A.C. No. 9226 (Formerly CBD 06-1749) - MA. CECILIA CLARISSA C. ADVINCULA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LEONARDO C. ADVINCULA.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. [32] 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. [33] On different occasions, we have disbarred or suspended lawyers for immorality based on the surrounding circumstances of each case. In Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro , [34] the extreme penalty of disbarment was imposed on the respondent who had abandoned his wife and maintained an illicit affair with another woman. Likewise, disbarment was the penalty for a lawyer who carried on an extra-marital affair with a married woman prior to the judicial declaration that her marriage was null and void, while he himself was also married. [35] In another case we have suspended for two years, a married attorney who had sired a child with a former client. [36] In Samaniego v. Ferrer , [37] suspension of six months from the practice of law was meted on the philandering lawyer. Yet, we cannot sanction Atty. Advincula with the same gravity. Although his siring the child with a woman other than his legitimate wife constituted immorality, he committed the immoral conduct when he was not yet a lawyer. The degree of his immoral conduct was not as grave than if he had committed the immorality when already a member of the Philippine Bar. Even so, he cannot escape administrative liability. Taking all the circumstances of this case into proper context, the Court considers suspension from the practice of law for three months to be condign and appropriate. As a last note, Atty. Advincula manifested in his compliance dated February 26, 2013 that he had immediately accepted the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors suspending him from the practi