A.C. No. 389 - FEBRUARY 1967 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.C. No. 389February 28, 1967 In re: Armando Puno Flora Quingwa vs. Armando Puno G.R. No. L-27191February 28, 1967 Adelaida Tanega vs. Honorato B. Masakayan, et al. G.R. No. L-26816February 28, 1967 Pablo de Jesus, et al. vs. Gregorio N. Garcia, et al. G.R. No. L-25044February 28, 1967 San Pablo Oil Company, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-24477February 28, 1967 Jose Katigbak vs. Ricardo Mendoza G.R. No. L-24468February 28, 1967 Antonio K. Bisnar vs. Braulio Lapasa G.R. No. L-23827February 28, 1967 Santiago A. Silverio vs. Pedro Castro G.R. No. L-23098February 28, 1967 Domingo T. Jacinto vs. Agustin P. Montesa, et al. G.R. No. L-22677February 28, 1967 Pedro III Fortich-Celdran, et al. vs. Ignacio A. Celdran, et al. G.R. No. L-22465February 28, 1967 People of the Philippines, et al. vs. Ascension P. Olarte G.R. No. L-21894February 28, 1967 Lope Desiata vs. Executive Secretary, et al. G.R. No. L-21120February 28, 1967 Philippines Air Lines, Inc. vs. Philippine Air Lines Employees Association, et al. G.R. No. L-20192February 28, 1967 Republic vs. Heirs of Cresencio V. Martir, et al. G.R. No. L-18930February 28, 1967 Philippine Sugar Institute vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-18759February 28, 1967 Republic vs. Manuel Ledesma G.R. No. L-18707February 28, 1967 Agustin O. Caseñas vs. Concepcion Sanchez vda. de Rosales, et al. G.R. No. L-17217February 28, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Catalino Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-17216February 28, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Tabbegat Bocto G.R. No. L-17215February 28, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Catalino Santos G.R. No. L-24779February 25, 1967 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Victorias Milling Company, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-24769February 25, 1967 Victorias Milling Company, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. G.R. No. L-21805February 25, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Fidel Tan G.R. No. L-21696February 25, 1967 Visayan Stevedore Transportation Co., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-21012February 25, 1967 Glicero Tinio, et al. vs. Rodrigo Macapagal, et al. G.R. No. L-20445February 25, 1967 Anicia V. Merced, et al. vs. Colombina Vda. de Merced, et al. G.R. No. L-26053February 21, 1967 City of Manila vs. Gerardo Gracia, et al. G.R. No. L-20819February 21, 1967 In re: Gan Tsitung Gan Tsitung vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-25567February 20, 1967 Cirilo Manaois vs. Jose S. dela Cruz, et al. G.R. No. L-19777February 20, 1967 Cromwell Commercial Co., Inc. vs. Cromwell Commercial Employees and Laborers Union, et al. G.R. No. L-25758February 18, 1967 Joaquin Ortega vs. Eulogio F. de Guzman, et al. G.R. No. L-24110February 18, 1967 Leonio Barrameda vs. Carmen GOntang, et al. G.R. No. L-22780February 18, 1967 American Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-22238February 18, 1967 Clavecilla Radio System vs. Agustin Antillon, et al. G.R. No. L-22077February 18, 1967 Alfredo K. Tan vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21336February 18, 1967 Vicente Mendoza, et al. vs. Tiburcio Duave G.R. No. L-21039February 18, 1967 Florentino Pilar vs. Secretary of the Department of the Public Works and Communications, et al. G.R. No. L-20525February 18, 1967 Petronila Pinto vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-24253February 17, 1967 Brigido Cristino vs. Leon Cavite G.R. No. L-19485February 17, 1967 Rizal Surety & Insurance Co. vs. Manila Railroad Co., et al. G.R. No. L-23895February 16, 1967 Semeniano Trajano vs. Mateo B. Inciso G.R. No. L-24415February 10, 1967 Andres Morales vs. Manuel Taguinay G.R. No. L-22785February 10, 1967 Chamber of Taxicab Services, et al. vs. Public Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-22568February 10, 1967 Dioscoro V. Astorga vs. Fidel Fernandez, et al. G.R. No. L-22065February 10, 1967 Francisco Ortiz vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-19280February 10, 1967 Eugenia Corpus vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-18461February 10, 1967 Norton & Harrison Co. & Jackbilt Concrete Blocks Co. vs. Norton & Harrison Co. & Jacbilt Concrete Blocks Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-25999February 9, 1967 Associated Labor Union vs. Amador E. Gomez, et al. G.R. No. L-22729February 9, 1967 Philippine Air Lines, Inc. vs. Francisco Arca, et al. G.R. No. L-22533February 9, 1967 Placido C. Ramos, et al. vs. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of the P.I., et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. In re: Armando Puno Flora Quingwa vs. Armando Puno Adelaida Tanega vs. Honorato B. Masakayan, et al. Pablo de Jesus, et al. vs. Gregorio N. Garcia, et al. San Pablo Oil Company, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Jose Katigbak vs. Ricardo Mendoza Antonio K. Bisnar vs. Braulio Lapasa Santiago A. Silverio vs. Pedro Castro Domingo T. Jacinto vs. Agustin P. Montesa, et al. Pedro III Fortich-Celdran, et al. vs. Ignacio A. Celdran, et al. People of the Philippines, et al. vs. Ascension P. Olarte Lope Desiata vs. Executive Secretary, et al. Philippines Air Lines, Inc. vs. Philippine Air Lines Employees Association, et al. Republic vs. Heirs of Cresencio V. Martir, et al. Philippine Sugar Institute vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Republic vs. Manuel Ledesma Agustin O. Caseñas vs. Concepcion Sanchez vda. de Rosales, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Catalino Santos, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Tabbegat Bocto People of the Philippines vs. Catalino Santos Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Victorias Milling Company, Inc., et al. Victorias Milling Company, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Fidel Tan Visayan Stevedore Transportation Co., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Glicero Tinio, et al. vs. Rodrigo Macapagal, et al. Anicia V. Merced, et al. vs. Colombina Vda. de Merced, et al. City of Manila vs. Gerardo Gracia, et al. In re: Gan Tsitung Gan Tsitung vs. Republic of the Philippines Cirilo Manaois vs. Jose S. dela Cruz, et al. Cromwell Commercial Co., Inc. vs. Cromwell Commercial Employees and Laborers Union, et al. Joaquin Ortega vs. Eulogio F. de Guzman, et al. Leonio Barrameda vs. Carmen GOntang, et al. American Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Clavecilla Radio System vs. Agustin Antillon, et al. Alfredo K. Tan vs. Republic of the Philippines Vicente Mendoza, et al. vs. Tiburcio Duave Florentino Pilar vs. Secretary of the Department of the Public Works and Communications, et al. Petronila Pinto vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Brigido Cristino vs. Leon Cavite Rizal Surety & Insurance Co. vs. Manila Railroad Co., et al. Semeniano Trajano vs. Mateo B. Inciso Andres Morales vs. Manuel Taguinay Chamber of Taxicab Services, et al. vs. Public Service Commission, et al. Dioscoro V. Astorga vs. Fidel Fernandez, et al. Francisco Ortiz vs. Commission on Elections, et al. Eugenia Corpus vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Norton & Harrison Co. & Jackbilt Concrete Blocks Co. vs. Norton & Harrison Co. & Jacbilt Concrete Blocks Co., Inc., et al. Associated Labor Union vs. Amador E. Gomez, et al. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. vs. Francisco Arca, et al. Placido C. Ramos, et al. vs. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of the P.I., et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A.C. No. 389             February 28, 1967

IN RE: DISBARMENT OF ARMANDO PUNO.
FLORA QUINGWAcomplainant,
vs.
ARMANDO PUNO,respondent.

Domingo T. Zavalla for complainant.
Armando Puno for and in his own behalf as respondent.

REGALA,J.:

On April 16, 1959, Flora Quingwa filed before this Court a verified complaint charging Armando Puno, a member of the Bar, with gross immorality and misconduct. In his answer, the respondent denied all the material allegations of the complaint, and as a special defense averred that the allegations therein do not constitute grounds for disbarment or suspension under section 25, Rule 127 of the former Rules of Court.

The case was referred to the Solicitor General on June 3, 1958, for investigation, report and recommendation. Hearings were held by the then Solicitor Roman Cancino, Jr., during which the complainant, assisted by her counsel, presented evidence both oral and documentary. The respondent, as well as his counsel, cross-examined the complainant's witnesses. The respondent likewise testified. He denied having sexual intercourse with complainant at the Silver Moon Hotel on June 1, 1958, disclaimed the handwriting "Mr. & Mrs. A. Puno" appearing in the hotel register, and disowned Armando Quingwa Puno, Jr. to be his child.

After the hearing, the Solicitor General filed a complaint, formally charging respondent with immorality. The complaint recites:

The Solicitor General asked for the disbarment of the respondent.

A copy of this complaint was served on respondent on May 3, 1962. Thereupon, he answered the complaint on June 9, 1962, again denying that he took complainant to the Silver Moon Hotel and that on the promise of marriage, succeeded twice in having sexual intercourse with her. He, however, admitted that sometime in June, 1955, he and the complainant became sweethearts until November, 1955, when they broke off, following a quarrel. He left for Zamboanga City in July, 1958, to practice law. Without stating in his answer that he had the intention of introducing additional evidence, respondent prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

This case was set for hearing in this Court on July 20, 1962. On the day of the hearing Solicitor Ceferino E. Gaddi who appeared for the complainant submitted the case for decision without oral argument. There was no appearance for the respondents.

Since the failure of respondent to make known in his answer his intention to present additional evidence in his behalf is deemed a waiver of the right to present such evidence (Toledo vs. Toledo, Adm. Case No. 266, April 27, 1963), the evidence produced before the Solicitor General in his investigation, where respondent had an opportunity to object to the evidence and cross-examine the witnesses, may now be considered by this Court, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 139 of the Rules of Court.

After reviewing the evidence, we are convinced that the facts are as stated in the complaint.

Complainant is an educated woman, having been a public school teacher for a number of years. She testified that respondent took her to the Silver Moon Hotel on June 1, 1958, signing the hotel register as "Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno," and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage. The hotel register of the Silver Moon Hotel (Exh. B-1 and Exh. B-2) shows that "Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno" arrived at that hotel on June 1, 1958 at 3:00 P.M. and departed at 7:00 P.M.

Complainant also testified that she last saw respondent on July 5, 1958, when the latter went to Zamboanga City. When she learned that respondent had left for Zamboanga City, she sent him a telegram sometime in August of that year telling him that she was in trouble. Again she wrote him a letter in September and another one in October of the same year, telling him that she was pregnant and she requested him to come. Receiving no replies from respondent, she went to Zamboanga City in November, 1958, where she met the respondent and asked him to comply with his promise to marry her.1äwphï1.ñët

Respondent admitted that he left for Zamboanga City in July, 1958, and that he and complainant met in Zamboanga City in November, 1958. The fact that complainant sent him a telegram and letters was likewise admitted in respondent's letter to the complainant dated November 3, 1958 (Exh. E), which was duly identified by the respondent to be his.

Complainant gave birth to a baby boy on February 20, 1959, at the Maternity and Children's Hospital. This is supported by a certified true copy of a birth certificate issued by the Deputy Local Civil Registrar of Manila, and a certificate of admission of complainant to the Maternity and Children's Hospital issued by the medical records clerk of the hospital.

To show how intimate the relationship between the respondent and the complainant was, the latter testified that she gave money to the respondent whenever he asked from her. This was corroborated by the testimony of Maria Jaca a witness for the complainant. Even respondent's letter dated November 3, 1958 (Exh. E) shows that he used to ask for money from the complainant.

The lengthy cross-examination to which complainant was subjected by the respondent himself failed to discredit complainant's testimony.

In his answer to the complaint of the Solicitor General, the respondent averred that he and complainant were sweethearts up to November, 1955 only. The fact that they reconciled and were sweethearts in 1958 is established by the testimony of Fara Santos, a witness of the complainant (pp. 12 & 17, t.s.n.); respondent's letter to the complainant dated November 3, 1958 (Exh. E); and respondent's own testimony (pp. 249 & 255, t.s.n.)

Complainant submitted to respondent's plea for sexual intercourse because of respondent's promise of marriage and not because of a desire for sexual gratification or of voluntariness and mutual passion. (Cf.Tanjanco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-18630, December 17, 1966) .

One of the requirements for all applicants for admission to the Bar is that the applicant must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character (Section 2, Rule 127 of the old Rules of Court, now section 2, Rule 138). If that qualification is a condition precedent to a license or privilege to enter upon the practice of law, it is essential during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege. (Royong vs. Oblena, Adm. Case No. 376, April 30, 1963, citingIn rePelaez, 44 Phil. 567). When his integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not enough that he denies the charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence for the relator (Legal and Judicial Ethics, by Malcolm, p. 93) and show proofs that he still maintains the highest degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is expected of him. Respondent denied that he took complainant to the Silver Moon Hotel and had sexual intercourse with her on June 1, 1958, but he did not present evidence to show where he was on that date. In the case ofUnited States vs. Tria, 17 Phil. 303, Justice Moreland, speaking for the Court, said:

With respect to the special defense raised by the respondent in his answer to the charges of the complainant that the allegations in the complaint do not fall under any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar as enumerated in section 25 of Rule 127 of the (old) Rules of Court, it is already a settled rule that the statutory enumeration of the grounds for disbarment or suspension is not to be taken as a limitation on the general power of courts to suspend or disbar a lawyer. The inherent powers of the court over its officers can not be restricted. Times without number, our Supreme Court held that an attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross misconduct, which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him. (In rePelaez, 44 Phil. 567, citingIn reSmith [1906] 73 Kan 743; Balinon vs. de Leon Adm. Case No. 104, January 28, 1954; 50 O.G. 583; Mortel vs. Aspiras, Adm. Case No. 145, December 28, 1956, 53 O.G. 627). As a matter of fact, "grossly immoral conduct" is now one of the grounds for suspension or disbarment. (Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court).

Under the circumstances, we are convinced that the respondent has committed a grossly immoral act and has, thus disregarded and violated the fundamental ethics of his profession. Indeed, it is important that members of this ancient and learned profession of law must conform themselves in accordance with the highest standards of morality. As stated in paragraph 29 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics:

Wherefore, respondent Armando Puno is hereby disbarred and, as a consequence, his name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.