Moya and Oreta CASE DIGEST

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 2

ABAN, Claire P.

#9
Case No. 9
Pauline S. Moya vs. Atty. Roy Anthony S. Oreta A.C. No. 13082

FACTS:

The complainant and respondent were high school batchmates who met years after graduation
and eventually developed a relationship. Both were married but said to be separated from their
spouses in which Moya already has 4 daughters. On November 2003 respondent moved in with
Moya and her children welcomed him warmly. The marriage of Atty Oreta was nullified on July
2004, while Moya’s marriage with her husband never got annulled. Their relationship was said to
be smooth and loving in the first place but a time came when respondent became verbally,
physically and sexually abusive to Moya and her children. Complainant claims that respondent
do not share responsibilities of parenthood, financial, emotional and moral. To prevent Atty.
Oreta from further abusing Moya, she applied for Barangay Protection Order on Aug. 19, 2010
And also filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor-Quezon City a complaint against
respondent for violation of RA No. 9262 known as “Anti-Violence Against Women and their
Children Act of 2004. She later initiated before the RTC of Quezon City Branch 94 a petition for
issuance of Permanent Protection Order (PPO) docketed as civil case No. Q-10-67984. In
which, tthe trial court granted her Temporary Protection Order effective for 30 days that became
a Permanent Restraining Order on Jan 5, 2012 against respondent.

In response, Atty Oreta said he never intended to disgrace the legal profession, he was just in
emotional devastation and found shelter in Moya. He claims that it was the petitioner who has
extramarital affairs, that he shares the expenses at home and pays the tuition fees of the children,
and denies any sexual or physical abuse to her.

ISSUE:
● Whether Atty. Oreta’s conduct constituted immorality, warranting disbarment.

Report and Recommendations from Integrated Bar of the PH-Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP-CBD)

Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 6 months


Cohabitation while still legally married was inconsequential
Complainant failed to provide substantive evidence of her charges against respondent
Resolutions of the Integrated Bar of PH-Board of Governors (IBP-BOG)

Recommends the penalty of disbarment


But upon respondent’s motion of reconsideration, it was resolved to reduce the
recommended penalty to 3 years suspension in practice of law

**There were no motions for reconsideration or petition for review filed by either party.
Nevertheless, the IBP elevated the entire case records to the court since IBP Resolution is merely
recommendatory

RULING:

1. Physical abuse in violation of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, he is DISBARRED from the practice of law
2. Gross immorality in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the CPR suspended
for 2 yrs in practice but since disbarred..disregarded
3. Admonished for violating Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 derogatory and indecent remarks
during pleadings
4. Admonished for displaying insolence and arrogance in his pleadings

You might also like