2. Ui vs.

Bonifacio
Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000

De Leon, J.:

Facts:

Complainant Lesli Ui found out that her husband Carlos Ui was carrying out an illicit relationship
with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he begot two children. Hence, a complaint for
disbarment was filed by complainant against respondent before the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on the ground of immorality, more
particularly, for carrying on an illicit relationship with the complainant’s husband. It is
respondent’s contention that her relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit because they were
married abroad and that after June 1988, when respondent discovered Carlos Ui’s true civil
status, she cut off all her ties with him. Respondent averred that Carlos Ui never lived with her.

Issue:

Whether or not she has conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves
to be barred from the practice of law.

Held:

The complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio, for alleged
immorality, was dismissed.

All the facts taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that respondent was
imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her relationship
with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be
considered immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral
norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.
Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be “grossly immoral,”
that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree.

3. Figueroa vs. Barancco

SBC Case No. 519 July 31, 1997

Romero, J:

Facts:
Patricia Figueroa and Simeon Barranco were townmates and teen sweethearts. Their
intimacy yielded to a child Simeon. Subsequently, Simeon first promised he would marry her
after he passes the bar examinations. Their relationship continued and Simeon allegedly made
more than twenty or thirty promises of marriage.
Patricia learned that Simeon married another woman. Meanwhile, the respondent
passed the bar exams in 1970 on his fourth attempt. Before he could take his oath however
complainant filed the instant petition, averring that respondent and she had been sweethearts,
that a child out of wedlock was born to them and that respondent did not fulfill his repeated
promises to marry her. Patricia filed a petition to disqualify Simeon to take the Lawyer’s Oath
on the ground of gross immoral conduct.

Issue:
Whether or not the act of Simeon in engaging in premarital relations with Patricia and
making promises to marry her constitute gross immoral conduct?

Held:
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the facts do not constitute gross immoral conduct
warranting a permanent exclusion of Simeon from the legal profession. His engaging in
premarital sexual relations with complainant and promises to marry suggests a doubtful moral
character on his part but the same does not constitute grossly immoral conduct. The Court has
held that to justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of must only be immoral, but
grossly immoral.
A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or
so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. It is willful, flagrant, or
shameless act, which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the
community.
Complainant was then an adult who voluntarily and actively pursued their relationship
and was not an innocent young girl who could be easily led astray. Unfortunately, respondent
chose to marry and settle permanently with another woman. We cannot castigate a man for
seeking out the partner of his dreams for marriage is a sacred and perpetual bond which should
be entered into because of love, not for any other reason.
Wherefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. Respondent Simeon Barranco Jr. is
allowed to take his oath as a lawyer upon payment of the proper fees.
The respondent was then 62 years old when he officially became a lawyer.

4. Cordova Vs. Cordova

179 SCRA 680 November 29, 1989

Per Curiam.:

Facts:
In 1985, Atty. Laurence Cordova, while being married to Salvacion Delizo and with two
children, left his wife and children to cohabit with another married woman. In 1986, Salvacion
and Cordova had a reconciliation where Cordova promised to leave his mistress. But
apparently, Cordova still continued to cheat on her wife as apparently, Cordova again lived with
another woman and worse, he took one of his children with him and hid the child away from
Salvacion.
In 1988, Salvacion filed a letter-complaint for disbarment against Cordova. Eventually,
multiple hearing dates were sent but no hearing took place because neither party appeared. In
1989, Salvacion sent a telegraphic message to the Commission on Bar Discipline intimating that
she and her husband has reconciled. The Commission, since Salvacion failed to submit
her evidence ex parte, merely recommended the reprimand and admonishment of
Cordova. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Laurence Cordova was guilty for immorality acts unbecoming a
member of the bar.

HELD:
Yes. He should be suspended indefinitely until he presents evidence that he has been
morally reformed and that there was true reconciliation between him and his wife. Before a
person can be admitted to the bar, one requirement is that he possesses 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. 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 or
marriage” such was the case in the case at bar.

5. Leda v. Tabang
A.C Case No. 2505 February 21, 1992

Per Curiam.:
Facts:
Complainant Evangeline Leda and Respondent Aty. Trebonian Tabang contracted
marriage performed under Article 76 of the Civil Code as one of exceptional character. The
parties agreed to keep the fact of marriage a secret until after the responded had finish his law
studies and had taken the bar examinations, allegedly to ensure established future for them.
Complainant admits, though, that they had not lived together as husband and wife.
Complainant, thereafter, filed a Petition for Disbarment against respondent alleging, among
others, for having misrepresented himself as single when in truth he is already married in his
application to take the bar exam and for being not of good moral character contrary to the
certification he submitted to the Supreme Court. Respondent averred that he and Complainant
had covenanted not to disclose the marriage for the reason that said marriage was void from
the beginning in the absence of the requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code thus he could not
have abandoned Complainant because they had never lived together as husband and wife and
that when he applied for the 1981 Bar examinations, he honestly believed that in the eyes of
the law, he was single.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent lacks of good moral character and violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:
Yes. His declaration that he was single in his application was a gross misrepresentation
of a material fact made in utter bad faith. It is a violation of Rule 7.01, Canon 7.0. 2. He has also
engaged in devious tactics with complainant in order to serve his purpose. In doing so, he has
violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that “ a lawyer
owes candor, fairness and good faith to the Court “ as well as Rule 1001 thereof. As good
character is an essential qualification for admission of an attorney to practice, when the
attorney’s character is bad in such respects as to show that he is unsafe and unfit to be
entrusted with the powers of an attorney, the court retain power to discipline him.

6. Young VS Batuegas et. al

A.C. No. 5379 May 9, 2003

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Facts:

Young is the private prosecutor in People of the Phil v Arana. BATUEGAS, et al are the
counsels for the accused in the said criminal case. On Dec 13, 2000, BATUEGAS filed a
Manifestation with Motion for Bail alleging that the accused has voluntarily surrendered to a
person in authority and, as such, is now under detention. Upon verification with
the NBI, YOUNG discovered that the accused surrendered on Dec 14, 2000 (not 13).
BATUEGAS, et al in their defense alleged that on Dec 13, 2000, upon learning that a warrant of
arrest was issued against their client, they filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail. They
immediately fetched accused from Cavite and brought him to NBI to voluntarily surrender.
However, due to heavy traffic, they arrived at NBI at 2am the next day. That was why
the Certificate of Detention indicated that the accused surrendered on Dec 14, 2000 and
not 13. As to lack of notice, YOUNG being a private prosecutor is not entitled to such
as only the State and City prosecutors should be given notices. Investigating
Commissioner recommended suspension of 6 months. IBP Commission on Bar Discipline in a
resolution approved said recommendation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Batuegas e.t al are guilty of falsehood and should be suspended.

HELD:
 YES, CONCEALED TRUTH RATIO: A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his
admission that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court. As officer of the
court, his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and facts of the case to aid
it in arriving at the correct conclusion. The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only
complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them. His lawyer’s solemn duty
is to defend his client; his conduct must never be at the expense of truth. In the case at bar,
BATUEGAS, et al feel short of the duties and responsibilities expected of the mass members of
the bar. Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the Court found that it had no
jurisdiction over the person of the accused; they craftily concealed the truth alleging that the
accused had voluntarily surrendered. To knowingly allege an untrue statement in the
pleading is a contemptuous conduct that the Court strongly condemns. BATUEGAS, et al
violated their oath when they resorted to deception. Hence, BATUEGAS, et al should be
suspended for 6 months