Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A.C. No.
1512 January 29, 1993 VICTORIA BARRIENTOS, complainant, vs. TRANSFIGURACION DAAROL, respondent. Summary Complainant Victoria C. Barrientos seeks the disbarment of respondent Transfiguracion Daarol, ** a member of the Philippine Bar, on grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct. The Office of the Solicitor General submitted its Report and Recommendation, viz.: Evidence of the complainant: Respondent Daarol a general manager of Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ZANECO) was known by the family of the complainant Victoria Barrientos. One day he asked her to be one of the usherettes in the Mason's convention in Sicayab, Dipolog City, from June 28 to 30, 1973. She accepted that invitation. Then after the convention he invited her for a joy ride. They strolled along the beach, and in the course of which he proposed his love to her; that he told her that if she would accept him, he would marry her within six (6) months from her acceptance. Their relationship began and because she loved him and believed in all his promises they had sexual intercourse two or three times a week. She got pregnant. She informed it to him. Daarol suggested to have the fetus aborted, but she objected. They agreed to get married in Manila so together with her mom they went to Manila. But, Daarol told them that he couldnt marry Victoria because he was already married. He told them that he would work for the annulment. After a month Victoria delivered their baby girl and after a week he couldnt contact Daarol so she filed an administrative case against Daarol. Evidence for the Respondent: The same as the complainant said. Addition to that, that he was baptized as a Muslim and thereby embraced the Islam Religion. 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. After a thorough review of the case, the Court finds itself in full accord with the findings and recommendation of the Solicitor General. Interestingly enough. 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. But what surprises this Court even more is the perverted sense of respondent's moral values when he said that: "I see nothing wrong with this relationship despite my being married." Worse, he even suggested abortion. Truly, respondent's moral sense is so seriously impaired that we cannot maintain his membership in the Bar. In Pangan v. Ramos (107 SCRA 1 [1981]), we held that: Even his act in making love to another woman while his first wife is still alive and their marriage still valid and existing is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality. Respondent made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. 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. 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. In this regard, we need only to quote the finding of the Office of the Solicitor General, to wit: When respondent was asked to marry complainant he said he could not because he was already married and would open him to a charge of bigamy If he were a moslem convert entitled to four (4) wives, as he is now claiming, why did he not marry complainant? The answer is supplied by respondent himself. He said while he was a moslem, but, having been married in a civil ceremony, he could no longer validly enter into another civil ceremony without committing bigamy because the complainant is a christian Consequently, if respondent knew, that notwithstanding his being a moslem convert, he cannot marry complainant, then it was grossly immoral for him to have sexual intercourse with complainant because he knew the existence of a legal impediment. Respondent may not, therefore, escape responsibility thru his dubious claim that he has embraced the Islam religion.
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 otherwise; a lawyer may either be suspended or disbarred.
Transfiguracion Daarol guilty of grossly immoral conduct unworthy of being a member of the Bar and is hereby ordered DISBARRED and his name stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.
