EN BANC

[A.C. No. 4921. March 6, 2003.]

CARMELITA I. ZAGUIRRE , complainant, vs . ATTY. ALFREDO CASTILLO ,

respondent.

Ariel M. Los Banos for complainant.

SYNOPSIS
At bar is an administrative case for disbarment led against respondent on the
ground of Gross Immoral Conduct. Respondent allegedly had an illicit relationship with
a woman other than his wife and sired a child with her. The respondent did not deny
having an extra-marital affair with complainant, but argued that what happened
between them was nothing but mutual lust and desire. He claimed that he did not use
any deception to win her affection.
The Supreme Court held that siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a
conduct way below the standards of morality required of every lawyer. Respondent
repeatedly engaged in sexual congress with a woman not his wife and now refused to
recognize and support a child whom he previously recognized and promised to
support. Clearly, he violated the standards of morality required of the legal profession
and should be disciplined accordingly. The fact that complainant entered into a
relationship with him knowing full well his marital status did not absolve respondent of
gross immorality for what is in question in a case like this was respondent's tness to
be a member of the legal profession. It was not dependent whether or not the other
party knowingly engaged in an immoral relationship with him. The Court held that a
lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his
private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity or good demeanor. Accordingly, it found the respondent guilty of gross
immoral conduct and imposed upon him the penalty of inde nite suspension from the
practice of law.

SYLLABUS

1. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; GROSS IMMORALITY; IMMORAL CONDUCT;

DEFINED. — Immoral conduct has been de ned as: ". . . that conduct which is so willful,
agrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable
members of the community. Furthermore, such conduct must not only be immoral, but
grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous
or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency."
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; SIRING A CHILD WITH A WOMAN OTHER THAN HIS WIFE IS A
CONDUCT WAY BELOW THE STANDARDS OF MORALITY REQUIRED OF EVERY LAWYER. —
In the recent case of Luguid vs. Judge Camano, Jr., the Court in castigating a judge stated
that: ". . . even as an ordinary lawyer, respondent has to conform to the strict standard of
conduct demanded of members of the profession. Certainly, fathering children by a
woman other than his lawful wife fails to meet these standards." Siring a child with a
woman other than his wife is a conduct way below the standards of morality required of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 every lawyer.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; LAWYERS MUST NOT ONLY IN FACT BE OF GOOD MORAL
CHARACTER BUT MUST ALSO BE SEEN TO BE OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER; CASE AT
BAR. — Moreover, the attempt of respondent to renege on his notarized statement
recognizing and undertaking to support his child by Carmelita demonstrates a certain
unscrupulousness on his part which is highly censurable, unbecoming a member of a noble
profession, tantamount to self-stulti cation. This Court has repeatedly held: "as o cers 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 the community. More speci cally, a member of the Bar and o cer of the
court 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 outing those moral standards." While respondent does not
deny having an extra-marital affair with complainant he seeks understanding from the
Court, pointing out that "men by nature are polygamous," and that what happened between
them was "nothing but mutual lust and desire." The Court is not convinced. In fact, it is
appalled at the reprehensible, amoral attitude of the respondent.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; LAWYER'S FITNESS TO BE A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION NOT DEPENDENT ON WHETHER THE OTHER PARTY KNOWINGLY
ENGAGED IN AN IMMORAL RELATIONSHIP WITH MARRIED LAWYER. — Respondent
claims that he did not use any deception to win her affection. Granting arguendo that
complainant entered into a relationship with him knowing full well his marital status, still it
does not absolve him of gross immorality for what is in question in a case like this is
respondent's tness to be a member of the legal profession. It is not dependent whether
or not the other party knowingly engaged in an immoral relationship with him.
5. ID.; ID.; DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS; DEFENSE OF IN PART DELICTO
IMMATERIAL THEREIN. — We agree with the IBP that the defense of in pari delicto is not
feasible. The Court held in Mortel vs. Aspiras: "In a disbarment proceeding, it is immaterial
that the complainant is in pari delicto because this is not a proceeding to grant relief to the
complainant, but one to purge the law profession of unworthy members, to protect the
public and the courts."
6. ID.; ID.; QUALIFICATIONS; AN APPLICANT FOR ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP
IN THE BAR MUST SHOW THAT HE POSSESSES GOOD MORAL CHARACTER. — The illicit
relationship with Carmelita took place while respondent was preparing to take the bar
examinations. Thus, it cannot be said that it is unknown to him that an applicant for
admission to membership in the bar must show that he is possessed of good moral
character, a requirement which is not dispensed with upon admission to membership of
the bar. DHSACT

7. ID.; ID.; ID.; POSSESSION OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER IS A CONTINUING

REQUIREMENT TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW. — This quali cation is not only a condition
precedent to admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential
to maintain one's good standing in the profession; it is a continuing requirement to the
practice of law and therefore admission to the bar does not preclude a subsequent judicial
inquiry, upon proper complaint, into any question concerning his mental or moral tness
before he became a lawyer. This is because his admission to practice merely creates a
rebuttable presumption that he has all the qualifications to become a lawyer.
8. ID.; ID.; ID.; MEMBERSHIP IN THE BAR IS A PRIVILEGE BURDENED WITH
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 CONDITIONS. — The Court held: "The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed
by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the
quali cations required by law for the conferment of such privilege. We must stress that
membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege to
practice law only during good behavior. He can be deprived of his license for misconduct
ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after giving him the opportunity to be
heard." and in Dumadag vs. Lumaya: "The practice of law is a privilege burdened with
conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental tness, maintenance of the highest
degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the
conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying
the privilege to practice law."
9. ID.; ID.; ID.; STANDARDS OF MORALITY; VIOLATED WHERE A LAWYER
REPEATEDLY ENGAGED IN SEXUAL CONGRESS WITH A WOMAN NOT HIS WIFE AND
REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE AND SUPPORT THEIR CHILD. — Respondent repeatedly engaged
in sexual congress with a woman not his wife and now refuses to recognize and support a
child whom he previously recognized and promised to support. Clearly therefore,
respondent violated the standards of morality required of the legal profession and should
be disciplined accordingly.
10. ID.; ID.; DISBARMENT; NOT TO BE METED OUT IF A LESSER PUNISHMENT
COULD BE GIVEN; INDEFINITE SUSPENSION IMPOSED UPON RESPONDENT IN CASE AT
BAR. — As consistently held by this Court, disbarment shall not be meted out if a lesser
punishment could be given. Records show that from the time he took his oath in 1997, he
has severed his ties with complainant and now lives with his wife and children in Mindoro.
As of now, the Court does not perceive this fact as an indication of respondent's effort to
mend his ways or that he recognizes the impact of his offense on the noble profession of
law. Nevertheless, the Court deems it more appropriate under the circumstances that
inde nite suspension should be meted out than disbarment. The suspension shall last until
such time that respondent is able to show, to the full satisfaction of the Court, that he had
instilled in himself a rm conviction of maintaining moral integrity and uprightness
required of every member of the profession.
11. ID.; ID.; A LAWYER MAY BE SUSPENDED OR DISBARRED FOR ANY
MISCONDUCT EVEN IF IT PERTAINS TO HIS PRIVATE ACTIVITIES. — The rule is settled
that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his
private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity
or good demeanor.

DECISION

PER CURIAM : p

Before this Court is a Petition for Disbarment led by Carmelita I. Zaguirre against
Atty. Alfredo Castillo on the ground of Gross Immoral Conduct.
The facts as borne by the records are as follows:
Complainant and respondent met sometime in 1996 when the two became
o cemates at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). 1 Respondent courted
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 complainant and promised to marry her while representing himself to be single. 2 Soon
they had an intimate relationship that started sometime in 1996 and lasted until 1997. 3
During their affair, respondent was preparing for the bar examinations which he passed. On
May 10, 1997, he was admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar. 4 It was only around the
first week of May 1997 that complainant first learned that respondent was already married
when his wife went to her o ce and confronted her about her relationship with
respondent. 5 On September 10, 1997, respondent, who by now is a lawyer, executed an
a davit, admitting his relationship with the complainant and recognizing the unborn child
she was carrying as his. 6 On December 09, 1997, complainant gave birth to a baby girl,
Aletha Jessa. 7 By this time however, respondent had started to refuse recognizing the
child and giving her any form of support. 8
Respondent claims that: he never courted the complainant; what transpired between
them was nothing but mutual lust and desire; he never represented himself as single since
it was known in the NBI that he was already married and with children; 9 complainant is
almost 10 years older than him and knew beforehand that he is already married; 1 0 the
child borne by complainant it not his, because the complainant was seeing other men at
the time they were having an affair. 1 1 He admits that he signed the a davit dated
September 10, 1997 but explains that he only did so to save complainant from
embarrassment. Also, he did not know at the time that complainant was seeing other men.
12

After due haring, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Alfredo Castillo
guilty of gross immoral conduct and recommends that he be meted the penalty of
indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
"Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct."
xxx xxx xxx

"CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar."

xxx xxx xxx

"Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely re ects
on his tness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession."

Immoral conduct has been defined as:

". . . that conduct which is so willful, agrant, or shameless as to show

indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.
Furthermore, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That
is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency." 1 3

In his a davit dated September 10, 1997, duly acknowledged before a notary
public, he declared explicitly:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 "1. That I had a relationship with one Carmelita Zaguirre, my
officemate;
"2. That as a result of that relationship, she is presently pregnant with
my child;
"3. That I hereby voluntarily recognize the child now under (sic) her
womb to be my own;
"4. That I am willing to support the said child henceforth, including
his/her personal and medical needs, education, housing, food, clothing and other
necessities for living, which I will give through his/her mother, Carmelita Zaguirre,
until he/she becomes of legal age and capable to live on his/her own;

"5. That I undertake to sign the birth certi cate as an additional proof
that he/she is my child; however, my failure to sign does not negate the
recognition and acknowledgement already done herein;
"6. That I am executing this a davit without compulsion on my part
and being a lawyer, I have full knowledge of the consequence of such
acknowledgment and recognition." 1 4

More incriminating is his handwritten letter dated March 12, 1998 which states in
part:
"Ayoko ng umabot tayo sa kung saan-saan pa. All your o cemates, e.g.,
Ate Ging, Glo, Guy and others (say) that I am the look like(sic) of your daughter.
"Here's my bargain. I will help you in supporting your daughter, but I cannot
promise x amount for monthly support of your daughter. However it shall not be
less than P500 but not more than P1,000." 1 5

In the recent case of Luguid vs. Judge Camano, Jr., the Court in castigating a judge
stated that:
". . . even as an ordinary lawyer, respondent has to conform to the strict
standard of conduct demanded of members of the profession. Certainly, fathering
children by a woman other than his lawful wife fails to meet these standards." 1 6

Siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a conduct way below the standards of
morality required of every lawyer. 1 7
Moreover, the attempt of respondent to renege on his notarized statement
recognizing and undertaking to support his child by Carmelita demonstrates a certain
unscrupulousness on his part which is highly censurable, unbecoming a member of a noble
profession, tantamount to self-stultification. 1 8
This Court has repeatedly held:
"as o cers 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 the community. More
speci cally, a member of the Bar and o cer of the court 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." 1 9

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 While respondent does not deny having an extra-marital affair with complainant he
seeks understanding from the Court, pointing out that "men by nature are polygamous," 2 0
and that what happened between them was "nothing but mutual lust and desire." 2 1 The
Court is not convinced. In fact, it is appalled at the reprehensible, amoral attitude of the
respondent.
Respondent claims that he did not use any deception to win her affection. Granting
arguendo that complainant entered into a relationship with him knowing full well his
marital status, still it does not absolve him of gross immorality for what is in question in a
case like this is respondent's tness to be a member of the legal profession. It is not
dependent whether or not the other party knowingly engaged in an immoral relationship
with him.
We agree with the IBP that the defense of in pari delicto is not feasible. The Court
held in Mortel vs. Aspiras:
"In a disbarment proceeding, it is immaterial that the complainant is in pari
delicto because this is not a proceeding to grant relief to the complainant, but one
to purge the law profession of unworthy members, to protect the public and the
courts." 2 2

The illicit relationship with Carmelita took place while respondent was preparing to
take the bar examinations. Thus, it cannot be said that it is unknown to him that an
applicant for admission to membership in the bar must show that he is possessed of
good moral character, a requirement which is not dispensed with upon admission to
membership of the bar. 2 3 This quali cation is not only a condition precedent to admission
to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain one's good
standing in the profession; 2 4 it is a continuing requirement to the practice of law 2 5 and
therefore admission to the bar does not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry, upon
proper complaint, into any question concerning his mental or moral tness before he
became a lawyer. This is because his admission to practice merely creates a rebuttable
presumption that he has all the qualifications to become a lawyer.
The Court held:
"The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on
those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the quali cations
required by law for the conferment of such privilege. We must stress that
membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the
privilege to practice law only during good behavior. He can be deprived of his
license for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after
giving him the opportunity to be heard." 2 6

and in Dumadag vs. Lumaya:

"The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to
the rigid standards of mental tness, maintenance of the highest degree of
morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the
conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for
enjoying the privilege to practice law." 2 7

Respondent repeatedly engaged in sexual congress with a woman not his wife and
now refuses to recognize and support a child whom he previously recognized and
promised to support. Clearly therefore, respondent violated the standards of morality
required of the legal profession and should be disciplined accordingly.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 As consistently held by this Court, disbarment shall not be meted out if a lesser
punishment could be given. 2 8 Records show that from the time he took his oath in 1997,
he has severed his ties with complainant and now lives with his wife and children in
Mindoro. As of now, the Court does not perceive this fact as an indication of respondent's
effort to mend his ways or that he recognizes the impact of his offense on the noble
profession of law. Nevertheless, the Court deems it more appropriate under the
circumstances that inde nite suspension should be meted out than disbarment. The
suspension shall last until such time that respondent is able to show, to the full
satisfaction of the Court, that he has instilled in himself a rm conviction of maintaining
moral integrity and uprightness required of every member of the profession.
The rule is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct,
even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. 2 9
ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, the Court nds respondent GUILTY of
Gross Immoral Conduct and ordered to suffer INDEFINITE SUSPENSION from the practice
of law.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty. Castillo's personal record in the
O ce of the Bar Con dant and a copy thereof be furnished the IBP and all courts
throughout the country.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Gutierrez,
Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr. and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago and Corona, JJ., are on leave.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, p. 11.
2. Id., p. 2.
3. Id., p. 12.
4. Annex "A", Rollo, p. 5.
5. Rollo, p. 2.
6. Id., p. 7.
7. Annex "B", Rollo, p. 6.
8. Rollo, p. 2.
9. Id., at p. 11.
10. Id., at p. 13.
11. Id., at p. 12.
12. Id., at p. 13.
13. Narag vs. Narag, 291 SCRA 451, 464 (1998).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 14. Annex "C", Rollo, p. 7.
15. Id., at p. 39.
16. A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519, August 8, 2002.
17. Paras vs. Paras, 343 SCRA 414, 426 (2000).
18. Marcayda vs. Naz, 125 SCRA 466, 469 (1983).
19. Narag vs. Narag, supra, footnote 13.
20. Rollo, p. 14.
21. Id., at p. 11.
22. 100 Phil. 586, 592 (1956).
23. Cordova vs. Cordova, 179 SCRA 680, 683 (1989); Vda. de Mijares vs. Villaluz, 274 SCRA
1, 8 (1997).
24. Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos, 285 SCRA 93, 100 (1998); Igual vs. Javier, 254 SCRA 416
(1996); Villanueva vs. Sta. Ana, 245 SCRA 707 (1995); People vs. Tunada, 18 SCRA 692
(1990); Melendrez vs. Decena, 176 SCRA 662 (1989).

25. Nakpil vs. Valdes, 286 SCRA 758, 774 (1998).

26. Sebastian vs. Calis, 344 SCRA 1, 8 (1999).
27. 334 SCRA 513, 521 (2000).
28. Saburnido vs. Madrono, A.C. No. 4497, September 26, 2001.
29. Nakpil vs. Valdes, supra.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com