Salvacion D. Cordova vs. Atty. Laurence D. Cordova A.M NO. 3249 November 29, 1989

Salvacion D. Cordova vs. Atty.
Laurence D. Cordova A.M NO.

3249
November 29, 1989
FACTS:
 Atty. Laurence Cordova while being married

to Salvacion Delizo Cordova with two
children, left his wife and children to cohabit
with another married woman named Fely
Holgado.
 Atty. Cordova and Holgado live together in Surigao Del Sur as
husband and wife, with respondent Cordova introducing Fely to the
public as his wife, and Fely using her name as Fely Cordova.
 Respondent Cordova gave Fely Holgado funds to establish a sari-
sari store in a public market while at the same time failing to
support his legitimate family.
 On April 6, 1986 respondent Cordova and the complainant
Salvacion had a reconcillation.
 Atty. Cordova promised that he would separate from Fely Holgado
and brought his legitimate family to Surigao Del Sur.
 Respondent would, however frequently come home from
beerhouses or cabarets, drunk, and continued to neglect the support
of his legitimate family.
 In February 1987, complainant found, that respondent Cordova was
no longer living with her (complainant's) children in their conjugal
home; that respondent Cordova was living with another mistress,
one Luisita Magallanes, and had taken his younger daughter
Melanie along with him.
 Atty. Cordova and his new mistress hid Melanie from the
complainant, compelling complainant to go to court and to take
back her daughter by habeas corpus. The Regional Trial Cour of
Surigao Del Sur however, gave her custody of their children.
 Notwithstanding respondent's promises to reform, he continued to
live with Luisita Magallanes as her husband and continued to fail to
give support to his legitimate family.
 In an unsworn letter-complaint dated 14 April 1988 Salvacion
Delizo Cordova charged her husband, Atty. Laurence D. Cordova,
with immorality and acts unbecoming a member of the Bar. The
letter-complaint was forwarded by the Court to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, Commission on Bar Discipline, for investigation,
report and recommendation.
 In a telegraphic message, complainant informed the Commission
that she and her husband had already "reconciled".
 The Commission required the parties (respondent and complainant)
to appear before it for confirmation and explanation of the
telegraphic message and required them to file a formal motion to
dismiss the complaint within fifteen (15) days from notice. Neither
party responded and nothing was heard from either party since then.
 Complainant having failed to submit her evidence ex parte
before the Commission, the IBP Board of Governors
submitted its report reprimanding respondent for his acts,
admonishing him that any further acts of immorality in the
future will be dealt with more severely, and ordering him
to support his legitimate family as a responsible parent
should.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not Atty.Cordova should be
merely reprimanded.
HELD:
 No. He should be suspended indefinitely until he
presents evidence that he has been morally
reformed and that there was true reconciliation
between him and his wife.
 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.
Mortel v. Aspiras
 The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member

of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that
outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the
community, conduct for instance, which makes "a
mockery of the inviolable social institution or marriage.
 In the recent case, Cordova maintained for about two (2)
years an adulterous relationship with a married woman not
his wife which clearly shows the he flaunted his disregard
of the fundamental institution of the marriage and its
elementary obligations before his own family and the
community at large.
 WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent from
the practice of law indefinitely and until farther orders from this
Court.
08/14/20

Salvacion D. Cordova vs. Atty. Laurence D. Cordova A.M NO. 3249 November 29, 1989

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salvacion D. Cordova vs. Atty. Laurence D. Cordova A.M NO. 3249 November 29, 1989

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salvacion D. Cordova vs. Atty. Laurence D. Cordova A.M NO. 3249 November 29, 1989

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salvacion D. Cordova vs. Atty.

Laurence D. Cordova A.M NO.

 Atty. Laurence Cordova while being married

 The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member

You might also like