Conuangco vs Palma immoral conduct, the Court said, is a conduct

which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and

Facts:
which shows a moral indifference to the
Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. filed a complaint
for disbarment against Atty. Leo J. Palma, opinion of the good and respectable members
alleging as grounds “deceit, malpractice, gross of the community. Thus,
misconduct in office, violation of his oath as a measured against this definition,
lawyer and grossly immoral conduct.” respondent’s act is manifestly
immoral. First, he abandoned his lawful wife
Respondent Palma [from ACCRA Law Office] and three children. Second, he lured an
was employed by petitioner as his personal innocent young woman into marrying him. And
counsel. Respondent's excellence in managing third, he misrepresented himself as a
petitioner's legal affairs, prompted petitioner to “bachelor” so he could contract marriage in a
introduced respondent to his family. Since foreign land.
respondent gained the trust of petitioner and
his family, their relationship became intimate.
In particular, adds the Court, "he made a
Respondent then was allowed to tutor the 22
mockery of marriage which is a sacred
year old daughter of Petitioner.
institution demanding respect and dignity. His
However, when his concern was supposed act of contracting a second marriage is
to be complainant’s legal affairs only, he contrary to honesty, justice, decency and
sneaked at the latter’s back and courted his morality." Moreover, the circumstances here
daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the speak of a clear case of betrayal of trust and
night, he attacked when nobody was abuse of confidence. It was respondent’s
looking. He succeeded in misrepresenting closeness to the complainant’s family as well as
himself to Hong Kong officials as a bachelor the latter’s complete trust in him that made
and successfully married petitioner's daughter, possible his intimate relationship with Lisa.
eventhough he is legally married. When his concern was supposed to be
complainant’s legal affairs only, he sneaked at
Respondent argued that, he cannot be the latter’s back and courted his
punished since there is no allegation that he daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the
acted with “wanton recklessness, night, he attacked when nobody was
lack of skill or ignorance of the law” in looking. Moreover, he availed of complainant’s
serving complainant’s interest. Anent the resources by securing a plane ticket from
charge of grossly immoral conduct, he stressed complainant’s office in order to marry the
that he married complainant’s daughter with latter’s daughter in Hongkong. He did this
“utmost sincerity and good faith” and that “it is without complainant’s knowledge.
contrary to the natural course of things for an
immoral man to marry the woman he sincerely The Court stressed again the principle that
loves.” law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy
of standards among its members. There is no
Issue: distinction as to whether the transgression is
Whether or not respondent's acts constitutes committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity
gross immoral conduct so as to warrant his or in his private life. This is because a lawyer
disbarment from the legal profession. may not divide his personality so as to be an
attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
Ruling: another. Thus, not only his professional
Yes, the Court ruled respondent's action activities but even his private life, insofar as the
constitutes gross immoral conduct. A gross latter may reflect unfavorably upon the good
name and prestige of the profession and the Respondent argued that, he cannot be
courts, may at any time be the subject of punished since there is no allegation that he
inquiry on the part of the proper authorities. acted with “wanton recklessness,
lack of skill or ignorance of the law” in
Respondent cannot rely on complainant's serving complainant’s interest. Anent the
admission that he is a good lawyer, because charge of grossly immoral conduct, he stressed
professional competency alone does not make that he married complainant’s daughter with
a lawyer a worthy member of the Bar. Good “utmost sincerity and good faith” and that “it is
moral character is always an indispensable contrary to the natural course of things for an
requirement. immoral man to marry the woman he sincerely
loves.”
In sum, respondent committed grossly
immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a Issue:
lawyer. The penalty of one (1) year suspension Whether or not respondent's acts constitutes
recommended by the IBP is not commensurate gross immoral conduct so as to warrant his
to the gravity of his offense. The bulk of disbarment from the legal profession.
jurisprudence supports the imposition of the
extreme penalty of disbarment. Ruling:
Yes, the Court ruled respondent's action
constitutes gross immoral conduct. A gross
immoral conduct, the Court said, is a conduct
which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and
Facts: which shows a moral indifference to the
Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. filed a complaint opinion of the good and respectable members
for disbarment against Atty. Leo J. Palma, of the community. Thus,
alleging as grounds “deceit, malpractice, gross
measured against this definition,
misconduct in office, violation of his oath as a
respondent’s act is manifestly
lawyer and grossly immoral conduct.”
immoral. First, he abandoned his lawful wife
Respondent Palma [from ACCRA Law Office] and three children. Second, he lured an
was employed by petitioner as his personal innocent young woman into marrying him. And
counsel. Respondent's excellence in managing third, he misrepresented himself as a
petitioner's legal affairs, prompted petitioner to “bachelor” so he could contract marriage in a
introduced respondent to his family. Since foreign land.
respondent gained the trust of petitioner and
his family, their relationship became intimate. In particular, adds the Court, "he made a
Respondent then was allowed to tutor the 22 mockery of marriage which is a sacred
year old daughter of Petitioner. institution demanding respect and dignity. His
However, when his concern was supposed act of contracting a second marriage is
to be complainant’s legal affairs only, he contrary to honesty, justice, decency and
sneaked at the latter’s back and courted his morality." Moreover, the circumstances here
daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the speak of a clear case of betrayal of trust and
night, he attacked when nobody was abuse of confidence. It was respondent’s
looking. He succeeded in misrepresenting closeness to the complainant’s family as well as
himself to Hong Kong officials as a bachelor the latter’s complete trust in him that made
and successfully married petitioner's daughter, possible his intimate relationship with Lisa.
eventhough he is legally married. When his concern was supposed to be
complainant’s legal affairs only, he sneaked at
the latter’s back and courted his
daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the
night, he attacked when nobody was
looking. Moreover, he availed of complainant’s
resources by securing a plane ticket from
complainant’s office in order to marry the
latter’s daughter in Hongkong. He did this
without complainant’s knowledge.

The Court stressed again the principle that

law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy
of standards among its members. There is no
distinction as to whether the transgression is
committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity
or in his private life. This is because a lawyer
may not divide his personality so as to be an
attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
another. Thus, not only his professional
activities but even his private life, insofar as the
latter may reflect unfavorably upon the good
name and prestige of the profession and the
courts, may at any time be the subject of
inquiry on the part of the proper authorities.

Respondent cannot rely on complainant's

admission that he is a good lawyer, because
professional competency alone does not make
a lawyer a worthy member of the Bar. Good
moral character is always an indispensable
requirement.

In sum, respondent committed grossly

immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a
lawyer. The penalty of one (1) year suspension
recommended by the IBP is not commensurate
to the gravity of his offense. The bulk of
jurisprudence supports the imposition of the
extreme penalty of disbarment.