JOSE TOLOSA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ALFREDO CARGO, RESPONDENT.

On 7 April 1982, complainant Jose Tolosa
filed with the Court an Affidavit-Complaint dated 7 March 1982 seeking the disbarment of respondent
District Citizens’ Attorney Alfredo Cargo for immorality.  Complainant claimed the respondent had been
seeing his (complainant’s) wife Priscilla M. Tolosa
in his house and elsewhere.  Complainant
further alleged that in June 1981, his wife left their conjugal home and went
to live with respondent at No. 45 Sisa Street, Barrio
Tenejeros, Malabon, Metro
Manila and that since then, has been living with respondent at that address.

Complying with an order
of this Court, respondent filed a “Comment
and/or Answer” dated 13 May 1982 denying the allegations of complainant.  Respondent acknowledged that complainant’s
wife had been seeing him but that she had done so in the course of seeking advice from respondent (in view of the
continuous cruelty and unwarranted
marital accusations of affiant
[complainant] against her), much as complainant’s mother-in-law had also
frequently sought the advice of respondent and of his wife and mother as to what to do about the
“continuous quarrels between affiant and his wife and the beatings and
physical injuries (sometimes less serious) that the latter sustained from
the former.” (Rollo, p. 8).

Complainant filed a Reply
dated 16 June 1982
to respondent’s “Comment and/or Answer” and made a number of further allegations, to wit:

(a)    That complainant’s wife was not the only
mistress that respondent had taken

(b)    That respondent had paid for the hospital
and medical bills of complainant’s wife last May 1981, and visited her at the
hospital everyday;

(c)    That he had several times pressed his wife
to stop seeing respondent but that she had refused to do so;

(d)    That she had acquired new household and
electrical appliances where she was living although she had no means of
livelihood; and

(e)    That
respondent was paying for his wife’s house rent.

Respondent
filed a Rejoinder on 19 July 1982, denying the further allegations of complainant, and stating that he (respondent) had merely given
complainant’s wife the amount of P35.00 by way of
financial assistance during her
confinement in the hospital.

By a Resolution dated 29 July 1982, the Court referred this case to the
Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.  The Solicitor General’s office held a number of hearings which took place from 21 October 1982 until 1986, at which hearings complainant and respondent presented evidence both testimonial and documentary.

The Solicitor General summed up what complainant sought to establish in
the following terms:

”1.   That respondent has been courting his wife,
Priscilla (tsn, May 12, 1982, 9).

2.     
That he actually saw them together
holding hands in 1980 in Cubao and Sto. Domingo, Quezon, City (tsn, pp. 13-15, May 12, 1983).

3.     
That sometime in June, 1982, his
wife left their conjugal house at No. 1 Lopez Jaena
Street, Galas, Quezon City, to live with respondent
at No. 45 Sisa Street, Barrio Tenejeros,
Malabon, Metro Manila (tsn,
pp. 16-17, May 12, 1983).

4.     
That while Priscilla was staying
there, she acquired household appliances which she could not afford to buy as
she has no source of income (tsn, pp. 10-11, Sept. 10, 1985; Exh.
‘M’, ‘N’ and ‘Q’).

5.     
That when Priscilla was
hospitalized in May, 1982, at the FEU
Hospital, respondent paid for her
expenses and took care of her (tsn. pp. 18-20, June 15, 1983). In fact, an incident
between respondent and complainant took place in said hospital (tsn, pp. 5-8, Sept
20, 1983, Exhibits ‘C’ and ‘C-1’).

6.     
That an incident which was subject
of a complaint took place involving respondent and complainant at No. 45 Sisa Street, Barrio Tenejeros, Malabon, Metro Manila (tsn, pp.
8-10, July 29, 1983 Exh. ‘B’, ‘B-1’ and ‘K’).

7.      That again in Quezon
City, incidents involving respondent and complainant
were brought to the attention of the police (Exhibits ‘F’ and ‘G’.)

8.      That Complainant filed an administrative case for immorality against
respondent with the CLAO, and that respondent was suspended for one year
(Exhibits ‘D’ and ‘E’).” (Rollo, pp. 33-35).

Respondent’s defenses
were summarized by the Solicitor General in the following
manner:

“a)   That Priscilla used to see respondent for advice
regarding her difficult relationship with complainant; that Priscilla left
complainant because she suffered maltreatment, physical injuries and public
humiliation inflicted or caused
by complainant;

b)     
That respondent was not courting Priscilla, nor lived with her
at No. 45 Sisa
St., Tenejeros, Malabon,
Metro Manila; that the owner of
the house where Priscilla lived in Malabon was a
friend and former client whom respondent visited
now and then;

c)      That respondent only gave P35.00 to Priscilla in the FEU
Hospital, as assistance in her medical expenses;
that he reprimanded complainant for lying on the bed of Priscilla in the
hospital which led to their being investigated
by the security guards of the hospital;

d)     
That it is not true that he was with Priscilla holding hands with her in Cubao or Sto. Domingo Church
in 1980;

e)     
That Priscilla bought all the appliances in her apartment at 45
Sisa Street, Tenejeros, Malabon, Metro Manila
from her earnings;

f)       
That it is not true that he ran after complainant and tried to stab
him at No. 1 Galas St., Quezon City; that said incident was between Priscilla‘s brother and complainant;

g)     
That it is also not true that he
is always in 45 Sisa St., Tenejeros, Malabon, Metro Manila and/or he had a quarrel
with complainant at 45 Sisa St., Malabon; that the
quarrel was between Priscilla’s brother, Edgardo Miclat, and complainant; that respondent went there
only to intervene upon request of complainant’s wife (see tsn,
June 21, 1984).” (Rollo, pp. 35-37).

The Solicitor General
then submitted the following

“F I N
D I N G S

1.      
That complainant and Priscilla are
spouses residing at No. 1 Lopez Jaena St., Galas, Quezon City.

2.      
That respondent’s wife was their ‘ninang’ at their marriage, and they (complainant
and Priscilla) considered respondent also their ‘ninong‘.

3.      
That respondent and complainant are neighbors, their residences being one house away from each other.

4.      
That respondent admitted that
Priscilla used to see him for advice, because of her differences with
complainant.

5.      
That Priscilla, in fact, left
their conjugal house and
lived at No. 45 Sisa St., Barrio Tenejeros,
Malabon, Metro Manila; that the owner of the house
where Priscilla lived in Malabon is a friend and
former client of respondent.

6.      
That Priscilla indeed acquired appliances while she was staying in Malabon.

7.      
That incidents
involving respondent and complainant had indeed happened.

8.      
That Priscilla returned to her
mother’s house later in 1983 at No. 1 Lopez Jaena
St., Galas, Quezon City; but complainant was staying two or
three houses away in his
mother’s house.

9.      
That complainant filed an administrative case
for immorality against respondent in CLAO, where respondent was found guilty and
suspended for one year.”  (Rollo, pp. 37-39).

In effect, the Solicitor General found that
complainant’s charges of immorality had not been sustained by sufficient
evidence.  At the same time, however, the
Solicitor General found that the respondent had not been able to explain
satisfactorily the following:

“1.   Respondent’s
failure to avoid seeing Priscilla, in spite of complainant’s suspicion and/or jealousy that he was having an affair with his
wife.

2.      
Priscilla’s being able to rent an
apartment in Malabon whose owner is admittedly a friend and former client of
respondent.

3.      
Respondent’s failure to avoid
going to Malabon to visit his friend, in spite of his
differences with complainant.

4.      
Respondent’s failure to avoid
getting involved in various incidents involving complainant and Priscilla’s
brothers (Exhs. ‘B’, ‘B-1’, ‘F’, ‘G’, [G-1′] and
[‘I’]).

5.      
Respondent’s interest in seeing
Priscilla in the evening when she was confined in the FEU
Hospital, in spite again of his
differences with complainant.” (Rollo, pp.
39-40).

Thus,
the Solicitor General concluded that respondent had failed “to properly
deport himself by avoiding any possible action or behavior which may be
misinterpreted by complainant, thereby causing possible trouble in the
complainant’s family,” which behavior was “unbecoming of a lawyer and an officer of the court.” (Rollo, p. 40).  The Solicitor General recommended that
respondent Atty. Alfredo Cargo be
suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months and be severely
reprimanded.

We agree with the
Solicitor General that the record does not contain sufficient evidence to show
that respondent had indeed been co-habiting with complainant’s wife or was
otherwise guilty of acts of immorality. 
For this very reason, we do not believe that the penalty of suspension
from the practice of law may be properly imposed upon respondent.

At the same time, the Court
agrees that respondent should be reprimanded for failure to comply with the
rigorous standards of conduct appropriately required from the members of the Bar and officers of the
court.  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 the keeping of mistresses^[1]
but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
creating the belief that he is flouting
those moral standards.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to REPRIMAND respondent
attorney for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar and an officer of the
court, and to WARN him that continuation of the same or similar conduct will be
dealt with more severely in the future.

Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Gutierrez,
Jr., Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Royong v.
Oblena, 7 SCRA 869 (1963); Toledo v. Toledo, 7 SCRA
747 (1963).