179 SCRA 680 – Legal Ethics – Moral Delinquency Delinquency n 198!" Atty# Laurence Cor$o%a" &hile 'eing (arrie$ to Sal%acion Deli)o an$ &ith t&o chil$ren" le*t his &i*e an$ chil$ren to coha'it &ith another (arrie$ &o(an# n 1986" Sal%acion an$ Cor$o%a ha$ a reconciliation &here Cor$o%a +ro(ise$ to lea%e his (istress# ,ut a++arently" Cor$o%a still continue$ to cheat on her &i*e as a++arently" Cor$o%a again li%e$ &ith another &o(an an$ &orse" he too- one o* his chil$ren chil$ren &ith hi( an$ hi$ the chil$ a&ay *ro( Sal%acion# n 1988" Sal%acion .le$ a letter/co(+laint *or $is'ar(ent against Cor$o%a# E%entually" (ulti+le hearing $ates &ere sent 'ut no hearing too- +lace 'ecause neither +arty a++eare$# n 1989" Sal%acion sent a telegra+hic (essage to the Co((ission on ,ar Disci+line inti(ating that she an$ her hus'an$ has reconcile$# he Co((ission" since Sal%acion *aile$ to su'(it her e%i$ence e +arte" (erely reco((en$e$ the re+ri(an$ an$ a$(onish(ent o* Cor$o%a# SS2E3 4hether or not Cor$o%a shoul$ 'e (erely re+ri(an$e$# 5ELD3 o# 5e shoul$ 'e sus+en$e$ in$e.nitely until he +resents e%i$ence that he has 'een (orally re*or(e$ an$ that there &as true reconciliation 'et&een hi( an$ his &i*e# ,e*ore a +erson can 'e a$(itte$ to the 'ar" one require(ent is that he +ossesses goo$ (oral character# hat require(ent is not ehauste$ an$ $is+ense$ &ith u+on a$(ission to (e('ershi+ o* the 'ar# n the contrary" that require(ent +ersists as a continuing con$ition *or (e('ershi+ (e('ershi+ in the ,ar in goo$ stan$ing# he (oral $elinquency that aects the .tness o* a (e('er o* the 'ar to continue as such inclu$es con$uct that outrages the generally acce+te$ (oral stan$ar$s o* the co((unity" con$uct *or instance" &hich (a-es a (oc-ery o* the in%iola'le social institution or (arriage: such &as the case in the case at 'ar#
A.C. No. 3249 November
29, 1989
SALVACION DELIZO DE LIZO CORDOVA,
complainant,
vs. ATTY. LAURENCE D. CORDOVA ,
respondent.
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM: In an unsworn letter-complaint dated 14 April 1988 addressed to then Mr. hie! "ustice laudio #eehan$ee, complainant %alvacion &eli'o char(ed her husband, Att). *aurence &. ordova, with immoralit) and acts unbecomin( a member o! the +ar. #he letter-complaint was !orwarded b) the ourt to the Inte(rated +ar o! the hilippines, ommission on +ar &iscipline ommission/0, !or investi(ation, report and recommendation. #he ommission, be!ore actin( on the complaint, reuired complainant to submit a veri!ied complaint within ten 10 da)s !rom notice. omplainant complied and submitted to the ommission on 23 %eptember 1988 a revised and veri!ied version o! her lon( and detailed complaint a(ainst her husband char(in( him with immoralit) and ac ts unbecomin( a member o! the +ar. In an rder o! the ommission dated 1 &ecember 1988, respondent was declared in de!ault !or !ailure to !ile an answer to the complaint within !i!teen 150 da )s !rom notice. #he same rder reuired complainant to submit be!ore the ommission her evidence e6 parte, on 17 &ecember 1988. pon the tele(raphic reuest o! complainant !or the resettin( o! the 17 &ecember 1988 hearin(, the ommission scheduled another hearin( on 25 "anuar) 1989. #he hearin( scheduled !or 25 "anuar) 1989 was rescheduled two 20 more times !irst, !or 25 :ebruar) 1989 and second, !or 1 and 11 April 1989. #he hearin(s never too$ place as complainant !ailed to appear. ;espondent ordova never moved to set aside the order o! de!ault, even thou(h notices o! the hearin(s scheduled were sent to him. In a tele(raphic messa(e dated 7 April 1989, complainant in!ormed the o mmission that she and her husband had alread) reconciled/. In an order dated 13 April 1989, the ommission reuired the parties respondent and complainant0 to appear be!ore it !or con!irmation and e6planation o! the tele(raphic messa(e and reuired them to !ile a !ormal motion to dismiss the complaint within !i!teen 150 da)s !rom notice. Neither part) responded and nothin( was heard !rom either part) since then. omplainant havin( !ailed to submit her evidence e6 parte be!ore the ommission, the I+ +oard o!
admonishin( him that an) !urther acts o! immoralit) in the !uture will be dealt with more severel), and orderin( him to support his le(itimate !amil) as a responsible parent should. #he !indin(s o! the I+ +oard o! uirino rovince. In that )ear, respondent ordova le!t his !amil) as well as his ?ob as +ranch ler$ o! ourt o! the ;e(ional #rial ourt, abarro(uis, >uirino rovince, and went to Man(a(o), +isli(, %uri(ao del %ur with one :el) <. @ol(ado. :el) <. @ol(ado was hersel! married and le!t her own husband and children to sta) with respondent. ;espondent ordova and :el) <. @ol(ado lived to(ether in +isli( as husband and wi!e, with respondent ordova introducin( :el) to the public as his wi!e, and :el) @ol(ado usin( the name :el) ordova. ;espondent ordova (ave :el) @ol(ado !unds with which to establish a sari-sari store in the public mar$et at +isli(, while at the same time !ailin( to support his le(itimate !amil). n 7 April 1987, respondent ordova and his complainant wi!e had an apparent reconciliation. ;espondent promised that he would separate !rom :el) @ol(ado and brou(ht his le(itimate !amil) to +isli(, %uri(ao del %ur. ;espondent would, however, !reuentl) come home !rom beerhouses or cabarets, drun$, and continued to ne(lect the support o! his le(itimate !amil). In :ebruar) 1983, complainant !ound, upon returnin( !rom a trip to Manila necessitated b ) hospitali'ation o! her dau(hter *oraine, that respondent ordova was no lon(er livin( with her complainants0 children in their con?u(al homeB that respondent ordova was livin( with another mistress, one *uisita Ma(allanes, and had ta$en his )oun(er dau(hter Melanie alon( with him. ;espondent and his new mistress hid Melanie !rom the complainant, compellin( complainant to (o to court and to ta$e bac$ her dau(hter b) habeas corpus. #he ;e(ional #rial ourt, +isli(, (ave her custod) o! their children. Notwithstandin( respondents promises to re!orm, he continued to live with *uisita Ma(allanes as her husband and continued to !ail to (ive support to his le(itimate !amil). :inall), the ommission received a tele(ram messa(e apparentl) !rom complainant, statin( that complainant and respondent had been reconciled with each other. A!ter a review o! the record, we a(ree with the !indin(s o! !act o! the I+ +oard. Ce also a(ree that the most recent reconciliation between complainant a nd respondent, assumin( the same to be real, does not e6cuse and wipe awa) the misconduct and immoral behavior o! the respondent carried out in public, and necessaril) adversel) re!lectin( upon him as a member o! the +ar and upon the hilippine +ar itsel!. An applicant !or admission to membership in the bar is reuired to show that he is possessed o! (ood moral character. #hat reuirement is not e6hausted and
dispensed with upon admission to membership o! the bar. n the contrar), that reuirement persists as a continuin( condition !or membership in the +ar in (ood standin(. In Mortel v. Aspiras, 1 this ourt, !ollowin( the rule in the nited %tates, held that the continued possession . . . o! a (ood moral character is a reuisite condition !or the ri(ht!ul continuance in the practice o! the law . . . and its loss reuires suspension or disbarment, even thou(h the statutes do not speci!) that as a (round !or disbarment./ 2 It is important to note that the lac$ o! moral character that we here re!er to as essential is not limited to (ood moral character relatin( to the dischar(e o! the duties and responsibilities o! an attorne) at law. #he moral delinuenc) that a!!ects the !itness o! a member o! the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outra(es the (enerall) accepted moral standards o! the communit), conduct !or instance, which ma$es a moc$er) o! the inviolable social institution or marria(e./ D In Mortel, the respondent bein( alread) married, wooed and won the heart o! a sin(le, 21-)ear old teacher who subseuentl) cohabited with him and bore him a son. +ecause respondents conduct in Mortel was particularl) morall) repulsive, involvin( the marr)in( o! his mistress to his own son and therea!ter cohabitin( with the wi!e o! his own son a!ter the marria(e he had himsel! arran(ed, respondent was disbarred. In ;o)on( v. blena, 4 the respondent was declared un!it to continue as a member o! the bar b) reason o! his immoral conduct and accordin(l) disbarred. @e was !ound to have en(a(ed in se6ual relations with the complainant who conseuentl) bore him a sonB and to have maintained !or a number o! )ears an adulterous relationship with another woman. In the instant case, respondent ordova maintained !or about two 20 )ears an adulterous relationship with a married woman not his wi!e, in !ull view o! the (eneral public, to the humiliation and detriment o! his le(itimate !amil) which he, rubbin( salt on the wound, !ailed or re!used to support. A!ter a brie! period o! re!orm/ respondent too$ up a(ain with ano ther woman not his wi!e, cohabitin( with her, and brin(in( alon( his )oun( dau(hter to live with them. learl), respondent !launted his disre(ard o! the !undamental institution o! marria(e and its elementar) obli(ations be!ore his own dau(hter and the communit) at lar(e. C@E;E:;E, the ourt ;esolved to %%EN& respondent !rom the practice o! law inde!initel) and until !urther orders !rom this ourt. #he ourt will consider li!tin( his suspension when respondent ordova submits proo! satis!actor) to the ommission and this ourt that he has and continues to provide !or the support o! his le(itimate !amil) and that he has (iven up the immoral course o! conduct that he has clun( to. Fernan, (C.J.), Narvasa, !tierre", Jr., Cr!", Paras, Feliciano, anca#co, Padilla, $idin, %armiento, Cortes, ri&o'A!ino, Medialdea and Realado, JJ., conc!r. Melencio'*errera, J., is on leave.
