Chelsea Princess O.

Cabalquinto
JD-1A

GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT

A.C. No. 10731, October 5, 2021

CRISANTA G. HOSOYA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ALLAN C. CONTADO, Respondent.

FACTS:
Crisanta Hosoya and Atty. Allan Contado met sometime in 2003. Atty. Contado claimed then that
he was already separated from his wife and their marriage was under annulment proceedings. In
2010, Hosoya agreed to live with Contado. As they were living as husband and wife, they had two
daughters. Their relationship did not last so Contado left Hosoya and their children. Crisanta
alleged that Contado failed to give support to their children and that her Ford Expadition vehicle
was in Contado’s possession. Contado admitted that he really told Hosoya that he was separated
with his wife when they met but denied the allegations that he failed to support his children
showing proofs of his remittances. He also admitted that the subject vehicle was with him but
unable to return because the vehicle needs major repair to be transported. The IBP investigated
and recommended that he be disbarred for raising two children out of wedlock and for failing to
return the vehicle, violating the Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the CPR.IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
(CBD) recommended that the respondent, for having had an immoral relationship with the
complainant, be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year. The IBP Board of
Governors (BOG) adopted the findings of fact and recommendation of the CBD. However, it
resolved to increase the penalty to disbarment.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Contado be Disbarred or Suspended?

RULING:
The Court adopts the findings of fact by the IBP CBD as affirmed by the BOG and agrees with the
imposition of the penalty of disbarment.
Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the CPR
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 7.03 - 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
or the legal profession.
Atty. Contado made similar statements in his Position Paper as filed with the IBP, wilh the
following specifically reiterating that he had a wife during the cohabitation: "Respondent has
severed his relationship with complainant. And respondent did not abandon his lawful wife."73
These admissions strongly support and corroborate Crisanta's statements that they cohabited.
Instead of disputing Crisanta's allegations, he affirmed them in giving these statements; he did
not present any denial on these specifics. Atty. Contados statements, therefore, made it clear to
the Court that he abandoned his legal wife and family to cohabit with Crisanta that resulted in
two children. Applying Chan, Atty. Contado's admissions can serve as basis to find him guilty of
violating the CPR for committing grossly immoral acts.
Chelsea Princess O. Cabalquinto
JD-1A

A.C. No. 12702, November 08, 2020

DIVINE GRACE P. CRISTOBAL, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JONATHAN A. CRISTOBAL,
RESPONDENT.

FACTS:
Divine and Atty. Cristobal were happily married and have 4 children, but the latter became
abusive and irresponsible and subjected the former to verbal, emotional, psychological, and
physical abuse. Atty. Cristobal denied these allegations and that the photographic evidence
submitted by Divine were digitally altered. The IBP in its ruling, Commissioner Andres agreed with
Atty. Cristobal and held that domestic squabbles cannot be grounds for disciplinary action when
such squabbles are not scandalous in nature and would not affect the integrity or perception of
the legal profession. In his Report and Recommendation30 dated January 12, 2016, Investigating
Commissioner Mario V. Andres (Commissioner Andres) recommended the dismissal of the administrative
complaint for lack of merit. Commissioner Andres agreed with Atty. Cristobal and held that domestic
squabbles cannot be a ground for disciplinary action when such squabbles are not scandalous in nature
and would not affect the integrity or perception of the legal profession. The evidence presented by Divine
failed to prove that Atty. Cristobal's actions merit the penalty of disbarment. Commissioner Andres noted
that Divine's allegations are self-serving and ill motivated. Commissioner Andres ruled that Atty. Cristobal
cannot be administratively sanctioned for the December 11, 2009, incident in the absence of a conviction
in the criminal case filed by Divine against Atty. Cristobal. It was later reversed, Atty. Cristobal's acts
of physical violence were found to be prohibited, immoral, and scandalous behavior, thus,
violating Canons 1 and 7 of the CPR. The majority has affirmed the Board of Governors' findings,
holding that Atty. Cristobal was guilty of grossly immoral conduct. It declared that "Atty.
Cristobal's actions fall short of the exacting moral standard required of the noble profession of
law.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the disbarment is too harsh a penalty given the attenuating circumstances in this
case.

RULING:
Disbarment is too harsh a penalty given the attenuating circumstances in this case.
In the 1923 case of In Re: Pelaez,57 Justice Malcolm - likewise a noted authority in legal ethics -
pointed out the following principle:
As a general rule, a court will not assume jurisdiction to discipline one of its officers for
misconduct alleged to have been committed in his private capacity. But this is a general rule with
many exceptions. The courts sometimes stress the point that the attorney has shown, through
miscon-duct outside of his professional dealings, a want of such pro-fessional honesty as render
him unworthy of public confi-dence, and an unfit and unsafe person to manage the legal business
of others.
Although acts amounting to gross immorality cannot be delineated, this Court has held that
grossly immoral conduct is one that is "willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the
community."60 Determining whether one's actions is grossly immoral depends on the attendant
circumstances and prevailing norms of conduct.61
Therefore, Atty. Cristobal's actions display his unlawful and immoral conduct, in violation of Rule
1.01 of the CPR.
Atty. Cristobal's violence towards his spouse shows his lack of respect for the sanctity of
marriage.ℒαwρhi৷ It is violative of his legal obligation to respect Divine.Even negating their
relationship as husband and wife, Atty. Cristobal's actions may clearly be subject of a criminal
Chelsea Princess O. Cabalquinto
JD-1A

proceeding – had it not been for Divine's desistance. Divine's alleged attempts to reconcile with
Atty. Cristobal will not erase the fact that Atty. Cristobal did not conduct himself in the manner
required of him as a member of the Bar.
Because disbarment proceedings are to be "exercised on the preservative and not on the
vindictive principle," the Court, in its discretion, may impose a lower penalty. As in this case, there
are mitigating circumstances that militate against the imposition of the extreme penalty of
disbarment.
It was emphasize that act of reducing the administrative penalty due to Divine's disrespect
towards Atty. Cristobal is in no way a condonation or justification for Atty. Cristobal's acts of
violence toward Divine. The consideration of these circumstances is only for the purpose of
reducing the penalty imposed on Atty. Cristobal from disbarment to suspension.