1. Obusan v.

Obusan
A.M. No. 1392 2. In Re: Disbarment of Armando Puno
A.M. No. 389
Complainant – Preciosa R. Obusan
Respondent – Generoso B. Obusan Complainant – Flora Quingwa and Domingo T. Zavalla
Respondent – Armando Puno
FACTS:
In 1967, when Generoso B. Obusan, Jr. had carnal FACTS:
relations with Natividad Estabillo, representing to be a widow On April 16, 1959, Armando Puno, a member of the
and who was also working in the Peoples Homesite and Bar, was filed a verified complaint for gross immorality and
Housing Corporation. They had carnal relations. He begot with conduct; He denied all material allegations and averred that
her a son who was born on November 27, 1972. Came to know such do not constitute grounds for disbarment or suspension.
that Natividad’s marriage to Tony Garcia was subsisting or
undissolved. June 3, 1958, the case was referred to the Solicitor
General for investigation, report and recommendation. Puno
Four days after the birth of the child or on December denied having sexual intercourse with the complainant at the
1, 1972, Generoso, 33, married Preciosa, 37, in a civil Silver Moon Hotel on June 1, 1958, disclaimed the handwriting
ceremony. The marriage was ratified in a religious ceremony “Mr & Mrs. A. Puno” appearing in the hotel registrar, and
held on December 30, 1972. disowned Armando Quingwa Puno, Jr. to be his child.
In the evening of April 13, 1974, when his wife was
out of the house, lawyer Obusan asked permission from his Solicitor General filed a complaint, charging
mother-in-law to leave the house and take a vacation in his respondent with immorality and asked for the disbarment of the
hometown, Daet, Camarines Norte. Since then, he has never respondent.
returned to the conjugal abode.
ISSUE: Whether or not such allegations against respondent
Respondent’s defense was that his relationship with constitute grounds for disbarment – YES
Natividad was terminated when he married Preciosa. He also
claimed that he was constrained to leave the conjugal home RULING:
because he could not endure the nagging of his wife, their One of the requirements for all applicants for
violent quarrels, her absences from the conjugal home and her admission to the Bar is that the applicant must produce before
interference with his professional obligations. the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral
character (Section 2, Rule 138). If that qualification is a
condition precedent to a license or privilege to enter upon the
The Solicitor General filed for disbarment against practice of law, it is essential during the continuance of the
respondent; Obusan waived the presentation of additional practice and the exercise of privilege.
evidence, likewise his lawyer did not file any memorandum.
The inherent powers of the court over its officers
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent’s mere acts constitute cannot be restricted. Supreme Court held that an attorney will
grounds for disbarment – YES be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his
profession, but also for gross misconduct, which shows him
RULING: unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his
Abandoning one’s wife and resuming casual relations license and the law confer upon him. As a matter of fact,
with a former paramour, a married woman, falls within "that "grossly immoral conduct" is now one of the grounds for
conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which suspension or disbarment. (Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of
shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and Court).
respectable members of the community".
As stated in paragraph 29 of the Canons of Judicial
Thus, a lawyer was disbarred when he abandoned his Ethics: The lawyer should aid in guarding the bar against the
lawful wife and cohabited with another woman who had borne admission to the profession of candidates unfit or unqualified
him a child. He failed to maintain the highest degree of morality because deficient in either moral character or education. He
expected and required of a member of the bar (Toledo v. should strive at all times to uphold the honor and to maintain
Toledo, 117 Phil. 768). the dignity of the profession and to improve not only the law
but the administration of justice.
Respondent is disbarred and his name stricken off
from the Roll of Attorneys. Armando Puno is disbarred and, as a consequence,
his name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.
 Respondent’s name is hereby stricken off from the
roll of Attorneys.
3. Royong vs. Atty. Ariston Oblena
A.M. No. 376 4. Mortel vs. Aspiras
A.M. No. 145
Complainant – Josefina Royong
Respondent – Atty. Ariston Oblena Petitioner – Josefina Mortel
Respondent – Anacleto Aspiras
FACTS:
On January 14, 1959, complainant Josefina Royong FACTS:
charged respondent, a member of the Philippine Bar, with rape Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw and/or dismiss,
allegedly committed on her person in the matter described alleging the contents of her complaint did not represent her
therein. true sentiments, the respondent acted in good faith, and her
Respondent admitted that he had illicit relations with marriage to respondent’s son, Cesar Aspinas, was without any
the complainant that after the discovery of their relationship by fraud or deceit whatsoever. Believing that the matter was not a
the complainant’s foster parents, he confessed the affair to his mere private affair of petitioner, but that is affected the legal
common-law wife, explaining that he wanted a child, something profession, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. However,
she could not give him. the OSG recommended to dismiss the case for lack of
evidence.
The Solicitor General formulated another complaint On December 17, 1953, petitioner filed a motion to re-
which he appended to his report, charging the respondent of open the matter, alleging that the truth was, both of them lived
falsely and deliberately alleging in his application for admission together as husband and wife, also charging respondent with
to the bar that he is a person of good moral character; of living having ordered his son to live with them for purpose of
adulterously with Briccia Angeles at the same time maintaining “camouflaging their living together”.
illicit relations with the complainant Josefina Royong, niece of  The Solicitor General filed in accordance with the
Briccia, thus rendering him unworthy of public confidence and Rules a complaint against the respondent, praying for his
unfit and unsafe to manage the legal business of others, and disbarment, on the ground that he seduced Josefina Mortel by
praying that this Court render judgment ordering "the a promise of marriage, and to cover up his illicit relations, he
permanent removal of the respondent ... from his office as a made his son, Cesar, a minor to marry the said Josefina
lawyer and the cancellation of his name from the roll of Mortel, and what it worse, after the marriage, the respondent
attorneys." continued having sexual relations with the spouse of his own
son.
ISSUE: Whether limited illicit relations with the Josefina
Royong and the open cohabitation with Briccia Angeles, a ISSUE:
married woman, are sufficient grounds to cause respodent’s Whether the following acts of respondent constitutes a
disbarment – YES ground for disbarment – YES.

RULING: RULING:
 In the case at bar, the moral depravity of the
respondent is most apparent. His pretension that before Obviously the courtship and seduction by respondent
complainant completed her eighteenth birthday, he refrained was morally wrong, and this obliquity became worse when he
from having sexual intercourse with her, so as not to incur made use of his minor son Cesar to "redeem" his promise of
criminal liability, as he himself declared — and that he limited marriage and/or to cover up his illicit relations, as the Solicitor
himself merely to kissing and embracing her and sucking her General alleged. He corrupted his own descendant by turning
tongue, indicates a scheming mind, which together with his him into an accomplice of his marital infidelities.
knowledge of the law, he took advantage of, for his lurid
purpose. But he says, the marriage was a true marriage, the
Moreover, his act becomes more despicable contracting parties being actually in love with each other.
considering that the complainant was the niece of his common- Granted. Then his moral deliquency becomes all the more
law wife and that he enjoyed a moral ascendancy over her who unpardonable: the cohabited with the wife of his own son after
looked up to him as her uncle.  the marriage which he himself arranged and witnessed.

The blunt admission of his illicit relations with the As stated by Mr. Justice Owen of the Wisconsin
complainant reveals the respondent to be a person who would Supreme Court:
suffer no moral compunction for his acts if the same could be
done without fear of criminal liability. He has, by these acts, One of the requisite qualifications for one who holds
proven himself to be devoid of the moral integrity expected of a the office of an attorney at law is that he or she shall be good
member of the bar. moral character, in so far as it relates to the discharge of the
duties and responsibilities of an attorney at law. This is a
An immoral act cannot justify another immoral act. continuing qualification necessary to entitle one to admission
The noblest means he could have employed was to have to the bar, and the loss of such qualification requires his
married the complainant as he was then free to do so. But to suspension. The respondent is a member of the bar of this
continue maintaining adulterous relations with a married court. The charges preferred against him challenge his moral
woman and simultaneously maintaining promiscuous relations integrity. Just as it was the duty of this court to refuse him
with the latter's niece is moral perversion that cannot be admission in the first instance upon a showing that he lacked
condoned. Respondent's conduct therefore renders him unfit the necessary qualification, so is its duty now to remove him
and unworthy for the privileges of the legal profession. upon like proof."
 respondent Jordan Terre. He was unworthy of admission to the
It becomes the duty of this Court to strike, as it does Bar in the first place. The Court will correct this error forthwith.
hereby strike his name from the Roll of Attorneys.
Court resolved to disbar respondent and to strike
out his name from the Roll of Attorneys.

5. Terre vs. Terre

A.M. No. 2349

Complainant – Dorothy Terre 6. Delos Reyes v. Atty. Jose Aznar

Respondent – Atty. Jordan Terre A.M. No. 1334

FACTS: Complainant – Rosario Delos Reyes

Complainant Dorothy Terre filed a complaint against Respondent – Atty. Jose Aznar
respondent Jordan Terre, a member of the Philippine Bar, with
grossly immoral conduct, consisting of contracting a second FACTS:
marriage and living with another woman other than The complainant, a second year medical student of
complainant, while his prior marriage remained subsisting. the Southwestern University (Cebu), alleged in her verified
complaint that Atty. Jose Aznar, chairman of said university,
Respondent file motion to set aside and that he had had carnal knowledge of her for several times under threat that
contracted marriage with complainant Dorothy Terre on 14 she would fail in her Pathology subject if she would not submit
June 1977 upon her representation that she was single; which to his lustful desires.
he subsequently learned that Dorothy was married to a certain
Merlito A. Bercenilla sometime in 1968; When he confronted Respondent did not bother to appear during the
Dorothy about her prior marriage, Dorothy drove him out of hearing. He presented Edilberto Caban and Oscar Salangsang
their conjugal residence and mockingly told him of her private who testified that respondent usually slept with them every time
meetings with Merlito A. Bercenilla and that the child she was the latter came to Manila, but their testimony is not of much
then carrying was not of his; Believing in good faith that his help.
marriage to complainant was null and void ab initio, he
contracted marriage with Helina Malicdem. The OSG recommended the suspension of
respondent from the practice of law for a period of not less than
The Court denied the motion to set aside and referred three (3) years.
the complaint to the OSG for investigation, report and
recommendation. ISSUE: Whether Aznar be disbarred – YES
ISSUE: Whether respondent should be disbarred – YES. RULING:
While respondent denied having taken complainant to
RULING: the Ambassador Hotel and there had sexual intercourse with
Respondent Jordan Terre sought to defend himself by the latter, he did not present any evidence to show where he
claiming that he had believed in good faith that his prior was at that date. While this is not a criminal proceeding,
marriage with complainant Dorothy Terre was null and void ab respondent would have done more than keep his silence if he
initio  and that no action for a judicial declaration of nullity was really felt unjustly traduced.
necessary. It is the duty of a lawyer, whenever his moral
The Court considers this claim on the part of character is put in issue, to satisfy this Court that he is a fit and
respondent Jordan Terre as a spurious defense. Respondent proper person to enjoy continued membership in the Bar. He
Jordan Terre, being a lawyer, knew or should have known that cannot dispense with nor downgrade the high and exacting
such an argument ran counter to the prevailing case law of this moral standards of the law profession (Go v. Candoy, 21
Court which holds that for purposes of determining whether a SCRA 439 [1967]).
person is legally free to contract a second marriage, a judicial
declaration that the first marriage was null and void ab initio is As once pronounced by the Court:
essential.
Thus, we agree with the Solicitor General that When his integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not
respondent Jordan Terre, by his actions, "eloquently displayed, enough that he denies the charges against him; he must meet
not only his unfitness to remain as a member of the Bar, but the issue and overcome the evidence for the relator (Legal and
likewise his inadequacy to uphold the purpose and Judicial Ethics, by Malcolm, p. 93) and show proofs that he still
responsibility of his gender" because marriage is a basic social maintains the highest degree of morality and integrity, which at
institution. all times is expected of him.
We believe and so hold that the conduct of
respondent Jordan Terre in inveigling complainant Dorothy Complainant submitted to respondent's solicitation for
Terre to contract a second marriage with him; in abandoning sexual intercourse not because of a desire for sexual
complainant Dorothy Terre after she had cared for him and gratification but because of respondent's moral ascendancy
supported him through law school, leaving her without means over her and fear that if she would not accede, she would flunk
for the safe delivery of his own child; in contracting a second in her subjects. As chairman of the college of medicine where
marriage with Helina Malicdem while his first marriage with complainant was enrolled, the latter had every reason to
complainant Dorothy Terre was subsisting, constituted "grossly believe that respondent could make good his threats.
immoral conduct" under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, affording more than sufficient basis for disbarment of
 The fact that he is a rich man and does not practice
his profession as a lawyer, does not render respondent a
person of good moral character. Evidence of good moral
character precedes admission to bar (Sec.2, Rule 138, Rules
of Court) and such requirement is not dispensed with upon
admission thereto.

Good moral character is a continuing qualification

necessary to entitle one to continue in the practice of law. The
ancient and learned profession of law exacts from its members
the highest standard of morality (Quingwa v. Puno, supra).

Respondent was disbarred and his name is ordered

to be stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.