Ventura vs. Atty. Samson, A.C. No. 9608 - Case Digest: Facts

Ventura vs. Atty. Samson, A.C. No.
9608 – Case Digest

November 27, 2012
FACTS
Maria Victoria B. Ventura filed on July 29, 2004 a Complaint for Disbarment or
Suspension before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on
Bar Discipline against respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson for “grossly immoral
conduct.” Ventura alleged that sometime in December 2001, at around midnight,
she was sleeping in the maid’s room at Atty. Samson’s house when Samson
entered and went on top of her. Atty. Samson then kissed her lips, sucked her
breast, and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. She felt pain and
found bloodstain in her panty. She stated that another incident happened on
March 19, 2002 at Samson’s poultry farm in Alegria, San Francisco, Agusandel
Sur. Atty. Samson asked her to go with him to the farm. He brought her to an old
shanty where he sexually abused her. Thereafter, Atty. Samson gave her five
hundred pesos and warned her not to tell anyone what had happened, or he
would kill her and her mother.
Atty. Samson in his answer alleged that the sexual intercourse with Ventura was
consensual and he did not violate any immoral conduct for having sex with
Ventura with just compensation once does not amount to immoral conduct.
Then after, Ventura and her mother appeared before the public prosecutor and
executed their respective Affidavits of Desistance. Ventura stated that what
happened between Atty. Samson and her in March 2002 was based on mutual
understanding. Thus, she was withdrawing the complaint she filed against
Samson before the RTC as well as the one she filed before the IBP Commission
on Bar Discipline. Accordingly, the criminal case against Atty. Samson was
dismissed.
ISSUE
Whether or not the act of Atty. Samson constitutes a grossly immoral act.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that that act of Atty. Samson constitutes a grossly
immoral act and is in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 6, Rule 6.0 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court further stated that the
possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a
continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership
in the legal profession. It is the bounden duty of members of the bar to observe
the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar.
The possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a

continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership
in the legal profession. It is the bounden duty of members of the bar to observe
the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar.
Consequently, any errant behaviour on the part of a lawyer may be it in the
lawyer’s public or private activities, which tends to show said lawyer deficient in
moral character, honesty, probity, or good demeanour, is sufficient to warrant
suspension or disbarment.
From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the admissions of
Atty. Samson himself, we find that Samson’s act of engaging in sex with a young
lass, the daughter of his former employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct
that warrants sanction. Atty. Samson not only admitted he had sexual intercourse
with Ventura but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he
did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her money.
Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife
manifests his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own
marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by enticing a
very young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low
regard for the dignity of the human person and the ethics of his profession. Atty.
Samson has violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by Ventura, then a
13-year-old minor, who for a time was under his care. Whether the sexual
encounter between Samson and Ventura was or was not with the latter’s consent
is of no moment. Atty. Samson clearly committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral,
and highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is a transgression of the standards of
morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined accordingly.
Due to the seriousness of the offense, the Court is compelled to wield its power
to disbar as it appears to be the most appropriate penalty. WHEREFORE,
respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson is hereby DISBARRED.
Ventura vs. Atty. Samson, A.C. No. 9608 - Case Digest (liberalista.org)

Ventura vs. Atty. Samson, A.C. No. 9608 - Case Digest: Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ventura vs. Atty. Samson, A.C. No. 9608 - Case Digest: Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Ventura vs. Atty. Samson, A.C. No. 9608 - Case Digest: Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ventura vs. Atty. Samson, A.C. No.

9608 – Case Digest

The possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a

You might also like