20th Century Cases where no Finding

of Gross Immorality was made

In the 1962 case of Soberano v. Villanueva,1 the Supreme Court held that intimacy
between a man and a woman who are not married is neither so corrupt as to constitute
a criminal act nor so unprincipled as to warrant disbarment or disciplinary action
against the man as a member of the Bar. In the said case, a petition for disbarment was
brought against respondent on the allegation that the complainant was induced to take
part in a fake wedding under the belief that it was a genuine and valid one. Respondent
cohabited with her and later lived with her as husband and wife, as a consequence of
which she bore him two children, but he subsequently abandoned her and their
children.

In 1981, the Supreme Court held through Arciga v. Maniwang2 that refusal to marry
was not as corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment. The complainant
instituted the case for disbarment for respondent’s refusal 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. Despite
respondent’s repeated assurance to complaint that he would marry her once he passed
the bar examinations and even made complaint’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.

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.3

In the 1997 case of Figueroa v. Barranco,4 the Court held that engaging in premarital
sexual relations and promises to marry suggests a doubtful moral character on his part
but the same does not constitute grossly immoral conduct. In the said case, the

1 A.C. No. 215 December 29, 1962 En Banc

2 Arciga v. Maniwang GR No. 1608 August 14, 1981
3 In re Hicks 1933 OK 212 April 4, 1933
4 Figueroa v. Barranco SBC Case No. 519 En Banc July 31, 1997
respondent was a bar exam passer. However, before he could take his oath, the
petitioner petitioned that respondent be denied admission. Her complaint was that
respondent and she had been sweethearts, a child of them was born out of wedlock, and
that respondent did not fulfill his repeated promises to marry. Furthermore, respondent
married and settled with another woman. Complainant further claimed that respondent
forced complainant into sexual relations with him.

The Supreme Court however held that the charges required to constitute a disbarment
not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. In the herein, the allegation on respondent
merely suggests a doubtful moral character. Furthermore, complainant continued to
see respondent for a while, even after giving birth to the child, thus suggesting that the
sexual relations were consensual and not forced.

The facts do not constitute gross immorality warranting the permanent exclusion of
respondent from the legal profession. The Court has held that to justify suspension or
disbarment the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. 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. It is a willful,
flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable
members of the community.

20th Century Cases where a Finding of Gross

Immorality was made resulting to Disbarment

In the case of Barrientos v. Daarol,5 the respondent lawyer was disbarred, but the
severest penalty was imposed not only because of his engaging in illicit sexual relations,
but also because of his deceit. He had been already married and was about 41 years old
when he proposed marriage to a 20-year-old girl. He succeeded in his seduction of her
and made her pregnant. He not only suggested that she abort the pregnancy, but he
also breached his promise to marry her, and, in the end, even deserted her and their
child.

In 1989, the Court in Delos Reyes v. Aznar6 adjudged the respondent lawyer, a married
man with children, highly immoral for having taken advantage of his position as the

5 Barrientos v. Daarol Adm. Case No. 1512, January 29, 1993, 218 SCRA 30
6 Delos Reyes v. Aznar Adm. Case No. 1334, November 28, 1989, 179 SCRA 653
chairman of the College of Medicine of his school in enticing the complainant, then a
student in the college, to have carnal knowledge with him under the threat that she
would flunk in all her subjects should she refuse. The respondent was disbarred for
grossly immoral conduct.

In Tucay v. Tucay,7 respondent contracted marriage with another married woman and
left complainant with whom he has been married for thirty years. The Court ruled that
such acts constitute a grossly immoral conduct and only indicative of an extremely low
regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession, warranting respondents disbarment.

In Villasanta vs. Peralta,8 respondent married complainant while his first wife was still
alive, their marriage still valid and subsisting. The Court held that the act of respondent
of contracting the second marriage is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality.
Thus, lacking the good moral character required by the Rules of Court, respondent was
disqualified from being admitted to the bar.

In Cabrera vs. Agustin,9 respondent lured an innocent woman into a simulated marriage
and thereafter satisfied his lust. The Court held that respondent failed to maintain that
degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is expected of members of the bar.
He is, therefore, disbarred from the practice of law.

In the 1963 case of Toledo vs. Toledo,10 respondent abandoned his wife, who supported
him and spent for his law education, and thereafter cohabited with another woman. The
Court ruled that he failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and
required of a member of the bar. For this, respondent was disbarred.

In Obusan vs. Obusan, Jr.,11 respondent abandoned his lawful wife and child and
resumed cohabitation with his former paramour. Here, we ruled that abandoning ones
wife and resuming carnal relations with a former paramour, a married woman,
constitute grossly immoral conduct warranting disbarment.

In Bolivar v. Simbol,12 the Court found the respondent there guilty of "grossly immoral
conduct" because he made a dupe of complainant, 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,

7 Tucay vs. Tucay A.C. No. 5170, November 17, 1999, 318 SCRA 229
8 Villasanta vs. Peralta,[101 Phil.313 (1957)
9 Cabrera vs. Agustin 106 Phil. 256 (1960)
10 Toledo vs. Toledo 117 SCRA768, Adm. Case No. 266, April 27, 1963
11 Obusan vs. Obusan 128 SCRA 485, Adm. Case No. 1392, April 2, 1984
12 Bolivar v. Simbol 16 SCRA 623 (1966)
keeping his marriage a secret while continuing to demand money from complainant.
The Court held such acts “indicative of a character not worthy of a member of the Bar.”

Where a lawyer succeeded in having carnal knowledge of complainant,13 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, is guilty of gross immoral conduct rendering him unfit to continue a
member of the Bar.

A lawyer was also disbarred in a case where a public school teacher, who was engaged
to the lawyer, 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 him money upon his request. After she
became pregnant and gave birth to a baby boy, the lawyer refused to marry her.14

In 1963,15 a lawyer who had been having adulterous relations for fifteen years with a
married woman separated from her husband, seduced her eighteen-year-old niece who
became pregnant and begot a child was disbarred.

20th Century Cases where a Finding of Gross

Immorality was made but no Disbarment ordered

In 1993,16 a judge was charged with immorality and violation of the Code of Judicial
Ethics for maintaining illicit sexual relations with another’s wife. The Court concludes
that the immoral conduct of the respondent has ruined two families — his own and that
of the complainant. Respondent cannot escape from the blame and sin of what he has
caused complainant’s once happy family. Court further held that “but beyond the
domestic confines of these two families, respondent judge is no ordinary mortal who can
live the life he pleases having two women at the same time — his wife and worst , another
man’s wife. He is a judge who symbolizes the law and the highest degree of morality in

13 Almirez v. Lopez, Administrative Case No. 481, February 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 169
14 Quingwa v. Puno, Administrative Case No. 389, February 28, 1967, 19 SCRA 439
15 Royong v. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865 A.C. No. 376 April 30, 1963
16 Dr. Norbert l. Alfonso v. Judge Modesto C. Juanson [A.M. No. RTJ-92-904. December 7,

1993
the community. The citizens look up to him as the embodiment of justice and decency,
as he decides cases brought to his court. He can be no less."

Immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes conduct inconsistent
with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or
is wilful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of
respectable members of the community, and as an inconsiderate attitude toward good
order and public welfare."

The Court sentenced him to pay a fine of P2,000.00 and, further, sternly warned that a
repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

In Leynes v. Veloso17 a municipal judge was charged with immorality in public office for
having illicit relations with a concubine under scandalous circumstances. The judge
admits that a thirty-seven-year old woman, his alleged housemaid, is his mistress. Out
of their union, two children were born when the respondent was already a sex-
agenarian.

The Court held that if good moral character is required of a lawyer, with more reason
that requirement should be exacted of a member of the judiciary who at all times is
expected to observe irreproachable behavior and is bound not to outrage public
decency.18

The respondent was removed from the office as municipal judge and his application for
disability retirement was disapproved.His reliance on his wife's condonation of his
immorality, erroneously confounded or equated the extinction of his criminal liability
with his moral fitness to occupy the position of town magistrate. Further, the withdrawal
by complainant of his charge does not render the administrative case moot. This Court
may motu proprio investigate a judge for his continuing, grossly immoral conduct.

In Castillo v. Calanog19 a penalty of FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (P40,000.00) fine and a

most severe warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be accorded the highest
penalty with an the Court's power to impose was imposed against Judge Manuel M.
Calanog, Jr., who had an intimate, albeit immoral, relationship with complainant Emma
Castillo although he, Judge Calanog, is a married man. Out of that liaison Emma

17 In Leynes v. Veloso (82 SCRA 325 [1978])

18 Canon 3 of Judicial Ethics, Administrative Order No. 162 of the Secretary of Justice, August
1, 1946. 42 O.G. 1803
19 Castillo v. Calanog (199 SCRA 75 [1991]) ADM. MATTER No. RTJ-90-447 July 12, 1991
Castillo gave birth to Judge Calanog's child, Jerome Christopher, whom he housed in a
condominium unit together with his (Jerome's) mother and her two older children.