Grossly immoral

In the legal profession, there is no distinction on whether the transgression is committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his private life because not only his professional life but also his private life reflects unfavorably upon the good name and prestige of the profession and the courts. This is the lesson learned by Peter (not his true name), one of the lawyers working in a big law firm and a married man with three children.

During the ’70s, Peter met Andy who was one of the big, valued clients of the law firm when the firm designated him to handle Andy’s cases. Due to his growing business concerns, Andy decided to hire Peter as his personal counsel.

From then on, Peter’s relationship with Andy’s family became intimate. He traveled and dined with them abroad and frequented their house. He even tutored Andy’s 22-year-old daughter, Mila, then a student at an exclusive girl’s school undergoing psychological treatment for emotional immaturity. During the tutoring sessions, Andy became fond of Mila and secretly courted her despite the disparity in their age, education, experience and maturity. He even pursued her in her travels abroad on the false pretense that he was travelling on official business.

Then on June 22, 1982, without the knowledge of Andy’s family, Peter married Mila in Hong Kong (HK), after obtaining a plane ticket from Andy’s office to and from Australia with stopover in HK. He was able to break down Mila’s resistance by telling her that there was no legal impediment to their marriage and by misrepresenting himself as “bachelor” before the HK authorities to facilitate the marriage. It was only the next day that he informed Andy and assured him that “everything is legal.” Andy was shocked knowing full well that Peter was a married man with three children. He sent his two sons to HK to convince Mila to go back home and discuss the matter with the family. Mila was persuaded.

Then on November 8, 1982, after unraveling what happened and learning for the first time of Peter’s secret courtship of Mila, Andy filed the complaint for the disbarment of Peter’s on the grounds of “deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, violation of his oath and grossly immoral conduct.”

Peter, on the other hand, contended that the complaint fails to allege acts constituting deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct or violation of the lawyer’s oath. He claimed that he had served Andy to the best of his ability. In fact, the complaint did not allege that he acted “with wanton recklessness, lack of skill or ignorance of the law” in serving Andy’s interest. Anent the charge of grossly immoral conduct, Peter stressed that he married Andy’s daughter with “utmost sincerity and good faith” and that “it is contrary to the natural course of things for an immoral man to marry the woman he sincerely loves.” Should Peter be disbarred?

Yes. Professional competence alone does not make a lawyer a worthy member of the Bar. Good moral character is always an indispensable requirement. Undoubtedly, Peter’s acts constitute grossly immoral conduct or 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.” First, he abandoned his lawful wife and three children. Second, he lured an innocent young woman into marrying him. And third, he misrepresented himself as a “bachelor” so he could contract marriage in a foreign land. His conduct is grossly immoral and is a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. He exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. In particular, he made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality.

Peter’s reasoning that he cannot be charged with immorality because he really loved Mila as he in fact married her, shows a distorted mind and a brazen regard on the sanctity of marriage. In such relationship, the man and the woman are obliged to live together, observe mutual respect and fidelity. How could he perform these obligations to Mila when he is already married to his first wife? If he really loved her, then the noblest thing he could have done was to walk away.

So for gross immorality and violation of lawyer’s oath, Peter should be disbarred and his name is stricken off from the roll of attorneys (Cojuangco Jr. vs. Palma, A.M. 2474, September 15, 2004, 438 SCRA 306).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]