Leda V Tabang

A.C. No.
2505 | September 1992 Uphold Dignity and Integrity of the Legal Profession
Leda vs. Tabang Leda vs. Tabang
I. Recit-ready Summary thus showing lack of good moral character. She also alleged that after
Complainant Evangeline Leda assails Atty. Trebonian Tabang’s good Tabang’s law studies, he became aloof and abandoned her.
moral character. She filed against him Bar Matter No. 78 and the present The Court required Tabang to answer. He admitted that he was
petition for disbarment, Administrative Case No. 2505. “legally married” to Leda but that the marriage was not yet declared public.
Leda and Tabang contracted marriage performed under Article 76 of He also said he and Leda had reconciled and he prayed for the complaint to
the Civil Code as one of exceptional character. The parties agreed to keep be dismissed. The Court dismissed B.M. No. 75 and allowed Tabang to take
the fact of marriage a secret until after Tabang had finished his law studies his Oath.
and taken the Bar. He finished his law studies in 1981 and thereafter applied Present Complaint: Leda filed a petition for the disbarment of Tabang
to take the Bar. In his application, he declared that he was “single." He then stating the following grounds:
passed the examinations. (a) For having made use of his legal knowledge to contract an invalid
First Complaint: Leda blocked him from taking his Oath by instituting marriage with me, assuming that our marriage is not valid and making a
Bar Matter No. 78, claiming that Tabang had acted fraudulently in filling mockery of the marriage institution.
out his application and, thus, was unworthy to take the lawyer's Oath for (b) For having misrepresented himself as single in his application.
lack of good moral character. Tabang reconciled with Leda and prayed for (c) For being of not good moral character.
the dismissal of the complaint. (d) For being guilty of deception for the reason that he deceived me
Second Complaint: Leda filed a petition for the disbarrment of Tabang. into signing the affidavit of desistance and the conformity to his explanation
She alleges that he is not of good moral character and he only reconciled and later on the comment to his motion to dismiss, when in truth and in fact
with her in order to get the complaint dismissed. Tabang claims that he had he is not sincere, for he only befriended me to resume our marriage and
acted in good faith in declaring his status as "single" not only because of his introduced me to his family, friends and relatives as his wife, for a bad
pact with Leda to keep the marriage under wraps but also because that motive that is he wanted me to withdraw my complaint against him with the
marriage to the Complainant was void from the beginning. Supreme Court.
Tabang was suspended from the practice of law until further orders, Leda presented an unsigned and undated letter, allegedly written
the suspension to take effect immediately. Respondent's lack of good moral by Tabang, stating that he did not love her anymore and only considered her
character is only too evident. Tabang through his actuations, has been a friend. Although the letter was unsigned, Tabang's initials appeared on the
lacking in the candor required of him not only as a member of the Bar but upper left-hand corner of the airmail envelope. He asked her not to do
also as an officer of the Court. anything more and that there is nothing she can do to take him away from
his goal as a full-pledge professional. Tabang denies he sent this letter.
II. Facts of the Case Their marriage was actually void for failure to comply with the
Leda and Tabang contracted marriage on October 3, 1976 in Iloilo. requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code, among them minimum
The marriage was performed under Article 76 of the Civil Code as one of cohabitation of 5 years, that parties must be at least 21 years old when they
exceptional character. The parties agreed to keep the marriage a secret until were only 20 years old at the time. It was respondent who told the court that
respondent had finished his law studies (began in 1977) and had taken the their marriage was void from the beginning, that it was the reason why they
Bar examinations (in 1981), allegedly to ensure a stable future for them. didn’t want to tell anyone they were married in the first place.
Leda admits they had not lived together as husband and wife.
Respondent finished his law studies in 1981 and applied to take the III. Issue/s
Bar. In his application, he declared that he was “single.” 1. W/N respondent Tabang lacks good moral character and
First Complaint: Leda blocked him from taking his Oath by instituting violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
B.M. No. 78, claiming that Tabang fraudulently filled out his application, YES. He violated Canon 7 as well.
1
Legal Profession (2019) PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: Evangeline Leda

DIGEST AUTHOR: Nikki Paglicawan RESPONDENT: Trebonian Tabang
A.C. No. 2505 | September 1992 Uphold Dignity and Integrity of the Legal Profession
Leda vs. Tabang Leda vs. Tabang
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

IV. Holding/s A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
1. YES, respondent’s lack of good moral character was only too DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
evident. ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Respondent's lack of good moral character is only too evident. Firstly, his Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a
declaration in his application for Admission to the 1981 Bar Examinations false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his
application for admission to the bar.
that he was "single" was a gross misrepresentation of a material fact made
in utter bad faith, and a violation of Rule 7.01, Canon 7 of the Code of
VI. Disposition
Professional Responsibility. That false statement, if it had been known, WHEREFORE, finding respondent Trebonian C. Tabang grossly unfit
would have disqualified him outright from taking the Bar Examinations as it and unworthy to continue to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities
indubitably exhibits lack of good moral character. belonging to the office of an attorney, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the
He has resorted to conflicting submissions before this Court to suit practice of law until further Orders, the suspension to take effect
himself. He has also engaged in devious tactics with Complainant in order immediately.
to serve his purpose. In so doing, he has violated Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer owes candor, VII. Separate Opinions
fairness and good faith to the court" as well as Rule 10.01 thereof which
states that "a lawyer should do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any VIII. Additional Notes
in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any
artifice." Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty VII. Random Facts
from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them (Chavez v. Viola). ● Ponente:
Tabang through his actuations, has been lacking in the candor required of
him not only as a member of the Bar but also as an officer of the Court.
V. Law or Doctrine Applied
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to
be misled by any artifice.
Legal Profession (2019) PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: Evangeline Leda

DIGEST AUTHOR: Nikki Paglicawan RESPONDENT: Trebonian Tabang

Leda V Tabang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leda V Tabang

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

Leda V Tabang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.C. No.

Legal Profession (2019) PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: Evangeline Leda

Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

V. Law or Doctrine Applied

Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Legal Profession (2019) PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: Evangeline Leda

You might also like