20th Century Cases where no Finding

of Gross Immorality was made

In the 1962 case of Soberano v. Villanueva,1 the Supreme Court held that intimacy
between a man and a woman who are not married is neither so corrupt as to
constitute a criminal act nor so unprincipled as to warrant disbarment or disciplinary
action against the man as a member of the Bar. In the said case, a petition for
disbarment was brought against respondent on the allegation that the complainant
was induced to take part in a fake wedding under the belief that it was a genuine and
valid one. Respondent cohabited with her and later lived with her as husband and
wife, as a consequence of which she bore him two children, but he subsequently
abandoned her and their children.

In 1981, the Supreme Court held through Arciga v. Maniwang 2 that refusal to marry
was not as corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment. The complainant
instituted the case for disbarment for respondent’s refusal to fulfill his promise of
marriage to her. After repeated acts of cohabitation between complainant and
respondent, then a medical technology student and a law student respectively, who
were sweethearts, their illicit relationship resulted in the birth of their child. Despite
respondent’s repeated assurance to complaint that he would marry her once he
passed the bar examinations and even made complaint’s father believe that they were
already married but that the church wedding was being deferred until after he has
passed said examinations, he married another woman after his oath taking.

Whether a lawyer’s sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit
of a marriage should be characterized as "grossly immoral conduct" will depend on the
surrounding circumstances. In American jurisprudence, where an unmarried female
dwarf possessing the intellect of a child became pregnant by reason of intimacy with a
married lawyer who was the father of six children, disbarment of the attorney on the
ground of immoral conduct was justified.3

1 A.C. No. 215 December 29, 1962 En Banc

2 Arciga v. Maniwang GR No. 1608 August 14, 1981
3 In re Hicks 1933 OK 212 April 4, 1933

[Type text]
In the 1997 case of Figueroa v. Barranco, 4 the Court held that engaging in premarital
sexual relations and promises to marry suggests a doubtful moral character on his
part but the same does not constitute grossly immoral conduct. In the said case, the
respondent was a bar exam passer. However, before he could take his oath, the
petitioner petitioned that respondent be denied admission. Her complaint was that
respondent and she had been sweethearts, a child of them was born out of wedlock,
and that respondent did not fulfill his repeated promises to marry. Furthermore,
respondent married and settled with another woman. Complainant further claimed
that respondent forced complainant into sexual relations with him.

The Supreme Court however held that the charges required to constitute a disbarment
not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. In the herein, the allegation on respondent
merely suggests a doubtful moral character. Furthermore, complainant continued to
see respondent for a while, even after giving birth to the child, thus suggesting that
the sexual relations were consensual and not forced.

The facts do not constitute gross immorality warranting the permanent exclusion of
respondent from the legal profession. 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 act
or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. It is a willful,
flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of
respectable members of the community.

21st Century Cases where no Finding

Of Gross Immorality was made

In 2018 case of Fabugais vs. Faundo, the Supreme Court held that in both their
professional and personal lives, lawyers must conduct themselves in such a way that
does not reflect negatively upon the legal profession. The respondent in this case was
alleged to have an extra marital affair. The lawyer slept in one bed together with the
woman and her child as stated in the Sinumpaang Salaysay of the child. There was
also a motorycyle chasing incident involving the husband of the woman and the lawyer
where the latter even threatened to kill the former. The Court in this case further

4 Figueroa v. Barranco SBC Case No. 519 En Banc July 31, 1997

[Type text]
stated that the acts complained of in this case might not be grossly or starkly immoral
in its rawness or coarseness, but they were without doubt condemnable.

Fabugais vs. Faundo, G.R. No 1014 June 11, 2018

20th Century Cases where a Finding of Gross

Immorality was made resulting to Disbarment

In the case of Barrientos v. Daarol, 5 the respondent lawyer was disbarred, but the
severest penalty was imposed not only because of his engaging in illicit sexual
relations, but also because of his deceit. He had been already married and was about
41 years old when he proposed marriage to a 20-year-old girl. He succeeded in his
seduction of her and made her pregnant. He not only suggested that she abort the
pregnancy, but he also breached his promise to marry her, and, in the end, even
deserted her and their child.

In 1989, the Court in Delos Reyes v. Aznar 6 adjudged the respondent lawyer, a
married man with children, highly immoral for having taken advantage of his position
as the chairman of the College of Medicine of his school in enticing the complainant,
then a student in the college, to have carnal knowledge with him under the threat that
she would flunk in all her subjects should she refuse. The respondent was disbarred
for grossly immoral conduct.

In Tucay v. Tucay,7 respondent contracted marriage with another married woman and
left complainant with whom he has been married for thirty years. The Court 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 vs. Peralta,8 respondent married complainant while his first wife was still
alive, their marriage still valid and subsisting. The Court held that the act of

5 Barrientos v. Daarol Adm. Case No. 1512, January 29, 1993, 218 SCRA 30
6 Delos Reyes v. Aznar Adm. Case No. 1334, November 28, 1989, 179 SCRA 653
7 Tucay vs. Tucay A.C. No. 5170, November 17, 1999, 318 SCRA 229
8 Villasanta vs. Peralta,[101 Phil.313 (1957)

[Type text]
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 vs. Agustin,9 respondent lured an innocent woman into a simulated

marriage and thereafter satisfied his lust. The Court 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.

In the 1963 case of Toledo vs. Toledo, 10 respondent abandoned his wife, who
supported him and spent for his law education, and thereafter cohabited with another
woman. The Court ruled that he failed to maintain the highest degree of morality
expected and required of a member of the bar. For this, respondent was disbarred.

In Obusan vs. Obusan, Jr.,11 respondent abandoned his lawful wife and child and
resumed cohabitation with his former paramour. Here, we ruled that abandoning ones
wife and resuming carnal relations with a former paramour, a married woman,
constitute grossly immoral conduct warranting disbarment.

In Bolivar v. Simbol,12 the Court found the respondent there guilty of "grossly immoral
conduct" because he made a dupe of complainant, living on her bounty and allowing
her to spend for his schooling and other personal necessities while dangling before her
the mirage of a marriage, marrying another girl as soon as he had finished his studies,
keeping his marriage a secret while continuing to demand money from complainant.
The Court held such acts “indicative of a character not worthy of a member of the
Bar.”

Where a lawyer succeeded in having carnal knowledge of complainant, 13 under

promise of marriage, which he refused to fulfill, although they had already a marriage
license and despite the birth of a child in consequence of their sexual intercourse; he
married another woman, and during Virginia’s pregnancy, Lopez urged her to take
pills to hasten the flow of her menstruation and he tried to convince her to have an

9 Cabrera vs. Agustin 106 Phil. 256 (1960)

10 Toledo vs. Toledo 117 SCRA768, Adm. Case No. 266, April 27, 1963
11 Obusan vs. Obusan 128 SCRA 485, Adm. Case No. 1392, April 2, 1984
12 Bolivar v. Simbol 16 SCRA 623 (1966)
13 Almirez v. Lopez, Administrative Case No. 481, February 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 169

[Type text]
abortion, to which she did not agree, is guilty of gross immoral conduct rendering him
unfit to continue a member of the Bar.

A lawyer was also disbarred in a case where a public school teacher, who was engaged
to the lawyer, was prevailed upon by him to have sexual congress with him inside a
hotel by telling her that it was alright to have sexual intercourse because, anyway,
they were going to get married. She used to give him money upon his request. After
she became pregnant and gave birth to a baby boy, the lawyer refused to marry her. 14

In 1963,15 a lawyer who had been having adulterous relations for fifteen years with a
married woman separated from her husband, seduced her eighteen-year-old niece who
became pregnant and begot a child was disbarred.

20th Century Cases where a Finding of Gross

Immorality was made but no Disbarment ordered

In 1993,16 a judge was charged with immorality and violation of the Code of Judicial
Ethics for maintaining illicit sexual relations with another’s wife. The Court concludes
that the immoral conduct of the respondent has ruined two families — his own and
that of the complainant. Respondent cannot escape from the blame and sin of what he
has caused complainant’s once happy family. Court further held that “but beyond the
domestic confines of these two families, respondent judge is no ordinary mortal who
can live the life he pleases having two women at the same time — his wife and worst ,
another man’s wife. He is a judge who symbolizes the law and the highest degree of
morality in the community. The citizens look up to him as the embodiment of justice
and decency, as he decides cases brought to his court. He can be no less."

Immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes conduct
inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and

14 Quingwa v. Puno, Administrative Case No. 389, February 28, 1967, 19 SCRA 439
15 Royong v. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865 A.C. No. 376 April 30, 1963
16 Dr. Norbert l. Alfonso v. Judge Modesto C. Juanson [A.M. No. RTJ-92-904. December 7,
1993

[Type text]
dissoluteness; or is wilful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral indifference
to opinions of respectable members of the community, and as an inconsiderate
attitude toward good order and public welfare."

The Court sentenced him to pay a fine of P2,000.00 and, further, sternly warned that
a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

In Leynes v. Veloso17 a municipal judge was charged with immorality in public office
for having illicit relations with a concubine under scandalous circumstances. The
judge admits that a thirty-seven-year old woman, his alleged housemaid, is his
mistress. Out of their union, two children were born when the respondent was already
a sex-agenarian.

The Court held that if good moral character is required of a lawyer, with more reason
that requirement should be exacted of a member of the judiciary who at all times is
expected to observe irreproachable behavior and is bound not to outrage public
decency.18

The respondent was removed from the office as municipal judge and his application
for disability retirement was disapproved.His reliance on his wife's condonation of his
immorality, erroneously confounded or equated the extinction of his criminal liability
with his moral fitness to occupy the position of town magistrate. Further, the
withdrawal by complainant of his charge does not render the administrative case
moot. This Court may motu proprio investigate a judge for his continuing, grossly
immoral conduct.

In Castillo v. Calanog19 a penalty of FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (P40,000.00) fine and

a most severe warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be accorded the
highest penalty with an the Court's power to impose was imposed against Judge
Manuel M. Calanog, Jr., who had an intimate, albeit immoral, relationship with
complainant Emma Castillo although he, Judge Calanog, is a married man. Out of
that liaison Emma Castillo gave birth to Judge Calanog's child, Jerome Christopher,

17 In Leynes v. Veloso (82 SCRA 325 [1978])

18 Canon 3 of Judicial Ethics, Administrative Order No. 162 of the Secretary of Justice, August
1, 1946. 42 O.G. 1803
19 Castillo v. Calanog (199 SCRA 75 [1991]) ADM. MATTER No. RTJ-90-447 July 12, 1991

[Type text]
whom he housed in a condominium unit together with his (Jerome's) mother and her
two older children.

21st Century Cases where a Finding

Of Gross Immorality was made

In the 2004 case of Dantes vs. Dantes, the Supreme Court held that respondent’s
acts 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 appropriate sanctions. Complainant’s testimony, taken in
conjunction with the documentary evidence, sufficiently established respondent’s
commission of marital infidelity and immorality. Evidently, respondent had breached
the high and exacting moral standards set for members of the law profession. He has
made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and
dignity.

To be the basis of disciplinary action, the lawyer’s conduct must not only be immoral,
but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree 23 or committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. The
respondent in this case is disbarred.

Dantes vs. Dantes, A.C. No. 6486 September 22, 2004

The case of Ferancullo vs. Ferancullo decided in 2006, the Supreme Court held that
intimate relationship of the respondent with a woman other than his wife shows his
moral indifference to the opinion of the and respectable members of the community to
the time-honored rule that good moral character is not only a condition precedent to
admission to the practice of law. Its continued possession is also essential for
remaining in the practice of law. However, the power to disbar must be exercised with
great caution, only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing
and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as member of the bar. Atty.

[Type text]
Ferancullo is found guilty of gross immorality and is suspended from practice of law
for a period of 2 years.

Ferancullo vs. Ferancullo A.C. No 7214 November 30, 2006

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Samaniego vs. Ferrer that the
failure of the respondent to give support to his daughter with Ms. Samaniego and his
illicit affair with the latter showed his lack of good moral character as a member of the
bar. In this case, the complainant testified that she knew that Atty. Ferrer was in a
relationship but did not think he was already married. She also testified that she was
willing to compromise, but he failed to pay for their daughter's education as agreed
upon. The Court however dismissed the complainant’s charge of abandonment since
the respondent did not abandon them but merely returned to his family. The
respondent is declared grossly immoral and is suspended from the practice of law for
six (6) months.

Samaniego vs. Ferrer, A.C. No. 7022 June 18, 2008

In the case of Garrido vs. Garrido decided in 2010, the Court held that the
respondent’s actions constitutes multiple violations relating to the legal profession: a.)
He violated the lawyers oath: (1) I will support its constitution and obey the laws as
well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein. (2) I will do no
falsehood or consent to its commission; (3) 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 court as to my clients. Xxx b.) Sec 20 (a) Rule 138 of the Rules of Court: It is the
duty of an attorney to maintain allegiance to the RP and support the Constitution and
obey the laws of the Philippinesc.) Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, promote respect for
law and legal processes. d.) Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
commands that he shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conducte.) Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: [a] lawyer shall at all
times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession:f.) Rule 7.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility: [a] lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely

[Type text]
reflects on his fitness to practice law,nor hould he, whether in public or private lifem
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Facts gathered from evidence and admissions established a pattern of gross immoral
conduct that warrants his disbarment: He left his wife to pursue law marriage and the
study of law are not mutually exclusive, misrepresented himself to Maelotisea to lure
her into a prohibited relationship, contracted his 2nd marriage notwithstanding the
subsistence of his first marriage, engaged in extra-marital affair, misused legal
knowledge and convinced Atty. Valencia that he was free to marry, got married in HK
to accord legitimacy to union with Valencia, simultaneously cohabited and had sexual
relations with 2 women, petitioned for nullity of marriage he wanted to escape liability
for his past actions.

Court finds that Atty. Valencia violated Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Her behavior demeaned the dignity and discredited the
legal profession. She was not an on-looker victimized by the circumstances, but a
willing and knowing full participant

Both Atty. Angel Garrido and Atty. Romana Valencia are disbarred.

Garrido vs. Garrido, A.C. No. 6593 February 10, 2010

In the case of Mecaral vs. Velasquez decided in 2010, the complainant was hired as
secretary by Atty. Velasquez who later became his common-law wife. Mecaral was later
brought to Upper San Agustin in Caibiran,Biliran where he left her with a religious
group known as the Faith Healers Association of the Philippines. The complainant was
allegedly tortured, brainwashed and injected her with drugs.

Investigating Commissioner of the CBD found that respondent’s 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. The
subsequent detention and torture of the complainant is gross misconduct only a beast
may be able to do. Certainly, the respondent had violated Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed
by the state upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the

[Type text]
qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. When a lawyer’s
moral character is assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherished
profession is imperiled, it behooves him to meet the charges squarely and present
evidence, to the satisfaction of the investigating body and this Court, that he is
morally fit to keep his name in the Roll of Attorneys. Respondent has not discharged
the burden. He never attended the hearings before the IBP to rebut the charges
brought against him, suggesting that they are true.

Mecaral vs. Velasquez, A.C. No. 8392 (formerly CBC Case No. 08-2175) June 29, 2010

In Tiong vs. Florendo promulgated in 2011, respondent admitted his illicit relationship
with a married woman not his wife, and worse, that of his client. Respondent's act of
having an affair with his client's wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the
sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost moral
depravity and low regard for the ethics of his profession. Undeniably, therefore, his
illicit relationship with Ma. Elena amounts to a disgraceful and grossly immoral
conduct warranting disciplinary action from the Court. Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court provides that an attorney may be disbarred or suspended from his
office by the Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
office, grossly immoral conduct, among others.

Although the respondent maintains that he cannot be sanctioned for his questioned
conduct because he and Ma. Elena had already been pardoned by their respective
spouses, the Court is not persuaded and found the respondent guilty of gross
immorality with a corresponding penalty of suspension for six (6) months.

Tiong vs. Florendo A.C. No. 4428 December 12, 2011

In the 2012 case of Ventura vs. Samson, the Supreme Court ruled that the respondent
has violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant, then a 13-year-
old minor, who for a time was under respondent’s care. Whether the sexual
encounter between the respondent and complainant was or was not with the latter’s

[Type text]
consent is of no moment. Respondent clearly committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral
and highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is a transgression of the standards of
morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined accordingly.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court expressly states that a member of the bar
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for,
among others, any deceit, grossly immoral conduct, or violation of the oath that he is
required to take before admission to the practice of law. It bears to stress that
membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. As a privilege bestowed
by law through the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be
withdrawn where circumstances concretely show the lawyer’s lack of the essential
qualifications required of lawyers. Atty. Samson is hereby disbarred for gross immoral
conduct.

Ventura vs. Samson A.C. No. 9608 November 27, 2012

In De Leon vs. Pedrena promulgated in 2013, respondent a Public Attorney, was

charged for sexual harassment. The Supreme Court held that the records show that
the respondent rubbed the complainant’s right leg with his hand; tried to insert his
finger into her firmly closed hand; grabbed her hand and forcibly placed it on his
crotch area; and pressed his finger against her private part. Given the circumstances
in which he committed them, his acts were not merely offensive and undesirable but
repulsive, disgraceful and grossly immoral.

They constituted misconduct on the part of any lawyer. In this regard, immoral
conduct is gross 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 community’s sense of decency.
Atty. Pedreña’s misconduct was aggravated by the fact that he was then a Public
Attorney mandated to provide free legal service to indigent litigants, and by the fact
that complainant was then such a client. He also disregarded his oath as a public
officer to serve others and to be accountable at all times, because he thereby took
advantage of her vulnerability as a client then in desperate need of his legal

[Type text]
assistance. Thus, respondent was meted out the penalty of suspension from the
practice of law for two (2) years.

De Leon vs. Pedrena, A.C. No. 9401 October 22, 2013

In the 2014 case of Bunagan-Bansig vs. Celera, the Supreme Court decided that the
respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a
member of the Bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding
respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is
subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. The responded is hereby
disbarred.

Bunagan-Bansig vs. Celera, A.C. No. 5581 January 14, 2014

In the case of Ecraela vs. Pangalangan, the complainant and the respondent were
best friends and both graduated from UP College of Law in 1990. The complainant
stated that the respondent had series of adulterous and illicit relations with married
and unmarried women from 1990 to 2007, including the complainant’s wife. . The
respondent also abused his authority as an educator in some schools where he
induced his male students to engage in nocturnal preoccupation and entertained
romance with female students for passing grades.

The Supreme Court found the respondent to be guilty of gross immorality and
violating the Section 2 of Article XV of 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Canon 1
and Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 and Rule 10.1 of Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and also the Lawyer’s Oath. He is hereby disbarred from
the practice of Law and his name is ordered stricken from the Rolls of Attorney.

[Type text]
Ecraela vs. Pangalangan, A.C. No. 10676 September 8, 2015

The ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Tumbaga vs. Texon promulgated in
2017 states that that the actuations of respondent showed his failure to live up to the
good moral conduct required of the members of the legal profession. The complainant
believed the respondents representation that he was eligible to marry her despite being
legally married and eventually begot a child of the respondent. The Court agrees with
the conclusion of the IBP that the actuations of respondent in this case showed his
failure to live up to the good moral conduct required of the members of the legal
profession. The respondent is found guilty of gross immorality and is suspended from
the practice of law for a period of three (3) years.

Tumbaga vs. Texon, A.C. No. 5573 November 21, 2017

[Type text]
[Type text]