2.

No Unlawful, Dishonest, Immoral, Deceitful Conduct

a. Ui vs. Bonifacio (Admin Case no. 3319 June 8, 2000)

Facts:

Leslie Ui- Complainant, Atty. Iris Bonifacio- Respondent

Jan. 24, 1971: Leslie Ui married Carlos Ui and as a result of their marital union, they had four children.

December 1987: Leslie Ui found out that her husband Carlos Ui was carrying on an illicit relationship
with Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom they had two daughters. Carlos Ui admitted to Leslie Ui regarding his
illicit relationship with Atty. Bonifacio. Leslie met with Bonifacio twice to plead to discontinue her illicit
relationship with Carlos Ui. The illicit relationship persisted and Leslie Ui came to know later on that Atty.
Bonifacio had been employed by her husband in his company.

Complaint:

An administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Bonifacio was filed for allegedly carrying on an
immoral relationship with Carlos Ui.

Defense:

Atty. Bonifacio had no knowledge of the fact that Carlos Ui is married to Leslie Ui. When she became
aware of the true civil status of Carlos Ui, she broke all contacts with him.

Held:

Complaint for disbarment against Atty. Bonifacio for alleged immorality is DISMISSED.

Under the foregoing circumstances, the Commission fails to find any act on the part of respondent that
can be considered as unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. To be sure, she
was more of a victim that anything else and should deserve compassion rather than condemnation.
Without cavil, this sad episode destroyed her chance of having a normal and happy family life, a dream
cherished by every single girl.

Simple as the facts of the case may sound, the effects of the actuations of respondent are not only far
from simple, they will have a rippling effect on how the standard norms of our legal practitioners should
be defined. Perhaps morality in our liberal society today is a far cry from what it used to be before. This
permissiveness notwithstanding, lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are burdened with a higher degree
of social responsibility and thus must handle their personal affairs with greater caution. The facts of this
case lead us to believe that perhaps respondent would not have found herself in such a compromising
situation had she exercised prudence and been more vigilant in finding out more about Carlos Uis
personal background prior to her intimate involvement with him.

However, the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothes as it was with what the
respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral for immorality connotes
conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable
members of the community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must
be grossly immoral that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.

It is bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality. The legal
profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of
the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the
court demand no less that the highest degree of morality.