EN BANC
CARMELITA
I.
ZAGUIRRE,
Complainant,
A.C.
No.
4921
March 6, 2003
-versus-
ATTY.
ALFREDO
CASTILLO,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I
O N
PER CURIAM:
Before this Court is a
Petition for Disbarment filed by Carmelita I. Zaguirre against Atty.
Alfredo
Castillo on the ground of Gross Immoral Conduct.
The facts as borne by
the records are as follows:
Complainant and respondent
met sometime in 1996 when the two became officemates at the National
Bureau
of Investigation (NBI).[1]
Respondent courted complainant and promised to marry her while
representing
himself to be single.[2]
Soon they had an intimate relationship that started sometime in 1996
and
lasted until 1997.[3]
During their affair, respondent was preparing for the bar examinations
which he passed. On May 10, 1997, he was admitted as a member of the
Philippine
Bar.[4]
It was only around the first week of May 1997 that complainant first
learned
that respondent was already married when his wife went to her office
and
confronted her about her relationship with respondent.[5]
On September 10, 1997, respondent, who by now is a lawyer, executed an
affidavit, admitting his relationship with the complainant and
recognizing
the unborn child she was carrying as his.[6]
On December 09, 1997, complainant gave birth to a baby girl, Aletha
Jessa.[7]
By this time however, respondent had started to refuse recognizing the
child and giving her any form of support.[8]
Respondent claims that:
he never courted the complainant; what transpired between them was
nothing
but mutual lust and desire; he never represented himself as single
since
it was known in the NBI that he was already married and with children;[9]
complainant is almost 10 years older than him and knew beforehand that
he is already married;[10]
the child borne by complainant is not his, because the complainant was
seeing other men at the time they were having an affair.[11]
He admits that he signed the affidavit dated September 10, 1997 but
explains
that he only did so to save complainant from embarrassment. Also, he
did
not know at the time that complainant was seeing other men.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After due hearing, the
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Alfredo Castillo guilty of
gross immoral conduct and recommends that he be meted the penalty of
indefinite
suspension from the practice of law.cralaw:red
The Court agrees with
the findings and recommendation of the IBP.cralaw:red
The Code of Professional
Responsibility provides:
"Rule 1.01 - A lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
xxx
xxx
xxx
"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."
xxx
xxx
xxxchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"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."
Immoral conduct has
been defined as:
"xxx that conduct which
is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the
opinion
of good and respectable members of the community. Furthermore, such
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 or committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances
as to shock the common sense of decency."[13]
In his affidavit dated
September 10, 1997, duly acknowledged before a notary public, he
declared
explicitly:
"1. That I had a relationship
with one Carmelita Zaguirre, my officemate;
"2. That as a result
of that relationship, she is presently pregnant with my child;
"3. That I hereby voluntarily
recognize the child now under (sic) her womb to be my own;
"4. That I am willing
to support the said child henceforth, including his/her personal and
medical
needs, education, housing, food, clothing and other necessities for
living,
which I will give through his/her mother, Carmelita Zaguirre, until
he/she
becomes of legal age and capable to live on his/her own;
"5. That I undertake
to sign the birth certificate as an additional proof that he/she is my
child; however, my failure to sign does not negate the recognition and
acknowledgement already done herein;
"6. That I am executing
this affidavit without compulsion on my part and being a lawyer, I have
full knowledge of the consequence of such acknowledgment and
recognition."[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
More incriminating is
his handwritten letter dated March 12, 1998 which states in part:
"Ayoko ng umabot tayo
sa kung saan-saan pa. All your officemates, e.g., Ate Ging, Glo, Guy
and
others (say) that I am the look like(sic) of your daughter.cralaw:red
"Here's my bargain.
I will help you in supporting your daughter, but I cannot promise fix
amount
for monthly support of your daughter. However it shall not be less than
P500 but not more than P1,000."[15]
In the recent case of
Luguid vs. Judge Camano, Jr., the Court in castigating a judge stated
that:
".even as an ordinary
lawyer, respondent has to conform to the strict standard of conduct
demanded
of members of the profession. Certainly, fathering children by a woman
other than his lawful wife fails to meet these standards."[16]
Siring a child with
a woman other than his wife is a conduct way below the standards of
morality
required of every lawyer.[17]
Moreover, the attempt
of respondent to renege on his notarized statement recognizing and
undertaking
to support his child by Carmelita demonstrates a certain
unscrupulousness
on his part which is highly censurable, unbecoming a member of a noble
profession, tantamount to self-stultification.[18]
This Court has repeatedly
held:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"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. More specifically, a
member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to
refrain
from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must
also
so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the
belief
that he is flouting those moral standards."[19]
While respondent does
not deny having an extra-marital affair with complainant he seeks
understanding
from the Court, pointing out that "men by nature are polygamous,"[20]
and that what happened between them was "nothing but mutual lust and
desire."[21]
The Court is not convinced. In fact, it is appalled at the
reprehensible,
amoral attitude of the respondent.cralaw:red
Respondent claims that
he did not use any deception to win her affection. Granting arguendo
that
complainant entered into a relationship with him knowing fully well his
marital status, still it does not absolve him of gross immorality for
what
is in question in a case like this is respondent's fitness to be a
member
of the legal profession. It is not dependent whether or not the other
party
knowingly engaged in an immoral relationship with him.cralaw:red
We agree with the IBP
that the defense of in pari delicto is not feasible. The Court held in
Mortel vs. Aspiras:
"In a disbarment proceeding,
it is immaterial that the complainant is in pari delicto because this
is
not a proceeding to grant relief to the complainant, but one to purge
the
law profession of unworthy members, to protect the public and the
courts."[22]
The illicit relationship
with Carmelita took place while respondent was preparing to take the
bar
examinations. Thus, it cannot be said that it is unknown to him that an
applicant for admission to membership in the bar must show that he is
possessed
of good moral character, a requirement which is not dispensed with upon
admission to membership of the bar.[23]
This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to
the
legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain
one's good standing in the profession;[24]
it is a continuing requirement to the practice of law[25]
and therefore admission to the bar does not preclude a subsequent
judicial
inquiry, upon proper complaint, into any question concerning his mental
or moral fitness before he became a lawyer. This is because his
admission
to practice merely creates a rebuttable presumption that he has all the
qualifications to become a lawyer.cralaw:red
The Court held:
"The practice of law
is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show
that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required
by law for the conferment of such privilege. We must stress that
membership
in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the
privilege
to practice law only during good behavior. He can be deprived of his
license
for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after
giving him the opportunity to be heard."[26]
and in Dumadag vs. Lumaya:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The practice of law
is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid
standards
of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and
faithful
compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the conditions
required
for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the
privilege to practice law."[27]
Respondent repeatedly
engaged in sexual congress with a woman not his wife and now refuses to
recognize and support a child whom he previously recognized and
promised
to support. Clearly therefore, respondent violated the standards of
morality
required of the legal profession and should be disciplined accordingly.cralaw:red
As consistently held
by this Court, disbarment shall not be meted out if a lesser punishment
could be given.[28]
Records show that from the time he took his oath in 1997, he has
severed
his ties with complainant and now lives with his wife and children in
Mindoro.
As of now, the Court does not perceive this fact as an indication of
respondent's
effort to mend his ways or that he recognizes the impact of his offense
on the noble profession of law. Nevertheless, the Court deems it more
appropriate
under the circumstances that indefinite suspension should be meted out
than disbarment. The suspension shall last until such time that
respondent
is able to show, to the full satisfaction of the Court, that he had
instilled
in himself a firm conviction of maintaining moral integrity and
uprightness
required of every member of the profession.cralaw:red
The rule is settled
that a lawyer may be suspended 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.[29]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ACCORDINGLY, in view
of the foregoing, the Court finds respondent GUILTY of Gross Immoral
Conduct
and ordered to suffer INDEFINITE SUSPENSION from the practice of law.cralaw:red
Let a copy of this Decision
be attached to Atty. Castillo's personal record in the Office of the
Bar
Confidant and a copy thereof be furnished the IBP and all courts
throughout
the country.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo,
Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago
and
Corona, JJ., on leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 11.
[2]
Id., p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., p. 12.
[4]
Annex "A", Rollo, p. 5.
[5]
Rollo, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., p. 7.
[7]
Annex "B", Rollo, p. 6.
[8]
Rollo, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id., at p. 11.
[10]
Id., at p. 13.
[11]
Id., at p.12.
[12]
Id., at p. 13.
[13]
Narag vs. Narag, 291 SCRA 451, 464 (1998).
[14]
Annex "C", Rollo, p. 7.
[15]
Id., p. 39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1509, August 8, 2002.
[17]
Paras vs. Paras, 343 SCRA 414, 426 (2000).
[18]
Marcayda vs. Naz, 125 SCRA 466, 469 (1983).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Narag vs. Narag, supra, footnote 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Rollo, p. 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Id.,at p.11.
[22]
100 Phil. 586, 592 (1956).
[23]
Cordova vs. Cordova, 179 SCRA 680, 683 (1989); Vda. de Mijares vs.
Villalluz,
274 SCRA 1, 8 (1997).
[24]
Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos, 285 SCRA 93, 100 (1998); Igual vs. Javier, 254
SCRA
416 (1996); Villanueva vs. Sta. Ana, 245 SCRA 707 (1995); People vs.
Tunada,
18 SCRA 692 (1990); Melendrez vs. Decena, 176 SCRA 662 (1989).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Nakpil vs. Valdes, 286 SCRA 758, 774 (1998).
[26]
Sebastian vs. Calis, 344 SCRA 1, 8 (1999).
[27]
334 SCRA 513, 521 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Saburnido vs. Madrono, A.C. No. 4497, September 26, 2001.
[29]
Nakpil vs. Valdes, supra.
|