OCA CIRCULAR NO. 41-2003, May 05, 2003

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted hereunder
is the decision of the Court En Bane in Administrative Case No. 4921
entitled Carmelita I. Zaguirre vs. Atty. Alfredo Castillo dated March 6,
2003, to wit:

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

‘Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.’

‘CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all time uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the
Integrated Bar.’

‘Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, not should he, whether in
public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession.’

Immoral conduct has been defined as:

‘xxx that conduct which is so willfull, flagrant or shameless as to
show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the
community. Furthermore, such conduct must not only be immoral, but
grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to be a high
degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as
to shock the common sense of decency.’

In his affidavit dated September 10, 1997, duly acknowledged before a notary public, he declared explicitly:

‘ 1. That I had a relationship with one Carmelita Zaguirre, my officemate;

‘2. That as a result of that relationship, she is presently pregnant with my child;

‘3. That I hereby voluntarily recognize the child now under (sic) he womb to be my own;

‘4. That I am willing to support the said child henceforth,
including his/her personal and medical needs, education, housing, food,
clothing and other necessities for living, which I will give through
his/her mother, Carmelita Zaguirre, until he/she becomes of legal age
and capable to live on his/her own”

‘5. That I undertake to sign the birth certificate as an additional
proof that he/she is my child, however, my failure to sign does not
negate the recognition and acknowledgment already done herein;

‘6. That I am executing this affidavit without compulsion on my
part and being a lawyer, I have full knowledge of the consequence of
such acknowledgment and recognition.’^[14]

More incriminating is his handwritten letter dated March 12, 1998 which states in part:
‘Ayokong umabot tayo sa kung saan-saan pa. All your officemates,
e.g., Ate Ging, Glo, Guy and others (say) that I am the look like (sick)
of your daughter.

‘Here’s my bargain. I will help you in supporting y our daughter,
but I cannot promise fix amount for monthly support of your daughter.
However it shall not be less than P500 but not more than P1,000.’^[15]

In the recent case of Luguid vs. Judge Camano, Jr., the Court in castigating a judge stated that:

..even as an ordinary lawyer, respondent has to conform to the strict
standard of conduct demanded of members of the profession. Certainly,
fathering children by a woman other than his lawful wife fails to meet
these standards.’^[16]

Siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a conduct way below the standards of morality required of every lawyer.^[17]

Moreover, the attempt of respondent to renege on his notarized
statement recognizing and undertaking to support his child by Carmelita
demonstrates a certain unscrupulousness on his part which is highly
censurable, unbecoming a member of a noble profession, tantamount to
self-stultification.^[18]

The Court has repeatedly held:

‘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 but must also so behave himself as to avoid
scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those
moral standards.’^[19]

While respondent does not deny having an extra-judicial affair with
complainant he seeks understanding from the Court, pointing out that
‘men by nature are polygamous,^[20] and that what happened between them was ‘nothing but mutual lust and desire.^[21] The Court is not convinced. In fact, it is appalled at the reprehensible, amoral attitude of the respondent.

Respondent claims that he did not use any deception to win her
affection. Granting arguendo that complainant entered into a
relationshipwith him knowing full well his marital status, still it does
not absolve him of gross immorality for what is in question in a case
like this is respondent’s fitness to be a member of the legal
profession. It is not dependent whether or not the other party knowingly
engaged in an immoral relationship with him.

The illicit relationship with Carmelita took place while respondent
was preparing to take the bar examinations. Thus, it cannot be said that
it is unknown to him that an applicant for admission to membership in
the bar. must show that he is possessed of good moral character, a
requirement which is not dispensed with upon admission to membership of
the bar.^[23] This
qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the
legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain
one’s good standing in the profession,^[24] it is a continuing requirement to the practice of law^[25]
and therefore admission to the bar does not preclude a subsequent
judicial inquiry, upon proper complaint, into any question concerning
his mental or moral fitness before he became a lawyer. This is because
his admission to practice merely creates a rebuttable presumption that
he has all the qualifications to become a lawyer.

The Court held:

‘The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the
State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the
qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. We
must stress that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions. A lawyer has the privilege to practice law only during good
behavior. He can be deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained
and declared by judgment o f the c ourt after giving him the opportunity
to be heard.’^[26]

and in Dumadag vs. Lumaya:

‘The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions.
Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the
highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the
legal profession are the conditions required for remaining a member of
good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice
law.’^[27]

Respondent repeatedly engaged in sexual congress with a woman not his
wife and now refuses to recognize and support a child whom he
previously recognized and promised to support. Clearly therefore,
respondent violated the standards of morality required of the legal
profession and should be disciplined accordingly.

As consistently held by this Court, disbarment shall not be meted out if a lesser punishment could be given. ^[28]
Records show that from the time he took his oath in 1997, he has
severed his ties with complainant and now lives with his wife and
children in Mindoro. As of now, the Court does not perceive this fact as
an indication of respondent’s effort to mend his ways or that he
recognizes the impact of his offense on the noble profession of law.
Nevertheless, the Court deems it more appropriate under the
circumstances that indefinite suspension should be meted out than
disbarment/ The suspension shall last until such time that respondent is
able to show, to the full satisfaction of the Court, that he had
instilled in himself a firm conviction of maintaining moral integrity
and uprightness required of every member of the profession.

The rule is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for
any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long
as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or
good demeanor. ^[29]

ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds respondent
GUILTY of Gross Immoral Conduct and ordered to suffer INDEFINITE
SUSPENSION from the practice of law.

5 May 2003

[15] Id., at p. 39

^[16] AM No. RTJ-99-1509, August 8, 2002.

^[17] Paras vs. Paras, 343 SCRA 414,426 (2000)

^[18] Macayda vs. Naz, 125 SCRA 466,469 (1983)

 ^[19] Narag vs. Narag, supra, footnote 13

 ^[20] Rollo, p. 14

^[21] Id., at p. 11

[23] Cordova vs. Cordova, 179 SCRA 680, 683 (1989); Vda. de Mijares vs. Villaluz, 274 SCRA 1, 8 (1997)

^[24]
Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos, 285 SCRA 93, 100 (1998); Igual vs. Javier, 254
SCRA 416 (1996); Villanueva vs. Sta. Ana, 245 SCRA 707 (1995); People
vs. Tunada, 18 SCRA 692 (1990); Melendrez vs. Decena, 176 SCRA 662
(1989).

[25] Nakpil vs. Valdes, 286 SCRA 758, 774 (1998)

^[26] Sebastian vs. Calis, 344 SCRA 1, 8 (1999)

^[28] Saburdino vs. Madronio, A.C. N. 4497, September 26,2001

^[29] Nakpil vs. Valdez, supra.