Adm. Case No. 3319. June 8, 2000.

* with a higher degree of social responsibility and thus must handle
LESLIE UI, complainant, vs. ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO, their personal affairs with greater caution. The facts of this case
respondent. lead us to believe that perhaps respondent would not have found
Administrative Law; Attorneys; Disbarment; Practice of law is herself in such a compromising situation had she exercised
a privilege; Requisites for admission to the practice of law.—The prudence and been more vigilant in finding out more about Carlos
practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the Ui’s personal background prior to her intimate involvement with
right to enjoy the practice of the legal profession simply by passing him.
the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject Same; Same; Same; To warrant disciplinary action, conduct
to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and must be “grossly immoral,” that is, it must be so corrupt and false
the dictates of legal ethics. The requisites for admission to the as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
practice of law are: (a) he must be a citizen of the Philippines; (b) a reprehensible to a high degree.—All these taken together leads to
resident thereof; (c) at least twenty-one (21) years of age; (d) a the inescapable conclusion that respondent was imprudent in
person of good moral character; (e) he must show that no charges managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her
against him involving moral turpitude, are filed or pending in relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what
court; (f) possess the 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
*SECOND DIVISION. respectable members of the community. Moreover, for such
39 conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be “grossly
VOL. 333, JUNE 8, 2000 39 immoral,” that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a
Ui vs. Bonifacio criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
required educational qualifications; and (g) pass the bar degree.
examinations. 40
Same; Same; Same; Possession of good moral character must 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of 0
law practice.—Clear from the foregoing is that one of the Ui vs. Bonifacio
conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must Same; Same; Same; A member of the Bar and officer of the
possess good moral character. More importantly, possession of court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships x
good moral character must be continuous as a requirement to the x x but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the
enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral
thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. standards.—We have held that “a member of the Bar and officer of
Same; Same; Same; Lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous
burdened with a higher degree of social responsibility and thus relationships x x x but must also so behave himself as to avoid
must handle their personal affairs with greater caution.—Simple scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting
as the facts of the case may sound, the effects of the actuations of those moral standards.” Respondent’s act of immediately
respondent are not only far from simple, they will have a rippling distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil
effect on how the standard norms of our legal practitioners should status belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves that
be defined. Perhaps morality in our liberal society today is a far she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral
cry from what it used to be before. This permissiveness standard of the legal profession. Complainant’s bare assertions to
notwithstanding, lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are burdened the contrary deserve no credit. After all, the burden of proof rests

respondent averred that she met Carlos Ui 2 complainant found out that her husband. Iris Bonifacio before the 41 Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the VOL. Ayala Alabang Village in Muntinlupa City. that the illicit relationship between her husband and respondent would come to an end. 2000 41 Philippines (hereinafter. Before us is an administrative complaint for disbarment and that sometime in December 1988. Bunag. however. Bonifacio immorality. Ui at the Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Quezon later on that respondent had been employed by her husband City and as a result of their marital union. JR. J. 5. This. Carlos Ui. more particularly. Carlos Ui.: However. I. III. herein complainant miserably failed to Carlos Ui admitted to complainant his relationship with do. however. 42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Respondent who is a graduate of the College of Law of the Ui vs. and that they had been living together at No.upon the complainant. DE LEON. complainant again discovered that the illicit relationship between her husband and respondent continued. had a second child. Ui. Vol. pleaded with respondent to discontinue her illicit The relevant facts are: relationship with Carlos Ui but to no avail. Lianni. _______________ 3319. p. Vol. was sometime in 1983 and had _______________ carrying on an illicit relationship with respondent Atty. they had four (4) 1 in his company. docketed as Adm. to her that she has a child with Carlos Ui and alleged. was then filed on August 11. Carlos Ui. Migallos & Jardeleza for and thought things would turn out well from then on and respondent. Lindsay and Carl Cavin. Complainant believed the representations of respondent Roco. Sometime in December 1987. respondent admitted Disbarment. Kapunan. satisfactory evidence. Leilani. 8. 527 San Carlos 42 Street. children. Iris Bonifacio with whom he begot a daughter sometime in 1986. Bonifacio . and the Court will exercise its disciplinary University of the Philippines was admitted to the Philippine powers only if she establishes her case by clear. respondent and her against Atty. 2 Records. Whereupon.. Meer & Meer for complainant. Complainant then immoral relationship with Carlos L. p. convincing and Bar in 1982. The illicit On January 24. Iris Bonifacio for allegedly carrying on an husband. A complaint for disbarment. for carrying on an illicit namely. Complainant then visited respondent at her office in the later part of June 1988 and introduced herself as ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. husband of met again with respondent sometime in March 1989 and complainant. Ui. In surnamed Ui. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. the respondent. 1971 complainant Leslie Ui married relationship persisted and complainant even came to know Carlos L. Case No. all relationship with the complainant’s husband. 1989 by the complainant 1 Records. Commission) on the ground of Ui vs. against respondent Atty. her Answer. Leslie Ui. the legal wife of Carlos Ui. 333. that everything was over between her and Carlos Meer. JUNE 8.

44 4 Records. Upon their return to 3 (Php10. continued to live averred that Carlos Ui never lived with her in Alabang. demanding to relationship” between the respondents allegedly discovered by the complainant in know if Carlos Ui has been communicating with her. complainant states. p. It was respondent who lived in Alabang in a relationship. Vol. with the knowledge. Respondent Greenhills. 7 Records. Greenhills. Carlos Ui is not illicit because they were married abroad and It would therefore be logical and safe to state that the “relationship” of that after June 1988 when respondent discovered Carlos Ui’s respondents started and was discovered by com-plainant sometime in 1987 when she and respondent Carlos were still living at No. San Juan. she cut off all her ties with him. had been prima facie established by house which belonged to her mother. The latter present allegedly malicious and groundless disbarment case continued to live with his children in their Greenhills against respondent. 10-11. December 1987. when that he resided at 26 Potsdam Street. 333. Bonifacio stated that during one of their trips abroad. that respondent knew perfectly well that Car- second marriage before they would live together. respondent Carlos left the same. USA in 1985. residence because respondent and Carlos Ui wanted to let In her Reply dated April 6.S. III.known him all along to be a bachelor. Carlos Ui ents’ funds. 17. and that lulu. 1989. the children gradually to know and accept the fact of his 7 among others. Metro Manila and they. 12. Rosalinda L. 3 Records. On March 20. 26 Potsdam Street. a few offense charged. From the above. During the pendency of the proceedings before the respondent was surprised when she was confronted by a Integrated Bar. III. By way of counterclaim. China. III. but the same was dismissed for Hawaii sometime in July 1988 and returned only in March insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause for the 1989 with her two (2) children. 4 los Ui was married to complainant and had children with her In 1986. the woman who represented herself to be the Complainant’s evidence had prima facie established the existence of the “illicit wife of Carlos Ui again came to her office. from whom he had long been estranged. complainant’s evidence. Bonifacio. Northeast true civil status. The resolution dismissing the criminal days after she reported to work with the law firm she was 5 complaint against respondent reads: connected with. illicit as complainant puts it. During one of her trips to Manila sometime in June 1988. 5 Rilloraza Africa De Ocampo & Africa Law Offices. p. Vol. p. and respondent with the crime of Concubinage Ui. that Carlos Ui had children by a Chinese woman in VOL. respondent did not live with Carlos Ui. 1990. 26. Vol. respondent sought formalized his intention to marry her and they in fact got 6 moral damages in the amount of Ten Million Pesos married in Hawaii.00) against complainant for having filed the Manila. two (2) children with Carlos Ui. it would not be amiss to conclude that altho (sic) the Metro Manila. . She Ui vs. and together at their conjugal home up to early (sic) part of 1989 or later 1988.000. _______________ _______________ 6 Records. pp. 89-5247. 2000 43 Amoy. docketed as status of Carlos Ui. respondent then left for Honolulu. this same evidence had and that the said house was built exclusively from her par. I. San Juan. Hurt and desolate upon her discovery of the true civil before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal. Hawaii and she would only return occasionally to the the reason respondent went abroad was to give birth to her Philippines to update her law practice and renew legal ties. JUNE 8. complainant also charged her husband. Vol. 43 however. respondent left the country and stayed in Hono- even at the start of her relationship with Carlos Ui. III.000. admittedly. 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 It is respondent’s contention that her relationship with 1989. No. woman who insisted that she was the lawful wife of Carlos Carlos Ui.

and also contempt 13 14 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. respondent averred that she did not have the 15 In the proceedings before the IBP Commission on Bar original copy of the marriage certificate because the same Discipline. 183 and 184 of the Revised Penal Code. Iris Bonifacio was October of a conclusion respecting the fact of cohabitation does not make the 22. that she was married to Carlos Ui on October 22. shall be _______________ punished as guilty of false testimony and shall suffer the respective penalties provided in this section. It is the contention of12 complaint be dismissed for want of evidence to establish probable cause for the complainant that such act constitutes a violation of Articles offense charged. According to complainant. a statement only Carlos Ui and respondent Atty. shall testify under oath. III. III. Vol. shall file in the Hawaii State Department of Health. Any person who. 9 Records. 11 Records. III. III. 75-78. 184. Metro Manila.S. of the Commission. and that the act of respondent in making 8 Complainant appealed the said Resolution of the Provincial false allegations in her Answer and submitting an Fiscal of Rizal to the Secretary of Justice. 1985 as claimed by respondent complainant’s evidence thereto any better/stronger (U. among penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum others. shall commit certified by the State Registrar as a true copy of the record on any of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three preceding articles of this section. and that she annexed Contempt of the Commission wherein she charged 10 such copy respondent with making false allegations in her Answer and _______________ for submitting a supporting document which was altered and Records. 183. p. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. pp.44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. JUNE 8. Ayala In her Opposition (To Motion To Cite Respondent in Alabang. the Certificate of Marriage duly 11 administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires. Vol. Vol. in evidence a false witness or testimony in any judicial or official proceeding. 14 Art. 46 10 Records. 114-115. Vol. Vol. and duly suffer the respective penalties provided therein. Bonifacio Ui vs. Contempt). 2000 45 Ui vs. 71.—The filed before the Integrated Bar. in her Answer. intercalated.—Any person who shall knowingly offer authen. pp. USA revealed that the date of marriage between the offense charged. Bonifacio . concept of husband and wife at the 527 San Carlos St. Casipong and Mongoy. 178). 125-126. She alleged that in the Answer of respondent 12 13 Art. III. WHEREFORE.. the reason for that It is worth stating that the evidence submitted by respondents in support of false allegation was because respondent wanted to impress their respective positions on the matter support and bolster the foregoing upon the said IBP that the birth of her first child by Carlos conclusion/recommendation. it is most respectfully recommended that the instant Ui was within the wedlock. 8 Records. worse. knowingly making untruthful statements and not being included in the provisions of the next preceding articles. pp. 73-74. and not October 22. The statement alone of complainant. complainant filed a Motion to Cite Respondent in was in the possession of Carlos Ui. 113-117. in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath. but the same was altered/intercalated document are indicative of her moral dismissed on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to prove 9 perversity and lack of integrity which make her unworthy to her allegation that respondent and Carlos Ui lived together be a member of the Philippine Bar. Ayala Alabang house. period shall be imposed upon any person who. pp. 15 Records. Bonifacio failed to even prima facie establish the “fact of respondent’s cohabitation in the ticated by the Philippine Consulate General in Honolulu. 46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 45 Ui vs. 133. 20 Phil. upon any material matter before a competent person authorized to her averment. Vol. III. 333. However. Muntinlupa. proof of which is necessary and indispensable to at least create probable cause for Hawaii. respondent averred. as husband and wife at 527 San Carlos Street. pp. 1985 and attached a Certificate of Marriage to substantiate or make an affidavit. vs. Offering false testimony in evidence. 1987.

herself in an immoral manner. Further. JUNE 8. 52. Bonifacio herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be from 1987 to 1985.because she relied in good faith on what appeared on the 17 18 Records. Vol. and that upon learning of this fact. Mrs. 333. does not 19 In her defense. 16 personally . a picture of a garage with cars. III.S. 278 citing TSN dated January 22. namely: Respondent posits that complainant’s evidence. Linda Bonifacio. or shameless. stated that it was Carlos Ui who testified and admitted that Iris Bonifacio and reiterated that respondent committed he was the person responsible for changing the date of the immorality by having intimate relations with a married man marriage certificate _______________ which resulted in the birth of two (2) children. pictures of 1. They have no was she who was the victim in this case and not Leslie Ui evidentiary value according to her. that upon her discovery respondent and Carlos Ui got married before complainant of his true civil status. III. respondent claims that she entered the relationship Answer had she known that the same was altered. Records. consisting of the pictures of respondent with a child. 18 dismissal of the appeal by the Department of Justice to 21 On the issue of the falsified marriage certificate. She stated respondent presented the Resolution of the Provincial Fiscal that there was no reason for her to doubt at that time that of Pasig in I. a profession. 2000 47 and raised the lone issue of whether or not she has conducted Ui vs. Case No. 47 Respondent filed her Memorandum on February 22. and complainant did not present evidence barred from the practice of law. pp. and. Further. confronted respondent and informed the latter of her earlier In the Memorandum filed on March 20. respondent contends. that it prove that she acted in an immoral manner. and picture of a light colored car with Plate No. Respondent averred that the to rebut the testimony of Carlos Ui on this matter. 89-5427 dismissing the complaint the civil status of Carlos Ui was that of a bachelor because he filed by Leslie Ui against respondent for lack of evidence to spent so much time with her. 1993. PNS 17 313 and a picture of the house and the garage. Records. a 2. p. 1995 16 VOL. bolster her argument that she was not guilty of any immoral respondent alleged that it was highly incredible for her to or illegal act because of her relationship with Carlos Ui. PNS 313. The pictures were taken because she did not know that Carlos Ui was already by a photographer from a private security agency and who married. the immediately cut-off all her ties with Carlos Ui. 1995 by 22 marriage to Carlos Ui in June 1988. she parted ways with him. flagrant. 275. respondent was not presented during the hearings. with Carlos Ui in good faith and that her conduct cannot be Respondent reiterated that there was no compelling reason considered as willful. and portion of the house and ground. among others. copy of the marriage certificate in her possession. Vol. (ii)Complainant failed to prove her allegation that respondent conducted picture of the same car. In have knowingly attached such marriage certificate to her fine. complaint should be dismissed on two (2) grounds. She fell in love with Carlos Ui place either in 1985 or 1987. (i)Respondent conducted herself in a manner consistent with the requirement of good moral character for the practice of the legal respondent with Carlos Ui. she prayed for the disbarment of Atty. 281. Complainant testified that respondent’s mother. and another picture of the same car bearing Plate No. pp. p. 265-287. and he was so open in his establish probable cause for the offense charged and the 20 courtship. respondent complainant Leslie Ui. nor can it for her to make it appear that her marriage to Carlos Ui took suggest moral indifference. because the fact remains that whom she believed to be single.

f. 49 48 VOL. Without was the Branch Manager. At no time did they live together. When she returned to the Philippines in March of 1989. Bonifacio Under the foregoing circumstances. III. 23 Records. APPROVED. when a married man courts a single woman. this sad episode destroyed her chance of having a normal and happy family that respondent. she left for the United States (in July of 1988). finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules. 19Records. a dream cherished by every single girl. The reason therefor is not hard to fathom. e. 333. Vol. 71-74. 1991. 22 Records. Vol. Vol. By their very nature. Atty. separated. the Commission fails to find any act on the knew complainant and her husband since the late 1970s part of respondent that can be considered as unprincipled or disgraceful as to be because they were clients of the bank where Mrs. p.” and. III. her mother knew Carlos Ui to be a married man does not The practice of law is a privilege. have the right to enjoy the practice of the legal profession Hearing on the case ensued.a resident thereof. status of Carlos Ui. 52. 2000 49 48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ui vs. pp. once a finding that: In the case at bar.a person of good moral character. The records will show that when respondent became aware the (sic) true civil 5. the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner In her Reply to Complainant’s Memorandum. pp. pp. Iris Bonifacio is contrary to the allegations of complainant. Vol. III. all contacts with him. Complainant likewise averred that Thereafter.at least twenty-one (21) years of age. 75-78. as it is hereby ADOPTED and intercalated date. 030. she 6. himself to be single. woman. or without any firm commitment to another 2. 4. there is no REPRIMANDED for knowingly and willfully attaching to her Answer a falsified showing that respondent had knowledge of the fact of Certificate of Marriage with a stern warning that a repetition of the same will merit a more severe penalty. To be sure. _______________ 20Records. Records. The allegation that We agree with the findings aforequoted. d. Vol. the latter represented himself to be single. 54-56. c. after which the Commission simply by passing the bar examinations. who was living with her parents as of 1986. single 3. It was thus highly improbable 23 cavil. III. and lived with her brother.he must be a citizen of the Philippines. respondent 24 in the above-entitled case. Atty. A bar candidate does not prove that such information was made known to respondent. III. pp. women prefer single men. Series of 1992 of the Department of Justice dated December 18. life. 24 Records. Respondent insists that Respondent is DISMISSED for lack of merit._______________ talked to each other because of the children whom he was allowed to visit. JUNE 8. a.possess the required educational qualifications. Teodoro Bonifacio.” marriage of Carlos Ui to complainant. Almost always. It is a privilege that on Bar Discipline submitted its Report and Recommendation. she was more of a victim that (sic) anything else and should deserve compassion rather than condemnation. 296. III. herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex stated that complainant miserably failed to show sufficient “A. The Ui. Jr.he must show that no charges against him involving moral turpitude. pp. Vol. Carlos Ui and respondent only 50 . subject to the mandate of due process. Bonifacio Ui vs. the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE. b. 1997. She broke off are filed or pending in court. 289-300. 21 Resolution No. would not have been informed by her own mother that Carlos x x x” Ui was a married man. The Commission does not find said requisites for admission to the practice of law are: claim too difficult to believe in the light of contemporary human experience. he represents 1. Bonifacio reprehensible to a high degree. it is alleged that at the time respondent was courted by Carlos lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. can be revoked. the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of respondent committed disrespect towards the Commission the Philippines issued a Notice of Resolution dated December for submitting a photocopy of a document containing an 13. 317-321. the complaint for Gross Immorality against proof to warrant her disbarment.

Upon her knowledge of the personal affairs. (Italics supplied) 25 legal practitioners should be defined. the same must be “grossly immoral. slightest effort to find out if Carlos Ui and this woman were laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment.J. cannot be 25 Ruben E. 594 (1981). indeed unmarried. the effects of the Ui vs. or shameless. The facts of this case lead us to enjoyment of the privilege of law practice. Immoral conduct has been defined as “that conduct which is willful. For immorality connotes conduct that Arciga vs. and moved her to ask moral integrity in addition to professional probity. lawyers. it must be so corrupt and false as to consti- . flagrant. This permissiveness notwithstanding. 117 Phil. Bonifacio disciplinary action. Amoy. Also. believed him to be single. it is the claim of respondent Atty. (Royong vs. she knew and courting her. For instance. or by reason of his aroused respondent’s suspicion that something was amiss in conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. relationship with Carlos Ui.S. Maniwang. Surely. 26 circumstance that is simply incomprehensible considering In the case at bar. clothed as it was with what _______________ respondent believed was a valid marriage. as admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good keepers of public faith. 959). Bonifacio actuations of respondent are not only far from simple. A lawyer may be disbarred for “grossly immoral conduct. she left him. It has herself in such a compromising situation had she exercised been held— prudence and been more vigilant in finding out more about If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar.” that is. Oblena. Agpalo. probing questions. 2000 51 opinion of good and respectable members of the community. Moreover. China. otherwise. and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and Carlos Ui never lived with respondent and their first child. they will have a rippling effect on how the standard norms of our 1. considered immoral. respondent admitted that 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 she knew that Carlos Ui had children with a woman from obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. for such conduct to warrant 27 Ui vs. are burdened with a higher degree of moral character. JUNE 8. g. More importantly.” A member of the bar should have her relationship with Carlos Ui. the loss believe that perhaps respondent would not have found thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. Respondent fell in love with him All these taken together leads to the inescapable and they got married and as a result of such marriage.pass the bar examinations. circumstances existed which should have at least 865).” (7 C. 26 shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the 51 VOL. However. when a lawyer ceases to have good moral character. the fact remains that her true civil status of Carlos Ui. Legal Ethics (1985). then the continued possession of good moral character is also a requisite for retaining Carlos Ui’s personal background prior to her intimate membership in the legal profession. despite their marriage in 1987. possession of good moral social responsibility and thus must handle their personal character must be continuous as a requirement to the affairs with greater caution. Membership in the bar may be terminated involvement with him. she conclusion that respondent was imprudent in managing her gave birth to two (2) children.50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Simple as the facts of the case may sound. yet it appeared that she never exerted the The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight. Perhaps morality in our liberal society today is a far cry from what it used to be Clear from the foregoing is that one of the conditions prior to before. 106 SCRA 591. a respectable members of the community. respondent’s allegation that Carlos Ui was very open in Bonifacio that when she met Carlos Ui. 333.

Puno. 1963. 333. 586. Iris L. any prudent lawyer would verify the Note. Chairman). Wong. April 29. Bonifacio We have held that “a member of the Bar and officer of the stances contained therein. herein complainant 30 However. Aspiras. After all. it is contrary to human altering date on marriage certificate and with warning experience and highly improbable. is powers only if she establishes her case by clear. Bonifacio. 591-593. and Quingwa vs. convincing hereby DISMISSED. ceremony. for alleged immorality. Narag. positions as officers of the court demand no less than the Complainant’s bare assertions to the contrary deserve no highest degree of morality.J.. but respondent reprimanded for when she got married. 291 SCRA 454. 630. December 28.” Respondent’s act of 29 to the highest standards of morality. 19 52 SCRA 439-440. Oblena. with a attached by respondent to her Answer. 7 SCRA 869-870. New Rules of Court. the defense of good relationships x x x but must also so behave himself as to faith of respondent on that point cannot stand. the burden of proof rests upon the WHEREFORE.. and the Court will exercise its disciplinary respondent Atty. Rule 138. Simbol. Bonifacio 53 tute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible VOL. C. For an event as significant as a marriage SO ORDERED. Soberano vs.—The practice of law is a privilege granted only to information contained in an attachment to her pleading. 2000 53 to a high degree. concur. Simply stated. 1967. credit. avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly flouting those moral standards. Mendoza. 63 SCRA 667. In attaching such Marriage court is not only required to refrain from adulterous Certificate with an intercalated date. against repetition of similar offense. It is difficult to fathom how a bride. 16 SCRA 623. and satisfactory evidence. her by Carlos Ui. Their exalted the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession. year of her marriage. with an altered or intercalated date thereof. attaching to her Answer a photocopy of her Marriage Certifi On the matter of the falsified Certificate of Marriage cate. 1956. 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 29 Ibid. free from indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Furthermore. we find improbable to STERN WARNING that a more severe sanction will be believe the averment of respondent that she merely relied on imposed on her for any repetition of the same or similar the photocopy of the Marriage Certificate which was provided offense in the future._______________ 28 Reyes vs. respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED for miserably failed to do. 1966. 464 (1998). Villanueva. 6 SCRA 893. Bolivar vs. JUNE 8. Royong vs. February 28. 673 citing Section 27. any normal bride would verily recall the date and Bellosillo (Actg. those who possess the strict intellectual and moral especially so when she has personal knowledge of the facts qualifications required of lawyers who are instruments in the and circum- _______________ . 100 Phil. 895. This. 30 Ibid. 27 Narag vs. 444-445. especially a lawyer as in the case at bar. can forget the year Complaint dismissed. Quisumbing and Buena. April 30. Ui vs. 28 Ui vs. Mortel vs. Lawyers are called discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar. the complaint for disbarment against complainant. JJ. The legal profession immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon exacts from its members nothing less.

effective and efficient administration of justice. (In Re: Al Argosino. 270 SCRA 26 [1997]) ——o0o——   .