RAY KRISTOFFER C.

RAMIREZ PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

ATTY DEXTER ZENO ACHILLES S. PASCUA

SALVACION DELIZO CORDOVA vs. ATTY. LAURENCE D. CORDOVA

A.C. No. 3249 - November 29, 1989 – CASE DIGEST

FACTS:
The parties were married on June 6, 1976 and had two children. In 1985, the
couple were living in Quirino Province. In 1985, respondent Cordova left his family as well
as his job at the Regional Trial Court, Cabarroguis, Quirino Province, and went to Bislig,
Surigao del Sur with to cohabit with one Fely G. Holgado which was herself married and
left her own husband and children to be with the respondent. In Bislig, Respondent
presented Fely as his wife to the public and gave Fely funds to establish a sari-sari store
in the public market at Bislig, while at the same time failing to support his legitimate
family.

On 6 April 1986, respondent and his complainant wife had an apparent

reconciliation. Respondent swore that he would leave Fely and brought his legitimate
family to Bislig. Respondent however, frequently came home drunk, and continued to
neglect the support of his legitimate family. In February 1987, complainant found, upon
returning from a trip to Manila necessitated by hospitalization of her daughter Loraine,
that respondent was no longer living with complainants’ children in their conjugal home.

Respondent took his younger daughter Melanie with him and was with another
mistress, a Luisita Magallanes. Respondent and Luisita hid Melanie from the complainant,
which forced the complainant to take back her daughter by habeas corpus. Later the trial
court gave the complainant custody of their children.

Notwithstanding respondent's promises to reform, he continued to live with

Luisita as her husband and continued to fail to give support to his legitimate family.
Finally, the Commission on BAR Discipline received a telegram message apparently from
complainant, stating that complainant and respondent had been reconciled with each
other.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the reconciliation absolves the respondent from his grossly
immoral conduct.

HELD:
Reconciliation between complainant and respondent, does not excuse and wipe
away the misconduct and immoral behavior of the respondent carried out in public, and
necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a member of the Bar and upon the Philippine
Bar itself. An applicant for admission to membership in the bar is required to show that
he is possessed of good moral character. That requirement is not exhausted and
dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. On the contrary, that
requirement persists as a continuing condition for membership in the Bar in good
standing.

Clearly, respondent flaunted his disregard of the fundamental institution of

marriage and its elementary obligations before his own daughter and the community at
large. The Supreme court suspended respondent from the practice of law indefinitely.

1
PEDRO G. TOLENTINO, ROMEO M. LAYGO, SOLOMON M. LUMALANG, SR., MELITON D.
EVANGELISTA, SR., and NELSON B. MELGAR vs. ATTY. NORBERTO M. MENDOZA.
A.C. No. 5151 - October 19, 2004 – CASE DIGEST

FACTS:
Herein respondent, a former Municipal Trial Court Judge, abandoned his legal
wife, Felicitas V. Valderia in favor of his paramour, Marilyn dela Fuente, who is, in turn,
married to one Ramon G. Marcos.

Respondent and Marilyn dela Fuente have been cohabiting openly and publicly as
husband and wife in in which he had fathered two children. Respondent and Marilyn dela
Fuente further declared in the birth certificates of their two daughters that they were
married on May 12, 1986, making it appear that their two children are legitimate.

In respondent's Certificate of Candidacy filed with the COMELEC during the 1995
elections, respondent declared that his wife is Felicitas V. Valderia; in respondent's
certificate of candidacy for the 1998 elections, he declared his civil status as separated.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross immorality?

HELD:
The respondent is guilty of gross immorality.

In Bar Matter No. 1154, good moral character was defined thus: “Good moral
character is what a person really is, as distinguished from good reputation or from the
opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he is held by the public in the
place where he is known. Moral character is not a subjective term but one which
corresponds to objective reality. The standard of personal and professional integrity is
not satisfied by such conduct as it merely enables a person to escape the penalty of
criminal law.

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.
Furthermore, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly 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.

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 behave himself as to
avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral
standards and, thus, ruled that siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a conduct
way below the standards of morality required of every lawyer.

The fact that respondent continues to publicly and openly cohabit with a woman
who is not his legal wife, thus, siring children by her, shows his lack of good moral
character. Respondent should keep in mind that the requirement of good moral character
is not only a condition precedent to admission to the Philippine Bar but is also a continuing
requirement to maintain one's good standing in the legal profession. Thus, Respondent
was disbarred.