Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Velez vs. Atty. de Vera
Velez vs. Atty. de Vera
ATTY. DE VERA
FACTS:
In 1971, complainant married Carlos L. Ui. Sometime in December 1987, however, complainant
found out that Carlos Ui was carrying on an illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio
with whom he begot a daughter, and that they had been living together at No. 527 San Carlos
Street, Ayala Alabang Village in Muntinlupa City.
Carlos Ui admitted to complainant his relationship with the respondent. Complainant then visited
respondent at her office in the later part of June 1988 and introduced herself as the legal wife of
Carlos Ui. Whereupon, respondent admitted to her that she has a child with Carlos Ui and
alleged, however, that everything was over between her and Carlos Ui.
However, complainant again discovered that the illicit relationship between her husband and
respondent continued, and that sometime in December 1988, respondent and her husband had
a second child. Complainant then met again with respondent sometime in March 1989 and
pleaded with respondent to discontinue her illicit relationship with Carlos Ui but to no avail. The
illicit relationship persisted, and complainant even came to know later on that respondent had
been employed by her husband in his company.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Iris Bonifacio conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she
deserves to be barred from the practice of law. [NO]
RULING:
One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral
character. Possession of good moral character must be continuous as a requirement to the
enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the
revocation of such privilege. A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude".
It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is "grossly immoral
conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of
continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional
behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment.
Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and
which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the
community."
Respondent’s relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what respondent believed was a
valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that shows
indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable members of
the community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be
"grossly immoral," that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. Respondents act of immediately
distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged
moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral
standard of the legal profession.