You are on page 1of 2

Arciga vs.

Maniwang
Facts: In 1970, when Maniwang was still a law student, he had a relationship with Arciga, then a medical technology student. They started
having a sexual relationship in 1971. In 1973, Arciga got pregnant. The two then went to Arcigas hometown to tell the latters parent about the
pregnancy. They also made Arcigas parents believe that they were already married but they would have to have the church wedding in
abeyance until Maniwang passes the bar exams. Maniwang secured a copy of his birth certificate in preparation of securing a marriage license.
In 1975, Maniwang passed the bar. But after his oath taking, he stopped communicating with Arciga. Arciga located his whereabouts and there
she found out that Maniwang married another woman. Arciga confronted Maniwangs wife and this irked Maniwang so he inflicted physical
injuries upon Arciga.
Arciga then filed a disbarment case against Maniwang grounded on gross immoral conduct. Maniwang admitted that he is the father of Arcigas
child; that he did promise to marry Arciga many times; that he broke those promises because of Arcigas shady past because apparently Arciga
had an illegitimate child even before her son with Maniwang was born.
ISSUE: Whether or not Maniwang should be disbarred.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled that Maniwangs case is different from the cases of Mortel vs Aspiras and Almirez vs Lopez, and other
cases therein cited. Maniwangs refusal to marry Arciga was not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment (though not much
discussion was provided by the ponente as to why). But the Supreme Court did say that 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. Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.

[A.C. No. 7430 : February 15, 2012]


MARTIN LAHM III AND JAMES P. CONCEPCION, COMPLAINANTS, VS. LABOR ARBITER JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR, JR., RESPONDENT.
Facts:
On September 5, 2006 a certain David Edward Toze filed a complaint for illegal Ssdismissal before the Labor Arbitration Branch of the
NLRC against the members of the Board of Trustees of the International School, Manila which was raffled to the sala of the
respondent. Impleaded as among the party-respondents are the complainants in the instant case.
Subsequently Toze filed a Verified Motion for the Issuance of a TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction Against the Respondents. The
latters counsel ask for extension of time to oppose and make a comment to the motion for the Issuance of TRO/Pre. Inj. Thereafter,
respondent issued an order which directed the parties to maintain the status quo ante. The complainant sought for a reconsideration.
Meanwhile, Toze was reinstated and assumed his former position as Superintendent. The Illegal Dismissal case was not resolved
instead respondent issued an order requiring the parties to appear in his office to thresh out Tozes claim of moral and exemplary
damages.
Hence, the complainants filed a complainant for the disbarment of the respondent for alleged gross misconduct and violation of
lawyers oath. Respondent Mayor argues that the complaint should be dismissed for being premature and a subterfurge in order to
compel him to inhibit in resolving the said illegal dismissal case. Based on finding, the Investigating Commissioner recommended
respondent to be suspended for a period of six months which was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its
Resolution. Respondent sought to reconsider but it was denied, hence, this appeal.
Issue : Whether nor not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of lawyers oath
Ruling:
The SC agreed with the resolution of IBP Board of Governors that the respondent should be sanctioned. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court provides that a lawyer may be removed or suspended from the practice of law, inter alia, for gross misconduct and violation of the lawyers
oath. A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations. Hence, the Code of Professional
Responsibilitywas not meant to govern the conduct of private practitioners alone, but of all lawyers including those in government service. This
is clear from Canon 6 of said Code. Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public service. Thus, they
should be more sensitive in the performance of their professional obligations, as their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the
public.

Here, the respondent, being part of the quasi-judicial system of our government, performs official functions that are akin to those of judges.
Accordingly, the present controversy may be approximated to administrative cases of judges whose decisions, including the manner of
rendering the same, were made subject of administrative cases.
When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to know and to simply apply it. Anything less would be constitutive of gross
ignorance of the law. In the case at bench, respondent is found guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
The role of the labor arbiters, with regard to the issuance of writs of preliminary injunctions and/or writ of preliminary injunction, at present, is
limited to reception of evidence as may be delegated by the NLRC(.Section 4, Rule X of the 2005 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC).
Wherefore, respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, with a Warning that commission of the same or similar
offense in the future will result in the disposition of a more severe penalty.
Narag vs Narag
FACTS:
Atty. Dominador Narag was alleged to have abandoned his family for his paramour who was once his student in tertiary level. The administrative
complaint of disbarment was filed by her wife, Mrs. Julieta Narag. Respondent filed motion to dismiss because allegedly the complainant
fabricated the story as well as the love letters while under extreme emotional confusion arising from jealousy. The case took an unexpected turn
when another complaint was filed, the wife as again the complainant but now together with their seven children as co-signatories. After several
hearings, the facts became clear, that the respondent indeed abandoned his family as against morals, based on testimonial evidences. In
addition, the assailed relationship bore two children.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality and for having violated and the Code of Ethics for Lawyers culpable for disbarment.
HELD:
YES. Respondent disbarred.
RATIO:
The complainant was able to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent breached the high and exacting moral standards
set for the members of the law profession.
Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar.
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.
Undoubtedly, the canons of law practice were violated.