Evangeline Leda vs. Atty. Trebonian Tabang
Evangeline Leda vs. Atty. Trebonian Tabang
TREBONIAN TABANG
Answer:
Facts:
Issue: WON respondent Tabang lacks good moral character and violated Canon
10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:
YES, respondent’s lack of good moral character was only too evident. Respondent's
lack of good moral character is only too evident. Firstly, his declaration in his
application for Admission to the 1981 Bar Examinations that he was "single" was a
gross misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith, and a violation
of Rule 7.01, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. That false
statement, if it had been known, would have disqualified him outright from taking
the Bar Examinations as it indubitably exhibits lack of good moral character. He
has resorted to conflicting submissions before this Court to suit himself. He has
also engaged in devious tactics with Complainant in order to serve his purpose. In
so doing, 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 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." Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and
honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them (Chavez v. Viola).
Tabang 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.