A.C. No.

10676 September 8, 2015

ATTY. ROY B. ECRAELA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. IAN RAYMOND A. PANGALANGAN, Respondent.

illicit relations, chronic womanizing, abuse of authority as an educator, and "other unscrupulous activities" which cause "undue embarrassment to the
legal profession."

deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and grossly immoral conduct in violation of the Lawyer's Oath.

Facts:

Complainant and respondent were best friends and both graduated from the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law in 1990, where they
were part of a peer group or barkada with several of their classmates. After passing the bar examinations and being admitted as members of the Bar in 1991,
they were both registered with the IBP Quezon City.

1. Illicit Relations

Respondent was formerly married to Sheila P. Jardiolin (Jardiolin) with whom he has three (3) children. Complainant avers that while married to
Jardiolin, respondent had a series of adulterous and illicit relations with married and unmarried women between the years 1990 to 2007. These alleged illicit
relations involved:

a. AAA, who is the spouse of a colleague in the UP College of Law, from 1990 to 1992, which complainant had personal knowledge of such illicit relations;

b. BBB, sometime during the period from 1992 to 1994 or from 1994 to 1996, despite being already married to Jardiolin;

c. CCC, despite being married to Jardiolin and while also being romantically involved with DDD;

d. DDD, sometime during the period from 2000 to 2002, despite still being married to Jardiolin and while still being romantically .involved with CCC;

e. EEE, who is related to complainant, sometime during the period from May 2004 until the filing of the Petition, while still being romantically involved with CCC.

Complainant claims that respondent, with malice and without remorse, deceived CCC and DDD by representing himself to be a bachelor, thereby
convincing the two women to start a love affair with him, when in truth, he was then still married to Jardiolin.

2. Corruption/Bribery

Aside from these illicit affairs, complainant avers that sometime during the period of 1998 to 2000, respondent, as a lawyer of the Office of the
Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), represented the interest of Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) in cancellation proceedings filed by MIAA
against Kendrick Development Corporation (KOC). However, despite being a public officer and a government counsel, respondent conspired with Atty. Abraham
Espejo, legal counsel of KDC, and assisted KDC in its case, thereby sabotaging MIAA's case, and, in effect, that of the Philippine Government.

Complainant further claims that respondent even attempted to bribe then Solicitor Rolando Martin of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in
exchange for the latter's cooperation in the dismissal of the cancellation proceedings in favor of KDC. In return for his "earnest efforts" in assisting KDC in its
case, respondent was allegedly rewarded with a Toyota Corolla XL with plate number ULS-835 by Atty. Espejo.

In connection with his involvement in the MIAA case, complainant claims that respondent was summoned in a Senate inquiry concerning rampant
faking of land titles in the Philippines, which included an investigation of the alleged spurious land titles of KDC. The Senate Blue Ribbon and Justice & Human
Rights Committees recommended that respondent be investigated and prosecuted by the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) for graft and corruption, as
well as disbarment or disciplinary sanction by this Court for grave misconduct or violation of the Revised Penal Code.

It was further alleged that, during the pendency of the Senate Inquiry, respondent even attempted to conceal the evidence by requesting complainant's
parents, spouses Marcelo F. Ecraela and Visitacion B. Ecraela, to have the Toyota Corolla XL parked in their residence in Cainta, Rizal, for an indefinite period of
time. Respondent's request, however, was refused by the spouses when they learned that the vehicle was the subject of the Senate Inquiry.
3. Abuse of authority as an educator

Complainant also claims that respondent abused his authority as an educator in Manuel L. Quezon University, San Sebastian College, College of St.
Benilde, and Maryknoll College, where respondent induced his male students to engage in "nocturnal preoccupations" and entertained the romantic gestures of
his female students in exchange for passing grades.

Defense:

Respondent opted not to present any counter-statement of facts in support of his defense. Instead, respondent simply argued that the petition suffers
from procedural and substantive infirmities, claiming that petitioner failed to substantiate the allegations or charges against him. Respondent pointed out that
Annex "J" of the Petition entitled "Arguments in Support of the Disbarment" lacked formal requirements, and thus, should be treated as a mere scrap of paper.
Respondent also asserts that the e-mail messages attached to the petition were inadmissible for having been obtained in violation of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence. He claims that the identities of the owners of the e-mail messages, as well as the allegations of illicit relations and abuse of authority, were not
properly established. Respondent further argues that the statements of complainant's witnesses were merely self-serving and deserved scant consideration.

Issue: Whether the respondent committed gross immoral conduct, which would warrant his disbarment.

Held:

Atty. Pangalangan's grossly immoral conduct was fully supported by the evidences and testimonies offered.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

xxxx

CANON 7 - A LA WYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life.
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

The practice of law is a privilege given to those who possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession. Good moral character is not only
required for admission to the Bar, but must also be retained in order to maintain one's good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity.

We are not unmindful of the serious consequences of disbarment or suspension proceedings against a member of the Bar. Thus, the Court has consistently held
that clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalties on a member of the Bar.

Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. It
means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.

When the evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the decision should be against the party with
the burden of proof, according to the equipoise doctrine.

In suspension or disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant
to prove the allegations in his complaint. The evidence required in suspension or disbarment proceedings is preponderance of evidence. In case the evidence of
the parties are equally balanced, the equipoise doctrine mandates a decision in favor of the respondent.
The IBP-CBD Report sufficiently showed by preponderant evidence the grounds by which respondent has been found committing gross immorality in the
conduct of his personal affairs. This Court has, in numerous occasions, revoked the licenses of lawyers who were proven to have not only failed to retain good
moral character in their professional and personal lives, but have also made a mockery of the institution of marriage by maintaining illicit affairs.

As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be 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. A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous
relationships or keeping a mistress but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the impression that he is flouting those moral
standards.

The fact that respondents philandering ways are far removed from the exercise of his profession would not save the day for him. For a lawyer may be
suspended or disbarred for any misconduct which, albeit unrelated to the actual practice of his profession, would show him to be unfit for the office and unworthy
of the privileges with which his license and the law invest him. To reiterate, possession of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice
of law, but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar.

The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards
of the community, conduct for instance. which makes 'a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage." In various cases, the Court has held that
disbarment is warranted when a lawyer abandons his lawful wife and maintains an illicit relationship with another woman who has borne him a child.

In the present case, complainant alleged that respondent carried on several adulterous and illicit relations with both married and unmarried women between the
years 1990 to 2007, including complainant's own wife. Through documentary evidences in the form of email messages, as well as the corroborating testimonies
of the witnesses presented, complainant was able to establish respondent's illicit relations with DOD and CCC by preponderant evidence. Respondent's main
defense against the alleged illicit relations was that the same were not sufficiently established. In his answer, respondent simply argued that complainant's
petition contains self-serving averments not supported by evidence. Respondent did not specifically deny complainant's allegations and, instead, questioned the
admissibility of the supporting documents. Due to respondent's own failure to attend the hearings and even submit his own position paper, the existence of
respondent's illicit relations with DDD and CCC remain uncontroverted.

The IBP-CBD Report was correct when it found that respondent violated Article XV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, to wit:

4.21 In engaging in such illicit relationships, Respondent disregarded the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and
affirmed by our laws, which as a lawyer he swore under oath to protect. The 1987 Constitution, specifically A1iicle XV, Section 2 thereof clearly
provides that marriage, an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.

Aside from respondent's illicit relations, We agree with Commissioner Villadolid' s findings that respondent violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, as well as Rule I 0.01 and Rule 10.03 thereof.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

CANON 10 - A LA WYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. Rule 10.01 -A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

xxx

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

In the Petition, complainant alleged that respondent was the subject of a Senate Inquiry and had a pending case for graft and corruption against him with the
Sandiganbayan.

Instead of refuting these claims, respondent merely pointed out in his Answer that complainant failed to adduce additional evidence that a case had been filed
against him, and that complainant's statements were merely self-serving averments not substantiated by any evidence. In his Reply, respondent even specifically
denied complainant's averments for "lack of knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof."
It is thus indisputable that Respondent's pretensions in his Answer were made in attempt to mislead this Commission. Respondent could have easily admitted or
denied said allegations or explained the same, as he (sic) clearly had knowledge thereof, however, he (sic) chose to take advantage of Complainant's position of
being not present in the country and not being able to acquire the necessary documents, skirt the issue, and mislead the Commission. In doing so, he has
violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court" as well as Rule
10.01 and Rule 10.03 thereof which states that "a lawyer should do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court
to be misled by any artifice" and that "a lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice."

Courts [as well as this Commission] are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. Respondent,
through his actuations, has been lacking in the candor required of him not only as a member of the Bar but also as an officer of the Court. In view of the
foregoing, the Commission finds that Respondent has violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for which he should be
disciplined.

In denying complainant's allegations, respondent had no other intention but to mislead the IBP, which intention was more so established because complainant
was able to submit supporting documents in the form of certified true copies of the Senate Report, the Ombudsman's Resolution, and Information.

We also agree with Commissioner Villadolid's finding that respondent violated the lawyer's oath which he took before admission to the Bar, which states:

I, __________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines: I will support its Constitution and obey laws as well as the
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any court; I will not wittingly nor willingly promote or sue
any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same: I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary
obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

In all, Atty. Pangalangan displayed deplorable arrogance by making a mockery out of the institution of marriage, and taking advantage of his legal skills by
attacking the Petition through technicalities and refusing to participate in the proceedings. His actions showed that he lacked the degree of morality required of
him as a member of the bar, thus warranting the penalty of disbarment.

Respondent Atty. Ian Raymond A. Pangalangan is found GUILTY of gross immorality and of violating Section 2 of A1iicle XV of the 1987 Constitution, Canon 1
and Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03, and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyer's Oath and is hereby
DISBARRED from the practice of law.