Zaguirre vs. Castillo

A lawyer who maintains an extramarital affair, sires a child with a woman other than his wife, and repudiates his prior notarized recognition and undertaking to support that child is guilty of gross immoral conduct warranting indefinite suspension. The misconduct violates the continuing requirement of good moral character and fitness to practice law, regardless of whether the other party knew of the lawyer's married status.

Carmelita I. Zaguirre and Alfredo Castillo were officemates at the National Bureau of Investigation when their relationship began in 1996. Castillo was then preparing for the bar examinations and was admitted to the Philippine Bar on May 10, 1997. Membership in the Bar under the Code of Professional Responsibility demands possession and continued maintenance of good moral character and conduct upholding the integrity and dignity of the profession.

Complainant Carmelita I. Zaguirre and respondent Alfredo Castillo met sometime in 1996 as officemates at the National Bureau of Investigation. According to complainant, respondent courted her and promised to marry her while representing himself to be single. Soon they entered an intimate relationship that started sometime in 1996 and lasted until 1997, during which respondent was preparing for the bar examinations. He passed the examinations and was admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar on May 10, 1997.

It was only around the first week of May 1997 that complainant first learned respondent was already married, when his wife went to her office and confronted her about the relationship. On September 10, 1997, respondent, by then a lawyer, executed an affidavit duly acknowledged before a notary public admitting his relationship with complainant and recognizing the unborn child she was carrying as his, voluntarily undertaking to support the child and to sign the birth certificate. On December 9, 1997, complainant gave birth to a baby girl, Aletha Jessa. By this time, however, respondent had started to refuse recognizing the child and giving her any form of support.

Respondent, for his part, denied courting complainant and claimed what transpired was nothing but mutual lust and desire. He maintained he never represented himself as single since his married status with children was known in the NBI, that complainant who was almost ten years older knew beforehand he was married, and that the child was not his because complainant was seeing other men during the affair. He admitted signing the September 10, 1997 affidavit but explained he did so only to save complainant from embarrassment and without knowledge she was seeing other men. In a handwritten letter dated March 12, 1998, he offered to help support complainant's daughter in an amount of not less than ₱500 but not more than ₱1,000. After due hearing, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found him guilty of gross immoral conduct.

• Nature of Relationship: Respondent argued that he never courted complainant and what transpired between them was nothing but mutual lust and desire, with men by nature being polygamous.
• Absence of Deception: Respondent maintained that he never represented himself as single since it was known in the NBI that he was already married and with children, and complainant, almost 10 years older, knew beforehand of his married status.
• Paternity: Respondent argued that the child borne by complainant was not his because complainant was seeing other men at the time of the affair.
• Affidavit of Recognition: Respondent maintained that he signed the affidavit dated September 10, 1997 only to save complainant from embarrassment and without knowledge that she was seeing other men.

• Gross Immoral Conduct: Whether respondent's extramarital affair, fathering a child with complainant, and subsequent refusal to recognize and support the child constitute gross immoral conduct warranting discipline.
• In Pari Delicto: Whether complainant's alleged knowledge of respondent's married status absolves respondent or bars the disbarment complaint under in pari delicto.
• Proper Penalty: Whether respondent should be disbarred or meted the lesser penalty of indefinite suspension.

• Gross Immoral Conduct: Yes. Siring a child with a woman other than his wife and reneging on notarized recognition and support violated the moral standards required of lawyers.
• In Pari Delicto: No. The defense is not feasible in disbarment, which purges unworthy members and protects the public and courts rather than grants relief to complainant.
• Proper Penalty: Indefinite suspension, not disbarment. A lesser punishment suffices where appropriate, with suspension lasting until respondent demonstrates restored moral integrity and uprightness.

• Gross Immoral Conduct: Immoral conduct so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to respectable opinion, and grossly immoral so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be highly reprehensible or scandalous, was established by respondent's own notarized affidavit admitting the relationship, recognizing the unborn child, and undertaking support with full knowledge as a lawyer, corroborated by his handwritten March 12, 1998 letter offering support. Fathering children by a woman other than the lawful wife falls below the strict standard demanded even of an ordinary lawyer, and reneging on the recognition demonstrated censurable unscrupulousness tantamount to self-stultification. Because good moral character is a continuing requirement for remaining in good standing, the affair during bar preparations and continued misconduct after admission showed want of honesty, probity, and good demeanor, including in private life.
• In Pari Delicto: Even assuming complainant knowingly entered the relationship with a married man, absolution does not follow because fitness for Bar membership does not depend on the other party's knowledge or participation. Under Mortel vs. Aspiras, complainant's pari delicto is immaterial since disbarment protects the profession, public, and courts.
• Proper Penalty: Disbarment is withheld where a lesser punishment could suffice. Although respondent had severed ties with complainant and lived with his wife and children in Mindoro, no genuine mending of ways or recognition of the offense's impact on the profession was perceived. Indefinite suspension until full satisfaction of restored moral integrity was therefore deemed more appropriate.

• Gross Immoral Conduct — Immoral conduct is that conduct so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community; to be grossly immoral it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock common decency. Applied to find respondent's extramarital affair, siring a child outside marriage, and repudiation of support grossly immoral.
• Good Moral Character as Continuing Requirement — Possession of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the Bar but its continued possession is essential to maintain good standing; admission creates only a rebuttable presumption of qualification and does not preclude subsequent inquiry into pre-admission fitness. Applied because the affair occurred while respondent prepared for the bar and persisted as misconduct after admission.
• Practice of Law as Privilege Burdened with Conditions — Practice is not a right but a privilege bestowed during good behavior, conditioned on rigid mental fitness, highest morality, and faithful compliance with professional rules, revocable for misconduct after hearing. Applied to justify discipline for private extramarital misconduct.
• In Pari Delicto Inapplicable in Disbarment — In disbarment it is immaterial that complainant is in pari delicto because the proceeding is not to grant relief to complainant but to purge unworthy members and protect the public and courts. Applied to reject respondent's reliance on complainant's alleged knowledge of his marriage, following Mortel vs. Aspiras.
• Misconduct in Private Life as Disciplinable — A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even pertaining to private activities, as long as it shows want of moral character, honesty, probity, or good demeanor. Applied to respondent's sexual congress and nonsupport.
• Disbarment as Last Resort — Disbarment shall not be meted out if a lesser punishment could be given. Applied to impose indefinite suspension rather than disbarment.

• "x x x that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. Furthermore, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be 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." — States the canonical definition of gross immoral conduct used to evaluate respondent's extramarital affair and repudiation of paternity.
• "as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards." — Defines the heightened moral standard imposed on lawyers in public and private life.
• "The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. We must stress that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege to practice law only during good behavior. He can be deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after giving him the opportunity to be heard." — Articulates why continuing moral fitness justifies suspension for private misconduct.
• "In a disbarment proceeding, it is immaterial that the complainant is in pari delicto because this is not a proceeding to grant relief to the complainant, but one to purge the law profession of unworthy members, to protect the public and the courts." — States the rule rejecting the in pari delicto defense in disciplinary cases.

• Narag vs. Narag, 291 SCRA 451, 464 (1998) — Source of the definition of gross immoral conduct and the rule on lawyers avoiding adulterous relationships and public scandal; followed as controlling standard.
• Luguid vs. Judge Camano, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519, August 8, 2002 — Cited for the proposition that even as an ordinary lawyer one must conform to strict conduct and that fathering children outside marriage fails those standards; applied by analogy.
• Paras vs. Paras, 343 SCRA 414, 426 (2000) — Cited to hold that siring a child with a woman other than the wife is below lawyer morality standards; followed.
• Marcayda vs. Naz, 125 SCRA 466, 469 (1983) — Cited to characterize reneging on notarized recognition and support as unscrupulous self-stultification unbecoming the profession; followed.
• Mortel vs. Aspiras, 100 Phil. 586, 592 (1956) — Cited to reject in pari delicto as immaterial in disbarment proceedings; followed.
• Sebastian vs. Calis, 344 SCRA 1, 8 (1999) — Cited for practice of law as privilege during good behavior revocable for misconduct; followed.
• Dumadag vs. Lumaya, 334 SCRA 513, 521 (2000) — Cited for privilege burdened with conditions of mental fitness, highest morality, and compliance; followed.
• Saburnido vs. Madrono, A.C. No. 4497, September 26, 2001 — Cited for the rule that disbarment is withheld if lesser punishment suffices; followed to impose indefinite suspension.
• Nakpil vs. Valdes, 286 SCRA 758, 774 (1998) — Cited for continuing good moral character requirement and disciplinability for private misconduct showing want of character; followed.

• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct; applied to respondent's extramarital affair and repudiation of child support.
• Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support Integrated Bar activities; applied as basis for discipline.
• Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice and scandalous behavior discrediting the profession in public or private life; applied to respondent's private immorality.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr. and Azcuna, JJ., concur. Ynares-Santiago and Corona, JJ., are on leave.