Facts:

The case involves an administrative complaint filed by Emma C. Banaag (complainant) against Jose Ma. Salindong y Guzman (respondent), a member of the Philippine bar. The events began when Banaag, a married woman, was appointed as a casual employee at the Regional Office of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in San Pablo City. Salindong, serving as the Acting Chief of the Specific Tax Department, courted Banaag and promised that she would be made a permanent employee if she agreed to live with him as his common-law wife. Subsequently, Banaag left her husband and moved in with Salindong in Manila, where they lived together until she gave birth to a daughter, Josephine Marie Capistrano Salindong, on November 2, 1972. During their cohabitation, Banaag received monthly support of P2,000. However, shortly before their child was born, Salindong abandoned her and ceased all financial support, which prompted Banaag to file the complaint. In response, Salindong denied all allegations and argu

...

Facts:

Appointment and Employment Context

• Complainant Emma C. Banaag, a married woman, was appointed as a casual employee at the Regional Office of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in San Pablo City.
• Respondent Jose Ma. Salindong, then the Acting Chief of the Specific Tax Department of the BIR, played a prominent role in her employment matter.

The Alleged Immoral Relationship

• Shortly after her appointment, respondent courted complainant, promising her permanent employment if she agreed to live with him as his common-law wife.
• Complainant, leaving her husband, acceded to his proposal and moved to Manila, where they cohabited as man and wife.

The Inciting Incident and Birth of the Child

• While residing in Manila, the couple had a child named Josephine Marie Capistrano Salindong, born on November 2, 1972, evidencing an illicit relationship.
• During their cohabitation, complainant received a monthly support of P2,000.00 from respondent.

Breakdown of the Relationship and Withdrawal of Support

• Two weeks before the birth of their child, respondent abandoned complainant and terminated the monthly support payments.
• This abrupt cessation and desertion became the basis for the administrative complaint regarding his immoral conduct.

Proceedings and Pleadings

• An administrative complaint was filed seeking the disbarment of respondent on grounds of immoral conduct.
• In his "Answer and Motion to Dismiss," respondent denied the allegations and advanced an affirmative defense, citing an affidavit of desistance submitted by the complainant on March 28, 1976.
• On September 22, 1976, the Court directed complainant to file a reply, leading to her filing of a pleading on October 25, 1976, titled "Rejoinder and Opposition to Dismiss."
• In her rejoinder, complainant reiterated her allegations and claimed that respondent induced her to execute the affidavit of desistance under the promise of support and cohabitation; she subsequently withdrew that affidavit upon respondent’s failure to fulfill his promise after his appointment.

Evidentiary Findings and Investigative Report

• The only evidence presented in support of the complaint was the complainant’s own testimony, which was rendered less probative by her failure to appear for cross-examination despite due notice.
• The Solicitor General, assisted by other legal officers, conducted an investigation that resulted in a report deemed by the Court to reflect an insufficiency of credible evidence against the respondent.
• A notable admission by the complainant during the investigation indicated that her filing of charges was motivated by an insult hurled during an office meeting rather than solely by the lack of support.

Issue:

Sufficiency of Evidence

• Whether the complainant’s uncorroborated testimony, not subjected to cross-examination, constituted sufficient evidence to uphold the administrative complaint against the respondent.
• If the evidence met the high standard of proof required for disciplinary action against members of the bar.

Credibility and Reliability of the Evidence

• The impact of the complainant’s withdrawal of her affidavit of desistance on the overall credibility of her allegations.
• Whether the admission that the complaint was partially motivated by personal insult affects the integrity of the evidence presented.

Applicability of the High Standard for Legal Profession Disciplinary Proceedings

• Whether respondent’s conduct, given the available evidence, reached the level of immorality that warrants disbarment or other disciplinary sanctions.
• How previous cases and established doctrines influence the Court’s assessment of the sufficiency of evidence in such administrative complaints.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)