106 SCRA 591 - Legal Ethics - Gross Immoral Conduct: ISSUE: Whether or Not Maniwang

106 SCRA 591 Legal Ethics Gross
Immoral Conduct
In 1970, when Maniwang was still a law
student, he had a relationship with
Arciga, then a medical technology
student. They started having a sexual
relationship in 1971. In 1973, Arciga got
pregnant. The two then went to Arcigas
hometown to tell the latters parent
about the pregnancy. They also made
Arcigas parents believe that they were
already married but they would have to
have the church wedding in abeyance
until Maniwang passes the bar exams.
Maniwang secured a copy of his birth
certificate in preparation of securing a
marriage license.
In 1975, Maniwang passed the bar. But
after his oath taking, he stopped
communicating with Arciga. Arciga
located his whereabouts and there she
found out that Maniwang married
another woman. Arciga confronted
Maniwangs wife and this irked
Maniwang so he inflicted physical
injuries against Arciga.
Arciga then filed a disbarment case
against Maniwang grounded on gross
immoral conduct. Maniwang admitted
that he is the father of Arcigas child; that
he did promise to marry Arciga many
times; that he broke those promises
because of Arcigas shady past because
apparently Arciga had an illegitimate
child even before her son with
Maniwang was born.
ISSUE: Whether or
should be disbarred.
not
Maniwang
HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled

that Maniwangs case is different from
the cases of Mortel vs Aspiras and
Almirez vs Lopez, and other cases
therein cited. Maniwangs refusal to

marry Arciga was not so corrupt nor
unprincipled as to warrant disbarment
(though not much discussion was
provided by the ponente as to why). But
the Supreme Court did say that it is
difficult to state with precision and to fix
an inflexible standard as to what is
grossly immoral conduct or to specify
the moral delinquency and obliquity
which render a lawyer unworthy of
continuing as a member of the bar. The
rule implies that what appears to be
unconventional behavior to the straightlaced may not be the immoral conduct
that warrants disbarment. Immoral
conduct has been defined as that
conduct which is willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of the good
and respectable members of the
community.
a letter to respondents expressing her

disbelief and reminding him of his
ethical and moral responsibility as a
lawyer. Complainant prayed that an
investigation be conducted regarding
this
unfortunate
actuation
and
deplorable behavior as well as
respondents double standard attitude.
Thereafter, the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline
issued
a
resolution
suspending respondent from the
practice of law for one year considering
his clear violation of the prohibition
against representing conflicting interest.
Issue: Whether or not a formal
investigation
is
mandatory
in
complaints
for
disbarment.
COMPLAINTS FOR DISBARMENT;

FORMAL
INVESTIGATION
MERCEDES
NAVA
VS.
ATTY.
BENJAMIN
SORONGON
AC No. 5442. January 26, 2004
Facts: Respondent Atty. Sorongon had
been the counsel of complainant
Mercedes Nava for years. The former
informed her of his intention to
withdraw as her counsel in two of her
cases due to a stroke that paralyzed his
right body but proposed to be retained
in two other criminal cases with lesser
paper works. He filed his withdrawal on
December 4, 1996 and was granted by
the court. Complainant alleged that
while she continuously paid for the
respondents
services,
the
latter
represented other clients with hostile
interests and cases filed against her.
Complainant cried that respondent
assisted one Francisco Atas in filing a
formal complaint for 11 counts of
violation of B.P. 22 against her. She sent
Held: In complaints for disbarment, a

formal investigation is a mandatory
requirement. The court may dispense
with the normal referral to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines if the
records are complete and the question
raised is simple. Similarly, if no further,
factual determination is necessary, the
court may decide the case on the basis of
the extensive pleading on record.
Complaints
against
lawyers
for
misconduct are normally addressed to
the Court. If, at the outset,
the Court finds a complaint to be clearly

wanting in merit, it out rightly dismisses
the case. If, however, the Court deems it
necessary that further inquiry should be
made, such as when the matter could
not be resolved by merely evaluating the
pleadings submitted, a referral is made
to the IBP for a formal investigation of
the case during which the parties are
accorded an opportunity to be heard. An
ex parte investigation may only be
conducted when respondent fails to
appear despite reasonable notice.

106 SCRA 591 - Legal Ethics - Gross Immoral Conduct: ISSUE: Whether or Not Maniwang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

106 SCRA 591 - Legal Ethics - Gross Immoral Conduct: ISSUE: Whether or Not Maniwang

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

106 SCRA 591 - Legal Ethics - Gross Immoral Conduct: ISSUE: Whether or Not Maniwang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

106 SCRA 591 Legal Ethics Gross

HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled

therein cited. Maniwangs refusal to

a letter to respondents expressing her

COMPLAINTS FOR DISBARMENT;

Held: In complaints for disbarment, a

the Court finds a complaint to be clearly

You might also like