Higit Pa  Bumuo ng Blog   Mag­sign in

Quod Liberum Animosique

Case Digests. Reviewers. Memory Aid. Anything under the sun

DIGESTS Tuesday, November 27, 2018

▼  2018 (48)
►  January (7) JOSELANO GUEVARRA v ATTY.
►  February (6) JOSE EMMANUEL EALA
►  April (7)
A.C. No. 7136. August 1, 2007
►  July (12)
FACTS
▼  November (11)
CAYETANO v Joselano Guevarra filed case for disbarment against Atty. Jose Emmanuel
MONSOD
“Noli” Eala (6th PBA Commissioner) for grossly immoral conduct and
G.R. No.
100113. unmitigated violation of the lawyer’s oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra
September 3, first met the respondent in January 2000 when his then fiancée Irene
19...
Moje introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married with
RUTHIE LIM- whom he had three children. Joselano and Irene got married on October 7,
SANTIAGO 2000 and soon after, complainant, from January to March 2001, saw that
vs. ATT Y.
CARLOS B.
Irene had been receiving calls from Noli, as well as messages some of
SAGUCIO A... which read “I love you,” “I miss you,” or “Meet you at Megamall.” He also
noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the
IN RE:
VICENTE morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from work.
CHING BAR Her excuse was that she slept at her parents’ house or she was busy with
MATTER No. work. Joselano also saw Irene and Noli together on two occasions. On the
914 October
1... second occasion, he confronted them after which Irene abandoned the
family house. In April 2001, Joselano went uninvited to Irene’s birthday
IN RE: JUDGE
celebration at which he saw her and Noli celebrating with her family and
QUITAIN JBC
No. 013, friends. Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left
August 22, immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the family house and
2007... hauled off all her personal belongings, pieces of furniture, and her share of
FATHER the household appliances. Complainant later found a handwritten letter
RANHILIO dated October 7, 2007, the day of his wedding to Irene, containing sweet
AQUINO et al
words and vows from the respondent. On his complaint, petitioner
V ATTY
EDWIN contends that: 1. Respondent and Irene were FLAUNTING THEIR
PASCUA A... ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP as they attended social functions
RODOLFO M. together and that adulterous conduct with his wife and his apparent
BERNARDO v abandoning or neglecting of his own family, demonstrate his gross moral
ATTY. depravity, making him morally unfit to keep his membership in the bar. 2.
ISMAEL F.
MEJIA Adm.
He flaunted his aversion to the institution of marriage, calling it a “piece of
C... paper.” Morally reprehensible was his writing the love letter to
complainant’s bride on the very day of her wedding, vowing to continue
VELEZ V ATTY
DE VERA A.C. his love for her. 3. Respondents grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the
No. 6697, July Constitution and the laws he, as a lawyer, has been sworn to uphold. In
25, 2006 pursuing obsessively his illicit love for the complainant’s wife, he mocked
JOSELANO the institution of marriage, betrayed his own family, broke up the
GUEVARRA v complainant’s marriage, commits adultery with his wife, and degrades the
ATTY. JOSE
legal profession. On the other hand, respondent denied the allegations that
EMMANUEL
EALA A.C. ... the complainant is accussing him. He denied that: 1. they had ever
flaunted an adulterous relationship with Irene, the truth of the matter
being that their relationship was low profile and known only to the
 In re: Atty. immediate members of their respective families. And his relationship with
Marcial Irene was not under scandalous circumstances 2. he has flaunted his
Edillon A.C.
aversion to the institution of marriage by calling the institution of
No. 1928.
August... marriage a mere piece of paper because his reference to the marriage
between Complainant and Irene as a piece of paper was merely with
DONNA MARIE
S. AGUIRRE v
respect to the formality of the marriage contract. Meanwhile, respondent
EDWIN L. admitted The Rules of Court requires lawyers to support the Constitution
RANA Bar and obey the laws. The Constitution regards marriage as an inviolable
Matter ...
social institution and is the foundation of the family.
FERDINAND A.
CRUZ v ISSUE
ALBERTO
MINA G.R.
No. 154207. ... WON an illicit affair between a married lawyer and a married woman
constitute gross immoral conduct.
►  December (5)
HELD
►  2019 (3)

Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without
the benefit of marriage should be characterized as 'grossly immoral
conduct' depends on the surrounding circumstances." The case at bar
involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman
who is not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out
discreetly. Sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and
immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage
and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our
laws. Respondent has been carrying on an illicit affair with a married
woman, a grossly immoral conduct and indicative of an extremely low
regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession. This detestable
behavior renders him regrettably unfit and undeserving of the treasured
honor and privileges which his license confers upon him. Respondent in
fact also violated the lawyer's oath he took before admission to practice
law. Respondent admittedly is aware of Section 2 of Article XV (The
Family) of the Constitution reading: Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable
social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by
the State. In this connection, the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209),
which echoes this constitutional provision, obligates the husband and the
wife "to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render
mutual help and support." Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes a
lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct," and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a
lawyer from engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law."

DECISION

WHEREFORE, Petition is GRANTED. Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel

M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath
of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

Posted by Unknown at 9:35 PM

Labels: ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP, LEGAL ETHICS, MISCONDUCT,

VIOLATION OF LAWYERS OATH

No comments: