Remedios Tapucar vs. Atty.

Lauro Tapucar
A.C. No. 4148 July 30, 1998

Facts: Remedios sought the disbarment of her husband, Atty. Tapucar, on the
ground of continuing grossly immoral conduct for cohabiting with Elena under scandalous
circumstances. Prior to this, Atty. Tapucar was already administratively charged 4 times (6
months suspension w/out pay; separation from the service; dismissal and separation from
service) for conduct unbecoming an officer of the court and grossly immoral conduct. It was
found out that after becoming a CFI Judge in Butuan City, he cohabited with Elena and
completely abandoned Remedios and their children. Atty. Tapucar and Elena got married
even while the former’s marriage was subsisting. Remedios migrated to USA but her children
who remained in the Philippines kept her posted of the misery they suffered because of their
father’s acts. Thus, she filed the foregoing case under the compulsion of the maternal
impulse to shield and protect her children from the despotic and cruel acts of their own
father.

The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

recommended the disbarment of Atty. Tapucar.

Issue: Whether Atty. Tapucar should be disbarred.

Held: Yes, he should be disbarred.

Well settled is the rule that good moral character is not only a condition precedent for
admission to the legal profession but it must also remain intact in order to maintain one’s
good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity.

Rule 1.01 provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or
deceitful conduct.

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

A high degree of moral integrity is expected of a lawyer in the community where he

resides. He must maintain due regard for public decency in an orderly society.

Here, the record shows that despite previous sanctions imposed upon him by this
Court, Atty. Tapucar continued his illicit liaison with a woman other than his lawfully
wedded wife. He exhibited a cavalier attitude, even arrogance, in the face of charges against
him.

Disbarred.
Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala
A.C. No. 7136 August 1, 2007

Facts: Joselano filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala
for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer’s oath. It was alleged
that Joselano first met Atty. Eala when the former’s fiancée, Irene, introduced the latter to
him who was married to Marianne with whom he had 3 children. After Joselano and Irene’s
marriage, he noticed that Irene had been receiving calls and messages which read Ily, Imy, or
meet you at megamall. He also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or
early in the morning of the ff day, and sometimes did not go home. When he asked her
whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parent’s house, or she was busy with work.
Joselano saw Irene and Atty. Eala together on two occasions. On the 2 nd occasion, he
confronted them which resulted to Irene abandoning the conjugal home.

The IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Eala be disbarred. However, the IBP Board of
Governors annulled and set aside the recommendation for lack of merit.

Issue: Whether Atty. Eala should be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct.

Held: Yes, he should be disbarred.

Rule 7.03 of the CPR commands that ‘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.’

Here, Atty. Eala 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. His grossly immoral
conduct runs afoul of the constitution and the laws, that he as a lawyer has sworn to uphold.

Disbarred.
Cynthia Advincula vs. Atty. Ernesto Macabata
A.C. No. 7204 March 7, 2007

Facts: Cynthia filed a complaint against Atty. Macabata for gross immorality alleging
that sometime in December 2004, she sought the legal advice of the latter regarding her
collectibles from Queensway Travel and Tours. Atty. Macabata sent them demand letters,
however, it failed to settle its account. Cynthia and Atty. Macabata decided to meet at a
restaurant to discuss the possibility of filing the complaint against Queensway. After dinner,
when Cynthia was to alight the car of Atty. Macabata, the latter allegedly grabbed her arm
and kissed her on the cheek and embraced her very tightly. This incident was repeated when
they met again to finalize the complaint. In this incident, respondent forcefully held her face
and kissed her lips. Later on that same day, she informed him that she has referred the case
to another lawyer. Thereafter, Atty. Macabata texted her confessing his feelings and that he
wanted to see her and asked for her forgiveness.

Issue: Whether Atty. Macabata committed acts that are grossly immoral, or which
constitute serious moral depravity that would warrant his disbarment or suspension from
the practice of law.

Held: No, he did not.

Rule 7.03 provides “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.”

In B.M. No. 1154, good moral character was defined as what a person really is, as
distinguished from good reputation, or from the opinion generally entertained of him, or the
estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is known. The requirement of
good moral character has four ostensible purposes: 1) to protect the public; 2) to protect the
public image of lawyers; 3) to protect prospective clients; and 4) to protect errant lawyers
from themselves.

Immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes conduct
inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity and
dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to
opinions of respectable members of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward
good order and public welfare.

Here, guided by the definitions above, we perceived acts of kissing or beso-beso on

the cheeks as mere gestures of friendship and camaraderie, forms of greetings, casual and
customary. The acts of respondents, though, in turning the head of complainant towards him
and kissing her on the lips are distasteful. However, such act, even if considered offensive
and undesirable, cannot be considered grossly immoral.

Atty. Macabata is reprimanded to be more prudent and cautious in his dealing with
his clients with a stern warning.