ATTY. ROY B. ECRAELA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. IAN RAYMOND A. PANGALANGAN, RESPONDENT.

Ecraela versus Pangalangan

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment. Atty. Roy Ecraela charged his former law school classmate and close friend, Atty. Ian Raymond Pangalangan, with gross immorality, abuse of authority as an educator, and other unscrupulous conduct, all said to bring undue embarrassment to the legal profession. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement that good moral character is a continuing qualification for the practice of law, and that a lawyer's philandering, though far removed from the courtroom, can cost him his license.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline in April 2007. The Investigating Commissioner, after hearings, found more than sufficient evidence of gross misconduct and recommended suspension for two years with a stern warning. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar adopted that report but modified the penalty, disbarring the respondent and ordering his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. The respondent moved for reconsideration, and the complainant also moved for reconsideration of the Commissioner's report. The Board denied the respondent's motion, and the records were then forwarded to the Supreme Court, which resolved the case in its disciplinary jurisdiction.

Facts

The complainant and the respondent were best friends who graduated together from the University of the Philippines College of Law in 1990 and were admitted to the Bar in 1991. The respondent was married to Sheila Jardiolin, with whom he had three children. The complainant alleged that, while married, the respondent carried on a series of adulterous and illicit relations with married and unmarried women from 1990 to 2007, including a woman identified as DDD and another identified as CCC. He deceived some of these women by representing himself to be a bachelor.

Separately, the complainant alleged that the respondent, while serving as a government corporate counsel, conspired with the opposing counsel in a case involving the Manila International Airport Authority, sabotaged the government's case, and was rewarded with a motor vehicle. A Senate committee report recommended his investigation and prosecution, the Ombudsman found probable cause, and an information for violation of the anti-graft law was filed with the Sandiganbayan. The complainant also alleged that the respondent abused his authority as an educator by entertaining romantic gestures from female students in exchange for passing grades.

In his answer, the respondent did not give a counter-statement of facts. He attacked the petition's formal defects and the admissibility of the e-mail messages, and denied the accusations for lack of knowledge. He failed to attend the mandatory conference and later sought postponements, which were denied. He never submitted his position paper. The complainant presented witnesses who corroborated the illicit relations, and the Commissioner found the charges of gross immorality proven as to DDD, CCC, and BBB, though not as to EEE.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent committed gross immoral conduct warranting disbarment.
• Whether or not the evidence of record is sufficient, by preponderance of evidence, to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Article XV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Marriage, an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.

The respondent, as a lawyer sworn to uphold the law, disregarded this protection of marriage by maintaining illicit relations while married.

Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide:

A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

This is the core rule violated by the respondent's immoral conduct.

Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide:

A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

This rule reaches the respondent's private life, because scandalous private conduct discredits the profession.

Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and Rule 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide:

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.

A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

These rules bear on the respondent's falsehoods and on his use of procedural delays to defeat the ends of justice.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent committed gross immoral conduct. The complainant established, by preponderant evidence, the respondent's illicit relations with DDD and CCC through e-mail messages and the corroborating testimonies of witnesses. The respondent did not specifically deny the allegations, did not attend the hearings, and did not submit a position paper, so those relations remained uncontroverted. The Court agreed that he violated Article XV, Section 2 of the Constitution, as well as Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 7, and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It also agreed that he violated Canon 10 and its rules on candor and fair procedure.

On the second issue, the Court applied the settled standard. In disbarment and suspension proceedings, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, the burden rests on the complainant, and the evidence required is preponderance of evidence. Where the evidence is evenly balanced, the equipoise doctrine commands a decision in favor of the respondent. Here, the evidence preponderated against him. The Court stressed that good moral character is not only required for admission to the Bar but must be retained to keep one's good standing. Citing its earlier rulings, it held that a lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct unrelated to the actual practice of his profession if it shows him unfit for the office, and that the grounds for disbarment under the Rules of Court are not limitative.

Doctrine

Good moral character is a continuing qualification for the practice of law, not merely a condition for admission. A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for grossly immoral conduct in his private life, because conduct that makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage shows him unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges of the license. The grounds for disbarment are not limitative and are broad enough to cover misconduct in a lawyer's professional or private capacity. In disbarment proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proving the charges by preponderance of evidence, and under the equipoise doctrine, evenly balanced evidence is resolved in favor of the respondent.

Disposition

The Court disbarred Atty. Ian Raymond Pangalangan and ordered his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

Remember This

Memorize the line: good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law but a continuing qualification for all members of the Bar. Examiners use this case to test whether private, scandalous immorality, unrelated to the practice of law, can still justify disbarment, and to test the preponderance and equipoise standards in disciplinary proceedings.