SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 1608. August 14, 1981.]

MAGDALENA T. ARCIGA, Complainant, v. SEGUNDINO D.

MANIWANG, Respondent.

SYNOPSIS

Complainant Magdalena T. Arciga filed a complaint for disbarment

against lawyer Segundino D. Maniwang on the ground of grossly immoral
conduct because he refused to fulfill his promise of marriage to her-
After repeated acts of cohabitation between complainant and
respondent, then a medical technology student and a law student
respectively, who were sweethearts, their illicit relationship
resulted in the birth of their child, Michael Dino Maniwang. Despite
Segundino’s repeated assurance to Magdalena that he would marry her
once he passed the bar examinations and even made Magdalena’s father
believe that they were already married but that the church wedding
was being deferred until after he has passed said examinations, he
married another woman after his oath taking. In his answer he
admitted the allegations of the complaint against him but claimed
that he breached his promise because of Magdalena’s shady past. The
Solicitor General recommends the dismissal of the case on the ground
that such cohabitation and renegade on the promise to marry do not
warrant his disbarment.

The Supreme Court, while holding that it is difficult to state with

precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is "grossly
immoral conduct" differentiated the instant ease from the cases where
disbarment of a lawyer for grossly immoral conduct is illustrated and
ruled that this case is similar to the case of Soberano v.
Villanueva, 116 Phil. 1206 where respondent’s refusal to marry the
complainant was not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant
disbarment.

Complaint dismissed.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; ATTORNEYS AND ADMISSION TO THE BAR; GOOD MORAL

CHARACTER; A PRE-REQUISITE TO ADMISSION. — An applicant for
admission to the bar should have good moral character. He is required
to produce before this Court satisfactory evidence of good moral
character and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude,
haw been filed or are pending in any court.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; A REQUISITE FOR RETAINING MEMBERSHIP TO THE BAR. —

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 v. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865).

3. ID.; ID.; DISBARMENT; "GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT," A GROUND FOR

DISBARMENT. — 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.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; IMMORAL CONDUCT; DEFINED. — Immoral conduct has

been defined as "that 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" (7 C.J.S. 959).

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT; WHEN A LAWYER’S SEXUAL

CONGRESS WITH A WOMAN NOT HIS WIFE WILL FALL THEREUNDER. — Whether a
lawyer’s sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the
benefit of a marriage should be characterized as "grossly immoral
conduct" will depend on the surrounding circumstances. In American
jurisprudence, where an unmarried female dwarf possessing the
intellect of a child became pregnant by reason of intimacy with a
married lawyer who was the father of six children, disbarment of the
attorney on the ground of immoral conduct was justified (In re Hicks,
20 Pac. 2nd 896). In Philippine jurisprudence, disbarment of a lawyer
for grossly immoral conduct is illustrated in: (Almirez v. Lopez,
Administrative Case No. 481, February 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 169. See
Sarmiento v. Cui, 100 Phil. 1102; Cabrera v. Agustin, 106 Phil. 256;
Toledo v. Toledo, 117 Phil. 768; Villasanta v. Peralta, 101 Phil. 313
Bolivar v. Simbol, 123 Phil. 450; Quingwa v. Puno, Administrative
Case No. 389, February 28,1967,19 SCRA 439; Mortel v. Aspiras, 100
Phil. 586; and Roying v. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865).

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REFUSAL TO MARRY IN CASE AT BAR, NOT SO

CORRUPT OR UNPRINCIPLED TO WARRANT DISBARMENT. — The instant ease
can easily be differentiated from the cases where disbarment of a
lawyer for grossly immoral conduct is illustrated. This case is
similar to the case of Soberano v. Villanueva, 116 Phil. 1206 where
this Court found that respondent’s refusal to marry the complainant
was not as corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment.

D E C I S I O N
 AQUINO, J.:

An applicant for admission to the bar should have good moral character. He is required to produce before this Court
satisfactory evidence of good moral character and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been
filed or are pending in any court.

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 v. 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.

Immoral conduct has been defined as "that 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" (7 C.J.S. 959).

Where an unmarried female dwarf possessing the intellect of a child became pregnant by reason of intimacy with a
married lawyer who was the father of six children, disbarment of the attorney on the ground of immoral conduct was
justified (In re Hicks, 20 Pac. 2nd 896).

There is an area where a lawyer’s conduct may not be in consonance with the canons of the moral code but he is not
subject to disciplinary action because his misbehavior or deviation from the path of rectitude is not glaringly
scandalous. It is in connection with a lawyer’s behavior to the opposite sex where the question of immorality usually
arises. Whether a lawyer’s sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be
characterized as "grossly immoral conduct" will depend on the surrounding circumstances. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

This Court in a decision rendered in 1925, when old-fashioned morality still prevailed, observed that "the legislator
well knows the frailty of the flesh and the ease with which a man, whose sense of dignity, honor and morality is not
well cultivated, falls into temptation when alone with one of the fair sex toward whom he feels himself attracted. An
occasion is so inducive to sin or crime that the saying `A fair booty makes many a thief’ or `An open door may
tempt a saint’ has become general." (People v. De la Cruz, 48 Phil. 533, 535).

Disbarment of a lawyer for grossly immoral conduct is illustrated in the following cases: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) Where lawyer Arturo P. Lopez succeeded in having carnal knowledge of Virginia C. Almirez, under promise of
marriage, which he refused to fulfill, although they had already a marriage license and despite the birth of a child in
consequence of their sexual intercourse; he married another woman, and during Virginia’s pregnancy, Lopez urged
her to take pills to hasten the flow of her menstruation and he tried to convince her to have an abortion, to which
she did not agree. (Almirez v. Lopez, Administrative Case No. 481, February 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 169. See Sarmiento
v. Cui, 100 Phil. 1102).

(2) Where lawyer Francisco Agustin made Anita Cabrera believe that they were married before Leoncio V. Aglubat in
the City Hall of Manila, and, after such fake marriage, they cohabited and she later give birth to their child (Cabrera
v. Agustin, 106 Phil. 256).

(3) Where lawyer Jesus B. Toledo abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with another woman who had borne him
a child (Toledo v. Toledo, 117 Phil. 768. As to disbarment for contracting a bigamous marriage, see Villasanta v.
Peralta, 101 Phil. 313).

(4) The conduct of Abelardo Simbol in making a dupe of Concepcion Bolivar by living on her bounty and allowing her
to spend for his schooling and other personal necessities, while dangling before her the mirage of a marriage,
marrying another girl as soon as he had finished his studies, keeping his marriage a secret while continuing to
demand money from the complainant, and trying to sponge on her and persuade her to resume their broken
relationship after the latter’s discovery of his perfidy are indicative of a character not worthy of a member of the bar
(Bolivar v. Simbol, 123 Phil. 450).

(5) Where Flora Quingwa, a public school teacher, who was engaged to lawyer Armando Puno, was prevailed upon
by him to have sexual congress with him inside a hotel by telling her that it was alright to have sexual intercourse
because, anyway, they were going to get married. She used to give Puno money upon his request. After she became
pregnant and gave birth to a baby boy, Puno refused to marry her. (Quingwa v. Puno, Administrative Case No. 389,
February 28, 1967, 19 SCRA 439).

(6) Where lawyer Anacleto Aspiras, a married man, misrepresenting that he was single and making a promise of
marriage, succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Josefina Mortel. Aspiras faked a marriage between Josefina
and his own son Cesar. Aspiras wrote to Josefina: "You are alone in my life till the end of my years in this world. I
will bring you along with me before the altar of matrimony." "Through thick and thin, for better or for worse, in life
or in death, my Josephine you will always be the first, middle and the last in my life." (Mortel v. Aspiras, 100 Phil.
586).

(7) Where lawyer Ariston Oblena, who had been having adulterous relations for fifteen years with Briccia Angeles, a
married woman separated from her husband, seduced her eighteen-year-old niece who became pregnant and begot
a child. (Royong v. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865).

The instant case can easily be differentiated from the foregoing cases. This case is similar to the case of Soberano v.
Villanueva, 116 Phil. 1206, where lawyer Eugenio V. Villanueva had sexual relations with Mercedes H. Soberano
before his admission to the bar in 1954. They indulged in frequent sexual intercourse. She wrote to him in 1950 and
1951 several letters making reference to their trysts in hotels.
chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

One letter in 1951 contains expressions of such a highly sensual, tantalizing and vulgar nature as to render them
unquotable and to impart the firm conviction that, because of the close intimacy between the complainant and the
respondent, she felt no restraint whatsoever in writing to him with impudicity.

According to the complainant, two children were born as a consequence of her long intimacy with the Respondent. In
1955, she filed a complaint for disbarment against Villanueva.

This Court found that respondent’s refusal to marry the complainant was not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to
warrant disbarment. (See Montaña v. Ruado, Administrative Case No. 507, February 24, 1975, 62 SCRA 382; Reyes
v. Wong, Administrative Case No 547, January 29, 1975, 63 SCRA 667; Viojan v. Duran, 114 Phil. 322; Abaigar v.
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.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., Fernandez and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., are on leave.

Fernandez and Guerrero, JJ., were designated to sit in the Second Division.