[Type text]

Joselano Guevarra v. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala,

AC No.7136, August 1, 2007

Facts:

Wife of petitioner, Irene Moje was having an illicit affair with the respondent. After leaving the conjugal
home, petitioner found out that Irene and respondent was living together in a residential house few
blocks away from the church they were married. Few months thereafter, Irene gave birth to a baby girl
and wrote the name of the respondent as the father in the certificate of live birth.

Petitioner filed a petition for annulment of marriage to Irene and a criminal complaint for adultery
against respondent and Irene.

Petitioner also filed a complaint for disbarment before the IBP-CBD on the ground of gross immoral
conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath which was dismissed by the IBP Board of
Governors due to lack of merit.

Hence, the petition of complaint before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Would an illicit affair between a married lawyer and a married woman constitute gross immoral
conduct?

Ruling:

Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage
should be characterized as 'grossly immoral conduct' depends on the surrounding circumstances."
The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is not his
wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly.

Sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate
disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed
by our laws. (Vitug v. Rongcal)

Respondent has been carrying on an illicit affair with a married woman, a grossly immoral conduct
and indicative of an extremely low regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession. This detestable
behavior renders him regrettably unfit and undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges which
his license confers upon him. (Tucay v. Atty. Tucay)

Respondent in fact also violated the lawyer's oath he took before admission to practice law.

Respondent admittedly is aware of Section 2 of Article XV (The Family) of the Constitution reading:
Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be
protected by the State.

In this connection, the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209), which echoes this constitutional
provision, obligates the husband and the wife "to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity, and render mutual help and support."

Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct," and
Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any "conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law."

WHEREFORE, Petition is GRANTED. Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED

for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
[Type text]

OSCAR P. MALLION, petitioner, v. EDITHA ALCANTARA, respondent.

G.R. No. 141528.        October 31, 2006.

Facts:

On October 24, 1995, petitioner Oscar Mallion filed with the Regional Trial Court seeking a
declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent Editha Alcantara on the ground of
psychological incapacity.

The trial court denied the petition. Likewise, it was dismissed in the Court of Appeals.

After such decision, petitioner filed another petition for declaration of nullity of marriage

with the regional trial court alleging that his marriage with respondent was null and void due
to the fact that it was celebrated without a valid marriage license.

Respondent filed an answer with motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata and forum
shopping.

The trial court grated her petition.

Issue:

Is the action of the husband tenable?

Ruling:

No. Section 47(b) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court pertains as “bar by prior judgment” or

“estoppels by verdict,” which is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of the
second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action. In Section 47(c) of the same
rule, it pertains to res judicata in its concept as “conclusiveness of judgment” or the rule of
auter action pendant which ordains that issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit
cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a
different cause of action. Therefore, having expressly and impliedly concealed the validity of
their marriage celebration, petitioner is now deemed to have waived any defects therein.
The Court finds then that the present action for declaration of nullity of marriage on the
ground of lack of marriage license is barred. The petition is denied for lack of merit.

Therefore, having expressly and impliedly conceded the validity of their marriage celebration,
petitioner is now deemed to have waived any defects therein. For this reason, the Court finds
that the present action for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of lack of marriage
license is barred by the decision dated November 11, 1997 of the RTC, Branch 29, of San Pablo
City, in Civil Case No. SP 4341-95.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.
[Type text]