21. Ui v Bonifacio

7/25/2019 21. Ui v Bonifacio

1/12

Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000

Facts:

Complainant Lesli Ui found out that her husband Carlos Ui was carrying out an illicit

relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he begot two children. Hence acomplaint for disbarment was filed by complainant against respondent before the Commission on

Bar !iscipline of the Integrated Bar of the "hilippines on the ground of immorality more

particularly for carrying on an illicit relationship with the complainant#s husband. It isrespondent#s contention that her relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit because they were

married abroad and that after $une %&'' when respondent disco(ered Carlos Ui#s true ci(il

status she cut off all her ties with him. )espondent a(erred that Carlos Ui ne(er li(ed with her.

Issue:

*hether or not she has conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she deser(es to be

barred from the practice of law.

Held:

+he complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio for alleged immorality

was dismissed.

All the facts ta,en together leads to the inescapable conclusion that respondent was imprudent inmanaging her personal affairs. Howe(er the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui

clothed as it was with what respondent belie(ed was a (alid marriage cannot be considered

immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society

and the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. -oreo(er for such conductto warrant disciplinary action the same must be grossly immoral/ that is it must be so corrupt

and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.


2/12

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 3319. June 8, 2000]

LESLIE UI, complainant, vs. ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

DE LEON, JR., J.

Before us is an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio forallegedly carrying on an immoral relationsip !it Carlos ". #i$ usband of complainant$

"eslie #i.

%e relevant facts are&

On 'anuary ()$ *+,* complainant "eslie #i married Carlos ". #i at te Our "ady of"ourdes Curc in -ueon City*/*0and as a result of teir marital union$ tey ad four1)2 cildren$ namely$ "eilani$ "ianni$ "indsay and Carl Cavin$ all surnamed #i. Sometimein December *+3,$ o!ever$ complainant found out tat er usband$ Carlos #i$ !ascarrying on an illicit relationsip !it respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio !it !om e begota daugter sometime in *+34$ and tat tey ad been living togeter at No. 5(, SanCarlos Street$ Ayala Alabang Village in 6untinlupa City. 7espondent !o is a graduate

of te College of "a! of te #niversity of te 8ilippines !as admitted to te 8ilippineBar in *+3(.

Carlos #i admitted to complainant is relationsip !it te respondent. Complainantten visited respondent at er office in te later part of 'une *+33 and introducederself as te legal !ife of Carlos #i. 9ereupon$ respondent admitted to er tat seas a cild !it Carlos #i and alleged$ o!ever$ tat everyting !as over bet!een erand Carlos #i. Complainant believed te representations of respondent and tougttings !ould turn out !ell from ten on and tat te illicit relationsip bet!een erusband and respondent !ould come to an end.

:o!ever$ complainant again discovered tat te illicit relationsip bet!een er usbandand respondent continued$ and tat sometime in December *+33$ respondent and erusband$ Carlos #i$ ad a second cild. Complainant ten met again !it respondentsometime in 6arc *+3+ and pleaded !it respondent to discontinue er illicitrelationsip !it Carlos #i but to no avail. %e illicit relationsip persisted and

1[1]Records, Vol. I, p. 5.


3/12

complainant even came to ;no! later on tat respondent ad been employed by erusband in is company.

A complaint for disbarment$ doc;eted as Adm. Case No.


4/12

for aving filed te present allegedly malicious and groundless disbarment case againstrespondent.

In er 7eply,/,0dated April 4$ *++>$ complainant states$ among oters$ tat respondent;ne! perfectly !ell tat Carlos #i !as married to complainant and ad cildren !it er

even at te start of er relationsip !it Carlos #i$ and tat te reason respondent !entabroad !as to give birt to er t!o 1(2 cildren !it Carlos #i.

During te pendency of te proceedings before te Integrated Bar$ complainant alsocarged er usband$ Carlos #i$ and respondent !it te crime of Concubinage beforete Office of te 8rovincial iscal of 7ial$ doc;eted as I.S. No. 3+5(),$ but te same!as dismissed for insufficiency of evidence to establis probable cause for te offensecarged. %e resolution dismissing te criminal complaint against respondent reads&

Complainants evidence ad prima facie establised te e@istence of teillicit relationsip bet!een te respondents allegedly discovered by te

complainant in December *+3,. %e same evidence o!ever so! tatrespondent Carlos #i !as still living !it complainant up to te latter partof *+33 andor te early part of *+3+.

It !ould terefore be logical and safe to state tat te relationsip ofrespondents started and !as discovered by complainant sometime in*+3, !en se and respondent Carlos !ere still living at No. (4 8otsdamStreet$ Norteast =reenills$ San 'uan$ 6etro6anila and tey$ admittedly$continued to live togeter at teir conugal ome up to early 1sic2 part of*+3+ or later *+33$ !en respondent Carlos left te same.

rom te above$ it !ould not be amiss to conclude tat alto 1sic2 terelationsip$ illicit as complainant puts it$ ad been prima facie establisedby complainants evidence$ tis same evidence ad failed to even primafacie establis te fact of respondents coabitation in te concept ofusband and !ife at te 5(, San Carlos St.$ Ayala Alabang ouse$ proofof !ic is necessary and indispensable to at least create probable causefor te offense carged. %e statement alone of complainant$ !orse$ astatement only of a conclusion respecting te fact of coabitation does notma;e te complainants evidence tereto any betterstronger 1#.S. vs.Casipong and 6ongoy$ (> 8il. *,32.

It is !ort stating tat te evidence submitted by respondents in support ofteir respective positions on te matter support and bolster te foregoingconclusionrecommendation.

&[&]Records, Vol. III, p. 12.

7[7]Records, Vol. III, p. 2&.


5/12

9:E7EO7E$ it is most respectfully recommended tat te instantcomplaint be dismissed for !ant of evidence to establis probable causefor te offense carged.

7ES8EC%#""F S#B6I%%ED.3/30

Complainant appealed te said 7esolution of te 8rovincial iscal of 7ial to teSecretary of 'ustice$ but te same !as dismissed +/+0on te ground of insufficiency ofevidence to prove er allegation tat respondent and Carlos #i lived togeter asusband and !ife at 5(, San Carlos Street$ Ayala Alabang$ 6untinlupa$ 6etro 6anila.

In te proceedings before te IB8 Commission on Bar Discipline$ complainant filed a6otion to Cite 7espondent in Contempt of te Commission *>/*>0!erein se cargedrespondent !it ma;ing false allegations in er Ans!er and for submitting a supportingdocument !ic !as altered and intercalated. Se alleged tat in te Ans!er ofrespondent filed before te Integrated Bar$ respondent averred$ among oters$ tat se

!as married to Carlos #i on October (($ *+35 and attaced a Certificate of 6arriage tosubstantiate er averment. :o!ever$ te Certificate of 6arriage **/**0duly certified by teState 7egistrar as a true copy of te record on file in te :a!aii State Department of:ealt$ and duly autenticated by te 8ilippine Consulate =eneral in :onolulu$ :a!aii$#SA revealed tat te date of marriage bet!een Carlos #i and respondent Atty. IrisBonifacio !as October (($ *+3,$ and not October (($ *+35 as claimed by respondent iner Ans!er. According to complainant$ te reason for tat false allegation !as becauserespondent !anted to impress upon te said IB8 tat te birt of er first cild by Carlos#i !as !itin te !edloc;.*(/*(0It is te contention of complainant tat suc actconstitutes a violation of Articles *3


6/12

in te possession of Carlos #i$ and tat se anne@ed suc copy because se relied ingood fait on !at appeared on te copy of te marriage certificate in er possession.

7espondent filed er 6emorandum *4/*40on ebruary (($ *++5 and raised te lone issueof !eter or not se as conducted erself in an immoral manner for !ic se

deserves to be barred from te practice of la!. 7espondent averred tat te complaintsould be dismissed on t!o 1(2 grounds$ namely&

1i2 7espondent conducted erself in a manner consistent !it tereGuirement of good moral caracter for te practice of te legalprofession? and

1ii2 Complainant failed to prove er allegation tat respondentconducted erself in an immoral manner.*,/*,0

In er defense$ respondent contends$ among oters$ tat it !as se !o !as te victim

in tis case and not "eslie #i because se did not ;no! tat Carlos #i !as alreadymarried$ and tat upon learning of tis fact$ respondent immediately cutoff all er ties!it Carlos #i. Se stated tat tere !as no reason for er to doubt at tat time tat tecivil status of Carlos #i !as tat of a bacelor because e spent so muc time !it er$and e !as so open in is courtsip.*3/*30

%01%02Art. %'0. False testimony in other cases and per3ury in solemn affirmation.4+he penalty of arresto mayorinits ma5imum period toprision correccionalin its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who

,nowingly ma,ing untruthful statements and not being included in the pro(isions of the ne5t preceding articles shall

testify under oath or ma,e an affida(it upon any material matter before a competent person authori6ed to

administer an oath in cases in which the law so re7uires.Any person who in case of a solemn affirmationmade in lieu of an oath shall commit any of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three

preceding articles of this section shall suffer the respecti(e penalties pro(ided therein.

14[14]Ar(. 184. )eri*+ false (es(i!o* i* eide*ce.- A* perso* $o sall

/*o$i*+l o)er i* eide*ce a false $i(*ess or (es(i!o* i* a* dicial or o%cial

proceedi*+, sall e p*ised as +il( of false (es(i!o* a*d sall s)er (e

respec(ie pe*al(ies proided i* (is sec(io*.

15[15]Records, Vol. III, p. 133.

1&[1&]Records, Vol. III, pp. 2&5 287.

17[17]Records, Vol. III, pp. 275, 281.


7/12

On te issue of te falsified marriage certificate$ respondent alleged tat it !as iglyincredible for er to ave ;no!ingly attaced suc marriage certificate to er Ans!erad se ;no!n tat te same !as altered. 7espondent reiterated tat tere !as nocompelling reason for er to ma;e it appear tat er marriage to Carlos #i too; placeeiter in *+35 or *+3,$ because te fact remains tat respondent and Carlos #i got

married before complainant confronted respondent and informed te latter of er earliermarriage to Carlos #i in 'une *+33. urter$ respondent stated tat it !as Carlos #i!o testified and admitted tat e !as te person responsible for canging te date ofte marriage certificate from *+3, to *+35$ and complainant did not present evidence torebut te testimony of Carlos #i on tis matter.

7espondent posits tat complainants evidence$ consisting of te pictures of respondent!it a cild$ pictures of respondent !it Carlos #i$ a picture of a garage !it cars$ apicture of a ligt colored car !it 8late No. 8NS


8/12

personally ;ne! complainant and er usband since te late *+,>s because tey !ereclients of te ban; !ere 6rs. Bonifacio !as te Branc 6anager.(


9/12

@..........................@..........................@

%ereafter$ te Board of =overnors of te Integrated Bar of te 8ilippines issued aNotice of 7esolution dated December *


10/12

of la! practice$ oter!ise$ te loss tereof is a ground for te revocation of sucprivilege. It as been eld

If good moral caracter is a sine qua nonfor admission to te bar$ ten tecontinued possession of good moral caracter is also a reGuisite for

retaining membersip in te legal profession. 6embersip in te bar maybe terminated !en a la!yer ceases to ave good moral caracter.17oyong vs. Oblena$ **, 8il. 3452.

A la!yer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct$ or by reason ofis conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. A member of te barsould ave moral integrity in addition to professional probity.

It is difficult to state !it precision and to fi@ an infle@ible standard as to!at is grossly immoral conduct or to specify te moral delinGuency andobliGuity !ic render a la!yer un!orty of continuing as a member of te

bar. %e rule implies tat !at appears to be unconventional beavior tote straigtlaced may not be te immoral conduct tat !arrantsdisbarment.

Immoral conduct as been defined as tat conduct !ic is !illful$flagrant$ or sameless$ and !ic so!s a moral indifference to teopinion of te good and respectable members of te community. 1, C.'.S.+5+2.(4/(40

In te case at bar$ it is te claim of respondent Atty. Bonifacio tat !en se met Carlos#i$ se ;ne! and believed im to be single. 7espondent fell in love !it im and tey

got married and as a result of suc marriage$ se gave birt to t!o 1(2 cildren. #poner ;no!ledge of te true civil status of Carlos #i$ se left im.

Simple as te facts of te case may sound$ te effects of te actuations of respondentare not only far from simple$ tey !ill ave a rippling effect on o! te standard normsof our legal practitioners sould be defined. 8eraps morality in our liberal society todayis a far cry from !at it used to be before. %is permissiveness not!itstanding$la!yers$ as ;eepers of public fait$ are burdened !it a iger degree of socialresponsibility and tus must andle teir personal affairs !it greater caution. %e factsof tis case lead us to believe tat peraps respondent !ould not ave found erself insuc a compromising situation ad se e@ercised prudence and been more vigilant in

finding out more about Carlos #is personal bac;ground prior to er intimate involvement!it im.

Surely$ circumstances e@isted !ic sould ave at least aroused respondentssuspicion tat someting !as amiss in er relationsip !it Carlos #i$ and moved er toas; probing Guestions. or instance$ respondent admitted tat se ;ne! tat Carlos #i

2&[2&]Arci+a vs. :a*i$a*+, 10& ;RA 5'1, 5'4 1'819


11/12

ad cildren !it a !oman from Amoy$ Cina$ yet it appeared tat se never e@ertedte sligtest effort to find out if Carlos #i and tis !oman !ere indeed unmarried. Also$despite teir marriage in *+3,$ Carlos #i never lived !it respondent and teir firstcild$ a circumstance tat is simply incompreensible considering respondentsallegation tat Carlos #i !as very open in courting er.

All tese ta;en togeter leads to te inescapable conclusion tat respondent !asimprudent in managing er personal affairs. :o!ever$ te fact remains tat errelationsip !it Carlos #i$ cloted as it !as !it !at respondent believed !as a validmarriage$ cannot be considered immoral. or immorality connotes conduct tat so!sindifference to te moral norms of society and te opinion of good and respectablemembers of te community.(,/(,06oreover$ for suc conduct to !arrant disciplinaryaction$ te same must be grossly immoral$ tat is$ it must be so corrupt and false as toconstitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be repreensible to a ig degree. (3/(30

9e ave eld tat a member of te Bar and officer of te court is not only reGuired to

refrain from adulterous relationsips @ @ @ but must also so beave imself as to avoidscandaliing te public by creating te belief tat e is flouting tose moralstandards.(+/(+07espondents act of immediately distancing erself from Carlos #i upondiscovering is true civil status belies ust tat alleged moral indifference and provestat se ad no intention of flaunting te la! and te ig moral standard of te legalprofession. Complainants bare assertions to te contrary deserve no credit. After all$ teburden of proof rests upon te complainant$ and te Court !ill e@ercise its disciplinarypo!ers only if se establises er case by clear$ convincing and satisfactory evidence.

/0%is$ erein complainant miserably failed to do.

On te matter of te falsified Certificate of 6arriage attaced by respondent to er

Ans!er$ !e find improbable to believe te averment of respondent tat se merelyrelied on te potocopy of te 6arriage Certificate !ic !as provided er by Carlos #i.or an event as significant as a marriage ceremony$ any normal bride !ould verily recallte date and year of er marriage. It is difficult to fatom o! a bride$ especially ala!yer as in te case at bar$ can forget te year !en se got married. Simply stated$ itis contrary to uman e@perience and igly improbable.

27[27]ara+ s. ara+, 2'1 ;RA 454, 4&41''89

28[28]Rees vs.


12/12

urtermore$ any prudent la!yer !ould verify te information contained in anattacment to er pleading$ especially so !en se as personal knowledgeof te factsand circumstances contained terein. In attacing suc 6arriage Certificate !it anintercalated date$ te defense of good fait of respondent on tat point cannot stand.

It is te bounden duty of la!yers to adere un!averingly to te igest standards ofmorality. %e legal profession e@acts from its members noting less. "a!yers are calledupon to safeguard te integrity of te Bar$ free from misdeeds and acts constitutive ofmalpractice. %eir e@alted positions as officers of te court demand no less tan teigest degree of morality.

!"EREFORE$ te complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris ". Bonifacio$for alleged immorality$ is ereby DIS6ISSED.

:o!ever$ respondent is ereby 7E87I6ANDED for attacing to er Ans!er apotocopy of er 6arriage Certificate$ !it an altered or intercalated date tereof$ !it a

S%E7N9A7NIN= tat a more severe sanction !ill be imposed on er for anyrepetition of te same or similar offense in te future.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, (Chairman and Acting C.J.), Mendoza, uisum!ing, and Buena, JJ., concur.

Documents

21. Ui v Bonifacio