A.C. No.

376             April 30, 1963

JOSEFINA ROYONG, complainant, 
vs.
ATTY. ARISTON OBLENA, respondent.

Facts:

Complainant Josefina Royong, the niece of Atty. Oblena’s wife and looked up to him as her uncle,
charged Atty. Ariston J. Oblena with rape. Based from the report of the Solicitor General, the
complainant was raped after lunch when her mother left her alone. The respondent entered, went
behind her, covered her mouth with one hand and dragged her to the bedroom. She tried to resist, but
resulted to her receiving hard blows on the thigh with his fist and threats to kill her and her family.
After the sexual intercourse, he threatened her not to tell her foster father, otherwise, he would kill her
and all the members of her family. This resulted to her pregnancy. Eventually, she gave birth to the
child.

The respondent, however, allege he did not rape her since he was at the Commission of Civil Service at
the time of the commission of the crime. He also admitted that he had an illicit relationship with the
complainant for one year when he stopped since it was discovered by her foster parents. In order to
avoid a criminal liability of seduction, he limited himself to kissing and embracing her and sucking her
tongue before she became 18 years of age.

Based from the findings, the Solicitor general concluded that there was carnal knowledge of the
complainant and it was consensual.

In view of his findings, even if respondent did not commit the alleged rape, he was still
guilty of other misconduct. He was living an adulterous life with Briccia Angeles (who is a married
woman) at the same time maintaining illicit relationship with Josefina Royong, niece of Briccia, thus
making him unworthy of public confidence. After the hearing, the investigators submitted the report
with the finding that
(1) Atty. Oblena used his knowledge of the law to take advantage by having illicit relationship
with the complainant, committing immoral acts which rendered him free from criminal
liability,
(2) He committed gross immorality by continuously cohabitating with a married woman even
after he became a lawyer.
(3) That respondent falsified the truth as to his moral character in his petition to take the bar
examination, due to the immorality of cohabitating with his common/law wife, Briccia
Angeles, a married woman. He is recommended to be disbarred or suspended for one year.

Atty. Oblena contends that

(1) the complaint does not merit action, since the cause of action in the said complaint are
different and foreign from the original cause of action for rape and
(2) that he is not liable for disbarment notwithstanding his illicit relationship with
complainant and his open relationship with Briccia Angeles because he has not been
convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.

Issue:

(1) Whether or not the complaint shall be dismissed since the cause of action in the said complaint are
different and foreign from the original cause of action for rape. NO

(2)Whether or not Atty. Oblena shall be disbarred even the grounds upon which the disbarment
proceedings is based are not among those enumerated by Section 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court
for which a lawyer may be disbarred. YES

(3)Whether or not Atty. Ariston Oblena should be disbarred or suspended on the grounds of his moral
character. YES

Held:
(1)Nothing in the language of the Rules of Court that requires the Solicitor General to charge in his
complaint the same offense charged in the complaint originally filed by the complainant for
disbarment. Precisely, the law provides that should the Solicitor General find sufficient grounds to
proceed against the respondent, he shall file the corresponding complaint, accompanied by the
evidence introduced in his investigation.

(2)Although it is a well settled rule that the legislature (or the Supreme Court by virtue of its rule-
making power) may provide that certain acts or conduct shall require disbarment, the accepted
doctrine is that statutes and rules merely regulate the power to disbar instead of creating it, and that
such statutes (or rules) do not restrict the general powers of the court over attorneys, who are its
officers, and that they may be removed for other than statutory grounds.

(3)The open cohabitation with Briccia, a married woman, is a sufficient ground for disbarment. The
respondent’s misconduct, although unrelated to his office, may constitute sufficient grounds for
disbarment. Respondent contends that fornication is not a ground for disbarment. Fornication, if
committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances justify positive action by the court in
protecting the prestige of the noble profession of law. The reason why he continued relationship with
Angeles was to finish law school and stayed with her after being admitted to the bar due to his sense of
propriety and Christian charity.

One’s approximation of himself is not a gauge to his moral character. Moral Character is not a
subjective term, but which correspondents to objective reality. Moral Character is what a person really
is, and not what he or people think of him. The standard of personal and profession integrity which
should be applied to persons admitted to practice law is not satisfied by such conduct as merely
enabled them to escape penalties of criminal law. Good Moral Character includes at least common
honesty. Respondent did not possess a good moral character at the time of his applied for his
admission to the bar. He lived an adulterous life with Briccia Angeles, and even if people knew him to
have status. It did not render him a person of good moral character. He is therefore disbarred.