Narag vs.

Narag, 291 SCRA 451

25 Jul
FACTS:
Atty. Dominador Narag was alleged to have abandoned his family for his paramour who was
once his student in tertiary level. The administrative complaint of disbarment was filed by her
wife, Mrs. Julieta Narag. Respondent filed motion to dismiss because allegedly the complainant
fabricated the story as well as the love letters while under extreme emotional confusion arising
from jealousy. The case took an unexpected turn when another complaint was filed, the wife as
again the complainant but now together with their seven children as co-signatories. After several
hearings, the facts became clear, that the respondent indeed abandoned his family as against
morals, based on testimonial evidences. In addition, the assailed relationship bore two children.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality and for having violated and the Code of
Ethics for Lawyers culpable for disbarment.
HELD:
YES. Respondent disbarred.
RATIO:
The complainant was able to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent
breached the high and exacting moral standards set for the members of the law profession.
Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing
qualification for all members of the bar.
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.
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.
Undoubtedly, the canons of law practice were violated.

EN BANC

[A.C. No. 3405. June 29, 1998]

JULIETA B. NARAG, complainant, vs. ATTY. DOMINADOR M. NARAG, respondent.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Good moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member of the bar.
Thus, when a lawyer fails to meet the exacting standard of moral integrity, the Supreme
Court may withdraw his or her privilege to practice law.
On November 13, 1989, Mrs. Julieta B. Narag filed an administrative complaint i[1] for
disbarment against her husband, Atty. Dominador M. Narag, whom she accused of
having violated Canons 1 and 6, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Ethics for Lawyers. ii[2]
The complainant narrated:
The St. Louis College of Tuguegarao engaged the services of Atty. Dominador M.
Narag in the early seventies as a full-time college instructor in the College of Arts
and Sciences and as a professor in the Graduate School. In 1984, Ms. Gina
Espita, 17 years old and a first year college student, enrolled in subjects handled
by Atty. Narag. Exerting his influence as her teacher, and as a prominent member
of the legal profession and then member of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Tuguegarao, Atty. Narag courted Ms. Espita, gradually lessening her resistance
until the student acceded to his wishes.
They then maintained an illicit relationship known in various circles in the
community, but which they managed to keep from me. It therefore came as a
terrible embar[r]assment to me, with unspeakable grief and pain when my
husband abandoned us, his family, to live with Ms. Espita, in utterly scandalous
circumstances.
It appears that Atty. Narag used his power and influence as a member of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan to cause the employment of Ms. Espita
at the Department of Trade and Industry Central Office at Makati, Metro Manila.
Out of gratitude perhaps, for this gesture, Ms. Espita agreed to live with Atty.
Narag, her sense of right[e]ousness and morals completely corrupted by a
member of the Bar.
It is now a common knowledge in the community that Atty. Dominador M. Narag
has abandoned us, his family, to live with a 22-year-old woman, who was his
former student in the tertiary level[.]iii[3]
This Court, in a Resolution dated December 18, 1989, referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. iv[4]

On June 26, 1990, the office of then Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan received from
complainant another letter seeking the dismissal of the administrative complaint. She
alleged therein that (1) she fabricated the allegations in her complaint to humiliate and
spite her husband; (2) all the love letters between the respondent and Gina Espita were
forgeries; and (3) she was suffering from emotional confusion arising from extreme
jealousy. The truth, she stated, was that her husband had remained a faithful and
responsible family man. She further asserted that he had neither entered into an
amorous relationship with one Gina Espita nor abandoned his family.v[5] Supporting her
letter were an Affidavit of Desistancevi[6] and a Motion to Dismiss,vii[7] attached as
Annexes A and B, which she filed before the IBP commission on bar discipline. viii[8] In a
Decision dated October 8, 1991, the IBP Board of Governors ix[9] dismissed the
complaint of Mrs. Narag for failure to prosecute.x[10]
The case took an unexpected turn when, on November 25, 1991, this Court xi[11]
received another letterxii[12] from the complainant, with her seven childrenxiii[13] as cosignatories, again appealing for the disbarment of her husband. She explained that she
had earlier dropped the case against him because of his continuous threats against
her.xiv[14]
In his Comment on the complainants letter of November 11, 1991, filed in compliance
with this Courts Resolution issued on July 6, 1992,xv[15] respondent prayed that the
decision of the Board of Governors be affirmed. Denying that he had threatened,
harassed or intimidated his wife, he alleged that she had voluntarily executed her
Affidavit of Desistancexvi[16] and Motion to Dismiss,xvii[17] even appearing before the
investigating officer, Commissioner Racela, to testify under oath that she prepared the
Motion to Dismiss and Affidavit of Desistance on her own free will and affirmed the
contents thereof.
In addition, he professed his love for his wife and his children and denied abandoning
his family to live with his paramour. However, he described his wife as a person
emotionally disturbed, viz.:
What is pitiable here is the fact that Complainant is an incurably jealous and
possessive woman, and every time the streak of jealousy rears its head, she
fires off letters or complaints against her husband in every conceivable forum, all
without basis, and purely on impulse, just to satisfy the consuming demands of
her loving jealousy. Then, as is her nature, a few hours afterwards, when her
jealousy cools off, she repents and feels sorry for her acts against the
Respondent. Thus, when she wrote the Letter of November 11, 1991, she was
then in the grips of one of her bouts of jealousy.xviii[18]
On August 24, 1992, this Court issued another Resolution referring the Comment of
respondent to the IBP.xix[19] In the hearing before IBP Commissioner Plaridel C. Jose,
respondent alleged the following:xx[20]

2.Your Respondent comes from very poor parents who have left him not even a
square meter of land, but gave him the best legacy in life: a purposeful and
meaningful education. Complainant comes from what she claims to be very rich
parents who value material possession more than education and the higher and
nobler aspirations in life. Complainant abhors the poor.
3. Your Respondent has a loving upbringing, nurtured in the gentle ways of love,
forgiveness, humility, and concern for the poor. Complainant was reared and
raised in an entirely different environment. Her value system is the very
opposite.
4. Your Respondent loves his family very dearly, and has done all he could in
thirty-eight (38) years of marriage to protect and preserve his family. He gave his
family sustenance, a comfortable home, love, education, companionship, and
most of all, a good and respected name. He was always gentle and
compassionate to his wife and children. Even in the most trying times, he
remained calm and never inflicted violence on them. His children are all now fullfledged professionals, mature, and gainfully employed. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
Your Respondent subscribes to the sanctity of marriage as a social institution.
On the other hand, consumed by insane and unbearable jealousy, Complainant
has been systematically and unceasingly destroying the very foundations of their
marriage and their family. Their marriage has become a torture chamber in
which Your Respondent has been incessantly BEATEN, BATTERED,
BRUTALIZED, TORTURED, ABUSED, and HUMILIATED, physically, mentally,
and emotionally, by the Complainant, in public and at home. Their marriage has
become a nightmare.
For thirty-eight years, your Respondent suffered in silence and bore the pain of
his misfortune with dignity and with almost infinite patience, if only to preserve
their family and their marriage. But this is not to be. The Complainant never
mellowed and never became gentl[e], loving, and understanding. In fact, she
became more fierce and predatory.
Hence, at this point in time, the light at the tunnel for Your Respondent does not
seem in sight. The darkness continues to shroud the marital and familial
landscape.
Your Respondent has to undergo a catharsis, a liberation from enslavement.
Paraphrasing Dorfman in Death and the Maiden, can the torturer and the
tortured co-exist and live together?
Hence, faced with an absolutely uncomprehending and uncompromising mind
whose only obsession now is to destroy, destroy, and destroy, Your Respondent,
with perpetual regret and with great sorrow, filed a Petition for Annulment of
Marriage, Spl. Proc. No. 566, RTC, Branch III, Tuguegarao, Cagayan. x x x.

5. Complainant is a violent husband-beater, vitriolic and unbending. But your

Respondent never revealed these destructive qualities to other people. He
preserved the good name and dignity of his wife. This is in compliance with the
marital vow to love, honor or obey your spouse, for better or for worse, in
sickness and in health. . . Even in this case, Your Respondent never revealed
anything derogatory to his wife. It is only now that he is constrained to reveal all
these things to defend himself.
On the other hand, for no reason at all, except a jealous rage, Complainant tells
everyone, everywhere, that her husband is worthless, good-for-nothing, evil and
immoral. She goes to colleges and universities, professional organizations,
religious societies, and all other sectors of the community to tell them how evil,
bad and immoral her husband is. She tells them not to hire him as professor, as
Counsel, or any other capacity because her husband is evil, bad, and immoral.
Is this love? Since when did love become an instrument to destroy a mans
dearest possession in life - his good name, reputation and dignity?
Because of Complainants virulent disinformation campaign against her husband,
employing every unethical and immoral means to attain his ends, Your
Respondent has been irreparably and irreversibly disgraced, shamed, and
humiliated. Your Respondent is not a scandalous man. It is he who has been
mercilessly scandalized and crucified by the Complainant. xxi[21]
To prove the alleged propensity of his wife to file false charges, respondent presented
as evidence the following list of the complaints she had filed against him and Gina
Espita:
3.1Complaint for Immorality/Neglect of Duty x x x
3.2 Complaint for Immorality/Neglect of Duty, DILG, Adm. Case No. P-590. x x x
3.3 Complaint for Concubinage. Provincial Prosecutors Office of Cagayan.
I.S No. 89-114. x x x
3.4 Complaint for Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices and concubinage.
OMBUDSMAN Case No. 1-92-0083. x x x
3.5 Complaint for Civil Support. RTC, Tuguegarao, Civil Case No. 4061.
DISMISSED.
3.6 Complaint for Concubinage. Provincial Prosecutors Office of Cagayan.
I.S. No. 92-109. DISMISSED. (x x x). Complainant filed Motion for
Reconsideration. DENIED. (x x x).
3.7 Complaint for Disbarment (x x x) with S[upreme] C[ourt]. Withdrawn (x
x x). DISMISSED by IBP Board of Governors (x x x). Re-instituted (x x
x).
3.8 Complaint for Disbarment, again (x x x). Adm. Case No. 3405.
Pending.
3.9 Complaint for Concubinage, again (x x x). Third MCTC, Tumauini,
Isabela. Pending. x x xxxii[22]

In his desperate effort to exculpate himself, he averred:

I.That all the alleged love letters and envelopes (x x x), picture (x x x) are
inadmissible in evidence as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Cecilia
Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996. (x
x x).
xxx xxx xxx
II. That respondent is totally innocent of the charges: He never courted
Gina Espita in the Saint Louis College of Tuguegarao. He never caused the
employment of said woman in the DTI. He never had or is having any illicit
relationship with her anywhere, at any time. He never lived with her as
husband and wife anywhere at any time, be it in Centro Tumauini or any of
its barangays, or in any other place. He never begot a child or children with
her. Finally, respondent submits that all the other allegations of Mrs. Narag
are false and fabricated, x x x
xxx xxx xxx
III. Respondent never abandoned his family[.] Mrs. Narag and her two
sons forcibly drove respondent Narag out of the conjugal home. After that,
Atty. Narag tried to return to the conjugal home many times with the help of
mutual friends to save the marriage and the family from collapse. He tried
several times to reconcile with Mrs. Narag. In fact, in one of the hearings of
the disbarment case, he offered to return home and to reconcile with Mrs.
Narag. But Mrs. Narag refused all these efforts of respondent Narag. x x x
IV. Complainant Julieta B. Narag is an unbearably jealous, violent,
vindictive, scandalous, virulent and merciless wife since the beginning of the
marriage, who incessantly beat, battered, brutalized, tortured, abuse[d],
scandalized, and humiliated respondent Atty. Narag, physically, mentally,
emotionally, and psychologically, x x x.
V. Complainant Julieta Narags claim in her counter-manifestation dated
March 28, 1996, to the effect that the affidavit of Dominador B. Narag, Jr.,
dated February 27, 1996 was obtained through force and intimidation, is not
true. Dominador, Jr., executed his affidavit freely, voluntarily, and absolutely
without force or intimidation, as shown by the transcript of stenographic
notes of the testimonies of Respondent Atty. Narag and Tuguegarao MTC
Judge Dominador Garcia during the trial of Criminal Case No. 12439,
People vs. Dominador M. Narag, et. al., before the Tuguegarao MTC on
May 3, 1996. x x x.
xxx xxx xxx

VI. Respondent Atty. Narag is now an old man - a senior citizen of 63

years - sickly, abandoned, disgraced, weakened and debilitated by
progressively degenerative gout and arthritis, and hardly able to earn his
own keep. His very physical, medical, psychological, and economic
conditions render him unfit and unable to do the things attributed to him by
the complainant. Please see the attached medical certificates, x x x, among
many other similar certificates touching on the same ailments. Respondent
is also suffering from hypertension.xxiii[23]
On July 18, 1997, the investigating officer submitted his report, xxiv[24] recommending the
indefinite suspension of Atty. Narag from the practice of law. The material portions of
said report read as follows:
Culled from the voluminous documentary and testimonial evidence submitted by
the contending parties, two (2) issues are relevant for the disposition of the
case, namely:
a)Whether there was indeed a commission of alleged abandonment
of respondents own family and [whether he was] living with his
paramour, Gina Espita;
b)
Whether the denial under oath that his illegitimate children
with Gina Espita (Aurelle Dominic and Kyle Dominador) as
appearing on paragraph 1(g) of respondents Comment vis-a-vis his
handwritten love letters, the due execution and contents of which,
although he objected to their admissibility for being allegedly
forgeries, were never denied by him on the witness stand much
less presented and offered proof to support otherwise.
Except for the testimonies of respondents witnesses whose testimonies tend to
depict the complaining wife, Mrs. Narag, as an incurably jealous wife and
possessive woman suffering everytime with streaks of jealousy, respondent did
not present himself on the witness stand to testify and be cross-examined on his
sworn comment; much less did he present his alleged paramour, Gina Espita, to
disprove the adulterous relationship between him and their having begotten their
illegitimate children, namely: Aurelle Dominic N. Espita and Kyle Dominador N.
Espita. Worse, respondents denial that he is the father of the two is a ground for
disciplinary sanction (Morcayda v. Naz, 125 SCRA 467).
Viewed from all the evidence presented, we find the respondent subject to
disciplinary action as a member of the legal profession. xxv[25]
In its Resolutionxxvi[26] issued on August 23, 1997, the IBP adopted and approved the
investigating commissioners recommendation for the indefinite suspension of the
respondent.xxvii[27] Subsequently, the complainant sought the disbarment of her
husband in a Manifestation/Comment she filed on October 20, 1997. The IBP granted
this stiffer penalty and, in its Resolution dated November 30, 1997, denied respondents
Motion for Reconsideration.

After a careful scrutiny of the records of the proceedings and the evidence presented by
the parties, we find that the conduct of respondent warrants the imposition of the
penalty of disbarment.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 1.01--A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
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.
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.
Thus, good moral character is not only a condition precedent xxviii[28] to the practice of
law, but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar. Hence, when a lawyer is
found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred. xxix[29]
Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or
shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of
the community.xxx[30] 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 xxxi[31] or committed under such scandalous or
revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.xxxii[32]
We explained in Barrientos vs. Daarolxxxiii[33] that, 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.
Respondent Narag is accused of gross immorality for abandoning his family in order to
live with Gina Espita. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the Court will
exercise its disciplinary power only if she establishes her case by clear, convincing and
satisfactory evidence.xxxiv[34]
Presented by complainant as witnesses, aside from herself, xxxv[35] were: Charlie
Espita,xxxvi[36] Magdalena Bautista,xxxvii[37] Bienvenido Eugenio,xxxviii[38] Alice Carag,xxxix
[39] Dr. Jervis B. Narag,xl[40] Dominador Narag, Jr.,xli[41] and Nieves F. Reyes.xlii[42]

Charlie Espita, brother of the alleged paramour Gina Espita, corroborated complainants
charge against respondent in these categorical statements he gave to the investigating
officer:
QMr. Witness, do you know Atty. Narag?
A

Yes, Your Honor, he is the live-in partner of my sister, Gina Espita.

If Atty. Narag is here, can you point [to] him?

Yes, sir.

(Witness pointed to the respondent, Atty. Dominador Narag)

Q

Why do you know Atty. Narag?

ATTY. NARAG:
Already answered. He said I am the live-in partner.
CONTINUATION OF THE DIRECT
A
Because he is the live-in partner of my sister and that they are now living
together as husband and wife and that they already have two children, Aurelle Dominic
and Kyle Dominador.
x x x x x x x x x [43]
xliii

During cross-examination conducted by the respondent himself, Charlie Espita repeated

his account that his sister Gina was living with the respondent, with whom she had two
children:
QMr. Espita, you claim that Atty. Narag is now living with your sister as husband and
wife. You claim that?
A

Yes, sir.

Why do you say that?

A
Because at present you are living together as husband and wife and you have
already two children and I know that that is really an immoral act which you cannot just
allow me to follow since my moral values dont allow me that my sister is living with a
married man like you.
Q
How do you know that Atty. Narag is living with your sister? Did you see them in
the house?

Yes, si[r].
xxx xxx xxx

Q
You said also that Atty. Narag and your sister have two children, Aurelle Dominic
and Kyle Dominador, is it not?
A

Yes, sir.

How do you know that they are the children of Atty. Narag?

Because you are staying together in that house and you have left your family.xliv

[44]

In addition, Charlie Espita admitted (1) that it was he who handed to Mrs. Narag the
love letters respondent had sent to his sister, and (2) that Atty. Narag tried to dissuade
him from appearing at the disbarment proceedings. xlv[45]
Witness Bienvenido Eugenio strengthened the testimony of Charlie Espita in this wise:
QMr. Witness, do you know the respondent in this case?
A

I know him very well, sir.

Could you please tell us why do you know him?

A
Because he was always going to the house of my son-in-law by the name of
Charlie Espita.
xxx xxx xxx
Q

Mr. Eugenio, do you know the residence of Atty. Dominador M. Narag?

At that time, he [was] residing in the house of Reynaldo Angubong, sir.

And this is located where?

Centro Tamauini, Isabela, sir.

Q
And you specifically, categorically state under oath that this is the residence of
Atty. Narag?
A

Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx

Q
And under oath this is where Atty. Narag and Gina Espita are allegedly living as
husband and wife, is it not?
A

Yes, sir.xlvi[46]

Witness Nieves Reyes, a neighbor and friend of the estranged couple, testified that she
learned from the Narag children -- Randy, Bong and Rowena -- that their father left his
family, that she and her husband prodded the complainant to accept the respondent
back, that the Narag couple again separated when the respondent went back to his
woman, and that Atty. Narag had maltreated his wife. xlvii[47]
On the strength of the testimony of her witnesses, the complainant was able to establish
that respondent abandoned his family and lived with another woman. Absent any
evidence showing that these witnesses had an ill motive to testify falsely against the
respondent, their testimonies are deemed worthy of belief.
Further, the complainant presented as evidence the love letters that respondent had
sent to Gina. In these letters, respondent clearly manifested his love for Gina and her
two children, whom he acknowledged as his own. In addition, complainant also
submitted as evidence the cards that she herself had received from him. Guided by the
rule that handwriting may be proved through a comparison of one set of writings with
those admitted or treated by the respondent as genuine, we affirm that the two sets of
evidence were written by one and the same person.xlviii[48] Besides, respondent did not
present any evidence to prove that the love letters were not really written by him; he
merely denied that he wrote them.
While the burden of proof is upon the complainant, respondent has the duty not only to
himself but also to the court to show that he is morally fit to remain a member of the bar.
Mere denial does not suffice. Thus, when his moral character is assailed, such that his
right to continue practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, he must meet the
charges squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the investigating body and
this Court, that he is morally fit to have his name in the Roll of Attorneys. xlix[49] This he
failed to do.
Respondent adamantly denies abandoning his family to live with Gina Espita. At the
same time, he depicts his wife as a violent husband-beater, vitriolic and unbending, and
as an insanely and pathologically jealous woman, whose only obsession was to destroy,
destroy and destroy him as shown by her filing of a series of allegedly unfounded
charges against him (and Gina Espita). To prove his allegation, he presented ninetyeight (98) pieces of documentary evidencel[50] and ten (10) witnesses.li[51]
We note, however, that the testimonies of the witnesses of respondent did not establish
the fact that he maintained that moral integrity required by the profession that would
render him fit to continue practicing law. Neither did their testimonies destroy the fact, as
proven by the complainant, that he had abandoned his family and lived with Gina
Espita, with whom he had two children. Some of them testified on matters which they

had no actual knowledge of, but merely relied on information from either respondent
himself or other people, while others were presented to impeach the good character of
his wife.
Respondent may have provided well for his family -- they enjoyed a comfortable life and
his children finished their education. He may have also established himself as a
successful lawyer and a seasoned politician. But these accomplishments are not
sufficient to show his moral fitness to continue being a member of the noble profession
of law.
We remind respondent that parents have not only rights but also duties e.g., to support,
educate and instruct their children according to right precepts and good example; and to
give them love, companionship and understanding, as well as moral and spiritual
guidance.lii[52] As a husband, he is also obliged to live with his wife; to observe mutual
love, respect and fidelity; and to render help and support. liii[53]
Respondent himself admitted that his work required him to be often away from home.
But the evidence shows that he was away not only because of his work; instead, he
abandoned his family to live with his paramour, who bore him two children. It would
appear, then, that he was hardly in a position to be a good husband or a good father.
His children, who grew up mostly under the care of their mother, must have scarcely felt
the warmth of their fathers love.
Respondents son, Jervis B. Narag, showed his resentment towards his fathers moral
frailties in his testimony:
QMy question is this, is there any sin so grievous that it cannot be forgiven, is there a
fault that is so serious that it is incapable of forgiveness?
A
That depends upon the sin or fault, sir, but if the sin or fault is with the emotional
part of myself, I suppose I cannot forgive a person although I am a God-fearing person,
but I h[av]e to give the person a lesson in order for him or her to at least realize his
mistakes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
COMR. JOSE:
I think it sounds like this. Assuming for the sake of argument that your father is the
worst, hardened criminal on earth, would you send him to jail and have him disbarred?
That is the question.
CONTINUATION.

A
With the reputation that he had removed from us, I suppose he has to be given a
lesson. At this point in time, I might just forgive him if he will have to experience all the
pains that we have also suffered for quite sometime.
Q
Dr. Narag, your father gave you life, his blood runs in your veins, his flesh is your
flesh, his bones are your bones and you now disown him because he is the worst man
on earth, is that what you are saying.
A

Sort of, sir.

Q
You are now telling that as far [as] you are concerned because your father has
sinned, you have no more father, am I correct?
A
Long before, sir, I did not feel much from my father even when I was still a kid
because my father is not always staying with us at home. So, how can you say that?
Yes, he gave me life, why not? But for sure, sir, you did not give me love. liv[54]
Another son, Dominador Narag, Jr., narrated before the investigating officer the trauma
he went through:
QIn connection with that affidavit, Mr. Witness, which contains the fact that your father is
maintaining a paramour, could you please tell this Honorable Commission the effect on
you?
A
This has a very strong effect on me and this includes my brothers and sisters,
especially my married life, sir. And it also affected my children so much, that I and my
wife ha[ve] parted ways. It hurts to say that I and my wife parted ways. This is one
reason that affected us.
Q

Will you please tell us specifically why you and your wife parted ways?

A
Because my wife wa[s] ashamed of what happened to my family and that she
could not face the people, our community, especially because my wife belongs to a wellknown family in our community.
Q

How about the effect on your brothers and sisters? Please tell us what are those.

A
Well, sir, this has also affected the health of my elder sister because she knows
so well that my mother suffered so much and she kept on thinking about my mother.
xxx xxx

xxx

Why did your wife leave you?

The truth is because of the things that had happened in our family, Your Honor.

In your wifes family?

In our family, sir.

And what do you mean by that?

A
What I meant by that is my father had an illicit relationship and that my father
went to the extent of scolding my wife and calling my wife a puta in provincial
government, which my mother-in-law hated him so much for this, which really affected
us. And then my wife knew for a fact that my father has an illicit relationship with Gina
Espita, whom he bore two children by the name of Aurelle Dominic and Kyle Dominador,
which I could prove and I stand firm to this, Your Honor.lv[55]
Although respondent piously claims adherence to the sanctity of marriage, his acts
prove otherwise. A husband is not merely a man who has contracted marriage. Rather,
he is a partner who has solemnly sworn to love and respect his wife and remain faithful
to her until death.
We reiterate our ruling in Cordova vs. Cordovalvi[56] The moral delinquency that affects
the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages
the generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct for instance, which
makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage.
In Toledo vs. Toledo,lvii[57] the respondent was disbarred from the practice of law, when
he abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with another woman who had borne him a
child.
Likewise, in Obusan vs. Obusan,lviii[58] the respondent was disbarred after the
complainant proved that he had abandoned her and maintained an adulterous
relationship with a married woman. This Court declared that respondent failed to
maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a member of the bar.
In the present case, the complainant was able to establish, by clear and convincing
evidence, that respondent had breached the high and exacting moral standards set for
members of the law profession. As held in Maligsa vs. Cabanting,lix[59] a lawyer may be
disbarred for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which
shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
WHEREFORE, Dominador M. Narag is hereby DISBARRED and his name is
ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Let copies of this Decision be in the
personal record of Respondent Narag; and furnished to all courts of the land, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Bar Confidant.
SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
Mendoza, Panganiban, Martinez, Quisumbing, and Purisima, JJ., concur.

i[1] See records, Vol. I, pp. 1-2. Attached therein are photocopies of the marriage contract of the couple and of
two love letters written by the respondent to his paramour.

ii[2] Code of Professional Responsibility.

iii[3] Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-2.
iv[4] Records, Vol. I, p. 11.
v[5] Records, Vol. II, pp. 13-14.
vi[6] Records, Vol. II, pp. 15-16.
vii[7] Records, Vol. II, pp. 17-18.
viii[8] The Court noted the letter in its Resolution, dated July 30, 1990, and referred the same to the IBP. See
records, Vol. II, p. 19.

ix[9] Signatories therein are Numeriano G. Tanopo, Jr., president; Ernesto S. Salunat, Jose Aguila Grapilon,
Beda G. Fajardo, Baldomero C. Estenzo, Rene C. Villa and Teodoro D. Nano, Jr., governors of Northern Luzon
Region, Southern Luzon Region, Bicolandia Region, Eastern Visayas Region, Western Visayas Region and
Eastern Mindanao Region, respectively; Mervyn G. Encanto, executive vice president; and Romeo T. Capulong
and Didagen P. Dilangalen, governors of Central Luzon Region and Western Mindanao Region, respectively.

x[10] Records, Vol. III, pp. 34-37.

xi[11] Through the office of then Chief Justice Fernan.
xii[12] Dated November 11, 1991.
xiii[13] The children are Genevieve Narag Bautista, Dominador B. Narag Jr., Randolph B. Narag, Jervis B.
Narag, Rowena Narag Addun, Cheryl Rita B. Narag and Christiana B. Narag.

xiv[14] Records, Vol. III, p. 23. The letter was forwarded to the Office of the Bar Confidant on December 2,
1991.

xv[15] Records, Vol. III, pp. 40-42.

xvi[16] Records, Vol. II, pp. 15-16.
xvii[17] Ibid., pp. 17-18.
xviii[18] Ibid., pp. 40-41.
xix[19] Records, Vol. III, p. 44.

xx[20] Compiled Answer/Comment and Counter-Affidavits, records, Vol. II, pp. 1-11.
xxi[21] Ibid., pp. 1-3.
xxii[22] Ibid., pp. 8-9.
xxiii[23] Memorandum for the Respondent, pp. 1-6; records, Vol. IV, pp. 299-304.
xxiv[24] Records, Vol. I, pp. 17-59.
xxv[25] Report by Comm. Plaridel C. Jose, pp. 42-43; records, Vol I, pp. 58-59.
xxvi[26] Ibid., pp. 15-16.
xxvii[27] Notice of Resolution from the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, Board of Governors, Pasig City,
signed by National Secretary Roland B. Inting. A copy of said notice was received by the Office of the Bar
Confidant on September 16, 1997. Records, Vol. I, pp. 15-16.

xxviii[28] 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides: Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar
must be x x x of good moral character; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of
good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending
in any court in the Philippines. (Underscoring supplied)

xxix[29] 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

xxx[30] 7 C.J.S., 14, p. 826; Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed., p. 751 citing In re Monaghan, 126 VT, 53m 222
A.2d 665, 674; and Philippine Law Dictionary, 3rd ed., p. 447, citing Arciga vs. Maniwang, 106 SCRA 594, 594,
August 14, 1981.

xxxi[31] Reyes vs. Wong, 63 SCRA 667, 673, January 29, 1975.
xxxii[32] Royong vs. Oblena, 7 SCRA 859, 869-870, April 30, 1963.
xxxiii[33] 218 SCRA 30, 40, January 29, 1993, per curiam, citing Tolosa vs. Cargo, 171 SCRA 21, 26, March 8,
1989, per Feliciano, J.

xxxiv[34] Noriega vs. Sison, 125 SCRA 293, 297-298, October 27, 1983; Santos vs. Dichoso, 84 SCRA 622,
627, August 22, 1989; Adarne vs. Aldaba, 83 SCRA 734, 739, June 27, 1978; Arboleda vs. Gatchalian, 58 SCRA
64, 67, July 23, 1974; and Go vs. Candoy, 21 SCRA 439, 442, October 23, 1967.

xxxv[35] TSN, September 22, 1993, pp. 15-46.

xxxvi[36] Ibid., pp. 28-134.
xxxvii[37] TSN, November 3, 1993, pp. 16-41.
xxxviii[38] Ibid., pp. 42-55.

xxxix[39] Ibid., pp. 58-71.

xl[40] TSN, November 4, 1993, pp. 5-34.
xli[41] Ibid., pp. 35-64.
xlii[42] TSN, January 17, 1994, pp. 3-14.
xliii[43] TSN, September 22, 1993, pp. 31-32.
xliv[44] Ibid., pp. 85-89.
xlv[45] Ibid., pp. 39 and 75.
xlvi[46] TSN, November 3, 1993, pp. 43-44, 47-48 and 51
xlvii[47] TSN, January 17, 1994, pp. 6-8 and 11.
xlviii[48] Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
xlix[49] Delos Reyes vs. Aznar, 179 SCRA 653, 658, November 28, 1989.
l[50] See Records, Vol. III, pp. 1-234.
li[51] Jude Sales (TSN, April 19, 1994, pp. 3-6); Atty. Virgilio A. Sevandal (TSN, April 19, 1994, pp. 6-16);
Juanito H. Comia (TSN, April 19, 1994, pp. 17-24); Alfonso Tumamao (TSN, April 19, 1994, pp. 25-51); Ofelio
Pablo (TSN, April 20, 1994, pp. 2-36); Judge Rolando L. Salacup (TSN, May 16, 1994, pp. 2-37); Romeo
Calabaquib (TSN, May 17, 1994, pp. 2-21); Remigio Magundayao (TSN, June 7, 1994, pp. 2-6); Fr. Benjamin T.
Lasan (TSN, June 7, 1994, pp. 7-19); and Alfonso C. Gorospe (TSN, June 7, 1994, pp. 19-27).

lii[52] Art. 220, Family Code. See also Art. 356 of the Civil Code and Art. 3 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code
(or PD 603).

liii[53] Art. 68, Family Code.

liv[54] TSN, November 4, 1993, pp. 28-30.
lv[55] TSN, November 4, 1993, pp. 38-39 and 45-46.
lvi[56] 179 SCRA 680, 683, November 29, 1989,
lvii[57] 7 SCRA 757, April 27, 1963.
lviii[58] 128 SCRA 485, April 2, 1984.
lix[59] AC No. 4539, May 14, 1997, pp. 5-6, per curiam.