Lawyer disbarred for extramarital affairs

THE Supreme Court has disbarred a lawyer for grossly immoral conduct, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).

Under the CPRA, a grossly immoral conduct is “act that is so corrupt or false as to constitute a criminal act.”

The High Court found the lawyer guilty of four counts of grossly immoral conduct filed by his wife, who is also a lawyer.

Records of the complaint first filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines showed that, based on his own admissions, the respondent openly engaged in extramarital relations with at least three women during his marriage, completely disregarding his marital vows.

He also entered into a bigamous marriage and fathered two illegitimate children.

Likewise, he sexually harassed his house helper and secretary by showing them pornographic materials.

He also admitted to engaging in sexually charged conversations with them.

“With the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that respondent is guilty of four counts of grossly immoral conduct on the following grounds: the respondent flagrantly engaged in extramarital relations with at least three women during the subsistence of his marriage to complainant and demonstrated a cavalier attitude towards his breach of his marriage vows, respondent sired two illegitimate children with HHH, and entered into a bigamous marriage with her and publicly flouted their relationship, and respondent sexually harassed two of his employees and subordinates AAA and DDD, as supported by substantial evidence on record,” the SC’s June 4 ruling said.

“With this in mind, the Court agrees with the IBP that respondent is guilty of grossly immoral conduct for his blatant engagement in extramarital relations despite his marriage to complainant,” the SC added.

With this, the SC said it is only proper to impose against the respondent the “penalties of disbarment and fines in the total amount of P401, 000.00 for his transgressions.”

“His behavior show a manifest disregard of the Constitution and Philippine laws on marriage and sexual harassment. The evidence and the parties’ submission, taken together, substantially demonstrates respondent’s lack of moral uprightness to