Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
ADM. CASE No. 3319 June 8, 2000
LESLIE UI, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO, responent.
DE LEON, JR., J.:
!efore us is an aministrative complaint for isbarment a"ainst #tt$. Iris !onifacio for alle"el$
carr$in" on an immoral relationship %ith Carlos &. 'i, husban of complainant, &eslie 'i.
(he relevant facts are)
On *anuar$ +,, -./- complainant &eslie 'i marrie Carlos &. 'i at the Our &a$ of &oures Church
in 0ue1on Cit$
-
an as a result of their marital union, the$ ha four 2,3 chilren, namel$, &eilani,
&ianni, &insa$ an Carl Cavin, all surname 'i. Sometime in December -.4/, ho%ever,
complainant foun out that her husban. Carlos 'i, %as carr$in" on an illicit relationship %ith
responent #tt$. Iris !onifacio %ith %hom he be"ot a au"hter sometime in -.45, an that the$ ha
been livin" to"ether at No. 6+/ San Carlos Street, #$ala #laban" Villa"e in Muntinlupa Cit$.
Responent %ho is a "rauate of the Colle"e of &a% of the 'niversit$ of the Philippines %as
amitte to the Philippine !ar in -.4+.
Carlos 'i amitte to complainant his relationship %ith the responent. Complainant then visite
responent at her office in the later part of *une -.44 an introuce herself as the le"al %ife of
Carlos 'i. 7hereupon, responent amitte to her that she has a chil %ith Carlos 'i an alle"e,
ho%ever8 that ever$thin" %as over bet%een her an Carlos 'i. Complainant believe the
representations of responent an thou"ht thin"s %oul turn out %ell from then on an that the illicit
relationship bet%een her husban an responent %oul come to an en.
9o%ever, complainant a"ain iscovere that the illicit relationship bet%een her husban an
responent continue, an that sometime in December -.44, responent an her husban, Carlos
'i, ha a secon chil. Complainant then met a"ain %ith responent sometime in March -.4. an
pleae %ith responent to iscontinue her illicit relationship %ith Carlos 'i but to no avail. (he illicit
relationship persiste an complainant even came to :no% later on that responent ha been
emplo$e b$ her husban in his compan$.
# complaint for isbarment, oc:ete as #m. Case No. ;;-., %as then file on #u"ust --, -.4. b$
the complainant a"ainst responent #tt$. Iris !onifacio before the Commission on !ar Discipline of
the Inte"rate !ar of the Philippines 2hereinafter, Commission3 on the "roun of immoralit$, more
particularl$, for carr$in" on an illicit relationship %ith the complainant<s husban, Carlos 'i. In her
#ns%er,
+
responent averre that she met Carlos 'i sometime in -.4; an ha :no%n him all alon"
to be a bachelor, %ith the :no%le"e, ho%ever, that Carlos 'i ha chilren b$ a Chinese %oman in
#mo$, China, from %hom he ha lon" been estran"e. She state that urin" one of their trips
abroa, Carlos 'i formali1e his intention to marr$ her an the$ in fact "ot marrie in 9a%aii, 'S# in
-.46
;
. 'pon their return to Manila, responent i not live %ith Carlos 'i. (he latter continue to live
%ith his chilren in their =reenhills resience because responent an Carlos 'i %ante to let the
chilren "rauall$ to :no% an accept the fact of his secon marria"e before the$ %oul live
to"ether.
,
In -.45, responent left the countr$ an sta$e in 9onolulu, 9a%aii an she %oul onl$ return
occasionall$ to the Philippines to upate her la% practice an rene% le"al ties. Durin" one of her
trips to Manila sometime in *une -.44, she %as confronte b$ a %oman %ho insiste that she %as
the la%ful %ife of Carlos 'i. 9urt an esolate upon her iscover$ of the true civil status of Carlos 'i,
responent then left for 9onolulu, 9a%aii sometime in *ul$ -.44 an returne onl$ in March -.4.
%ith her t%o 2+3 chilren. On March +>, -.4., a fe% a$s after she reporte to %or: %ith the la%
firm
6
she %as connecte %ith, the %oman %ho represente herself to be the %ife of Carlos 'i a"ain
came to her office, emanin" to :no% if Carlos 'i has been communicatin" %ith her.
It is responent<s contention that her relationship %ith Carlos 'i is not illicit because the$ %ere
marrie abroa an that after *une -.44, %hen responent iscovere Carlos 'i<s true civil status,
she cut off all her ties %ith him. Responent averre that Carlos 'i never live %ith her in #laban",
an that he resie at +5 Potsam Street, =reenhills, San *uan, Metro Manila. It %as responent
%ho live in #laban" in a house %hich belon"e to her mother, Rosalina &. !onifacio8 an that the
sai house %as built e?clusivel$ from her parents< funs.
5
!$ %a$ of counterclaim, responent
sou"ht moral ama"es in the amount of (en Million Pesos 2Php->,>>>,>>>.>>3 a"ainst complainant
for havin" file the present alle"el$ malicious an "rounless isbarment case a"ainst responent.
In her Repl$
/
ate #pril 5, -..>, complainant states, amon" others, that responent :ne% perfectl$
%ell that Carlos 'i %as marrie to complainant an ha chilren %ith her even at the start of her
relationship %ith Carlos 'i, an that the reason responent %ent abroa %as to "ive birth to her t%o
2+3 chilren %ith Carlos 'i.
Durin" the penenc$ of the proceein"s before the Inte"rate !ar, complainant also char"e her
husban, Carlos 'i, an responent %ith the crime of Concubina"e before the Office of the
Provincial @iscal of Ri1al, oc:ete as I.S. No. 4.A6+,/, but the same %as ismisse for
insufficienc$ of evience to establish probable cause for the offense char"e. (he resolution
ismissin" the criminal complaint a"ainst responent reas)
Complainant<s evience ha prima facie establishe the e?istence of the Billicit relationshipB
bet%een the responents alle"el$ iscovere b$ the complainant in December -.4/. (he
same evience ho%ever sho% that responent Carlos 'i %as still livin" %ith complainant up
to the latter part of -.44 anCor the earl$ part of -.4..
It %oul therefore be lo"ical an safe to state that the BrelationshipB of responents starte
an %as iscovere b$ complainant sometime in -.4/ %hen she an responent Carlos
%ere still livin" at No. +5 Potsam Street, Northeast =reenhills, San *uan, Metro Manila an
the$, amittel$, continue to live to"ether at their conDu"al home up to earl$ 2sic3 part of
-.4. or later -.44, %hen responent Carlos left the same.
@rom the above, it %oul not be amiss to conclue that altho 2sic3 the relationship, illicit as
complainant puts it, ha been prima facie establishe b$ complainant<s evience, this same
evience ha faile to even prima facie establish the Bfact of responent<s cohabitation in the
concept of husban an %ife at the 6+/ San Carlos St., #$ala #laban" house, proof of %hich
is necessar$ an inispensable to at least create probable cause for the offense char"e.
(he statement alone of complainant, %orse, a statement onl$ of a conclusion respectin" the
fact of cohabitation oes not ma:e the complainant<s evience thereto an$ betterCstron"er
2'.S. vs. Casipon" an Mon"o$, +> Phil. -/43.
It is %orth statin" that the evience submitte b$ responents in support of their respective
positions on the matter support an bolster the fore"oin" conclusionCrecommenation.
79ERE@ORE, it is most respectfull$ recommene that the instant complaint be ismisse
for %ant of evience to establish probable cause for the offense char"e.
RESPEC(@'&&E S'!MI((ED.
4
Complainant appeale the sai Resolution of the Provincial @iscal of Ri1al to the Secretar$ of
*ustice, but the same %as ismisse
.
on the "roun of insufficienc$ of evience to prove her
alle"ation that responent an Carlos 'i live to"ether as husban an %ife at 6+/ San Carlos
Street, #$ala #laban", Muntinlupa, Metro Manila.
In the proceein"s before the I!P Commission on !ar Discipline, complainant file a Motion to Cite
Responent in Contempt of the Commission
->
%herein she char"e responent %ith ma:in" false
alle"ations in her #ns%er an for submittin" a supportin" ocument %hich %as altere an
intercalate. She alle"e that in the #ns%er of responent file before the Inte"rate !ar,
responent averre, amon" others, that she %as marrie to Carlos 'i on October ++, -.46 an
attache a Certificate of Marria"e to substantiate her averment. 9o%ever, the Certificate of
Marria"e
--
ul$ certifie b$ the State Re"istrar as a true cop$ of the recor on file in the 9a%aii
State Department of 9ealth, an ul$ authenticate b$ the Philippine Consulate =eneral in 9onolulu,
9a%aii, 'S# reveale that the ate of marria"e bet%een Carlos 'i an responent #tt$. Iris
!onifacio %as October ++, -.4/, an not October ++, -.46 as claime b$ responent in her #ns%er.
#ccorin" to complainant, the reason for that false alle"ation %as because responent %ante to
impress upon the sai I!P that the birth of her first chil b$ Carlos 'i %as %ithin the %eloc:.
-+
It is
the contention of complainant that such act constitutes a violation of #rticles -4;
-;
an -4,
-,
of the
Revise Penal Coe, an also contempt of the Commission8 an that the act of responent in
ma:in" false alle"ations in her #ns%er an submittin" an altereCintercalate ocument are
inicative of her moral perversit$ an lac: of inte"rit$ %hich ma:e her un%orth$ to be a member of
the Philippine !ar.
In her Opposition 2(o Motion (o Cite Responent in Contempt3,
-6
responent averre that she i
not have the ori"inal cop$ of the marria"e certificate because the same %as in the possession of
Carlos 'i, an that she anne?e such cop$ because she relie in "oo faith on %hat appeare on
the cop$ of the marria"e certificate in her possession.
Responent file her Memoranum
-5
on @ebruar$ ++, -..6 an raise the lone issue of %hether or
not she has conucte herself in an immoral manner for %hich she eserves to be barre from the
practice of la%. Responent averre that the complaint shoul be ismisse on t%o 2+3 "rouns,
namel$)
2i3 Responent conucte herself in a manner consistent %ith the reFuirement of "oo moral
character for the practice of the le"al profession8 an
2ii3 Complainant faile to prove her alle"ation that responent conucte herself in an
immoral manner.
In her efense, responent contens, amon" others, that it %as she %ho %as the victim in this case
an not &eslie 'i because she i not :no% that Carlos 'i %as alrea$ marrie, an that upon
learnin" of this fact, responent immeiatel$ cutAoff all her ties %ith Carlos 'i. She state that there
%as no reason for her to oubt at that time that the civil status of Carlos 'i %as that of a bachelor
because he spent so much time %ith her, an he %as so open in his courtship.
-4
On the issue of the falsifie marria"e certificate, responent alle"e that it %as hi"hl$ increible for
her to have :no%in"l$ attache such marria"e certificate to her #ns%er ha she :no%n that the
same %as altere. Responent reiterate that there %as no compellin" reason for her to ma:e it
appear that her marria"e to Carlos 'i too: place either in -.46 or -.4/, because the fact remains
that responent an Carlos 'i "ot marrie before complainant confronte responent an informe
the latter of her earlier marria"e to Carlos 'i in *une -.44. @urther, responent state that it %as
Carlos 'i %ho testifie an amitte that he %as the person responsible for chan"in" the ate of the
marria"e certificate from -.4/ to -.46, an complainant i not present evience to rebut the
testimon$ of Carlos 'i on this matter.
Responent posits that complainant<s evience, consistin" of the pictures of responent %ith a chil,
pictures of responent %ith Carlos 'i, a picture of a "ara"e %ith cars, a picture of a li"ht colore car
%ith Plate No. PNS ;-;, a picture of the same car, an portion of the house an "roun, an another
picture of the same car bearin" Plate No. PNS ;-; an a picture of the house an the
"ara"e,
-.
oes not prove that she acte in an immoral manner. (he$ have no evientiar$ value
accorin" to her. (he pictures %ere ta:en b$ a photo"rapher from a private securit$ a"enc$ an %ho
%as not presente urin" the hearin"s. @urther, the responent presente the Resolution of the
Provincial @iscal of Pasi" in I.S. Case No. 4.A6,+/ ismissin" the complaint file b$ &eslie 'i
a"ainst responent for lac: of evience to establish probable cause for the offense char"e
+>
an
the ismissal of the appeal b$ the Department of *ustice
+-
to bolster her ar"ument that she %as not
"uilt$ of an$ immoral or ille"al act because of her relationship %ith Carlos 'i. In fine, responent
claims that she entere the relationship %ith Carlos 'i in "oo faith an that her conuct cannot be
consiere as %illful, fla"rant, or shameless, nor can it su""est moral inifference. She fell in love
%ith Carlos 'i %hom she believe to be sin"le, an, that upon her iscover$ of his true civil status,
she parte %a$s %ith him.
In the Memoranum
++
file on March +>, -..6 b$ complainant &eslie 'i, she pra$e for the
isbarment of #tt$. Iris !onifacio an reiterate that responent committe immoralit$ b$ havin"
intimate relations %ith a marrie man %hich resulte in the birth of t%o 2+3 chilren. Complainant
testifie that responent<s mother, Mrs. &ina !onifacio, personall$ :ne% complainant an her
husban since the late -./>s because the$ %ere clients of the ban: %here Mrs. !onifacio %as the
!ranch Mana"er.
+;
It %as thus hi"hl$ improbable that responent, %ho %as livin" %ith her parents
as of -.45, %oul not have been informe b$ her o%n mother that Carlos 'i %as a marrie man.
Complainant li:e%ise averre that responent committe isrespect to%ars the Commission for
submittin" a photocop$ of a ocument containin" an intercalate ate.
In her Repl$ to Complainant<s Memoranum
+,
, responent state that complainant miserabl$ faile
to sho% sufficient proof to %arrant her isbarment. Responent insists that contrar$ to the alle"ations
of complainant, there is no sho%in" that responent ha :no%le"e of the fact of marria"e of Carlos
'i to complainant. (he alle"ation that her mother :ne% Carlos 'i to be a marrie man oes not
prove that such information %as mae :no%n to responent.
9earin" on the case ensue, after %hich the Commission on !ar Discipline submitte its Report an
Recommenation, finin" that)
In the case at bar, it is alle"e that at the time responent %as courte b$ Carlos 'i, the
latter represente himself to be sin"le. (he Commission oes not fin sai claim too ifficult
to believe in the li"ht of contemporar$ human e?perience.
#lmost al%a$s, %hen a marrie man courts a sin"le %oman, he represents himself to be
sin"le, separate, or %ithout an$ firm commitment to another %oman. (he reason therefor is
not har to fathom. !$ their ver$ nature, sin"le %omen prefer sin"le men.
(he recors %ill sho% that %hen responent became a%are the 2sic3 true civil status of
Carlos 'i, she left for the 'nite States 2in *ul$ of -.443. She bro:e off all contacts %ith him.
7hen she returne to the Philippines in March of -.4., she live %ith her brother, #tt$.
(eooro !onifacio, *r. Carlos 'i an responent onl$ tal:e to each other because of the
chilren %hom he %as allo%e to visit. #t no time i the$ live to"ether.
'ner the fore"oin" circumstances, the Commission fails to fin an$ act on the part of
responent that can be consiere as unprinciple or is"raceful as to be reprehensible to a
hi"h e"ree. (o be sure, she %as more of a victim that 2sic3 an$thin" else an shoul
eserve compassion rather than conemnation. 7ithout cavil, this sa episoe estro$e
her chance of havin" a normal an happ$ famil$ life, a ream cherishe b$ ever$ sin"le "irl.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
(hereafter, the !oar of =overnors of the Inte"rate !ar of the Philippines issue a Notice of
Resolution ate December -;, -../, the ispositive portion of %hich reas as follo%s)
RESO&VED to #DOP( an #PPROVE, as it is hereb$ #DOP(ED an #PPROVED, the
Report an Recommenation of the Investi"atin" Commissioner in the aboveAentitle case,
herein mae part of this ResolutionCDecision as #nne? B#B, an, finin" the recommenation
full$ supporte b$ the evience on recor an the applicable la%s an rules, the complaint
for =ross Immoralit$ a"ainst Responent is DISMISSED for lac: of merit. #tt$. Iris !onifacio
is REPRIM#NDED for :no%in"l$ an %illfull$ attachin" to her #ns%er a falsifie Certificate of
Marria"e %ith a stern %arnin" that a repetition of the same %ill merit a more severe penalt$.
7e a"ree %ith the finin"s aforeFuote.
(he practice of la% is a privile"e. # bar caniate oes not have the ri"ht to enDo$ the practice of the
le"al profession simpl$ b$ passin" the bar e?aminations. It is a privile"e that can be revo:e, subDect
to the manate of ue process, once a la%$er violates his oath an the ictates of le"al ethics. (he
reFuisites for amission to the practice of la% are)
a. he must be a citi1en of the Philippines8
b. a resient thereof8
c. at least t%ent$Aone 2+-3 $ears of a"e8
. a person of "oo moral character8
e. he must sho% that no char"es a"ainst him involvin" moral turpitue, are file or penin"
in court8
f. possess the reFuire eucational Fualifications8 an
". pass the bar e?aminations.
+6
2Emphasis supplie3
Clear from the fore"oin" is that one of the conitions prior to amission to the bar is that an applicant
must possess "oo moral character. More importantl$, possession of "oo moral character must be
continuous as a reFuirement to the enDo$ment of the privile"e of la% practice, other%ise, the loss
thereof is a "roun for the revocation of such privile"e. It has been hel G
If "oo moral character is a sine qua non for amission to the bar, then the continue
possession of "oo moral character is also a reFuisite for retainin" membership in the le"al
profession. Membership in the bar ma$ be terminate %hen a la%$er ceases to have "oo
moral character. 2Ro$on" vs. Oblena, --/ Phil. 4563.
# la%$er ma$ be isbarre for B"rossl$ immoral conuct, or b$ reason of his conviction of a
crime involvin" moral turpitueB. # member of the bar shoul have moral inte"rit$ in aition
to professional probit$.
It is ifficult to state %ith precision an to fi? an infle?ible stanar as to %hat is B"rossl$
immoral conuctB or to specif$ the moral elinFuenc$ an obliFuit$ %hich rener a la%$er
un%orth$ of continuin" as a member of the bar. (he rule implies that %hat appears to be
unconventional behavior to the strai"htAlace ma$ not be the immoral conuct that %arrants
isbarment.
Immoral conuct has been efine as Bthat conuct %hich is %illful, fla"rant, or shameless,
an %hich sho%s a moral inifference to the opinion of the "oo an respectable members
of the communit$.B 2/ C.*.S. .6.3.
+5
In the case at bar, it is the claim of responent #tt$. !onifacio that %hen she met Carlos 'i, she :ne%
an believe him to be sin"le. Responent fell in love %ith him an the$ "ot marrie an as a result
of such marria"e, she "ave birth to t%o 2+3 chilren. 'pon her :no%le"e of the true civil status of
Carlos 'i, she left him.
Simple as the facts of the case ma$ soun, the effects of the actuations of responent are not onl$
far from simple, the$ %ill have a ripplin" effect on ho% the stanar norms of our le"al practitioners
shoul be efine. Perhaps moralit$ in our liberal societ$ toa$ is a far cr$ from %hat it use to be
before. (his permissiveness not%ithstanin", la%$ers, as :eepers of public faith, are burene %ith
a hi"her e"ree of social responsibilit$ an thus must hanle their personal affairs %ith "reater
caution. (he facts of this case lea us to believe that perhaps responent %oul not have foun
herself in such a compromisin" situation ha she e?ercise pruence an been more vi"ilant in
finin" out more about Carlos 'i<s personal bac:"roun prior to her intimate involvement %ith him.
Surel$, circumstances e?iste %hich shoul have at least arouse responent<s suspicion that
somethin" %as amiss in her relationship %ith Carlos 'i, an move her to as: probin" Fuestions.
@or instance, responent amitte that she :ne% that Carlos 'i ha chilren %ith a %oman from
#mo$, China, $et it appeare that she never e?erte the sli"htest effort to fin out if Carlos 'i an
this %oman %ere inee unmarrie. #lso, espite their marria"e in -.4/, Carlos 'i never live %ith
responent an their first chil, a circumstance that is simpl$ incomprehensible consierin"
responent<s alle"ation that Carlos 'i %as ver$ open in courtin" her.
#ll these ta:en to"ether leas to the inescapable conclusion that responent %as impruent in
mana"in" her personal affairs. 9o%ever, the fact remains that her relationship %ith Carlos 'i,
clothe as it %as %ith %hat responent believe %as a vali marria"e, cannot be consiere
immoral. @or immoralit$ connotes conuct that sho%s inifference to the moral norms of societ$ an
the opinion of "oo an respectable members of the communit$.
+/
Moreover, for such conuct to
%arrant isciplinar$ action, the same must be B"rossl$ immoral,B that is, it must be so corrupt an
false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprinciple as to be reprehensible to a hi"h e"ree.
+4
7e have hel that Ba member of the !ar an officer of the court is not onl$ reFuire to refrain from
aulterous relationships . . . but must also so behave himself as to avoi scanali1in" the public b$
creatin" the belief that he is floutin" those moral stanars.B
+.
Responent<s act of immeiatel$
istancin" herself from Carlos 'i upon iscoverin" his true civil status belies Dust that alle"e moral
inifference an proves that she ha no intention of flauntin" the la% an the hi"h moral stanar of
the le"al profession. Complainant<s bare assertions to the contrar$ eserve no creit. #fter all, the
buren of proof rests upon the complainant, an the Court %ill e?ercise its isciplinar$ po%ers onl$ if
she establishes her case b$ clear, convincin" an satisfactor$ evience.
;>
(his, herein complainant
miserabl$ faile to o.
On the matter of the falsifie Certificate of Marria"e attache b$ responent to her #ns%er, %e fin
improbable to believe the averment of responent that she merel$ relie on the photocop$ of the
Marria"e Certificate %hich %as provie her b$ Carlos 'i. @or an event as si"nificant as a marria"e
ceremon$, an$ normal brie %oul veril$ recall the ate an $ear of her marria"e. It is ifficult to
fathom ho% a brie, especiall$ a la%$er as in the case at bar, can for"et the $ear %hen she "ot
marrie. Simpl$ state, it is contrar$ to human e?perience an hi"hl$ improbable.
@urthermore, an$ pruent la%$er %oul verif$ the information containe in an attachment to her
pleain", especiall$ so %hen she has personal :no%le"e of the facts an circumstances containe
therein. In attachin" such Marria"e Certificate %ith an intercalate ate, the efense of "oo faith of
responent on that point cannot stan.
It is the bounen ut$ of la%$ers to ahere un%averin"l$ to the hi"hest stanars of moralit$.1avvphi 1 (he
le"al profession e?acts from its members nothin" less. &a%$ers are calle upon to safe"uar the
inte"rit$ of the !ar, free from misees an acts constitutive of malpractice. (heir e?alte positions
as officers of the court eman no less than the hi"hest e"ree of moralit$.
79ERE@ORE, the complaint for isbarment a"ainst responent #tt$. Iris &. !onifacio, for alle"e
immoralit$, is hereb$ DISMISSED.
9o%ever, responent is hereb$ REPRIM#NDED for attachin" to her #ns%er a photocop$ of her
Marria"e Certificate, %ith an altere or intercalate ate thereof, %ith a S(ERN 7#RNIN= that a
more severe sanction %ill be impose on her for an$ repetition of the same or similar offense in the
future.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.