VICTORIA BARRIENTOS, COMPLAINANT, VS. TRANSFIGURACION DAAROL, RESPONDENT.

In a sworn complaint filed with this Court on August 20, 1975,
complainant Victoria C. Barrientos seeks the disbarment of respondent
Transfiguracion Daarol^* a member
of the Philippine Bar, on grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct.

After respondent filed his answer (Rollo, p. 12), the Court
Resolved to refer the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report
and recommendation (Rollo, p. 18).

As per recommendation of the Solicitor General and for the
convenience of the parties and their witnesses who were residing in the
province of Zamboanga del Norte, the Provincial Fiscal of said province was
authorized to conduct the investigation and to submit a report, together with
transcripts of stenographic notes and exhibits submitted by the parties, if any
(Rollo, p. 20).

On November 9, 1987, the Office of the Solicitor General
submitted its Report and Recommendation, viz.:

“Evidence
of the complainant:

“…complainant Victoria Barrientos was single and a resident
of Bonifacio St., Dipolog City; that when she was still a teenager and first
year in college she came to know respondent Transfiguracion Daarol in 1969 as
he used to go to their house being a friend of her sister Norma; that they also
became friends, and she knew the respondent as being single and living alone in
Galas, Dipolog City; that he was the General Manager of Zamboanga del Norte
Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ZANECO) and subsequently transferred his residence
to the ZANECO compound at Laguna Blvd. at Del Pilar St., Dipolog City (pp.
109-111, tsn, September 30, 1976).

“That on June 27, 1973, respondent came to their house and
asked her to be one of the usherettes in the Mason’s convention in Sicayab,
Dipolog City, from June 28 to 30, 1973 and, she told respondent to ask the
permission of her parents, which respondent did, and her father consented; that
for three whole days she served as usherette in the convention and respondent
picked her up from her residence every morning and took her home from the
convention site at the end of each day (pp. 112-114, tsn, id.).

“That in the afternoon of July 1, 1973, respondent came to
complainant’s house and invited her for a joy ride with the permission of her
mother who was a former classmate of respondent; that respondent took her to
Sicayab in his jeep and then they strolled along the beach, and in the course
of which respondent proposed his love to her; that respondent told her that if
she would accept him, he would marry her within six (6) months from her
acceptance; complainant told respondent that she would think it over first;
that from then on respondent used to visit her in their house almost every
night, and he kept on courting her and pressed her to make her decision on
respondent’s proposal; that on July 7, 1973, she finally accepted respondent’s
offer of love and respondent continued his usual visitations almost every night
there­after; they agreed to get married in December 1973 (pp. 115-119, tsn,
id.).

“That in the morning of August 20, 1973, respondent invited
her, with the consent of her father, to a party at the Lopez Skyroom; that at
7:00 p.m. of that day respondent fetched her from her house and went to the
Lopez Skyroom (pp. 119-­121, tsn, id); that at about 10:00 p.m. of that evening
they left the party at the Lopez Skyroom, but before taking her home respondent
invited her for a joy ride and took her to the airport at Sicayab, Dipolog
City; respondent parked the jeep by the beach where there were no houses
around; that in the course of their conversation inside the jeep, respondent
reiterated his promise to marry her and then started caressing her downward and
his hand kept on moving to her panty and down to her private parts (pp. 121-122, tsn, id.); that she then
said: ‘What is this Trans?’, but he
answered: ‘Day, do not be afraid of me,
I will marry you’ and reminded her also that ‘anyway, December is very near,
the month we have been waiting for’ ([p]. 122, tsn, id.), then he pleaded,
‘Day, just give this to me, do not be afraid’ (ibid), and again reiterated his
promise and assurances, at the same time pulling down her panty; that she told
him that she was afraid because they were not yet married, but because she
loved him she finally agreed to have sexual intercourse with him at the back
seat of the jeep; that after the intercourse she wept and respondent again
reiterated his promises and assurances not to worry because anyway he would
marry her; and at about 12:00 midnight they went home (pp. 122-124, tsn, id.).

“After August 20, 1973, respondent continued to invite her to
eat outside usually at the Honeycomb Restaurant in Dipolog City about twice or
three times a week, after which
he would take her to the airport where they would have sexual intercourse; that
they had this sexual intercourse from August to October 1973 at the frequency
of two or three times a week, and she consented to all these things because she
loved him and believed in all his promises (pp. 125-127, tsn, id.).

“Sometime in the middle part of September, 1973 complainant
noticed that her menstruation which usually occurred during the second week of
each month did not come; she waited until the end of the month and still there
was no menstruation; she submitted to a pregnancy test and the result was
positive; she informed respondent and respondent suggested to have the fetus
aborted but she objected and respondent did not insist; respondent then told
her not to worry because they would get married within one month and he would
talk to her parents about their marriage (pp. 129-132, tsn, id.).

“On October 20, 1973, respondent came to complainant’s house
and talked to her parents about their marriage; it was agreed that the marriage
would be celebrated in Manila so as not to create a scandal as complainant was
already pregnant; complainant and her mother left for Manila by boat on October
22, 1973 while respondent would follow by plane; and they agreed to meet in
Singalong, Manila, in the house of complainant’s sister Delia who is married to
Ernesto Serrano (pp. 132-135, tsn, id.).

“On October 26, 1973, when respondent came to see complainant
and her mother at Singalong, Manila, respondent told them that he could not
marry complainant because he was already married (p. 137, tsn. id.);
complainant’s mother got mad and said; ‘Trans, so you fooled my daughter and
why did you let us come here in Manila?’ (p. 138, tsn, id.). Later on, however, respondent reassured
complainant not to worry because respondent had been separated from his wife
for 16 years and he would work for the annulment of his marriage and,
subsequently marry complainant (p. 139, tsn, id.); respondent told complainant
to deliver their child in Manila and assured her of a monthly support of
P250.00 (p. 140, tsn, id.); respondent returned to Dipolog City and actually
sent the promised support; he came back to Manila in January 1974 and went to
see complainant; when asked about the annulment of his previous marriage, he
told complainant that it would soon be approved (pp. 141-142, tsn, id.); he
came back in February and in March 1974 and told complainant the same thing (p.
142, tsn, id.); complainant wrote her mother to come to Manila when she
delivers the child, but her mother answered her that she cannot come as nobody
would be left in their house in Dipolog and instead suggested that complainant
go to Cebu City which is nearer; complainant went to Cebu City in April 1974
and, her sister Norma took her to the Good Shepherd Convent at Banawa Hill; she
delivered a baby girl on June
14, 1974 at the Perpetual Succor Hospital in Cebu City; and the child was
registered as ‘Dureza Barrientos’
(pp. 143-148, tsn, id.).

“In the last week of June 1974 complainant came to Dipolog
City and tried to contact respondent by phone and, thru her brother, but to no avail; as she was ashamed she just
stayed in their house; she got sick and her father sent her to Zamboanga City
for medical treatment; she came back after two weeks but still respondent did not come to see her (pp. 48?150,
tsn, id.); she consulted a lawyer and filed
an administrative case against respondent with the National
Electrification Administration; the case
was referred to the Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative (ZANECO)
and it was dismissed and thus she
filed the present administrative case (pp. 150?151, tsn, id.).”

“Evidence
for the Respondent

“The evidence of the respondent consists of his sole testimony and one exhibit, the birth certificate of the child (Exh.
1). Respondent declared substantially
as follows: that he was born on August
6, 1932 in Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte; that he married Romualda Sumaylo in Liloy in 1955; that he had a son
who is now 20 years old; that because of
incompatibility he had been estranged from
his wife for 16 years; that in 1953 he was baptized as a moslem and thereby embraced the Islam Religion (pp. 173-180, tsn, Jan. 13,
1977); that he came to know complainant’s
father since 1952 because he was his teacher;
likewise he knew complainant’s mother because
they were former classmates in high
school; that he became acquainted with complainant when he used to visit her sister,
Norma, in their house; they gradually became friends and often talked with each other, and even talked about
their personal problems; that he
mentioned to her his being estranged
from his wife; that with the consent of
her parents he invited her to be one of the usherettes in the Masonic Convention in Sicayab, Dipolog City held on June
28-30, 1973 (pp. 185-192, tsn,
id.); that the arrangement was for him
to fetch her from her residence and take her home from the convention site; that it was
during this occasion that they
became close to each other and after
the convention, he proposed his love to her on July 7, 1973; that (sic)
a week of courtship, she accepted his
proposal and since then he used to invite her (pp. 193-194, tsn, id.).

That in the evening of August 20, 1973, respondent invited
complainant to be his partner
during the Chamber of Commerce affair at the Lopez Skyroom; that at about 10:00
p.m. of that evening after the affair, complainant complained to him of a
headache, so he decided to take her home but once inside the jeep, she wanted
to have a joy ride, so he drove around the city and proceeded to the airport;
that when they were at the airport, only two of them, they started the usual
kisses and they were carried by their passion; they forgot themselves and they
made love; that before midnight he took her home; that thereafter they indulged
in sexual intercourse many times whenever they went on joy riding in the
evening and ended up in the airport which was the only place they could be
alone (p. 195, tsn, id.).

“That it was sometime in the later part of October 1973 that
complainant told him of her pregnancy; that they agreed that the child be deli­vered
in Manila to avoid scandal and respondent would take care of the expenses; that
during respondent’s talk with the parents of complainant regarding the latter’s
pregnancy, he told him he was married but estranged from his wife; that when
complainant was already in Manila, she asked him if he was willing to marry
her, he answered he could not marry again, otherwise, he would be charged with
bigamy but he promised to file an annulment of his marriage as he had been
separated from his wife for 16 years; that complainant consented to have sexual
intercourse with him because of her love to him and he did not resort to force,
trickery, deceit or cajolery; and that the present case was filed against him
by complainant because of his failure to give the money to support complainant
while in Cebu waiting for the delivery of the child and, also to meet
complainant’s medical expenses when she went to Zamboanga City for medical
check-up (pp. 198-207, tsn, id.).

FINDING OF FACTS

“From the evidence adduced by the parties, the following facts
are not disputed:

“1. That the
complainant, Victoria Barrientos, is single, a college student, and was about
20 years and 7 months old during the time (July-October 1975) of her
relationship with respondent, having been born on December 23, 1952; while
respondent Transfiguracion Daarol is married. General Manager of Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative, and 41
years old at the time of the said relationship, having been born on August 6,
1932;

“2. That respondent
is married to Romualda A. Sumaylo with whom he has a son; that the marriage ceremony was solemnized on September
24, 1955 at Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte by a
catholic priest, Rev. Fr. Anacleto Pellamo, Parish Priest thereat; and
that said respondent had been separated from his wife for about 16 years at the
time of his rela­tionship with complainant;

“3. That respondent
had been known by the Barrientos family for quite sometime, having been a former student of complainant’s
father in 1952 and, a former
classmate of complainant’s mother at the Andres Bonifacio College in Dipolog
City; that he became acquainted with
complainant’s sister, Norma in 1963 and eventually with her other sisters, Baby
and Delia and, her brother, Boy, as he used to visit Norma at her residence;
that he also befriended com­plainant and who became a close friend when he
invited her, with her parents’ consent, to be one of the usherettes during the
Masonic Convention in Sicayab, Dipolog City from June 28 to 30, 1973, and he
used to fetch her at her residence in the morning and took her home from the
convention site after each day’s activities;

“4. That respondent
courted complainant, and after a week of courtship, complainant accepted
respondent’s love on July 7, 1973; that in the evening of August 20, 1973,
complainant with her parents’ permission was respondent’s partner during the
Chamber of Commerce affair at the Lopez Skyroom in the Dipolog City, and at
about 10:00 o’clock that evening, they left the place but before going home,
they went to the airport at Sicayab, Dipolog City and parked the jeep at the
beach, where there were no houses around; that after the usual prelimina­ries,
they consummated the sexual act and at about midnight they went home; that after the first sexual act, respondent
used to have joy ride with complainant which usually ended at the airport where
they used to make love twice or three times a week; that as a result of her
intimate relations, complainant became pregnant;

“5. That after a
conference among respondent, complainant and complainant’s parents, it was
agreed that complainant would deliver her child in Manila, where she went with
her mother on October 22, 1973 by boat, arriving in Manila on the 25th and,
stayed with her brother-in-law Ernesto Serrano in Singalong, Manila; that
respondent visited her there on the 26th, 27th and 28th of October 1973, and
again in February and March 1974; that later on complainant decided to deliver
the child in Cebu City in order to be nearer to Dipolog City, and she went
there in April 1974 and her sister took her to the Good Shepherd Convent at
Banawa Hill, Cebu City; that on June 14, 1974, she delivered a baby girl at the
Perpetual Succor Hospital in Cebu City and, named her ‘Dureza Barrientos’; that
about the last week of June 1974 she went home to Dipolog City; that during her
stay in Manila and later in Cebu City, the respondent defrayed some of her
expenses; that she filed an administrative case against respondent with the
National Electrification Administration, which complaint, however, was
dismissed; and then she instituted the present disbarment proceedings against
respondent.

“x x x                                     x x x

“In view of the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully
recommend that after hearing, respondent Transfiguracion Daarol be disbarred as
a lawyer.” (Rollo, pp. 28-51)

After a thorough review of the case, the Court finds itself in full accord with the
findings and recommendation of the Solicitor
General.

From the records, it appears indubitable that complainant was
never informed by respondent attorney of his real status as a married individual. The fact of his previous marriage was
disclosed by respondent only after the complainant became pregnant. Even then, respondent misrepresented himself
as being eligible to re-marry for having been estranged from his wife for 16 years and dangled a
marriage proposal on the assurance that he would work for the annulment of his
first marriage. It was a deception after all as it
turned out that respondent never bothered to annul said marriage. More importantly,
respondent knew all along that the mere fact of separation alone is not
a ground for annulment of marriage and
does not vest him legal capacity to contract another marriage.

Interestingly enough, respondent lived alone in Dipolog City
though his son, who was also studying in Dipolog City, lived separately from
him. He never introduced his son and
went around with friends as though he was never married much less had a child
in the same locality. This circumstance
alone belies respondent’s claim that complainant and her family were aware of
his previous marriage at the very start of his courtship. The Court is therefore inclined to believe
that respondent resorted to deceit in the satisfaction of his sexual desires at
the expense of the gullible complainant. It is not in accordance with the nature of the educated, cultured and
respectable, which complainant’s family is, her father being the Assistant
Principal of the local public high school, to allow a daughter to have an
affair with a married man.

But what surprises this Court even more is the perverted sense of
respondent’s moral values when
he said that: “I see nothing
wrong with this relationship despite my being married.” (TSN. p. 209.
January 13, 1977; Rollo, p. 47)
Worse, he even suggested abortion. Truly, respondent’s moral sense is so seriously impaired that we cannot
maintain his membership in the Bar. In
Pangan v. Ramos (107 SCRA 1 [1981]), we held that:

“(E)ven his act
in making love to another woman while
his first wife is still alive and their
marriage still valid and existing
is contrary to honesty, justice,
decency and morality. Respondent made a mockery of marriage
which is a sacred insti­tution
demanding respect and dignity.”

Finally, respondent
even had the temerity to allege that he is a Moslem convert and as such, could enter into multiple marriages and has inquired
into the possibility of marrying complainant (Rollo, p. 15). As records indicate, however, his claim of
having embraced the Islam religion is not supported by any evidence save that
of his self-serving testimony. In this
regard, we need only to quote the finding of the Office of the Solicitor
General, to wit:

“When respondent was asked to marry complainant he said he
could not because he was already married and would open him to a charge of
bigamy (p. 200. tsn, January 13, 1977). If he were a moslem convert entitled to four (4) wives, as he is now
claiming, why did he not marry complainant? The answer is supplied by
respondent himself. He said while he
was a moslem, but, having been married in a civil ceremony, he could no longer
validly enter into another civil ceremony without committing bigamy because the
complainant is a christian (p. 242. tsn, January 13, 1977). Consequently, if respondent knew, that
notwithstanding his being a moslem convert, he cannot marry complainant, then
it was grossly immoral for him to have sexual intercourse with complainant because
he knew the existence of a legal impediment. Respondent may not therefore, escape responsibility thru his dubious
claim that he has embraced the Islam religion.” (Rollo, p. 49)

By his acts of deceit and immoral tendencies to appease his
sexual desires, respondent Daarol has amply demonstrated his moral
delinquency. Hence, his removal for
conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar on the grounds of deceit and grossly
immoral conduct (Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court) is in order. Good moral character s a condition which
precedes admission to the Bar (Sec. 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court) and is not
dispensed with upon admission thereto. It is a continuing qualification which all lawyers must possess (People
v. Tuanda, 181 SCRA 682 [1990]; Delos Reyes v. Aznar, 179 SCRA 653 [1989]),
otherwise, a lawyer may either be suspended or disbarred.

As we have held in Piatt v. Abordo (58 Phil. 350 [1933] cited in Leda v. Tabang, 206 SCRA 395
[1992]):

“It cannot be overemphasized that the requirement of good
character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of
law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice
of law (People v. Tuanda, Adm. Case No. 3360, 30 January 1990, 181 SCRA
692). As aptly put by Mr. Justice George
A. Malcolm: As good character is an
essential qualification for admission of an attorney to practice, when the
attorney’s character is bad in such respects as to show that he is unsafe and
unfit to be entrusted with the powers of an attorney, the court retains the
power to discipline him (Piatt v. Abordo, 58 Phil. 350 [1933]).

Only recently, another disbarment
proceeding was resolved by this Court against a lawyer who convinced a woman
that her prior marriage to another man was null and void ab initio and
she was still legally single and free to marry him (the lawyer), married her
was supported by her in his studies, begot a child with her, abandoned her and
the child, and married another woman Terre vs. Terre, Adm. Case No. 2349 July
3, 1992).

Here, respondent, already a married man and about 41 years old,
proposed love and marriage to complainant,
then still a 20-year-old minor, knowing that he did not have the required legal capacity. Respondent then succeeded in
having carnal relations
with complainant by deception, made her pregnant, suggested abortion, breached
his promise to marry her, and then deserted her and the child. Respondent is therefore guilty of deceit and
grossly immoral conduct.

The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who
measure up to the exacting standards of mental and moral fitness. Respondent having exhibited debased
morality, the Court is constrained
to impose upon him the most severe disciplinary
action – disbarment.

The ancient and learned profession of Law exacts from its members
the highest standard of morality. The
members are, in fact, enjoined to aid in guarding the Bar against the admission
of candidates unfit or unqualified because deficient in either moral character
or education (In re Puno, 19 SCRA 439, [1967]; Pangan vs. Ramos, 107 SCRA 1
[1981]).

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
must lead life in accordance with the highest moral standards of the
community. More specifically, a member
of the Bar and an officer of the Court is not only required to refrain from
adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also behave
himself in such a manner as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the
belief that he is flouting those moral standards (Tolosa vs. Cargo, 171 SCRA
21, 26 [1989], citing Toledo vs.
Toledo, 7 SCRA 757 [1963] and Royong vs. Oblena, 7 SCRA 859 [1963]).

In Brief, We find respondent Daarol morally delinquent and as
such, should not be allowed continued membership in the ancient and learned
profession of law (Quingwa v. Puno, 19 SCRA 439 [1967]).

ACCORDINGLY, we find
respondent Transfiguracion Daarol guilty of grossly immoral conduct unworthy of
being a member of the Bar and is hereby ordered DISBARRED and his name stricken
off from the Roll of Attorneys. Let
copies of this Resolution be furnished to all courts of the land, the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant and spread on the
personal record of respondent Daarol.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Grino-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.

---

^*(Middle initial of respondent is
“T”, Respondent’s Answer dated
October 3, 1975, Rollo, p. 16)