Leda v. Tabang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Evangeline Leda filed two complaints against respondent Atty. Trebonian Tabang. The parties were married on October 3, 1976, under Article 76 of the Civil Code as an exceptional marriage, agreeing to keep it secret until respondent finished his law studies and passed the Bar examinations. They did not live together as husband and wife. Respondent, in his application to take the 1981 Bar examinations, declared he was "single." Complainant blocked his oath-taking by filing Bar Matter No. 78, alleging fraud and lack of good moral character. Respondent admitted the marriage in an "Explanation" but claimed he believed he was legally single as the marriage was not public. He reconciled with Complainant, who then executed an Affidavit of Desistance, leading to the dismissal of Bar Matter No. 78. Procedural History: Complainant filed the present disbarment case (A.C. No. 2505) on February 14, 1983, alleging misrepresentation, mockery of the marriage institution, lack of good moral character, and deception in obtaining her affidavit of desistance. She attached a letter allegedly from respondent after he took his oath, stating he could not force himself to be hers, did not love her, and considered her a friend, while also asserting he had achieved his goal and nothing could take it away from him. Respondent denied sending the letter. The Court referred the case to the Solicitor General, who recommended exoneration but reprimand for inconsistent statements. The case was then referred to the Bar Confidant, who recommended indefinite suspension. The Petition: The disbarment case was based on respondent's alleged use of legal knowledge to contract an invalid marriage, misrepresentation as single in his Bar application, lack of good moral character, and deception in making Complainant withdraw her complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Trebonian Tabang demonstrated a lack of good moral character. Whether respondent Atty. Trebonian Tabang committed gross misrepresentation in his application for admission to the Bar. Whether respondent Atty. Trebonian Tabang engaged in duplicitous and deplorable conduct by adopting conflicting positions in pleadings before the Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Trebonian Tabang grossly unfit and unworthy to continue practicing law and ordered his suspension from the practice of law until further orders.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of respondent's lack of good moral character: The Court found respondent's lack of good moral character sufficiently established. His declaration of being "single" in his Bar application was a gross misrepresentation of a material fact made in bad faith, violating Rule 7.01, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This false statement, if known, would have disqualified him outright from taking the Bar examinations, as it indubitably exhibits a lack of good moral character. The Court rejected respondent's protestations of good faith, deeming them mere afterthoughts without merit, as he could not assume his marriage was void. The presumption is that the requisites of an exceptional marriage under Article 76 of the Civil Code were met. On the issue of respondent's misrepresentation in his Bar application: The Court held that respondent's declaration of being "single" in his application for admission to the 1981 Bar Examinations constituted a gross misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith. This act directly violated Rule 7.01, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppression of a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar. Such a misrepresentation, if known, would have disqualified him from taking the examinations, clearly demonstrating a lack of good moral character. On the issue of respondent's duplicitous and deplorable conduct: The Court found respondent's conduct in adopting conflicting positions in various pleadings to be duplicitous and deplorable. The records showed he admitted being "legally married" in an "Explanation" in Bar Matter No. 78, yet later denied submitting such a pleading before the Solicitor General. He also denied the legality of the marriage in the present case while harping on its being void ab initio, even denying his signature on the marriage contract. Furthermore, his stated reason for keeping the marriage secret shifted from allowing him to finish his studies and take the Bar to the marriage being "not in order from the beginning." This inconsistency demonstrated a lack of candor and fairness to the Court, violating Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer's lack of good moral character, demonstrated through misrepresentation, conflicting submissions to the court, and deceptive tactics, warrants suspension from the practice of law. The requirement of good moral character is essential not only for admission to the bar but also for continued practice.