1.

Requiring a commentary only since the case is still premature (He hasn’t been
convicted and haven’t been asked to take action yet. His constitutional right of being
presumed innocent unless proven otherwise is also considered.)

EN BANC
August 29, 2017
A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717
ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES of ILOILO CITY,
BRANCHS, Respondent.

Section 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. - A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme
Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of
the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of
any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party
to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphases supplied)

Membership in the bar is an integral qualification for membership in the bench; his or her moral
fitness as a judge also reflects her moral fitness as a lawyer. Thus, a judge who disobeys the basic
rules of judicial conduct also violates her oath as a lawyer.
84

In view of the foregoing, the Court hereby requires Artuz to show cause why she should not likewise
be suspended, disbarred, or otherwise proceeded against, as a member of the Bar.

As regards A.C. No. 7253, the record does not show that Artuz had been given an opportunity to
defend and answer the allegations against her for Grave Misconduct and violations of the CPR and
RA 6713. The Court, therefore, finds it proper to require Artuz to file her comment before it takes
action on this disbarment case.

Accordingly, the Court hereby requires Artuz, within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from
notice, to show cause why she should not be suspended, disbarred, or otherwise proceeded against,
as a member of the Bar for her actions in A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717, and file her Comment in A.C. No.
7253.

2. Ifever he’ll be disbarred based on his admission of contracting a second marriage

to silence the whims of the in-laws

EN BANC
A.C. No. 7136 August 1, 2007
JOSELANO GUEVARRA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA, respondent.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
The immediately-quoted Rule which provides the grounds for disbarment or suspension uses the
phrase "grossly immoral conduct," not "under scandalous circumstances." Sexual intercourse
under scandalous circumstances is, following Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code reading:

ART. 334. Concubinage. - Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling,
or, shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not
his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by prision correccional
in its minimum and medium periods.

x x x x,

an element of the crime of concubinage when a married man has sexual intercourse with a woman
elsewhere.

"Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage
should be characterized as 'grossly immoral conduct' depends on the surrounding
circumstances."35 The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married
woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly. Apropos is
the following pronouncement of this Court in Vitug v. Rongcal:36

On the charge of immorality, respondent does not deny that he had an extra-marital affair
with complainant, albeit brief and discreet, and which act is not "so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree" in order
to merit disciplinary sanction. We disagree.

xxxx

While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between
two unmarriedadults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit
behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Even if not all
forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside
marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the
sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by
our laws.37 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

And so is the pronouncement in Tucay v. Atty. Tucay:38

The Court need not delve into the question of whether or not the respondent did contract a
bigamous marriage . . . It is enough that the records of this administrative case substantiate
the findings of the Investigating Commissioner, as well as the IBP Board of Governors, i.e.,
that indeed respondent has been carrying on an illicit affair with a married woman, a
grossly immoral conduct and indicative of an extremely low regard for the fundamental
ethics of his profession. This detestable behavior renders him regrettably unfit and
undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges which his license confers upon
him.39 (Underscoring supplied)

Respondent in fact also violated the lawyer's oath he took before admission to practice law which
goes:

I _________, having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the Philippines, do
solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I
 will support its Constitution andobey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;
I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give
aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself
as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as
well as to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God. (Underscoring
supplied)

In this connection, the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209), which echoes this constitutional
provision, obligates the husband and the wife "to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity, and render mutual help and support."40

Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct," and
Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any "conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law."

3. In furtherance of No. 2--- Despite the bigamy not being proven yet

SECOND DIVISION
A.M. No. 1053 August 31, 1981
SANTA PANGAN, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. DIONISIO RAMOS, respondent.
RE S O L U T I O N

DE CASTRO, J.:

It is of importance that members of the ancient and learned profession of law must conform with the
highest standards of morality. As stated in paragraph 29 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics: "The
lawyer should aid in guarding the Bar against the admission to the profession of candidates unfit or
unqualified because deficient in either moral character or education. He should strive at all times to
uphold the honor and to maintain the dignity of the profession and to improve not only the law but
also the administration of justice."
8

The acquittal of respondent Ramos upon the criminal charge is not a bar to these proceedings. The
standards of legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to escape the
penalties of the criminal law. Moreover, this Court in disbarment proceedings is acting in an entirely
different capacity from that which courts assume in trying criminal cases. 9