Eduardo M. Cojuangco Jr. vs. Atty. Leo J.

Palma
A.C. no. 2474
June 30, 2005
Topic : The Lawyer an Society

Facts:
Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Leo J.
Palma, alleging as grounds “deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office,
violation of his oath as a lawyer and grossly immoral conduct.”
Respondent Palma was employed by the petitioner as his personal counsel.
Respondent’s excellence in managing petitioner’s legal affairs, prompted the
petitioner to introduce the respondent to his family. Since the respondent gained
the trust of the petitioner and his family, their relationship became intimate.
Respondent then was allowed to tutor the 22-year-old daughter of Petitioner.
However, when his concern was supposed to be the complainant’s legal affairs
only, he sneaked at the latter’s back and courted his daughter. He succeeded in
misrepresenting himself to Hong Kong officials as a bachelor and successfully
married the petitioner’s daughter, even though he is legally married.
Respondent argued that he cannot be punished since there is no allegation that
he acted with “wanton recklessness, lack of skill or ignorance of the law” in
serving the complainant’s interest. Anent the charge of grossly immoral conduct,
he stressed that he married the complainant’s daughter with “utmost sincerity
and good faith” and that “it is contrary to the natural course of things for an
immoral man to marry the woman he sincerely loves.”
Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Palma’s acts constitute gross immoral conduct so as to

warrant his disbarment from the legal profession.

Held:
Yes, the Court ruled respondent’s action constitutes gross immoral conduct. A
gross immoral conduct, the Court said, is a 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. Thus, measured against this
definition, the 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.
In particular, adds the Court, “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.”
Moreover, the circumstances here speak of a clear case of betrayal of trust and
abuse of confidence. It was the respondent’s closeness to the complainant’s
family as well as the latter’s complete trust in him that made possible his intimate
relationship with Lisa. When his concern was supposed to be the complainant’s
legal affairs only, he sneaked at the latter’s back and courted his daughter. Like
the proverbial thief in the night, he attacked when nobody was looking. Moreover,
he availed of the complainant’s resources by securing a plane ticket from the
complainant’s office in order to marry the latter’s daughter in Hong Kong. He did
this without the complainant’s knowledge.
The court stressed again the principle that law profession does not prescribe a
dichotomy of standards among its members. There is no distinction as to whether
the transgression is committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his
private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be
an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Thus, not only his
professional activities but even his private life, insofar as the latter may reflect
unfavorably upon the good name and prestige of the profession and the courts,
may at any time be the subject of inquiry on the part of the proper authorities.
Respondent cannot rely on the complainant’s admission that he is a good lawyer,
because professional competency alone does not make a lawyer a worthy
member of the Bar. Good moral character is always an indispensable
requirement.