Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Evangeline Leda vs. Atty. Trebonian Tabang

    Uploaded by

    Gale Charm Señerez
    666 views1 page
    Respondent Tabang's lack of good moral character was evident in three ways: 1) In his bar application, he declared his status as "single" which misrepresented his actual married status and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. 2) He engaged in deceptive tactics with the complainant to suit his own purposes. 3) He failed to be candid and honest with the court, violating the Code which requires lawyers to act with candor, fairness and good faith towards the court. The court found his actions exhibited a clear lack of good moral character making him unworthy of practicing law.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    EVANGELINE LEDA VS. ATTY. TREBONIAN TABANG

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Respondent Tabang's lack of good moral character was evident in three ways: 1) In his bar application, he declared his status as "single" which misrepresented his actual married status and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. 2) He engaged in deceptive tactics with the complainant to suit his own purposes. 3) He failed to be candid and honest with the court, violating the Code which requires lawyers to act with candor, fairness and good faith towards the court. The court found his actions exhibited a clear lack of good moral character making him unworthy of practicing law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    666 views1 page

    Evangeline Leda vs. Atty. Trebonian Tabang

    Uploaded by

    Gale Charm Señerez
    Respondent Tabang's lack of good moral character was evident in three ways: 1) In his bar application, he declared his status as "single" which misrepresented his actual married status and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. 2) He engaged in deceptive tactics with the complainant to suit his own purposes. 3) He failed to be candid and honest with the court, violating the Code which requires lawyers to act with candor, fairness and good faith towards the court. The court found his actions exhibited a clear lack of good moral character making him unworthy of practicing law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    1. [ ADM. CASE NO. 2505, FEBRUARY 21, 1992 ] EVANGELINE LEDA VS. ATTY.

    TREBONIAN TABANG

    Answer:

    Facts:

    Complainant Evangeline Leda assails Atty. Trebonian Tabang’s good moral


    character. She filed against him Bar Matter No. 78 and the present petition for
    disbarment, Administrative Case No. 2505. Leda and Tabang contracted
    marriage performed under Article 76 of the Civil Code as one of exceptional
    character. The parties agreed to keep the fact of marriage a secret until after
    Tabang had finished his law studies and taken the Bar. He finished his law
    studies in 1981 and thereafter applied to take the Bar. In his application, he
    declared that he was “single." He then passed the examinations. First
    Complaint: Leda blocked him from taking his Oath by instituting Bar Matter No.
    78, claiming that Tabang had acted fraudulently in filling out his application
    and, thus, was unworthy to take the lawyer's Oath for lack of good moral
    character. Tabang reconciled with Leda and prayed for the dismissal of the
    complaint. Second Complaint: Leda filed a petition for the disbarrment of
    Tabang. She alleges that he is not of good moral character and he only
    reconciled with her in order to get the complaint dismissed. Tabang claims that
    he had acted in good faith in declaring his status as "single" not only because of
    his pact with Leda to keep the marriage under wraps but also because that
    marriage to the Complainant was void from the beginning.

    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.

    You might also like