Mecaral vs. Velasquez

A lawyer who contracts a bigamous second marriage, converts his secretary into a mistress, and causes her physical restraint and torture violates Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath, constituting gross immoral conduct and gross misconduct warranting disbarment.

Rosario T. Mecaral was hired in 2002 as secretary by Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez, a member of the Philippine Bar who was also the leader of the Faith Healers Association of the Philippines in Caibiran, Biliran. Membership in the Bar requires continuing possession of good moral character and observance of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The administrative jurisdiction over lawyers for gross misconduct and gross immoral conduct lies with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation and with the Supreme Court for final disciplinary action.

After Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez hired Rosario T. Mecaral as his secretary in 2002, she became his lover and common-law wife. In October 2007, he brought her to mountainous Upper San Agustin in Caibiran, Biliran and left her with the Faith Healers Association of the Philippines, of which he was the leader. Although he visited her daily at first, his visits became scarce in November to December 2007, prompting her to return home to Naval, Biliran.

Furious, respondent brought her back to San Agustin where, on his instruction, his followers allegedly tortured, brainwashed, and injected her with drugs. When she tried to escape on December 24, 2007, members of the group tied her spread-eagled to a bed. Made to wear only a T-shirt and diapers and fed stale food, she was guarded 24 hours a day by women members including a certain Bernardita Tadeo.

Her mother, Delia Tambis Vda. De Mecaral, having received information that she was weak, pale, and walking barefoot along the streets in the mountainous area of Caibiran, sought help from the Provincial Social Welfare Department which dispatched two women volunteers to rescue her. The religious group refused to release her without respondent's instruction. It took PO3 Delan G. Lee and PO1 Arnel S. Robedillo to rescue and reunite her with her mother.

Complainant additionally charged bigamy, submitting the Certificate of Marriage between respondent and Leny H. Azur, the Marriage Contract between respondent and Shirley G. Yunzal, and the National Statistics Office Certification dated April 23, 2008 showing the marriage of Ma. Shirley G. Yunzal to respondent on April 27, 1990 in Quezon City and the marriage of Leny H. Azur to respondent on August 2, 1996 in Mandaue City, Cebu. She also submitted affidavits of Delia dated February 5, 2008 and of PO3 Lee and PO1 Robedillo dated February 14, 2008, and the April 30, 2008 Resolution of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Naval, Biliran and Information lodged with RTC-Branch 37-Caibiran, Naval, Biliran for Serious Illegal Detention against respondent and Bernardita Tadeo. The IBP Investigating Commissioner credited the documentary and testimonial evidence, noting respondent's failure to answer or appear, and the Provincial Prosecutor found physical restraint pursuant to respondent's express and implied orders to guard complainant.

• Gross Immoral Conduct — Illicit Affair: Complainant maintained that after respondent hired her as secretary in 2002, he converted her into his lover and common-law wife, constituting grossly immoral conduct.
• Bigamy: Complainant argued that respondent contracted a second marriage to Leny H. Azur on August 2, 1996 despite the subsistence of his marriage to his first wife, Ma. Shirley G. Yunzal, as shown by marriage contracts and NSO certification.
• Gross Misconduct — Detention and Torture: Complainant maintained that respondent, as leader of the Faith Healers Association, caused her torture, brainwashing, drug injection, tying spread-eagled to a bed, and 24-hour guarding, requiring police rescue, constituting gross misconduct.

• Gross Immoral Conduct: Whether respondent's conversion of his secretary into a mistress and contracting two marriages constitutes grossly immoral conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Gross Misconduct: Whether respondent's ordering the physical restraint, torture, and guarding of complainant constitutes gross misconduct in violation of Canon 1 and the Lawyer's Oath.
• Disbarment: Whether the unrebutted evidence, established by clearly preponderant evidence, warrants disbarment and striking of respondent's name from the Roll of Attorneys.

• Gross Immoral Conduct: Yes. Converting a secretary into a mistress and contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first are grossly immoral, violative of Rule 7.03 and the continuing moral fitness required of lawyers.
• Gross Misconduct: Yes. Ordering followers to restrain, torture, and guard complainant disobeys the laws and disrespects legal processes, violating Canon 1 and the Lawyer's Oath.
• Disbarment: Yes. The unrebutted charges, proved by clearly preponderant evidence and corroborated by a co-respondent and official documents, leave respondent unfit to remain in the Roll of Attorneys.

• Gross Immoral Conduct: The rule requires lawyers to behave without scandal in public and private life and to retain good moral character as a continuing qualification for the privilege to practice. Application to the marriage certificates, NSO certification showing marriages in 1990 and 1996, and unrebutted claim of a mistress relationship established bigamy and extra-marital relations. Failure to answer or attend hearings suggested the truth of the charges and failure to discharge the burden to prove moral fitness.
• Gross Misconduct: Canon 1 obligates obedience to laws and promotion of respect for law and legal processes, mirrored in the Lawyer's Oath to support the Constitution and obey laws and legal orders. The April 30, 2008 Prosecutor's Resolution, relying on co-accused Bernardita Tadeo's counter-affidavit, found express and implied orders from respondent to guard complainant and prevent her free locomotion, including reprimands when bindings were untangled, corroborating physical restraint despite absence of a formal enclosure given the remoteness of Upper San Agustin from Naval. Such lawless detention and torture could only constitute gross misconduct discrediting the profession.
• Disbarment: Administrative liability against lawyers requires only clearly preponderant evidence. The documentary evidence, police and maternal affidavits, prosecutorial findings, and respondent's total default satisfied that quantum. By engaging in both grossly immoral acts and gross misconduct, respondent ceased to possess the qualifications of a lawyer, leaving disbarment and striking from the Roll as the appropriate, immediately executory penalty.

• Practice of law as privilege conditioned on continuing moral fitness — Practice is not a right but a state-bestowed privilege requiring possession and continued possession of legal qualifications, including good moral character. Applied to hold that bigamy, illicit relations, detention, and torture rendered respondent unfit to continue in the profession.
• Burden upon assailed lawyer to prove moral fitness — When moral character is assailed such that continuation in the profession is imperiled, the lawyer must meet the charges squarely and present evidence of fitness to the investigating body and the Court. Applied to treat respondent's failure to file an answer or attend hearings, despite manifesting intent to defend, as failure to discharge that burden and as suggesting truth of the charges.
• Quantum of proof in administrative cases against lawyers — Liability is established by clearly preponderant evidence. Applied to find the unrebutted testimonial and documentary evidence, strengthened by the co-respondent's corroboration in the criminal investigation, sufficient to prove gross misconduct and gross immorality.
• Canon 1 and Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Canon 1 requires upholding the Constitution, obeying laws, and promoting respect for law and legal processes; Rule 7.03 prohibits conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice and scandalous behavior in public or private life to the discredit of the profession. Applied to classify bigamous and illicit relations as grossly immoral and ordered detention and torture as gross misconduct, also violative of the Lawyer's Oath to support the Constitution and obey laws and legal orders.

• "The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the state upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege." — States the foundational premise for discipline, that continuing moral fitness conditions retention in the Bar.
• "When a lawyer's moral character is assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, it behooves him to meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the investigating body and this Court, that he is morally fit to keep his name in the Roll of Attorneys." — Defines the burden shifted to respondent once charged, applied to his default.
• "Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession." — Provides the canonical ethical standard for the gross immorality finding.

• Mendoza vs. Deciembre, A.C. No. 5338, February 23, 2009, 580 SCRA 26, 36 — Cited as authority that practice of law is a privilege conditioned on continuing possession of required qualifications.
• Yap-Paras vs. Paras, A.C. No. 4947, February 14, 2005, 451 SCRA 194, 202 — Cited jointly for the same privilege-and-qualifications principle.
• Narag vs. Narag, A.C. No. 3405, June 29, 1998, 291 SCRA 451, 464 — Cited for the rule that an assailed lawyer must meet the charges and prove moral fitness.
• Arnobit vs. Arnobit, A.C. No. 1481, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 247, 254 — Cited to treat non-attendance at IBP hearings as suggesting truth of the charges.
• Guevarra vs. Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007, 529 SCRA 1 — Cited as controlling precedent imposing disbarment for extra-marital relations and for the clearly preponderant evidence standard in lawyer administrative cases.

• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey laws, and promote respect for law and legal processes; violated by ordering physical restraint and torture through followers.
• Lawyer's Oath — Requires recognizing the supreme authority of the Republic, supporting the Constitution, obeying laws and legal orders of duly constituted authorities, doing no falsehood, and conducting oneself with good fidelity to courts and clients; violated by bigamous, illicit, and lawless detention conduct.
• Rule 7.03, Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice and scandalous behavior in public or private life to the discredit of the profession; violated by maintaining a mistress and contracting subsisting marriages.

Corona, C.J., Carpio, Carpio Morales, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.