A.C. No. 5573 - GIZALE O. TUMBAGA, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. MANUEL P. TEOXON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it is expected that every lawyer, being an officer of the Court, must not only be in fact 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 required not only to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping mistresses but also to conduct himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards. If the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals, whoever is enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. The requirement of good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning. Immoral conduct has been described as conduct that is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. To be the basis of disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral, that is, it must be so corrupt as to virtually 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. (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.) Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides for the imposition of the penalty of disbarment or suspension if a member of the Bar is found guilty of committing grossly immoral conduct, to wit: SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor . A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral .conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. x x x. In order to justify the imposition of the above administrative penalties on a member of the Bar, his/her guilt must first be established by substantial evidence. [33] As explained in Re: Rafael Dimaano , [34] substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. After a thorough review of the records of the case, the Court upholds the findings of the IBP as there is indeed substantial evidence that respondent committed gross immorality by maintaining an extramarital affair with complainant. One of the key pieces of evidence that the IBP considered in ruling against respondent is the Decision dated May 8,