MA. CECILIA CLARISSA C. ADVINCULA, complainant, vs. ATTY.

LEONARDO C. ADVINCULA, respondent. A.C. No. 9226. June 14, 2016.

Case # 31
(This an administrative case which rooted from a complaint for disbarment of Atty. Leonardo C. Advincula)
Facts:
(Complainant’s Argument)

• The complainant which is also the respondent’s wife accused Atty. Advincula for unlawful and
immoral acts
• While Atty. Leonardo Adincula was still married with his wife, he also had extra-marital relations
with Ma. Judith Gonzaga which also bore a child, Ma. Alexandria Gonzaga.
• Despite having sufficient financial resources., the respondent failed to provide financial support for
their children, Ma. Samantha Paulina, Ma. Andrea Lana, and Jose Leandro.
• The respondent admitted in Ma. Alexandria Gonzaga’s affidavit of late registration of birth that he
contracted another marriage with Ma. Judith Gonzaga
• The respondent’s declaration for what ever reason it may be, was unlawful in itself.
• Having a second marriage without legally dissolving the past marriage is unlawful
• Having a child with another woman whom isn’t his wife is unlawful and is against the CPR (Rule
1.01)
• Making a false declaration before a notary republic was an unlawful conduct under the RPC.
• The failure of the respondent to provide proper support for his family showed that his moral
character is below the standards set by law for every lawyer.
(Respondent’s Arguments)

• Their marital relationship was declining even before their eldest child was born.
• They could not agree on various matters concerning their family. (religion, friends and respective
careers)
• The complainant abandoned their home and left to live with her parents, leaving behind their 2
children.
• Even after they parted ways, the respondent continued to provide for his family.
• He admitted on being in a relationship with Ma. Judith Mendoza but they did not get married
• He admitted on having a daughter with Ms. Mendoza
• In consideration with his moral obligation, he also gave support to Ma. Alexandria Gonzaga, her
daughter with Ms. Mendoza.
• He only found out the registration of birth of Alexandra after she was enrolled in school.
• Ms. Mendoza informed him that the birth certificate of Alexandra was altered by a fixer in order to
enroll.
• He strived to reunite his legitimate family (With Dr. Ma. Cecila Advincula)
• His wife (the complainant) once again decided to live with her parents bringing their children with
her.
• He continued to provide financial support to his family and visited them frequently
• The complainant intimated him about her plans on taking up nursing abroad in order to work
abroad, since her medical practice here does not produce good income.
• He supported her wife’s school expenses.
 • The complainant left for USA to work as nurse.
• He was not given custody of their children to avoid further division of the family.
• While he was busy with his studies in law, Dr. Advincula proposed that he and their children
migrate to the USA but he opposed to this since he would not be able to practice his profession
abroad.
• The complainant stated that if he did not join her, she would just bring their children with her.
• When Dr. Advincula came home for a vacation, he was not able to accompany her due to his busy
schedule as Chief Legal Staff of the General Prosecution Division of the National Bureau of
Investigation.
• When they finally met, arguments flared out and the complainant threatened him on filing a suit
for disbarment against him.
• Atty. Advincula prayed that that the disbarment case be dismissed for utter lack of merit.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent committed immoral conduct which is also a ground for disbarment.
Yes, the respondent is guilty on committing immoral conduct however it is not enough ground for
disbarment.
Findings and Recommendations of the IBP-CBD
Based on Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility for
Lawyers comes this provision: "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
Thus, members of the bar should uphold good moral character. If a lawyer fails to uphold his/her duties as
a lawyer, he/she could face penalties or disbarment. He may have had a child from an affair however he
supported her as his moral obligation.
The IBP recommends that Atty. Leonardo C. Advincula is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for two (2) months.

(only suspension since what he committed was not grossly immoral.)

Atty. Advincula immediately complied with this.

Ruling:
In this regard, the Code of Professional Responsibility states: 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.
Atty. Advincula’s immediate compliance with IBP is unacceptable in such way that the IBP does not hold
power to discipline lawyers, it is only the court. Moreover, the IBP’s recommendation was not enough as
it should be that his two-month suspension from the bar includes his being a government employee.
The good moral conduct or character must be possessed by lawyers at the time of their application for
admission to the Bar, and must be maintained until retirement from the practice of law.

The Court FINDS AND DECLARES ATTY. LEONARDO C. ADVINCULA GUILTY of

immorality; and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of THREE MONTHS
EFFECTIVE UPON NOTICE HEREOF, with a STERN WARNING that a more severe penalty shall be
imposed should he commit the same offense or a similar offense; DIRECTS ATTY. ADVINCULA to
report the date of his receipt of the Decision to this Court; and ORDERS the Chief of the Personnel Division
of the National Bureau of Investigation to implement the suspension from office of ATTY. ADVINCULA
and to report on his compliance in order to determine the date of commencement of his suspension from
the practice of law.