VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 451: Narag vs. Narag

11/6/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 291
VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 451

Narag vs. Narag
*
A.C. No. 3405. June 29, 1998.
JULIETA B. NARAG, complainant, vs. ATTY.

DOMINADOR M. NARAG, respondent.
Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Immorality; Disbarment; Good moral

character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law,
but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar.—Thus,
good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the
practice of law, but a continuing qualification for all members of
the bar. Hence, when a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral
conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.
Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Immoral conduct is

that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show
indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the
community.—Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct
which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference
to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.
Furthermore, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly
________________
* EN BANC.
452
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Narag vs. Narag
immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal

act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or
committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to
shock the common sense of decency.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e3f7aaebcd411cf2a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/24
Same; Same; Same; A member of the Bar and officer of the

court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships
or the keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to
avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is
flouting those moral standards.—We explained in Barrientos vs.
Daarol that, “as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact
be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good
moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest
moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of
the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from
adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must
also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.”
Same; Same; Same; Burden of Proof; Quantum of Proof; The

burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the Supreme
Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if she establishes her
case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence.—Respondent
Narag is accused of gross immorality for abandoning his family in
order to live with Gina Espita. The burden of proof rests upon the
complainant, and the Court will exercise its disciplinary power
only if she establishes her case by clear, convincing and
satisfactory evidence.
Same; Same; Same; Evidence; Handwritings; Handwriting

may be proved through a comparison of one set of writings with
those admitted or treated by the respondent as genuine.—Further,
the complainant presented as evidence the love letters that
respondent had sent to Gina. In these letters, respondent clearly
manifested his love for Gina and her two children, whom he
acknowledged as his own. In addition, complainant also submitted
as evidence the cards that she herself had received from him.
Guided by the rule that handwriting may be proved through a
comparison of one set of writings with those admitted or treated
by the respondent as genuine, we affirm that the two sets of
evidence were written by one and the same person. Besides,
respondent did not present any evidence to prove that the love
letters were not really written by him; he merely denied that he
wrote them.
453
VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 453
Narag vs. Narag
Same; Same; Same; Burden of Proof; While the burden of

proof is upon the complainant, respondent has the duty not only to
himself but also to the court to show that he is morally fit to
remain a member of the bar.—While the burden of proof is upon
the complainant, respondent has the duty not only to himself but
also to the court to show that he is morally fit to remain a
member of the bar. Mere denial does not suffice. Thus, when his
moral character is assailed, such that his right to continue
practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, he must meet the
charges squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the
investigating body and this Court, that he is morally fit to have
his name in the Roll of Attorneys. This he failed to do.
Same; Same; Same; Parent and Child; Parents have not only
rights but also duties—e.g., to support, educate and instruct their
children according to right precepts and good example; and to give
them love, companionship and understanding, as well as moral
and spiritual guidance.—Respondent may have provided well for
his family—they enjoyed a comfortable life and his children
finished their education. He may have also established himself as
a successful lawyer and a seasoned politician. But these
accomplishments are not sufficient to show his moral fitness to
continue being a member of the noble profession of law. We
remind respondent that parents have not only rights but also
duties—e.g., to support, educate and instruct their children
according to right precepts and good example; and to give them
love, companionship and understanding, as well as moral and
spiritual guidance. As a husband, he is also obliged to live with
his wife; to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity; and to
render help and support.
Same; Same; Same; Husband and Wife; A husband is not

merely a man who has contracted marriage—he is a partner who
has solemnly sworn to love and respect his wife and remain
faithful to her until death.—Although respondent piously claims
adherence to the sanctity of marriage, his acts prove otherwise. A
husband is not merely a man who has contracted marriage.
Rather, he is a partner who has solemnly sworn to love and
respect his wife and remain faithful to her until death. We
reiterate our ruling in Cordova vs. Cordova: “The moral
delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to
continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally
accepted moral standards of the community, conduct for instance,
which makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution
454
Narag vs. Narag
of marriage.” In Toledo vs. Toledo, the respondent was disbarred

from the practice of law, when he abandoned his lawful wife and
cohabited with another woman who had borne him a child.
Same; Same; Same; Disbarment; A lawyer may be disbarred

for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in
honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an
officer of the court.—In the present case, the complainant was
able to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that
respondent had breached the high and exacting moral standards
set for members of the law profession. As held in Maligsa vs.
Cabanting, “a lawyer may be disbarred for any misconduct,
whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him
to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good
demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.”
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Bugaring, Piedad, Oliva and Associates Law Offices
for complainant.
Domingo Cayosa, Jr. for respondent.
PER CURIAM:
Good moral character is a continuing qualification required

of every member of the bar. Thus, when a lawyer fails to
meet the exacting standard of moral integrity, the Supreme
Court may withdraw his or her privilege to practice law.
On November 13, 1989,1 Mrs. Julieta B. Narag filed an
administrative complaint for disbarment against her
husband, Atty. Dominador M. Narag, whom she accused of
having vio-
________________
1 See records, Vol. I, pp. 1-2. Attached therein are photocopies of the
marriage contract of the couple and of two “love letters” written by the
respondent to his paramour.
455
VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 455

Narag vs. Narag
lated Canons
2
1 and 6, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Ethics for
Lawyers.
The complainant narrated:
“The St. Louis College of Tuguegarao engaged the services of Atty.

Dominador M. Narag in the early seventies as a full-time college
instructor in the College of Arts and Sciences and as a professor
in the Graduate School. In 1984, Ms. Gina Espita, 17 years old
and a first year college student, enrolled in subjects handled by
Atty. Narag. Exerting his influence as her teacher, and as a
prominent member of the legal profession and then member of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Tuguegarao, Atty. Narag courted Ms.
Espita, gradually lessening her resistance until the student
acceded to his wishes.
They then maintained an illicit relationship known in various
circles in the community, but which they managed to keep from
me. It therefore came as a terrible embar[r]assment to me, with
unspeakable grief and pain when my husband abandoned us, his
family, to live with Ms. Espita, in utterly scandalous
circumstances.
It appears that Atty. Narag used his power and influence as a
member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan to cause
the employment of Ms. Espita at the Department of Trade and
Industry Central Office at Makati, Metro Manila. Out of gratitude
perhaps, for this gesture, Ms. Espita agreed to live with Atty.
Narag, her sense of right[e]ousness and morals completely
corrupted by a member of the Bar.
It is now a common knowledge in the community that Atty.
Dominador M. Narag has abandoned us, his family, to live with a
22-year-old
3
woman, who was his former student in the tertiary
level[.]”
This Court, in a Resolution dated December 18, 1989,

referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
4
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
________________
2 Code of Professional Responsibility.

3 Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-2.
4 Records, Vol. I, p. 11.
456

Narag vs. Narag
On June 26, 1990, the office of then Chief Justice Marcelo

B. Fernan received from complainant another letter
seeking the dismissal of the administrative complaint. She
alleged therein that (1) she fabricated the allegations in her
complaint to humiliate and spite her husband; (2) all the
love letters between the respondent and Gina Espita were
forgeries; and (3) she was suffering from “emotional
confusion arising from extreme jealousy.” The truth, she
stated, was that her husband had remained a faithful and
responsible family man. She further asserted that he had
neither entered into an amorous relationship
5
with one Gina
Espita nor abandoned his family. 6
Supporting her letter7
were an Affidavit of Desistance and a Motion to Dismiss,
attached as Annexes A and B, which 8
she filed before the
IBP commission on bar discipline. In a Decision 9
dated
October 8, 1991, the IBP Board of Governors dismissed
10
the
complaint of Mrs. Narag for failure to prosecute.
The case took an unexpected
11
turn when, on12 November
25, 1991, this Court received another letter from the
complain-
________________
5 Records, Vol. II, pp. 13-14.

8 The Court noted the letter in its Resolution, dated July 30, 1990, and
referred the same to the IBP. See records, Vol. II, p. 19.
9 Signatories therein are Numeriano G. Tanopo, Jr., president; Ernesto
S. Salunat, Jose Aguila Grapilon, Beda G. Fajardo, Baldomero C. Estenzo,
Rene C. Villa and Teodoro D. Nano, Jr., governors of Northern Luzon
Region, Southern Luzon Region, Bicolandia Region, Eastern Visayas
Region, Western Visayas Region and Eastern Mindanao Region,
respectively; Mervyn G. Encanto, executive vice president; and Romeo T.
Capulong and Didagen P. Dilangalen, governors of Central Luzon Region
and Western Mindanao Region, respectively.
10 Records, Vol. III, pp. 34-37.
11 Through the office of then Chief Justice Fernan.
12 Dated November 11, 1991.
457
VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 457

Narag vs. Narag
13
ant, with her seven children as co-signatories, again
appealing for the disbarment of her husband. She
explained that she had earlier dropped the case14 against

him because of his continuous threats against her.
In his Comment on the complainant’s letter of November
11, 1991, filed in compliance
15
with this Court’s Resolution
issued on July 6, 1992, respondent prayed that the
decision of the Board of Governors be affirmed. Denying
that he had threatened, harassed or intimidated his wife,
he alleged that
16
she had voluntarily executed
17
her Affidavit
of Desistance and Motion to Dismiss, even appearing
before the investigating officer, Commissioner Racela, to
testify under oath “that she prepared the Motion to
Dismiss and Affidavit of Desistance on her own free will
and affirmed the contents thereof.”
In addition, he professed his love for his wife and his
children and denied abandoning his family to live with his
paramour. However, he described his wife as a person
emotionally disturbed, viz.:
“What is pitiable here is the fact that Complainant is an incurably

jealous and possessive woman, and every time the streak of
jealousy rears its head, she fires off letters or complaints against
her husband in every conceivable forum, all without basis, and
purely on impulse, just to satisfy the consuming demands of her
‘loving’ jealousy. Then, as is her nature, a few hours afterwards,
when her jealousy cools off, she repents and feels sorry for her
acts against the Respondent. Thus, when she wrote the Letter of
November 11, 18
1991, she was then in the grips of one of her bouts
of jealousy.”
________________
13 The children are Genevieve Narag Bautista, Dominador B. Narag,

Jr., Randolph B. Narag, Jervis B. Narag, Rowena Narag Addun, Cheryl
Rita B. Narag and Christiana B. Narag.
14 Records, Vol. III, p. 23. The letter was forwarded to the Office of the
Bar Confidant on December 2, 1991.
15 Records, Vol. III, pp. 40-42.
17 Ibid., pp. 17-18.
18 Ibid., pp. 40-41.
458

Narag vs. Narag
On August 24, 1992, this Court issued another Resolution

19
referring the Comment of respondent to the IBP. In the
hearing before IBP Commissioner 20

Plaridel C. Jose,
respondent alleged the following:
“2. Your Respondent comes from very poor parents who have
left him not even a square meter of land, but gave him the
best legacy in life: a purposeful and meaningful education.
Complainant comes from what she claims to be very rich
parents who value material possession more than
education and the higher and nobler aspirations in life.
Complainant abhors the poor.
3. Your Respondent has a loving upbringing, nurtured in the
gentle ways of love, forgiveness, humility, and concern for
the poor. Complainant was reared and raised in an
entirely different environment. Her value system is the
very opposite.
4. Your Respondent loves his family very dearly, and has
done all he could in thirty-eight (38) years of marriage to
protect and preserve his family. He gave his family
sustenance, a comfortable home, love, education,
companionship, and most of all, a good and respected
name. He was always gentle and compassionate to his
wife and children. Even in the most trying times, he
remained calm and never inflicted violence on them. His
children are all now full-fledged professionals, mature,
and gainfully employed. x x x
x x x x x x x x x
Your Respondent subscribes to the sanctity of marriage as a
social institution.
On the other hand, consumed by insane and unbearable
jealousy, Complainant has been systematically and unceasingly
destroying the very foundations of their marriage and their
family. Their marriage has become a torture chamber in which
Your Respondent has been incessantly BEATEN, BATTERED,
BRUTALIZED, TORTURED, ABUSED, and HUMILIATED,
physically, mentally, and emotionally, by the Complainant, in
public and at home. Their marriage has become a nightmare.
For thirty-eight years, your Respondent suffered in silence and
bore the pain of his misfortune with dignity and with almost
infinite
________________
19 Records, Vol. III, p. 44.

20 Compiled Answer/Comment and Counter-Affidavits, records, Vol. II, pp. 1-11.
459
VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 459

Narag vs. Narag
patience, if only to preserve their family and their marriage. But

this is not to be. The Complainant never mellowed and never
became gentl[e], loving, and understanding. In fact, she became
more fierce and predatory.
Hence, at this point in time, the light at the tunnel for Your
Respondent does not seem in sight. The darkness continues to
shroud the marital and familial landscape.
Your Respondent has to undergo a catharsis, a liberation from
enslavement. Paraphrasing Dorfman in ‘Death and the Maiden,’
can the torturer and the tortured co-exist and live together?
Hence, faced with an absolutely uncomprehending and
uncompromising mind whose only obsession now is to destroy,
destroy, and destroy, Your Respondent, with perpetual regret and
with great sorrow, filed a Petition for Annulment of Marriage,
Spl. Proc. No. 566, RTC, Branch III, Tuguegarao, Cagayan. x x x.
5. Complainant is a violent husband-beater, vitriolic and
unbending. But your Respondent never revealed these destructive
qualities to other people. He preserved the good name and dignity
of his wife. This is in compliance with the marital vow to love,
honor or obey your spouse, for better or for worse, in sickness and
in health . . . Even in this case, Your Respondent never revealed
anything derogatory to his wife. It is only now that he is
constrained to reveal all these things to defend himself.
On the other hand, for no reason at all, except a jealous rage,
Complainant tells everyone, everywhere, that her husband is
worthless, good-for-nothing, evil and immoral. She goes to colleges
and universities, professional organizations, religious societies,
and all other sectors of the community to tell them how evil, bad
and immoral her husband is. She tells them not to hire him as
professor, as Counsel, or any other capacity because her husband
is evil, bad, and immoral. Is this love? Since when did love become
an instrument to destroy a man’s dearest possession in life—his
good name, reputation and dignity?
Because of Complainant’s virulent disinformation campaign
against her husband, employing every unethical and immoral
means to attain his ends, Your Respondent has been irreparably
and irreversibly disgraced, shamed, and humiliated. Your
Respondent is not a scandalous man. It is he who has 21
been
mercilessly scandalized and crucified by the Complainant.”
________________
21 Ibid., pp. 1-3.
460

Narag vs. Narag
To prove the alleged propensity of his wife to file false

charges, respondent presented as evidence the following
list of the complaints she had filed against him and Gina
Espita:
“3.1 Complaint for Immorality/Neglect of Duty x x x

3.2 Complaint for Immorality/Neglect of Duty, DILG,
Adm. Case No. P-5-90. x x x
3.3 Complaint for Concubinage. Provincial Prosecutor’s
Office of Cagayan. I.S. No. 89-114. x x x
3.4 Complaint for Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices and
Concubinage. OMBUDSMAN Case No. 1-92-0083. x
xx
3.5 Complaint for Civil Support. RTC, Tuguegarao,
Civil Case No. 4061. DISMISSED.
3.6 Complaint for Concubinage. Provincial Prosecutor’s
Office of Cagayan. I.S. No. 92-109. DISMISSED. (x
x x). Complainant filed Motion for Reconsideration.
DENIED. (x x x).
3.7 Complaint for Disbarment (x x x) with S[upreme]
C[ourt]. Withdrawn (x x x). DISMISSED by IBP
Board of Governors (x x x). Re-instituted (x x x).
3.8 Complaint for Disbarment, again (x x x). Adm. Case
No. 3405. Pending.
3.9 Complaint for Concubinage, again 22(x x x). Third
MCTC, Tumauini, Isabela. Pending.”
In his desperate effort to exculpate himself, he averred:
“I. That all the alleged love letters and envelopes (x x x), picture (x
x x) are inadmissible in evidence as enunciated by the Supreme
Court in ‘Cecilia Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,’ G.R. No.
107383, February 20, 1996. (x x x).
x x x x x x x x x
II. That respondent is totally innocent of the charges: He never
courted Gina Espita in the Saint Louis College of Tuguegarao. He
never caused the employment of said woman in the DTI. He never
had or is having any illicit relationship with her anywhere, at any
time. He never lived with her as husband and wife anywhere at
any time, be it in Centro Tumauini or any of its barangays, or in
any
________________
22 Ibid., pp. 8-9.
461
VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 461

Narag vs. Narag
other place. He never begot a child or children with her. Finally,

respondent submits that all the other allegations of Mrs. Narag
are false and fabricated, x x x
x x x x x x x x x
III. Respondent never abandoned his family[.] Mrs. Narag and

her two sons forcibly drove respondent Narag out of the
conjugal home. After that, Atty. Narag tried to return to
the conjugal home many times with the help of mutual
friends to save the marriage and the family from collapse.
He tried several times to reconcile with Mrs. Narag. In
fact, in one of the hearings of the disbarment case, he
offered to return home and to reconcile with Mrs. Narag.
But Mrs. Narag refused all these efforts of respondent
Narag. x x x
IV. Complainant Julieta B. Narag is an unbearably jealous,
violent, vindictive, scandalous, virulent and merciless wife
since the beginning of the marriage, who incessantly beat,
battered, brutalized, tortured, abuse[d], scandalized, and
humiliated respondent Atty. Narag, physically, mentally,
emotionally, and psychologically, x x x.
V. Complainant Julieta Narag’s claim in her counter-
manifestation dated March 28, 1996, to the effect that the
affidavit of Dominador B. Narag, Jr., dated February 27,
1996 was obtained through force and intimidation, is not
true. Dominador, Jr., executed his affidavit freely,
voluntarily, and absolutely without force or intimidation,
as shown by the transcript of stenographic notes of the
testimonies of Respondent Atty. Narag and Tuguegarao
MTC Judge Dominador Garcia during the trial of
Criminal Case No. 12439, People vs. Dominador M. Narag,
et al., before the Tuguegarao MTC on May 3, 1996. x x x.x
x x x x x x x x
VI. Respondent Atty. Narag is now an old man—a senior
citizen of 63 years—sickly, abandoned, disgraced,
weakened and debilitated by progressively degenerative
gout and arthritis, and hardly able to earn his own keep.
His very physical, medical, psychological, and economic
conditions render him unfit and unable to do the things
attributed to him by the complainant. Please see the
attached medical certificates, x x x, among many other
similar certificates touching on the same 23ailments.

Respondent is also suffering from hypertension.”
________________
23 Memorandum for the Respondent, pp. 1-6; records, Vol. IV, pp. 299-
304.
462

Narag vs. Narag
On July24
18, 1997, the investigating officer submitted his
report, recommending the indefinite suspension of Atty.
Narag from the practice of law. The material portions of
said report read as follows:
“Culled from the voluminous documentary and testimonial

evidence submitted by the contending parties, two (2) issues are
relevant for the disposition of the case, namely:
a) Whether there was indeed a commission of alleged

abandonment of respondent’s own family and [whether he
was] living with his paramour, Gina Espita;
b) Whether the denial under oath that his illegitimate
children with Gina Espita (Aurelle Dominic and Kyle
Dominador) as appearing on paragraph 1(g) of
respondent’s Comment vis-a-vis his handwritten love
letters, the due execution and contents of which, although
he objected to their admissibility for being allegedly
forgeries, were never denied by him on the witness stand
much less presented and offered proof to support
otherwise.
Except for the testimonies of respondent’s witnesses whose

testimonies tend to depict the complaining wife, Mrs. Narag, as
an incurably jealous wife and possessive woman suffering
everytime with streaks of jealousy, respondent did not present
himself on the witness stand to testify and be cross-examined on
his sworn comment; much less did he present his alleged
paramour, Gina Espita, to disprove the adulterous relationship
between him and their having begotten their illegitimate
children, namely: Aurelle Dominic N. Espita and Kyle Dominador
N. Espita. Worse, respondent’s denial that he is the father of the
two is a ground for disciplinary sanction (Marcayda v. Naz, 125
SCRA 467).
Viewed from all the evidence presented, we find the respondent

subject to 25 disciplinary action as a member of the legal
profession.”
26
In its Resolution issued on August 23, 1997, the IBP
adopted and approved the investigating commissioner’s
rec-
________________
24 Records, Vol. I, pp. 17-59.

25 Report by Comm. Plaridel C. Jose, pp. 42-43; records, Vol. I, pp. 58-
59.
26 Ibid., pp. 15-16.
463
VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 463

Narag vs. Narag
ommendation 27
for the indefinite suspension of the
respondent. Subsequently, the complainant sought the
disbarment of her husband in a Manifestation/Comment
she filed on October 20, 1997. The IBP granted this stiffer
penalty and, in its Resolution dated November 30, 1997,
denied respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration.
After a careful scrutiny of the records of the proceedings
and the evidence presented by the parties, we find that the
conduct of respondent warrants the imposition of the
penalty of disbarment.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
“Rule 1.01—A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,

immoral or deceitful conduct.”
“CANON 7—A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of
the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03—A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in
public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.”
Thus, good28
moral character is not only a condition
precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing
qualification for all members of the bar. Hence, when a
lawyer is found guilty of29 gross immoral conduct, he may be
suspended or disbarred.
________________
27 Notice of Resolution from the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline,

Board of Governors, Pasig City, signed by National Secretary Roland B.
Inting. A copy of said notice was received by the Office of the Bar
Confidant on September 16, 1997. Records, Vol. I, pp. 15-16.
28 §2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides: “Every applicant for
admission as a member of the bar must be x x x of good moral character;
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.”
(Italics supplied)
29 §27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
464

Narag vs. Narag
Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is

so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to
the opinion30 of good and respectable members of the
community. Furthermore, such conduct must not only be
immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so
corrupt as to constitute a criminal act31 or so unprincipled as
to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under
such scandalous or revolting
32
circumstances as to shock the
common sense of decency. 33
We explained in Barrientos vs. Daarol that, “as officers
of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral
character but must also be seen to be of good moral
character and leading lives in accordance with the highest
moral standards of the community. More specifically, a
member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only
required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the
keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to
avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he
is flouting those moral standards.”
Respondent Narag is accused of gross immorality for
abandoning his family in order to live with Gina Espita.
The burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the
Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if she
establishes
34
her case by clear, convincing and satisfactory
evidence.
________________
30 7 C.J.S., §14, p. 826; Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed., p. 751 citing In
re Monaghan, 126 VT, 53m 222 A.2d 665, 674; and Philippine Law
Dictionary, 3rd ed., p. 447, citing Arciga vs. Maniwang, 106 SCRA 594,
August 14, 1981.
31 Reyes vs. Wong, 63 SCRA 667, 673, January 29, 1975.
32 Royong vs. Oblena, 7 SCRA 859, 869-870, April 30, 1963.
33 218 SCRA 30, 40, January 29, 1993, per curiam, citing Tolosa vs.
Cargo, 171 SCRA 21, 26, March 8, 1989, per Feliciano, J.
34 Noriega vs. Sison, 125 SCRA 293, 297-298, October 27, 1983; Santos
vs. Dichoso, 84 SCRA 622, 627, August 22, 1989; Adarne vs. Aldaba, 83
SCRA 734, 739, June 27, 1978; Arboleda vs. Gatchalian, 58 SCRA 64, 67,
July 23, 1974; and Go vs. Candoy, 21 SCRA 439, 442, October 23, 1967.
465
VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 465

Narag vs. Narag
Presented
35
by complainant as 36 witnesses, aside from 37
herself, were: Charlie 38
Espita, 39
Magdalena Bautista, 40
Bienvenido Eugenio, 41Alice Carag, Dr. Jervis
42
B. Narag,
Dominador Narag, Jr., and Nieves F. Reyes.
Charlie Espita, brother of the alleged paramour Gina
Espita, corroborated complainant’s charge against
respondent in these categorical statements he gave to the
investigating officer:
“Q Mr. Witness, do you know Atty. Narag?

A Yes, Your Honor, he is the live-in partner of my sister,
Gina Espita.
Q If Atty. Narag is here, can you point [to] him?
A Yes, sir.
(Witness pointed to the respondent, Atty. Dominador
Narag)
Q Why do you know Atty. Narag?
ATTY. NARAG:
Already answered. He said I am the live-in partner.
CONTINUATION OF THE DIRECT
A Because he is the live-in partner of my sister and that
they are now living together as husband and wife and
that they already have two children, Aurelle Dominic
and Kyle Dominador.
43
x x x x x x x x x”
During cross-examination conducted by the respondent

himself, Charlie Espita repeated his account that his sister
________________
35 TSN, September 22, 1993, pp. 15-46.

36 Ibid., pp. 28-134.
37 TSN, November 3, 1993, pp. 16-41.
38 Ibid., pp. 42-55.
39 Ibid., pp. 58-71.
40 TSN, November 4, 1993, pp. 5-34.
41 Ibid., pp. 35-64.
42 TSN, January 17, 1994, pp. 3-14.
43 TSN, September 22, 1993, pp. 31-32.
466

Narag vs. Narag
Gina was living with the respondent, with whom she had
two children:
“Q Mr. Espita, you claim that Atty. Narag is now living

with your sister as husband and wife. You claim that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Why do you say that?
A Because at present you are living together as husband
and wife and you have already two children and I know
that that is really an immoral act which you cannot
just allow me to follow since my moral values don’t
allow me that my sister is living with a married man
like you.
Q How do you know that Atty. Narag is living with your
sister? Did you see them in the house?
A Yes, si[r].
x x x x x x x x x
Q You said also that Atty. Narag and your sister have
two children, Aurelle Dominic and Kyle Dominador, is
it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q How do you know that they are the children of Atty.
Narag?
A Because you are staying44
together in that house and you
have left your family.”
In addition, Charlie Espita admitted (1) that it was he who

handed to Mrs. Narag the love letters respondent had sent
to his sister, and (2) that Atty. Narag tried to dissuade
45
him
from appearing at the disbarment proceedings.
Witness Bienvenido Eugenio strengthened the testimony
of Charlie Espita in this wise:
“Q Mr. Witness, do you know the respondent in this case?

A I know him very well, sir.
Q Could you please tell us why do you know him?
________________
44 Ibid., pp. 85-89.

45 Ibid., pp. 39 and 75.
467
VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 467

Narag vs. Narag
A Because he was always going to the house of my son-in-

law by the name of Charlie Espita.
x x x x x x x x x
Q Mr. Eugenio, do you know the residence of Atty.
Dominador M. Narag?
A At that time, he [was] residing in the house of Reynaldo
Angubong, sir.
Q And this is located where?
A Centro Tamauini, Isabela, sir.
Q And you specifically, categorically state under oath that
this is the residence of Atty. Narag?
A Yes, sir.
x x x x x x x x x
Q And under oath this is where Atty. Narag and Gina
Espita are allegedly living as husband and wife, is it
not?
46
A Yes, sir.”
Witness Nieves Reyes, a neighbor and friend of the

estranged couple, testified that she learned from the Narag
children—Randy, Bong and Rowena—that their father left
his family, that she and her husband prodded the
complainant to accept the respondent back, that the Narag
couple again separated when the respondent “went back to

his woman,”
47
and that Atty. Narag had maltreated his
wife.
On the strength of the testimony of her witnesses, the
complainant was able to establish that respondent
abandoned his family and lived with another woman.
Absent any evidence showing that these witnesses had an
ill motive to testify falsely against the respondent, their
testimonies are deemed worthy of belief.
Further, the complainant presented as evidence the love
letters that respondent had sent to Gina. In these letters,
respondent clearly manifested his love for Gina and her
two children, whom he acknowledged as his own. In
addition,
________________
46 TSN, November 3, 1993, pp. 43-44, 47-48 and 51.

47 TSN, January 17, 1994, pp. 6-8 and 11.
468

Narag vs. Narag
complainant also submitted as evidence the cards that she

herself had received from him. Guided by the rule that
handwriting may be proved through a comparison of one
set of writings with those admitted or treated by the
respondent as genuine, we affirm that the two sets of 48
evidence were written by one and the same person.
Besides, respondent did not present any evidence to prove
that the love letters were not really written by him; he
merely denied that he wrote them.
While the burden of proof is upon the complainant,
respondent has the duty not only to himself but also to the
court to show that he is morally fit to remain a member of
the bar. Mere denial does not suffice. Thus, when his moral
character is assailed, such that his right to continue
practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, he must
meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to the
satisfaction of the investigating body and this Court, that 49
he is morally fit to have his name in the Roll of Attorneys.
This he failed to do.
Respondent adamantly denies abandoning his family to
live with Gina Espita. At the same time, he depicts his wife
as a “violent husband-beater, vitriolic and unbending,” and
as an “insanely and pathologically jealous woman,” whose
only obsession was to “destroy, destroy and destroy” him as

shown by her filing of a series of allegedly unfounded
charges against him (and Gina Espita). To prove his
allegation, he presented
50
ninety-eight (98)51 pieces of
documentary evidence and ten (10) witnesses.
________________
48 Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

49 Delos Reyes vs. Aznar, 179 SCRA 653, 658, November 28, 1989.
50 See Records, Vol. III, pp. 1-234.
51 Jude Sales (TSN, April 19, 1994, pp. 3-6); Atty. Virgilio A. Sevandal
(TSN, April 19, 1994, pp. 6-16); Juanito H. Comia (TSN, April 19, 1994,
pp. 17-24); Alfonso Tumamao (TSN, April 19, 1994, pp. 25-51); Ofelio
Pablo (TSN, April 20, 1994, pp. 2-36); Judge Rolando L. Salacup (TSN,
May 16, 1994, pp. 2-37); Romeo Calabaquib (TSN, May 17, 1994, pp. 2-21);
Remigio Magundayao (TSN, June 7,
469
VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 469

Narag vs. Narag
We note, however, that the testimonies of the witnesses of

respondent did not establish the fact that he maintained
that moral integrity required by the profession that would
render him fit to continue practicing law. Neither did their
testimonies destroy the fact, as proven by the complainant,
that he had abandoned his family and lived with Gina
Espita, with whom he had two children. Some of them
testified on matters which they had no actual knowledge of,
but merely relied on information from either respondent
himself or other people, while others were presented to
impeach the good character of his wife.
Respondent may have provided well for his family—they
enjoyed a comfortable life and his children finished their
education. He may have also established himself as a
successful lawyer and a seasoned politician. But these
accomplishments are not sufficient to show his moral
fitness to continue being a member of the noble profession
of law.
We remind respondent that parents have not only rights
but also duties—e.g., to support, educate and instruct their
children according to right precepts and good example; and
to give them love, companionship and 52
understanding, as
well as moral and spiritual guidance. As a husband, he is
also obliged to live with his wife; to observe mutual53
love,
respect and fidelity; and to render help and support.
Respondent himself admitted that his work required

him to be often away from home. But the evidence shows
that he was away not only because of his work; instead, he
abandoned his family to live with her paramour, who bore
him two children. It would appear, then, that he was
hardly in a position to be a good husband or a good father.
His children, who grew up mostly under the care of their
mother, must have scarcely felt the warmth of their
father’s love.
________________
1994, pp. 2-6); Fr. Benjamin T. Lasan (TSN, June 7, 1994, pp. 7-19);
and Alfonso C. Gorospe (TSN, June 7, 1994, pp. 19-27).
52 Art. 220, Family Code. See also Art. 356 of the Civil Code and Art. 3
of the Child and Youth Welfare Code (or PD 603).
53 Art. 68, Family Code.
470

Narag vs. Narag
Respondent’s son, Jervis B. Narag, showed his resentment

towards his father’s moral frailties in his testimony:
“Q My question is this, is there any sin so grievous that it

cannot be forgiven, is there a fault that is so serious
that it is incapable of forgiveness?
A That depends upon the sin or fault, sir, but if the sin or
fault is with the emotional part of myself, I suppose I
cannot forgive a person although I am a God-fearing
person, but I h[av]e to give the person a lesson in order
for him or her to at least realize his mistakes, sir.
x x x x x x x x x
COMR. JOSE:
I think it sounds like this. Assuming for the sake of
argument that your father is the worst, hardened
criminal on earth, would you send him to jail and have
him dis barred? That is the question.
CONTINUATION.
A With the reputation that he had removed from us, I
suppose he has to be given a lesson. At this point in
time, I might just forgive him if he will have to
experience all the pains that we have also suffered for
quite sometime.
Q Dr. Narag, your father gave you life, his blood runs in
your veins, his flesh is your flesh, his bones are your
bones and you now disown him because he is the worst
man on earth, is that what you are saying?
A Sort of, sir.
Q You are now telling that as far [as] you are concerned
because your father has sinned, you have no more
father, am I correct?
A Long before, sir, I did not feel much from my father
even when I was still a kid because my father is not
always staying with us at home. So, how can you say
that? Yes, he gave me life,54why not? But for sure, sir,
you did not give me love.”
________________
54 TSN, November 4, 1993, pp. 28-30.
471
VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 471

Narag vs. Narag
Another son, Dominador Narag, Jr., narrated before the

investigating officer the trauma he went through:
Q In connection with that affidavit, Mr. Witness, which

contains the fact that your father is maintaining a
paramour, could you please tell this Honorable
Commission the effect on you?
A This has a very strong effect on me and this includes my
brothers and sisters, especially my married life, sir. And
it also affected my children so much, that I and my wife
ha[ve] parted ways. It hurts to say that I and my wife
parted ways. This is one reason that affected us.
Q Will you please tell us specifically why you and your
wife parted ways?
A Because my wife wa[s] ashamed of what happened to
my family and that she could not face the people, our
community, especially because my wife belongs to a
wellknown family in our community.
Q How about the effect on your brothers and sisters?
Please tell us what are those.
A Well, sir, this has also affected the health of my elder
sister because she knows so well that my mother
suffered so much and she kept on thinking about my

mother.
x x x x x x x x x
Q Why did your wife leave you?
A The truth is because of the things that had happened in
our family, Your Honor.
Q In your wife’s family?
A In our family, sir.
Q And what do you mean by that?
A What I meant by that is my father had an illicit
relationship and that my father went to the extent of
scolding my wife and calling my wife a “puta” in
provincial government, which my mother-in-law hated
him so much for this, which really affected us. And then
my wife knew for a fact that my father has an illicit
relationship with Gina Espita, whom he bore two
children by the name of Au-
472

Narag vs. Narag
relle Dominic and Kyle Dominador, which

55
I could prove
and I stand firm to this, Your Honor.”
Although respondent piously claims adherence to the

sanctity of marriage, his acts prove otherwise. A husband is
not merely a man who has contracted marriage. Rather, he
is a partner who has solemnly sworn to love and respect his
wife and remain faithful to her until death. 56
We reiterate our ruling in Cordova vs. Cordova: “The
moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of
the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages
the generally accepted moral standards of the community,
conduct for instance, which makes a mockery of the
inviolable social institution
57
of marriage.”
In Toledo vs. Toledo, the respondent was disbarred
from the practice of law, when he abandoned his lawful
wife and cohabited with another woman who had borne
him a child. 58
Likewise, in Obusan vs. Obusan, the respondent was
disbarred after the complainant proved that he had
abandoned her and maintained an adulterous relationship
with a married woman. This Court declared that
respondent failed to maintain the highest degree of

morality expected and required of a member of the bar.
In the present case, the complainant was able to
establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that
respondent had breached the high and exacting moral
standards set for members
59
of the law profession. As held in
Maligsa vs. Cabanting, “a lawyer may be disbarred for
any misconduct, whether in his professional or private
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral
character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.”
________________
55 TSN, November 4, 1993, pp. 38-39 and 45-46.

56 179 SCRA 680, 683, November 29, 1989.
57 7 SCRA 757, April 27, 1963.
58 128 SCRA 485, April 2, 1984.
59 AC No. 4539, May 14, 1997, pp. 5-6, per curiam.
473
VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 473

Narag vs. Narag
WHEREFORE, Dominador M. Narag is hereby

DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from
the Roll of Attorneys. Let copies of this Decision be in the
personal record of Respondent Narag; and furnished to all
courts of the land, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
and the Office of the Bar Confidant.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa (C.J.), Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,

Bello-sillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Panganiban, Martinez, Quisumbing and Purisima, JJ.,
concur.
Respondent disbarred, name ordered stricken from Roll

of Attorneys.
Notes.—Proof of prior immoral conduct cannot be used

as basis for administrative discipline against a judge if he
is not charged for immorality prior to his appointment.
(Alfonso vs. Juanson, 228 SCRA 239 [1993])
Penalty of disqualification from appointment to any
public office earlier imposed on a judge for immorality
lifted after he has shown sincere repentance and after
considering his contributions during the period that he was

judge. (Castillo vs. Calanog, Jr., 239 SCRA 268 [1994])
Mere intimacy between a man and a woman, both of
whom possess no impediment to marry, voluntarily carried
on and devoid of any deceit on the part of the former, is
neither so corrupt nor so unprincipled as to warrant the
imposition of disciplinary sanction against him, even if as a
result of such relationship a child was born out of wedlock.
(Figueroa vs. Barranco, Jr., 276 SCRA 445 [1997])
The act of a court employee of eloping with and getting
impregnated by a married man constitutes gross
immorality which the Supreme Court will never sanction
on its employees. (Masadao, Jr. vs. Glorioso, 280 SCRA 612
[1997])
——o0o——
474
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 451: Narag vs. Narag

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 451: Narag vs. Narag

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/6/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 291

VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 451

JULIETA B. NARAG, complainant, vs. ATTY.

Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Immorality; Disbarment; Good moral

Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Immoral conduct is

452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Narag vs. Narag

immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal

Same; Same; Same; A member of the Bar and officer of the

Same; Same; Same; Burden of Proof; Quantum of Proof; The

Same; Same; Same; Evidence; Handwritings; Handwriting

VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 453

Narag vs. Narag

Same; Same; Same; Burden of Proof; While the burden of

Same; Same; Same; Husband and Wife; A husband is not

454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Narag vs. Narag

of marriage.” In Toledo vs. Toledo, the respondent was disbarred

Same; Same; Same; Disbarment; A lawyer may be disbarred

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Good moral character is a continuing qualification required

VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 455

Narag vs. Narag

“The St. Louis College of Tuguegarao engaged the services of Atty.

This Court, in a Resolution dated December 18, 1989,

2 Code of Professional Responsibility.

456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On June 26, 1990, the office of then Chief Justice Marcelo

5 Records, Vol. II, pp. 13-14.

VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 457

explained that she had earlier dropped the case14 against

“What is pitiable here is the fact that Complainant is an incurably

13 The children are Genevieve Narag Bautista, Dominador B. Narag,

458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On August 24, 1992, this Court issued another Resolution

hearing before IBP Commissioner 20

19 Records, Vol. III, p. 44.

VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 459

Narag vs. Narag

patience, if only to preserve their family and their marriage. But

21 Ibid., pp. 1-3.

460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

To prove the alleged propensity of his wife to file false

“3.1 Complaint for Immorality/Neglect of Duty x x x

In his desperate effort to exculpate himself, he averred:

22 Ibid., pp. 8-9.

VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 461

other place. He never begot a child or children with her. Finally,

III. Respondent never abandoned his family[.] Mrs. Narag and

similar certificates touching on the same 23ailments.

462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“Culled from the voluminous documentary and testimonial

a) Whether there was indeed a commission of alleged

Except for the testimonies of respondent’s witnesses whose

Viewed from all the evidence presented, we find the respondent

24 Records, Vol. I, pp. 17-59.

VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 463

“Rule 1.01—A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,

27 Notice of Resolution from the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline,

464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is

VOL. 291, JUNE 29, 1998 465