Julieta B. Narag v. Atty. Dominador M.

Narag

June 29, 1998

Facts: Mrs. Narag filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against her
husband, Atty. Narag, whom she accused of having violated Canons 1 and 6 Rule
1.01 of the Code of Ethics.

The complainant narrated that the St. Louis College of Tuguegarao engaged the
services of Atty. Narag as a full-time college instructor and as a professor. Atty.
Narag courted his student, Gina Espita. They then became in an illicit relationship
and maintained it. Atty. Narag abandoned his family to be with his paramour. He
also used his power and influence to cause the employment of his paramour at DTI
Central Office in Makati.

The Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation. Thereafter, complainant sent a letter to dismiss the case. On
November 25,1991 the Court received another letter from the complainant, with
her seven children as co-signatories again appealing for the disbarment of her
husband. She explained that she had earlier dropped the case because of continuous
threats that she received from her husband. The respondent denied all the
allegations against her.

Issue: (a) Whether or not there was indeed a Commission of alleged abandonment
of respondents own family and living with his paramour, and whether the denial
under oath that his illegitimate children with Gina Espita is true.

Ruling: Yes. The respondent failed to present himself on the witness stand to
testify and be cross-examined on his sworn comment. He also did not present Gina
Espita to disprove the adulterous relationship between him and their having
begotten illegitimate children. Worse, the respondent denial that he is the father of
the two is a ground for disciplinary sanction. He violated Canon 7 and Rule 1.01
and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 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. While the burden of
proof is upon the complainant, respondent has duty not only to himself but also to
the court show that he morally fit to remain a member of the bar. Mere denial does
not suffice. In the present case, the complainant was able to establish, clear and
convincing evidence, that respondent breached the high and exacting moral
standards set for members of the law profession.

Wherefore, Dominador Narag is hereby disbarred and his name is ordered stricken
from the Roll of Attorneys.