PATRICIA FIGUEROA,

V. SIMEON
BARRANCO, JR.
DOCTRINE:
The Supreme Court ruled that these facts do not constitute gross immorality
warranting permanent exclusion of herein respondent from the legal
profession. His engaging in premarital sexual relations with the complainant
and promises to marry suggest a doubtful moral character on his part but the
same does not constitute gross immoral conduct. To justify suspension or
disbarment, the act complained of must not only be immoral but grossly
immoral. Additionally, even assuming that his past indiscretions are
ignoble, the twenty-six years that respondent has been prevented from being
a lawyer constitute sufficient punishment therefor. Henceforth, the Court
hereby dismissed the instant petition and herein respondent should be
allowed to take his lawyer’s oath.
Nature of Case: Administrative complaint.
Brief:
This is an administrative complaint filed by Patricia Figueroa way back in
1971, against respondent Simeon Barranco Jr., a successful bar candidate in
the 1970 Bar examination, praying thereto that herein respondent be denied
admission to the legal profession. In her petition, complainant averred that
respondent and she had been sweethearts, that a child out of wedlock was
born to them and that respondent failed to fulfill his promise to marry her
after he passes the bar examinations. Hence, complainant charged him of
gross immorality.
Facts:
Patricia Figueroa and Simeon Barranco were town-mates and teen
sweethearts. Their intimacy yielded to a child Simeon. Subsequently,
Simeon first promised he would marry her after he passes the bar
examinations. Their relationship continued and Simeon allegedly made
more than twenty or thirty promises of marriage.

Patricia learned that Simeon married another woman. Meanwhile, Simeon

successfully passed the 1970 bar examinations. But before he could
take his oath, Patricia filed a petition to disqualify Simeon to take the
Lawyer’s Oath on the ground of gross immoral conduct.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the act of Simeon in engaging in premarital relations with
Patricia and making promises to marry her constitute gross immoral
conduct?
Rationale/Held:
The SC ruled that the facts do not constitute gross immoral conduct warranting a permanent exclusion of
Simeon 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. It is
wilful, flagrant, or shameless act, which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members
of the community. We cannot castigate a man for seeking out the partner of his dreams, for marriage is a
sacred and perpetual bond which should be entered into because of love, not for any other reason.

Supreme Court Ruling: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. Respondent Simeon
Barranco, Jr. is ALLOWED to take his oath as a lawyer upon payment of the proper fees.