VIOJAN

vs
DURAN
A.C. No. 248, Feb. 26, 1962

Facts:
On January 27, 1955, complainant Viojan filed with the DOJ a complaint
against respondent Duran as Justice of the Peace, charging him with having
had carnal knowledge with her, by force.
On February 12, 1955, the District Judge issued an order requiring
respondent to answer said complaint.
On February 21, respondent filed his answer denying all the allegations in
the complaint imputing illegal and immoral acts to him.
On June 4, 1955, the District Judge submitted to the Secretary of Justice
a report finding respondent guilty of immorality and recommending his
suspension from the service for 3 months.
In his 2nd Indorsement (dated October 12, 1955) to the President, the
Secretary of Justice concurred in the above report of the District Judge, but
recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of 6, instead of 3
months. Acting on said recommendation, the President issued Administrative
Order No. 148, on November 26, 1955, suspended the respondent from the
office of Justice of the Peace of Basey, Samar, for a period of 6 months,
without pay.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied
by the President.
While motions for reconsideration were pending with the President,
complainant filed with the Supreme Court the present petition for disbarment
against respondent, on the basis of the same facts presented and established
in the aforementioned Administrative Case. The case was referred to the
SolGen for comment. On April 24, the SolGen recommended that respondent
be merely suspended (not disbarred) from the practice of law, for such period
of time as this Court may fix in its discretion, considering that respondent is
"already punished with 6 months suspension from his office, without pay; that
he is supporting 9 children; and that the sexual intercourse was made
possible by the act of complainant herself", and that "to disbar the respondent
would be
disproportionate to the act committed under all the surrounding circumstances
of the case".
On May 2, 1956, the SolGen filed a manifestation praying for the
dismissal of the petition for disbarment against respondent. Hence, this
petition.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent Duran be disbarred from the practice of law for
grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath.

Ruling:
No. Respondent Duran cannot be disbarred from the practice of law for
grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath. The Supreme Court held
that it is undoubted that respondent's immorality is condemnable. He is a
Justice of the Peace and, as such, he is considered a high government official
in the community of his assignment. Being in direct contact with the people
thereof, he is expected to be above and beyond reproach, not only in his
private, but also in his public or official conduct, dealings, and actuations. He
ought to be a person of exemplary character, if not a model citizen —
attributes so necessary if the citizenry are to keep faith in the proper and
impartial administration of justice. By committing the immorality in question,
respondent Duran violated the trust reposed in his high office, and utterly
failed to live up to the noble ideals and the strict standards of morality required
of the law profession.
However, considering that respondent Duran had already undergone the
penalty of suspension from the office of Justice of the Peace without pay for 6
months, and to suspend him further in his capacity as a member of the Bar
would, in effect, prolong his former suspension as a Justice of the Peace; and,
furthermore, considering that the immorality committed by him was made
possible partly by the rather equivocal conduct of complainant herself, the
Supreme Court are constrained to agree to the SolGen's recommendation
and
hereby dismiss the present disbarment proceedings against respondent.