VOL.

276,JULY31,1997

445

Figueroa vs. Barranco, Jr.

*

SBCCaseNo.519.July31,1997.

PATRICIA FIGUEROA, complainant, vs. SIMEON

BARRANCO,JR.,respondent.
Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Gross Immorality; Words and Phrases;
A persons engaging in premarital sexual relations with another,
making promises to marry, suggests a doubtful moral character but
the same does not constitute grossly immoral conduct; 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.Respondent was prevented from taking the
lawyers oath in 1971 because of the charges of gross immorality
made by complainant. To recapitulate, respondent bore an
illegitimate child with his sweetheart, Patricia Figueroa, who also
claimsthathedidnotfulfillhispromisetomarryherafterhepasses
the bar examinations. We find that these facts do not constitute
grossimmoralitywarrantingthepermanentexclusionofrespondent
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
onlybeimmoral,butgrosslyimmoral.Agrosslyimmoralactisone
that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipledordisgracefulastobereprehensibletoahighdegree.
It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the
community.
Same; Same; Same; Mere intimacy between a man and a
woman, both of whom possess no impediment to marry, voluntarily
carried on and devoid of any deceit on the part of the former, is
neither so corrupt nor so unprincipled as to warrant the imposition
of disciplinary sanction against him, even if as a result of such

relationship a child was born out of wedlock.We find the ruling

in Arciga v. Maniwang quite relevant because mere intimacy
betweenamanandawoman,bothofwhompossessnoimpediment
tomarry,voluntarilycarriedonanddevoidofanydeceitonthepart
of respondent, is neither so corrupt nor so unprincipled as to
warrant
______________
* ENBANC.

446

446

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Figueroa vs. Barranco, Jr.

the imposition of disciplinary sanction against him, even if as a

resultofsuchrelationshipachildwasbornoutofwedlock.
Same; Same; Same; Marriages; The Supreme 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.Respondent and
complainant were sweethearts whose sexual relations were
evidently consensual. We do not find complainants assertions that
shehadbeenforcedintosexualintercourse,credible.Shecontinued
toseeandberespondentsgirlfriendevenaftershehadgivenbirth
to a son in 1964 and until 1971. All those years of amicable and
intimaterelationsrefuteherallegationsthatshewasforcedtohave
sexual congress with him. Complainant was then an adult who
voluntarilyandactivelypursuedtheirrelationshipandwasnotan
innocent young girl who could be easily led astray. Unfortunately,
respondent chose to marry and settle permanently with another
woman. We cannot castigate a man for seeking out the partner of
his dreams, for marriage is a sacred and perpetual bond which
shouldbeenteredintobecauseoflove,notforanyotherreason.
Same; Same; Same; Even assuming that a persons
indiscretions are ignoble, the twentysix years that he has been
prevented from being a lawyer constitute sufficient punishment
therefor.We cannot help viewing the instant complaint as an act

ofrevengeofawomanscorned,bitterandunforgivingtotheend.It
is also intended to make respondent suffer severely and it seems,
perpetually, sacrificing the profession he worked very hard to be
admitted into. Even assuming that his past indiscretions are
ignoble, the twentysix years that respondent has been prevented
from being a lawyer constitute sufficient punishment therefor.
Duringthistimethereappearstobenootherindiscretionattributed
tohim.Respondent,whoisnowsixtytwoyearsofage,shouldthus
beallowed,albeitbelatedly,totakethelawyersoath.

ADMINISTRATIVEMATTERintheSupremeCourt.
Disbarment.
ThefactsarestatedintheresolutionoftheCourt.
Pablo S. Tolentinoforcomplainant.
Jose Rome S. Maranonforrespondent.
447

VOL.276,JULY31,1997

447

Figueroa vs. Barranco, Jr.

RESOLUTION
ROMERO,J.:
In a complaint made way back in 1971, Patricia Figueroa
petitionedthatrespondentSimeonBarranco,Jr.bedenied
admission to the legal profession. Respondent had passed
the 1970 bar examinations on the fourth attempt, after
unsuccessful attempts in 1966, 1967 and 1968. Before he
couldtakehisoath,however,complainantfiledtheinstant
petition averring that respondent and she had been
sweethearts, that a child out of wedlock was born to them
andthatrespondentdidnotfulfillhisrepeatedpromisesto
marryher.
The facts were manifested in hearings held before
Investigator Victor F. Sevilla in June and July 1971.
Respondent and complainant were townmates in Janiuay,
Iloilo.Since1953,whentheywerebothintheirteens,they
were steadies. Respondent even acted as escort to
complainantwhenshereignedasQueenatthe1953town
fiesta. Complainant first acceded to sexual congress with

respondentsometimein1960.Theirintimacyyieldedason,
1
RafaelBarranco,bornonDecember11,1964. Itwasafter
the child was born, complainant alleged, that respondent
first promised he would marry her after he passes the bar
examinations.Theirrelationshipcontinuedandrespondent
allegedly made more than twenty or thirty promises of
marriage.HegaveonlyP10.00forthechildonthelatters
birthdays.Hertrustinhimandtheirrelationshipendedin
1971, when she learned that respondent married another
woman.Hence,thispetition.
Upon complainants motion, the Court authorized the
takingoftestimoniesofwitnessesbydepositionin1972.On
February 18, 1974, respondent filed a Manifestation and
MotiontoDismissthecasecitingcomplainantsfailureto
_______________
1 Respondent filed a Manifestation on December 4, 1995 informing

the Court of Rafael Barrancos death at age 28 years caused by cardio

respiratoryarrestandpancreatitis.Rollo,volumeII,page23.
448

448

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Figueroa vs. Barranco, Jr.

comment on the motion of Judge Cuello seeking to be

relieved from the duty to take aforesaid testimonies by
deposition.Complainantfiledhercommentstatingthatshe
hadjustifiablereasonsinfailingtofiletheearliercomment
requiredandthatsheremainsinterestedintheresolution
of the present case. On June 18, 1974, the Court denied
respondentsmotiontodismiss.
On October 2, 1980, the Court once again denied a
motion to dismiss on the ground of abandonment
filed by
2
respondent on September 17, 1979. Respondents third
motiontodismisswasnotedintheCourtsResolutiondated
3
September 15, 1982. In 1988, respondent repeated his
request,citinghiselectionasamemberoftheSangguniang
Bayan of Janiuay, Iloilo from 19801986, his active
participationincivicorganizationsandgoodstandinginthe
communityaswellasthelengthoftimethiscasehasbeen
pending
as reasons to allow him to take his oath as a
4
lawyer.
OnSeptember29,1988,theCourtresolvedtodismissthe

complaintforfailureofcomplainanttoprosecutethecasefor
an unreasonable period of time and to allow Simeon
Barranco,Jr.totakethelawyersoathuponpaymentofthe
5
requiredfees.
RespondentshopeswereagaindashedonNovember17,
1988 when the Court, in response to complainants
opposition,resolvedtocancelhisscheduledoathtaking.On
June1,1993,theCourtreferredthecasetotheIntegrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.
The IBPs report dated May 17, 1997 recommended the
dismissalofthecaseandthatrespondentbeallowedtotake
thelawyersoath.
______________
2Rollo,p.238.
3Rollo,p.244.
4

Appearance with Motion to Dismiss and to Allow Respondent to

Take his Oath and Sign Roll of Attorneys, September 2, 1988, Rollo, p.
247.
5Rollo,p.259.

449

VOL.276,JULY31,1997

449

Figueroa vs. Barranco, Jr.

Weagree.
Respondentwaspreventedfromtakingthelawyersoath
in1971becauseofthechargesofgrossimmoralitymadeby
complainant. To recapitulate, respondent bore an
illegitimate child with his sweetheart, Patricia Figueroa,
whoalsoclaimsthathedidnotfulfillhispromisetomarry
herafterhepassesthebarexaminations.
We find that these facts do not constitute gross
immorality warranting the permanent exclusion of
respondent from the legal profession. His engaging in
premaritalsexualrelationswithcomplainantandpromises
to marry suggests a doubtful moral character on his part
but the same does not constitute grossly immoral conduct.
TheCourthasheldthattojustifysuspensionordisbarment
theactcomplainedofmustnotonlybeimmoral,butgrossly
immoral.Agrosslyimmoralactisonethatissocorruptand
false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or

disgracefulastobereprehensibletoahighdegree. Itisa
willful, flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral
indifference7 to the opinion of respectable members of the
community.
8
WefindtherulinginArciga v. Maniwang quiterelevant
becausemereintimacybetweenamanandawoman,both
of whom possess no impediment to marry, voluntarily
carried on and devoid of any deceit on the part of
respondent, is neither so corrupt nor so unprincipled as to
warranttheimpositionofdisciplinarysanctionagainsthim,
evenifasaresultofsuchrelationshipachildwasbornout
9
ofwedlock.
Respondent and complainant were sweethearts whose
sexualrelationswereevidentlyconsensual.Wedonotfind
complainants assertions that she had been forced into
sexual intercourse, credible. She continued to see and be
respon
______________
6Reyes
7

v. Wong,63SCRA667(January29,1975).

7 C.J.S. 959 cited in De los Reyes v. Aznar, 179 SCRA 653

(November28,1989).
8106SCRA591(August14,1981).
9 Also Radaza

v. Tejano, 106 SCRA 250 (July 31, 1981) and Reyes v.

Wong, supra.
450

450

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Figueroa vs. Barranco, Jr.

dentsgirlfriendevenaftershehadgivenbirthtoasonin
1964 and until 1971. All those years of amicable and
intimaterelationsrefuteherallegationsthatshewasforced
tohavesexualcongresswithhim.Complainantwasthenan
adult who voluntarily and actively pursued their
relationshipandwasnotaninnocentyounggirlwhocould
be easily led astray. Unfortunately, respondent chose to
marry and settle permanently with another woman. We
cannot castigate a man for seeking out the partner of his
dreams,formarriageisasacredandperpetualbondwhich
should be entered into because of love, not for any other
reason.
Wecannothelpviewingtheinstantcomplaintasanact

ofrevengeofawomanscorned,bitterandunforgivingtothe
end.Itisalsointendedtomakerespondentsufferseverely
and it seems, perpetually, sacrificing the profession he
workedveryhardtobeadmittedinto.Evenassumingthat
hispastindiscretionsareignoble,thetwentysixyearsthat
respondent has been prevented from being a lawyer
constitutesufficientpunishmenttherefor.Duringthistime
10
thereappearstobenootherindiscretionattributedtohim.
Respondent,whoisnowsixtytwoyearsofage,shouldthus
beallowed,albeitbelatedly,totakethelawyersoath.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
DISMISSED. Respondent Simeon Barranco, Jr. is
ALLOWED to take his oath as a lawyer upon payment of
theproperfees.
SOORDERED.
Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno,
Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, FranciscoandPanganiban, JJ.,
concur.
Narvasa (C.J.),Onofficialleave.
Hermosisima, Jr.andTorres, Jr., JJ.,Onleave.
Petition denied, Respondent allowed to take lawyers oath.
______________
10Bitangcor

v. Tan,112SCRA113(February25,1982).
451

VOL.276,JULY31,1997

451

P.I. Manpower Placements, Inc. vs. NLRC (Second

Division)
Note.Thirtytwo years of having been denied
admission to the Bar is sufficient chastisement for a man
who, though morally delinquent in his younger years, has
made up for it by observing a respectable, useful and
religious life since then as attested by prominent citizens
andhischildrenfromthethreewomenhemarried.(In Re:
Socorro Ke. Ladrera,147SCRA350[1987])
o0o

 Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.