Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

Cordova vs.

Cordova November 29, 1989 Facts: Respondent Cordova was married to complainant, and out of this marriage, had two children. Respondent was the Branch Clerk of Court in Quirino Province, however, in 1985, he left his job and his family in Quirino Province and went to Bislig, Surigao del sur with one Fely Holgado, who herself was also married and had children but left her family to live with respondent. Respondent and Holgado lived together as husband and wife with the latter using the respondents surname as respondent introduced her to the public as his wife. Respondent gave funds to Holgado to establish a sari-sari store yet he failed to support his own legitimate family. The complainant later on learned of the infidelity of the respondent, however both of them reconciled as the latter promised that he would separate from Holgado and would give support to his family. Respondent brought his legitimate family to Bislig. However, he would frequently come home late at night drunk from beer houses or cabarets, and continued to neglect his family. Complainant later found out, upon a return trip from Manila, in 1987, that respondent was no longer living at their conjugal home, and was in fact living with another mistress named Luisita Magallanes, and has taken their youngest daughter with them who they hid from complainant. This prompted complainant to go to court to take back her daughter by habeas corpus. The trial court gave her the custody of the children. In 1988, complainant charged her husband with immorality and acts unbecoming a member of the Bar. However, in a telegraphic message dated April 6, 1989, the Commission on Bar Discipline was informed the complainant and respondent has reconciled. Issue: Whether or not reconciliation excuses the misconduct of respondent. Decision: Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for his misconduct despite the fact that he and complainant has already reconciled since it was held that the most recent reconciliation between complainant and respondent, assuming the same to be real, does not excuse and wipe away the misconduct and immoral behavior of the respondent carried out in public, and necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a member of the Bar and upon the Philippine Bar itself. An applicant for admission to membership in the bar is required to show that he is possessed of good moral character. That requirement is not exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. On the contrary, that requirement persists as a continuing condition for membership in the Bar in good standing. In the instant case, respondent Cordova maintained for about two (2) years an adulterous relationship with a married woman not his wife, in full view of the general public, to the humiliation and detriment of his legitimate family which he, rubbing salt on the wound, failed or refused to support. After a brief period of "reform" respondent took up again with another woman not his wife, cohabiting with her and bringing along his young daughter to live with them. Clearly, respondent flaunted his disregard of the fundamental institution of marriage and its elementary obligations before his own daughter and the community at large.

Potrebbero piacerti anche