Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

Barrientos v.

Daarol
Facts:
Complainant Victoria Barrientos was single and a resident of Bonifacio St., Dipolog City. When
she was still a teenager and first year in college she came to know the respondent,
Transfiguracion Daarol, as he used to go to their house being a friend of her sister, Norma. As a
result, they also became friends. One day, the respondent came to their house and asked her to be
one of the usherettes in the Mason's Convention to which the petitioners father consented to.
Thus, for three whole days she served as usherette in the convention and respondent picked her
up from her residence every morning and took her home from the convention site at the end of
each day.
In the afternoon of July 1, 1973, respondent came to complainant's house and invited her for a
joy ride with the permission of her mother and in the course of which the respondent proposed
his love to her. Taken aback, the respondent told her that if she would accept him, he would
marry her within six (6) months from her acceptance. Pursuant thereto, the respondent used to
visit her in their house almost every night, and he kept on courting her and pressed her to make
her decision until she finally acceded thereto. Eventually, by reason of such attestations and
assurances, both the petitioner and the respondent engaged in coitus on several occasions.
As a natural result of their regular intimate meetings, the petitioner became pregnant. At that
point, the respondent reasoned out that he cannot marry the petitioner because he was already
married. However, he assured that his previous wife and him were no longer living together and
that their marriage was currently in process of being annulled. In the meantime, their baby was
delivered and registered in the name of Duerza Barrientos. When she tried to contact respondent
by phone, she failed. As she was ashamed she just stayed in their house until such a time as she
got sick and her father sent her to Zamboanga City for medical treatment. Even then the
respondent did not come and see her.
Due to the respondents actions, the petitioner consulted a lawyer and filed an administrative
case against respondent with the National Electrification Administration; the case was referred to
the Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative (ZANECO) and it was dismissed and thus she
filed the present administrative case for disbarment by reason of immoral conduct.
Issue:
Should Daarol be disbarred?
Held:
Yes, he should. From the records, it appears indubitable that complainant was never informed by
respondent attorney of his real status as a married individual. The fact of his previous marriage
was disclosed by respondent only after the complainant became pregnant. Even then, respondent
misrepresented himself as being eligible to re-marry for having been estranged from his wife for
16 years and dangled a marriage proposal on the assurance that he would work for the annulment
of his first marriage. It was a deception after all as it turned out that respondent never bothered to
annul said marriage. More importantly, respondent knew all along that the mere fact of
separation alone is not a ground for annulment of marriage and does not vest him legal capacity
to contract another marriage.

Interestingly enough, the respondent lived alone in Dipolog City though his son, who was also
studying in Dipolog City, lived separately from him. He never introduced his son and went
around with friends as though he was never married much less had a child in the same locality.
This circumstance alone belies respondent's claim that complainant and her family were aware of
his previous marriage at the very start of his courtship. The Court is therefore inclined to believe
that respondent resorted to deceit in the satisfaction of his sexual desires at the expense of the
gullible complainant. It is not in accordance with the nature of the educated, cultured and
respectable, which complainant's family is, her father being the Assistant Principal of the local
public high school, to allow a daughter to have an affair with a married man.
Finally, respondent even had the temerity to allege that he is a Moslem convert and as such,
could enter into multiple marriages and has inquired into the possibility of marrying complainant
(Rollo, p. 15). As records indicate, however, his claim of having embraced the Islam religion is
not supported by any evidence save that of his self-serving testimony.
By his acts of deceit and immoral tendencies to appease his sexual desires, respondent Daarol
has amply demonstrated his moral delinquency. Hence, his removal for conduct unbecoming a
member of the Bar on the grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct (Sec. 27, Rule 138,
Rules of Court) is in order.
Good moral character is a condition which precedes admission to the Bar (Sec. 2, Rule 138,
Rules of Court) and is not dispensed with upon admission thereto. It is a continuing qualification
which all lawyers must possess (People v. Tuanda, 181 SCRA 682 [1990]; Delos Reyes v. Aznar,
179 SCRA 653 [1989]), otherwise, a lawyer may either be suspended or disbarred. The practice
of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure up to the exacting standards of mental
and moral fitness. Respondent having exhibited debased morality, the Court is constrained to
impose upon him the most severe disciplinary action disbarment.

Potrebbero piacerti anche