1. Petition to Re-Acquire the Privilege to Practice Law by Epifanio Muneses, B.M. No.

2112, July 24,

2012, with accompanying Supreme Court Resolution En Banc, July 24, 2012

 The Court reiterates that Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar and is, in
fact, a continuing requirement for the practice of law. The loss thereof means termination of the
petitioner’s membership in the bar; ipso jure the privilege to engage in the practice of law.
 Under R.A. No. 9225, natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason
of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired their
Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic.`
 The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is so delicately affected with public
interest that it is both the power and duty of the State (through this Court) to control and
regulate it in order to protect and promote the public welfare.
 Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality,
faithful observance of the legal profession, compliance with the mandatory continuing legal
education requirement and payment of membership fees to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) are the conditions required for membership in good standing in the bar and for enjoying
the privilege to practice law.

2. Re: 2003 Bar Examinations, Atty. Daniel de Guzman, B.M. No. 1222, April 24, 2009

"Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their
sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample
them underfoot and to ignore the very bands of society, argues recreancy to his position and office
and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic.

3. In the Matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling in the 2002 Bar Examinations,
431 SCRA 146 (2004)

Practice of law is but merely a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the
law but who are also known to possess good moral character. The requirement of good moral
character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued
possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law.

The disclosure requirement on pending cases of crimes involving moral is imposed by the Court to
determine whether he is endowed with the moral fitness demanded of a lawyer. By concealing the
existence of such cases, the applicant then flunks the test of fitness even if the cases are ultimately
proven to be insufficient to impugn good moral character of the applicant.

4. In re Al C. Argosino, 246 SCRA 14 (1995)

In Re Farmer: 3

xxx xxx xxx

This "upright character" is something more than an absence of bad character. It is the good name
which the applicant has acquired, or should have acquired, through association with his fellows. It
means that he must have conducted himself as a man of upright character ordinarily would, or
should, or does. 

In Re Keenan:6
 Such character expresses  in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right, and the resolve not to do the
pleasant thing if it is wrong. 
 . He is sought as counsellor, and his advice comes home, in its ultimate effect, to every man's fireside. Vast
interests are committed to his care; he is the recipient of unbounded trust and confidence; he deals with is
client's property, reputation, his life, his all. An attorney at law is a sworn officer of the Court, whose chief
concern, as such, is to aid the administration of justice. . . .
  any evidence which tends to show the applicant's character as respects honesty, integrity, and general
morality,

5. Avida Land Corporation vs. Atty. Al Argosino, A.C. No. 7437

 Despite the simplicity of the issue involved in the case, the path towards its resolution became
long, tedious, and frustrating because of the deliberate attempts of respondent to delay the
actual execution of the judgment therein.
 Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers are required in their duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice. Respondent cannot hide behind the pretense of
advocating his client's cause to escape liability for his actions that delayed and frustrated the
administration of justice.
 Patent from the acts of respondent - is that he has made a mockery of judicial processes,
disobeyed judicial orders, and ultimately caused unjust delays in the administration of justice.
 These acts are in direct contravention of Rules 10.3 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provide:

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them
to defeat the ends of justice.

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of
judgment or misuse court processes.

 Further, respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath by disobeying the legal orders of a duly
constituted authority, and disregarding his sworn duty to "delay no man for money or
malice."

6. Consolidated cases of Villareal vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 151258, People vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 154954, Dizon vs. People, G.R. No. 155101, and Villa vs. Escalona, G.R. Nos. 178057
and 178080, February 1, 2012.

It is truly astonishing how men would wittingly – or unwittingly –impose the misery of hazing and
employ appalling rituals in the name of brotherhood. There must be a better way to establish
"kinship." A neophyte admitted that he joined the fraternity to have more friends and to avail himself
of the benefits it offered, such as tips during bar examinations. 270 Another initiate did not give up,
because he feared being looked down upon as a quitter, and because he felt he did not have a
choice.271 Thus, for Lenny Villa and the other neophytes, joining the Aquila Fraternity entailed a leap
in the dark. By giving consent under the circumstances, they left their fates in the hands of the
fraternity members. Unfortunately, the hands to which lives were entrusted were barbaric as they
were reckless.

Our finding of criminal liability for the felony of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide shall cover
only accused Tecson, Ama, Almeda, Bantug, and Dizon. Had the Anti-Hazing Law been in effect then,
these five accused fraternity members would have all been convicted of the crime of hazing
punishable by reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment). 272 Since there was no law prohibiting the act of
hazing when Lenny died, we are constrained to rule according to existing laws at the time of his
death. The CA found that the prosecution failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, Victorino et al.’s
individual participation in the infliction of physical injuries upon Lenny Villa. 273 As to accused Villareal,
his criminal liability was totally extinguished by the fact of his death, pursuant to Article 89 of the
Revised Penal Code.

7. Piatt vs. Abordo, 58 Phil. 350 (1933)

Attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross
misconduct not connected with his professional duties, which shows him to be unfit for the office and
unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him. 

8. Stemmerik vs. Mas, 589 SCRA 114 (2009)

All lawyers take an oath to support the Constitution, to obey the laws and to do no falsehood. 21 That
oath is neither mere formal ceremony nor hollow words. It is a sacred trust that should be upheld and
kept inviolable at all times.22

Lawyers are servants of the law23 and the law is their master. They should not simply obey the laws,
they should also inspire respect for and obedience thereto by serving as exemplars worthy of
emulation. Indeed, that is the first precept of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution provides:

SEC. 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed
except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public
domain.

For all this, respondent violated not only the lawyer’s oath and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

He also transgressed the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 1.01. – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 1.02. – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.

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.

CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL

HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.

CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF
HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL
BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. (emphasis
supplied)
9. Embido v. Pe, A.C. No. 6732, 22 October 2013

A lawyer who forges a court decision and represents it as that of a court of law is guilty of the gravest
misconduct and deserves the supreme penalty of disbarment.

Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that all lawyers should uphold at all times
the dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession.

Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states 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."

Lawyers ar e further required by Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility not to
engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.

Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or fraudulent transactions can
justify a lawyer’s disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. 25 Specifically, the deliberate
falsification of the court decision by the respondent was an act that reflected a high degree of moral
turpitude on his part. Worse, the act made a mockery of the administration of justice in this country,
given the purpose of the falsification, which was to mislead a foreign tribunal on the personal status
of a person. He thereby became unworthy of continuing as a member of the Bar.

10. Garcia v. Sesbreno, A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457, February 3, 2015

The only issue in these cases is whether conviction for the crime of homicide involves moral turpitude.

This is not to say that all convictions of the crime of homicide do not involve moral
turpitude.1âwphi1 Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the
crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown by every known and
intentional violation of statute, but whether any particular conviction involves moral turpitude may
be a question of fact and frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances. While x x x
generally but not always, crimes mala in seinvolve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibitado
not, it cannot always be ascertained whether moral turpitude does or does not exist by classifying a
crime as malum in se or as malum prohibitum, since there are crimes which are mala in se and yet
rarely involve moral turpitude and there are crimes which involve moral turpitude and are mala
prohibita only. It follows therefore, that moral turpitude is somewhat a vague and indefinite term, the
meaning of which must be left to the process of judicial inclusion or exclusion as the cases are
reached.7
 Even if Sesbrefio has been granted pardon, there is nothing in the records that shows that it was a
full and unconditional pardon. In addition, the practice of law is not a right but a privilege. 19 It is
granted only to those possessing good moral character. 20 A violation of the high moral standards of
the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty against a lawyer, including the
penalty of disbarment.21

11. Tan vs. Sabandal, 206 SCRA 473 (1992)

1. LEGAL ETHICS; ADMISSION TO BAR; PRACTICE OF LAW; A PRIVILEGE, NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT;
REQUIRES GOOD MORAL CHARACTER. — Time and again, it has been held that the practice of law is
not a matter of right. It is a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law
but who are also known to possess good moral character: "The Supreme Court and the Philippine Bar
have always tried to maintain a high standard for the legal profession, both in academic preparation
and legal training as well as in honesty and fair dealing. The Court and the licensed lawyers
themselves are vitally interested in keeping this high standard; and one of the ways of achieving this
end is to admit to the practice of this noble profession only those persons who are known to be
honest and to possess good moral character. . . . (In re Parazo, 82 Phil. 230)."cralaw virtua1aw library
2. ID.; ID.; GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, DEFINED. — Although the term "good moral character" admits
of broad dimensions, it has been defined as "including at least common honesty (Royong v. Oblena,
Adm. Case No. 376, April 30, 1963, 7 SCRA 859; In re Del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399 [1928]). It has also been
held that no moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness or candor
(Fellner v. Bar Association of Baltimore City, 131 A. 2d 729).

3. ID.; ID.; DISHONESTY, ATTENDANT IN CASE AT BAR. — Sabandal worked as Land Investigator at the
Bureau of Lands. Said employment facilitated his procurement of the free patent title over property
which he could not but have known was public land. This was manipulative on his part and does not
speak well of his moral character. It is a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in the public service,
which can not be erased by the termination of the case filed by the Republic against him where no
determination of his guilt or innocence was made because the suit had been compromised. Although
as the Solicitor General had pointed out, the amicable settlement was tantamount to a confession on
his part. What is more, he could not but have known of the intrinsic invalidity of his title and yet he
took advantage of it by securing a bank loan, mortgaging it as collateral, and notwithstanding the
foreclosure of the mortgage and the sale of the land at public auction, he did not lift a finger to
redeem the same until the civil case filed against him was eventually compromised. This is a sad
reflection on his sense of honor and fair dealing. His failure to reveal to this Court the pendency of the
civil case for Reversion filed against him during the period that he was submitting several Motions for
Reconsideration before us also reveal his lack of candor and truthfulness.

4. ID.; ID.; TESTIMONIALS ATTESTING GOOD MORAL CHARACTER CANNOT OUTWEIGH ACTS OF
DISHONESTY. — There are testimonials attesting to his good moral character, yes. But these were
confined to lack of knowledge of the pendency of any criminal case against him and were obviously
made without awareness of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case instituted by the
Government against him. Those testimonials can not, therefore, outweigh nor smother his acts of
dishonesty and lack of good moral character.

12. People vs. Tuanda, 181 SCRA 692 (1989)

The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless
check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. . . . The thrust of the law is to
prohibit under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation.
Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is prescribed by the law. The law
punishes the act not as an offense against property but an offense against public order.

x x x           x x x          x x x

The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of the parties directly
involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. The mischief it
creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public. The harmful
practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a thousandfold, can very well
pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt the
welfare of society and the public interest. 3(Italics supplied)

Respondent was thus correctly suspended from the practice of law because she had been convicted
of crimes involving moral turpitude. Sections 27 and 28 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court
provide as follows:

Sec. 27. Attorneys renewed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. A member of the bar
may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court of any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court,
or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do.
The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents
or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Italics supplied)

Sec. 28. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance. — The Court of
Appeals or a Court of First Instance may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes
named in the last preceding section, and after such suspension such attorney shall not practice his
profession until further action of the Supreme Court in the premises. (Italics supplied)

We should add that the crimes of which respondent was convicted also import deceit and violation of
her attorney's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility under both of which she was bound to
"obey the laws of the land." Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude might not (as in the
instant case, violation of B.P. Blg. 22 does not) relate to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer;
however, it certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person convicted of such
offense. In Melendrez v. Decena, 4 this Court stressed that:

the nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that she shall be a person of good moral
character.1âwphi1 This qualification is not only a condition precedent to an admission to the practice
of law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law. 5

13. Fernandez vs. Grecia, 223 SCRA 425 (1993)

On the basis of the evidence presented before Judge Bernad, the Court is convinced that the charge
against Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia is true. By stealing two pages from Linda Aves' medical chart and
passing them on to his driver, he violated Rule 1.01, canon 1 of the Rules of Professional
Responsibility as well as canon 7 thereof which provide that:

Canon 1. . . .

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct.

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.

By descending to the level of a common thief, respondent Grecia has demeaned and disgraced the
legal profession. He has demonstrated his moral unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable
fraternity of lawyers. He has forfeited his membership in the BAR.

Generally, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or
private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good
demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court, or an unfit or unsafe person to enjoy the
privileges and to manage the business of others in the capacity of an attorney, or for conduct which
tends to bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public.
(Marcelo vs. Javier, Sr., A.C. No. 3248, September 18, 1992, p. 15.)

14. Pimentel vs. Llorente, 339 SCRA 154 (2000)

As public officers, respondents failed to live up to the high degree of excellence, professionalism,
intelligence and skill required of them. 16 As lawyers, they were found to have engaged in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. 17 They also violated their oath as officers of the court to
foist no falsehood on anyone. Furthermore, by express provision of Canon 6 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, the avoidance of such conduct is demanded of them as lawyers in the
government service:

CANON 6 – These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official
tasks.

As lawyers in the government service, respondents were under an even greater obligation to observe
the basic tenets of the legal profession because public office is a public trust.

15. Freeman vs. Reyes, A.C. No. 6246, November 15, 2011

A disciplinary proceeding against a lawyer is sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, it
does not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct
of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution.
Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu
proprio. Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or
not the attorney is still fit to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary
powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of
the Court, with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and
honest administration of justice, by purging the profession of members who, by their misconduct,
have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities
pertaining to the office of an attorney.34

Being a sui generis proceeding, the main disposition of this Court is the determination of the
respondent's administrative liability. This does not include the grant of affirmative reliefs, such as
moral and exemplary damages as prayed for by the complainant, which may very well be the subject
of a separate civil suit for damages arising from the respondent's wrongful acts, to be filed in the
regular courts.

Law advocacy, it has been stressed, is not capital that yields profits. The returns it births are simple
rewards for a job done or service rendered. It is a calling that, unlike mercantile pursuits which enjoy
a greater deal of freedom from government interference, is impressed with public interest, for which
it is subject to State regulation. 55 Respondent's repeated reprehensible acts of employing chicanery
and unbecoming conduct to conceal her web of lies, to the extent of milking complainant's finances
dry, and deceitfully arrogating upon herself the insurance proceeds that should rightfully belong to
complainant, in the guise of rendering legitimate legal services, clearly transgressed the norms of
honesty and integrity required in the practice of law. This being so, respondent should be purged
from the privilege of exercising the noble legal profession.

16. Dizon v. de Taza, A.C. No. 7676, 10 June 2014

This concerns an administrative complaint1 for disbarment against Atty. Norlita De Taza (Atty. De
Taza) for the latter's demand for and receipt of exorbitant sums of money from her client purportedly
to expedite the proceedings of their case which was pending before the Court.

When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render
an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for that particular purpose. And if he
does not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to
his client.31 In this case, the purpose for which Atty. De Taza demanded money is baseless and non-
existent. Thus, her demand should not have even been made in the first place.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides for the disbarment or suspension of a
lawyer for any of the following: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly
immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyer’s
oath; (7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party without authority to do so.32

"Law is a noble profession, and the privilege to practice it is bestowed only upon individuals who are
competent intellectually, academically and, equally important, morally. Because they are vanguards
of the law and the legal system, lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their
dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond
reproach."37 "The Judiciary has been besieged enough with accusations of corruption and malpractice.
For a member of the legal profession to further stoke the embers of mistrust on the judicial system
with such irresponsible representations is reprehensible and cannot be tolerated." 38

All told, the Court holds that there is no reason to deviate from the report and recommendation of
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline which is to suspend Atty. De Taza from the practice of law for
two years.

17. RA 7662
- UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR BEING AN ENCROACHMENT TO THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER OF THE
SUPREME COURT IN PROMULGATING RULES IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW

18. Ui vs. Bonifacio, 333 SCRA 38 (2000)

he practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy the practice of the
legal profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject
to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. The
requisites for admission to the practice of law are:

a. he must be a citizen of the Philippines;

b. a resident thereof;

c. at least twenty-one (21) years of age;

d. a person of good moral character;

e. he must show that no charges against him involving moral turpitude, are filed or pending in court;

f. possess the required educational qualifications; and

g. pass the bar examinations. 25 (Emphasis supplied)

Clear from the foregoing is that one of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant
must possess good moral character. More importantly, possession of good moral character must be
continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss
thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. It has been held —

If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then the continued possession of
good moral character is also a requisite for retaining membership in the legal profession. Membership
in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good moral character. (Royong vs.
Oblena, 117 Phil. 865).

A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude". A member of the bar should have moral integrity in addition to
professional probity.

It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is "grossly immoral
conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of
continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior
to the straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment.

Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which
shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community."
(7 C.J.S. 959).

All these taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that respondent was imprudent in
managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed
as it was with what respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For
immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion
of good and respectable members of the community. 27 Moreover, for such conduct to warrant
disciplinary action, the same must be "grossly immoral," that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. 28

We have held that "a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from
adulterous relationships . . . but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards." 29 Respondent's act of immediately
distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral
indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of
the legal profession. Complainant's bare assertions to the contrary deserve no credit. After all, the
burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the Court will exercise its disciplinary powers only if
she establishes her case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. 30 This, herein complainant
miserably failed to do.

19. • Figueroa vs. Barranco, 276 SCRA 445 (1997)

We find that these facts do not constitute gross immorality warranting the permanent exclusion of
respondent from the legal profession. His engaging in premarital sexual relations with complainant
and promises to marry suggests a doubtful moral character on his part but the same does not
constitute grossly immoral conduct. The Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment the
act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. "A grossly immoral act is one that is
so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be
reprehensible to a high degree."6 It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community.

20. • Cordova vs. Cordova, 179 SCRA 680 (1989)

In the instant case, respondent Cordova maintained for about two (2) years an adulterous relationship
with a married woman not his wife, in full view of the general public, to the humiliation and detriment
of his legitimate family which he, rubbing salt on the wound, failed or refused to support. After a brief
period of "reform" respondent took up again with another woman not his wife, cohabiting with her
and bringing along his young daughter to live with them. Clearly, respondent flaunted his disregard of
the fundamental institution of marriage and its elementary obligations before his own daughter and
the community at large.
21. • Castillo vda de Mijares vs. Villaluz, 274 SCRA 1 (1997)

From the foregoing, it is evident that respondent dismally fails to meet the standard of moral fitness
for continued membership in the legal profession. The nature of the office of an attorney at law
requires that he shall be a person of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition
precedent for admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining
in the practice of law. 6 Under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The commission of grossly immoral
conduct and deceit are grounds for suspension or disbarment of lawyers.

22. • Calub vs. Suller, 323 SCRA 556 (2000)

What is before the Court is a complaint for disbarment against respondent premised on grossly
immoral conduct for having raped his neighbor's wife.

The record discloses that the Court of First Instance acquitted respondent Suller for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Such acquittal, however, is not determinative
of this administrative case.

The testimonies of witnesses in the criminal complaint, particularly that of the complainant suffice to
show that respondent acted in a grossly reprehensible manner in having carnal knowledge of his
neighbor's wife without her consent in her very home.

A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor
or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. 1

23. • Cojuangco vs. Palma, A.C. No. 2474 (2004)

Undoubtedly, respondent’s act constitutes grossly immoral conduct, a ground for disbarment
under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. He exhibited a deplorable lack of that
degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. In particular, he made a mockery of
marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second
marriage is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality. 23

This is not the first occasion that we censure immorality. Thus, we have somehow come up with a
common definition of what constitutes immoral conduct, i.e., "that conduct which is willful, flagrant,
or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable
members of the community."24 Measured against this definition, respondent’s act is manifestly
immoral. First, he abandoned his lawful wife and three children. Second, he lured an innocent young
woman into marrying him. And third, he misrepresented himself as a "bachelor" so he could contract
marriage in a foreign land.

The interdict upon lawyers, as inscribed in Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, is that
they "shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." This is founded on the
lawyers’ primordial duty to society as spelled out in Canon 1 which states:

"CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and legal processes."
It is not by coincidence that the drafters of our Code of Professional Responsibility ranked the above
responsibility first in the enumeration. They knew then that more than anybody else, it is the lawyers
-- the disciples of law -- who are most obliged to venerate the law. As stated in Ex Parte Wall:37

"Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their
sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample
them underfoot and to ignore the very bonds of society, argues recreancy to his position and office
and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic."

Corollarily, the above responsibility is enshrined in the Attorney’s Oath which every lawyer in the
country has to take before he is allowed to practice.

In sum, respondent committed grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer. The
penalty of one (1) year suspension recommended by the IBP is not commensurate to the gravity of his
offense. The bulk of jurisprudence supports the imposition of the extreme penalty of disbarment.

24. • Guevarra vs. Atty. Eala, A.C. No. 7136 (2007)

Without doubt, the adulterous relationship between respondent and Irene has been sufficiently
proven by more than clearly preponderant evidence – that evidence adduced by one party which is
more conclusive and credible than that of the other party and, therefore, has greater weight than the
other32 – which is the quantum of evidence needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.

Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they
may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.

. . . of proof for these types of cases differ. In a criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is
necessary; in an administrative case for disbarment or suspension, "clearly preponderant evidence" is
all that is required

Indeed, from respondent's Answer, he does not deny carrying on an adulterous relationship with
Irene, "adultery" being defined under Art. 333 of the Revised Penal Code as that "committed by any
married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and  by the man who
has carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently
declared void."26 (Italics supplied) What respondent denies is having flaunted such relationship, he
maintaining that it was "low profile and known only to the immediate members of their respective
families."

In other words, respondent's denial is a negative pregnant,

a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are
not squarely denied. It was in effect an admission of the averments it was directed at. Stated
otherwise, a negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which carries with it in affirmation or
at least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an
admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or
modifying language and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, it
has been held that the qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is
admitted.27 (Citations omitted; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The immediately-quoted Rule which provides the grounds for disbarment or suspension uses the
phrase "grossly immoral conduct," not "under scandalous circumstances." Sexual intercourse under
scandalous circumstances is, following Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code reading:
ART. 334. Concubinage. - Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or, shall
have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall
cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods.

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."40

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."

25. Garrido vs. Garrido, 611 SCRA 508 (2010)

General Considerations

Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure – such as the verification of pleadings and
prejudicial questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the filing of affidavits of desistance by
the complainant – do not apply in the determination of a lawyer’s qualifications and fitness for
membership in the Bar.13 We have so ruled in the past and we see no reason to depart from this
ruling.14 First, admission to the practice of law is a component of the administration of justice and is a
matter of public interest because it involves service to the public. 15 The admission qualifications are
also qualifications for the continued enjoyment of the privilege to practice law. Second, lack of
qualifications or the violation of the standards for the practice of law, like criminal cases, is a matter of
public concern that the State may inquire into through this Court. In this sense, the complainant in a
disbarment case is not a direct party whose interest in the outcome of the charge is wholly his or her
own;16 effectively, his or her participation is that of a witness who brought the matter to the attention
of the Court.