 3e said while he was amoslem, but, ha'ing been married in aci'il ceremony, he could no longer'alidly enter into another ci'ilceremony without committing bigamybecause the complainant is a christian>p 0 , tsn, January 1 , 1977?.onse;uently, i! respondent knew, thatnotwithstanding his being a moslemcon'ert, he cannot marry complainant,then it was grossly immoral !or him toha'e se$ual intercourse withcomplainant because he knew thee$istence o! a legal impediment"espondent may not, there!ore, escaperesponsibility thru his dubious claimthat he has embraced the Islamreligion > Ro%%o,p 09?

By his acts o! deceit and immoral tendencies toappease his se$ual desires, respondent /aarol hasamply demonstrated his moral delin;uency 3ence, his

remo'al !or conduct unbecoming a member o! the Baron the grounds o! deceit and grossly immoral conduct>Sec 7, "ule 1 &, "ules o! .ourt? is in order Koodmoral character is a condition which precedesadmission to the Bar >Sec , "ule 1 &, "ules o! .ourt?and is not dispensed with upon admission thereto It isa continuing ;uali(cation which all lawyers mustpossess >People ' )uanda, 1&1 S." %& 199#2N /elos"eyes ' 6nar, 179 S." %+ 19&92?, otherwise, alawyer may either be suspended or disbarred

s we ha'e held in $"att !. *bordo >+& Phil +# 19 2,cited in Leda !. Taban- , #% S." 9+ 199 2?L

It cannot be o'eremphasi6ed that there;uirement o! good character is notonly a condition precedent toadmission to the practice o! lawN itscontinued possession is also essential!or remaining in the practice o! law>People ' )uanda, dm .ase =o %#,

# January 199#, 1&1 S." %9 ? saptly put by r Justice Keorge

alcolmL s good character is anessential ;uali(cation !or admission o!an attorney to practice, when theattorneyMs character is bad in suchrespects as to show that he is unsa!e

and un(t to be entrusted with thepowers o! an attorney, the court retainsthe power to discipline him >Piatt '

bordo, +& Phil +# 19 2?

8nly recently, another disbarment proceeding wasresol'ed by this .ourt against a lawyer who con'inceda woman that her prior marriage to another man wasnull and 'oid ab "n"t"o and she was still legally singleand !ree to marry him >the lawyer?, married her, was

supported by her in his studies, begot a child with her,abandoned her and the child, and married anotherwoman >)erre 's )erre, dm .ase =o 09, July ,199 ?

3ere, respondent, already a married man and about 01years old, proposed lo'e and marriage to complainant,then still a #In re Puno, 19 S." 0 9, 19%72N Pangan 's

"amos, 1#7 S." 1 19&12?

s oGcers o! the court, lawyers must not only in !actbe o! good moral character but must also be seen to beo! good moral character and must lead a li!e inaccordance with the highest moral standards o! thecommunity ore speci(cally, a member o! the Bar andan oGcer o! the .ourt is not only re;uired to re!rain!rom adulterous relationships or the keeping o!mistresses but must also beha'e himsel! in such amanner as to a'oid scandali6ing the public by creatingthe belie! that he is Douting those moral standards>)olosa 's .argo, 171 S." 1, % 19&92, citing

)oledo 's )oledo, 7 S." 7+7 19% 2 and "oyong 's8blena, 7 S." &+9 19% 2?

In brie!, @e (nd respondent /aarol morally delin;uentand as such, should not be allowed continuedmembership in the ancient and learned pro!ession o!law >-uingwa ' Puno, 19 S." 0 9 19%72?

..8"/I=KHO, @e (nd respondent )rans(guracion/aarol guilty o! grossly immoral conduct unworthy o!being a member o! the Bar and is hereby ordered/ISB "" / and his name stricken oE !rom the "oll o!

ttorneys Het copies o! this "esolution be !urnished toall courts o! the land, the Integrated Bar o! the


28/33

Philippines, the 8Gce o! the Bar .on(dant and spreadon the personal record o! respondent /aarol

S8 8"/ " /

Nar!asa, C.J., Gut"erre#, Jr., Cru#, e%"c"ano, $ad"%%a, &"d

[A.C. No. 00+. Ja ua/y 0, 1990]

IRENE RA) S< !BAC, complainant, vs. ATT).R"AN' A. RA) S, respondent.

' E C I S I N

PUN , J. #

)his case stemmed !rom a petition !or disbarment (ledwith this .ourt by rs Irene "ayoscomplainant?entrusted !or sa!ekeeping to >respondent? the sum o!FI* 35=/" / IK3)O IK3) )385S =/ P S8S>P+&&,### ##? which sum o! money was withdrawn bythe parties !rom the Philippine =ational Bank on saiddate

@3 " S, the said amount was deposited by>respondent? with the consent o! >complainant? withthe 5=I8= B = , J P "i6al Branch, akati, etro

anila

@3 " S, upon mutual agreement o! the parties, theyha'e agreed as they hereby agree on the !ollowingterms !or the purpose o! disposing o! the abo'e sum, towitL

1 8! the sum o! P+&&,### ## recei'ed in trust,>respondent? shall return only the sum o! P0##,### ##to >complainant? in the !ollowing mannerL

a? P1##,### ## upon e$ecution o! this agreementN

b? P ##,### ## on or be!ore 8ctober 19, 19&+, to beco'ered by postdated checkN

c? P1##,### ## on or be!ore =o'ember 19, 19&+, to beco'ered by a postdated check

>"espondent? hereby undertakes and guaranteesthat at the time the a!oresaid postdated checks !alldue, the same should be backed up with suGcient!unds on a best eEorts basis

)hat the remaining balance o! P1&&,### ##,>respondent? hereby acknowledges the same as hisindebtedness to >complainant? to be paid by the !ormerwhen able or at his option >.omplainant? howe'erassures >respondent? that she will not institute anycollection suit against >respondent? >sic?, neither willshe transmit the same by way o! testamentarysuccession to her heirs, neither are >respondentMs?heirs liable

0 )hat the parties ha'e e$ecuted this agreement withthe 'iew o! restoring their pre'ious cordial (lialrelationship $ii 2

In accordance with the memorandum o! agreement,respondent issued to complainant the !ollowing checksL

1 5.PB .heck =o 0&7970 dated ugust 19,19&+ in the amount o! P1##,### ##N

5.PB .heck =o 0&797+ dated 8ctober 19,19&+ in the amount o! P ##,###N

5.PB .heck =o 0&797% dated =o'ember 19,19&+ in the amount o! P1##,### ##


29/33


30/33

"ule 1 # o! the same .ode, on the other hand,pro'idesL

lawyer shall not, !or any corrupt moti'e orinterest, encourage any suit or proceeding ordelay any manMs cause

"espondent 'iolated the .ode o! Pro!essional"esponsibility, as well as his oath as an attorney whenhe decei'ed his &+


31/33

/espite se'eral chances gi'en him to settle hisobligation respondent chose to e'ade complainantaltogether so that she was constrained to write him a(nal demand letter dated September 199 2preceding the (ling o! se'eral criminal complaintsagainst him !or 'iolation o! BP Blg 2 .omplainantalso (led a letter

insuGciency o! !unds

By way o! de!ense, respondent a'erred that he ga'ethe checks to complainant .o by way o! rediscountingand that these were !ully paid when he deli'ered ('ecellular phones to her 3e brushed aside theallegations o! complainant and s 8rti6 as ill ?women which caused him to be careless in his dealingswith them

8n arch 199 the .ourt re!erred this administrati'ecase to the Integrated Bar o! the Philippines !orin'estigation, report and recommendation

8n 17 ay 1997 the IBP issued a resolutionrecommending the suspension o! respondent !rom thepractice o! law !or si$ >%? months based on the!ollowing (ndings +? units o! cellularphones ha'e been deli'ered to the complainantN

)he /ecision in the criminal cases that were (led'isP+,### ##? despite complainantMsrepeated demands %?months is less than what he :ustly deser'es 3ispropin;uity !or employing deceit and

misrepresentations as well as his ca'alier attitudetowards incurring debts without the least intention o!repaying them is reprehensible )his disturbingbeha'ior cannot be tolerated most especially in alawyer who is an oGcer o! the court

@3 " F8" , respondent ))O K8/8F" /8 =B "= "/I=8 is S5SP =/ / F8" 8= >1? O " !romthe practice o! law with warning that repetition o! thesame or similar acts will merit a more se'ere penaltyHet copies o! this /ecision be !urnished all courts in theland, the Integrated Bar o! the Philippines, the 8Gce o!

the Bar .on(dant and spread in respondentMs personalrecords

S8 8"/ " /

/a'ide, Jr , >.hairman?, *itug, and apunan, JJ , concur


33/33

pale cases batch 2

Documents