SC disbars lawyer for sex with minor

CEBU, Philippines -  The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled to disbar a lawyer who admitted having sex with a minor claiming they had a mutual agreement.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno found the respondent liable for gross 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.

“Respondent’s gross misbehavior and unrepentant demeanor clearly shows a serious flaw in his character, his moral indifference to sexual exploitation of a minor, and his outright defiance of established norms. All these could not but put the legal profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate disciplinary action,” the decision reads.

The Freeman is withholding the names of the complainant and the respondent.

In 2004, the victim filed a complaint for disbarment or suspension before the Office of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline against the respondent.

She claimed that sometime in the years 2001 and 2002 while she was only 13, the respondent, who is a married man, sexually abused her.

The victim said sometime in 2001 while she was at the maid’s room at the respondent’s house, the latter entered the room and had sex with her.

Such incident, she said was repeated in 2002 when the respondent asked her to go with him to the farm in an old shanty. She said the respondent gave her P500 and warned her not to tell anyone. She added she resisted but failed.

In her supplemental-complaint, the victim said the respondent allowed her to sleep in their house after her mother agreed to let her stay while she studied in high school.

In his answer, the respondent denied the allegation that his act of having sex with the complainant constitutes grossly immoral conduct.

He said having sex with complainant was done with mutual agreement after he gave money to the victim.

“Respondent respectfully submits that his act of having sex with complainant once does not constitute…grossly immoral conduct. There is no human law that punishes a person who has sex with a woman with mutual agreement and complainant accepts compensation therefore. Having sex with the complainant once with just compensation does not amount to immoral conduct,” his answer reads.

The respondent said that the act of the complainant in filing such case was for “vengeance” after he terminated the services of the latter due to misunderstanding. The complainant used to be an employee in his law office.

Likewise, he said the act of the complainant in filing complaint was to extort money from him. He said at first, the complainant demanded P2 million from him for settlement but he refused. He said the complainant made true her promise but the Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the rape complaint and recommended the filing of qualified seduction before the court.

Meanwhile, he said he told complainant not to tell anyone of their acts which complainant agreed and said “Natural, buang kay motug-an.” (I’m not a fool to tell anyone.)

He added that the complainant filed an affidavit of desistance before the court and the IBP, citing that what happened to them was done with mutual agreement.

The court dismissed the criminal complaint but the IBP suspended him for one year from the practice, for immorality, with a warning that a repeat of the same offense will be dealt with severely.

Because of the ruling of the IBP, the respondent appealed it before the SC and sought for reconsideration.

However, Sereno in her 12-page decision said the act of respondent warrants sanction for engaging sex with a minor, and not just suspension but disbarment.

“Indeed, his (respondent) act of having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he (did) the act by enticing a very young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the dignity of the human person and the ethics of his profession,” the decision reads. —JPM  (FREEMAN)