A.C. No.
2505 | September 1992 Uphold Dignity and Integrity of the Legal Profession
Leda vs. Tabang
I. Recit-ready Summary
Complainant Evangeline Leda assails Atty. Trebonian Tabang’s good
moral character. She filed against him Bar Matter No. 78 and the present
petition for disbarment, Administrative Case No. 2505.
Leda and Tabang contracted marriage performed under Article 76 of
the Civil Code as one of exceptional character. The parties agreed to keep
the fact of marriage a secret until after Tabang had finished his law studies
and taken the Bar. He finished his law studies in 1981 and thereafter applied
to take the Bar. In his application, he declared that he was “single." He then
passed the examinations.
First Complaint: Leda blocked him from taking his Oath by instituting
Bar Matter No. 78, claiming that Tabang had acted fraudulently in filling
out his application and, thus, was unworthy to take the lawyer's Oath for
lack of good moral character. Tabang reconciled with Leda and prayed for
the dismissal of the complaint.
Second Complaint: Leda filed a petition for the disbarrment of Tabang.
She alleges that he is not of good moral character and he only reconciled
with her in order to get the complaint dismissed. Tabang claims that he had
acted in good faith in declaring his status as "single" not only because of his
pact with Leda to keep the marriage under wraps but also because that
marriage to the Complainant was void from the beginning.
Tabang was suspended from the practice of law until further orders,
the suspension to take effect immediately. Respondent's lack of good moral
character is only too evident. Tabang through his actuations, has been
lacking in the candor required of him not only as a member of the Bar but
also as an officer of the Court.
II. Facts of the Case
Leda and Tabang contracted marriage on October 3, 1976 in Iloilo.
The marriage was performed under Article 76 of the Civil Code as one of
exceptional character. The parties agreed to keep the marriage a secret until
respondent had finished his law studies (began in 1977) and had taken the
Bar examinations (in 1981), allegedly to ensure a stable future for them.
Leda admits they had not lived together as husband and wife.
Respondent finished his law studies in 1981 and applied to take the
Bar. In his application, he declared that he was “single.”
First Complaint: Leda blocked him from taking his Oath by instituting
B.M. No. 78, claiming that Tabang fraudulently filled out his application,
Legal Profession (2019)
DIGEST AUTHOR: Nikki Paglicawan
Leda vs. Tabang
thus showing lack of good moral character. She also alleged that after
Tabang’s law studies, he became aloof and abandoned her.
The Court required Tabang to answer. He admitted that he was
“legally married” to Leda but that the marriage was not yet declared public.
He also said he and Leda had reconciled and he prayed for the complaint to
be dismissed. The Court dismissed B.M. No. 75 and allowed Tabang to take
his Oath.
Present Complaint: Leda filed a petition for the disbarment of Tabang
stating the following grounds:
(a) For having made use of his legal knowledge to contract an invalid
marriage with me, assuming that our marriage is not valid and making a
mockery of the marriage institution.
(b) For having misrepresented himself as single in his application.
(c) For being of not good moral character.
(d) For being guilty of deception for the reason that he deceived me
into signing the affidavit of desistance and the conformity to his explanation
and later on the comment to his motion to dismiss, when in truth and in fact
he is not sincere, for he only befriended me to resume our marriage and
introduced me to his family, friends and relatives as his wife, for a bad
motive that is he wanted me to withdraw my complaint against him with the
Supreme Court.
Leda presented an unsigned and undated letter, allegedly written
by Tabang, stating that he did not love her anymore and only considered her
a friend. Although the letter was unsigned, Tabang's initials appeared on the
upper left-hand corner of the airmail envelope. He asked her not to do
anything more and that there is nothing she can do to take him away from
his goal as a full-pledge professional. Tabang denies he sent this letter.
Their marriage was actually void for failure to comply with the
requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code, among them minimum
cohabitation of 5 years, that parties must be at least 21 years old when they
were only 20 years old at the time. It was respondent who told the court that
their marriage was void from the beginning, that it was the reason why they
didn’t want to tell anyone they were married in the first place.
III. Issue/s
1. W/N respondent Tabang lacks good moral character and
violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
YES. He violated Canon 7 as well.
1
PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: Evangeline Leda
RESPONDENT: Trebonian Tabang
 A.C. No. 2505 | September 1992 Uphold Dignity and Integrity of the Legal Profession
Leda vs. Tabang Leda vs. Tabang

Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

IV. Holding/s A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
1. YES, respondent’s lack of good moral character was only too DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
evident. ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Respondent's lack of good moral character is only too evident. Firstly, his Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a
declaration in his application for Admission to the 1981 Bar Examinations false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his
application for admission to the bar.
that he was "single" was a gross misrepresentation of a material fact made
in utter bad faith, and a violation of Rule 7.01, Canon 7 of the Code of
VI. Disposition
Professional Responsibility. That false statement, if it had been known, WHEREFORE, finding respondent Trebonian C. Tabang grossly unfit
would have disqualified him outright from taking the Bar Examinations as it and unworthy to continue to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities
indubitably exhibits lack of good moral character. belonging to the office of an attorney, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the
He has resorted to conflicting submissions before this Court to suit practice of law until further Orders, the suspension to take effect
himself. He has also engaged in devious tactics with Complainant in order immediately.
to serve his purpose. In so doing, he has violated Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer owes candor, VII. Separate Opinions
fairness and good faith to the court" as well as Rule 10.01 thereof which
states that "a lawyer should do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any VIII. Additional Notes
in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any
artifice." Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty VII. Random Facts
from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them (Chavez v. Viola). ● Ponente:
Tabang through his actuations, has been lacking in the candor required of
him not only as a member of the Bar but also as an officer of the Court.

V. Law or Doctrine Applied

Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to
be misled by any artifice.

Legal Profession (2019) PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: Evangeline Leda

DIGEST AUTHOR: Nikki Paglicawan RESPONDENT: Trebonian Tabang