Obusan vs. Obusan

A lawyer who abandons his lawful wife and resumes carnal relations with a former paramour who is a married woman is guilty of grossly immoral conduct warranting disbarment, as such conduct shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community and fails to meet the highest degree of morality expected of a member of the bar.

Generoso B. Obusan, Jr. was admitted to the bar in 1968. While employed at the Peoples Homesite and Housing Corporation in 1967, he became acquainted with Natividad Estabillo, who represented herself as a widow, and entered into carnal relations with her. A son was born of that relationship on November 27, 1972. Generoso subsequently learned that Natividad's marriage to one Tony Garcia was subsisting and undissolved. On December 1, 1972, four days after the child's birth, Generoso married Preciosa Razon in a civil ceremony, later ratified in a religious ceremony on December 30, 1972.

Generoso B. Obusan, Jr., a lawyer admitted to the bar in 1968, became acquainted with Natividad Estabillo in 1967 while working at the Peoples Homesite and Housing Corporation. Natividad represented herself as a widow. They had carnal relations, and Generoso begot with her a son named John Obusan, born on November 27, 1972. Generoso later came to know that Natividad's marriage to Tony Garcia was subsisting and undissolved.

Four days after the child's birth, on December 1, 1972, Generoso, then 33, married Preciosa Razon, then 37, in a civil ceremony. The marriage was ratified in a religious ceremony on December 30, 1972. The couple lived with Preciosa's mother at 993 Sto. Cristo Street, Tondo, Manila for more than one year. In the evening of April 13, 1974, while his wife was out of the house, Generoso asked permission from his mother-in-law to leave and take a vacation in his hometown, Daet, Camarines Norte. He never returned to the conjugal abode.

Preciosa immediately began searching for her husband. After patient investigation and surveillance, she discovered that he was living and cohabiting with Natividad in an apartment at 85-A Felix Manalo Street, Cubao, Quezon City, and had brought his car to that place. The fact that Generoso and Natividad lived as husband and wife was corroborated by Linda Delfin, their housemaid in 1974, and by Remedios Bernal, a laundress, and Ernesto Bernal, a plumber, neighbors at 94 Felix Manalo Street. The three executed affidavits that were confirmed by their testimonies. Romegil Q. Magana, a pook leader, testified that Generoso introduced himself as the head of the family, and his name appeared at the head of the barangay list. Nieves Cacnio, the apartment owner, came to know Generoso as "Mr. Estabillo" and identified five photographs where he appeared as the man wearing eyeglasses.

Generoso's defense was that his relationship with Natividad had terminated when he married Preciosa. He admitted visiting 85-A Felix Manalo Street from time to time but claimed it was only to give financial assistance to his son, Jun-Jun. Lawyer Rogelio Panotes, the ninong of Jun-Jun, corroborated this testimony. Generoso denied the testimonies of the maid, laundress, and plumber, claiming they were paid witnesses, and asserted that he resided with his sister at Cypress Village, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City. He further claimed he was constrained to leave the conjugal home because he could not endure his wife's nagging, their violent quarrels, her absences from the conjugal home, and her interference with his professional obligations.

The case was investigated by the Office of the Solicitor General, which filed a complaint for disbarment. Generoso did not answer the complaint, waived the presentation of additional evidence, and his lawyer did not file any memorandum. The Court found that the complainant had sustained the burden of proof, establishing both the abandonment and the adulterous relations.

• Termination of Relationship: Respondent maintained that his relationship with Natividad was terminated when he married Preciosa.
• Purpose of Visits: Respondent argued that his visits to 85-A Felix Manalo Street were solely for the purpose of giving financial assistance to his son, Jun-Jun, as corroborated by the child's ninong, lawyer Rogelio Panotes.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Respondent claimed the testimonies of the housemaid, laundress, and plumber should be discredited because they were paid witnesses.
• Place of Residence: Respondent declared that he did not live with Natividad and instead resided with his sister at Cypress Village, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City.
• Justification for Leaving Conjugal Home: Respondent argued that he was constrained to leave the conjugal home because he could not endure his wife's nagging, their violent quarrels, her absences from the conjugal home, and her interference with his professional obligations.

• Grossly Immoral Conduct: Whether respondent's abandonment of his lawful wife and cohabitation with a married woman constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting disbarment.

• Grossly Immoral Conduct: Yes. Respondent was found guilty of grossly immoral conduct and disbarred, his name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, for abandoning his wife and resuming carnal relations with a married former paramour.

• Grossly Immoral Conduct: The complainant sustained the burden of proof, establishing both the abandonment of the wife and the adulterous relations with a married woman separated from her own husband. The corroborated testimonies of the housemaid, laundress, plumber, pook leader, and apartment owner demonstrated that respondent lived with Natividad as husband and wife. Respondent failed to overcome this evidence. The Court applied the definition of grossly immoral conduct as "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community" (7 C.J.S. 959; Arciga vs. Maniwang). Abandoning one's wife and resuming carnal relations with a former paramour who is a married woman falls squarely within this definition. The Court relied on Toledo vs. Toledo, where a lawyer was disbarred for abandoning his lawful wife and cohabiting with another woman who had borne him a child, for failing to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a member of the bar.

• Grossly Immoral Conduct as Ground for Disbarment — Grossly immoral conduct is defined as "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community." Abandoning one's lawful wife and resuming carnal relations with a former paramour who is a married woman constitutes grossly immoral conduct. Members of the bar are expected and required to maintain the highest degree of morality; failure to do so warrants disbarment.

• "Abandoning one's wife and resuming carnal relations with a former paramour, a married woman, fails within 'that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.'" — This passage states the ratio decidendi, applying the canonical definition of grossly immoral conduct to the specific facts of abandonment and cohabitation with a married woman.
• "Thus, a lawyer was disbarred when he abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with another woman who had borne him a child. He failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a member of the bar." — This passage ties the standard of morality required of lawyers to the specific conduct, citing Toledo vs. Toledo as controlling precedent.

• Arciga vs. Maniwang, Adm. Case No. 1608, August 14, 1981, 106 SCRA 591 — Cited for the definition of grossly immoral conduct as conduct that is willful, flagrant, or shameless, showing moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.
• Toledo vs. Toledo, 117 Phil. 768 — Followed as controlling precedent; a lawyer was disbarred for abandoning his lawful wife and cohabiting with another woman who had borne him a child, having failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected of a member of the bar.

Makasiar, Actg. C.J., Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.