37 DE LOS REYES v AZNAR

Facts: Delos Reyes filed a complaint against Atty. Aznar for gross immorality.

It appears that Atty. Aznar raped Delos Reyes. From the evidence, it appears that
Aznar was the Chairman of the Board of Southwestern University.

Delos Reyes failed her Pathology subject. As such, she approached Aznar for reconsideration. Aznar
assured her that she would pass. Despite her plea, she failed the subject. Aznar told Delos Reyes that
she should go with him to Manila or else she will flunk. They went to Manila. After dining in a restaurant,
Aznar raped her twice in the evening and thrice the next morning inside the Ambassador Hotel.

Aznar denies all the allegations and says that when he went to Manila, he slept at the house of his
friends.

Issue: W/N Aznar is guilty of gross misconduct.

Held: Aznar is guilty of gross misconduct.

The court agrees with the Sol. Gen.’s finding that Aznar committed gross misconduct. While
Aznar denied having taken Delos Reyes to the Ambassador Hotel and had sexual intercourse with her,
he did not present any evidence to show where he was on that date. It is the duty of the lawyer,
whenever his moral character is put into question, to satisfy the court that he is fit and proper to enjoy
continued membership in the bar. He cannot dispense with the high exacting moral standards of the
profession. Good moral character is a continuing qualification necessary to entitle on to continue in the
practice of law

ROYONG v OBLENA

FACTS:
 Royong, the niece it the common-law wife of Oblena, filed a rape case against the latter.
 In her complaint, Royong alleged that in 1958 Oblena forced her to have intercourse with her and that she refrained to report the
incident because Oblena threatened to kill her family.
 As a result if the sexual intercourse, Royong gave birth to a child
 Oblena denied all the allegations and argued that he and Royong had a relationship and Royong consented to have intercourse with
him.
 The Solicitor General recommended that Oblena be permanently removed from the roll of attorney eventhough the acts of the Royong
before and after the rape incident showed that she is more of a sweetheart than a victim because of the circumstances behind the
incident
 The Solicitor General also charged Oblena of falsifying and deliberately alleging in his application in the bar in1958 that he is a person
of good moral character while having an illicit and adulterous relationship with Angeles who is not only the aunt of Royong but
also has a legal husband in the province
 Oblena moved to dismiss the case because the offenses charged are different from those originally charged in the complaint but the
court overruled his petition
 After the hearing, the investigators concluded that A.) Oblena used his knowledge in law to commit immoral acts without incurring
any criminal liability; B.) he committed gross immorality by continuously cohabiting with Angeles, his common-law wife, even after
he became a lawyer and C.) Oblena falsified the truth as to his good moral character in his application to take the bar.

ISSUE:
 W/N the illicit relationship with Royong and the open cohabitation with Angeles, a married woman, are sufficient grounds to cause
Oblena’s disbarment

HELD:
 YES!
 Although Oblena is not yet convicted of the crime of rape, seduction or adultery and he is not guilty of any of the grounds for
disbarment enumerated in Sec 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, the enumeration is not exclusive and the power of the court to
exclude unworthy members of the bar is inherent and is a necessary incident to the proper administration of justice and can be
exercised even without any statutory authority, in all cases unless properly prohibited by statutes.
 American jurisprudence provides that the continued possession of a good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful
continuance in the practice of law. The loss requires suspension or disbarment eventhough the statues do not explicitly specify that
as a ground of disbarment.
 Oblena’s argument that he believed himself to be a person with good moral character when he filed his application to take the bar
examination is wrong. One’s own approximation of himself is not a gauge of his moral character. Moral character is not a
subjective term but one which corresponds to objective reality. Moral character is what the person really is and not what he other
people thinks he is.
 His pretension to wait for the 18th birthday of Royong before having carnal knowledge with her shows the scheming mind of Oblena
and his taking advantage of his knowledge of the law.
 Also, Royong is the niece of his common-law wife and he enjoyed moral ascendancy over her. Oblena took advantage of Royong’s
trust on him.
 Oblena’s contention that the Solicitor General exceeded his authority in filing the present complain which is entirely different from the
original complaint filed is untenable. There is nothing in the law requiring the Solicitor General to charge in his complaint the same
offence charged in the original complaint. What the law provides is that if the Solicitor General finds sufficient grounds to proceed
against the respondent, he shall file the corresponding complaint accompanied by the evidence introduced in his investigation.

Cordova Cordova

179 SCRA 680

Moral Delinquency

In 1985, Atty. Laurence Cordova, while being married to Salvacion Delizo and with two children, left his
wife and children to cohabit with another married woman. In 1986, Salvacion and Cordova had a
reconciliation where Cordova promised to leave his mistress. But apparently, Cordova still continued to
cheat on her wife as apparently, Cordova again lived with another woman and worse, he took one of his
children with him and hid the child away from Salvacion. In 1988, Salvacion filed a letter-complaint for
disbarment against Cordova. Eventually, multiple hearing dates were sent but no hearing took place
because neither party appeared. In 1989, Salvacion sent a telegraphic message to the Commission on
Bar Discipline intimating that she and her husband has reconciled. The Commission, since Salvacion
failed to submit her evidence ex parte, merely recommended the reprimand and admonishment of
Cordova.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Cordova should be merely reprimanded.

HELD:

No. He should be suspended indefinitely until he presents evidence that he has been morally reformed
and that there was true reconciliation between him and his wife. Before a person can be admitted to the
bar, one requirement is that he possesses good moral character. That requirement is not exhausted and
dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. On the contrary, that requirement persists as
a continuing condition for membership in the Bar in good standing. 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 or marriage” such was the case in the case at bar.