PERFECTO MENDOZA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ALBERTO B. MALA, RESPONDENT.

The complaint which initiated the administrative case at bar, filed
in 1972 by Perfecto Mendoza, charged Atty. Alberto B. Mala with serious
misconduct consisting of grossly and scandalously immoral acts. The complaint alleged, more particularly,
that sometime in 1971, respondent Mala being then detailed in the Office of the
Agrarian Counsel in Baliwag, Bulacan, and being then a boarder in the conjugal
dwelling of complainant Mendoza and his wife, Leticia Manalastas — and during
the complainant’s sojourn in Camarines Sur which lasted for some two (2) years
— respondent Mala and said Leticia Manalastas had and maintained illicit
sexual relations and cohabited openly, notoriously and scandalously; and that
as a result of said relations Leticia Manalastas bore a child who was
thereafter baptized in the parish church of San Miguel and given the name of
Alberto Mala, Jr., with the consent of respondent Mala.

Atty. Mala was required to answer the complaint but despite
notice of that requirement, failed to do so within the time appointed. The case was then referred by the Court to
the Office of the Solicitor General in 1973, which proceeded to receive the
evidence of the complainant ex
parte.

It was not until after the complainant had finished presenting
his proofs and rested his case that Mala finally appeared. He filed a motion for admission of his
answer in July, 1974; and although his explanation for the long delay in
answering the complaint was inconsistent with an earlier one set forth in a
motion for admission of a “motion to dismiss,” the Solicitor General’s
Office admitted his answer “upon broad grounds of justice and
equity,” and, while denying his request to cross-examine the complainant’s
witnesses, allowed him to present his own evidence.

The case was subsequently transferred by the Office of the
Solicitor General to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the respondent
completed the presentation of his testimonial and documentary evidence before
the Commission on Bar Discipline in May, 1990.

The evidence was in due course considered, analyzed and assessed
by the IBP Board of Governors which thereafter promulgated a Resolution on
November 11, 1991, signed by all but one of its members, finding respondent
Mala guilty as charged — ­this, notwithstanding the complainant’s retraction
of his complaint — and recommending the imposition on him of the penalty of
suspension for a period of six (6) months and a warning of more severe sanction
to be imposed for a repetition “of his immoral failings as a responsible
member of the bar.”

This Court’s own review of the evidence satisfies it that the
same does indeed establish the material allegations of the complaint, that
respondent Mala has in truth committed the immoral acts imputed to him; that
Mala’s proffered defenses are in fact untenable; and that no error of
sufficient gravity is disclosed in the record to warrant rejection of the
report and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors. The Court therefore approves and adopts the
following conclusions of the IBP Board of Governors, to wit:

“From the evidence adduced, the adulterous relation of Atty.
Alberto Mala with Leticia Manalastas Mala is clearly proven which, considering
his position as an attorney for the Agrarian Office of the locality when these
immoral acts were committed at his situs of service, caused public scorn and
scandal *** (taking account of) the moral norms of our society *** “

‘In Mortel v. Aspiras (100 Phil. 586) this Court, following
the rule in the United States, held that “the continued possession *** of
a good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance in
the practice of the law *** and its loss requires suspension or disbarment,
even though the statutes do not specify that as a ground for disbarment. It is important to note that the lack of
moral character that we here refer to as essential is not limited to good moral character relating to the
discharge of the duties and responsibilities of an attorney at law. The moral delinquency that 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, conduct for
instance, which makes “a mockery of the inviolable social institution of
marriage. In Mortel, the
respondent being already married, wooed and won the heart of a single, 21-year
old teacher who subsequently cohabited with him and bore him a son. Because respondent’s conduct in Mortel
was particularly morally repulsive, involving the marrying of his mistress to
his own son and thereafter cohabiting with the wife of his own son after the
marriage he had himself arranged, respondent was disbarred.’ (Cited in Cordova v. Cordova, Adm. Case
3249, November 29, 1989).

“It is evident, however, that the complainant and his wife
reconciled and more children were born to them. The unfortunate episode with the respondent apparently ended,
hence the complainant executed an affidavit of desistance exonerating the
respondent, and this story has a happy ending. Be that as it is, to exonerate totally the respondent and not give to
him some lesson for scandalizing the noble profession to which he belongs will
negate the IBP’s duty to police its ranks and the Supreme Court to punish the
erring. The mitigating circumstances
above considered, a suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months is recommended *** (with) a warning ***.”

WHEREFORE, the Court DECLARES the respondent, Atty.
Alberto B. Mala GUILTY of grave misconduct and imposes on him the penalty of
SUSPENSION from the practice of law for six (6) months with the warning that a
repetition by him of the same or similar misconduct will be dealt with more
severely. Let notice of this decision
be spread in respondent’s record as an attorney in this Court, and notice of
the same served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the Office of
the Court Administrator for circulation to all the Courts concerned.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Regalado, and
Nocon,JJ., concur.

Paras*, J., retired.

* Retired, as of July 4,
1992