OCA CIRCULAR NO. 49-2005, April 29, 2005

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted
hereunder is the Resolution of the Court En Bane dated September 22,
2004 in Administrative Case No. 6486, entitled “Emma T. Dantes vs. Atty.
Crispin G. Dantes”, to wit:

“Despite variations in the specific standards and provisions,
one requirement remains constant in all the jurisdictions where the
practice of law is regulated: the candidate must demonstrate that he or
she has “good moral character,” and once he becomes a lawyer he should
always behave in accordance with the standard. In this jurisdiction too,
good moral character is not only a condition precedent^[1]
to the practice of law, but an unending requirement for all the members
of the bar. Hence, when a.lawyer is found guilty of grossly immoral
conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.^[2]

In an Affidavit-Complaint ^[3]dated
June 6, 2001 , filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
Emma T. Dantes, sought the disbarment of her husband, Atty. Crispin G.
Dantes on the ground of immorality, abandonment, and violation of
professional ethics and law. The case was docketed as CBD Case No.
01-851.

Complainant alleged that respondent is a philanderer. Respondent
purportedly engaged in illicit relationships with two women, one after
the other, and had illegitimate children with them. From the time
respondent’s illicit affairs started, he failed to give regular support
to complainant and their children, thus forcing complainant to work
abroad to provide for their children’s needs. Complainant pointed out
that these acts of respondent constitute a violation of his lawyer’s
oath and his moral and legal obligation to be a role model to the
community.

On July 4, 2001 , the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued an Order ^[4]requiring respondent to submit his answer to the Affidavit-Complaint.

Respondent submitted his Answer ^[5]on
November 19, 2001 . Though admitting the fact of marriage with the
complainant and the birth of their children, respondent alleged that
they have mutually agreed to separate eighteen (18) years before after
complainant had abandoned him in their Balintawak residence and fled to
San Fernando, Pampanga. Respondent claimed that when complainant
returned after eighteen years, she insisted that she be accommodated in
the place where he and their children were residing. Thus, he was forced
to live alone in a rented apartment.

Respondent further alleged that he sent their children to the
best school he could afford and provided for their needs. He even bought
two lots in Pampanga for his sons, Dandelo and Dante, and gave
complainant adequate financial support even after she had abandoned him
in 1983.

Respondent asserted that complainant filed this case in order to
force him to remit seventy percent (70%) of his monthly salary to her.

Subsequently, the IBP conducted its investigation and hearings
on the complaint. Complainant presented her evidence, both oral and
documentary,^[6] to support the allegations in her Affidavit-Complaint.

From the evidence presented by the complainant, it was
established that on January 19, 1979 , complainant and respondent were
married^[7] and lived with the
latter’s mother in Balintawak. At that time, respondent was just a
fourth year law student. To make ends meet, complainant engaged in the
buy and sell business and relied on dole-outs from the respondent’s
mother.

Three children were born to the couple, namely, Dandelo, Dante and Daisy, who were born on February 20, 1980,^[8] October 14, 1981 ^[9]and August 11, 1983,^[10]
respectively. Complainant narrated that their relationship was marred
by frequent quarrels because of respondent’s extra-marital affairs.^[11]
Sometime in 1983, she brought their children to her mother in Pampanga
to enable her to work because respondent had failed to provide adequate
support. From 1986 to 2001, complainant worked abroad as a domestic
helper.

Denying that there was a mutual agreement between her and respondent to live separately, complainant asseverated that she was just
compelled to work abroad to support their children. When she returned
to the Philippines she learned that respondent was living with another
woman. Respondent, then bluntly told her, that he did not want to live
with her anymore and that he preferred his mistresses.

Complainant presented documentary evidence consisting of the birth certificates of Ray Darwin 5 Darling, and Christian Dave,^[12] all surnamed Dantes, and the affidavits of respondent and his paramour ^[13]
to prove the fact that respondent sired three illegitimate children out
of his illicit affairs with two different women. Letters of
complainant’s legitimate children likewise support the allegation that
respondent is a womanizer.^[14]

In an Order dated April 17, 2002 , respondent was
deemed to have waived his right to cross-examine complainant, after he
failed to appear during the scheduled hearings despite due notice. ‘He
however, submitted his Comment/Opposition to the Complainant’s Formal Offer of Evidence with Motion to Exclude the Evidence from the Records of the Proceedings ^[15] on August 1, 2002 .

Subsequently, on May 29, 2003, respondent submitted a Motion to Adopt Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism. Respondent’s motion was denied because it was filed after the complainant has already presented her evidence.^[16]
Respondent was given a final chance to present his evidence on July 11,
2003 . Instead of presenting evidence, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Dismiss, which
was likewise denied for being a prohibited pleading under the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline. Respondent submitted his Position Paper on August 4, 2003.

In respondent’s Position Paper, ^[17]he reiterated the allegations in his Answer except that this time, he argued that in view of the resolution of the complaint for support with alimony pendente lite ^[18]filed against him by the complainant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City,^[19] the instant administrative ease should be dismissed for lack of merit.

On July 7, 2004 , the IBP submitted to us through the Office of the Bar Confidant its Report^[20]and Resolution No. XVI-2004-230 involving CBD Case No. 01-851.^[21] The IBP recommended that the respondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.

Except for the penalty, we find the above recommendation well-taken.

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 times 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, nor should he,
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.”

The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Immoral
conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant,
or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community.^[22]
To be the basis of disciplinary action, the lawyer’s 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 a high degree^[23] or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.^[24]

In Barrientos vs. Daarol,^[25]we
ruled that 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 keeping mistresses but must also so behave himself as
to avoid scandalizing the public be creating the belief that he is
flouting those moral standards. If the practice of law is to remain an
honorable profession and attain its basic ideals, those enrolled in its
ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also,
in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. The requirement of
good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the general
public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning.

It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character
has three ostensible purposes, namely: (i) to protect the public; (ii)
to protect the public image of lawyers; and (iii) to protect prospective
clients. A writer added a fourth: to protect errant lawyers from
themselves.^[26]

Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not
only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal career,
in order to maintain their good standing in this exclusive and honored
fraternity.^[27] They may be
suspended from the practice of law 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.^[28]

Undoubtedly, respondent’s acts of engaging in illicit
relationships with two different women during the subsistence of his
marriage to the complainant constitutes grossly immoral conduct
warranting the imposition appropriate sanctions. Complainant’s
testimony, taken in conjunction with the documentary evidence,
sufficiently established respondent’s commission of marital infidelity
and immorality. Evidently, respondent had breached the high and exacting
moral standards set for members of the law profession. He has made a
mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and
dignity.^[29]

In Toledo vs. Toledo? ^[30]we
disbarred respondent for abandoning his unlawful wife and cohabiting
with another woman who had borne him a child. Likewise, in Obusan vs. Obitsan,^[31]we
ruled that abandoning one’s wife and resuming carnal relations with a
paramour fall within that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and which shows moral indifference to the opinion of the good
and respectable members of the community.

We reiterate our ruling in Cordova vs. Cordova,^[32]that
moral delinquency which affects the fitness of a member of the bar to
continue as such, includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted
moral standards of the community as exemplified by behavior which makes a
mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage.

The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and only
in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and
character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of
the bar.^[33] Where a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, could accomplish the end desired, disbarment should never be decreed.^[34]
However, in the present case, the seriousness of the offense compels
the Court to wield its power to disbar as it appears to be the most
appropriate penalty.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing Atty Crisnin G Dantes is
hereby DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of
Attorneys. Let a copy 0?S be entered in the respondent’s record as a
member of the Bar and notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines and on the Office of the Court Administrator for
circulation to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.”

Copy of the decision was received by respondent on October 8 2004
as manifested in his Motion for Reconsideration dated October 19 2004
which was denied with finality by the Court in its resolution dated
November 23, 2004

__29__ April 2004.

	PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
	Court Administrator

^[2] Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

^[3] Rollo, pp. 1-2;

^[4] Id. at 18.

^[5] Id. at 23-30.

^[6] Exhibits “A” to “Z”, Rollo, pp. 72-96.

^[7] Rollo. n. 72.

^[8] Id. at 74.

^[9] Id. at 73.

^[10] Id. at 75.

^[11] TSN, April 17, 2002 , p. 11.

^[12] Exhibit “G”. “G-l” “G-2”- Exhibit “H”, “H-l”, “H-2”; Exhibit “M”, “M-l”, “M-2”, Rollo, pp. 77-78, 83.

^[13]Exhibit “1”; Exhibit “J”; Exhibit “K”; and Exhibit “L”, Rollo, pp. 79-81.

^[14] Exhibits “S”; Exhibit “T”; and Exhibit “U”, Rollo, pp. 89-91.

^[15] Rollo, pp. 105-107.

^[16] Id at 139.

^[17] Id. at 145-156.

^[18]  Civil Case-No. Q-01-45222.

^[19] Presided by Judge
Rosalina L. Luna Pison of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, Branch
107, National Capital Judicial Region, Rollo, pp. 157-158.

^[20] Rollo, pp. 198-201.

^[21] Id. at 197.

^[22] BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 6 th ed., p. 751 citing In re: Monaghan, 126 VT, 53m 222 A 2d 665, 674.

^[23] Reyes vs. Wong, A.C. No. 547, January 29, 1975 , 63 SCRA 667.

^[24] Royong vs. Oblena, A.C. No. 376, April 30, 1963 , 7 SCRA 859, 869.

^[25] A.C. No. 1512, January 29, 1993,218 SCRA 30.

^[26] Elliston, F. A. The Ethics of Ethics Tests for Lawyers, published in The Bar Examiner, vol. 51, no. 3 (August 1982) 8:16 .

^[27] Cordon vs. Balicanta A.C No. 2797, October 4, 2002, 390 SCRA 299.

^[28] Rural Bank of
Silay, Inc. vs. Pilla, A.C. No. 3637, January24, 2001, 350 SCRA 138;
Saburnido vs. Madrono, A.C. No. 4497, September 26, 2001, 366 SCRA1.

^[29] Pangan vs. Ramos, Adm. Case No. 1053, August 31, 1981 , 107 SCRA 1

^[30] Adm. Case No. 266, April 27, 1963 , 7 SCRA 757

^[31] Adm. Case No. 1392, April 2, 1984 , 128 SCRA 485

^[32] November 29, 1989 , 179 SCRA 680

^[33] Tapucar vs. Tapucar A.C. No. 4148, July 30, 1998 , 293 SCRA 331.

^[34] Resurreccion vs. Sayson, A.C. No. 1037, December 14,1998 ,300 SCRA 129.