Mecaral v. Atty. Velasquez, A.C. No.

8392, June 29, 2010

FACTS:
• Mecaral was Atty. Velasquez’s secretary who eventually became his lover and
common-law wife. He brought Mecaral to the mountainous part of San Agustin,
Biliran and was left with the Faith Healers Assoc. Of the Philippines where he was
the leader. At first, he visited her almost every day until visits became scarce. With
his instruction, Mecaral was tortured, brainwashed, and injected with drugs. When
she tried to escape, she was tied spread-eagled on the bed with only a shirt and
diaper. She was guarded 24 hours by women of the group (one of them is Bernardita
Tadeo) and was fed with stale food.
• When her mother (Delila) was informed about it, she was rescued by the Provincial
Social Welfare Department but the group refused to release her without instruction
of Atty. Velasquez. The police acted for her rescue.

• A Disbarment complaint was filed against Atty. Velasquez because of the incident
and an additional complaint because of his commission of a bigamous marriage
with Leny Azul despite the subsistence of his first marriage with Shirley Yunzal.

ISSUE:
• WON Atty. Velasquez’s acts that constitutes grossly immoral conduct when he
detained and torture Mecaral and when he contracted a bigamous marriage is a
ground for disbarment.

RULING:

CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.

Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

• YES. In the case of Guevarra v. Atty. Eala, the court ordered for disbarment of Atty.
Eala for maintaining extra-marital relations with a married woman and having a child
with her. In the present case, aside from having a bigamous marriage, he also made
her secretary as his mistress and was able to toruture her. “All these circumstances
showed the moral fiber respondent is made of, which [leave] the undersigned with
no choice but to recommend the disbarment of Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez”
• When the moral character of a lawyer has been questioned, he has the right to
defend himself. But, he never attended any of the hearings to rebut the charges
against him.
• The acts he committed are grossly immoral which constitutes gross misconduct.
• Court ruled for his disbarment.