[A.C. No. 6486.

September 22, 2004]

EMMA T. DANTES, complainant, vs. ATTY. CRISPIN G. DANTES, respondent.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Despite variations in the specific standards and provisions, one requirement remains constant in all the
jurisdictions where the practice of law is regulated: the candidate must demonstrate that he or she has
good moral character, and once he becomes a lawyer he should always behave in accordance with the
standard. In this jurisdiction too, good moral character is not only a condition precedent 1[1] to the practice
of law, but an unending requirement for all the members of the bar. Hence, when a lawyer is found guilty
of grossly immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred. 2[2]
In an Affidavit-Complaint3[3] dated June 6, 2001, filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
Emma T. Dantes, sought the disbarment of her husband, Atty. Crispin G. Dantes on the ground of
immorality, abandonment, and violation of professional ethics and law. The case was docketed as CBD
Case No. 01-851.
Complainant alleged that respondent is a philanderer. Respondent purportedly engaged in illicit
relationships with two women, one after the other, and had illegitimate children with them. From the time
respondents illicit affairs started, he failed to give regular support to complainant and their children, thus
forcing complainant to work abroad to provide for their childrens needs. Complainant pointed out that
these acts of respondent constitute a violation of his lawyers oath and his moral and legal obligation to be
a role model to the community.
On July 4, 2001, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued an Order4[4] requiring respondent to
submit his answer to the Affidavit-Complaint.
Respondent submitted his Answer5[5] on November 19, 2001. Though admitting the fact of marriage with
the complainant and the birth of their children, respondent alleged that they have mutually agreed to
separate eighteen (18) years before after complainant had abandoned him in their Balintawak residence
and fled to San Fernando, Pampanga. Respondent claimed that when complainant returned after eighteen
years, she insisted that she be accommodated in the place where he and their children were residing. Thus,
he was forced to live alone in a rented apartment.

1[1] Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

2[2] Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
3[3] Rollo, pp. 1-2.
4[4] Id. at 18.
5[5] Id. at 23-30.

Respondent further alleged that he sent their children to the best school he could afford and provided for
their needs. He even bought two lots in Pampanga for his sons, Dandelo and Dante, and gave complainant
adequate financial support even after she had abandoned him in 1983.
Respondent asserted that complainant filed this case in order to force him to remit seventy percent (70%)
of his monthly salary to her.
Subsequently, the IBP conducted its investigation and hearings on the complaint. Complainant presented
her evidence, both oral and documentary,6[6] to support the allegations in her Affidavit-Complaint.
From the evidence presented by the complainant, it was established that on January 19, 1979,
complainant and respondent were married7[7] and lived with the latters mother in Balintawak. At that
time, respondent was just a fourth year law student. To make ends meet, complainant engaged in the buy
and sell business and relied on dole-outs from the respondents mother.
Three children were born to the couple, namely, Dandelo, Dante and Daisy, who were born on February
20, 1980,8[8] October 14, 19819[9] and August 11, 1983,10[10] respectively. Complainant narrated that
their relationship was marred by frequent quarrels because of respondents extra-marital affairs. 11[11]
Sometime in 1983, she brought their children to her mother in Pampanga to enable her to work because
respondent had failed to provide adequate support. From 1986 to 2001, complainant worked abroad as a
domestic helper.
Denying that there was a mutual agreement between her and respondent to live separately, complainant
asseverated that she was just compelled to work abroad to support their children. When she returned to
the Philippines, she learned that respondent was living with another woman. Respondent, then bluntly
told her, that he did not want to live with her anymore and that he preferred his mistresses.
Complainant presented documentary evidence consisting of the birth certificates of Ray Darwin, Darling,
and Christian Dave,12[12] all surnamed Dantes, and the affidavits of respondent and his paramour 13[13] to
prove the fact that respondent sired three illegitimate children out of his illicit affairs with two different
6[6] Exhibits A to Z, Rollo, pp. 72-96.
7[7] Rollo, p. 72.
8[8] Id. at 74.
9[9] Id. at 73.
10[10] Id. at 75.
11[11] TSN, April 17, 2002, p.11.
12[12] Exhibit G, G-1, G-2; Exhibit H, H-1, H-2; Exhibit M, M-1, M-2, Rollo, pp. 77-78,
83.
13[13] Exhibit I; Exhibit J; Exhibit K; and Exhibit L, Rollo, pp. 79-81.

women. Letters of complainants legitimate children likewise support the allegation that respondent is a
womanizer.14[14]
In an Order dated April 17, 2002, respondent was deemed to have waived his right to cross-examine
complainant, after he failed to appear during the scheduled hearings despite due notice. He, however,
submitted his Comment/Opposition to the Complainants Formal Offer of Evidence with Motion to
Exclude the Evidence from the Records of the Proceedings15[15] on August 1, 2002.
Subsequently, on May 29, 2003, respondent submitted a Motion to Adopt Alternative Dispute Resolution
Mechanism. Respondents motion was denied because it was filed after the complainant had already
presented her evidence.16[16] Respondent was given a final chance to present his evidence on July 11,
2003. Instead of presenting evidence, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to
Dismiss, which was likewise denied for being a prohibited pleading under the Rules of Procedure of the
Commission on Bar Discipline. Respondent submitted his Position Paper on August 4, 2003.
In respondents Position Paper,17[17] he reiterated the allegations in his Answer except that this time, he
argued that in view of the resolution of the complaint for support with alimony pendente lite18[18] filed
against him by the complainant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City,19[19] the instant
administrative case should be dismissed for lack of merit.
On July 7, 2004, the IBP submitted to us through the Office of the Bar Confidant its Report20[20] and
Resolution No. XVI-2004-230 involving CBD Case No. 01-851.21[21] The IBP recommended that the
respondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.
Except for the penalty, we find the above recommendation well-taken.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

14[14] Exhibits S; Exhibit T; and Exhibit U, Rollo, pp. 89-91.

15[15] Rollo, pp. 105-107.
16[16] Id. at 139.
17[17] Id. at 145-156.
18[18] Civil Case No. Q-01-45222.
19[19] Presided by Judge Rosalina L. Luna Pison of the Quezon City Regional Trial
Court, Branch 107, National Capital Judicial Region, Rollo, pp. 157-158.
20[20] Rollo, pp. 198-201.
21[21] Id. at 197.

Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support
the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct. Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or
shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. 22
[22] To be the basis of disciplinary action, the lawyers conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly
immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree23[23] or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to
shock the common sense of decency.24[24]
In Barrientos vs. Daarol,25[25] we ruled that as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of
good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance
with the highest moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of
the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping mistresses but must also
so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral
standards. If the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals, those
enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord
continuing fidelity to them. The requirement of good moral character is of much greater import, as far as
the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning.
It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character has three ostensible purposes, namely: (i)
to protect the public; (ii) to protect the public image of lawyers; and (iii) to protect prospective clients. A
writer added a fourth: to protect errant lawyers from themselves. 26[26]
Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also
throughout their legal career, in order to maintain their good standing in this exclusive and honored
fraternity.27[27] They may be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred for any misconduct, even if

22[22] BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, 6th ed., p. 751 citing In re: Monaghan, 126 VT, 53m
222 A 2d 665, 674.
23[23] Reyes vs. Wong, A.C. No. 547, January 29, 1975, 63 SCRA 667.
24[24] Royong vs. Oblena, A. C. No. 376, April 30, 1963, 7 SCRA 859, 869.
25[25] A.C. No. 1512, January 29, 1993, 218 SCRA 30.
26[26] Elliston, F.A. The Ethics of Ethics Tests for Lawyers, published in The Bar
Examiner, vol. 51, no. 3 (August 1982) 8:16.
27[27] Cordon vs. Balicanta, A.C. No. 2797, October 4, 2002, 390 SCRA 299.

it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity or good demeanor.28[28]
Undoubtedly, respondents acts of engaging in illicit relationships with two different women during the
subsistence of his marriage to the complainant constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting the
imposition appropriate sanctions. Complainants testimony, taken in conjunction with the documentary
evidence, sufficiently established respondents commission of marital infidelity and immorality. Evidently,
respondent had breached the high and exacting moral standards set for members of the law profession. He
has made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.29[29]
In Toledo vs. Toledo,30[30] we disbarred respondent for abandoning his lawful wife and cohabiting with
another woman who had borne him a child. Likewise, in Obusan vs. Obusan,31[31] we ruled that
abandoning ones wife and resuming carnal relations with a paramour fall within that conduct which is
willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows moral indifference to the opinion of the good and
respectable members of the community.
We reiterate our ruling in Cordova vs. Cordova,32[32] that moral delinquency which 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 as exemplified by behavior which makes a mockery of the inviolable social
institution of marriage.
The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and only in a clear case of misconduct that
seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of
the bar.33[33] Where a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, could accomplish the end desired,
disbarment should never be decreed.34[34] However, in the present case, the seriousness of the offense
compels the Court to wield its power to disbar as it appears to be the most appropriate penalty.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing Atty. Crispin G. Dantes is hereby DISBARRED and his name
is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the
respondents record as a member of the Bar, and notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
28[28] Rural Bank of Silay, Inc. vs. Pilla, A.C. No. 3637, January 24, 2001, 350 SCRA
138; Saburnido vs. Madroo, A.C. No. 4497, September 26, 2001, 366 SCRA 1.
29[29] Pangan vs. Ramos, Adm. Case No. 1053, August 31, 1981, 107 SCRA 1
30[30] Adm. Case No. 266, April 27, 1963, 7 SCRA 757
31[31] Adm. Case No. 1392, April 2, 1984, 128 SCRA 485
32[32] November 29, 1989, 179 SCRA 680
33[33] Tapucar vs. Tapucar, A.C. No. 4148, July 30, 1998, 293 SCRA 331.
34[34] Resurreccion vs. Sayson, A.C. No. 1037, December 14, 1998, 300 SCRA 129.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, AustriaMartinez, Corona, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Carpio-Morales, J., on official leave.
Chico-Nazario, J., on leave.