Narag v. Narag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Julieta B. Narag filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against her husband, Atty. Dominador M. Narag, accusing him of violating Canons 1 and 6, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She alleged that Atty. Narag, while her husband and a public official, courted and maintained an illicit relationship with Gina Espita, a 17-year-old college student under his tutelage. She further claimed that Atty. Narag abandoned their family to live with Ms. Espita under scandalous circumstances and used his influence to secure employment for Ms. Espita. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. Initially, the complainant sought dismissal of the complaint, alleging she fabricated the allegations to humiliate her husband and that love letters were forgeries. The IBP dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute. However, the complainant later appealed for disbarment, citing threats from her husband. The respondent denied the allegations, attributing his wife's actions to extreme jealousy. The IBP, after further investigation, recommended indefinite suspension, which was later upgraded to disbarment upon the complainant's request for stiffer penalty. The Petition: The complainant sought the disbarment of Atty. Dominador M. Narag for gross immoral conduct, specifically abandoning his family to live with another woman, Gina Espita, with whom he allegedly begot two children. The respondent denied the allegations, claiming his wife was the abusive party and that he was driven out of the conjugal home.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Dominador M. Narag committed gross immoral conduct by abandoning his family to live with Gina Espita. Whether respondent's conduct adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law and warrants disbarment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Dominador M. Narag guilty of gross immoral conduct and ordered his disbarment. His name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross immoral conduct and abandonment of family: The Court found that the complainant established by clear and convincing evidence that respondent abandoned his family and lived with Gina Espita, with whom he had two children. The testimony of Charlie Espita, Gina's brother, corroborated the complainant's charge, stating that Atty. Narag was the live-in partner of his sister and that they were living together as husband and wife and had two children. Bienvenido Eugenio, a neighbor, testified that Atty. Narag resided in the house where Gina Espita also lived. Nieves Reyes, a neighbor and friend, testified that the Narag children reported their father had left the family and returned to his "woman." The Court also considered the love letters sent by the respondent to Gina Espita, which clearly manifested his love for her and acknowledged her two children as his own. The Court found that the respondent's denial was insufficient, as he failed to present evidence to prove the love letters were forgeries and did not meet the burden of showing his moral fitness to remain a member of the bar. The Court reiterated that mere denial does not suffice when a lawyer's moral character is assailed. On whether respondent's conduct warrants disbarment: The Court held that good moral character is a continuing qualification for all members of the bar, and a lawyer found guilty of gross immoral conduct may be suspended or disbarred. The Court defined immoral conduct as that which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, showing indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community, and must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or committed under scandalous circumstances. The Court found that respondent's actions of abandoning his family to live with another woman, with whom he had children, constituted gross immorality and conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, violating Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court emphasized that lawyers must not only be of good moral character but must also be seen to be so, avoiding conduct that scandalizes the public by creating the belief that they are flouting moral standards. The Court cited previous cases where lawyers were disbarred for similar acts of abandoning their lawful spouses and cohabiting with other women. The Court concluded that respondent failed to maintain the high and exacting moral standards set for members of the legal profession, thus warranting disbarment.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer found guilty of gross immoral conduct, such as abandoning one's family to live with a paramour, may be suspended or disbarred for failing to meet the continuing qualification of good moral character required of all members of the bar.