Narag v. Narag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Julieta B. Narag filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against her husband, Atty. Dominador M. Narag, a college instructor and Sangguniang Panlalawigan member. Julieta accused respondent of maintaining an amorous relationship with a 17-year-old college student, Gina Espita, and abandoning their family to live with Gina. Procedural History: The Court, on June 29, 1998, rendered a Decision disbarring the respondent for gross immorality due to abandoning his family to live with Gina. A Motion for Re-opening or Reconsideration was denied on September 22, 1998, for lack of substantial arguments and because the respondent claimed denial of due process during the investigation. The Petition: On November 29, 2013, respondent filed a Petition for Reinstatement, alleging extreme repentance, remorse, and forgiveness from his wife and children. He claimed to have been disbarred for 15 years, was 80 years old, suffering from debilitating illnesses, and had been active in the Philippine Air Force Reserve Command. He submitted supporting affidavits and recommendations.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Dominador M. Narag has sufficiently demonstrated reform and good moral character to warrant reinstatement to the Roll of Attorneys. Whether the alleged forgiveness from his family is sufficient ground for reinstatement, considering his continued cohabitation with a woman other than his wife.
Ruling
The Petition for Reinstatement to the Bar filed by Dominador M. Narag is DENIED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of demonstrating reform and good moral character: The Court found the respondent's pleas of repentance and remorse to be mere hollow words lacking substance. The Court emphasized that for reinstatement, it must be convinced of the respondent's genuine reformation and that he has rid himself of grossly immoral acts. Crucially, the Court noted that the respondent, while still legally married to Julieta, was allegedly still living with his paramour, the woman for whom he abandoned his family. This fact alone proved that the respondent had not learned from his prior misgivings and continued to engage in grossly immoral conduct, rendering him unfit for the practice of law. The Court reiterated that the practice of law is a privilege, not a right, and is enjoyed only by those who maintain unassailable character. On the issue of alleged forgiveness from his family, considering his continued cohabitation with a woman other than his wife: The Court found the claim of forgiveness insufficient. It noted that only the son, Dominador, Jr., executed an affidavit attesting to the forgiveness, making the claim regarding Julieta and the other six children hearsay. Furthermore, even if the family had forgiven him, this forgiveness does not discount the fact that the respondent was still committing a grossly immoral act by living with a woman other than his wife. The Court also deemed the execution of a holographic will bequeathing properties to his wife and children as immaterial, as it did not demonstrate a change of ways and could be altered later. Therefore, the alleged forgiveness did not serve as a sufficient ground to grant the petition for reinstatement.
Main Doctrine
The Court denied the petition for reinstatement of a disbarred lawyer who, despite professing repentance, continued to live with his paramour, demonstrating a lack of genuine reform and continued commission of grossly immoral conduct, which renders him unfit to practice law.