Case Synthesis Legal Research 1

The Supreme Court has decided five cases regarding the Disbarment on
the grounds of grossly immoral conduct.
In the case of Radaza vs Tejano, 'Intimacy between a man and a woman

who are not married . . . is neither so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act nor so
unprincipled as to warrant disbarment or disciplinary action against the man as a
member of the Bar
Decision:
We have reviewed the record and we find the foregoing report
sufficiently borne thereby. While We hold that respondent's conduct
complained of does not warrant drastic disciplinary sanction, this is far from
saying that it conforms with the highest standard of morality and propriety
or decorum that every lawyer is expected to maintain. More than an ordinary
individual, a lawyer "must, in the exercise of his rights and the performance
of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty
and good faith." (Article 19, Civil Code)
Accordingly, the instant complaint against respondent is hereby
DISMISSED, but he is sternly admonished that any other misconduct on his
part which might reflect unfavorably on the moral norms of the profession
will be dealt with accordingly.
In the case of Arciga vs Maniwag, the supreme court ruled 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.
Decision:
This Court found that respondent's refusal to marry the

complainant was not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment.
(See Montana vs. Ruado, Administrative Case No. 507, February 24, 1975,
62 SCRA 382; Reyes vs. Wong, Administrative Case No. 547, January 29,
1975, 63 SCRA 667, Viojan vs. Duran, 114 Phil. 322; Abaigar vs. Paz,
Administrative Case No. 997, September 10, 1979,93 SCRA 91).
Considering the facts of this case and the aforecited precedents,

the complaint for disbarment against the respondent is hereby dismissed.
In the case of Atty. Ecraela vs Atty. Pangalangan, the Supreme Court

ruled the moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to
continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral
standards of the community, conduct for instance, which makes 'a mockery of the
inviolable social institution of marriage." In various cases, the Court has held that
disbarment is warranted when a lawyer abandons his lawful wife and maintains an
illicit relationship with another woman who has borne him a child. Furthermore,
by displaying deplorable arrogance by making a mockery out of the institution of
marriage, and taking advantage of his legal skills by attacking the Petition through
technicalities and refusing to participate in the proceedings. His actions showed
that he lacked the degree of morality required of him as a member of the bar, thus
warranting the penalty of disbarment.
Decision:
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Court resolves
to ADOPT the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors approving and
adopting, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner. Accordingly, respondent Atty. Ian Raymond A.
Pangalangan is found GUILTY of gross immorality and of violating Section 2
of A1iicle XV of the 1987 Constitution, Canon 1 and Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and
Rule 7.03, and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, and the Lawyer's Oath and is hereby DISBARRED from the
practice of law.
In the case of De Los Reyes vs. Atty. Aznar, it was highly immoral of
respondent, a married man with children, to have taken advantage of his position
as chairman of the college of medicine in asking complainant, a student in said
college, to go with him to Manila where he had carnal knowledge of her under the
threat that she would flunk in all her subjects in case she refused.
From the above cases, the Supreme Court established a common

understanding of grossly immoral conduct that would constitute disbarment.
Decision:
Disbarment, according to these cases, is clearly defined by the Code of Professional

Responsibility Rule 138 section 27 which stipulates A member of the bar maybe removed
WHEREFORE, respondent Jose B. Aznar is hereby DISBARRED
and his name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.
In the case of Guevarra vs Atty. Eala, the Supreme Court ruled, while it
has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between
two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such
illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity.
Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal
law, sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it
manifestsdeliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital
vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws
or suspended from his office as attorney by the supreme court for 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 the admission or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful
appearing as an attorney of a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice
of soliciting cases at law for purposes of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. That being cited, it is assumed that the
perspective of the practicing lawyer is to continue to possess good moral character,
to which he was required to have with evidently, upon the admission to the bar as
a sine qua non. Otherwise, Membership in the bar may be terminated when a
lawyer ceases to have good moral character. With the difficulty of stating 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. It is then noteworthy to cite this cases for
clarity.
Decision:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Resolution No. XVII-200606 passed on January 28, 2006 by the Board of Governors of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for
grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
With these cases, the questions of morality arose when the respondents
had questionable behaviours towards the opposite sex, corrupting the communal
perspective of continued good moral character for practicing lawyers. Thus,
immoral conduct, with respect to these case, is that conduct which is willful,
flagrant , or shameless and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the
good expectable members of the community. Its is only when there is the presence
of a legal impediment like marriage of either or both of the parties in question or

the presence of the procedural requirments such as evidences and testimonies
presented in each case. Gross immoral conduct must be 1.) Scandalous, 2.)
Corrupt, 3.) Abuse Authority
Mere sexual relations does not prove grossly immoral conduct. Nor a
refusal of a promise of marriage after sexual congress has comenced, to which it is
not so corrupt or unprincipled. Not even a birth of a child as a result of the sexual
congress of the parties involved constitute grossly immoral conduct. Without force
or coercion from the person in question, these acts are mere reflection of a passion
induced relationship that would not warrant as such and subsequently the
disbarment of the lawyer. It is then proper to percive that cases regarding these
issue are dissmisable (Arciga vs Maniwag, Radaza vs Tejano)
But when Behaviour and acts are such, when the offender takes
advantage of his position to gain sexual congress with a vulnerable parties, or
when an offender violates the sanctity of the inviolable institution of marriage with
acts of womenizing and the like. Or failing to uphold the obligations of marriage
because of extra marital relations shall it constitute grossly immoral conduct. The
presence of the legal impediment in the respondents acts and behaviour only
strengthen the allegations of grossly immoral conduct that would thus infringing
the oath and the code he sworn to uphold and subsequently lead to the
disbarment of the offender (Pangalangan case, Aznar case, Eala case).
Nevertheless, the court provides, remedy to such questioned law

practitioners. to repute the complaints against them it is therefore the duty of the
lawyer whenever his moral character is put to issue, to satisfy the court that he is
fit and proper a person to enjoy continued membership to the bar. In other word,
the respondent should not keep silent while his moral character is put to issue. He
cannot then dispense with nor downgrade the high and exacting moral standards
of the law profession.
In conclusion, the profession of Law is one so delicate a profession that it

should be affirmed by confromity to The Code of Professional Responsibility and
the Oath to be Sworn to. Morality and behaviour should take the bigger a part of
this conformity to which ceasation of good moral conduct tends to equate
termination of the previlages of membership or hindrance thereof to the bar.

Case Synthesis Legal Research 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Synthesis Legal Research 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Synthesis Legal Research 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Supreme Court has decided five cases regarding the Disbarment on

the grounds of grossly immoral conduct.

In the case of Radaza vs Tejano, 'Intimacy between a man and a woman

This Court found that respondent's refusal to marry the

Considering the facts of this case and the aforecited precedents,

In the case of Atty. Ecraela vs Atty. Pangalangan, the Supreme Court

Rule 7.03, and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional

From the above cases, the Supreme Court established a common

Disbarment, according to these cases, is clearly defined by the Code of Professional

of a legal impediment like marriage of either or both of the parties in question or

Nevertheless, the court provides, remedy to such questioned law

In conclusion, the profession of Law is one so delicate a profession that it

You might also like