Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Velez vs. Atty. de Vera

    Uploaded by

    Tom Herrera
    17 views2 pages
    1) The complainant discovered her husband was having an illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio and they had two children together. 2) The complainant confronted the respondent multiple times but the relationship continued. 3) The Court ruled the respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of "grossly immoral" to warrant being barred from practicing law, as she believed she had a valid marriage with the man and distanced herself upon learning his true marital status.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    5

    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
    1) The complainant discovered her husband was having an illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio and they had two children together. 2) The complainant confronted the respondent multiple times but the relationship continued. 3) The Court ruled the respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of "grossly immoral" to warrant being barred from practicing law, as she believed she had a valid marriage with the man and distanced herself upon learning his true marital status.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    17 views2 pages

    Velez vs. Atty. de Vera

    Uploaded by

    Tom Herrera
    1) The complainant discovered her husband was having an illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio and they had two children together. 2) The complainant confronted the respondent multiple times but the relationship continued. 3) The Court ruled the respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of "grossly immoral" to warrant being barred from practicing law, as she believed she had a valid marriage with the man and distanced herself upon learning his true marital status.

    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 2

    VELEZ vs.

      ATTY. DE VERA

          UI vs. ATTY. BONIFACIO


       A.C. No. 3319, June 8, 2000

    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.

    You might also like