In Re: Arthur Cuevas Jr.

FACTS:
Petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr. was convicted for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Homicide, for his participation in the September 1991 initiation rites of LEX TALIONIS
FRATERNITY (San Beda College of Law) wherein a neophyte Raul Camaligan died as a
result of personal violence inflicted upon him.

Petitioner applied for and was granted probation, allowing him to continue his law
studies. On May 16, 1995, he was discharged from probation and his case was closed and
terminated.

Petitioner was allowed to take the bar examinations subject to the condition that; should
he pass he will not be allowed to take the lawyers oath pending approval by the Court.

Petitioner passed the 1996 Bar Examinations. Petitioner prays that he be allowed to take
the lawyers oath.

ISSUE: Whether or not Cuevas may be allowed to take the Lawyers Oath.

HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court is duty bound to prevent the entry of undeserving aspirants, as
well as to exclude those who have been admitted but have become a disgrace to the profession.
Cuevas participation in the senseless killing of the neophyte is highly reprehensible. However,
the Supreme Court is willing to give him a chance considering that Cuevas has received various
certifications attesting to his righteous, peaceful and civic-oriented character prove that he has
taken decisive steps to purge himself of his deficiency in moral character and atone for the
unfortunate death of Camaligan.

The Supreme Court also stressed that the lawyers oath is not a mere formality recited for a few
minutes in the glare of flashing cameras and before the presence of select witnesses. As a lawyer,
Cuevas shall be expected to abide by the oath strictly and to conduct him beyond reproach at all
times. As a lawyer he will now be in a better position to render legal and other services to the
more unfortunate members of society.

Arnobit v. Arnobit
FACTS:

Petitioner Rebecca Arnobit filed this complaint against her husband, respondent
Atty. Ponciano Arnobit, praying that the court exercise its disciplinary power
over him.

Rebecca alleged that she and respondent were married on 1942; that they bore 12
children; that she saw respondent through law school, continuously supporting
him until he passed the bar; that several years after their marriage, or in 1968,
respondent left the conjugal home and began cohabiting with Benita Buenafe
Navarro who later bore him four more children. Because of this, Rebecca was
impelled to file a complaint for legal separation and support, and a criminal case
for adultery.
Respondent admitted that Rebecca is his wedded wife but he denied having
cohabited with Benita. He also stated that Rebecca was the cause of their
separation alleging that she was always traveling for business purposes without
his knowledge and consent, thereby neglecting her obligations toward her family.
Rebecca presented 2 other witnesses: her sister, who identified a letter sent to her
by respondent apologizing for the unhappiness he caused the family; and the
other was Melecio Navarro, the husband of Benita, who testified about how
respondent took his wife Benita as a mistress knowing fully well of their
marriage. During the hearings, respondent, despite due notice, repeatedly
absented himself when it was his turn to present evidence. He would also seek
postponement, pleading illness, on the hearing dates.
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline Report:
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent liable for abandonment
and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for 3 months. It
averred that an indefinite suspension is not recommended because respondent
supports himself through the practice of law and that it would be cruel deny him
of this at this time when he is already advanced in age.

HELD
The Court agreed with the IBP recommendation but ruled that gross immoral conduct
was sufficiently proven warranting disbarment of respondent.
CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on this fitness to
practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life behave in a scandalous manner to
the discredit of the legal profession.
Possession of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of
law, but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar.
Good moral character is more than just the absence of bad character. It expresses itself in
the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is
wrong. Immoral conduct has been described as conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or
shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the
community. To be the basis of disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be immoral, but
grossly immoral.
Grossly immoral meaning it must be so corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal
act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.

Lawyers must not only be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good
moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the
community.
The fact that respondents philandering ways are far removed from the exercise of his
profession would not save the day from him. A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any
misconduct which, albeit unrelated to the actual practice of his profession, would show him to be
unfit for the office and unworthy of his license.
Respondent has the duty to show that he is morally fit to remain a member of the bar.
This, he failed to do. He never attended the hearings to rebut the charges against him, irresistibly
suggesting that they are true. Undoubtedly, respondents act of leaving his wife and 12 children to
cohabit and have children with another woman constitutes gross immoral conduct. He should
therefore be disbarred.

Advincula v. Macabata

FACTS:

Atty. Macabata was the counsel of Cynthia Advincula regarding her collectibles from
Queensway Travel and Tours.
In two separate incidents, Atty. Macabata turned the head of Advincula and kissed her on
the lips. These kissing incidents occurred after meetings between Macabata and
Advincula regarding the case of the latter.
In both incidents, Atty. Macabata kissed Advincula inside the car, just before dropping
her off in a public street.
Advincula sought to cut ties with the services of Atty. Macabata following the kissing
incident, soon after, latter apologized to former via text messages.

Advincula filed a petition for disbarment against Atty. Macabata on the ground of
grossly immoral character.
Atty. Macabata admitted that he did kiss Advincula, but that was due to the
suddenness of the circumstances.

ISSUE
Is Atty. Macabata guilty of grossly immoral character to merit his disbarment?
HELD
The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Macabata was NOT guilty of grossly immoral
character.
Grossly immoral character must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or

revolting circumstances as to show the common sense of decency. To merit a disbarment, the act
must be grossly immoral.
Atty. Macabatas act of kissing Advincula was not grossly immoral. The kiss was not
motivated by malice. This was proven by Atty. Macabatas immediate apology and the fact that it
happened in a well-populated place. Advincula failed to prove that Atty. Macabata lured her or
took advantage of her.
While the disbarment complaint was dismissed, Atty. Macabata was reprimanded and
given a stern warning. The court described his kissing of Advincula as distasteful.
(The Supreme Court also said that greetings like beso are ok.)