A.C. No.

10731 October 5, 2021

CRISANTA HOSOYA vs. ATTY. ALLAN C. CONTADO

FACTS:

 Crisanta filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Contado for

violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
 The complainant alleged, among others, that Atty. Contado
courted her and represented that he was already separate-in-fact
from his wife. Thus, they lived together and their cohabitation
resulted in two children.
 Later on, their relationship turned sour.
 Crisanta claimed that she and her children no longer received
support from Atty. Contado despite demand. Moreover, she
alleged that Atty. Contado took her vehicle and despite demand to
return it, Atty. Contado did not do so.
 On his part, Atty. Contado denied the allegations.
 He indeed confirmed having relationship with the complainant but
denied that having remised his obligations to them. He even
attached receipts and deposit slips toshow that he is sending
money and supplies to Crisanta.
 He also admitted that the car was still in his possession because
the same still needs to be repaired.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Contado violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

Yes.

A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct. A lawyer shall likewise faithfully perform at all times
his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to the clients. For the
imposition of the penalty of disbarment on the ground of immorality, the
conduct complained of must not only be immoral, but must be grossly
immoral.
 In the case at bar, Atty. Conrado statements made it clear to the
court that he abandoned his legal wife and family to cohabit with
Crisanta that resulted in two children. Such admission can serve as to
find him guilty of violating the CPR for committing grossly immoral acts.
It is well-settled that a married person’s abandonment of his or her
spouse to live with and cohabit with another constitutes gross immorality
as it amounts to either adultery or concubinage. As to the return of the
subject vehicle, the court finds that the excuse given by Atty. Conrado is
flimsy and unacceptable. Refusal to return property despite lawful
demand is akin to deliberate failure to pay debt. Failure to pay debt
despite repeated demands constitutes dishonest and deceitful conduct.
Thus,
Atty. Contado was found guilty of gross immorality and was disbarred
from the practice of law.