Rojas vs. Quiambao

A lawyer's willful, flagrant, and shameless conduct that shows moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community—such as repeated marital infidelity, contracting a bigamous marriage, and sexually harassing subordinates—constitutes Grossly Immoral Conduct warranting disbarment.

The case arose from a verified disbarment complaint filed by the respondent's wife, also a lawyer. The respondent's misconduct involved multiple acts of sexual infidelity and harassment committed during the subsistence of his marriage to the complainant, violating constitutional and statutory protections for marriage and workplace dignity.

• Filed directly as a verified Complaint-Affidavit with the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).
• The IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner recommended disbarment.
• The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation.
• The matter was elevated to the SC for final action.

• The complainant and respondent were married lawyers sharing a law firm.
• The respondent engaged in extramarital sexual relations with at least three women (CCC, BBB, HHH) during the marriage.
• He sired two illegitimate children with HHH and later entered into a bigamous marriage with her after only a legal separation (not dissolution) from the complainant.
• He sexually harassed subordinates:
  • AAA (house helper): Cupped her breasts, showed pornographic materials, masturbated in her presence, and offered money for sexual acts.
  • DDD (law secretary): Repeatedly showed her photos of his penis and asked her to watch pornography with him.
  • Similar allegations were made by other former employees (EEE, FFF, GGG).
  • The respondent admitted to many of the affairs and to showing pornographic materials but denied forcing himself on some victims, claiming consensual relations.
  • A Permanent Protection Order (PPO) was issued against him, directing him to seek counseling for sex offender treatment.

• The respondent's admitted extramarital affairs, bigamous marriage, and sexual harassment of employees constitute grossly immoral conduct.
• His actions violate the sanctity of marriage, the Constitution, and the CPRA.
• The victims' judicial affidavits and the PPO substantiate the allegations.

• He admitted to some affairs but claimed they were consensual.
• He argued his marriage to HHH was legitimized after the alleged annulment of his first marriage.
• He claimed the employees' affidavits were executed out of pity for the complainant, not truth.
• He requested leniency and not the maximum penalty of disbarment.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the respondent's acts constitute Grossly Immoral Conduct under the CPRA.
  • Whether the appropriate penalty is disbarment.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: The SC found the respondent guilty of four counts of Grossly Immoral Conduct.
• First Count: Flagrant engagement in multiple extramarital affairs during marriage, demonstrating a cavalier attitude toward marital vows.
• Second Count: Siring two illegitimate children, contracting a bigamous marriage, and publicly flaunting the relationship.
• Third & Fourth Counts: Sexually harassing two subordinates (AAA and DDD) by showing pornographic materials and making sexual advances.
• Penalty: Disbarment for the first count. Fines totaling PHP 400,001.00 for the second, third, and fourth counts (disbarment for these counts was also pronounced but deemed moot due to the first disbarment).

• Grossly Immoral Conduct — Defined under Canon VI, Section 33(f) of the CPRA as "an act that is so corrupt or false as to constitute a criminal act, or so immoral as to be reprehensible to a high degree." It must be willful, flagrant, or shameless, showing moral indifference to community standards. The SC applied this to the respondent's pattern of infidelity, bigamy, and sexual harassment.
• Continuing Good Moral Character Requirement — Lawyers must possess good moral character not only for admission but also to retain membership in the Bar. Gross immoral conduct is grounds for disbarment.
• Sexual Harassment as Immoral Conduct — Sexual harassment of a subordinate, especially by a superior with authority, constitutes immoral conduct and may amount to a criminal act under R.A. 7877.

• "His flagrant violation of the Philippine policies on marriage, which is recognized as an inviolable social institution that must be protected by the State, constitutes one count of Grossly Immoral Conduct."
• "The economic disparity between respondent and these women therefore made respondent's grossly immoral conduct especially egregious."
• "His behavior shows a manifest disregard of the Constitution and the Philippine laws on marriage and sexual harassment."

• Cristobal v. Atty. Cristobal — Cited for the definition and standard of grossly immoral conduct.
• Guevarra v. Atty. Eala; Panagsagan v. Atty. Panagsagan; Dr. Perez v. Atty. Catindig — Cited as precedents where disbarment was imposed for extramarital affairs, flaunting a paramour, siring illegitimate children, and contracting bigamous marriages.
• Reyes v. Atty. Nieva; Re: Anonymous Complaint against Atty. Untian — Cited as precedents where suspension or disbarment was imposed for sexual harassment of employees/subordinates.
• Phil. Aeolus Automotive United Corp. v. NLRC — Cited to explain why victims of workplace sexual harassment often endure the conduct due to economic dependence.

• Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA):
  • Canon II, Sections 1 & 2 — Propriety; prohibition against immoral or scandalous conduct.
  • Canon III, Section 2 — Fidelity; duty to uphold the Constitution and laws.
  • Canon VI, Section 33(f) — Definition of Grossly Immoral Conduct.
  • Canon VI, Sections 37, 38, 39, 40 — Penalties, aggravating circumstances, and imposition for multiple offenses.
  • 1987 Constitution, Article XV, Section 2 — Marriage as an inviolable social institution.
  • Family Code, Article 63 — Effects of legal separation (does not allow remarriage).
  • Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995), Section 3(a)(3) — Work-related sexual harassment defined.

N/A (Per Curiam decision)

N/A (Per Curiam decision)