Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    SBC Case No. 519. July 31, 1997. Patricia Figueroa vs. Simeon Barranco, JR

    Uploaded by

    Daniela Erika Beredo Inandan
    Patricia Figueroa filed a petition against Simeon Barranco Jr. after learning he married another woman, despite his repeated promises to marry her after passing the bar exam. They had been sweethearts and had a child together. The court ruled that while Barranco's actions suggested doubtful moral character, it did not constitute "grossly immoral conduct" warranting permanent exclusion from the legal profession. The court determined their sexual relations were consensual and, while his promises were ignoble, the 26 years he had been prevented from becoming a lawyer was sufficient punishment. The court allowed the now 62-year-old Barranco to take the lawyer's oath.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    SBC Case No. 519. July 31, 1997. Patricia Figueroa vs. Simeon Barranco, JR

    Uploaded by

    Daniela Erika Beredo Inandan
    48 views3 pages
    Patricia Figueroa filed a petition against Simeon Barranco Jr. after learning he married another woman, despite his repeated promises to marry her after passing the bar exam. They had been sweethearts and had a child together. The court ruled that while Barranco's actions suggested doubtful moral character, it did not constitute "grossly immoral conduct" warranting permanent exclusion from the legal profession. The court determined their sexual relations were consensual and, while his promises were ignoble, the 26 years he had been prevented from becoming a lawyer was sufficient punishment. The court allowed the now 62-year-old Barranco to take the lawyer's oath.

    Original Title

    figueroa vs barranco

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Patricia Figueroa filed a petition against Simeon Barranco Jr. after learning he married another woman, despite his repeated promises to marry her after passing the bar exam. They had been sweethearts and had a child together. The court ruled that while Barranco's actions suggested doubtful moral character, it did not constitute "grossly immoral conduct" warranting permanent exclusion from the legal profession. The court determined their sexual relations were consensual and, while his promises were ignoble, the 26 years he had been prevented from becoming a lawyer was sufficient punishment. The court allowed the now 62-year-old Barranco to take the lawyer's oath.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    48 views3 pages

    SBC Case No. 519. July 31, 1997. Patricia Figueroa vs. Simeon Barranco, JR

    Uploaded by

    Daniela Erika Beredo Inandan
    Patricia Figueroa filed a petition against Simeon Barranco Jr. after learning he married another woman, despite his repeated promises to marry her after passing the bar exam. They had been sweethearts and had a child together. The court ruled that while Barranco's actions suggested doubtful moral character, it did not constitute "grossly immoral conduct" warranting permanent exclusion from the legal profession. The court determined their sexual relations were consensual and, while his promises were ignoble, the 26 years he had been prevented from becoming a lawyer was sufficient punishment. The court allowed the now 62-year-old Barranco to take the lawyer's oath.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    SBC Case No. 519. July 31, 1997.

    PATRICIA FIGUEROA vs. SIMEON BARRANCO, JR.


    FACTS:
    Respondent and complainant were town mates and sweethearts. Their intimacy
    yielded a son, Rafael Barranco. It was after the child was born, complainant
    alleged, that respondent first promised he would marry her after he passes the bar
    examinations. Their relationship continued and respondent allegedly made more
    than twenty or thirty promises of marriage. Her trust in him and their relationship
    ended when she learned that respondent married another woman. Thus, after
    respondent had passed the 1970 bar examinations on the fourth attempt,
    complainant filed the instant petition before he could take his oath averring that
    respondent and she had been sweethearts, that a child out of wedlock was born to
    them and that respondent did not fulfill his repeated promises to marry her.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality.
    RULING:
    NO. 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.” It is a willful, flagrant, or
    shameless act which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable
    members of the community
    Respondent and complainant were sweethearts whose sexual relations were
    evidently consensual. Unfortunately, respondent chose to marry and settle
    permanently with another woman. The Court 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. 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.
    During this time there appears to be no other indiscretion attributed to him.
    Respondent, who is now sixty-two years of age, should thus be allowed, albeit
    belatedly, to take the lawyer’s oath.

    You might also like