Ventura Vs Atty. Samson

Ventura vs. Atty. Samson, A.C. No.
9608, November 27, 2012

Topic:
Disbarment for Gross Immoral Conduct as a violation of his oath of office and violation of Canon 1, Rule
1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Facts:
Complainant Maria Victoria B. Ventura filed on July 29, 2004 a Complaint for Disbarment or Suspension
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline against respondent Atty.
Danilo S. Samson for "grossly immoral conduct."
Sometime in December 2001, at around midnight, she was sleeping in the maids room at respondents
house when respondent entered and went on top of her. Respondent kissed her lips, sucked her breast,
and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. She felt pain and found blood stain in her panty.
She stated that another incident happened on March 19, 2002 at respondent’s poultry farm in Alegria,
San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. Respondent asked her to go with him to the farm. He brought her to an
old shanty where he sexually abused her. Thereafter, respondent gave her five hundred pesos and
warned her not to tell anyone what had happened or he would kill her and her mother.
In her Supplemental-Complaint, complainant averred that respondent allowed her to sleep in his house
after her mother agreed to let her stay there while she studied at the Agusan National High School. She
further stated that on the night she was sexually abused, she was awakened when respondent went on
top of her. She struggled to free herself and shouted, but respondent covered her mouth and nobody
could hear as nobody was in the house. Complainant also claimed that on March 19, 2002, between
5:00 p.m. to 6:00 pm, respondent forced her to ride a multi-cab. When they arrived at his poultry farm
in Alegria, respondent dragged her to a dilapidated shack. She resisted his advances but her efforts
proved futile.
Then, on December 14, 2006, complainant and her mother appeared before the public prosecutor and
executed their respective Affidavits of Desistance. Complainant stated that what happened between
respondent and her in March 2002 was based on mutual understanding. Thus, she was withdrawing the
complaint she filed against respondent before the RTC as well as the one she filed before the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline. Accordingly, the criminal case against respondent was dismissed.
Issue:
W/O the respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct against his oath of office and violation of Canon
1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:
Respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson is hereby DISBARRED for Gross Immoral Conduct, Violation of his
oath of office, and Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Holding:
In Zaguirre v. Castillo, the possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a
continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership in the legal
profession. It is the bounden duty of members of the bar to observe the highest degree of morality in
order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar. Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer,
be it in the lawyers public or private activities, which tends to show said lawyer deficient in moral
character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment.
Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral
indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community. Immoral conduct
is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to
a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the
communities sense of decency.
From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the admissions of respondent himself, we
find that respondents act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his former employee,
constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction. Respondent not only admitted he had sexual
intercourse with complainant but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he did
nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her money. Indeed, his act of having
carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of
marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by enticing a
very young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the dignity of the
human person and the ethics of his profession.
In Cordova v. Cordova, we held that 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 of marriage.
Respondent has violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant, then a 13-year-old
minor, who for a time was under respondents care. Whether the sexual encounter between the
respondent and complainant was or was not with the latters consent is of no moment. Respondent
clearly committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is a
transgression of the standards of morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined
accordingly.
Legal Principle:
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court expressly states that a member of the bar may be disbarred or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for, among others, any deceit, grossly
immoral conduct, or violation of the oath that he is required to take before admission to the practice of
law. It bears to stress that membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. As a privilege
bestowed by law through the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be withdrawn where
circumstances concretely show the lawyers lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers.

Ventura Vs Atty. Samson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ventura Vs Atty. Samson

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

Ventura Vs Atty. Samson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ventura vs. Atty. Samson, A.C. No.

9608, November 27, 2012

You might also like