Leda vs. Tabang

A lawyer's good moral character is a condition precedent not only for admission to the bar but also for continued membership therein; making a gross misrepresentation of a material fact in a bar application and adopting conflicting and deceitful positions before the Court constitute grounds for suspension from the practice of law.

Evangeline Leda filed a petition for disbarment against Atty. Trebonian Tabang, alleging he had made a false statement in his bar application by declaring himself single, had used his legal knowledge to contract a marriage he later claimed was invalid, and had deceived her into signing an affidavit of desistance in a prior administrative matter. The respondent countered that his marriage to the complainant was void ab initio for failure to comply with the requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code, and that he honestly believed himself to be single when he applied for the bar.

• Nature of the Action: This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Evangeline Leda against Atty. Trebonian Tabang.
• The Marriage and Agreement: On 3 October 1976, the parties contracted marriage under Article 76 of the Civil Code (marriage of exceptional character). They agreed to keep the marriage secret until after respondent finished his law studies and passed the bar to ensure a stable future.
• The Bar Application and First Complaint: In his 1981 Bar application, respondent declared his status as "single." After he passed, complainant filed Bar Matter No. 78 to block his oath-taking, alleging fraud and lack of good moral character.
• Reconciliation and Dismissal: Respondent filed an "Explanation" admitting the marriage but stating it was not public. Complainant filed a conformity and an affidavit of desistance. The Court dismissed Bar Matter No. 78 and respondent took his oath.
• The Second Complaint and Conflicting Positions: Complainant later filed this disbarment petition. In his Comment, respondent now claimed the marriage was void ab initio for non-compliance with Article 76 requisites (e.g., lack of 5-year cohabitation, both parties were only 20 years old). He denied sending a subsequent unsigned letter to complainant wherein he stated he could not force himself to be with her and that he had attained his professional goal.
• Lower Court Findings: The Solicitor General found complainant failed to substantiate her charges due to non-appearance at hearings but noted respondent's inconsistent statements. The Bar Confidant recommended indefinite suspension pending settlement of the marriage status.

• Misrepresentation: Petitioner argued that respondent knowingly made a false statement of a material fact by declaring himself "single" in his bar application, which constitutes a ground for disbarment under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Deception and Bad Faith: Petitioner maintained that respondent used his legal knowledge to contract a marriage he later claimed was invalid and deceived her into signing an affidavit of desistance to withdraw the first complaint, only to later abandon her after becoming a lawyer.
• Lack of Good Moral Character: Petitioner contended that respondent's overall conduct demonstrates a character unworthy of a member of the bar.

• Void Marriage: Respondent countered that the marriage was void ab initio for failure to comply with the essential requisites of Article 76 of the Civil Code, and thus, he honestly believed his status was "single" at the time of his bar application.
• Good Faith: Respondent argued that the agreement to keep the marriage secret was due to its invalidity, not to conceal it for his studies.
• Fabrication: Respondent denied sending the unsigned letter to complainant and characterized her allegations as fantasies and fabrications.

• Misrepresentation in Bar Application: Whether respondent's declaration of being "single" in his bar application constitutes a gross misrepresentation of a material fact demonstrating lack of good moral character.
• Duplicity and Lack of Candor: Whether respondent's adoption of conflicting positions in pleadings before the Supreme Court violates the canons of professional ethics requiring candor, fairness, and good faith.
• Fitness to Practice Law: Whether respondent's overall conduct renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.

• Misrepresentation in Bar Application: The declaration was a gross misrepresentation made in bad faith. The presumption is that the requisites of a marriage under Article 76 were met and the solemnizing officer performed his duty regularly. Respondent cannot unilaterally assume his marriage is void to justify a false statement. Such a statement, if known, would have disqualified him from the bar.
• Duplicity and Lack of Candor: Respondent's conduct in adopting conflicting positions—admitting the marriage's legality in Bar Matter No. 78 to secure his oath, then denying its validity in the disbarment case—is duplicitous and deplorable. This violates Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which demand candor and fairness to the court.
• Fitness to Practice Law: Respondent's lack of good moral character is sufficiently established. Good moral character is not only a prerequisite for admission but a continuing requirement for membership in the bar. His resort to deceitful tactics and conflicting submissions renders him grossly unfit and unworthy to remain an officer of the court.

• Good Moral Character as a Continuing Requirement — The Court reiterated that good moral character is a condition precedent to admission to the bar, and its continued possession is essential for remaining in the practice of law. A lawyer's subsequent misconduct can be a ground for disbarment or suspension.
• Candor and Fairness to the Court — Under Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer owes complete candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. He shall do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor shall he mislead the court by any artifice. Adopting conflicting positions in separate pleadings to suit one's purpose violates this duty.

• "The presumption is that all the requisites and conditions of a marriage of an exceptional character under Article 76 of the Civil Code have been met and that the Judge's official duty in connection therewith has been regularly performed." — This establishes the legal presumption of validity for the marriage, undermining the respondent's claim of good faith.
• "It cannot be overemphasized that the requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law." — This articulates the continuing nature of the ethical obligation.
• "Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them." — This underscores the high standard of conduct demanded of officers of the court.

• Chavez v. Viola, Adm. Case No. 2152, 19 April 1991, 196 SCRA 10 — Cited for the principle that courts are entitled to expect complete candor and honesty from lawyers.
• People v. Tuanda, Adm. Case No. 3360, 30 January 1990, 181 SCRA 692 — Cited for the doctrine that good moral character is a continuing requirement for the practice of law.
• Piatt v. Abordo, 58 Phil. 350 (1933) — Cited for the principle that courts retain the power to discipline an attorney whose character is bad, showing him to be unsafe and unfit to be entrusted with the powers of an attorney.

• Article 76, Civil Code — Governs marriages of exceptional character where no license is required if the parties have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. The Court used the presumption of compliance with this article to reject the respondent's claim of good faith in declaring himself single.
• Canon 7, Rule 7.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppression of a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar. Applied to the respondent's misrepresentation.
• Canon 10 and Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to owe candor, fairness, and good faith to the court and to do no falsehood. Applied to the respondent's duplicitous pleadings.

Narvasa, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero and Nocon, JJ., concur.

N/A — The decision was rendered per curiam with all mentioned Justices concurring. No dissenting opinions are recorded.