Guevarra v.

Eala (2007)
Doctrines:
 Respondent’s denial is a negative pregnant, a denial pregnant with the admission of the
substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. It was in effect an
admission of the averments it was directed at. Stated otherwise, a negative pregnant is a form of
negative expression, which carries with it in affirmation, or at least an implication of some kind
favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial facts
alleged in the pleading. (see Beda notes, page 32)
 Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of the allegation as
so qualified or modified are literally denied, it has been held that the qualifying circumstance
alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted.
CivPro Codals (walang sinabi sa case directly na CivPro, so assumption ko lang ‘to - Jay)
 Sec. 10. Specific Denial. – A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of
which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters
upon which he relies to support his denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an
averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the
remainder…
 Sec. 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted. – Material averment in the
complaint, other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted
when not specifically denied…
Facts:
Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala (a.k.a. Noli Eala, former
PBA Commissioner and sportscaster), for “grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the
lawyer’s oath.”
Guevarra found out that Noli Eala, married to Mary Ann Tantoco, has an ongoing relationship
with his wife, Irene Moje. He witnessed the exchange of ‘love texts’ between the two. He also saw Moje
and Eala together in 2 occasions. In the 2nd occasion, he confronted Moje, to which Moje reacted by
leaving their conjugal home. Guevarra later found a letter from Eala addressed to Irene, dated October 7,
2000, the date of Guevarra and Moje’s wedding. And for mushiness’ sake, I quote:
‘Not even a piece of paper (Note: referring to the marriage, or as Eala alleged, only to the marriage
contract), with the man you chose to walk down the aisle with will stop me from loving you forever. I
LOVE YOU FOREVER… AS LONG AS I’M LIVING MY TWEETIE YOU’LL BE!”
Moje also gave birth to a child. And according to the birth certificate, Noli Eala was the father.
In the complaint, Guevarra averred that Eala and Moje FLAUNTED THEIR ADULTEROUS
RELATIONSHIP. Eala in his ANSWER specifically denies having ever flaunted an adulterous
relationship. Their relationship was only low profile and known only to the immediate members of
their families. Also, Eala referred to the marriage as a mere “piece of paper”. So Guevarra, in his
complaint, stated that Eala’s grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the constitution and the laws he,
as a lawyer, has been sworn to uphold. In pursuing obsessively his illicit love for the complainant’s
wife, he mocked the institution of marriage… and degrades the legal profession.
(so basically, Guevarra used the Canons 1.01 (immoral conduct) and 7.03 – the disbarment isn’t really
important since this is not a case for legal ethics, but for civPro)
Issues:
I. W/N Atty. Noli Eala should be disbarred? If yes, how come?
Held/Ratio:
I. Yes. Atty. Noli Eala should be disbarred.
In his answer, Eala specifically denied having ever flaunted his relationship with Moje,
their relationship being only low profile and only known to the immediate members of
their respective families. Eala, in his answer, also described his relationship with Moje as
not being under scandalous circumstances nor tantamount to grossly immoral conduct. So in
effect, Eala admitted that he has a special relationship with Moje. Furthermore, when the
issue on Moje’s child was presented, Eala didn’t categorically deny that the child was not
his.
In other words, Eala’s denial is a negative pregnant, a denial pregnant with the admission of
the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. It was in
effect an admission of the averments it was directed at. Stated otherwise, a negative pregnant
is a form of negative expression, which carries with it in affirmation, or at least an
implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an
admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading.

[Beda Notes Definition: Negative Pregnant is a form of denial, which at the same time
involves an affirmative implication favorable to the opposing party. It is in effect, an
admission of the averment to which it is directed. It is said to be a denial pregnant with an
admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to. Under Section 10, Rule 8, of
Beda Notes]

Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of the
allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, it has been held that the qualifying
circumstance alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted. (Perhaps even Section 11,
Rule 8 could be applied here)

In this case, there were two instances of negative pregnant, the “having flaunted their
relationship” and Eala’s denial of having personal knowledge of Moje’s daughter, as he
never denied being the father of the child.

So Eala was disbarred, due to preponderance of evidence, for having violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility (1, Rule 1.01, Canon 7), and essentially, even the lawyer’s oath,
the constitution, and the Family Code.