Advincula vs. Advincula

A lawyer's immoral conduct, even if committed before admission to the Bar, is a ground for administrative discipline, but the penalty is mitigated when the misconduct occurred prior to the lawyer's admission to the Bar. The Court alone wields the power to discipline lawyers, and the IBP Board of Governors' recommendation is not final and executory; a government employee lawyer's suspension from the practice of law must include suspension from office, and a leave of absence will not suffice.

The complainant, Dr. Ma. Cecilia Clarissa C. Advincula, is the wife of respondent Atty. Leonardo C. Advincula, a lawyer employed as Chief Legal Staff of the General Prosecution Division of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The parties' marriage deteriorated, leading to their separation, during which the respondent had a relationship with Ma. Judith Ortiz Gonzaga that produced a child. The Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 1.01, Canon 1, requires lawyers to maintain good moral character, and Canon 7 requires them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

Dr. Ma. Cecilia Clarissa C. Advincula filed a complaint for disbarment against her husband, Atty. Leonardo C. Advincula, alleging that he committed unlawful and immoral acts. She averred that while still married to her, Atty. Advincula had extra-marital sexual relations with Ma. Judith Ortiz Gonzaga, and that the relationship bore a child named Ma. Alexandria Gonzaga Advincula. Dr. Advincula also alleged that her husband failed to give financial support to their own children — Ma. Samantha Paulina, Ma. Andrea Lana, and Jose Leandro — despite having sufficient financial resources. She further claimed that Atty. Advincula admitted in the affidavit of late registration of birth of Alexandria that he had contracted another marriage with Ms. Gonzaga, and that making such a declaration was unlawful even if motivated by some other reason. Dr. Advincula prayed that her husband be disbarred.

In his answer, Atty. Advincula denied the accusations. He asserted that during the subsistence of his marriage but prior to the birth of their youngest child, the marital relationship had deteriorated, and that Dr. Advincula abandoned the rented family home with two children to live with her parents. He claimed that despite their separation, he regularly gave financial support to his wife and children. He admitted that during their separation, he got into a brief relationship with Ms. Gonzaga, and that a child named Alexandra was born as a result. He stated that he gave support to Alexandra in consideration of his moral obligation as a father, and that he only learned that the birth had been registered after the child was already enrolled in school, with Ms. Gonzaga informing him that she had the birth certificate altered by a fixer. He claimed that he strived to reunite his legitimate family, resulting in a reconciliation that begot their third child, Jose Leandro. He further narrated that Dr. Advincula later decided to live with her parents again, took up nursing, and left for the United States of America to work as a nurse. He claimed that when Dr. Advincula came home for a vacation, arguments flared out during which she threatened to file a disbarment suit against him to force him to allow her to bring their children to the USA.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Advincula had committed an adulterous and immoral act, but concluded that his conduct was not grossly immoral, noting that he supported his children financially and that the complainant shared part of the blame for the soured marriage. The Commissioner recommended suspension for at least one month. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings with modification, suspending Atty. Advincula for two months. Atty. Advincula accepted the resolution as final and executory and manifested that he had gone on leave from the NBI for two months, refraining from the practice of law as Legal Officer.

• Unlawful and Immoral Acts: Dr. Advincula averred that Atty. Advincula committed unlawful and immoral acts by having extra-marital sexual relations with Ms. Gonzaga while still married to her.
• Siring a Child Out of Wedlock: Dr. Advincula argued that siring a child with a woman other than his lawful wife was conduct way below the standards of morality required of every lawyer.
• Contracting a Subsequent Marriage: Dr. Advincula alleged that contracting a subsequent marriage while the first marriage had not been dissolved was unlawful conduct.
• False Declaration Before a Notary Public: Dr. Advincula argued that making a false declaration before a notary public was an unlawful conduct punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
• Failure to Provide Support: Dr. Advincula argued that the failure of Atty. Advincula to provide proper support to his children showed his moral character to be below the standards set by law for every lawyer.

• Denial of Accusations: Atty. Advincula denied the accusations, asserting that the marital relationship had deteriorated and that Dr. Advincula abandoned the family home.
• Regular Financial Support: Atty. Advincula claimed that despite their separation, he regularly gave financial support to Dr. Advincula and their children.
• Brief Relationship: Atty. Advincula admitted to a brief relationship with Ms. Gonzaga during their separation but denied contracting a second marriage.
• Support to Alexandra: Atty. Advincula acknowledged that a child was born from the relationship and that he gave support to Alexandra as a moral obligation as a father.
• Alteration of Birth Certificate: Atty. Advincula claimed that he only learned of the birth registration after the child was enrolled in school, and that Ms. Gonzaga informed him she had the birth certificate altered by a fixer.
• Threat of Disbarment: Atty. Advincula claimed that Dr. Advincula threatened to file a disbarment suit against him to force him to allow her to bring their children to the USA.

• Immorality as Ground for Discipline: Whether Atty. Advincula's extra-marital affair and siring of a child with a woman other than his wife constituted grossly immoral conduct warranting disbarment.
• Effect of Pre-Bar Admission Misconduct: Whether the fact that the immoral conduct was committed before Atty. Advincula became a lawyer affects his administrative liability.
• Validity of Compliance with IBP Resolution: Whether Atty. Advincula's compliance with the IBP Board of Governors' recommended two-month suspension, by going on leave from the NBI, was acceptable.

• Immorality as Ground for Discipline: Yes. Atty. Advincula's siring of a child with a woman other than his legitimate wife constituted immorality, but the degree of his immoral conduct was not as grave as if he had committed the immorality when already a member of the Philippine Bar. He was found guilty of immorality and suspended for three months.
• Effect of Pre-Bar Admission Misconduct: The immoral conduct was committed when Atty. Advincula was not yet a lawyer, which mitigated the penalty, but he could not escape administrative liability because good moral character must be maintained until retirement from the practice of law.
• Validity of Compliance with IBP Resolution: No. The manifestation of compliance was unacceptable because only the Court wields the power to discipline lawyers; the IBP Board of Governors' recommendation was not final and executory. A government employee's suspension from the practice of law must include suspension from office, and a leave of absence will not suffice.

• Immorality as Ground for Discipline: The Court defined immoral conduct as conduct that is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. To be the basis of disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral — so corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. The Court noted that on different occasions, it has disbarred or suspended lawyers for immorality based on the surrounding circumstances of each case, citing cases where disbarment was imposed for abandonment of a wife and maintaining an illicit affair, and suspension for siring a child with a former client. However, the Court could not sanction Atty. Advincula with the same gravity because he committed the immoral conduct when he was not yet a lawyer. Taking all circumstances into context, the Court considered suspension for three months to be condign and appropriate.

• Effect of Pre-Bar Admission Misconduct: The Court emphasized that good moral conduct or character must be possessed by lawyers at the time of their application for admission to the Bar and must be maintained until retirement from the practice of law. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Every lawyer, being an officer of the Court, must not only be in fact of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. The requirement of good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning.

• Validity of Compliance with IBP Resolution: The Court found the manifestation of compliance unacceptable. A lawyer ought to know that only the Court wields the power to discipline lawyers. The IBP Board of Governors did not possess such power, rendering its recommendation against him incapable of finality. It is the Court's final determination of his liability as a lawyer that is the reckoning point for the service of sanctions and penalties. His supposed compliance with the recommended two-month suspension could not be satisfied by going on leave from his work at the NBI. Moreover, his being a government employee necessitates that his suspension from the practice of law should include his suspension from office. A leave of absence will not suffice because his position mandated him to be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing. The suspension from the practice of law would not be a penalty if it does not negate his continuance in office for the period of the suspension; otherwise, the exercise of reprobation of an erring lawyer by the Court is rendered inutile and becomes a mockery because he can continue to receive his salaries and other benefits by simply going on leave.

• Good Moral Character Requirement — Lawyers must possess good moral character at the time of their application for admission to the Bar and must maintain it until retirement from the practice of law. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that Atty. Advincula's immoral conduct, although committed before he became a lawyer, still subjected him to administrative liability because the requirement of good moral character is continuing.

• Grossly Immoral Conduct — Immoral conduct is conduct that is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. To be the basis of disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral — so corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. The Court applied this doctrine in determining that Atty. Advincula's conduct, while constituting immorality, was not as grave as if committed while already a member of the Bar.

• Exclusive Power of the Court to Discipline Lawyers — Only the Supreme Court wields the power to discipline lawyers; the IBP Board of Governors' recommendation is not final and executory. The Court applied this doctrine in rejecting Atty. Advincula's compliance with the IBP's recommended two-month suspension, holding that the Court's final determination of liability is the reckoning point for the service of sanctions and penalties.

• Suspension from Office for Government Employee Lawyers — A government employee lawyer's suspension from the practice of law must include suspension from office; a leave of absence will not suffice. The Court applied this doctrine in ordering the Chief of the Personnel Division of the NBI to implement the suspension from office of Atty. Advincula, reasoning that the suspension would not be a penalty if it does not negate his continuance in office.

• "The good moral conduct or character must be possessed by lawyers at the time of their application for admission to the Bar, and must be maintained until retirement from the practice of law." — This passage states the continuing requirement of good moral character for lawyers, which is the foundation of the Court's ruling that Atty. Advincula could not escape administrative liability despite committing the immoral conduct before becoming a lawyer.

• "Immoral conduct has been described as conduct that is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. To be the basis of disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral, that is, it must be so corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency." — This passage defines the standard for grossly immoral conduct as a basis for disciplinary action, which the Court applied in determining the appropriate penalty for Atty. Advincula.

• "The manifestation of compliance is unacceptable. A lawyer like him ought to know that it is only the Court that wields the power to discipline lawyers. The IBP Board of Governors did not possess such power, rendering its recommendation against him incapable of finality." — This passage articulates the exclusive power of the Supreme Court to discipline lawyers and explains why the IBP's recommendation cannot be treated as final and executory.

• "Moreover, his being a government employee necessitates that his suspension from the practice of law should include his suspension from office. A leave of absence will not suffice." — This passage establishes the rule that a government employee lawyer's suspension from the practice of law must include suspension from office, preventing the lawyer from circumventing the penalty by going on leave.

• Dantes vs. Dantes, A.C. No. 6486, September 22, 2004, 438 SCRA 582 — Cited for the proposition that lawyers must not only be in fact of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character, and that the requirement of good moral character is of much greater import than the possession of legal learning.
• Narag vs. Narag, A.C. No. 3405, June 29, 1998, 291 SCRA 451 — Cited for the definition of immoral conduct and the standard for grossly immoral conduct as a basis for disciplinary action.
• Bustamante-Alejandro vs. Alejandro, A.C. No. 4256, February 13, 2004, 422 SCRA 527 — Cited as a case where disbarment was imposed on a respondent who abandoned his wife and maintained an illicit affair with another woman, distinguished from the present case because Atty. Advincula's misconduct occurred before he became a lawyer.
• Guevarra vs. Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007, 529 SCRA 1 — Cited as a case where disbarment was the penalty for a lawyer who carried on an extra-marital affair with a married woman prior to the judicial declaration that her marriage was null and void, while he himself was also married.
• Ferancullo vs. Ferancullo, A.C. No. 7214, November 30, 2006, 509 SCRA 1 — Cited as a case where a married attorney who sired a child with a former client was suspended for two years.
• Samaniego vs. Ferrer, A.C. No. 7022, June 18, 2008, 555 SCRA 1 — Cited as a case where suspension of six months from the practice of law was meted on a philandering lawyer.
• Angeles vs. Figueroa, 470 SCRA 186 (2005) — Cited by the IBP Investigating Commissioner for the proposition that disbarment requires proof of the highest degree.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The Court applied this provision in finding Atty. Advincula guilty of immorality.
• Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. The Court cited this canon in emphasizing the continuing duty of lawyers to maintain good moral character.
• Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. The Court cited this rule in support of the requirement that lawyers lead lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community.
• Revised Penal Code — Cited by Dr. Advincula in her complaint as the law under which making a false declaration before a notary public is punishable, although the Court's decision did not specifically address this allegation in its ruling.

Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concurred. Brion, Peralta, and Jardeleza, JJ., were on official leave. Del Castillo, J., was on wellness leave. Leonen, J., filed a separate concurring opinion.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the provided case text.