CASE DIGEST

Ecraela v. Pangalangan
Legal Profession

Court Supreme Court

Date September 8, 2015

Complainant Atty. Roy B. Ecraela

Respondent Atty. Ian Raymond A. Pangalangan

Ponente Per Curiam

Case Summary A lawyer is sued by his best friend and co-lawyer for his illicit relations and misconduct

Relevant topic Rule 1.01 – No Unlawful, Dishonest, Immoral, Deceitful Conduct

FACTS:
 April 12, 2007: Ecraela filed a petition for disbarment against Pangalangan
- For his illicit relations, chronic womanizing, abuse of authority as an educator, and “other unscrupulous
activities” which cause undue embarrassment to the legal profession
- Ecraela claims Pangalangan’s acts involve deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, and grossly immoral
conduct in violation of the lawyer’s oath
 Ecraela and Pangalangan were best friends
- Graduated from UP Law in 1990, passed the bar and were admitted to the bar in 1991
- Both registered with the IBP in QC
- Pangalangan was married to Jardiolin with whom he has 3 children
 Despite being married, Ecraela claims Pangalangan had a series of adulterous and illicit relations with married
and unmarried women (including Ecraela’s wife)
- One was the spouse of a colleague in UP Law
- Pangalangan represented himself as a bachelor to some of these women
 Ecraela also claims that Pangalangan, as a lawyer of the OGCC (Office of the Government Corporate
Counsel) representing MIAA (Manila International Airport Authority) conspired with and assisted the counsel
of opposing party (Kendrick Development Corporation) to the prejudice of the MIAA and the PH Government
- Pangalangan even tried to bribe Solicitor Martin of the OSG to dismiss the proceedings in favor of KDC
- Pangalangan was rewarded with a Toyota Corolla by the counsel of KDC (Espejo)
- Pangalangan was summoned in a Senate inquiry concerning rampant faking of land titles in the PH
- The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee recommended the investigation and prosecution of Pangalangan by
the Ombudsman for graft and corruption as well as disbarment/disciplinary sanction by the SC for grave
misconduct or violation of the CPR
- Pangalangan tried to hide the evidence by requesting Ecraela’s parents to have his car parked in their
residence (which was refused)
- The Ombudsman found probable cause against Pangalangan and an information was filed with the
Sandiganbayan for violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
 Pangalangan abused his authority as an educator
- Induced male students to engage in “nocturnal preoccupations”
- Entertained romantic gestures of female students in exchange for passing grades
- Manuel L. Quezon University, San Sebastian College, College of St. Benilde, Maryknoll College
 Pangalangan denies the accusations and argues that the petition suffers from procedural and substantive
infirmities, claiming that:
- Ecraela failed to substantiate the allegations charged against him
- The petition lacked formal requirements
- Email message are inadmissible as evidence
- The witnesses were self-serving and deserved scant consideration
 The IBP CBD issued its Report and Recommendation
- Found that there was sufficient evidence establishing Pangalangan’s gross misconduct affecting his
standing and moral character as an officer of the court and a member of the Bar and violated Rules 1.01
and 7.03 of the CPR
- Recommended his suspension from the practice of law for 2 years
 The IBP adopted the CBD Report with modification
- Imposed the penalty of disbarment
 Pangalangan filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied by the IBP. The IBP then forwarded the
records of the case to the SC

Page 1 of 3
CASE DIGEST
Ecraela v. Pangalangan
Legal Profession

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUES HELD

WON Pangalangan committed gross immoral conduct which would warrant his YES
disbarment

RATIO:
 Relevant CPR provisions
- 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
- Canon 7: A lawyer 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
 Preponderance of evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalties on members of
the Bar
- Evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other (i.e.
more convincing or more worthy of belief than that offered in opposition)
- In determining whether there is preponderance of evidence, the Court may consider:
a) The facts and circumstances of the case
b) The witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, means and opportunities of knowing facts
to which they testify, nature of such facts, probability and improbability of their testimony
c) Witnesses’ interest or want of interest , personal credibility
d) Number of witnesses (although more witnesses does not necessarily equate to preponderance)
- In suspension or disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence
- Burden of proof is on the complainant. In case of doubt, or when there is balance between evidence
presented, decision is 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
- Hence, also violated Art. XV, Sec. 2 of the Constitution (marriage is an inviolable social institution)
- Lawyers have been disbarred in previous cases for making a mockery of the institution of marriage by
maintaining illicit affairs
- A lawyer must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral
character
- A lawyer is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress but must also
behave himself to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the impression that he is flouting those moral
standards
- In various cases, the SC held that disbarment is warranted when a lawyer abandons his lawful wife and
maintains an illicit relationship with another woman
 The fact that Pangalangan’s acts are far removed from the exercise of his profession is immaterial
- The ROC is broad enough to cover any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity
 Pangalangan also violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and Rule 10.03
- Canon 10: A lawyer 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
- Rule 10.03: A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of
justice
- Pangalangan’s Answer to the allegations that he was the subject of a Senate inquiry were made in an
attempt to mislead the CBD and the court (did not admit nor deny the allegations but only pointed out that
the statements were self-serving and not substantiated by evidence, taking advantage of Ecraela’s
position of being not in the country and not being able to acquire necessary documents, skirt the issue,
and mislead the Commission

Page 2 of 3
CASE DIGEST
Ecraela v. Pangalangan
Legal Profession

 He also violated the lawyer’s oath

RULING:
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Court resolves to ADOPT the resolution of the IBP Board of
Governors approving and adopting, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner. Accordingly, 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

Page 3 of 3