Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Narag Vs Narag
Narag Vs Narag
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
On June 26, 1990, the office of then Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan received
from complainant another letter seeking the dismissal of the administrative
complaint. She alleged therein that (1) she fabricated the allegations in her complaint
to humiliate and spite her husband; (2) all the love letters between the respondent
and Gina Espita were forgeries; and (3) she was suffering from emotional confusion
arising from extreme jealousy. The truth, she stated, was that her husband had
remained a faithful and responsible family man. She further asserted that he had
neither entered into an amorous relationship with one Gina Espita nor abandoned his
family.[5] Supporting her letter were an Affidavit of Desistance [6] and a Motion to
Dismiss,[7]attached as Annexes A and B, which she filed before the IBP commission
on bar discipline.[8] In a Decision dated October 8, 1991, the IBP Board of
Governors [9] dismissed the complaint of Mrs. Narag for failure to prosecute. [10]
The case took an unexpected turn when, on November 25, 1991, this
Court[11] received another letter[12] from the complainant, with her seven children [13] as
co-signatories, again appealing for the disbarment of her husband. She explained
that she had earlier dropped the case against him because of his continuous threats
against her.[14]
In his Comment on the complainants letter of November 11, 1991, filed in
compliance with this Courts Resolution issued on July 6, 1992, [15] respondent prayed
that the decision of the Board of Governors be affirmed. Denying that he had
threatened, harassed or intimidated his wife, he alleged that she had voluntarily
executed her Affidavit of Desistance[16] and Motion to Dismiss,[17] even appearing
before the investigating officer, Commissioner Racela, to testify under oath that she
prepared the Motion to Dismiss and Affidavit of Desistance on her own free will and
affirmed the contents thereof.
In addition, he professed his love for his wife and his children and denied
abandoning his family to live with his paramour. However, he described his wife as a
person emotionally disturbed, viz.:
What is pitiable here is the fact that Complainant is an incurably
jealous and possessive woman, and every time the streak of
jealousy rears its head, she fires off letters or complaints against her
husband in every conceivable forum, all without basis, and purely on
impulse, just to satisfy the consuming demands of her loving
jealousy. Then, as is her nature, a few hours afterwards, when her
jealousy cools off, she repents and feels sorry for her acts against
the Respondent. Thus, when she wrote the Letter of November 11,
1991, she was then in the grips of one of her bouts of jealousy.[18]
On August 24, 1992, this Court issued another Resolution referring the
Comment of respondent to the IBP. [19] In the hearing before IBP Commissioner
Plaridel C. Jose, respondent alleged the following: [20]
2. Your Respondent comes from very poor parents who have left
him not even a square meter of land, but gave him the best legacy in
life: a purposeful and meaningful education.Complainant comes from
what she claims to be very rich parents who value material
possession more than education and the higher and nobler
aspirations in life. Complainant abhors the poor.
3. Your Respondent has a loving upbringing, nurtured in the gentle
ways of love, forgiveness, humility, and concern for the
poor. Complainant was reared and raised in an entirely different
environment. Her value system is the very opposite.
4. Your Respondent loves his family very dearly, and has done all he
could in thirty-eight (38) years of marriage to protect and preserve
his family. He gave his family sustenance, a comfortable home, love,
education, companionship, and most of all, a good and respected
name. He was always gentle and compassionate to his wife and
children. Even in the most trying times, he remained calm and never
inflicted violence on them. His children are all now full-fledged
professionals, mature, and gainfully employed. x x x
x x x x x x x x x
[1]
See records, Vol. I, pp. 1-2. Attached therein are photocopies of the marriage contract of the couple
and of two love letters written by the respondent to his paramour.
[2]
Code of Professional Responsibility.
[3]
Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-2.
[4]
Records, Vol. I, p. 11.
[5]
Records, Vol. II, pp. 13-14.
[6]
Records, Vol. II, pp. 15-16.
[7]
Records, Vol. II, pp. 17-18.
[8]
The Court noted the letter in its Resolution, dated July 30, 1990, and referred the same to the
IBP. See records, Vol. II, p. 19.
[9]
Signatories therein are Numeriano G. Tanopo, Jr., president; Ernesto S. Salunat, Jose Aguila
Grapilon, Beda G. Fajardo, Baldomero C. Estenzo, Rene C. Villa and Teodoro D. Nano, Jr.,
governors of Northern Luzon Region, Southern Luzon Region, Bicolandia Region, Eastern Visayas
Region, Western Visayas Region and Eastern Mindanao Region, respectively; Mervyn G. Encanto,
executive vice president; and Romeo T. Capulong and Didagen P. Dilangalen, governors of Central
Luzon Region and Western Mindanao Region, respectively.
[10]
Records, Vol. III, pp. 34-37.
[11]
Through the office of then Chief Justice Fernan.
[12]
Dated November 11, 1991.
[13]
The children are Genevieve Narag Bautista, Dominador B. Narag Jr., Randolph B. Narag, Jervis B.
Narag, Rowena Narag Addun, Cheryl Rita B. Narag and Christiana B. Narag.
[14]
Records, Vol. III, p. 23. The letter was forwarded to the Office of the Bar Confidant on December 2,
1991.
[15]
Records, Vol. III, pp. 40-42.
[16]
Records, Vol. II, pp. 15-16.
[17]
Ibid., pp. 17-18.
[18]
Ibid., pp. 40-41.
[19]
Records, Vol. III, p. 44.
[20]
Compiled Answer/Comment and Counter-Affidavits, records, Vol. II, pp. 1-11.
[21]
Ibid., pp. 1-3.
[22]
Ibid., pp. 8-9.
[23]
Memorandum for the Respondent, pp. 1-6; records, Vol. IV, pp. 299-304.
[24]
Records, Vol. I, pp. 17-59.
[25]
Report by Comm. Plaridel C. Jose, pp. 42-43; records, Vol I, pp. 58-59.
[26]
Ibid., pp. 15-16.
[27]
Notice of Resolution from the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, Board of Governors, Pasig City,
signed by National Secretary Roland B. Inting. A copy of said notice was received by the Office of the
Bar Confidant on September 16, 1997. Records, Vol. I, pp. 15-16.
[28]
2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides: Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar
must be x x x of good moral character; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory
evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have
been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines. (Underscoring supplied)
[29]
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
7 C.J.S., 14, p. 826; Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed., p. 751 citing In re Monaghan, 126 VT, 53m 222
[30]
A.2d 665, 674; and Philippine Law Dictionary, 3rd ed., p. 447, citing Arciga vs. Maniwang, 106 SCRA
594, 594, August 14, 1981.
[31]
Reyes vs. Wong, 63 SCRA 667, 673, January 29, 1975.
[32]
Royong vs. Oblena, 7 SCRA 859, 869-870, April 30, 1963.
[33]
218 SCRA 30, 40, January 29, 1993, per curiam, citing Tolosa vs. Cargo, 171 SCRA 21, 26,
March 8, 1989, per Feliciano, J.
[34]
Noriega vs. Sison, 125 SCRA 293, 297-298, October 27, 1983; Santos vs. Dichoso, 84 SCRA
622, 627, August 22, 1989; Adarne vs. Aldaba, 83 SCRA 734, 739, June 27, 1978;
Arboleda vs. Gatchalian, 58 SCRA 64, 67, July 23, 1974; and Go vs. Candoy, 21 SCRA 439, 442,
October 23, 1967.
[35]
TSN, September 22, 1993, pp. 15-46.
[36]
Ibid., pp. 28-134.
[37]
TSN, November 3, 1993, pp. 16-41.
[38]
Ibid., pp. 42-55.
[39]
Ibid., pp. 58-71.
[40]
TSN, November 4, 1993, pp. 5-34.
[41]
Ibid., pp. 35-64.
[42]
TSN, January 17, 1994, pp. 3-14.
[43]
TSN, September 22, 1993, pp. 31-32.
[44]
Ibid., pp. 85-89.
[45]
Ibid., pp. 39 and 75.
[46]
TSN, November 3, 1993, pp. 43-44, 47-48 and 51
[47]
TSN, January 17, 1994, pp. 6-8 and 11.
[48]
Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
[49]
Delos Reyes vs. Aznar, 179 SCRA 653, 658, November 28, 1989.
[50]
See Records, Vol. III, pp. 1-234.
[51]
Jude Sales (TSN, April 19, 1994, pp. 3-6); Atty. Virgilio A. Sevandal (TSN, April 19, 1994, pp. 6-16);
Juanito H. Comia (TSN, April 19, 1994, pp. 17-24); Alfonso Tumamao (TSN, April 19, 1994, pp. 25-
51); Ofelio Pablo (TSN, April 20, 1994, pp. 2-36); Judge Rolando L. Salacup (TSN, May 16, 1994, pp.
2-37); Romeo Calabaquib (TSN, May 17, 1994, pp. 2-21); Remigio Magundayao (TSN, June 7, 1994,
pp. 2-6); Fr. Benjamin T. Lasan (TSN, June 7, 1994, pp. 7-19); and Alfonso C. Gorospe (TSN, June 7,
1994, pp. 19-27).
[52]
Art. 220, Family Code. See also Art. 356 of the Civil Code and Art. 3 of the Child and Youth
Welfare Code (or PD 603).
[53]
Art. 68, Family Code.
[54]
TSN, November 4, 1993, pp. 28-30.
[55]
TSN, November 4, 1993, pp. 38-39 and 45-46.
[56]
179 SCRA 680, 683, November 29, 1989,
[57]
7 SCRA 757, April 27, 1963.
[58]
128 SCRA 485, April 2, 1984.
[59]
AC No. 4539, May 14, 1997, pp. 5-6, per curiam.