MECARAL V. VELASQUEZ (April 23, 2010, A.C. No. 8392 [ Formerly CBD Case No. 082175], Per Curiam,June 29, 2010)Complainant was hired as a secretary by the atty. Velasquez elasquez who later became hiscommon hiscommon-law -law wife.Meca wife.Mecaral ral was later later brough broughtt to Upper San Agustin in Caibiran,Biliran where he left her with a religiousgroup known as the Faith HealersAssociation of the Philippines. Later, Mecaral returned home andupon knowing, knowing,V Velasquez elasquez brought brought her back to San Agustin Agustin where, where, on his instruct instruction, ion, hisfol hisfollow lowers erstor tortur tured, ed, brain brainwa washe shed d and inject injected ed her with with drugs drugs.. Her mother mother,, Delia Delia Tambis ambis Vda. De Mecaral Mecaral (Delia), (Delia),havin having g received received informat information ion that she was weak,pale and walking barefoot along the i the mountainousarea mountainousarea of Caibiran caused therescue operation of Mecaral. Thus, Mecaral filed a disbarment complaintagainstrespondent and charged the latter with bigamy for contracting a second marriage toLeny H.Azur on August 2, 1996, despite the subsistence of his marriage to his firstwife, Ma. Shirley G. Yunzal. Iss Issue: ue: whet hether resp espond ondent ent constitutegross misconduct
is
guilt ilty
of
gros gross sly
immo immora rall
and and
acts acts
which ich
Held: Held: WHEREF WHEREFORE ORE,, respo responde ndent, nt, Atty Atty.. Danilo Danilo S. Velasq elasquez uez,, is DISBAR DISBARRED RED,, and hisn hisnam ame e ORDE ORDERE REDS DSTR TRIC ICKE KEN N from from the the Roll oll of Attor ttorne neys ys.. This This Deci Decisi sion on is immediatelyexecutory and ordered to be part of the records of respondent in the Office of theBar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines.Ruling: Investigating Comm Commis issi sion oner er of the the CBD CBD foun found d that that [res [respo pond nden ents ts]] acts of conv conver erti ting ng his his secre secretar taryin yinto to a mistr mistress ess;; contr contract acting ing two marria marriages ges with with Shirl Shirley ey andLen andLeny, y, are are gros grossly sly immora immorall which which no civili civilized zedsoc societ iety y in the world world can count countena enance nce.. The subseque subsequent nt detention detention and torture torture of the complain complainant ant is grossmi grossmiscon sconduct duct[whi [which] ch] only a beast may be able to do. Certainly, the respondent had violatedCanon 1 of the Code Code of of Prof Profes essi sion onal al Res Respo pons nsib ibil ilit ity y. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the state upon thosewho show that theypossess, and continue to possess, the qua qualifi lifica cati tio ons req requi uirred bylaw bylaw for the conferment of such privilege.When privilege. When a lawyers moral character isassailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherishedprofession isimperiled, it behooves him to meet the charges squarely and present evidence, tothesatisfaction of the investigating body and this Court, that he is morally fit to keephis keephi s name in the Roll of Attorneys Atto rneys.Re .Resp spon onde dent nt has has not not disch dischar arge ged d the bur burde den. n. He never attended the hearings beforethe IBP to rebut thecharges brought against him, suggesting that they are true.Despite his letter dated March 28, 2008manifesting that he would come up with hisdefense in a verified pleading,he never did
