Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

B.M. No. 1678 December 17, 2007

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW,

BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, petitioner.

RESOLUTION

CORONA, J.:

This bar matter concerns the petition of petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay for leave to resume the practice of law.

Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced law until he migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek
medical attention for his ailments. He subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada’s free medical aid program. His
application was approved and he became a Canadian citizen in May 2004.

On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his
Philippine citizenship.1 On that day, he took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate General in
Toronto, Canada. Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines and now intends to resume his law practice. There is a question, however,
whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship in May
2004. Thus, this petition.

In a report dated October 16, 2007, the Office of the Bar Confidant cites Section 2, Rule 138 (Attorneys and Admission to Bar) of the
Rules of Court:

SECTION 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. – Every applicant for admission as a member of the
bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and a resident of the
Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges
against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.

Applying the provision, the Office of the Bar Confidant opines that, by virtue of his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, in 2006,
petitioner has again met all the qualifications and has none of the disqualifications for membership in the bar. It recommends that he be
allowed to resume the practice of law in the Philippines, conditioned on his retaking the lawyer’s oath to remind him of his duties and
responsibilities as a member of the Philippine bar.

We approve the recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant with certain modifications.

The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. 2 It is so delicately affected with public interest that it is both a power and a
duty of the State (through this Court) to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the public welfare.3

Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality, faithful observance of the rules of the
legal profession, compliance with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement and payment of membership fees to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions required for membership in good standing in the bar and for enjoying the
privilege to practice law. Any breach by a lawyer of any of these conditions makes him unworthy of the trust and confidence which the
courts and clients repose in him for the continued exercise of his professional privilege. 4

Section 1, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:

SECTION 1. Who may practice law. – Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or thereafter admitted as
such in accordance with the provisions of this Rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.

Pursuant thereto, any person admitted as a member of the Philippine bar in accordance with the statutory requirements and who is in
good and regular standing is entitled to practice law.

Admission to the bar requires certain qualifications. The Rules of Court mandates that an applicant for admission to the bar be a citizen
of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character and a resident of the Philippines.5 He must also produce
before this Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been
filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.6
Moreover, admission to the bar involves various phases such as furnishing satisfactory proof of educational, moral and other
qualifications;7 passing the bar examinations;8 taking the lawyer’s oath9 and signing the roll of attorneys and receiving from the clerk of
court of this Court a certificate of the license to practice.10

The second requisite for the practice of law ― membership in good standing ― is a continuing requirement. This means continued
membership and, concomitantly, payment of annual membership dues in the IBP; 11 payment of the annual professional
tax;12 compliance with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement; 13 faithful observance of the rules and ethics of the legal
profession and being continually subject to judicial disciplinary control. 14

Given the foregoing, may a lawyer who has lost his Filipino citizenship still practice law in the Philippines? No.

The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens save in cases
prescribed by law.15 Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates membership in the
Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso
jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners. 16

The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired
pursuant to RA 9225. This is because "all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost
their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA 9225]."17Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is
deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225. Although he is also deemed
never to have terminated his membership in the Philippine bar, no automatic right to resume law practice accrues.

Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the Philippines and he reacquires his Filipino citizenship pursuant
to its provisions "(he) shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice." 18 Stated otherwise, before
a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 can resume his law practice, he must first secure from this Court the
authority to do so, conditioned on:

(a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP;

(b) the payment of professional tax;

(c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this is specially significant to refresh the
applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal developments and

(d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an
officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.

Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as a member of the Philippine bar.

WHEREFORE, the petition of Attorney Benjamin M. Dacanay is hereby GRANTED, subject to compliance with the conditions stated
above and submission of proof of such compliance to the Bar Confidant, after which he may retake his oath as a member of the
Philippine bar.

SO ORDERED.
 EN BANC

JOSELANO GUEVARRA, A.C. No. 7136

Complainant,
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
versus AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL VELASCO, JR., and
EALA, NACHURA, JJ.
Respondent. Promulgated:
August 1, 2007

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

PER CURIAM:
Joselano Guevarra (complainant) filed on March 4, 2002 a Complaint for Disbarment[1] before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala (respondent) for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated
violation of the lawyers oath.

In his complaint, Guevarra gave the following account:

He first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainants) then-fiancee Irene Moje (Irene) introduced respondent to him as her friend
who was married to Marianne (sometimes spelled Mary Ann) Tantoco with whom he had three children.

After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, complainant noticed that from January to March 2001, Irene had been receiving from
respondent cellphone calls, as well as messages some of which read I love you, I miss you, or Meet you at Megamall.

Complainant also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the morning of the following day, and sometimes did
not go home from work. When he asked about her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parents house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy
with her work.

In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and respondent together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them
following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house.

On April 22, 2001, complainant went uninvited to Irenes birthday celebration at which he saw her and respondent celebrating with her family
and friends. Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and
hauled off all her personal belongings, pieces of furniture, and her share of the household appliances.

Complainant later found, in the masters bedroom, a folded social card bearing the words I Love You on its face, which card when unfolded
contained a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to Irene, reading:

My everdearest Irene,

By the time you open this, youll be moments away from walking down the aisle. I will say a prayer for you that you may find meaning in
what youre about to do.
Sometimes I wonder why we ever met. Is it only for me to find fleeting happiness but experience eternal pain? Is it only for us to find a true
love but then lose it again? Or is it because theres a bigger plan for the two of us?
I hope that you have experienced true happiness with me. I have done everything humanly possible to love you. And today, as you make
your vows . . . I make my own vow to YOU!

I will love you for the rest of my life. I loved you from the first time I laid eyes on you, to the time we spent together, up to the final moments
of your single life. But more importantly, I will love you until the life in me is gone and until we are together again.

Do not worry about me! I will be happy for you. I have enough memories of us to last me a lifetime. Always remember though that in my
heart, in my mind and in my soul, YOU WILL ALWAYS

. . . AND THE WONDERFUL THINGS YOU DO!

BE MINE . . . . AND MINE ALONE, and I WILL ALWAYS BE YOURS AND YOURS ALONE!
 I LOVE YOU FOREVER, I LOVE YOU FOR ALWAYS. AS LONG AS IM LIVING MY TWEETIE YOULL BE![2]

Eternally yours,

NOLI

Complainant soon saw respondents car and that of Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B 11th Street, New Manila where, as he was to later
learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was already residing. He also learned still later that when his friends saw Irene on or about January 18,
2002 together with respondent during a concert, she was pregnant.

In his ANSWER,[3] respondent admitted having sent the I LOVE YOU card on which the above-quoted letter was handwritten.
On paragraph 14 of the COMPLAINT reading:

14. Respondent and Irene were even FLAUNTING THEIR ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP as they attended social functions
together. For instance, in or about the third week of September 2001, the couple attended the launch of the Wine All You Can
promotion of French wines, held at the Mega Strip of SM Megamall B at Mandaluyong City. Their attendance was reported in
Section B of the Manila Standard issue of 24 September 2001, on page 21. Respondent and Irene were photographed together;
their picture was captioned: Irene with Sportscaster Noli Eala. A photocopy of the report is attached as Annex C.[4] (Italics and
emphasis in the original; CAPITALIZATION of the phrase flaunting their adulterous relationship supplied),

respondent, in his ANSWER, stated:

4. Respondent specifically denies having ever flaunted an adulterous relationship with Irene as alleged in
paragraph 14 of the Complaint, the truth of the matter being that their relationship was low profile and known only to the
immediate members of their respective families, and that Respondent, as far as the general public was concerned, was still
known to be legally married to Mary Anne Tantoco.[5] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

On paragraph 15 of the COMPLAINT reading:

15. Respondents adulterous conduct with the complainants wife and his apparent abandoning or neglecting of his own family,
demonstrate his gross moral depravity, making him morally unfit to keep his membership in the bar. He flaunted his aversion to
the institution of marriage, calling it a piece of paper. Morally reprehensible was his writing the love letter to complainants bride
on the very day of her wedding, vowing to continue his love for her until we are together again, as now they are. [6] (Underscoring
supplied),

respondent stated in his ANSWER as follows:

5. Respondent specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Complaint regarding

his adulterous relationship and that his acts demonstrate gross moral depravity thereby making him unfit to keep his membership
in the bar, the reason being that Respondents relationship with Irene was not under scandalous circumstances and that as far as
his relationship with his own family:

5.1 Respondent has maintained a civil, cordial and peaceful relationship with [his wife] Mary Anne as in fact they
still occasionally meet in public, even if Mary Anne is aware of Respondents special friendship with Irene.

xxxx

5.5 Respondent also denies that he has flaunted his aversion to the institution of marriage by calling the institution
of marriage a mere piece of paper because his reference [in his above-quoted handwritten letter to Irene] to the marriage
between Complainant and Irene as a piece of paper was merely with respect to the formality of the marriage
contract.[7] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Respondent admitted[8] paragraph 18 of the COMPLAINT reading:

18. The Rules of Court requires lawyers to support the Constitution and obey the laws. The Constitution regards marriage
as an inviolable social institution and is the foundation of the family (Article XV, Sec. 2).[9]

And on paragraph 19 of the COMPLAINT reading:

19. Respondents 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 complainants wife, he mocked the institution of marriage, betrayed his own family,
broke up the complainants marriage, commits adultery with his wife, and degrades the legal profession.[10] (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied),
respondent, in his ANSWER, stated:

7. Respondent specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of the Complaint, the reason being that under the
circumstances the acts of Respondent with respect to his purely personal and low profile special relationship with Irene is
neither under scandalous circumstances nor tantamount to grossly immoral conduct as would be a ground for
disbarment pursuant to Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.[11] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

To respondents ANSWER, complainant filed a REPLY,[12] alleging that Irene gave birth to a girl and Irene named respondent in the
Certificate of Live Birth as the girls father. Complainant attached to the REPLY, as Annex A, a copy of a Certificate of Live Birth [13] bearing Irenes
signature and naming respondent as the father of her daughter Samantha Irene Louise Moje who was born on February 14, 2002 at St. Lukes Hospital.

Complainants REPLY merited a REJOINDER WITH MOTION TO DISMISS[14] dated January 10, 2003 from respondent in which he denied
having personal knowledge of the Certificate of Live Birth attached to the complainants Reply. [15] Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint due to
the pendency of a civil case filed by complainant for the annulment of his marriage to Irene, and a criminal complaint for adultery against respondent
and Irene which was pending before the Quezon City Prosecutors Office.

During the investigation before the IBP-CBD, complainants Complaint-Affidavit and REPLY to ANSWER were adopted as his testimony
on direct examination.[16]Respondents counsel did not cross-examine complainant.[17]

After investigation, IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, in a 12-page REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION[18] dated October 26, 2004, found the charge against respondent sufficiently proven.
The Commissioner thus recommended[19] that respondent be disbarred for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility reading:

Rule 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Underscoring supplied),

and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code reading:

Rule 7.03: A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether
in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. (Underscoring supplied)

The IBP Board of Governors, however, annulled and set aside the Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and accordingly
dismissed the case for lack of merit, by Resolution dated January 28, 2006 briefly reading:

RESOLUTION NO. XVII-2006-06

CBD Case No. 02-936
Joselano C. Guevarra vs.
Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala
a.k.a. Noli Eala

RESOLVED to ANNUL and SET ASIDE, as it is hereby ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE, the Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner, and to APPROVE the DISMISSAL of the above-entitled case for lack of merit.[20] (Italics and emphasis in the
original)

Hence, the present petition[21] of complainant before this Court, filed pursuant to Section 12 (c), Rule 139[22] of the Rules of Court.
The petition is impressed with merit.

Oddly enough, the IBP Board of Governors, in setting aside the Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and dismissing the case
for lack of merit, gave no reason therefor as its above-quoted 33-word Resolution shows.

Respondent contends, in his Comment[23] on the present petition of complainant, that there is no evidence against him. [24] The contention
fails. As the IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner observed:

While it may be true that the love letter dated October 7, 2000 (Exh. C) and the news item published in the Manila
Standard (Exh. D), even taken together do not sufficiently prove that respondent is carrying on an adulterous relationship with
complainants wife, there are other pieces of evidence on record which support the accusation of complainant against respondent.

It should be noted that in his Answer dated 17 October 2002, respondent through counsel made the following
statements to wit: Respondent specifically denies having [ever] flaunted an adulterous relationship with Irene as alleged in
paragraph [14] of the Complaint, the truth of the matter being [that] their relationship was low profile and known only to
immediate members of their respective families . . . , and Respondent specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of the
complaint, the reason being that under the circumstances the acts of the respondents with respect to his purely personal and
low profile relationship with Irene is neither under scandalous circumstances nor tantamount to grossly immoral conduct . . .
 These statements of respondent in his Answer are an admission that there is indeed a special relationship
between him and complainants wife, Irene, [which] taken together with the Certificate of Live Birth of Samantha Louise
Irene Moje (Annex H-1) sufficiently prove that there was indeed an illicit relationship between respondent and Irene
which resulted in the birth of the child Samantha. In the Certificate of Live Birth of Samantha it should be noted that
complainants wife Irene supplied the information that respondent was the father of the child. Given the fact that the
respondent admitted his special relationship with Irene there is no reason to believe that Irene would lie or make any
misrepresentation regarding the paternity of the child. It should be underscored that respondent has not categorically
denied that he is the father of Samantha Louise Irene Moje.[25] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Indeed, from respondents ANSWER, he does not deny carrying on an adulterous relationship with Irene, adultery being defined under Art.
333 of the Revised Penal Code as that committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man
who has carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void.[26] (Italics supplied) What respondent
denies is having flaunted such relationship, he maintaining that it was low profile and known only to the immediate members of their respective families.

In other words, respondents denial is a negative pregnant,

a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. It was in
effect an admission of the averments it was directed at. Stated otherwise, a negative pregnant is a form of negative expression
which carries with it in affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant
with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language
and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, it has been held that the qualifying circumstances
alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted.[27] (Citations omitted; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

A negative pregnant too is respondents denial of having personal knowledge of Irenes daughter Samantha Louise Irene Mojes Certificate of
Live Birth. In said certificate, Irene named respondent a lawyer, 38 years old as the childs father. And the phrase NOT MARRIED is entered on the
desired information on DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE. A comparison of the signature attributed to Irene in the certificate[28] with her signature
on the Marriage Certificate[29] shows that they were affixed by one and the same person. Notatu dignum is that, as the Investigating Commissioner
noted, respondent never denied being the father of the child.

Franklin A. Ricafort, the records custodian of St. Lukes Medical Center, in his January 29, 2003 Affidavit [30] which he identified at the
witness stand, declared that Irene gave the information in the Certificate of Live Birth that the childs father is Jose Emmanuel Masacaet Eala, who was
38 years old and a lawyer.[31]

Without doubt, the adulterous relationship between respondent and Irene has been sufficiently proven by more than clearly preponderant
evidence that evidence adduced by one party which is more conclusive and credible than that of the other party and, therefore, has greater weight than
the other[32] which is the quantum of evidence needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.

Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may proceed
independently of civil and criminal cases.

. . . of proof for these types of cases differ. In a criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; in an
administrative case for disbarment or suspension, clearly preponderant evidence is all that is required.[33] (Emphasis supplied)

Respondent insists, however, that disbarment does not lie because his relationship with Irene was not, under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court, reading:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. ─ A member of the bar may be disbarred or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such
office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the
oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to
a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other disciplinatory agency in a foreign
jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action
includes any of the acts hereinabove enumerated.

The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground for
disbarment or suspension (Emphasis and underscoring supplied),

under scandalous circumstances.[34]

The immediately-quoted Rule which provides the grounds for disbarment or suspension uses the phrase grossly immoral conduct, not under
scandalous circumstances.Sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances is, following Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code reading:
 ART. 334. Concubinage. - Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual
intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall
be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

x x x x,

an element of the crime of concubinage when a married man has sexual intercourse with a woman elsewhere.

Whether a lawyers sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be characterized as grossly immoral
conduct depends on the surrounding circumstances.[35] The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is
not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly. Apropos is the following pronouncement of this Court in Vitug v. Rongcal:[36]

On the charge of immorality, respondent does not deny that he had an extra-marital affair with complainant, albeit
brief and discreet, and which act is not so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree in order to merit disciplinary sanction. We disagree.

xxxx

While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between two unmarried adults is not
sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow
of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside marriage is
considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital
vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.[37](Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

And so is the pronouncement in Tucay v. Atty. Tucay:[38]

The Court need not delve into the question of whether or not the respondent did contract a bigamous marriage . . . It
is enough that the records of this administrative case substantiate the findings of the Investigating Commissioner, as well as
the IBP Board of Governors, i.e., that indeed respondent has been carrying on an illicit affair with a married woman, a grossly
immoral conduct and indicative of an extremely low regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession. This detestable
behavior renders him regrettably unfit and undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges which his license confers
upon him.[39] (Underscoring supplied)

Respondent in fact also violated the lawyers oath he took before admission to practice law which goes:

I _________, having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the Philippines, do solemnly swear that I
recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not
wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no
man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good
fidelity as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion. So help me God. (Underscoring supplied)

Respondent admittedly is aware of Section 2 of Article XV (The Family) of the Constitution reading:

Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.

In this connection, the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209), which echoes this constitutional provision, obligates the husband and the wife to live
together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. [40]

Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.

Clutching at straws, respondent, during the pendency of the investigation of the case before the IBP Commissioner, filed a
Manifestation[41] on March 22, 2005 informing the IBP-CBD that complainants petition for nullity of his (complainants) marriage to Irene had been
granted by Branch 106 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, and that the criminal complaint for adultery complainant filed against respondent and
Irene based on the same set of facts alleged in the instant case, which was pending review before the Department of Justice (DOJ), on petition of
complainant, had been, on motion of complainant, withdrawn.

The Secretary of Justices Resolution of January 16, 2004 granting complainants Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review reads:

Considering that the instant motion was filed before the final resolution of the petition for review, we are inclined to grant
the same pursuant to Section 10 of Department Circular No. 70 dated July 3, 2000, which provides that notwithstanding the
 perfection of the appeal, the petitioner may withdraw the same at any time before it is finally resolved, in which case the appealed
resolution shall stand as though no appeal has been taken.[42] (Emphasis supplied by complainant)

That the marriage between complainant and Irene was subsequently declared void ab initio is immaterial. The acts complained of took
place before the marriage was declared null and void.[43] As a lawyer, respondent should be aware that a man and a woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife are presumed, unless proven otherwise, to have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. [44] In carrying on an extra-marital affair
with Irene prior to the judicial declaration that her marriage with complainant was null and void, and despite respondent himself being married, he
showed disrespect for an institution held sacred by the law. And he betrayed his unfitness to be a lawyer.

As for complainants withdrawal of his petition for review before the DOJ, respondent glaringly omitted to state that before complainant filed
his December 23, 2003Motion to Withdraw his Petition for Review, the DOJ had already promulgated a Resolution on September 22, 2003 reversing
the dismissal by the Quezon City Prosecutors Office of complainants complaint for adultery. In reversing the City Prosecutors Resolution, DOJ
Secretary Simeon Datumanong held:

Parenthetically the totality of evidence adduced by complainant would, in the fair estimation of the Department,
sufficiently establish all the elements of the offense of adultery on the part of both respondents. Indeed, early on,
respondent Moje conceded to complainant that she was going out on dates with respondent Eala, and this she did when complainant
confronted her about Ealas frequent phone calls and text messages to her. Complainant also personally
witnessed Moje and Eala having a rendezvous on two occasions. Respondent Eala never denied the fact that he knew Moje to be
married to complainant[.] In fact, he (Eala) himself was married to another woman. Moreover, Mojes eventual abandonment of
their conjugal home, after complainant had once more confronted her about Eala, only served to confirm the illicit relationship
involving both respondents. This becomes all the more apparent by Mojes subsequent relocation in No. 71-B, 11th Street, New
Manila, Quezon City, which was a few blocks away from the church where she had exchange marital vows with complainant.

It was in this place that the two lovers apparently cohabited. Especially since Ealas vehicle and that of Mojes were always
seen there. Moje herself admits that she came to live in the said address whereas Eala asserts that that was where he held office. The
happenstance that it was in that said address that Eala and Moje had decided to hold office for the firm that both had formed smacks
too much of a coincidence. For one, the said address appears to be a residential house, for that was where Moje stayed all throughout
after her separation from complainant. It was both respondents love nest, to put short; their illicit affair that was carried out there
bore fruit a few months later when Moje gave birth to a girl at the nearby hospital of St. Lukes Medical Center. What finally
militates against the respondents is the indubitable fact that in the certificate of birth of the girl, Moje furnished the information
that Eala was the father. This speaks all too eloquently of the unlawful and damning nature of the adulterous acts of the
respondents. Complainants supposed illegal procurement of the birth certificate is most certainly beside the point for
both respondents Eala and Moje have not denied, in any categorical manner, that Eala is the father of the child Samantha
Irene Louise Moje.[45] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

It bears emphasis that adultery is a private offense which cannot be prosecuted de oficio and thus leaves the DOJ no choice but to grant
complainants motion to withdraw his petition for review. But even if respondent and Irene were to be acquitted of adultery after trial, if the Information
for adultery were filed in court, the same would not have been a bar to the present administrative complaint.

Citing the ruling in Pangan v. Ramos,[46] viz:

x x x The acquittal of respondent Ramos [of] the criminal charge is not a bar to these [administrative] proceedings. The
standards of legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties of x x x criminal
law. Moreover, this Court, in disbarment proceedings is acting in an entirely different capacity from that which courts assume in
trying criminal case[47] (Italics in the original),

this Court in Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pools, Inc. v. Atty. Naldoza,[48] held:

Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may proceed
independently of civil and criminal cases.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Resolution No. XVII-2006-06 passed on January 28, 2006 by the Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippinesis ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.

Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Let a copy of this Decision, which is immediately executory, be made part of the records of respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant,
Supreme Court of the Philippines. And let copies of the Decision be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and circulated to all courts.
 EN BANC

DIANA RAMOS, A. C. No. 6788

Complainant, (Formerly, CBD 382)
Present:

PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
-versus- CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,*
GARCIA,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA and
REYES, JJ.

ATTY. JOSE R. IMBANG,

Respondent. Promulgated:

August 23, 2007

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

This is a complaint for disbarment or suspension[1] against Atty. Jose R. Imbang for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

THE COMPLAINT

In 1992, the complainant Diana Ramos sought the assistance of respondent Atty. Jose R. Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions against
the spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos.[2] She gave respondent P8,500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt for P5,000 only.[3]

The complainant tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases against the Jovellanoses. Oddly, respondent never allowed her to enter the courtroom
and always told her to wait outside. He would then come out after several hours to inform her that the hearing had been cancelled and rescheduled.[4] This
happened six times and for each appearance in court, respondent charged her P350.

After six consecutive postponements, the complainant became suspicious. She personally inquired about the status of her cases in the trial courts of
Bian and San Pedro, Laguna. She was shocked to learn that respondent never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed
in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).[5]

RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE
According to respondent, the complainant knew that he was in the government service from the very start. In fact, he first met the complainant when
he was still a district attorney in the Citizen's Legal Assistance Office (predecessor of PAO) of Bian, Laguna and was assigned as counsel for the
complainant's daughter.[6]

In 1992, the complainant requested him to help her file an action for damages against the Jovellanoses. [7] Because he was with the PAO and aware that
the complainant was not an indigent, he declined.[8] Nevertheless, he advised the complainant to consult Atty. Tim Ungson, a relative who was a private
practitioner.[9] Atty. Ungson, however, did not accept the complainant's case as she was unable to come up with the acceptance fee agreed
upon.[10] Notwithstanding Atty. Ungson's refusal, the complainant allegedly remained adamant. She insisted on suing the Jovellanoses. Afraid that she
might spend the cash on hand, the complainant asked respondent to keep the P5,000 while she raised the balance of Atty. Ungson's acceptance fee. [11]

A year later, the complainant requested respondent to issue an antedated receipt because one of her daughters asked her to account for the P5,000 she
had previously given the respondent for safekeeping.[12] Because the complainant was a friend, he agreed and issued a receipt dated July 15, 1992. [13]
On April 15, 1994, respondent resigned from the PAO. [14] A few months later or in September 1994, the complainant again asked respondent to assist
her in suing the Jovellanoses. Inasmuch as he was now a private practitioner, respondent agreed to prepare the complaint. However, he was unable to
finalize it as he lost contact with the complainant.[15]
RECOMMENDATION OF THE IBP

Acting on the complaint, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) where the complaint was filed,
received evidence from the parties. On November 22, 2004, the CBD submitted its report and recommendation to the IBP Board of Governors.[16]

The CBD noted that the receipt[17] was issued on July 15, 1992 when respondent was still with the PAO.[18] It also noted that respondent described the
complainant as a shrewd businesswoman and that respondent was a seasoned trial lawyer. For these reasons, the complainant would not have accepted
a spurious receipt nor would respondent have issued one. The CBD rejected respondent's claim that he issued the receipt to accommodate a friend's
request.[19] It found respondent guilty of violating the prohibitions on government lawyers from accepting private cases and receiving lawyer's fees
other than their salaries.[20] The CBD concluded that respondent violated the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from a client.

Rule 18.01. A lawyer should not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render.
However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is
competent on the matter.

Thus, it recommended respondent's suspension from the practice of law for three years and ordered him to immediately return to the complainant the
amount of P5,000 which was substantiated by the receipt.[21]

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the findings of the CBD that respondent violated Rules 1.01, 16.01 and 18.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It, however, modified the CBD's recommendation with regard to the restitution of P5,000 by imposing interest at the legal
rate, reckoned from 1995 or, in case of respondent's failure to return the total amount, an additional suspension of six months. [22]

THE COURT'S RULING

We adopt the findings of the IBP with modifications.

Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. [23] More specifically, lawyers in government service are expected to be more
conscientious of their actuations as they are subject to public scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but also public servants who owe utmost
fidelity to public service.[24]

Government employees are expected to devote themselves completely to public service. For this reason, the private practice of profession is
prohibited. Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides:

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. -- In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed
in the Constitution and existing laws, the following constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee
and are hereby declared unlawful:

xxx xxx xxx

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto, public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:

xxx xxx xxx

(1) Engage in the private practice of profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not
conflict with their official function.[25]

Thus, lawyers in government service cannot handle private cases for they are expected to devote themselves full-time to the work of their respective
offices.

In this instance, respondent received P5,000 from the complainant and issued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he was still connected with the PAO.
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship.[26] Respondent's admission that he accepted money from the complainant
and the receipt confirmed the presence of an attorney-client relationship between him and the complainant. Moreover, the receipt showed that he
accepted the complainant's case while he was still a government lawyer. Respondent clearly violated the prohibition on private practice of profession.

Aggravating respondent's wrongdoing was his receipt of attorney's fees. The PAO was created for the purpose of providing free legal assistance to
indigent litigants.[27] Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the Revised Administrative Code provides:

Sec. 14. xxx

 The PAO shall be the principal law office of the Government in extending free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal,
civil, labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases.[28]

As a PAO lawyer, respondent should not have accepted attorney's fees from the complainant as this was inconsistent with the office's
mission.[29] Respondent violated the prohibition against accepting legal fees other than his salary.

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Every lawyer is obligated to uphold the law.[30] This undertaking includes the observance of the above-mentioned prohibitions blatantly violated by
respondent when he accepted the complainant's cases and received attorney's fees in consideration of his legal services. Consequently, respondent's
acceptance of the cases was also a breach of Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because the prohibition on the private practice of
profession disqualified him from acting as the complainant's counsel.

Aside from disregarding the prohibitions against handling private cases and accepting attorney's fees, respondent also surreptitiously deceived the
complainant. Not only did he fail to file a complaint against the Jovellanoses (which in the first place he should not have done), respondent also led the
complainant to believe that he really filed an action against the Jovellanoses. He even made it appear that the cases were being tried and asked the
complainant to pay his appearance fees for hearings that never took place. These acts constituted dishonesty, a violation of the lawyer's oath not to do
any falsehood.[31]

Respondent's conduct in office fell short of the integrity and good moral character required of all lawyers, specially one occupying a public office.
Lawyers in public office are expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in
government but also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. A government
lawyer is a keeper of public faith and is burdened with a high degree of social responsibility, higher than his brethren in private practice. [32]

There is, however, insufficient basis to find respondent guilty of violating Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent did not
hold the money for the benefit of the complainant but accepted it as his attorney's fees. He neither held the amount in trust for the complainant (such
as an amount delivered by the sheriff in satisfaction of a judgment obligation in favor of the client) [33] nor was it given to him for a specific purpose
(such as amounts given for filing fees and bail bond).[34] Nevertheless, respondent should return the P5,000 as he, a government lawyer, was not entitled
to attorney's fees and not allowed to accept them.[35]
WHEREFORE, Atty. Jose R. Imbang is found guilty of violating the lawyers oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 18, Rule 18.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll
of Attorneys. He is also ordered to return to complainant the amount of P5,000 with interest at the legal rate, reckoned from 1995, within 10 days from
receipt of this resolution.

Let a copy of this resolution be attached to the personal records of respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant 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.