Ventura vs. Samson

A lawyer who engages in sexual intercourse with a minor under his care commits gross immoral conduct warranting disbarment, regardless of the minor's alleged consent or subsequent desistance, as such conduct manifests moral depravity, disrespect for the sanctity of marriage, and unfitness to practice law.

Complainant Maria Victoria B. Ventura, then 13 years old, resided at the house of respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson and his wife while attending high school. Respondent, a married man, had sexual intercourse with the complainant on at least two occasions, once in his house and once at his poultry farm, giving her money afterward and warning her not to disclose the incidents.

• Complainant's Allegations: Complainant alleged that in December 2001, while sleeping in the maid’s room at respondent’s house, respondent went on top of her, kissed her, sucked her breast, and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her against her will. On March 19, 2002, at respondent’s poultry farm, respondent dragged her to a dilapidated shack and again sexually abused her, afterward giving her five hundred pesos and threatening her with death if she told anyone.
• Respondent's Version: Respondent admitted to having sexual intercourse with complainant on March 19, 2002, but claimed it was done with mutual agreement after he gave her money. He denied the December 2001 incident. He asserted that complainant was a woman of loose moral character and that the charges were instigated by complainant’s mother, his former employee, as extortion and vengeance for her termination.
• Prosecutorial Action: The Provincial Prosecutor dismissed the rape charge for insufficiency of evidence but found probable cause for qualified seduction, a finding sustained by the DOJ.
• Affidavit of Desistance: On December 14, 2006, complainant and her mother executed Affidavits of Desistance, stating the March 2002 encounter was based on mutual understanding, leading to the dismissal of the criminal case.

• Gross Immorality and Abuse of Authority: Petitioner maintained that respondent committed grossly immoral conduct by forcing himself on a 13-year-old innocent girl and taking advantage of his moral ascendancy over her while she stayed at his residence.
• Betrayal of Marital Vows: Petitioner argued that respondent’s act of carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife constituted a betrayal of his marital vow of fidelity.
• Inadequacy of IBP Penalty: Petitioner contended that the IBP’s five-year suspension was not commensurate to the gravity and depravity of the offense, rendering respondent unfit for the privilege of practicing law and warranting disbarment.

• Consent and Compensation: Respondent argued that the sexual encounter was done with mutual agreement and just compensation, claiming that having sex once with mutual consent does not amount to immoral conduct.
• Denial of Minority and Custody: Respondent contended that complainant presented no proof of minority and was not under their custody during the encounter, as her mother testified she stayed at respondent’s house only until February 2002.
• Extortion and Malice: Respondent asserted that the case was orchestrated by complainant’s mother as extortion and vengeance for terminating her employment.
• Mitigating Factors: Respondent maintained that his admission, remorse, and lack of prior administrative liability warranted a reduction of the penalty to one-year suspension.

• Gross Immoral Conduct: Whether respondent's act of having sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old minor under his care constitutes gross immoral conduct warranting disbarment.
• Effect of Desistance: Whether the complainant's Affidavit of Desistance abates the disbarment proceedings.

• Gross Immoral Conduct: Respondent's actions constitute gross immoral conduct warranting disbarment. Engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of a former employee, manifests disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and the respondent's marital vow of fidelity. Procuring the act by enticing a very young woman with money demonstrates utmost moral depravity and low regard for human dignity. Whether the sexual encounter was with the complainant's consent is immaterial, given the complainant's minority and the trust reposed in the respondent as her guardian.
• Effect of Desistance: The Affidavit of Desistance cannot abate the proceedings. Disbarment is a sui generis action imbued with public interest, intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession and protect the public and the courts, not to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case.

• Gross Immoral Conduct — Conduct 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 community’s sense of decency. Applied to hold that a lawyer's sexual intercourse with a minor under his care, procured through enticement with money and in violation of marital vows, constitutes gross immoral conduct.
• Sui Generis Nature of Disbarment Proceedings — A disbarment case is not an investigation into the acts of the respondent but on his conduct as an officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar. It is not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case, but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members. Applied to rule that an affidavit of desistance cannot abate a disbarment case due to its public interest character.

• "Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of decency."
• "A disbarment case is not an investigation into the acts of respondent but on his conduct as an officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar."

• Zaguirre v. Castillo, A.C. No. 4921 — Followed. Possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership in the legal profession.
• Cordova v. Cordova, Adm. Case No. 3249 — Followed. Moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar includes conduct that makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage.
• Maligsa v. Cabanting, Adm. Case No. 4539 — Followed. A lawyer may be disbarred for any misconduct, whether in professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor.
• Dantes v. Dantes, A.C. No. 6486 — Followed. The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, but where a lesser penalty such as temporary suspension could not accomplish the end desired, disbarment should be decreed.

• Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court — Provides that a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended for any deceit, grossly immoral conduct, or violation of the lawyer's oath. Applied as the statutory basis for imposing the penalty of disbarment.
• Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied to hold the respondent liable for immoral conduct.
• Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Applied to sanction the respondent's scandalous private conduct.

Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco Jr., Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, del Castillo, Abad, Villarama Jr., Perez, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ.