TOLOSA vs CARGO

A.M. No. 2385, 08 March 1989

Feliciano, J.

FACTS:
Jose Tolosa filed an affidavit-complaint seeking the disbarment of respondent District
Citizen’s Attorney Alfredo Cargo for immorality.

Complainant claimed that respondent had been seeing his wife, Priscilla M. Tolosa, in his
house and elsewhere. He further alleged that his wife left the conjugal home and went to live
with the respondent.

The respondent denied the allegations of the complainant. He acknowledged that the
complainant’s wife had been seeing him but she had done so in the course if seeking advice
from respondent (in view of the continuous cruelty and unwarranted marital accusations of
affiant against her).

The complainant and respondent further argues:

Tolosa’s Allegations: Cargo’s Defenses:

Cargo paid the medical bills of Cargo only gave P35.00 to Priscilla in the
complainant’s wife FEU Hospital, as assitance in her medical
expenses;

Wife has acquired new household and Priscilla bought all the appliances in her
electrical appliances where she was living apartment from her earnings
although she has no means of livelihood

Several incidents between respondent and Incidents were between Priscilla’s brother
complainant and complainant

ISSUE:
Whether respondent failed to comply with the rigorous standards of conduct required from
the members of the Bar and officers of the court

RULING:
Yes. Respondent had failed to “properly deport himself by avoiding any possible action or
behavior which may be misinterpreted by complainant, thereby causing trouble in the
complainant’s family” which behavior was unbecoming of a lawyer and officer 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
community.

He 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.
Accordingly, the Court resolved to REPRIMAND respondent attorney for unbecoming a
member of the Bar and an officer of the court, and to WARN him that continuation of the
same or similar conduct will be dealt with more severely in the future.