A.C. No. 6593 - MAELOTISEA S. GARRIDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTYS. ANGEL E. GARRIDO AND ROMANA P. VALENCIA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly penalized. [34] Atty. Valencia We agree with the findings of Investigating Commissioner San Juan that Atty. Valencia should be administratively liable under the circumstances for gross immorality: x x x The contention of respondent that they were not yet lawyers in March 27, 1978 when they got married shall not afford them exemption from sanctions, for good moral character is required as a condition precedent to admission to the Bar. Likewise there is no distinction whether the misconduct was committed in the lawyer's professional capacity or in his private life. Again, the claim that his marriage to complainant was void ab initio shall not relieve respondents from responsibility x x x Although the second marriage of the respondent was subsequently declared null and void the fact remains that respondents exhibited conduct which lacks that degree of morality required of them as members of the Bar. [35] Moral character is not a subjective term but one that corresponds to objective reality. [36] To have good moral character, a person must have the personal characteristics of being good. It is not enough that he or she has a good reputation, i.e. , the opinion generally entertained about a person or the estimate in which he or she is held by the public in the place where she is known. [37] The requirement of good moral character has four general purposes, namely: (1) to protect the public; (2) to protect the public image of lawyers; (3) to protect prospective clients; and (4) to protect errant lawyers from themselves. [38] Each purpose is as important as the other. Under the circumstances, we cannot overlook that prior to becoming a lawyer, Atty. Valencia already knew that Atty. Garrido was a married man (either to Constancia or to Maelotisea), and that he already had a family. As Atty. Garrido's admitted confidante, she was under the moral duty to give him proper advice; instead, she entered into a romantic relationship with him for about six (6) years during the subsistence of his two marriages. In 1978, she married Atty. Garrido with the knowledge that he had an outstanding second marriage. These circumstances, to our mind, support the conclusion that she lacked good moral character; even without being a lawyer, a person possessed of high moral values, whose confidential advice was sought by another with respect to the latter's family problems, would not aggravate the situation by entering into a romantic liaison with the person seeking advice, thereby effectively alienating the other person's feelings and affection from his wife and family. While Atty. Valencia contends that Atty. Garrido's marriage with Maelotisea was null and void, the fact remains that he took a man away from a woman who bore him six (6) children. Ordinary decency would have required her to ward off Atty. Garrido's advances, as he was a married man, in fact a twice-married man with both marriages subsisting at that time; she should have said no to Atty. Garrido fro