Quindoza vs. Atty. Delos Santos

A lawyer who engages in extramarital relations while legally married commits gross immorality under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, but the penalty may be mitigated and reduced from disbarment to suspension; agreeing to act as a baptismal sponsor to a child born out of an illicit relationship, without more, is not gross immoral conduct.

Atty. Ernesto David Delos Santos was a member of the Bar who had been married to Edita Baltasar and later had a nonmarital child, Veronica, with Juliewhyn R. Quindoza. Atty. Marujita S. Palabrica was Atty. Delos Santos's law classmate and later served as his counsel in the probate of Dr. Virgilio Delos Santos's will and in related criminal cases, where Emily De Leon and Dr. Ramona Delos Santos stood to benefit from the will's allowance. The Code of Professional Responsibility requires all lawyers to possess good moral character from their application for admission to the Bar, during, and until retirement from the practice of law.

Quindoza filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Delos Santos and Atty. Palabrica before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline. She alleged that she was the common-law wife of Atty. Delos Santos and that they had a nonmarital child named Veronica. When Atty. Delos Santos started cohabiting with Quindoza, he was legally married to Edita Baltasar. Quindoza further alleged that Atty. Delos Santos also had another mistress, Fe Delilah, with whom he had three nonmarital children, and that he had a sexual relationship with a woman named Marissa Beroy.

Quindoza alleged that Atty. Palabrica was a classmate of Atty. Delos Santos at the San Beda College of Law and had knowledge of their illicit affair. During Veronica's baptism, Atty. Palabrica stood as one of the sponsors. Quindoza also alleged that Atty. Palabrica consented to the immoral acts of Atty. Delos Santos. Quindoza further averred that Atty. Palabrica knew that Atty. Delos Santos committed acts of lasciviousness against Veronica; despite such knowledge, Atty. Palabrica remained passive on the abuse, which Quindoza characterized as silent toleration of the abusive act of a fellow lawyer and a violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics.

In her Verified Answer, Atty. Palabrica stated that Atty. Delos Santos, her classmate, invited her to be one of the sponsors in Veronica's baptism. During the baptism, it was her first time to meet Quindoza and Veronica; she was neither properly introduced nor had an opportunity to talk to Quindoza. The next time Atty. Palabrica saw Quindoza was during the hearings in the probate of the will of Atty. Delos Santos's deceased father at Branch 49, Regional Trial Court of Manila, where Atty. Palabrica was Atty. Delos Santos's counsel, being the oppositor in the allowance of the will. Atty. Palabrica claimed she only knew about Quindoza and Veronica during the baptism and had no contact with them afterwards. She denied knowledge that Atty. Delos Santos committed acts of lasciviousness against Veronica, calling it a private matter, and averred that Quindoza should not have waited for two years to report the alleged acts. Atty. Palabrica argued that being a sponsor in Veronica's baptism should not be construed as upholding the immoral acts of a fellow lawyer because she was neither acting as a lawyer nor taking advantage of her being a lawyer. She also averred that the complaint against her was founded on malice and bad faith, as it was a consequence of the opposition filed by Atty. Delos Santos in the probate of the will of his father Dr. Virgilio Delos Santos, formerly the chairperson and majority owner of the University of Manila. In that probate, Emily De Leon, President of the University of Manila, and Dr. Ramona Delos Santos, Atty. Delos Santos's sister and Vice-President of the University of Manila, would be benefited by the allowance of the will. Atty. Palabrica was Atty. Delos Santos's counsel in their opposition against the probate of the will and in the criminal cases filed by De Leon against Atty. Delos Santos.

Atty. Delos Santos denied that Quindoza was his common-law wife, but admitted that he had a daughter, Veronica, with her. He expressed remorse and stated that he had already ended his brief relationship with Quindoza. To make up for his mistakes, he provided love, affection, and financial support to Veronica. Atty. Delos Santos also admitted that a complaint for acts of lasciviousness allegedly committed against Veronica was filed against him in Baguio City, but this case was dismissed by the Prosecutor's Office for lack of probable cause. According to Atty. Delos Santos, the criminal case was filed to harass and tarnish his good name. He further alleged that the motive for filing the disbarment case was to harass him and Atty. Palabrica because of the opposition they filed in the probate of the will of Dr. Virgilio. The beneficiaries, namely Dr. Ramona and her lover De Leon, filed the petition for probate of the will. Atty. Delos Santos alleged that Quindoza was under De Leon's power because of the monetary allowance she received from the University of Manila.

The records showed that Atty. Delos Santos's marriage with Baltasar was legal and subsisting, but they were no longer living together as husband and wife. While Atty. Delos Santos and Baltasar married in 1978, his wife went to the United States of America. In 1985, Atty. Delos Santos's estranged wife contracted a subsequent marriage in Oklahoma, based on her certificate of marriage, and ties between her and Atty. Delos Santos were eventually severed. As regards Veronica, records showed that Atty. Delos Santos had been taking full responsibility as her father by being present in her life and giving her moral, emotional, psychological, and financial support. Photographs showed his involvement in Veronica's life from childhood until she was grown up, including her holy communion and graduation. Screenshots of text messages between Atty. Delos Santos and Veronica revealed that he kept in touch with her. He also provided financial support through several checks issued to Quindoza, official receipts for Quindoza's cable television subscriptions, a certificate of full payment of Veronica's educational plan worth PHP 200,000.00, checks issued to St. Louis University with official receipts for Veronica's tuition fees, and official receipts for Veronica's other school expenses such as uniform and food. The charge of acts of lasciviousness against Veronica was not given weight because the prosecution's office dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause. The Court also considered Atty. Delos Santos's advanced age and the 11 years that had passed since the administrative complaint was filed against him.

• Atty. Delos Santos's Illicit Relationship: Quindoza alleged that she was Atty. Delos Santos's common-law wife and that they had a nonmarital child, Veronica; Atty. Delos Santos had an illicit relationship with her while legally married to Edita Baltasar, and also had another mistress, Fe Delilah, with three nonmarital children, and a sexual relationship with Marissa Beroy.
• Acts of Lasciviousness: Quindoza alleged that Atty. Delos Santos committed acts of lasciviousness against their daughter Veronica.
• Atty. Palabrica's Baptismal Sponsorship and Knowledge: Quindoza argued that Atty. Palabrica violated the Canons of Professional Ethics because she stood as godmother to Veronica despite knowing that Veronica was the nonmarital child of Quindoza and Atty. Delos Santos, and because she knew of their illicit relationship.
• Atty. Palabrica's Passivity: Quindoza maintained that Atty. Palabrica knew of the alleged abuse committed by Atty. Delos Santos against Veronica but remained passive and silently tolerated it, which amounted to a violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics.

• Atty. Palabrica — Limited Knowledge and Contact: Atty. Palabrica countered that Atty. Delos Santos invited her to be a sponsor; it was her first time to meet Quindoza and Veronica during the baptism; she was neither properly introduced nor had an opportunity to talk to Quindoza; she only knew about them during the baptism and had no contact afterwards.
• Atty. Palabrica — Denial of Knowledge of Abuse: She denied knowledge that Atty. Delos Santos committed acts of lasciviousness against Veronica, calling it a private matter, and argued that Quindoza should not have waited two years to report the alleged acts.
• Atty. Palabrica — Baptismal Sponsorship Not Professional Misconduct: She argued that being a sponsor in Veronica's baptism should not be construed as upholding the immoral acts of a fellow lawyer because she was neither acting as a lawyer nor taking advantage of her being a lawyer.
• Atty. Palabrica — Malice and Bad Faith: She averred that the complaint was founded on malice and bad faith, as it arose from the opposition filed by Atty. Delos Santos in the probate of Dr. Virgilio Delos Santos's will, where De Leon and Dr. Ramona would benefit from the will's allowance, and Atty. Palabrica was Atty. Delos Santos's counsel.
• Atty. Delos Santos — Denial of Common-Law Marriage and Remorse: Atty. Delos Santos denied that Quindoza was his common-law wife but admitted having a daughter, Veronica, with her; he expressed remorse, ended his brief relationship with Quindoza, and provided love, affection, and financial support to Veronica.
• Atty. Delos Santos — Dismissal of Criminal Complaint and Motive: He alleged that the acts-of-lasciviousness complaint in Baguio City was dismissed for lack of probable cause and was filed to harass and tarnish his name; he claimed the disbarment case was motivated by the opposition in the probate of Dr. Virgilio's will and that Quindoza was under De Leon's power because of a monetary allowance from the University of Manila.

• Gross Immorality of Atty. Delos Santos: Whether Atty. Ernesto David Delos Santos should be disciplined for gross immorality for maintaining illicit relations and siring a nonmarital child while legally married.
• Penalty for Atty. Delos Santos: Whether the penalty should be disbarment or suspension, in light of mitigating circumstances.
• Liability of Atty. Palabrica as Baptismal Sponsor: Whether Atty. Marujita S. Palabrica violated the Canons of Professional Ethics by standing as godmother to Veronica despite knowing of the illicit relationship.
• Liability of Atty. Palabrica for Passivity: Whether Atty. Palabrica's alleged passivity and silent toleration of the alleged acts of lasciviousness constitute a violation warranting disciplinary action.

• Gross Immorality of Atty. Delos Santos: Yes. Atty. Delos Santos is guilty of gross immorality, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for his extramarital relations while legally married.
• Penalty for Atty. Delos Santos: Suspension for three years, not disbarment. Mitigating circumstances warranted a lesser penalty than disbarment.
• Liability of Atty. Palabrica as Baptismal Sponsor: No. Acting as godmother to a child born out of an illicit relationship is not equivalent to consenting to or upholding gross immorality.
• Liability of Atty. Palabrica for Passivity: No. The allegation of knowledge and silent toleration is unsupported by evidence; a bare allegation is not proof.

• Gross Immorality of Atty. Delos Santos: The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to possess good moral character from application through retirement. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, while Canon 7, Rule 7.03 prohibits conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law and scandalous behavior discrediting the profession. To warrant discipline, immoral conduct must be grossly immoral—so corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act, so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or committed under scandalous or revolting circumstances shocking common decency. Atty. Delos Santos admitted having a nonmarital child with Quindoza and had illicit relations with Quindoza and Delilah while legally married to Baltasar. These admissions established gross immorality. The acts-of-lasciviousness charge was not given weight because the prosecutor's office dismissed it for lack of probable cause. Thus, he was guilty of gross immorality in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03.

• Penalty for Atty. Delos Santos: The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution and only in clear cases of misconduct seriously affecting the lawyer's standing and character. Jurisprudence has imposed disbarment or suspension for extramarital affairs depending on circumstances. Here, the Court could not impose the same gravity as disbarment. Mitigating circumstances included: Atty. Delos Santos provided support for Veronica; he ended his relationship with Quindoza; he was no longer living with his wife, who went to the United States and contracted another marriage in Oklahoma, when he had extramarital affairs; his advanced age; and 11 years had passed since the administrative complaint was filed. The Court also considered A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC Section 19, which allows humanitarian considerations and other analogous circumstances as mitigating. Thus, a three-year suspension was proper.

• Liability of Atty. Palabrica as Baptismal Sponsor: Atty. Palabrica's involvement as godmother of Atty. Delos Santos and Quindoza's daughter is not equivalent to consenting to or upholding the gross immorality of a fellow lawyer. Agreeing to be a godmother of a child born out of an illicit relation is not within the definition of gross immoral conduct. Therefore, no disciplinary liability attached on this ground.

• Liability of Atty. Palabrica for Passivity: The allegation that Atty. Palabrica remained passive and silently tolerated the alleged abuse was unsupported by any evidence. Quindoza did not establish proof that Atty. Palabrica had knowledge of the alleged abuse. A bare allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof; it is self-serving and devoid of evidentiary weight. The complaint against Atty. Palabrica was also baseless: she was Atty. Delos Santos's counsel in the probate of Dr. Virgilio's will and in criminal cases filed by De Leon and Dr. Ramona, who stood to benefit from the alleged will; Quindoza received a monthly allowance from the University of Manila President and was beholden to De Leon. Atty. Palabrica's name was dragged into the administrative case by reason of being Atty. Delos Santos's counsel, and she was fulfilling her duty under Canon 17. Thus, the case against her was dismissed for lack of merit.

• Gross Immorality — To be the basis of disciplinary action, immoral conduct must be grossly immoral and 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. The Court applied this standard to Atty. Delos Santos's admitted extramarital relations and nonmarital child while legally married, finding him guilty of gross immorality.
• Good Moral Character Requirement for Lawyers — The Code of Professional Responsibility requires all lawyers to possess good moral character from the time of their application for admission to the Bar, during, and until their retirement from the practice of law. Lawyers must be seen to be of good moral character and must avoid adulterous relationships or keeping mistresses or paramours, and must conduct themselves to avoid scandalizing the public. This requirement underpinned the disciplinary action against Atty. Delos Santos.
• Disbarment Power Exercised with Caution — The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution and only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as a legal professional and as an officer of the Court. Depending on the circumstances, the Court has imposed either disbarment or suspension for extramarital affairs. The Court applied this by imposing suspension rather than disbarment on Atty. Delos Santos due to mitigating circumstances.
• Baptismal Sponsorship Not Per Se Gross Immorality — Agreeing to be a godmother of a child born out of an illicit relation is not within the definition of gross immoral conduct. The Court applied this to dismiss the complaint against Atty. Palabrica based on her role as Veronica's baptismal sponsor.
• Bare Allegation Not Evidence — A bare allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof; it is self-serving and devoid of evidentiary weight. The Court applied this to reject the charge that Atty. Palabrica remained passive and silently tolerated the alleged abuse.
• Mitigating Circumstances in Administrative Cases — Under Section 19 of A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, the Court may appreciate mitigating circumstances, including humanitarian considerations and other analogous circumstances, in determining the appropriate penalty. The Court applied these to reduce Atty. Delos Santos's penalty to a three-year suspension.
• Fidelity to Client's Cause — Under Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of the client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed. The Court applied this in finding that Atty. Palabrica, as Atty. Delos Santos's counsel, was merely fulfilling her duty as a lawyer and that the complaint against her was baseless.

• "To be the basis of disciplinary action, immoral conduct must be grossly immoral and "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 states the threshold for disciplining a lawyer for immoral conduct and was applied to Atty. Delos Santos's extramarital relations.
• "Agreeing to be a godmother of a child born out of an illicit relation is not within the definition of gross immoral conduct which is "one that is so corrupt as to 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 is the ratio for dismissing the complaint against Atty. Palabrica based on her baptismal sponsorship.
• "In sum, We take into account the following mitigating circumstances of the case: (1) Atty. Delos Santos provided support for her daughter Veronica; (2) he ended his relationship with Quindoza; (3) he was no longer living together with his wife who went to the United States and had contracted another marriage, when Atty. Delos Santos had his extramarital affairs; (4) Atty. Delos Santos's advanced age; and (5) 11 years have passed since the administrative case was filed against him." — This passage identifies the mitigating circumstances that led to the reduction of the penalty to a three-year suspension.
• "In view of the rule that a bare allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof, the allegation is therefore self-serving and devoid of any evidentiary weight." — This passage supports the rejection of the passivity charge against Atty. Palabrica.

• Ceniza vs. Ceniza, A.C. No. 8335, April 10, 2019 — Cited as an example where disbarment was imposed on a lawyer who left his wife and family to cohabit with his married mistress, causing suffering and depression; the Court did not impose the same gravity in this case due to mitigating circumstances.
• Samaniego vs. Ferrer, 578 Phil. 1 (2008) — Cited as an example where a lawyer was suspended for six months for gross immorality due to an extramarital affair and failure to support his daughter with his mistress; the abandonment charge was dismissed.
• Samala vs. Valencia, 541 Phil. 1 (2007) — Cited as an example where a lawyer was suspended for three years for violations of Canons 1, 10, and 21, including gross immorality for siring three children with another woman while his first wife was alive; mitigating circumstances included first infraction and subsequent marriage to the mistress after his wife died.
• Advincula vs. Atty. Advincula, 787 Phil. 101, 112 (2016) — Cited for the requirement that lawyers must be of good moral character, must be seen to be of good moral character, and must avoid adulterous relationships or keeping mistresses or paramours to avoid scandalizing the public.
• Garrido vs. Garrido, 625 Phil. 347, 366 (2010) — Cited for the rule that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution and only in clear cases of misconduct seriously affecting the lawyer's standing and character.
• Guevarra-Castil vs. Atty. Trinidad, A.C. No. 10294, July 12, 2022 — Cited in connection with the definition of gross immoral conduct used to assess Atty. Palabrica's act of becoming a baptismal sponsor.
• Menez vs. Status Maritime Corporation, 839 Phil. 360, 369 (2018) — Cited for the rule that a bare allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.
• Ignacio vs. Ignacio, A.C. No. 9426 and A.C. No. 11988, August 25, 2020 — Cited for the requirement that lawyers possess good moral character from application for admission to the Bar, during, and until retirement from practice.

• Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied to Atty. Delos Santos's gross immorality.
• Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law, nor behave scandalously to discredit the legal profession. Applied to Atty. Delos Santos.
• Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of the client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed. Applied to Atty. Palabrica as Atty. Delos Santos's counsel; her acts in defending him were within her duty.
• Section 19, A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC (Further Amendments to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court) — Provides mitigating circumstances including humanitarian considerations and other analogous circumstances. Applied to reduce Atty. Delos Santos's penalty to three years.

Gesmundo, C.J.; Leonen, SAJ; Caguioa; Hernando; Lazaro-Javier; Inting; Zalameda; M. Lopez; and Gaerlan, JJ.