EN BANC

CATHERINE & HENRY YU,

Complainants,

A.C. No. 7747

Present:

Promulgated:
July 14, 2008
- versus ATTY. ANTONIUTTI K. PALAA,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

On November 16, 2006, complainants Henry and Catherine Yu filed a complaint[1] for
disbarment against respondent Atty. Antoniutti K. Palaa for alleged acts of defraudation, before
the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP).[2] Complainants attached therewith their Consolidated Complaint-Affidavit[3] which they
earlier filed before the City Prosecutors Office of Makati, charging the respondent and his coaccused (in the criminal case), with syndicated estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
(BP 22).
The facts, as found by the CBD, are as follows:
Sometime in 2004, complainants met a certain Mr. Mark Anthony U. Uy (Mr. Uy) who
introduced himself as the Division Manager of Wealth Marketing and General Services
Corporation (Wealth Marketing), a corporation engaged in spot currency trading. [4] Mr. Uy
persuaded the complainants, together with other investors, to invest a minimum amount
of P100,000.00 or its dollar equivalent with said company. They were made to believe that the
said company had the so-called stop-loss mechanism that enabled it to stop trading once the

maximum allowable loss fixed at 3%-9% of the total contributions, would be reached. If, on the
other hand, the company would suffer loss, Wealth Marketing would return to the investors the
principal amount including the monthly guaranteed interests. Further, Wealth Marketing
promised to issue, as it had in fact issued, postdated checks covering the principal investments.[5]
It turned out, however, that Wealth Marketings promises were false and fraudulent, and
that the checks earlier issued were dishonored for the reason account closed. The investors,
including the complainants, thus went to Wealth Marketings office. There, they discovered that
Wealth Marketing had already ceased its operation and a new corporation was formed named UrLink Corporation (Ur-Link) which supposedly assumed the rights and obligations of the
former. Complainants proceeded to Ur-Link office where they met the respondent. As Wealth
Marketings Chairman of the Board of Directors, respondent assured the complainants that UrLink would assume the obligations of the former company.[6] To put a semblance of validity to
such representation, respondent signed an Agreement[7] to that effect which, again, turned out to
be another ploy to further deceive the investors.[8] This prompted the complainants to send
demand letters to Wealth Marketings officers and directors which remained unheeded. They
likewise lodged a criminal complaint for syndicated estafa against the respondent and his coaccused.[9]
Despite the standing warrant for his arrest, respondent went into hiding and has been
successful in defying the law, to this date.
In an Order[10] dated November 17, 2006, Director for Bar Discipline Rogelio B. Vinluan
required respondent to submit his Answer to the complaint but the latter failed to
comply. Hence, the motion to declare him in default filed by the complainants. [11] The case was
thereafter referred to Commissioner Jose I. De la Rama, Jr. (the Commissioner) for
investigation. In his continued defiance of the lawful orders of the Commission, respondent
failed to attend the mandatory conference and to file his position paper. Respondent was
thereafter declared in default and the case was heard ex parte.
In his report,[12] the Commissioner concluded that Wealth Marketings executives (which
included respondent herein) conspired with one another in defrauding the complainants by
engaging in an unlawful network of recruiting innocent investors to invest in foreign currency
trading business where, in fact, no such business existed, as Wealth Marketing was not duly
licensed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to engage in such undertaking. This
was bolstered by the fact that Wealth Marketings financial status could not support the

investors demands involving millions of pesos. It also appears, said the Commissioner, that UrLink was created only to perpetuate fraud and to avoid obligations. The Commissioner likewise
found that respondent had been previously suspended by this Court for committing similar acts
of defraudation.[13] Considering the gravity of the acts committed, as well as his previous
administrative case and defiance of lawful orders, the Commissioner recommended that
respondent be disbarred from the practice of law, the pertinent portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, after a careful evaluation of the
documents presented, including the jurisprudence laid down by the complainants
involving the same respondent, and said decision of the Supreme Court forms part
of the law of the land, the undersigned commissioner is recommending that
respondent Atty. Antoniutti K. Palaa be disbarred and his name be stricken off
the Roll of Attorneys upon the approval of the Board of Governors and the
Honorable Supreme Court.[14]

In its Resolution dated August 17, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the Commissioners report and recommendation.[15]
This Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors.
Lawyers are instruments in the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal
system, they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In so doing, the peoples faith and confidence in the
judicial system is ensured. Lawyers may be disciplined whether in their professional or in their
private capacity for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good
demeanor.[16]
In the present case, two corporations were created where the respondent played a vital role,
being Wealth Marketings Chairman of the Board and Ur-Links representative. We quote with
approval the Commissioners findings, thus:
As correctly pointed out by the City Prosecutors Office of Makati, it
appears that the executive officers of Wealth Marketing Corporation conspired
with each (sic) other to defraud the investors by engaging in unlawful network of
recruiting innocent investors to invest in foreign currency trading business. The
truth of the matter is that there was no actual foreign currency trading since said
corporation is not duly licensed or authorized by the Securities and Exchange
Commission to perform such task.

In the General Information Sheet (Annex I) of Wealth Marketing and

General Services Corporation, the authorized capital stock is only P9,680,000.00
and the paid up capital, at the time of [in]corporation is (sic)
only P605,000.00. Said corporation, as the records will show, has been dealing
with investors with millions of pesos on hand, with the hope that their money
would earn interests as promised. However, their company resources and
financial status will show that they are not in the position to meet these demands
if a situation such as this would arise.
xxxx
Furthermore, in order to evade the investors who were then asking for the
return of their investments, said respondent even formed and made him part of a
new company, Ur-Link Corporation, which according to the complainants, when
they met the respondent, would assume the obligations of the defunct Wealth
Marketing Corporation. It is also evident that respondent is frolicking with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the purpose of employing fraud.[17]

To be sure, respondents conduct falls short of the exacting standards expected of him as a
vanguard of the legal profession.
The fact that the criminal case against the respondent involving the same set of facts is
still pending in court is of no moment. Respondent, being a member of the bar, should note that
administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and
they may proceed independently of criminal cases. A criminal prosecution will not constitute a
prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative
proceedings.[18] Besides, it is not sound judicial policy to await the final resolution of a criminal
case before a complaint against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this Court will be
rendered helpless to apply the rules on admission to, and continuing membership in, the legal
profession during the whole period that the criminal case is pending final disposition, when the
objectives of the two proceedings are vastly disparate.[19] Disciplinary proceedings involve no
private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted
solely for the public welfare and for preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of
persons unfit to practice law.[20] The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as
an officer of the court.[21]
As to the recommended penalty of disbarment, we find the same to be in order.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:

A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as

attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. x x x.

Time and again, we have stated that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary
sanction, and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution for only
the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar.[22]
The Court notes that this is not the first time that respondent is facing an administrative
case, for he had been previously suspended from the practice of law in Samala v.
Palaa[23] and Sps. Amador and Rosita Tejada v. Palaa.[24] In Samala, respondent also played
an important role in a corporation known as First Imperial Resources Incorporated (FIRI), being
its legal officer. As in this case, respondent committed the same offense by making himself part
of the money trading business when, in fact, said business was not among the purposes for which
FIRI was created. Respondent was thus meted the penalty of suspension for three (3) years with
a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more
severely.[25] Likewise, in Tejada, he was suspended for six (6) months for his continued refusal
to settle his loan obligations.[26]
The fact that respondent went into hiding in order to avoid service upon him of the warrant
of arrest issued by the court (where his criminal case is pending) exacerbates his offense.[27]
Finally, we note that respondents case is further highlighted by his lack of regard for the
charges brought against him. As in Tejada, instead of meeting the charges head on, respondent
did not bother to file an answer and verified position paper, nor did he participate in the
proceedings to offer a valid explanation for his conduct.[28] The Court has emphatically stated
that when the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he denies the
charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him. He must
show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is
expected of him.[29] Verily, respondents failure to comply with the orders of the IBP without
justifiable reason manifests his disrespect of judicial authorities.[30] As a lawyer, he ought to

know that the compulsory bar organization was merely deputized by this Court to undertake the
investigation of complaints against lawyers. In short, his disobedience to the IBP is in reality a
gross and blatant disrespect of the Court.[31] By his repeated cavalier conduct, the respondent
exhibited an unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court.[32]
Considering the serious nature of the instant offense and in light of his prior misconduct
herein-before mentioned for which he was penalized with a three-year suspension with a warning
that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely; and another sixmonth suspension thereafter, the contumacious behavior of respondent in the instant case which
grossly degrades the legal profession indeed warrants the imposition of a much graver penalty --disbarment.[33] Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the
laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and override
the laws, to trample them underfoot and to ignore the very bonds of society, argues recreancy to
his position and office, and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous
elements of the body politic.[34]
WHEREFORE, respondent Antoniutti K. Palaa is hereby DISBARRED, and his name
is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be entered
in his record as a member of the Bar; and let notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines, and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the
country.

En Banc
[ADM. CASE No. 6595. April 15, 2005]
JOSEPH SAMALA, complainant, vs. ATTY. ANTONUITTI K. PALAA, respondent.
RESOLUTION
AZCUNA, J.:
This is a complaint filed by Joseph Samala against respondent Atty. Antonuitti K. Palaa for
alleged fraudulent activities that violate the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Sometime in February 2001, complainant was looking for a company where he could invest
his dollar savings. He met Raymond Taino, a trader-employee of First Imperial Resources, Inc.
(FIRI), a company located at Legaspi Village, Makati City. Taino introduced him to FIRI
Manager Jun Agustin, Chief Trader Diosdado Bernal, and Legal Officer Antonuitti K. Palaa,
the respondent herein.
Complainant expressed his concern to the said three officers of FIRI about having been
warned of numerous fraudulent businesses in the Philippines. Respondent assured him that
through FIRI he would be directly putting his investment with Eastern Vanguard Forex Limited,
a reputable company based in the Virgin Islands which has been in the foreign exchange
business for 13 years. The three officers presented to him their company profile and documents
purporting to establish their relationship with Eastern Vanguard Forex Limited.
Due to the personal representations and assurances of respondent, Agustin, and Bernal,
complainant was convinced and he invested his dollar savings with FIRI on March 9, 2001.
Subsequently, complainant decided to pull out his investment. On April 5, 2001, he sent
FIRI a letter requesting the withdrawal of his investment amounting to US$10,000 and giving
FIRI 10 days to prepare the money.
On April 15, 2001, complainant asked Agustin when his money would be returned. Agustin
told him that the request was sent to Thomas Yiu of Eastern Vanguard at Ortigas
Center. Complainant went to see Thomas Yiu at his office. Yiu was surprised when he saw the
documents involving complainants investment. Yiu phoned Agustin and demanded an
explanation as to where the money was. Agustin said that he would return complainants
investment at FIRIs office in Makati. On the same day, in the presence of respondent, Agustin
delivered to complainant a check in the amount of P574,045.09, as the peso equivalent of
complainants investment with FIRI. On May 2, 2001, the said check was dishonored because it
was drawn against insufficient funds.
Complainant informed respondent of the dishonor of the check. Respondent assured him
that the check would be replaced. On June 1, 2001, respondent, as legal officer of FIRI, gave
complainant P250,000 in cash and a check in the amount of P329,045.09. Respondent told
complainant that the check was signed by FIRI President Paul Desiderio in his (respondents)
presence and assured complainant that the check would be funded. But on June 28, 2001, the
check was dishonored because it was drawn against insufficient funds.

On July 14, 2001, complainant charged Paul Desiderio of Estafa and Violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22 at the Prosecutors Office of Makati. On November 4, 2001, Judge Evelyn
Arcaya-Chua of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Makati City, issued a warrant of arrest against
Paul Desiderio.
On March 5, 2002, complainant joined three police officers in serving the warrant of arrest
against Paul Desiderio at No. 10 Damascus St., Northeast Executive Village, B.F. Homes,
Paraaque City. Complainant got the said address of Paul Desiderio from the documents of FIRI.
Although there was a street named Damascus in the said village, there was no residence
numbered 10. The police officers checked the existence of the said address and resident at the
office of the subdivision association. They were told that no such address existed and that no
resident named Paul Desiderio lived in the subdivision.
Complainant alleged that respondents act of representing himself to be the legal officer of
FIRI and his assurance that the check he personally delivered to him was signed in his presence
by FIRI Officer Paul Desiderio, when no such person appears to exist, is clearly fraudulent and
violative of the Canons of Professional Ethics.[1]
Complainant requested the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for a thorough investigation of
respondent as a member of the bar.
In an Order dated January 27, 2003, Director for Bar Discipline Victor C. Fernandez
required respondent to submit his Answer to the Complaint within 15 days from receipt thereof.
Despite receipt of said order as evidenced by a registry return receipt dated February 3, 2003,
respondent did not submit an Answer.
The case was referred to Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro of the Commission on Bar
Discipline for investigation. Respondent failed to appear when the case was set for hearing on
April 8, 2003, despite due notice. Hence, respondent was declared in default and the case was
heard ex parte.
Based on the evidence adduced, Commissioner Navarro reported, thus:
[R]espondent was instrumental in the issuance of the check signed by the alleged President of
FIRI, Paul Desiderio, whose whereabouts could not be located and whose identity was
unknown[,] for respondent was the one who handed personally to the herein complainant the
check which was dishonored due to insufficient funds, when it was the very respondent, Atty.
Palaa, who allegedly assured that the check was funded. Respondent was also one of those
alleged officers of FIRI who assured complainant that his investment was directly placed in a
re[p]utable company.
Further investigation by the complainant with the assistance of NBI officers showed that
respondent Palaa was also linked with Belkins whose activity was the same as the FIRI and the
SEC has on file the By-Laws of FIRI wherein it was stated that[,] to wit: the primary purpose of
which is to act as consultant in providing professional expertise and reliable data analysis related
to partnership and so on. And the corporation shall not engage in the business as securities
advisor, stockbroker or investment house[:] Q. x x x A. First Imperial is prohibited from
engaging in foreign exchange business. Q. x x x A. And despite [. . .] this prohibition, they went

on and engaged in activities which are prohibited specifically in their by-laws (TSN pages 16
and 17 of July 17, 2003, CBD Case No. 02-1048).
It is evident from the foregoing that respondent and his cohorts violated the main purpose of the
FIRI By-Laws particularly investment or foreign exchange business which must have been the
reason why Yiu was surprised and got mad when complainant approached him about his dollar
savings investment of USD10,000 received by the respondent as Legal Officer and the two (2)
other alleged officers Agustin and Bernal of the FIRI[,] a transaction expressly prohibited by the
FIRI By-laws.[2]
Respondent was found to have violated Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which states:
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession.
Commissioner Navarro thus recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for six (6) months.
In its Resolution dated July 30, 2004, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and
approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with the
modification that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for three (3) years.
This Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors.
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall at all times uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.[3] To this end, nothing should be done by any
member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the
public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.[4]
In this case, respondent assured complainant that by investing his dollar savings with FIRI,
his investment was in a stable company, even if, as it was later discovered, the by-laws of FIRI
prohibited it from engaging in investment or foreign exchange business and its primary purpose
is to act as consultant in providing professional expertise and reliable data analysis related to
partnership and so on.
When complainant decided to withdraw his investment from FIRI, the first check given to
him in the amount of his total investment bounced. Thereafter, respondent, as legal officer of
FIRI, gave complainant P250,000 in cash and a check for P329,045.09. Respondent assured
complainant that the second check was a good check and that it was signed by Paul Desiderio,
the alleged president of FIRI. However, the said check bounced because it was drawn against
insufficient funds, and the drawer of the check, Paul Desiderio, could not be located when sought
to be served a warrant of arrest since his identity was unknown and his residential address was
found to be non-existent.
Hence, it is clear that the representations of respondent as legal officer of FIRI caused
material damage to complainant. In so doing, respondent failed to uphold the integrity and

dignity of the legal profession and lessened the confidence of the public in the honesty and
integrity of the same.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Antonuitti K. Palaa is found GUILTY of violating Rule
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of three (3) years effective from receipt of this Resolution, with
a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Let a
copy of this resolution be spread on the records of respondent, and furnished to all courts, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Bar Confidant.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

SPS. AMADOR and ROSITA

TEJADA,
Petitioners,

A.C. No. 7434

Present:

- versus Promulgated:
ATTY. ANTONIUTTI K. PALAA,
Respondent.
August 23, 2007
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
Petitioners-spouses Rosita and Amador Tejada filed a Complaint Affidavit before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to initiate disbarment proceedings against respondent
Atty. Antoniutti K. Palaa for his continued refusal to settle his long overdue loan obligation to
the complainants, in violation of his sworn duty as a lawyer to do justice to every man and Rule
7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that:
3. Sometime on January, 2001, respondent lawyer Antoniutti K. Palana
taking advantage of his special knowledge as a lawyer represented to the
petitioners that he has an alleged parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. (73196) 16789 and that he needs an amount of One Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P100,000.00) so that he could reconstitute the torrens title on the same;
4. Respondent then induced by sweet promises and assurances petitioners
spouses to finance such undertaking with a solemn commitment on his part that
after he has already reconstituted such torrens title, he will deliver the same to the
petitioners spouses as security for the amount they had financed;

Thereafter, petitioner spouses shall earn an amount of P70,000.00 from the

P100,000.00 they had financed or all and [sic] all, respondent lawyer shall pay
petitioner spouses a total amount of P170,000.00;
5. The agreement between the petitioner spouses and respondent lawyer,
Antoniutti K. Palana in this regard is being partly evidenced by their written
agreement thereon dated January 12, 2001, a xerox copy of which is hereto
attached as Annex A. Likewise, the receipt by the respondent of the
P100,000.00 is being evidenced in the bottom part of page 1 of the agreement;
6. Under the clear terms of their agreement, respondent lawyer Antoniutti
K. Palana solemnly assured petitioner spouses that he will reconstitute, deliver the
reconstituted title and give the P170,000.00 to the petitioners spouses all within a
period of three months reckoned from their execution of their written agreement
dated January 12, 2001;
7. However, after respondent lawyer, Antoniutti K. Palana had gotten the
P100,000.00 amount from the petitioner spouses, respondent from that time on up
to the present had intentionally evaded the performance of his due, just, legal and
demandable obligations to petitioner spouses.
It turned out that all his assurances that he had a torrens title, he will
reconstitute the same and deliver an amount of P170,000.00 to petitioner spouses
were all fraudulent representations on his part or else were only fictitious in
character to defraud petitioner spouses of their hard owned monies;
xxxx
9. Legal demands had already been made to respondent lawyer to fulfill all
his moral and legal responsibilities to petitioner spouses but all of said demands
simply went unheeded. A xerox copy of the two legal demand letters to
respondent lawyer in this regard is hereto attached as Annex B and C.[1]

Despite due notice, respondent failed to file his answer to the complaint as required by the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP. Respondent likewise failed to appear on the scheduled
date of the mandatory conference despite due notice.
Thus, on March 10, 2005, the IBP declared respondent to have waived his right to submit
evidence and to participate further in the proceedings of the case.
After a careful consideration of the pleadings and evidence submitted by the
complainants ex parte, Investigating Commissioner Elpidio G. Soriano III submitted his

February 1, 2006 Report to the IBP Board of Governors, recommending respondent's suspension
from the practice of law for three (3) months.
Based on said Report, petitioners were able to satisfactorily prove the following: that
Rosita Tejada and respondent and his companion executed a written agreement (Annex A);
that respondent received the amount of one hundred thousand pesos (PhP 100,000) from Rosita
Tejada pursuant to said agreement; and that petitioners sent a demand letter to respondent
(Annex C), but, until now, respondent has failed to settle his obligation. Petitioners, however,
failed to present evidence to show that respondent fraudulently represented himself to be the
owner of the aforesaid lot. Noting respondents indifference to the proceedings of the case, the
Investigating Commissioner citedNgayan v. Tugade,[2] where the Supreme Court considered
respondents failure to answer the complaint and his failure to appear in four hearings below as
evidence of his flouting resistance to a lawful order of the court, and illustrate his despiciency to
his oath of office in violation of Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Thus, for respondents misconduct, the Investigating Commissioner recommended
respondents suspension for a period of three (3) months, guided by Supreme Court rulings in
analogous cases, viz: Sanchez v. Somoso,[3] where the lawyer was suspended for six (6) months
for having issued personal checks from a closed bank account and subsequently refused to pay
for his medical expenses despite demand after the checks were dishonored; Constantino v.
Saludares,[4] where the lawyer was suspended for three (3) months for his unwarranted refusal to
pay a personal loan despite demand; and Lizaso v. Amante,[5] where the lawyer was suspended
indefinitely for his failure to return and account for the money delivered to him for investment
purposes.[6]
In its November 18, 2006 Resolution, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved
said report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, considering Respondent's
continued refusal to settle his obligation to the complainants and for his failure to
participate in the proceedings before the Commission of Bar Discipline.[7]
After a review of the records and especially sans the submittal of any response or evidence
from respondent, we find no reason to disturb the findings of Commissioner Soriano.
Respondent, like all other members of the bar, is expected to always live up to the
standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly the following
Canons, viz:

CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the
law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A high sense of morality,
honesty, and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. Rule 1.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that s/he shall be of
good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to the admission to the
legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain ones good standing in the
profession.[8]
Indeed, the strength of the legal profession lies in the dignity and integrity of its
members. As previously explained in Sipin-Nabor v. Baterina:

A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession. The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients requires in the
attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his profession,
the courts and the public. The bar must maintain a high standard of legal
proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. Generally speaking, a lawyer
can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society,
to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, members of the legal
fraternity can do nothing that might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of
the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.[9]
In the instant case, respondents unjustified withholding of petitioners
money years after it became due and demandable demonstrates his lack of integrity and
fairness, and this is further highlighted by his lack of regard for the charges brought
against him. Instead of meeting the charges head on, respondent did not bother to file an

answer nor did he participate in the proceedings to offer a valid explanation for his
conduct.
The Court has emphatically stated that when the integrity of a member of the bar is
challenged, it is not enough that s/he denies the charges against him; s/he must meet the issue
and overcome the evidence against him/her. S/he must show proof that s/he still maintains that
degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of him/her.[10]
Finally, respondents acts, which violated the Lawyer's Oath to delay no man for money
or malice as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility, warrant the imposition of
disciplinary sanctions against him.
With respect to the recommendation to suspend respondent Palaa for three (3) months,
we find that the sanction is not commensurate to the breach committed and disrespect to the
Court exhibited by the erring member of the bar. We increase the suspension to six (6) months in
view of our ruling in Barrientos v. Libiran-Meteoro.[11]
We find that the complainants could not have been defrauded without the representations
of respondent that he can easily have the torrens title of his lot reconstituted with his special
knowledge as a legal practitioner as long as he is provided PhP 100,000 to finance the
reconstitution. Respondent knew that his representations were false since the filing fee for a
petition for reconstitution in 2001 was only PhP 3,145, and other expenses including the
publication of the filing of the petition could not have cost more than PhP 20,000. It is clear that
he employed deceit in convincing complainants to part with their hard earned money and the
latter could not have been easily swayed to lend the money were it not for his misrepresentations
and failed promises as a member of the bar. Moreover, when he failed to pay his just and legal
obligation, he disobeyed the provisions of the Civil Code which is one of the substantive laws he
vowed to uphold when he took his oath as a lawyer. Lastly, to aggravate his misconduct, he
totally ignored the directives of the IBP to answer the complaint when he fully knew as a lawyer
that the compulsory bar organization was merely deputized by this Court to undertake the
investigation of complaints against lawyers, among which is the instant complaint. In short, his
disobedience to the IBP is in reality a gross and blatant disrespect to the Court. Lawyers fully
know, as respondent is aware or at least is assumed to know, that lawyers like him cannot
disobey the orders and resolutions of the Court. Failing in this duty as a member of the bar
which is being supervised by the Court under the Constitution, we find that a heavier sanction
should fall on respondent.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Antoniutti K. Palaa is hereby SUSPENDED from the

practice of law for a period of six (6) months and is ordered to settle his loan obligation to
petitioners-spouses Amador and Rosita Tejada within two (2) months from the date of this
Decisions promulgation.
This Decision is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.C. No. 7136

August 1, 2007

JOSELANO GUEVARRA, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA, respondent.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Joselano Guevarra (complainant) filed on March 4, 2002 a Complaint for Disbarment1 before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose
Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala (respondent) for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated
violation of the lawyer's oath."
In his complaint, Guevarra gave the following account:
He first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainant's) then-fiancee Irene Moje
(Irene) introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to Marianne (sometimes
spelled "Mary Ann") Tantoco with whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, complainant noticed that from January to March
2001, Irene had been receiving from respondent cellphone calls, as well as messages some of
which read "I love you," "I miss you," or "Meet you at Megamall."
Complainant also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the
morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked about
her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parents' house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was
busy with her work.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and respondent together on two occasions.
On the second occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal
house.
On April 22, 2001, complainant went uninvited to Irene's birthday celebration at which he saw
her and respondent celebrating with her family and friends. Out of embarrassment, anger and
humiliation, he left the venue immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal
house and hauled off all her personal belongings, pieces of furniture, and her share of the
household appliances.

Complainant later found, in the master's bedroom, a folded social card bearing the words "I Love
You" on its face, which card when unfolded contained a handwritten letter dated October 7,
2000, the day of his wedding to Irene, reading:
My everdearest Irene,
By the time you open this, you'll be moments away from walking down the aisle. I will
say a prayer for you that you may find meaning in what you're about to do.
Sometimes I wonder why we ever met. Is it only for me to find fleeting happiness but
experience eternal pain? Is it only for us to find a true love but then lose it again? Or is it
because there's a bigger plan for the two of us?
I hope that you have experienced true happiness with me. I have done everything
humanly possible to love you. And today, as you make your vows . . . I make my own
vow to YOU!
I will love you for the rest of my life. I loved you from the first time I laid eyes on you, to
the time we spent together, up to the final moments of your single life. But more
importantly, I will love you until the life in me is gone and until we are together again.
Do not worry about me! I will be happy for you. I have enough memories of us to last me
a lifetime. Always remember though that in my heart, in my mind and in my soul, YOU
WILL ALWAYS
. . . AND THE WONDERFUL THINGS YOU DO!
BE MINE . . . . AND MINE ALONE, and I WILL ALWAYS BE YOURS AND YOURS
ALONE!
I LOVE YOU FOREVER, I LOVE YOU FOR ALWAYS. AS LONG AS I'M LIVING
MY TWEETIE YOU'LL BE!"2
Eternally yours,
NOLI
Complainant soon saw respondent's car and that of Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B
11th Street, New Manila where, as he was to later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was
already residing. He also learned still later that when his friends saw Irene on or about January
18, 2002 together with respondent during a concert, she was pregnant.
In his ANSWER,3 respondent admitted having sent the I LOVE YOU card on which the abovequoted letter was handwritten.
On paragraph 14 of the COMPLAINT reading:

14. Respondent and Irene were even FLAUNTING THEIR ADULTEROUS

RELATIONSHIP as they attended social functions together. For instance, in or about the
third week of September 2001, the couple attended the launch of the "Wine All You Can"
promotion of French wines, held at the Mega Strip of SM Megamall B at Mandaluyong
City. Their attendance was reported in Section B of the Manila Standard issue of 24
September 2001, on page 21. Respondent and Irene were photographed together; their
picture was captioned: "Irene with Sportscaster Noli Eala." A photocopy of the report is
attached as Annex C.4 (Italics and emphasis in the original; CAPITALIZATION of the
phrase "flaunting their adulterous relationship" supplied),
respondent, in his ANSWER, stated:
4. Respondent specifically denies having ever flaunted an adulterous relationship with
Irene as alleged in paragraph 14 of the Complaint, the truth of the matter being that their
relationship was low profile and known only to the immediate members of their
respective families, and that Respondent, as far as the general public was concerned, was
still known to be legally married to Mary Anne Tantoco.5 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
On paragraph 15 of the COMPLAINT reading:
15. Respondent's adulterous conduct with the complainant's wife and his
apparent abandoning or neglecting of his own family, demonstrate his gross moral
depravity, making him morally unfit to keep his membership in the bar. He flaunted his
aversion to the institution of marriage, calling it a "piece of paper." Morally reprehensible
was his writing the love letter to complainant's bride on the very day of her wedding,
vowing to continue his love for her "until we are together again," as now they
are.6 (Underscoring supplied),
respondent stated in his ANSWER as follows:
5. Respondent specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Complaint
regarding his adulterousrelationship and that his acts demonstrate gross moral depravity
thereby making him unfit to keep his membership in the bar, the reason being
that Respondent's relationship with Irene was not under scandalous circumstances and
that as far as his relationship with his own family:
5.1 Respondent has maintained a civil, cordial and peaceful relationship with [his wife]
Mary Anne as in fact they still occasionally meet in public, even if Mary Anne is aware
of Respondent's special friendship with Irene.
xxxx
5.5 Respondent also denies that he has flaunted his aversion to the institution of marriage
by calling the institution of marriage a mere piece of paper because his reference [in his
above-quoted handwritten letter to Irene] to the marriage between Complainant and Irene

as a piece of paper was merely with respect to the formality of the marriage
contract.7 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Respondent admitted8 paragraph 18 of the COMPLAINT reading:
18. The Rules of Court requires lawyers to support the Constitution and obey the laws.
The Constitution regards marriage as an inviolable social institution and is the foundation
of the family (Article XV, Sec. 2).9
And on paragraph 19 of the COMPLAINT reading:
19. Respondent's grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the Constitution and the laws
he, as a lawyer, has been sworn to uphold. In pursuing obsessively his illicit love for
the complainant's wife, he mocked the institution of marriage, betrayed his own family,
broke up the complainant's marriage, commits adultery with his wife, and degrades the
legal profession.10 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied),
respondent, in his ANSWER, stated:
7. Respondent specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of the Complaint, the
reason being thatunder the circumstances the acts of Respondent with respect to his
purely personal and low profile special relationship with Irene is neither under
scandalous circumstances nor tantamount to grossly immoral conduct as would be a
ground for disbarment pursuant to Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of
Court.11 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
To respondent's ANSWER, complainant filed a REPLY,12 alleging that Irene gave birth to a girl
and Irene named respondent in the Certificate of Live Birth as the girl's father. Complainant
attached to the Reply, as Annex "A," a copy of a Certificate of Live Birth13 bearing Irene's
signature and naming respondent as the father of her daughter Samantha Irene Louise Moje who
was born on February 14, 2002 at St. Luke's Hospital.
Complainant's REPLY merited a REJOINDER WITH MOTION TO DISMISS14 dated January
10, 2003 from respondent in which he denied having "personal knowledge of the Certificate of
Live Birth attached to the complainant's Reply."15 Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint
due to the pendency of a civil case filed by complainant for the annulment of his marriage to
Irene, and a criminal complaint for adultery against respondent and Irene which was pending
before the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office.
During the investigation before the IBP-CBD, complainant's Complaint-Affidavit and Reply to
Answer were adopted as his testimony on direct examination.16 Respondent's counsel did not
cross-examine complainant.17
After investigation, IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, in a 12-page
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION18 dated October 26, 2004, found the charge against
respondent sufficiently proven.

The Commissioner thus recommended19 that respondent be disbarred for violating Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility reading:
Rule 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct (Underscoring supplied),
and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code reading:
Rule 7.03: A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession. (Underscoring supplied)
The IBP Board of Governors, however, annulled and set aside the Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner and accordingly dismissed the case for lack of merit, by Resolution
dated January 28, 2006 briefly reading:
RESOLUTION NO. XVII-2006-06
CBD Case No. 02-936
Joselano C. Guevarra vs.
Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala
a.k.a. Noli Eala
RESOLVED to ANNUL and SET ASIDE, as it is hereby ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE,
the Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and to APPROVE
the DISMISSAL of the above-entitled case for lack of merit.20 (Italics and emphasis in
the original)
Hence, the present petition21 of complainant before this Court, filed pursuant to Section 12 (c),
Rule 13922 of the Rules of Court.
The petition is impressed with merit.
Oddly enough, the IBP Board of Governors, in setting aside the Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner and dismissing the case for lack of merit, gave no reason therefor as
its above-quoted 33-word Resolution shows.
Respondent contends, in his Comment23 on the present petition of complainant, that there is no
evidence against him.24 The contention fails. As the IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner
observed:
While it may be true that the love letter dated October 7, 2000 (Exh. "C") and the news
item published in the Manila Standard (Exh. "D"), even taken together do not sufficiently
prove that respondent is carrying on an adulterous relationship with complainant's wife,
there are other pieces of evidence on record which support the accusation of complainant
against respondent.

It should be noted that in his Answer dated 17 October 2002, respondent through
counsel made the following statements to wit: "Respondent specifically denies having
[ever] flaunted an adulterous relationship with Irene as alleged in paragraph [14] of the
Complaint, the truth of the matter being [that]their relationship was low profile and
known only to immediate members of their respective families . . . , and Respondent
specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of the complaint, the reason being that
under the circumstances the acts of the respondents with respect to his purely personal
and low profile relationship with Irene is neither under scandalous circumstances nor
tantamount to grossly immoral conduct . . ."
These statements of respondent in his Answer are an admission that there is indeed
a "special" relationship between him and complainant's wife, Irene, [which] taken
together with the Certificate of Live Birth of Samantha Louise Irene Moje (Annex
"H-1") sufficiently prove that there was indeed an illicit relationship between
respondent and Irene which resulted in the birth of the child "Samantha". In the
Certificate of Live Birth of Samantha it should be noted that complainant's wife
Irene supplied the information that respondent was the father of the child. Given the
fact that the respondent admitted his special relationship with Irene there is no reason to
believe that Irene would lie or make any misrepresentation regarding the paternity
of the child. It should be underscored that respondent has not categorically denied that
he is the father of Samantha Louise Irene Moje.25 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
Indeed, from respondent's Answer, he does not deny carrying on an adulterous relationship with
Irene, "adultery" being defined under Art. 333 of the Revised Penal Code as that "committed by
any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the
man who has carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be
subsequently declared void."26 (Italics supplied) What respondent denies is having flaunted such
relationship, he maintaining that it was "low profile and known only to the immediate members
of their respective families."
In other words, respondent's denial is a negative pregnant,
a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to
which are not squarely denied. It was in effect an admission of the averments it was
directed at. Stated otherwise, a negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which
carries with it in affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the
adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in
the pleading. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the
words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, it has been held
that thequalifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is
admitted.27 (Citations omitted; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
A negative pregnant too is respondent's denial of having "personal knowledge" of Irene's
daughter Samantha Louise Irene Moje's Certificate of Live Birth. In said certificate, Irene named
respondent a "lawyer," 38 years old as the child's father. And the phrase "NOT MARRIED"

is entered on the desired information on "DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE." A comparison

of the signature attributed to Irene in the certificate28 with her signature on the Marriage
Certificate29 shows that they were affixed by one and the same person. Notatu dignum is that, as
the Investigating Commissioner noted, respondent never denied being the father of the child.
Franklin A. Ricafort, the records custodian of St. Luke's Medical Center, in his January 29, 2003
Affidavit30 which he identified at the witness stand, declared that Irene gave the information in
the Certificate of Live Birth that the child's father is "Jose Emmanuel Masacaet Eala," who was
38 years old and a lawyer.31
Without doubt, the adulterous relationship between respondent and Irene has been sufficiently
proven by more than clearly preponderant evidence that evidence adduced by one party which
is more conclusive and credible than that of the other party and, therefore, has greater weight
than the other32 which is the quantum of evidence needed in an administrative case against a
lawyer.
Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and
they may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.
. . . of proof for these types of cases differ. In a criminal case, proof beyond reasonable
doubt is necessary; in an administrative case for disbarment or suspension, "clearly
preponderant evidence" is all that is required.33 (Emphasis supplied)
Respondent insists, however, that disbarment does not lie because his relationship with Irene was
not, under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, reading:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.
A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such
office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to
a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or
other disciplinatory agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as
an attorney is a ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action
includes any of the acts hereinabove enumerated.
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall
be prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied), under scandalous circumstances.34

The immediately-quoted Rule which provides the grounds for disbarment or suspension uses the
phrase "grossly immoral conduct," not "under scandalous circumstances." Sexual intercourse
under scandalous circumstances is, following Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code reading:
ART. 334. Concubinage. - Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal
dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a
woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished
by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
x x x x,
an element of the crime of concubinage when a married man has sexual intercourse with a
woman elsewhere.
"Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of
marriage should be characterized as 'grossly immoral conduct' depends on the surrounding
circumstances."35 The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married
woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out
discreetly. Apropos is the following pronouncement of this Court in Vitug v. Rongcal:36
On the charge of immorality, respondent does not deny that he had an extra-marital affair
with complainant, albeit brief and discreet, and which act is not "so corrupt and false as
to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree" in
order to merit disciplinary sanction. We disagree.
xxxx
While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between
two unmarriedadults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit
behavior, it is not so with respect tobetrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Even if not
all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations
outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifestsdeliberate
disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the
Constitution and affirmed by our laws.37 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
And so is the pronouncement in Tucay v. Atty. Tucay:38
The Court need not delve into the question of whether or not the respondent did contract
a bigamous marriage . . . It is enough that the records of this administrative case
substantiate the findings of the Investigating Commissioner, as well as the IBP Board of
Governors, i.e., that indeed respondent has beencarrying on an illicit affair with
a married woman, a grossly immoral conduct and indicative of an extremely low
regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession. This detestable behavior renders
him regrettably unfit and undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges which
his license confers upon him.39 (Underscoring supplied)

Respondent in fact also violated the lawyer's oath he took before admission to practice law which
goes:
I _________, having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the Philippines,
do solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the
Philippines; I will support its Constitution andobey the laws as well as the legal orders of
the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or
malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I impose
upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion. So help me God. (Underscoring supplied)
Respondent admittedly is aware of Section 2 of Article XV (The Family) of the Constitution
reading:
Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and
shall be protected by the State.
In this connection, the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209), which echoes this constitutional
provision, obligates the husband and the wife "to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity, and render mutual help and support."40
Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct," and Rule 7.03 of Canon7 of the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from
engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law."
Clutching at straws, respondent, during the pendency of the investigation of the case before the
IBP Commissioner, filed a Manifestation41 on March 22, 2005 informing the IBP-CBD that
complainant's petition for nullity of his (complainant's) marriage to Irene had been granted by
Branch 106 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, and that the criminal complaint for
adultery complainant filed against respondent and Irene "based on the same set of facts alleged in
the instant case," which was pending review before the Department of Justice (DOJ), on petition
of complainant, had been, on motion of complainant, withdrawn.
The Secretary of Justice's Resolution of January 16, 2004 granting complainant's Motion to
Withdraw Petition for Review reads:
Considering that the instant motion was filed before the final resolution of the petition for
review, we are inclined to grant the same pursuant to Section 10 of Department Circular
No. 70 dated July 3, 2000, which provides that "notwithstanding the perfection of the
appeal, the petitioner may withdraw the same at any time before it is finally resolved, in
which case the appealed resolution shall stand as though no appeal has been
taken."42 (Emphasis supplied by complainant)

That the marriage between complainant and Irene was subsequently declared void ab initio is
immaterial. The acts complained of took place before the marriage was declared null and
void.43 As a lawyer, respondent should be aware that a man and a woman deporting themselves
as husband and wife are presumed, unless proven otherwise, to have entered into a lawful
contract of marriage.44 In carrying on an extra-marital affair with Irene prior to the judicial
declaration that her marriage with complainant was null and void, and despite respondent himself
being married, he showed disrespect for an institution held sacred by the law. And he betrayed
his unfitness to be a lawyer.
As for complainant's withdrawal of his petition for review before the DOJ, respondent glaringly
omitted to state that before complainant filed his December 23, 2003 Motion to Withdraw his
Petition for Review, the DOJ had already promulgated a Resolution
on September 22, 2003 reversing the dismissal by the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office of
complainant's complaint for adultery. In reversing the City Prosecutor's Resolution, DOJ
Secretary Simeon Datumanong held:
Parenthetically the totality of evidence adduced by complainant would, in the fair
estimation of the Department, sufficiently establish all the elements of the offense of
adultery on the part of both respondents. Indeed, early on, respondent Moje conceded to
complainant that she was going out on dates with respondent Eala, and this she did when
complainant confronted her about Eala's frequent phone calls and text messages to her.
Complainant also personally witnessed Moje and Eala having a rendezvous on two
occasions. Respondent Eala never denied the fact that he knew Moje to be married to
complainant[.] In fact, he (Eala) himself was married to another woman. Moreover,
Moje's eventual abandonment of their conjugal home, after complainant had once more
confronted her about Eala, only served to confirm the illicit relationship involving both
respondents. This becomes all the more apparent by Moje's subsequent relocation in No.
71-B, 11th Street, New Manila, Quezon City, which was a few blocks away from the
church where she had exchange marital vows with complainant.
It was in this place that the two lovers apparently cohabited. Especially since Eala's
vehicle and that of Moje's were always seen there. Moje herself admits that she came to
live in the said address whereas Eala asserts that that was where he held office. The
happenstance that it was in that said address that Eala and Moje had decided to hold
office for the firm that both had formed smacks too much of a coincidence. For one, the
said address appears to be a residential house, for that was where Moje stayed all
throughout after her separation from complainant. It was both respondent's love nest, to
put short; their illicit affair that was carried out there bore fruit a few months later when
Moje gave birth to a girl at the nearby hospital of St. Luke's Medical Center. What finally
militates against the respondents is the indubitable fact that in the certificate of birth of
the girl, Moje furnished the information that Eala was the father. This speaks all too
eloquently of the unlawful and damning nature of the adulterous acts of the
respondents. Complainant's supposed illegal procurement of the birth certificate is most
certainly beside the point for both respondents Eala and Moje have not denied, in any
categorical manner, that Eala is the father of the child Samantha Irene Louise
Moje.45 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

It bears emphasis that adultery is a private offense which cannot be prosecuted de oficio and thus
leaves the DOJ no choice but to grant complainant's motion to withdraw his petition for review.
But even if respondent and Irene were to be acquitted of adultery after trial, if the Information for
adultery were filed in court, the same would not have been a bar to the present administrative
complaint.
Citing the ruling in Pangan v. Ramos,46 viz:
x x x The acquittal of respondent Ramos [of] the criminal charge is not a bar to these
[administrative] proceedings. The standards of legal profession are not satisfied by
conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties of x x x criminal
law. Moreover, this Court, in disbarment proceedings is acting in an entirely different
capacity from that which courts assume in trying criminal case47 (Italics in the original),
this Court in Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pools, Inc. v. Atty. Naldoza,48 held:
Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct
from and they mayproceed independently of civil and criminal cases.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Resolution No. XVII-2006-06 passed on January
28, 2006 by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct,
violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Let a copy of this Decision, which is immediately executory, be made part of the records of
respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines. And let copies
of the Decision be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and circulated to all courts.
This Decision takes effect immediately.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
A.C. No. 7204

March 7, 2007

CYNTHIA ADVINCULA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ERNESTO M. MACABATA, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before Us is a complaint1 for disbarment filed by Cynthia Advincula against respondent Atty.
Ernesto M. Macabata, charging the latter with Gross Immorality.
Complainant alleged the following:
Sometime on 1st week of December 2004 complainant [Cynthia Advincula] seek the legal
advice of the respondent [Atty. Macabata], regarding her collectibles from Queensway Travel
and Tours. As promised, he sent Demand Letter dated December 11, 2004 (copy attached as
Annex "I") to the concerned parties.
On February 10, 2005, met (sic) at Zensho Restaurant in Tomas Morato, Quezon City to discuss
the possibility of filing the complaint against Queensway Travel and Tours because they did not
settle their accounts as demanded. After the dinner, respondent sent complainant home and while
she is about to step out of the car, respondent hold (sic) her arm and kissed her on the cheek and
embraced her very tightly.
Again, on March 6, 2005, at about past 10:00 in the morning, she met respondent at Starbucks
coffee shop in West Avenue, Quezon City to finalize the draft of the complaint to be filed in
Court. After the meeting, respondent offered again a ride, which he usually did every time they
met. Along the way, complainant was wandering (sic) why she felt so sleepy where in fact she
just got up from bed a few hours ago. At along Roosevelt Avenue immediately after corner of
Felipe St., in San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City when she was almost restless respondent
stopped his car and forcefully hold (sic) her face and kissed her lips while the other hand was
holding her breast. Complainant even in a state of shocked (sic) succeeded in resisting his
criminal attempt and immediately manage (sic) to go (sic) out of the car.
In the late afternoon, complainant sent a text message to respondent informing him that she
decided to refer the case with another lawyer and needs (sic) to get back the case folder from
him. The communications transpired was recorded in her cellular phone and read as follows:

Sent by complainant
At 5:33:46 pm

- forget the case. I decided to refer it with other

lawyer

replied by respondent
at 6:16:11 pm

- "does this mean I can not c u anymore"

(Does this mean I cannot see you
anymore)

sent by complainant
at 6:17:59 pm

- I feel bad. I cant expect that u will take advantage

of the situation.

Follow-up message
Sent by complainant
At 6:29:30 pm

- wrong to kiss a girl especially in the lips if you

dont have relationship with her.

Replied by respondent
At 6:32:43 pm

- "Im veri sri. Its not tking advantage of the

situation, 2 put it rightly it s an expression of feeling.
S sri" (Im very sorry. Its not taking advantage of the
situation, to put it rightly it is an expression of
feeling)

Follow up message
by respondent
at 6:42:25 pm

- Im s sri. Il not do it again. Wil u stil c me s I can

show u my sincerity" (Im so sorry. Ill not do it
again. Will you still see me so I can show you my
sincerity)

On the following day, March 7, 2005 respondent sent another message to complainant at 3:55:32
pm saying "I dont know wat 2 do s u may 4give me. "Im realy sri. Puede bati na tyo." (I dont
know what to do so you may forgive me. Im really sorry. Puede bati na tayo).
Respondent replied "talk to my lawyer in due time." Then another message was received by her
at 4:06:33 pm saying "Ano k ba. Im really sri. Pls. Nxt ime bhave n me." (Ano ka ba. Im really
sorry. Please next time behave na ko), which is a clear manifestation of admission of guilt.2
In his answer,3 respondent admitted that he agreed to provide legal services to the complainant;
that he met with complainant on 10 February 2005 and 6 March 2005, to discuss the relevant
matters relative to the case which complainant was intending to file against the owners of
Queensway Travel and Tours for collection of a sum of money; that on both occasions,
complainant rode with him in his car where he held and kissed complainant on the lips as the
former offered her lips to him; and, that the corner of Cooper Street and Roosevelt Avenue,
where he dropped off the complainant, was a busy street teeming with people, thus, it would
have been impossible to commit the acts imputed to him.
By way of defense, respondent further elucidated that: 1) there was a criminal case for Acts of
Lasciviousness filed by complainant against respondent pending before the Office of the City
Prosecutor in Quezon City; 2) the legal name of complainant is Cynthia Advincula Toriana since
she remains married to a certain Jinky Toriana because the civil case for the nullification of their
marriage was archived pursuant to the Order dated 6 December 2000 issued by the Regional
Trial Court of Maburao, Occidental Mindoro; 3) the complainant was living with a man not her

husband; and 4) the complainant never bothered to discuss respondents fees and it was
respondent who always paid for their bills every time they met and ate at a restaurant.
A hearing was conducted by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) at the IBP Building, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, on 26 July 2005.
On 30 September 2005, Investigating Commissioner Dennis A. B. Funa submitted his Report
and Recommendation,4 recommending the imposition of the penalty of one (1) month suspension
on respondent for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Thereafter, the IBP passed Resolution No. XVII-2006-117 dated 20 March 2006, approving and
adopting, with modification, the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with
modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the aboveentitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules,
and considering the behavior of Respondent went beyond the norms of conduct required of a
lawyer when dealing with or relating with a client, Atty. Ernesto A. Macabata is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for three (3) months.5
The issue to be resolved in this case is: whether respondent committed acts that are grossly
immoral or which constitute serious moral depravity that would warrant his disbarment or
suspension from the practice of law.
Simple as the facts of the case may be, the manner by which we deal with respondents
actuations shall have a rippling effect on how the standard norms of our legal practitioners
should be defined. Perhaps morality in our liberal society today is a far cry from what it used to
be. This permissiveness notwithstanding, lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are burdened with a
high degree of social responsibility and, hence, must handle their personal affairs with greater
caution.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
CANON I x x x
Rule 1.01-- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7-- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession
and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
xxxx
Rule 7.03-- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession.

As may be gleaned from above, the Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded that their possession of good moral character is a
continuing condition to preserve their membership in the Bar in good standing. The continued
possession of good moral character is a requisite condition for remaining in the practice of
law.6 In Aldovino v. Pujalte, Jr.,7 we emphasized that:
This Court has been exacting in its demand for integrity and good moral character of members of
the Bar. They are expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession
and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the
public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. Membership in the legal
profession is a privilege. And whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy
of the trust and confidence of the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of this
Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its
Bar, to withdraw the privilege.
It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality.
The legal profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard
the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted
positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality.8 We
explained in Barrientos v. Daarol9 that, "as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be
of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in
accordance with the highest moral standards of the community."
Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but
also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain their good standing in this exclusive and
honored fraternity. They may be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred for any
misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in
moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.10
In Bar Matter No. 1154,11 good moral character was defined as what a person really is, as
distinguished from good reputation, or from the opinion generally entertained of him, or the
estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is known. Moral character is not
a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective reality.
It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character has four ostensible purposes,
namely: (1) to protect the public; (2) to protect the public image of lawyers; (3) to protect
prospective clients; and (4) to protect errant lawyers from themselves.12
In the case at bar, respondent admitted kissing complainant on the lips.
In his Answer,13 respondent confessed, thus:

27. When she was about to get off the car, I said can I kiss you goodnight. She offered her left
cheek and I kissed it and with my left hand slightly pulled her right face towards me and kissed
her gently on the lips. We said goodnight and she got off the car.
xxxx
35. When I stopped my car I said okay. I saw her offered (sic) her left cheek and I lightly kissed
it and with my right hand slightly pulled her right cheek towards me and plant (sic) a light kiss
on her lips. There was no force used. No intimidation made, no lewd designs displayed. No
breast holding was done. Everything happened very spontaneously with no reaction from her
except saying "sexual harassment."
During the hearing held on 26 July 2005 at the 3rd floor, IBP Building, Dona Julia Vargas
Avenue, Ortigas City, respondent candidly recalled the following events:
ATTY. MACABATA:
That time in February, we met I fetched her I should say, somewhere along the corner of Edsa
and Kamuning because it was then raining so we are texting each other. So I parked my car
somewhere along the corner of Edsa and Kamuning and I was there about ten to fifteen minutes
then she arrived. And so I said she opened my car and then she went inside so I said, would
you like that we have a Japanese dinner? And she said yes, okay. So I brought her to Zensho
which is along Tomas Morato. When we were there, we discussed about her case, we ordered
food and then a little while I told her, would it be okay for you of I (sic) order wine? She said yes
so I ordered two glasses of red wine. After that, after discussing matters about her case, so I said
its about 9:00 or beyond that time already, so I said okay, lets go. So when I said lets go so
I stood up and then I went to the car. I went ahead of my car and she followed me then she rode
on (sic) it. So I told her where to? She told me just drop me at the same place where you have
been dropping me for the last meetings that we had and that was at the corner of Morato and
Roosevelt Avenue. So, before she went down, I told her can I kiss you goodnight? She offered
her left cheek and I kissed it and with the slight use of my right hand, I ... should I say tilted her
face towards me and when shes already facing me I lightly kissed her on the lips. And then I
said good night. She went down the car, thats it.
COMM. FUNA: February 10 iyan.
xxxx
ATTY. MACABATA: Okay. After that were through so I said lets go because I have an
appointment. So we went out, we went inside my car and I said where to? Same place, she said,
so then at the same corner. So before she went down , before she opened the door of the car, I
saw her offered her left cheek. So I kissed her again.
COMM. FUNA: Pardon?

ATTY. MACABATA: I saw her offered her left cheek like that, so I kissed her again and then
with the use of my left hand, pushed a little bit her face and then kissed her again softly on the
lips and thats it. x x x.14 (Emphases supplied.)
It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is "grossly
immoral conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer
unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be
unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants
disbarment.15
In Zaguirre v. Castillo,16 we reiterated the definition of immoral conduct, as such conduct which
is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community. Furthermore, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary
action, the same must not simply be immoral, but grossly immoral. It must be so corrupt as to
constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed
under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.
The following cases were considered by this Court as constitutive of grossly immoral conduct:
In Toledo v. Toledo,17 a lawyer was disbarred from the practice of law, when he abandoned his
lawful wife and cohabited with another woman who had borne him a child.
In Obusan v. Obusan, Jr.,18 a lawyer was disbarred after complainant proved that he had
abandoned her and maintained an adulterous relationship with a married woman. This court
declared that respondent failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required
of a member of the bar.
In Dantes v. Dantes,19 respondents act of engaging in illicit relationships with two different
women during the subsistence of his marriage to the complainant constitutes grossly immoral
conduct warranting the imposition of appropriate sanctions. Complainants testimony, taken in
conjunction with the documentary evidence, sufficiently established that respondent breached the
high and exacting moral standards set for members of the law profession.
In Delos Reyes v. Aznar,20 it was ruled that it was highly immoral of respondent, a married man
with children, to have taken advantage of his position as chairman of the college of medicine in
asking complainant, a student in said college, to go with him to Manila where he had carnal
knowledge of her under the threat that she would flank in all her subjects in case she refused.
In Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma,21 respondent lawyer was disbarred when he abandoned his lawful
wife and three children, lured an innocent woman into marrying him and misrepresented himself
as a "bachelor" so he could contract marriage in a foreign land.
In Macarrubo v. Macarrubo,22 respondent entered into multiple marriages and then resorted to
legal remedies to sever them. There, we ruled that "[s]uch pattern of misconduct by respondent
undermines the institutions of marriage and family, institutions that this society looks to for the
rearing of our children, for the development of values essential to the survival and well-being of

our communities, and for the strengthening of our nation as a whole." As such, "there can be no
other fate that awaits respondent than to be disbarred."
In Tucay v. Tucay,23 respondent contracted marriage with another married woman and left
complainant with whom he has been married for thirty years. We 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 v. Peralta,24 respondent married complainant while his first wife was still alive,
their marriage still valid and subsisting. We 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 v. Agustin,25 respondent lured an innocent woman into a simulated marriage and
thereafter satisfied his lust. We 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.
Immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes conduct inconsistent with
rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity and dissoluteness; or is willful,
flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members
of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.26
Guided by the definitions above, we perceived acts of kissing or beso-beso on the cheeks as mere
gestures of friendship and camaraderie,27 forms of greetings, casual and customary. The acts of
respondent, though, in turning the head of complainant towards him and kissing her on the lips
are distasteful. However, such act, even if considered offensive and undesirable, cannot be
considered grossly immoral.
Complainants bare allegation that respondent made use and took advantage of his position as a
lawyer to lure her to agree to have sexual relations with him, deserves no credit. The burden of
proof rests on the complainant, and she must establish the case against the respondent by clear,
convincing and satisfactory proof,28 disclosing a case that is free from doubt as to compel the
exercise by the Court of its disciplinary power.29 Thus, the adage that "he who asserts not he who
denies, must prove."30 As a basic rule in evidence, the burden of proof lies on the party who
makes the allegationsei incumbit probation, qui decit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam
factum negantis probation nulla sit.31 In the case at bar, complainant miserably failed to comply
with the burden of proof required of her. A mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing does not
suffice. Accusation is not synonymous with guilt.32
Moreover, while respondent admitted having kissed complainant on the lips, the same was not
motivated by malice. We come to this conclusion because right after the complainant expressed
her annoyance at being kissed by the respondent through a cellular phone text message,
respondent immediately extended an apology to complainant also via cellular phone text
message. The exchange of text messages between complainant and respondent bears this out.

Be it noted also that the incident happened in a place where there were several people in the
vicinity considering that Roosevelt Avenue is a major jeepney route for 24 hours. If respondent
truly had malicious designs on complainant, he could have brought her to a private place or a
more remote place where he could freely accomplish the same.
All told, as shown by the above circumstances, respondents acts are not grossly immoral nor
highly reprehensible to warrant disbarment or suspension.
The question as to what disciplinary sanction should be imposed against a lawyer found guilty of
misconduct requires consideration of a number of factors.33 When deciding upon the appropriate
sanction, the Court must consider that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings are to
protect the public; to foster public confidence in the Bar; to preserve the integrity of the
profession; and to deter other lawyers from similar misconduct.34 Disciplinary proceedings are
means of protecting the administration of justice by requiring those who carry out this important
function to be competent, honorable and reliable men in whom courts and clients may repose
confidence.35 While it is discretionary upon the Court to impose a particular sanction that it may
deem proper against an erring lawyer, it should neither be arbitrary and despotic nor motivated
by personal animosity or prejudice, but should ever be controlled by the imperative need to
scrupulously guard the purity and independence of the bar and to exact from the lawyer strict
compliance with his duties to the court, to his client, to his brethren in the profession and to the
public.
The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the preservative and not on the
vindictive principle, with great caution and only for the most weighty reasons and only on clear
cases of misconduct which seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer
of the court and member of the Bar. Only those acts which cause loss of moral character should
merit disbarment or suspension, while those acts which neither affect nor erode the moral
character of the lawyer should only justify a lesser sanction unless they are of such nature and to
such extent as to clearly show the lawyers unfitness to continue in the practice of law. The
dubious character of the act charged as well as the motivation which induced the lawyer to
commit it must be clearly demonstrated before suspension or disbarment is meted out. The
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that attended the commission of the offense should also
be considered.36
Censure or reprimand is usually meted out for an isolated act of misconduct of a lesser nature. It
is also imposed for some minor infraction of the lawyers duty to the court or the client.37 In the
Matter of Darell Adams,38 a lawyer was publicly reprimanded for grabbing a female client,
kissing her, and raising her blouse which constituted illegal conduct involving moral turpitude
and conduct which adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law.
Based on the circumstances of the case as discussed and considering that this is respondents first
offense, reprimand would suffice.
We laud complainants effort to seek redress for what she honestly believed to be an affront to
her honor. Surely, it was difficult and agonizing on her part to come out in the open and accuse
her lawyer of gross immoral conduct. However, her own assessment of the incidents is highly

subjective and partial, and surely needs to be corroborated or supported by more objective
evidence.
WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Ernesto Macabata, for
alleged immorality, is hereby DISMISSED. However, respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED to
be more prudent and cautious in his dealing with his clients with a STERN WARNING that a
more severe sanction will be imposed on him for any repetition of the same or similar offense in
the future.
SO ORDERED.