GIZALE O. TUMBAGA, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. MANUEL P. TEOXON, RESPONDENT.

Tumbaga versus Teoxon

The Case

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed directly with the Supreme Court by Gizale O. Tumbaga against Attorney Manuel P. Teoxon, charging him with gross immorality, deceitful and fraudulent conduct, and gross misconduct. The complainant alleged that the respondent, a married man and then the City Legal Officer of Naga City, carried on an illicit affair with her, fathered her child, and held himself out as free to marry her. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the standards of good moral character required of every lawyer, the definition of grossly immoral conduct as a ground for suspension or disbarment, and the rule that administrative proceedings are not bound by technical rules of evidence and may rest on substantial evidence.

Procedural History

The complaint was verified and dated October 9, 2001, and was filed directly with the Supreme Court. The Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the parties appeared before the Commission on Bar Discipline for hearings and the marking of their respective evidence. On motion of the complainant, the Commission ordered deoxyribonucleic acid testing of the respondent, the complainant, and the child Billy John, but upon motion of the respondent the Commission annulled that order in the interest of the speedy disposition of the case. On November 14, 2008, the Commission issued its Report and Recommendation, finding that the respondent maintained an illicit affair with the complainant and recommending suspension for two years. In a resolution dated February 19, 2009, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar approved the recommendation and increased the period of suspension to three years. The respondent moved for reconsideration, attaching affidavits, a transcript of stenographic notes from the replevin case, and a letter from the University of Nueva Caceres. The Board denied the motion in a resolution dated December 14, 2012, and thereafter transmitted the record of the case to the Supreme Court for final action. The case thus reached the Court not by appeal but as an original administrative complaint filed directly with it and elevated through the Integrated Bar's disciplinary machinery.

Facts

The complainant met the respondent in September 1999, when he was the City Legal Officer of Naga City and she sought legal advice from him. He visited her often, brought gifts for her son Al Greg, volunteered to be the child's godfather, and assured her mother that although he was already married to Luzviminda Balang, his marriage was a sham because the marriage contract was not registered. Believing his representation that he was eligible to marry her, the complainant moved in with him at the Puncia Apartment in Naga City on December 19, 1999. She became pregnant in April 2000, and the respondent allegedly wanted the baby aborted, but she refused. After their son Billy John was born, the respondent spent more time with them, used the apartment as a temporary law office, and lived there for two to three days at a time.

After Billy John's baptism, the respondent hesitantly signed the Certificate of Live Birth and volunteered to file it, but he failed to do so, and the complainant secured another form which she asked him to sign twice; the certificate was registered on February 15, 2001. Thereafter the respondent rarely visited them. He compelled the complainant to resign from a law office where she had begun working, promising to take care of her financial needs, but he failed to fulfill that promise. She sought help from the Office of the City Fiscal of Naga City in the second week of March 2001, and in the early morning of the conference set by that office the respondent gave her an affidavit of support and told her there was no need for him to appear. Fiscal Elsa Mampo, unsure of the signature on the affidavit, advised that it be signed again, and the respondent half-heartedly affixed his true signature. In May 2001 he executed a promissory note, which he also failed to honor, and in June 2001 the complainant moved out of the apartment because he no longer paid the rentals.

In the evening of September 9, 2001, the respondent, visibly drunk and accompanied by three special weapons and tactics members and his wife, went to the complainant's new residence, carrying a bolo and a lead pipe, and threatened to hurt her if she did not return the personal belongings he had left in their previous apartment. The incident was recorded in the police blotter. In his answer, the respondent denied the affair, claimed the complainant merely wanted to exact money from him, denied paternity of Billy John, and alleged that his signatures on the affidavit of support and the certificate of live birth were falsified. He attached the decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Naga City in the replevin case he had filed against her, in which that court ruled in his favor.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of grossly immoral conduct for maintaining an extramarital affair with the complainant, such as to warrant disciplinary action.
• Whether or not the respondent's guilt may be established by substantial evidence in an administrative proceeding where technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied.
• Whether or not the findings of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities in the replevin case may be considered in the administrative case despite the difference in issues.
• Whether or not the respondent's claim of forgery of his signatures is convincing.
• Whether or not the affidavit of Antonio Orogo carries evidentiary value.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

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

This rule fixes the standard of conduct the respondent is measured against.

Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

This canon obliges the lawyer to keep the profession's dignity in both public and private life.

Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should 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 conduct because it discredits the profession.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. x x x.

This is the provision that authorizes the penalty of suspension or disbarment for grossly immoral conduct.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the Integrated Bar that the respondent's actuations showed his failure to live up to the good moral conduct required of members of the legal profession. Quoting its earlier ruling in Advincula versus Advincula, the Court held that good moral character must be possessed at the time of application to the Bar and maintained until retirement from the practice of law, and that a lawyer must not only be in fact of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character. Immoral conduct, the Court explained, is conduct so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community; to be a basis for discipline it must be grossly immoral, that is, so corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. The Court found substantial evidence that the respondent committed gross immorality by maintaining an extramarital affair with the complainant.

On the second issue, the Court held that guilt must be established by substantial evidence, which it described as that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It rejected the respondent's objection that the pictures were admitted without anyone testifying to the circumstances of their taking, because technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied in administrative proceedings, and administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict judicial sense.

On the third issue, the Court relied on the decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities in the replevin case, which, although it ruled in the respondent's favor, plainly disbelieved his claim that he merely left a bag of clothing in the complainant's house and found that the furniture was a gift of love. The Court held that while the issues in the replevin case and the administrative case are different, they share a common factual backdrop, namely the parties' contrasting accounts of the true nature of their relationship, and that the respondent himself brought the decision to light by attaching it to his answer, so he cannot belatedly ask that it be disregarded after its findings were used against him.

On the fourth issue, the Court found the claim of forgery unconvincing. Comparing the sample signatures on the credit card and automated teller machine card with the respondent's signatures in his pleadings and other documents, the Court observed that these too appeared dissimilar, which suggested that the respondent uses several different signatures. The Court also noted that the records do not indicate whether he filed criminal charges for the alleged falsification. As to the certificate of live birth, the Court declined to pass on the validity of the signature because the respondent had filed a separate complaint for cancellation of his acknowledgment, which should be threshed out in the proper proceeding.

On the fifth issue, the Court gave no credibility to the affidavit of Antonio Orogo. Given the materiality of his statements and the gravity of his accusations, he should have been presented as a witness before the investigating commissioner to confirm his affidavit and give the complainant the opportunity to cross-examine him; since this was not done, the affidavit lacks evidentiary value.

Doctrine

• A lawyer must possess good moral character at the time of admission to the Bar and must maintain it until retirement from the practice of law; he must not only be in fact of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character, leading a life in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community.
• Immoral conduct, to be a ground for disciplinary action, must be grossly immoral: so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community, so corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.
• Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, grossly immoral conduct is a ground for suspension or disbarment, and the guilt of the lawyer must be established by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
• Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied in administrative proceedings, and administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict judicial sense.
• Findings of a trial court after a trial on the merits may be considered in an administrative case sharing the same factual backdrop, especially where the respondent himself introduced the decision in evidence.
• An affidavit whose affiant is not presented for confirmation and cross-examination lacks evidentiary value.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of gross immorality and suspended him from the practice of law for three years, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a lawyer must not only be in fact of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character, and that immoral conduct must be grossly immoral to warrant discipline. Examiners use this case for the definition of grossly immoral conduct, the substantial evidence standard in disbarment proceedings, and the relaxed application of technical rules of evidence before the Integrated Bar.