[A.C. No. 3405.

June 29, 1998]

JULIETA B. NARAG, complainant, vs. ATTY. DOMINADOR M. NARAG, respondent.

Facts:

- In November, complainant filed an admin complaint with the SC against her husband, whom she accused of
having violated Canons 1 and 6, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Ethics for Lawyers1
- Respondent was a full-time college instructor at St. Louis College of Tuguegarao in the College of Arts and
Sciences and Graduate School
- Ms. Gina Espita, 17 years old and college student, was enrolled in his classes
- Respondent then exerted his influence as a teacher, lawyer, and member of the Sanggunian in Tuguegarao and
courted Espita until she acceded to his wishes
- They maintained an illicit relationship known to various circles in the community but it was kept from
complainant, so complainant was really embarrassed when respondent abandoned his family to live with
Espita
- It appeared that respondent used his influence as a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan and got
Espita a job at the DTI Office in Makati
o Maybe out of appreciation or gratitude that Espita, who was 22 now, agreed to live with him
- It is now a common knowledge in the community that Atty. Dominador M. Narag has abandoned complainant,
his family, to live with a 22-year-old woman, who was his former student in the tertiary level
- SC referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation
- June: WEIRD, but seven months later complainant wrote to the office of Chief Justice Fernan seeking the
dismissal of her complaint, alleging that:
o (1) she fabricated the allegations in her complaint to humiliate and spite her husband;
o (2) all the love letters between the respondent and Gina Espita were forgeries; and
o (3) she was suffering from emotional confusion arising from extreme jealousy. The truth, she stated, was
that her husband had remained a faithful and responsible family man.
o She further asserted that he had neither entered into an amorous relationship with one Gina Espita nor
abandoned his family.
- Hence, IBP dismissed the complaint
- November: ANOTHER FIVE MONTHS LATER, complainant wrote to the SC again with her 7 children
seeking the reinstatement of the case
o She explained that she had earlier dropped the case against him because of his continuous threats against
her
- Respondent filed his Comment saying that the dismissal of the case be affirmed and that he never threatened his
wife, said that his wife filing the complaint was because she was an incurably jealous and possessive woman
o He likewise said he was abused by his wife
o He also denied every allegation of his wife about him and Espita
o He denied that the two children of Espita were fathered by him
- IBP investigation officer recommended the indefinite suspension of respondent, which IBP adopted.
- Later, complainant sought the disbarment of her husband, which the IBP granted.
- IBP denied respondents MR.
- Complainants witnesses:
o Herself
o Charlie Espita (brother of the alleged paramour)
Said that respondent was the live-in partner of his sister and the father of the two children
It was Charlie who handed to Mrs. Narag the love letters respondent had sent to his sister
Respondent tried to dissuade him from appearing at the disbarment proceedings

1
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 1.01-- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
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 his 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.
 o Magdalena Bautista
o Bienvenido Eugenio
Said he knew respondent because respondent was always going to the house of his son-in-law,
Charlie
Said that respondent and Espita were residing together as husband and wife
o Nieves Reyes
Neighbor and friend of the couple, she learned from the Narag children that respondent
abandoned his family
- Complainant also presented the love letters written by respondent to Espita, whereby respondent professed his
love to Espita and the two children whom he acknowledged as his own

Issue:

W/N respondent his morally fit to remain an attorney NO

W/N respondent should be disbarred YES

Held:

- While the burden of proof is upon the complainant, respondent has the duty not only to himself but also to the
court to show that he is morally fit to remain a member of the bar. Mere denial does not suffice.
- Thus, when his moral character is assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherished
profession is imperiled, he must meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the
investigating body and this Court, that he is morally fit to have his name in the Roll of Attorneys.
- THIS HE FAILED TO DO!
o He only denied the affair, and alleged that his wife was an abusive husband-beater
- The testimonies of the witnesses of respondent did not establish the fact that he maintained that moral integrity
required by the profession that would render him fit to continue practicing law.
o Neither did their testimonies destroy the fact, as proven by the complainant, that he had abandoned his
family and lived with Gina Espita, with whom he had two children.
o Some of them testified on matters which they had no actual knowledge of, but merely relied on
information from either respondent himself or other people, while others were presented to impeach the
good character of his wife
- Respondent himself admitted that his work required him to be often away from home.
- But the evidence shows that he was away not only because of his work; instead, he abandoned his family to live
with his paramour, who bore him two children. It would appear, then, that he was hardly in a position to be a good
husband or a good father. His children, who grew up mostly under the care of their mother, must have scarcely
felt the warmth of their fathers love.
- Although respondent piously claims adherence to the sanctity of marriage, his acts prove otherwise.
- A husband is not merely a man who has contracted marriage. Rather, he is a partner who has solemnly sworn to
love and respect his wife and remain faithful to her until death.
- The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that
outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct for instance, which makes a
mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage.
- In the present case, the complainant was able to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent had
breached the high and exacting moral standards set for members of the law profession.
- As held in Maligsa vs. Cabanting, a lawyer may be disbarred for any misconduct, whether in his professional
or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good
demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.

Dispositive:

WHEREFORE, Dominador M. Narag is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of
Attorneys. Let copies of this Decision be in the personal record of Respondent Narag; and furnished to all courts of the
land, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Bar Confidant.