A.M. No.

1608 August 14, 1981

MAGDALENA T. ARCIGA

complainant,

vs.

SEGUNDINO D. MANIWANG

respondent.

Facts:

In 1970, Arciga was a medical technology student and Maniwang was a law student. The

two acquainted and had a sexual relationship. In 1973, Arciga got pregnant.

In 1975, Maniwang passed the bar exams. After which, he stopped communicating with

Arciga. Arciga then found out that Maniwang married another woman. She confronted

the wife and this irked Maniwang to inflict physical injuries upon Arciga.

Arciga filed a disbarment case against Maniwang grounded on gross immoral conduct.

Maniwang admitted that he is the father of Arciga’s child; that he did promise to marry

Arciga many times; that he broke those promises because of Arciga’s shady past because

apparently Arciga had an illegitimate child even before her son with Maniwang was born.

Issue:

W/N Maniwang should be disbarred and be held liable for gross immoral conduct.

Arguments of the Parties:

Arciga, complainant

said that Maniwang reassured he many times that he would marry

her once he passed the bar examinations.

She reported that Maniwang inflicted physical injuries upon herr and secured medical

treatment in a hospital

Maniwang, respondent

contended that the cohabitation with the complainant and his

reneging on his promise of marriage do not warrant his disbarment.

Maniwang admitted that he is the father of Arciga’s child; that he did promise to marry

Arciga many times; that he broke those promises because of Arciga’s shady past because
apparently Arciga had an illegitimate child even before her son with Maniwang was born.

Decision of the Court:

The Supreme Court ruled that Maniwang’s case is different from the cases of Mortel vs

Aspiras and Almirez vs Lopez, and other cases therein cited. Maniwang’s refusal to marry

Arciga was not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment. But the Supreme

Court did say that it is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as

to what is “grossly immoral conduct” or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity

which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies

that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the

immoral conduct that warrants disbarment. Immoral conduct has been defined as “that

conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to

the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community”. The complaint for

disbarment against the respondent is hereby dismissed.

Relevance to the subject (Legal Profession)

The case of Arciga vs Maniwang is important in determining whether the act that the

lawyer has done was immoral or grounds of disbarment. It is very crucial for a lawyer

especially in his profession to maintain his/ her etiquette in order to become an example

to the other citizens of the Philippines. A litigator must be the first one that the people

must look up to. Legal profession does not only apply to the duties of a lawyer to the bar

and to his clients but also to the people surrounding him.