Royong v. Oblena
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Josefina Royong charged respondent Atty. Ariston Oblena with rape. The complainant testified that on August 5, 1958, respondent allegedly forced her into sexual intercourse under threat of death to her and her family. She claimed to have become pregnant as a result. The respondent denied the rape charge but admitted to having illicit relations with the complainant from January 1957 to December 1958, which included sexual intercourse approximately fifty times, mostly in her house and sometimes in his. He claimed these relations began after she turned eighteen and that he intended to marry her. The respondent also admitted to living adulterously with Briccia Angeles, a married woman, from 1942 until the present, even after becoming a lawyer in 1955. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation. The Solicitor General recommended the respondent's permanent removal from the roll of attorneys. A formal complaint was filed by the Solicitor General charging the respondent with falsely alleging good moral character in his bar application, living adulterously with Briccia Angeles while maintaining illicit relations with the complainant (Briccia's niece), and other misconduct. The respondent answered, denying the charges and arguing the complaint was for different causes of action. The Court designated investigators to receive additional evidence. The investigators found the respondent guilty of misconduct, recommending disbarment or suspension. The case was set for hearing before the Supreme Court. The Petition: The respondent sought to avoid disbarment, arguing he had not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude and that the grounds for disbarment were not enumerated in the Rules of Court. He also contended that his cohabitation with Briccia Angeles was not intended to alienate her from her husband and that he did not intend to hide his cohabitation when applying for the bar.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent's illicit relations with the complainant and his open cohabitation with a married woman constitute sufficient grounds for disbarment. Whether the respondent committed perjury or fraudulent concealment in his petition for admission to the bar by failing to disclose his cohabitation with a married woman. Whether the Solicitor General exceeded his authority in filing a complaint for offenses different from the original charge of rape.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ordered the name of respondent Ariston J. Oblena to be stricken from the roll of attorneys.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of disbarment for illicit relations and cohabitation: The Court held that the respondent's illicit relations with the complainant and his open cohabitation with Briccia Angeles, a married woman, are sufficient grounds for disbarment. The Court emphasized that the enumeration of grounds for disbarment in the Rules of Court is not exclusive. The inherent power of the courts to remove unfit members of the legal profession can be exercised for gross misconduct, whether professional or non-professional, that demonstrates unfitness for the office. The Court found the respondent's conduct to be morally depraved, noting his manipulation of the complainant, who was the niece of his common-law wife and over whom he held moral ascendancy. This conduct, coupled with his long-standing adulterous relationship, rendered him unworthy of the privileges of a lawyer. On the issue of perjury or fraudulent concealment in the bar application: The Court found that the respondent did not possess good moral character at the time he applied for admission to the bar. His claim of good moral character was objectively false, given his continuous adulterous cohabitation with Briccia Angeles, a married woman, from 1942. The Court clarified that moral character is not a subjective estimation but an objective reality. His failure to disclose this significant fact in his petition constituted fraudulent concealment, as it misrepresented his true moral standing. On the issue of the Solicitor General's authority: The Court dismissed the respondent's contention that the Solicitor General exceeded his authority. The rules governing the Solicitor General's role in disbarment proceedings allow him to file a complaint based on the evidence adduced during the investigation, even if it charges offenses different from the initial complaint. The Solicitor General is empowered to file the corresponding complaint supported by the evidence, irrespective of the original charge, if sufficient grounds are found.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer may be disbarred for gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties, which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges his license confers. The enumeration of grounds for disbarment is not exclusive, and the power of the courts to exclude unfit members of the profession is inherent.