Ecraela vs. Pangalangan

A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, including adulterous relations while married, and for violations of Canon 10 and the Lawyer's Oath, even if the misconduct is unrelated to the actual practice of law, because good moral character is a continuing qualification for membership in the Bar.

Complainant Atty. Roy B. Ecraela and respondent Atty. Ian Raymond A. Pangalangan were best friends and classmates at the University of the Philippines College of Law, graduating in 1990 and admitted to the Bar in 1991. Respondent was formerly married to Sheila P. Jardiolin, with whom he has three children. The proceeding is an administrative disbarment complaint filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline, invoking the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath, which require lawyers to maintain good moral character as a continuing qualification for the practice of law.

Complainant Atty. Roy B. Ecraela and respondent Atty. Ian Raymond A. Pangalangan were best friends and classmates at the University of the Philippines College of Law, graduating in 1990 and admitted to the Bar in 1991. Respondent was formerly married to Sheila P. Jardiolin, with whom he has three children. Complainant alleged that while married to Jardiolin, respondent had a series of adulterous and illicit relations with married and unmarried women between 1990 and 2007: (a) AAA, the spouse of a colleague in the UP College of Law, from 1990 to 1992; (b) BBB, sometime from 1992 to 1994 or 1994 to 1996; (c) CCC, despite being married to Jardiolin and while also romantically involved with DDD; (d) DDD, sometime from 2000 to 2002, despite still being married to Jardiolin and while still romantically involved with CCC; and (e) EEE, who is related to complainant, sometime from May 2004 until the filing of the petition, while still being romantically involved with CCC. Complainant claimed that respondent, with malice and without remorse, deceived CCC and DDD by representing himself to be a bachelor, thereby convincing them to start a love affair with him when he was still married to Jardiolin.

Complainant further alleged that from 1998 to 2000, respondent, as a lawyer of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, represented the interest of the Manila International Airport Authority in cancellation proceedings against Kendrick Development Corporation. Despite being a public officer and government counsel, respondent allegedly conspired with Atty. Abraham Espejo, legal counsel of KDC, and assisted KDC in its case, thereby sabotaging MIAA's case and that of the Philippine Government. Respondent allegedly attempted to bribe then Solicitor Rolando Martin of the Office of the Solicitor General in exchange for cooperation in dismissing the cancellation proceedings in favor of KDC. In return for his efforts, respondent was allegedly rewarded with a Toyota Corolla XL with plate number ULS-835 by Atty. Espejo; the vehicle was seen several times by respondent's classmates and officemates being driven and parked by respondent at his home and at the OGCC premises. In connection with the MIAA case, respondent was summoned in a Senate inquiry concerning rampant faking of land titles, which included an investigation of KDC's alleged spurious land titles. In Senate Committee Final Report No. 367, the Senate Blue Ribbon and Justice & Human Rights Committees recommended that respondent be investigated and prosecuted by the Office of the Ombudsman for graft and corruption, as well as disbarment or disciplinary sanction by the Supreme Court for grave misconduct or violation of the Revised Penal Code. During the pendency of the Senate inquiry, respondent allegedly attempted to conceal evidence by requesting complainant's parents, spouses Marcelo F. Ecraela and Visitacion B. Ecraela, to have the Toyota Corolla XL parked in their residence in Cainta, Rizal, for an indefinite period; the spouses refused when they learned the vehicle was the subject of the Senate inquiry. The Ombudsman issued a Resolution finding probable cause against respondent, and an Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019.

Complainant also claimed that respondent abused his authority as an educator at Manuel L. Quezon University, San Sebastian College, College of St. Benilde, and Maryknoll College, where he induced his male students to engage in "nocturnal preoccupations" and entertained the romantic gestures of his female students in exchange for passing grades.

The Petition was docketed as CBD Case No. 07-1973. In an Order dated April 16, 2007, the Director for Bar Discipline required respondent to file his verified answer. In his undated Answer, respondent opted not to present any counter-statement of facts and instead argued that the petition suffered from procedural and substantive infirmities, that Annex "J" entitled "Arguments in Support of the Disbarment" lacked formal requirements, that the e-mail messages were inadmissible under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, that the identities of the e-mail owners and the allegations were not properly established, and that complainant's witnesses' statements were self-serving. Complainant filed a Comment stating that the allegations were deemed admitted by respondent's failure to make specific or general denials. In his Reply, respondent denied all accusations for lack of knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth or falsity.

Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. set the case for mandatory conference on August 28, 2007, which respondent failed to attend. Respondent filed a Motion to Cancel Hearing, which was opposed and denied. Complainant's Manifestation praying for subpoenas to several hostile witnesses was granted, and the case was scheduled for presentation of complainant's witnesses on September 11, 2007. A day before the scheduled hearing, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration praying that the August 28, 2007 Order be set aside and the hearing reset to the third week of October, informing the IBP-CBD that he had viral conjunctivitis and attaching photocopies of two medical certificates stating that a certain R. Pangalangan was suffering from sore eyes. At the September 11, 2007 hearing, complainant opposed the motion, arguing that based on his personal verification with court personnel of Branch 77 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Parañaque City, there was no case calendared for hearing on the previous setting date, and that the motion was another ploy to delay the proceedings. The motion was denied, and complainant presented witnesses: Assistant Solicitor General Karl Miranda, Ms. Laarni Morallos, Atty. Glenda T. Litong, Atty. Emelyn W. Corpus, Mr. Marcelo Ecraela, and Mrs. Visitacion Ecraela. ASG Miranda testified on his participation in the KDC case as reflected in the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Report and on the Senate Report's recommendation of respondent's disbarment. Ms. Morallos, Atty. Litong, and Atty. Corpus were presented to establish that the email messages submitted by complainant originated from respondent based on their familiarity with him, particularly references to his daughter, his relationship with complainant, and his high blood pressure. Atty. Litong further testified that respondent personally introduced DDD to her as his girlfriend; that sometime in 2002 or 2003, she saw respondent with another girl in Glorietta despite still being married; that she encountered respondent at a party sometime in 2007 with CCC, whom she perceived to be his girlfriend; and that respondent had, on more than one occasion, brought his students during drinking sessions and had even one student driving for him. Atty. Corpus corroborated Atty. Litong's statements about respondent's preoccupations with his students, testified that DDD called her at her office sometime in 2000 or 2001 to inform her that she had broken up with respondent upon learning that he was actually married, and recalled that during complainant's farewell party in February 2007, respondent introduced CCC as his girlfriend of six years, or since 2000 or 2001. The spouses Ecraela were made to affirm the execution of their affidavits. After complainant's presentation, the mandatory conference/hearing was terminated and the parties were directed to submit their respective verified position papers. Complainant submitted his Position Paper and later filed Manifestations asserting that respondent was barred from submitting his verified position paper.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that there was more than sufficient evidence establishing respondent's gross misconduct affecting his standing and moral character as an officer of the court and member of the bar. On the alleged violations of the Revised Penal Code and/or RA 3019 as reflected in the Senate Report, the Ombudsman's Resolution, and the Information, the Commissioner found that complainant presented certified true copies of the relevant documents supporting the allegations. As for the alleged illicit affairs, the Commissioner discredited complainant's assertion that respondent was guilty of gross immoral conduct for his alleged adulterous relations with EEE because complainant was not able to discharge the burden of proving the authenticity of the email messages pertaining to that affair; the emails were deemed inadmissible. The Commissioner found merit in complainant's claim that respondent committed grossly immoral conduct by having illicit relations with DDD, CCC, and BBB while still married to Jardiolin. The Commissioner also found that respondent's pretensions in his Answer were made in an attempt to mislead the Commission, as he could have admitted, denied, or explained the Senate and Sandiganbayan allegations but instead skirted the issue.

• Gross Immoral Conduct: Complainant alleged that respondent had a series of adulterous and illicit relations with married and unmarried women from 1990 to 2007 while married to Jardiolin, including with AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, and EEE, and that he deceived CCC and DDD by representing himself to be a bachelor.
• Abuse of Authority as Educator: Complainant claimed that respondent abused his authority as an educator by inducing male students to engage in "nocturnal preoccupations" and entertaining the romantic gestures of female students in exchange for passing grades.
• Misconduct in Government Service / KDC Case: Complainant averred that respondent, while OGCC counsel for MIAA, conspired with KDC's counsel, assisted KDC, attempted to bribe Solicitor Rolando Martin, and received a Toyota Corolla XL as reward.
• Senate, Ombudsman, and Sandiganbayan Matters: Complainant asserted that Senate Committee Final Report No. 367 recommended respondent's investigation, prosecution, and disbarment, and that the Ombudsman found probable cause and filed an Information with the Sandiganbayan under Section 3(b) of RA 3019.
• Violation of the Lawyer's Oath: Complainant maintained that respondent's actions involved deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, and grossly immoral conduct in violation of the Lawyer's Oath.

• Procedural and Substantive Infirmities: Respondent argued that the petition suffered from procedural and substantive infirmities and failed to substantiate the charges against him.
• Defective Annex "J": Respondent pointed out that Annex "J" entitled "Arguments in Support of the Disbarment" lacked formal requirements and should be treated as a mere scrap of paper.
• Inadmissible Electronic Evidence: Respondent asserted that the e-mail messages attached to the petition were inadmissible for having been obtained in violation of the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
• Unestablished Identities and Self-Serving Witnesses: Respondent claimed that the identities of the e-mail owners and the allegations of illicit relations and abuse of authority were not properly established, and that complainant's witnesses' statements were merely self-serving.
• Lack of Knowledge and Information: In his Reply, respondent denied all accusations for lack of knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth or falsity.
• Illicit Relations Not Sufficiently Established: Respondent's main defense against the alleged illicit relations was that they were not sufficiently established.

• Gross Immoral Conduct: Whether respondent committed gross immoral conduct warranting disbarment.
• Candor and Fairness / Canon 10 and Lawyer's Oath: Whether respondent violated Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.03, and the Lawyer's Oath by his responses and non-participation in the disbarment proceedings.

• Gross Immoral Conduct: Yes. The evidence established by preponderance that respondent had illicit relations with DDD and CCC while married to Jardiolin, and such gross immorality warrants disbarment under the Code of Professional Responsibility and jurisprudence.
• Candor and Fairness / Canon 10 and Lawyer's Oath: Yes. Respondent violated Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.03, and the Lawyer's Oath by failing to specifically deny the Senate, Ombudsman, and Sandiganbayan allegations and attempting to mislead the IBP.

• Gross Immoral Conduct: The Code of Professional Responsibility provides in Canon 1, Rule 1.01 that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, and in Canon 7, Rule 7.03 that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. The practice of law is a privilege given to those who possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession; good moral character is required not only for admission to the Bar but must also be retained. In suspension or disbarment proceedings, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations by preponderance of evidence; if the evidence is evenly balanced, the equipoise doctrine mandates a decision in favor of the respondent. The IBP-CBD Report sufficiently showed by preponderant evidence the grounds by which respondent was found to have committed gross immorality. The Court cited Guevarra vs. Eala, Arnobit vs. Arnobit, and Dr. Elmar O. Perez vs. Atty. Tristan Catindig, where lawyers were disbarred for extramarital affairs, philandering, and making a mockery of marriage. In Arnobit, the Court ruled that lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character, must refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress, and must avoid scandalizing the public. Misconduct unrelated to the actual practice of law may still warrant disbarment if it shows the lawyer to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges of the license; the grounds under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court are not limitative and are broad enough to cover any misconduct in a lawyer's professional or private capacity. In the present case, complainant alleged adulterous and illicit relations from 1990 to 2007, including with complainant's own wife. Through documentary evidence in the form of email messages and the corroborating testimonies of witnesses, complainant established respondent's illicit relations with DDD and CCC by preponderant evidence. Respondent's main defense was that the illicit relations were not sufficiently established; he did not specifically deny the allegations and instead questioned the admissibility of the supporting documents. Due to his failure to attend the hearings and submit his own position paper, the existence of his illicit relations with DDD and CCC remained uncontroverted. The IBP-CBD was correct in finding that respondent violated Article XV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that marriage is an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family, and shall be protected by the State.
• Candor and Fairness / Canon 10 and Lawyer's Oath: Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires a lawyer to owe candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. Rule 10.01 provides that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Rule 10.03 provides that a lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Complainant alleged that respondent was the subject of a Senate inquiry and had a pending graft and corruption case with the Sandiganbayan. Instead of refuting these claims, respondent merely pointed out in his Answer that complainant failed to adduce additional evidence that a case had been filed against him and that complainant's statements were self-serving. In his Reply, respondent even specifically denied complainant's averments for lack of knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth or falsity. The Commissioner found that respondent's pretensions in his Answer were made in an attempt to mislead the Commission, as he could have easily admitted, denied, or explained the allegations but instead chose to skirt the issue. The Court agreed, noting that complainant was able to submit certified true copies of the Senate Report, the Ombudsman's Resolution, and the Information, which further established respondent's intent to mislead. Courts and the Commission are entitled to expect complete candor and honesty from lawyers. Respondent also violated the Lawyer's Oath, which requires a lawyer to do no falsehood, not to promote groundless suits, and to conduct himself according to law. His evasive denials and refusal to participate in the proceedings showed a lack of the candor required of him as a member of the Bar and as an officer of the Court.

• Good Moral Character as a Continuing Qualification for the Practice of Law — The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession. Good moral character is required not only for admission to the Bar but must also be retained to maintain good standing. The Court applied this to disbar respondent, finding that his gross immorality and lack of candor showed he lacked the required moral character.
• Gross Immoral Conduct as a Ground for Disbarment — A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, including adulterous relationships or maintaining a mistress, even if the conduct is unrelated to the actual practice of law, because it shows unfitness for the office and unworthiness of the privileges of the license. The Court found respondent's illicit relations with DDD and CCC while married to Jardiolin constituted gross immorality.
• Preponderance of Evidence in Disbarment Proceedings — In suspension or disbarment proceedings, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations by preponderance of evidence. Preponderance means evidence that is superior in weight or more convincing; if the evidence is evenly balanced, the equipoise doctrine mandates a decision in favor of the respondent. The Court found that complainant met this burden as to DDD and CCC, and respondent failed to controvert the evidence.
• Candor, Fairness, and Good Faith to the Court — Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility require lawyers to observe candor, fairness, and good faith, not to do falsehood or mislead the court, and not to misuse procedure to defeat justice. The Court found respondent violated these rules by evasively denying allegations and attempting to mislead the IBP.
• Non-Limitative Grounds for Disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 — The grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court are not limitative and are broad enough to cover any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity. The Court relied on this to discipline respondent for private immoral conduct.
• Violation of the Lawyer's Oath — The Lawyer's Oath obliges a lawyer to do no falsehood, not to promote groundless suits, and to conduct himself according to law. The Court found respondent violated the oath through his falsehoods and evasive conduct.

• "The practice of law is a privilege given to those who possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession. Good moral character is not only required for admission to the Bar, but must also be retained in order to maintain one's good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity." — This passage states the continuing qualification requirement for members of the Bar, which the Court used to justify disbarment for conduct occurring in respondent's private life.
• "Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto." — This passage defines the evidentiary standard applied in disbarment proceedings and supports the Court's finding that complainant met the burden as to DDD and CCC.
• "As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be 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. A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the impression that he is flouting those moral standards." — This is the canonical formulation of the moral standard expected of lawyers, quoted from Arnobit vs. Arnobit, and it directly supports the disbarment for gross immorality.
• "In various cases, the Court has held that disbarment is warranted when a lawyer abandons his lawful wife and maintains an illicit relationship with another woman who has borne him a child." — This passage, drawn from Dr. Elmar O. Perez vs. Atty. Tristan Catindig, illustrates the Court's jurisprudence that illicit relationships can warrant the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

• Aba vs. De Guzman, Jr., A.C. No. 7649, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 361 — Cited for the definition of preponderance of evidence and the equipoise doctrine in disbarment proceedings.
• Guevarra vs. Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007, 529 SCRA 1 — Cited as precedent disbarring a lawyer for an extramarital affair with the complainant's wife, showing disrespect for the institution of marriage.
• Arnobit vs. Arnobit, A.C. No. 1481, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 247 — Cited for the rule that lawyers must be of good moral character and must refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress, and that misconduct unrelated to practice can warrant disbarment.
• Orbe vs. Adaw — Cited for the rule that the grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 are not limitative and cover misconduct in a lawyer's professional or private capacity. (Citation not provided in the text.)
• Dr. Elmar O. Perez vs. Atty. Tristan Catindig, A.C. No. 5816, March 10, 2015 — Cited for the disbarment of a lawyer who disregarded marriage laws by contracting an invalid second marriage; moral delinquency includes conduct that makes a mockery of marriage.
• Tumbokon vs. Pefianco, A.C. No. 6116, August 1, 2012, 678 SCRA 60 — Cited for the principle that the practice of law is a privilege and that good moral character is a continuing qualification.

• Article XV, Section 2, 1987 Constitution — Marriage is an inviolable social institution, the foundation of the family, and shall be protected by the State. The Court found respondent violated this provision by engaging in illicit relationships while married.
• Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Applied to respondent's grossly immoral conduct.
• Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Applied to respondent's illicit relations.
• Canon 10, Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Applied to respondent's evasive denials.
• Canon 10, Rule 10.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Applied to respondent's technical attacks and non-participation.
• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — The grounds for disbarment are not limitative and are broad enough to cover any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity. Applied to justify discipline for private immoral conduct.
• Lawyer's Oath — Requires a lawyer to do no falsehood, not to promote groundless suits, and to conduct himself according to law. Applied to respondent's violations.

No separate concurring opinions are provided. The decision lists the following Justices: Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno; Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, and Francis H. Jardeleza. Justices Jose Catral Mendoza and Bienvenido L. Reyes are noted as on leave.