Ventura Vs Samson

2/19/22, 8:24 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 686
A.C. No. 9608. November 27, 2012.*

MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA, complainant, vs. ATTY.
DANILO S. SAMSON, respondent.
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; The possession of good moral character is

both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant
admission to the bar and to retain membership in the legal profession.―As
we explained in Zaguirre v. Castillo, 398 SCRA 658 (2003), the possession
of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing
requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership in the
legal profession. It is the bounden duty of members of the bar to observe the
highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar.
Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in the
lawyer’s public or private activities, which tends to show said lawyer
deficient in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient
to warrant suspension or disbarment.
Same; Same; Immoral Conduct; Immoral conduct involves acts that
are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the
opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community.—
Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and
that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable
members of the community. Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt
as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a
high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of decency.
Same; Same; Same; Respondent’s act of engaging in sex with a young
lass, the daughter of his former employee, constitutes gross immoral
conduct that warrants sanction.―From the undisputed facts gathered from
the evidence and the admissions of respondent himself, we find that
respondent’s act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his
former employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction.
Respondent not only ad-
_______________
* EN BANC.
431
VOL. 686, NOVEMBER 27, 2012 431
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f11eef8f1144e0794000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/14
Ventura vs. Samson
mitted he had sexual intercourse with complainant but also showed no

remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he did nothing wrong because she
allegedly agreed and he even gave her money. Indeed, his act of having
carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect
for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity.
Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by enticing a very young woman
with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the
dignity of the human person and the ethics of his profession.
Same; Same; Same; Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
expressly states that a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for, among others, any
deceit, grossly immoral conduct, or violation of the oath that he is required
to take before admission to the practice of law.―Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court expressly states that a member of the bar may be disbarred or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for, among
others, any deceit, grossly immoral conduct, or violation of the oath that he
is required to take before admission to the practice of law. It bears to stress
that membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. As a
privilege bestowed by law through the Supreme Court, membership in the
Bar can be withdrawn where circumstances concretely show the lawyer’s
lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers.
Same; Same; Same; A lawyer may be disbarred for any misconduct,
whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be
wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.―It was held in Maligsa v.
Cabanting, 272 SCRA 408 (1997), that a lawyer may be disbarred for any
misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows
him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good
demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. Similarly, in
Dumadag v. Lumaya, 334 SCRA 513 (2000), the Court pronounced: The
practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the
rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of
morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are
the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar
and for enjoying the privilege to practice law.
432
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ventura vs. Samson
Same; Same; Practice of Law; Desistance; Complainant’s Affidavit of

Desistance cannot have the effect of abating the instant proceedings in view
of the public service character of the practice of law and the nature of
disbarment proceedings as a public interest concern.―The fact that

complainant filed an Affidavit of Desistance during the pendency of this
case is of no moment. Complainant’s Affidavit of Desistance cannot have
the effect of abating the instant proceedings in view of the public service
character of the practice of law and the nature of disbarment proceedings as
a public interest concern. A case of suspension or disbarment is sui generis
and not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case, but is
intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable
members in order to protect the public and the courts. A disbarment case is
not an investigation into the acts of respondent but on his conduct as an
officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.
Same; Same; Immoral Conduct; Penalties; Illicit sexual relations have
been previously punished with disbarment, indefinite or definite suspension,
depending on the circumstances.―Illicit sexual relations have been
previously punished with disbarment, indefinite or definite suspension,
depending on the circumstances. In this case, respondent’s gross
misbehavior and unrepentant demeanor clearly shows a serious flaw in his
character, his moral indifference to sexual exploitation of a minor, and his
outright defiance of established norms. All these could not but put the legal
profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of
justice in peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate disciplinary action.
Same; Same; Disbarment; The Court is mindful of the dictum that the
power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and only in a clear
case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the
lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar.―The Court is
mindful of the dictum that the power to disbar must be exercised with great
caution, and only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the
standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a
member of the bar. Thus, where a lesser penalty, such as temporary
suspension, could accomplish the end desired, disbarment should never be
decreed. However, in the present case, the seriousness of the offense
compels the Court
433
VOL. 686, NOVEMBER 27, 2012 433
Ventura vs. Samson
to wield its power to disbar as it appears to be the most appropriate penalty.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Disbarment or

Suspension.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Leo C. Romero for complainant.
Gener C. Sansaet for respondent.
PER CURIAM:
The Court has often reminded members of the bar to live up to

the standards and norms of the legal profession by upholding the
ideals and principles embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high
standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity
and fair dealing. Lawyers are at all times subject to the watchful
public eye and community approbation. Needless to state, those
whose conduct―both public and private―fail this scrutiny have to
be disciplined and, after appropriate proceedings, accordingly
penalized.1
Complainant Maria Victoria B. Ventura filed on July 29, 2004 a
Complaint2 for Disbarment or Suspension before the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline against
respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson for “grossly immoral conduct.”
In her complaint, complainant alleged that:
2. The herein Complainant MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA

executed a Sworn Statement dated 19 April 2002 and a Supplemental-
Complaint dated 10 May 2002 stating therein that the crime of
_______________
1 See Tapucar v. Tapucar, Adm. Case No. 4148, July 30, 1998, 293 SCRA 331, 338.
2 Rollo, pp. 2-5.
434

Ventura vs. Samson
RAPE was committed against her person sometime in December, 2001 and
on 19 March 2002 when she was merely thirteen (13) years of age by
herein Respondent ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON, then thirty eight (38)
years old, married to Teresita B. Samson, Filipino and resident of Barangay
5, San Francisco, Agusan Del Sur, Philippines….
3. In his Counter-Affidavit, herein Respondent ATTY. DANILO S.
SAMSON admitted that sexual intercourse indeed transpired between the
herein Complainant MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA and himself….
4. After the conduct of preliminary investigation, the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Agusan Del Sur, Philippines issued a
RESOLUTION dated 10 June 2002 dismissing the charge of RAPE and
finding the existence of probable cause for the crime of QUALIFIED
SEDUCTION and issued the corresponding INFORMATION for
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION on 04 July 2002….
5. Thereafter, the herein Complainant filed a MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION dated 26 August 2002 which was denied in the
RESOLUTION dated 02 October 2002 of the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Agusan Del Sur….
6. The aforesaid RESOLUTION dated 02 October 2002 was elevated to

[the Department of Justice], by way of a PETITION FOR REVIEW, and is
pending resolution by the Department of Justice.
xxxx
8. The act/s committed by the herein Respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson
against the herein Complainant MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA as
hereinbefore stated clearly constitute … “grossly immoral conduct” under
Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines which
provides for a penalty of “DISBARMENT or SUSPENSION of an
Attorney by the SUPREME COURT.”
Complainant narrated in her Sworn Statement3 that sometime in

December 2001, at around midnight, she was sleeping in the maid’s
room at respondent’s house when respondent
_______________
3 Id., at pp. 6-7. Dated April 19, 2002.
435
VOL. 686, NOVEMBER 27, 2012 435

Ventura vs. Samson
entered and went on top of her. Respondent kissed her lips, sucked
her breast, and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. She
felt pain and found blood stain in her panty. She stated that another
incident happened on March 19, 2002 at respondent’s poultry farm
in Alegria, San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. Respondent asked her to
go with him to the farm. He brought her to an old shanty where he
sexually abused her. Thereafter, respondent gave her five hundred
pesos and warned her not to tell anyone what had happened or he
would kill her and her mother.
In her Supplemental-Complaint,4 complainant averred that
respondent allowed her to sleep in his house after her mother agreed
to let her stay there while she studied at the Agusan National High
School. She further stated that on the night she was sexually abused,
she was awakened when respondent went on top of her. She
struggled to free herself and shouted, but respondent covered her
mouth and nobody could hear as nobody was in the house.
Complainant also claimed that on March 19, 2002, between 5:00
p.m. to 6:00 pm, respondent forced her to ride a multi-cab. When
they arrived at his poultry farm in Alegria, respondent dragged her
to a dilapidated shack. She resisted his advances but her efforts
proved futile.
Respondent alleged in his Answer5 that
2. Respondent admits the allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint to

the effect that Maria Victoria Ventura filed a complaint against him for Rape
at the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office with qualification that the said

complaint for Rape was dismissed. Respondent, however, has no knowledge
or information as to the truth of the allegation that she was 13 years….
xxxx
5. Respondent vehemently denies the truth of the allegations in paragraph
8 of the complaint to the effect that the acts of respondent in having sex with
complainant constitute … grossly immoral con-
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 8-9.
5 Id., at pp. 57-62. Dated September 2, 2004.
436

Ventura vs. Samson
duct. The truth is that [the] act of respondent in having sex with complainant
was done [with] mutual agreement after respondent gave money to
complainant. Respondent respectfully submit[s] that his act of having sex
with complainant once does not constitute … gross[ly] immoral conduct.
There is no human law that punishes a person who [has] sex with a woman
with mutual agreement and complainant [accepts] compensation therefore.
Having sex with complainant once with just compensation does not amount
to immoral conduct….
xxxx
6. The complaint is instigated by Corazon Ventura who was an employee
at the Law Office of respondent herein. The said Corazon Ventura
entertained hatred and [had a grudge] against the herein respondent who
terminated her services due to misunderstanding….
7. The filing of the Criminal Case against respondent as well as this
Administrative Case is a well orchestrated and planned act of Corazon
Ventura as vengeance against respondent as a result of her separation from
the employment in the Law Office of the respondent. This claim is
supported by the Affidavit of Natividad Ruluna, the former Office Clerk at
the Law Office of respondent….
8. To show that Corazon Ventura desires to get back [at] respondent, she
demanded from respondent to settle with her and demanded the payment of
the amount [of] P2,000,000.00[;] otherwise she will file a case against him
in Court for Rape and for disbarment. Respondent did not come across with
Corazon Ventura, the latter made good her threats and filed the criminal case
for Rape. [sic] When the case [for] rape did not prosper because the
Prosecutor dropped the Rape Case, Corazon Ventura [sent word] to
respondent that she is amenable for the amount of P400,000.00. In effect,
Corazon Ventura wanted to extort from respondent so that she [can] get
even with him and his wife for separating her from the employment;
9. Complainant is a woman of loose moral character. This is supported by
the Affidavit of Patronio Punayan, Jr. which is hereto attached as Annex
“3”. And Corazon Ventura can afford to utilize Maria Victoria Ventura as
her instrument in putting down the respondent herein because Maria
Victoria Ventura is not her biological daughter and she knows before hand
that her ward has a questionable reputation. The fact [that] Corazon Ventura
is not the biological
437
VOL. 686, NOVEMBER 27, 2012 437

Ventura vs. Samson
mother of Maria Victoria Ventura is shown by the pre-trial order in Criminal

Case No. 5414….
xxxx
Respondent has not violated any grounds mentioned in this rule.
Respondent respectfully submits that his having sex with complainant with
just compensation once does not amount to immoral conduct. For who
among men will not yield to temptation when a woman shall invite him for
sex?
Attached to respondent’s Answer is his Counter-Affidavit6 which

he submitted to the Provincial Prosecutor. He alleged therein that
complainant usually stayed late at night with her male friends when
her mother was out of the house. He claimed that he heard rumors
that complainant had sexual affairs with different boys. Respondent
narrated that on March 19, 2002, he saw complainant with some of
her classmates near their rented house. Complainant told him that
they wanted to go out to swim but they did not have money. When
she asked if he could spare some amount, he gave her money. He
told her in jest that he wanted to see her that afternoon and go to a
place where they could be alone, and he was surprised when she
agreed. He just thought that for complainant, sex is a common thing
despite her age. At around 5:00 p.m., he fetched complainant at her
house. She casually walked towards the car and boarded it. He told
her that they will not check in a lodging house because people might
recognize him. Upon reaching his poultry farm, respondent met his
farm worker and asked him if he could use the latter’s hut. The farm
worker agreed and they went straight to the hut.
Inside the farm worker’s hut, complainant did not hesitate in
entering the room. Respondent did not notice any involuntariness on
her part as she undressed herself. He asserted that they had sexual
intercourse based on their mutual understanding. Thereafter, the
complainant dressed up and
_______________
6 Id., at pp. 63-69.
438

Ventura vs. Samson
walked back to the multi-cab where she waited for him. He told her
not to tell anyone about what had happened, to which she replied
“natural buang kay motug-an” meaning, she’s not crazy as to tell
anyone. He alleged that she accepted the money he gave because she
needed to buy some things but her mother did not give her any
allowance. Respondent insisted that what happened between them
was the first and the last incident. He claimed that he was able to
confirm that complainant is no longer a virgin.
It likewise appears that the Investigating Prosecutors found that
probable cause exists for respondent to stand trial for qualified
seduction.7 The charge of rape, however, was dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence. An Information was filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Agusan del Sur, Branch 6, but
complainant who was not satisfied with the dismissal of the rape
charge, filed a motion for reconsideration. When said motion was
denied, complainant filed a petition for review with the Department
of Justice (DOJ). However, the DOJ sustained the findings of the
prosecutor.
Then, on December 14, 2006, complainant and her mother
appeared before the public prosecutor and executed their respective
Affidavits of Desistance.8 Complainant stated that what happened
between respondent and her in March 2002 was based on mutual
understanding. Thus, she was withdrawing the complaint she filed
against respondent before the RTC as well as the one she filed
before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. Accordingly, the
criminal case against respondent was dismissed.9
In its Report and Recommendation10 dated October 10, 2007, the
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended that respondent
be suspended for a period of one year from
_______________
7 Id., at pp. 119-122. Resolution dated June 10, 2002.
8 Id., at pp. 158-159.
9 Id., at p. 164.
10 Id., at pp. 172-184.
439
VOL. 686, NOVEMBER 27, 2012 439

Ventura vs. Samson
the practice of law for immorality with the warning that repetition of
the same or similar act will merit a more severe penalty.
On November 10, 2007, the Board of Governors of the IBP

issued Resolution No. XVIII-2007-237, to wit:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously

ADOPTED and APPROVED with modification, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled
case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex “A”; and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
applicable laws and rules, and considering that respondent is found guilty of
immorality, the victim is a minor, respondent and his wife was victim’s
guardians and for being a married man, Atty. Danilo S. Samson is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for five (5) years with Stern
Warning that repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt
with more severely.11
Complainant now moves to reconsider the IBP Resolution. She

argues that the penalty imposed by the IBP is not commensurate to
the gravity and depravity of the offense. She contends that
respondent committed grossly immoral conduct by forcing himself
to have sexual intercourse with a young and innocent lass of 13
years of age. He also took advantage of his moral ascendancy over
complainant considering that she was then staying at respondent’s
residence. Moreover, there was a betrayal of the marital vow of
fidelity considering that respondent was a married man. She insists
that this detestable behavior renders respondent unfit and
undeserving of the honor and privilege which his license confers
upon him. Thus, complainant prays that the penalty of disbarment be
imposed.12
_______________
11 Id., at p. 170.
12 Id., at pp. 185-188.
440

Ventura vs. Samson
Meanwhile, respondent also filed a Motion for Reconsideration13

of the IBP Resolution. He asserts that complainant has not presented
any proof of her minority. Likewise, during the sexual encounter,
complainant was not under their custody. He contends that
complainant’s mother even testified that her daughter stayed at
respondent’s house only until February 2002. He further stresses that
because of his admission and remorse, and since this is the first time
he has been found administratively liable, he is entitled to a
reduction of the penalty to one year suspension from the practice of
law.
The pertinent provisions in the Code of Professional

Responsibility provide:
CANON 1―A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,

OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01.―A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.
xxxx
CANON 7―A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
xxxx
Rule 7.03.―A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
As we explained in Zaguirre v. Castillo,14 the possession of good

moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing
requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain
membership in the legal profession. It is the bounden duty of
members of the bar to observe the highest
_______________
13 Id., at pp. 194-201.
14 A.C. No. 4921, March 6, 2003, 398 SCRA 658, 664.
441
VOL. 686, NOVEMBER 27, 2012 441

Ventura vs. Samson
degree of morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar.15

Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in
the lawyer’s public or private activities, which tends to show said
lawyer deficient in moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment.
Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the
upright and respectable members of the community.16 Immoral
conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act,
or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when
committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to
shock the community’s sense of decency.17
From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the
admissions of respondent himself, we find that respondent’s act of
engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his former
employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction.
Respondent not only admitted he had sexual intercourse with

complainant but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he
asserted that he did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and
he even gave her money. Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge
of a woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect for the laws
on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity.
Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by enticing a very young
woman with money showed his utmost
_______________
15 See Advincula v. Macabata, A.C. No. 7204, March 7, 2007, 517 SCRA 600,
609.
16 See Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, Adm. Case No. 2474, September 15, 2004, 438
SCRA 306, 314.
17 Garrido v. Garrido, A.C. No. 6593, February 4, 2010, 611 SCRA 508, 518,
citing St. Louis University Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) Faculty and Staff v.
Dela Cruz, A.C. No. 6010, August 28, 2006, 499 SCRA 614, 624.
442

Ventura vs. Samson
moral depravity and low regard for the dignity of the human person
and the ethics of his profession.
In Cordova v. Cordova,18 we held that the moral delinquency that
affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such
includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral
standards of the community, conduct for instance, which makes a
mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage.
Respondent has violated the trust and confidence reposed on him
by complainant, then a 13-year-old minor,19 who for a time was
under respondent’s care. Whether the sexual encounter between the
respondent and complainant was or was not with the latter’s consent
is of no moment. Respondent clearly committed a disgraceful,
grossly immoral and highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is a
transgression of the standards of morality required of the legal
profession and should be disciplined accordingly.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court expressly states that a
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for, among others, any deceit, grossly
immoral conduct, or violation of the oath that he is required to take
before admission to the practice of law. It bears to stress that
membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. As a
privilege bestowed by law through the Supreme Court, membership
in the Bar can be withdrawn where circumstances concretely show
the lawyer’s lack of the essential qualifications required of

lawyers.20
Likewise, it was held in Maligsa v. Cabanting21 that a lawyer
may be disbarred for any misconduct, whether in his pro-
_______________
18 Adm. Case No. 3249, November 29, 1989, 179 SCRA 680, 683.
19 Rollo, p. 84. Certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar certifying that
complainant was born on September 25, 1988.
20 Garrido v. Garrido, supra note 17 at p. 526.
21 Adm. Case No. 4539, May 14, 1997, 272 SCRA 408, 414.
443
VOL. 686, NOVEMBER 27, 2012 443

Ventura vs. Samson
fessional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in

moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy
to continue as an officer of the court. Similarly, in Dumadag v.
Lumaya,22 the Court pronounced:
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence

to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of
morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are
the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar
and for enjoying the privilege to practice law.
The fact that complainant filed an Affidavit of Desistance during

the pendency of this case is of no moment. Complainant’s Affidavit
of Desistance cannot have the effect of abating the instant
proceedings in view of the public service character of the practice of
law and the nature of disbarment proceedings as a public interest
concern. A case of suspension or disbarment is sui generis and not
meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case, but is
intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its
undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts. A
disbarment case is not an investigation into the acts of respondent
but on his conduct as an officer of the court and his fitness to
continue as a member of the Bar.23
Illicit sexual relations have been previously punished with
disbarment, indefinite or definite suspension, depending on the
circumstances.24 In this case, respondent’s gross misbe-
_______________
22 A.C. No. 2614, June 29, 2000, 334 SCRA 513, 521.
23 Tiong v. Florendo, A.C. No. 4428, December 12, 2011, 662 SCRA 1, 6-7.
24 Samaniego v. Ferrer, A.C. No. 7022, June 18, 2008, 555 SCRA 1, 5, citing
Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, A.C. No. 4526, February 13, 2004, 422 SCRA
527, 533, Guevarra v. Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007, 529 SCRA 1, 21,
Zaguirre v. Castillo, A.C. No. 4921, August 3, 2005, 465 SCRA 520, 525, and
Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, A.C. No. 7214, November 30, 2006, 509 SCRA 1, 15.
444

Ventura vs. Samson
havior and unrepentant demeanor clearly shows a serious flaw in his

character, his moral indifference to sexual exploitation of a minor,
and his outright defiance of established norms. All these could not
but put the legal profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the
administration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict but
appropriate disciplinary action.25
The Court is mindful of the dictum that the power to disbar must
be exercised with great caution, and only in a clear case of
misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the
lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. Thus,
where a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, could
accomplish the end desired, disbarment should never be decreed.26
However, in the present case, the seriousness of the offense compels
the Court to wield its power to disbar as it appears to be the most
appropriate penalty.27
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson is hereby
DISBARRED for Gross Immoral Conduct, Violation of his oath of
office, and Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Let a copy of this Decision, which is immediately executory, be
made part of the records of respondent in the Office of the Bar
Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines. And let copies of the
Decision be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
circulated to all courts.
This Decision takes effect immediately.
_______________
25 See Tapucar v. Tapucar, supra note 1 at p. 341.
26 Dantes v. Dantes, A.C. No. 6486, September 22, 2004, 438 SCRA 582, 590,
citing Tapucar v. Tapucar, supra note 1 at pp. 339-340 and Resurreccion v. Sayson,
Adm. Case No. 1037, December 14, 1998, 300 SCRA 129, 136-137.
27 Dantes v. Dantes, id.
445
VOL. 686, NOVEMBER 27, 2012 445
Ventura vs. Samson
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (C.J.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro,

Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez,
Mendoza and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Brion, J., On leave.
Reyes and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., On official leave.
Atty. Danilo S. Samson disbarred for gross immoral conduct,

violation of his oath of office and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01
and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of Code of Professional Responsibility.
Notes.―A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed

regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant―what
matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record,
the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been duly
proven. (Bides-Ulaso vs. Noe-Lacsamana, 601 SCRA 184 [2009])
A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in
his professional or private capacity. (Roa vs. Moreno, 618 SCRA
693 [2010])
The term “practice of law” implies customarily or habitually
holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer for compensation as a
source of livelihood or in consideration of his services. (Noe-
Lacsamana vs. Busmente, 661 SCRA 1 [2011])
――o0o――
© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ventura Vs Samson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Ventura Vs Samson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/19/22, 8:24 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 686

A.C. No. 9608. November 27, 2012.*

Attorneys; Legal Ethics; The possession of good moral character is

VOL. 686, NOVEMBER 27, 2012 431

Ventura vs. Samson

mitted he had sexual intercourse with complainant but also showed no

432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ventura vs. Samson

Same; Same; Practice of Law; Desistance; Complainant’s Affidavit of

disbarment proceedings as a public interest concern.―The fact that

VOL. 686, NOVEMBER 27, 2012 433

Ventura vs. Samson

to wield its power to disbar as it appears to be the most appropriate penalty.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Disbarment or

The Court has often reminded members of the bar to live up to

2. The herein Complainant MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA

434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

6. The aforesaid RESOLUTION dated 02 October 2002 was elevated to

Complainant narrated in her Sworn Statement3 that sometime in

VOL. 686, NOVEMBER 27, 2012 435

2. Respondent admits the allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint to

at the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office with qualification that the said

436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 686, NOVEMBER 27, 2012 437

mother of Maria Victoria Ventura is shown by the pre-trial order in Criminal

Attached to respondent’s Answer is his Counter-Affidavit6 which

438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 686, NOVEMBER 27, 2012 439

On November 10, 2007, the Board of Governors of the IBP

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously

Complainant now moves to reconsider the IBP Resolution. She

440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Meanwhile, respondent also filed a Motion for Reconsideration13

The pertinent provisions in the Code of Professional

CANON 1―A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,

As we explained in Zaguirre v. Castillo,14 the possession of good

VOL. 686, NOVEMBER 27, 2012 441

degree of morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar.15

Respondent not only admitted he had sexual intercourse with

442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the lawyer’s lack of the essential qualifications required of

VOL. 686, NOVEMBER 27, 2012 443

fessional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in

The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence

The fact that complainant filed an Affidavit of Desistance during

444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

havior and unrepentant demeanor clearly shows a serious flaw in his

VOL. 686, NOVEMBER 27, 2012 445

Ventura vs. Samson

Sereno (C.J.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro,

Atty. Danilo S. Samson disbarred for gross immoral conduct,

Notes.―A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like