Cases:
. Lawyers Duty to the Public
(a) Canon 1
Endaya vs Atty. Oca, AC# 3967, 9/3/2003
FACTS:
A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Artemio
Endaya and his wife. An answer was prepared by a Mr.
Ramirez for the spouses. At the beginning of the preliminary
conference, spouses appeared without counsel. Endaya
sought the services of the Public Attorneys Office. Atty. Oca
was assigned to handle the case. At the continuation of the
prelim conference, Oca filed motion for amendment of
answer. Motion was denied. The judge then ordered all
parties to submit their affidavits and position papers. The
court also said that 30 days after the submission of the last
paper or upon expiration of the period for filing, judgment
shall be rendered on the case. Oca failed to submit any
affidavit or position paper. Nonetheless, the complaint for
unlawful detainer was dismissed because those who filed the
case were not really parties-in-interest. The case was
appealed to RTC. Oca failed to submit anything again. RTC
reversed the MTC decision. Spouses were ordered to vacate
the property and pay a certain amount for rentals. Endaya
confronted Oca about the decision. Oca feigned that he did
not receive anything. Upon checking with the clerk of court,
Oca did indeed receive a copy of the decision. Hence this
administrative complaint.
ISSUE:
W/N Oca committed professional misconduct
HELD:
Yes. Suspended for 2 months from practice of law.
In his comment, Oca put up the defense that he did not file
any paper in the MCTC because it would just be a repetition
of the answer. Endaya filed his reply which just reiterated
what he put in his complaint. SC ordered Oca to file a
rejoinder. Guess what, Oca once again failed to file anything.
Oca explained that he failed to file a rejoinder because he
believed in good faith that it was no longer necessary. In the
IBP investigation, Oca once again failed to submit anything.
Oca only appeared once in the MCTC and practically
abandoned the spouses thereafter. The facts show that Oca
failed to employ every legal and honorable means to advance
the cause of his client. For intentionally failing to submit the
pleadings required by the court, respondent practically closed
the door to the possibility of putting up a fair fight for his
client. Oca cannot just appear only once for the spouses. A
lawyer continues to be a counsel of record until the lawyer-
client relationship is terminated. Ocas story shows his
appalling indifference to his clients cause, deplorable lack of
respect for the courts and a brazen disregard of his duties as a
lawyer.
However Endaya misrepresented that the original answer was
prepared by a non-lawyer when in fact it was prepared by a
lawyer. He also assured Oca that he had strong evidence to
support their case. Endaya never gave anything to Oca to
support their claim.The PAO is burdened with a heavy
caseload. Given these circumstances the professional conduct
of Oca does not warrant disbarment.
Barrientos vs Atty. Libran-Meteoro, AC# 6408, 8/31/2004
FACTS:
In September 2000, the lawyer issued several Equitable
PCIBank Checks in favor of Barrientos and Mercado for the
payment of a pre-existing debt. The checks bounced due to
insufficient funds, thus, charges for violation of B.P. 22 were
filed. The lawyer asked for deferment of the criminal charges
and promised to pay her debt several times, but failed to pay
the full amount, even after a complaint for disbarment was
filed against her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
***The issuance of checks which were later dishonored for
having been drawn against a closed account indicates a
lawyers unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on
her. It shows a lack of personal honesty and good moral
character as to render her unworthy of public confidence. ***
Mere issuance of worthless checks by a lawyer, regardless of
whether or not the same were issued in his professional
capacity to a client, calls for appropriate disciplinary
measures.
Alejandro vs Atty. Alejandro, AC# 4256, 2/31/2004
FACTS:
Complainant submitted a photocopy of the marriage contract
between her and respondent Atty. Alejandro in support of her
charge of bigamy and concubinage against the latter and
Villarin. She also submitted a photocopy of the birth
certificate of a child of the respondent and also stated that
they were married in May 1, 1990 in Isabela, Province.
The Supreme Court directed respondents to file their
comment on the complaint within 10 days but they failed to
comply. Copies of the resolution, complaint and its annexes
were returned to both respondents unserved with notation
moved, same as when served personally. Complainant was
required anew to submit the correct, present address of
respondents under pain of dismissal of her administrative
complaint. She disclosed respondents address at 12403
Develop Drive Houston, Texas in a handwritten letter.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that
both respondents be disbarred. The Supreme Court ordered
Atty. Alejandro to be disbarred while the complaint against
his co-respondent Atty. Villarin was returned to the IBP for
further proceedings or it appears that a copy of the
resolution requiring comment was never deemed served
upon her as it was upon Atty. Alejandro.
ISSUE:
Whether or not abandonment of lawful wife and maintaining
an illicit relationship with another woman are grounds for
disbarment.
HELD:
Sufficient evidence showed that respondent Atty. Alejandro,
lawfully married to complainant, carried on an illicit
relationship with co-respondent Atty. Villarin. Although the
evidence was not sufficient to prove that he co0ntracted a
subsequent bigamous marriage, that fact remains of his
deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as
member of the bar. A disbarment proceeding is warranted
against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife and maintains
an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne
him a child. We can do no less in this case where Atty.
Alejandro even fled to another country to escape the
consequences of his misconduct.
Therefore, Atty. Alejandro disbarred from the practice of law
while the complaint against Atty. Villarin was referred back to
the IBP.
Vda. De Espino vs Atty. Prequito, AC# 4762, 6/28/2004
FACTS:
Complainants husband sold a piece of land to Respondent
who issued 8 post-dated checks as payment and which checks
however subsequently bounced prompting Complainant and
her husband to make repeated demands but to no avail.
Complainant alleged that Respondents unlawful refusal and
dilatory tactics partly triggered the death of her husband,
who died disillusioned and embittered. Respondent
countered that, Complainant did not know the real story,
and that the non-payment of the checks was justified by the
unresolved problem of right-of-way which Complainants
husband supposedly had guaranteed. He also alleged that he
was entitled to set-off what he owed for the land acquisition
against advances made by Complainants husband and for
cost incurred when he defended Complainants son in a
criminal case.
RULING:
***Respondent SUSPENDED. Respondent issued eight (8)
worthless checks, seemingly without regard to its deleterious
effects to public interest and public order. The issuance of
worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct, and puts the
erring lawyers moral character in serious doubt, though it is
not related to his professional duties as a member of the bar.
He not only sets himself liable for a serious criminal offense
under B.P. Blg. 22, but also transgresses the CPR, specifically
the mandate of Canon 1 to obey the laws of the land and
promote the respect for law.***
Guevarra vs Atty. Eala, AC# 7136, 8/1/2007
FACTS:
Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint for Disbarment 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."
The complainant first met respondent in January 2000 when
his (complainant's) then-fiance Irene Moje (Irene) introduced
respondent Atty. Eala, a lawyer and a sports caster, to him as
her friend who was married to Mary Ann Tantoco with whom
he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene, complainant noticed that 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." He 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. More so,
complainant has seen Irene and respondent together on two
occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them
following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house.
Moreover, 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. Also,
it was revealed that Irene gave birth to a girl in 2002 and
Irene named respondent in the Certificate of Live Birth as the
girl's father.
In his answer, Respondent specifically denies having ever
flaunted an adulterous relationship with Irene, the truth of
the matter being that their relationship was low profile and
known only to the immediate members of their respective
families. He also said that his special relationship with Irene is
neither under scandalous circumstances nor tantamount to
grossly immoral conduct as would be a ground for
disbarment.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent be disbarred from the
practice of Law.
HELD:
YES. 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.
***While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere
fact of sexual relations between two unmarried adults is not
sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit
behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals 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
manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and
the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed
by our laws.***
Mecaral vs Atty. Vasquez, AC# 8392, 6/29/2010
FACTS: Complainant was Respondents secretary (in 2002),
later she became his lover and common-law wife. Still later,
Respondent brought her to a mountainous part in Biliran
where he left her with the Faith Healers Association of the
Philippines, a religious group which Respondent headed.
Thereafter, and upon Respondents instruction, his followers
tortured, brainwashed and injected Complainant with drugs.
She remained in captivity until her mother aided by the
Provincial Welfare Development and the police, rescued her.
Complainant sought Respondents disbarment alleging as well
that Respondent contracted a bigamous marriage in marrying
Leny Azur despite the subsistence of a prior marriage to Ma.
Shirley Yunzal.
RULING: Respondent DISBARRED for violating Canon 1 (A
lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal processes) and
Rule 7 (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) of the CPR; ***his name
ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Respondents
acts of converting his secretary into a mistress, contracting
two marriages with Shirley and Leny are grossly immoral
which no civilized society in the world can countenance.
Complainants subsequent detention and torture is gross
misconduct which only a beast may be able to do. Canon 1 of
the CPR.***
Cham vs Atty. Paita-Maya, AC# 7494, 6/27/2008
FACTS: Respondent leased an apartment unit from Greenville
Realty and Development Corp. represented by Complainant
as its president and general manager. Her total unpaid
account reached P71,1007.88. Despite repeated demands,
Respondent failed to pay her account and even vacated the
leased premises without notifying Complainant.
RULING: Respondent SUSPENDED for 1 month; WARNED that
repetition of same or similar act will be dealt with more
severely. ***Having incurred just debts, Respondent had the
moral duty and legal responsibility to settle them when they
became due.***
Respondent left the apartment unit without settling her
unpaid obligations, and without the complainants knowledge
and consent. *** Respondents abandonment of the leased
premises to avoid her obligations for the rent and electricity
bills constitutes deceitful conduct violative of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon I*** (a lawyer
shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes) and Rule 1.01
(a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct).
Lawyers are instruments for 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 and legal system is
ensured.
Roa vs Atty. Moreno, AC#8382, 4/21/10
FACTS: Complainant paid Respondent P70T for the purchase
of a piece of land. Instead of a deed of sale, Respondent
issued a temporary receipt and a certificate of land
occupancy assuring Complainant that he could already use
the lot. Complainant, upon learning that the certificate could
not be registered with the Register of Deeds, then confronted
Respondent who admitted that the real owner was a certain
Rubio and that the lot was still pending litigation.
RULING: Respondent SUSPENDED from law practice for 2
years. Respondents credibility is highly questionable he
even issued a bogus certificate of land occupancy to
Complainant whose only fault was that he did not know
better. To the unlettered, said certificate could have easily
passed off as a document evidencing title. In fact,
Complainant actually tried, but failed, to register the
Certificate of Land Occupancy in the Register of Deeds.
Complainant readily parted with P70T because of the false
assurance afforded by the sham certificate.
Respondent violated Rule 1.01 (not to engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct) of the CPR.
Conduct, as used in the Rule, is not confined to the
performance of a lawyers professional duties. A lawyer may
be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his
professional or private capacity. The test is whether his
conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
Respondent acted in his private capacity, misrepresented that
he owned the lot he sold to Complainant, later refused to
return his money. As a final blow, he denied having any
transaction with complainant. It is crystal-clear in the mind of
the Court that he fell short of his duty under Rule 1.01, Canon
1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RONQUILLO VS. ATTY. CEZAR, 2006
Facts: Complainants seek the disbarment or suspension of
respondent from the practice of law for unlawful, dishonest,
immoral and deceitful conduct. They allege that respondent
sold them a piece of property over which he has no right nor
interest, and that he refuses to return to them the amount
they have paid him for it.
In May 1999, complainants and respondent entered into a
Deed of Assignment, respondent transferred, in favor of the
complainants, his rights and interests over a townhouse unit
and lot, located at 75 Granwood Villas Subd., BF Homes,
Quezon City.
Respondent received from complainants P750,000.00 upon
execution of the Deed of Assignment. The balance was to be
paid by complainants in four equal quarterly installments of
P187,500.00 each. Thus, complainants issued in favor of
respondent four postdated checks in the amount of
P187,500.00 each. Respondent was able to encash the first
check dated August 17, 1999.2
Complainants subsequently received information from Crown
Asia that respondent has not paid in full the price of the
townhouse at the time he executed the Deed of Assignment.
On March 6, 2000, complainants, through their counsel,
wrote respondent, informing him that they were still willing
to pay the balance of the purchase price of the townhouse on
the condition that respondent work on Crown Asias
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor.
Hence, this administrative complaint6 that respondent
engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Allegedly, respondent violated his oath under Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and he
ought to be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law..
Issue: WON respondent is guilty of dishonest and deceitful
conduct proscribed under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Held: Yes,
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a
member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on any of
the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other
gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4)
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation
of the lawyers oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court; and (7) willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party without authority. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "A
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct." "Conduct," as used in this rule, does not
refer exclusively to the performance of a lawyers
professional duties. This Court has made clear in a long line of
cases7 that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for
misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity,
which shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity and good demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an
officer of the court.
In the instant case, respondent may have acted in his private
capacity when he entered into a contract with complainant
Marili representing to have the rights to transfer title over the
townhouse unit and lot in question. When he failed in his
undertaking, respondent fell short of his duty under Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It
cannot be gainsaid that it was unlawful for respondent to
transfer property over which one has no legal right of
ownership. Respondent was likewise guilty of dishonest and
deceitful conduct when he concealed this lack of right from
complainants. He did not inform the complainants that he
has not yet paid in full the price of the subject townhouse
unit and lot, and, therefore, he had no right to sell, transfer or
assign said property at the time of the execution of the Deed
of Assignment. His acceptance of the bulk of the purchase
price amounting to Nine Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Five
Hundred Pesos (P937,500.00), despite knowing he was not
entitled to it, made matters worse for him.
VITUG VS. ATTY. RONGCAL 9/7/2006
FACTS:
Catherine Joie P. Vitug sought the service of respondent Atty.
Diosdado M. Rongcal who was introduced to her by her
former classmate. Complainant asked Atty. Rongcal to
represent her in the support case she was going to file against
her former lover, Arnulfo Aquino. Soon after, herein
complainant and respondent started having sexual
relationship with each other. According to Vitug, respondent
also gave her sweet inducements such as the promise of a
job, financial security for her daughter, and his services as
counsel for the prospective claim for support against Aquino.
On 9 February 2001, respondent allegedly convinced
complainant to sign anAffidavit of Disclaimer which the latter
signed without reading the saidaffidavit. On 14 February
2001, respondent allegedly advised complainant that Aquino
gave him P150,000.00 cash and P58,000.00 in two (2)
postdated checks to answer for the medical expenses of her
daughter. Instead ofturning them over to her, respondent
handed her his personal check in the amount of P150,000.00
and promised to give her the balance of P58,000.00 soon
thereafter. However, sometime in April or May 2001,
respondentinformed her that he could not give her the said
amount because he used it for his political campaign as he
was then running for the position ofProvincial Board Member
of the 2nd District of Pampanga
Complainant argues that respondent's acts constitute a
violation of his oath as a lawyer. She filed an administrative
case against Rongcal which was referred to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines. It was then recommended that respondent
be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months and
that he be ordered to return to complainant the amount of
P58,000.00 within two months. The same was approved by
the IBP Board of Governors.Respondent then filed a Motion
for Reconsideration with Motion to Set Case for Clarificatory
Questioning with the IBP and a Motion to Reopen/Remand
Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not respondent be disbarred for immorality
(2) Whether or not respondents act of preparing and
notarizing the Affidavit, a document disadvantageous to his
client, is a violation of the Code.
HELD:
(1) NO. One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is
that an applicant must possess good moral character. Said
requirement persists as a continuing condition for the
enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss
thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. The
Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment the
act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly
immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and
false as to constitute a criminal actor so unprincipled or
disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. On sexual
relation and on respondents subsequent marriage, by his
own admission, respondent is obviously guilty of immorality
in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code which states that a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. The Court find credence in respondent's
assertion that it was impossible for her not to have known of
his subsisting marriage, complainants allegations of deceit
were not established by clear preponderant evidence
required in disbarment cases.
(2) NO. It was not unlawful for respondent to assist his client
in entering intoa settlement with Aquino after explaining all
available options to her. The law encourages the amicable
settlement not only of pending cases but also of disputes
which might otherwise be filed in court. Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility states that: A lawyer
shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. As
complainant voluntarily and intelligently agreed to a
settlement with Aquino, she cannot later blame her counsel
when she experiences a change of heart. Suspicion, no matter
how strong, is not enough in the absence of contrary
evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that the
respondent has regularly performed his duty in accordance
with his oath.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds Atty.
Diosdado M. Rongcal GUILTY of immorality and impose on
him a FINE of P15,000.00 with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be
dealt with more severely.
The charge of misappropriation of funds of the client is
REMANDED to the IBP for further investigation, report and
recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of this
Decision.
ABELLA VS. BARRIOS 6/18/2013
Facts:
Complainant obtained a favorable judgment from the Court
of Appeals involving a Labor Case. Complainant then filed a
Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution before the
Regional Arbitration Branch which the respondent was the
Labor Arbiter. After the lapse of five (5) months,
complainants motion remained unacted, prompting him to
file a Second Motion for Execution. However, still, there was
no action until the complainant agreed to give respondent a
portion of the monetary award thereof after the latter asked
from the former how much would be his share. Thereafter,
respondent issued a writ of execution but the employer of
the complainant moved to quash the said writ. Eventually,
issued a new writ of execution wherein complainants
monetary awards were reduced to the effect that it modifies
the DECISION of the CA. Complainant now filed the instant
disbarment complaint before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), averring that respondent violated the Code
of Professional Responsibility for (a) soliciting money from
complainant in exchange for a favorable resolution; and (b)
issuing a wrong decision to give benefit and advantage to
PT&T, complainants employer.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality for
his violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.02,
Canon 6 of the Code.
HELD:
YES. The above-cited rules, which are contained under
Chapter 1 of the Code, delineate the lawyers responsibility to
society: Rule 1.01 engraves the overriding prohibition against
lawyers from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral
and deceitful conduct; Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers from
encouraging any suit or proceeding or delaying any mans
cause for any corrupt motive or interest; meanwhile, Rule
6.02 is particularly directed to lawyers in government service,
enjoining them from using ones public position to: (1)
promote private interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3)
allow private interests to interfere with public duties. It is well
to note that a lawyer who holds a government office may be
disciplined as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct
also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer.
The infractions of the respondent constitute gross
misconduct. Jurisprudence illumines that immoral conduct
involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that
show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and
respectable members of the community. It treads the line of
grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act,
or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or
when committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the communitys sense of decency.
On the other hand, gross misconduct constitutes "improper
or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty,
willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not
mere error of judgment."
In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court states that when a lawyer is found guilty of gross
immoral conduct or gross misconduct, he may be suspended
or disbarred.However, the Court takes judicial notice of the
fact that he had already been disbarred in a previous
administrative case, entitled Sps. Rafols, Jr. v. Ricardo G.
Barrios, Jr., which therefore precludes the Court from
duplicitously decreeing the same. In view of the foregoing,
the Court deems it proper to, instead, impose a fine in the
amount of P40,000.00 in order to penalize respondents
transgressions as discussed herein and to equally deter the
commission of the same or similar acts in the future.
Principles:
Legal Ethics; Disbarment; A lawyer who holds a government
office may disciplined as a member of the bar only when his
misconduct also constitutes a violation of the oath as a
lawyer--chapter 1 of the Code, delineate the lawyers
responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the overriding
prohibition against lawyers from engaging in any unlawful,
dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct; Rule 1.03
proscribes lawyers from encouraging any suit or proceeding
or delaying any mans cause for any corrupt motive or
interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to
lawyers in government service, enjoining them from using
ones public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2)
advance private interests; or (3) allow private interests to
interfere with public duties.26 It is well to note that a lawyer
who holds a government office may be disciplined as a
member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes
a violation of his oath as a lawyer.27In this light, a lawyers
compliance with and observance of the above-mentioned
rules should be taken into consideration in determining his
moral fitness to continue in the practice of law.
To note, "the possession of good moral character is both a
condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant
admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the legal
profession."28This proceeds from the lawyers duty to
observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard
the Bars integrity.29 Consequently, any errant behavior on
the part of a lawyer, be it in the lawyers public or private
activities, which tends to show deficiency in moral character,
honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant
suspension or disbarment.
Jurisprudence illumines that immoral conduct involves acts
that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral
indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable
members of the community.36 It treads the line of grossness
when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when
committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances
as to shock the communitys sense of decency.37 On the
other hand, gross misconduct constitutes "improper or wrong
conduct, the transgression of some established and definite
rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error
of judgment."