Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ARCIGA vs. MANIWANG
ARCIGA vs. MANIWANG
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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).
(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).
(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.
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.