ARCIGA vs. MANIWANG

ARCIGA
vs. MANIWANG
A.M. No. 1608 August 14, 1981
FACTS:
Arciga filed a complaint asking for the disbarment of Maniwang on the ground of
grossly immoral conduct because of his refusal to fulfill his promise of marriage.
The parties became sweethearts in Cebu. Maniwang transferred his residence to

Davao del Sur where he continued his law studies in Davao City while Arciga
remained in Cebu.
When Arciga discovered that she was pregnant, they pretended that they were
already married to apprise her parents and Maniwang was able to convince
Arciga’s father to have the church wedding deferred until after he had passed the
bar examinations.
Arciga gave birth to their child and Maniwang passed the bar examinations.
However, several days after Maniwang’s oath-taking, he stopped communicating

with Arciga. This has prompted Arciga to go to Davao where Maniwang told her
that they could not get married for lack of money. So, Arciga went back to her
hometown.
When Arciga once again visited Maniwang, she was told that he had already
married Erlinda Ang. Heartbroken, Arciga returned to Davao, Maniwang followed
her and inflicted physical injuries upon her because of her confrontation with his
wife, Erlinda Ang.
MANIWANG’S ANSWER:
He admits that they were lovers and that he is the father of their child. He also
admits that he repeatedly promised to marry Arciga and that he breached that
promise because of Arciga’s shady past. She had allegedly been accused in
court of oral defamation and had already an illegitimate child before Michael was
born.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the failure of Maniwang to fulfill his promise to marry Arciga is
considered as grossly immoral conduct to disbar Maniwang
RULING:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct.
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" (7 C.J.S. 959).
A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude". A member of the bar
should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity.
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.
There is an area where a lawyer's conduct may not be inconsonance with

the canons of the moral code but he is not subject to disciplinary action
because his misbehavior or deviation from the path of rectitude is not
glaringly scandalous. Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman
which is not his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be
characterized as "grossly immoral conduct," will depend on the
surrounding circumstances.
BASIS OF RULING:
This case is similar to the case of Soberano vs. Villanueva, 116 Phil. 1206,
where lawyer Eugenio V. Villanueva had sexual relations with Mercedes H.
Soberano before his admission to the bar in 1954. They indulged in frequent
sexual intercourse. She wrote to him in 1950 and 1951 several letters making
reference to their trysts in hotels.
On letter in 1951 contain expressions of such a highly sensual, tantalizing and

vulgar nature as to render them unquotable and to impart the firm conviction that,
because of the close intimacy between the complainant and the respondent, she
felt no restraint whatsoever in writing to him with impudicity.
According to the complainant, two children were born as a consequence of her

long intimacy with the respondent. In 1955, she filed a complaint for disbarment
against Villanueva.
This Court found that respondent's refusal to marry the complainant was
not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment.
An applicant for admission to the bar should have good moral character. He is
required to produce before this Court satisfactory evidence of good moral
character and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been
filed or are pending in any court.
If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then the
continued possession of good moral character is also a requisite for retaining
membership in the legal profession. Membership in the bar may be terminated
when a lawyer ceases to have good moral character (Royong vs. Oblena, 117
Phil. 865).
This Court in a decision rendered in 1925, when old-fashioned morality still

prevailed, observed that "the legislator well knows the frailty of the flesh and the
ease with which a man, whose sense of dignity, honor and morality is not well
cultivated, falls into temptation when alone with one of the fair sex toward whom
he feels himself attracted. An occasion is so inducive to sin or crime that the
saying "A fair booty makes many a thief" or "An open door may tempt a saint"
has become general." (People vs. De la Cruz, 48 Phil. 533, 535).
Disbarment of a lawyer for grossly immoral conduct is illustrated in the following

cases:
(1) Where lawyer Arturo P. Lopez succeeded in having carnal knowledge of

Virginia C. Almirez, under promise of marriage, which he refused to fulfill,
although they had already a marriage license and despite the birth of a child in
consequence of their sexual intercourse; he married another woman and during
Virginia's pregnancy, Lopez urged her to take pills to hasten the flow of her
menstruation and he tried to convince her to have an abortion to which she did
not agree. (Almirez vs. Lopez, Administrative Case No. 481, February 28, 1969,
27 SCRA 169. See Sarmiento vs. Cui, 100 Phil. 1102).
(2) Where lawyer Francisco Agustin made Anita Cabrera believe that they were
married before Leoncio V. Aglubat in the City Hall of Manila, and, after such fake
marriage, they cohabited and she later give birth to their child (Cabrera vs.
Agustin, 106 Phil. 256).
(3) Where lawyer Jesus B. Toledo abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with
another women who had borne him a child (Toledo vs. Toledo, 117 Phil. 768. As
to disbarment for contracting a bigamous marriage, see Villasanta vs. Peralta,
101 Phil. 313).
(4) The conduct of Abelardo Simbol in making a dupe of Concepcion Bolivar by

living on her bounty and allowing her to spend for his schooling and other
personal necessities, while dangling before her the mirage of a marriage,
marrying another girl as soon as he had finished his studies, keeping his
marriage a secret while continuing to demand money from the complainant, and
trying to sponge on her and persuade her to resume their broken relationship
after the latter's discovery of his perfidy are indicative of a character not worthy of
a member of the bar (Bolivar vs. Simbol, 123 Phil. 450).
(5) Where Flora Quingwa, a public school teacher, who was engaged to lawyer
Armando Puno, was prevailed upon by him to have sexual congress with him
inside a hotel by telling her that it was alright to have sexual intercourse because,
anyway, they were going to get married. She used to give Puno money upon his
request. After she became pregnant and gave birth to a baby boy, Puno refused
to marry her. (Quingwa vs. Puno, Administrative Case No. 389, February 28,
1967, 19 SCRA 439).
(6) Where lawyer Anacleto Aspiras, a married man, misrepresenting that he was
single and making a promise of marriage, succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with. Josefina Mortel. Aspiras faked a marriage between Josefina
and his own son Cesar. Aspiras wrote to Josefina: "You are alone in my life till
the end of my years in this world. I will bring you along with me before the altar of
matrimony." "Through thick and thin, for better or for worse, in life or in death, my
Josephine you will always be the first, middle and the last in my life." (Mortel vs.
Aspiras, 100 Phil. 586).
(7) Where lawyer Ariston Oblena, who had been having adulterous relations for
fifteen years with Briccia Angeles, a married woman separated from her
husband, seduced her eighteen-year-old niece who became pregnant and begot
a child. (Royong vs. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865).
The instant case can easily be differentiated from the foregoing cases. This case
is similar to the case of Soberano vs. Villanueva, 116 Phil. 1206, where lawyer
Eugenio V. Villanueva had sexual relations with Mercedes H. Soberano before
his admission to the bar in 1954. They indulged in frequent sexual intercourse.
She wrote to him in 1950 and 1951 several letters making reference to their
trysts in hotels.
On letter in 1951 contain expressions of such a highly sensual, tantalizing and

vulgar nature as to render them unquotable and to impart the firm conviction that,
because of the close intimacy between the complainant and the respondent, she
felt no restraint whatsoever in writing to him with impudicity.
According to the complainant, two children were born as a consequence of her

long intimacy with the respondent. In 1955, she filed a complaint for disbarment
against Villanueva.
This Court found that respondent's refusal to marry the complainant was not so
corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment. (See Montana vs. Ruado,
Administrative Case No. 507, February 24, 1975, 62 SCRA 382; Reyes vs.
Wong, Administrative Case No. 547, January 29, 1975, 63 SCRA 667, Viojan vs.
Duran, 114 Phil. 322; Abaigar vs. Paz, Administrative Case No. 997, September
10, 1979,93 SCRA 91).
Considering the facts of this case and the aforecited precedents, the complaint
for disbarment against the respondent is hereby dismissed.

ARCIGA vs. MANIWANG

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARCIGA vs. MANIWANG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARCIGA

The parties became sweethearts in Cebu. Maniwang transferred his residence to

However, several days after Maniwang’s oath-taking, he stopped communicating

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is

There is an area where a lawyer's conduct may not be inconsonance with

On letter in 1951 contain expressions of such a highly sensual, tantalizing and

According to the complainant, two children were born as a consequence of her

This Court in a decision rendered in 1925, when old-fashioned morality still

Disbarment of a lawyer for grossly immoral conduct is illustrated in the following

(1) Where lawyer Arturo P. Lopez succeeded in having carnal knowledge of

(4) The conduct of Abelardo Simbol in making a dupe of Concepcion Bolivar by

On letter in 1951 contain expressions of such a highly sensual, tantalizing and

According to the complainant, two children were born as a consequence of her

You might also like