A.C. No. 1512 - Barrientos vs. Daarol

Complainant Victoria C. Barrientos, then a single college student residing in Dipolog City, filed a sworn complaint on August 20, 1975, seeking the disbarment of Respondent Transfiguracion Daarol, a licensed lawyer and General Manager of the Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ZANECO).
Respondent was a married man with a wife, Romualda Sumaylo, from whom he had been separated for 16 years and had one son. Respondent was about 41 years old, while complainant was 20 years old during their relationship from July to October 1973.
Respondent was known to the Barrientos family for years: he taught complainant’s father and was a former classmate of complainant’s mother; he also frequented the home of complainant’s sister.

Respondent courted complainant with her family’s consent, initially inviting her to be an usherette at a Masonic Convention in June 1973, where he regularly fetched and accompanied her.
On July 1, 1973, respondent expressed his love and proposed to marry complainant within six months if she accepted. Complainant accepted on July 7, 1973, and they agreed to marry by December 1973.
On August 20, 1973, following a social event, respondent took complainant on a joy ride to a secluded place at the airport where he engaged her in sexual intercourse. Respondent repeatedly assured her he would marry her, despite her apprehensions.
Thereafter, they frequently engaged in sexual relations two to three times weekly until October 1973.

Complainant became pregnant in September 1973 and informed respondent. Respondent suggested abortion, which complainant refused.
Respondent promised marriage, convinced complainant’s parents, and arranged for the delivery of the child in Manila to avoid scandal.
In Manila, respondent disclosed for the first time that he was already married but separated and would seek annulment to marry complainant. He assured complainant of financial support.
Complainant gave birth to a daughter in Cebu City in June 1974, named Dureza Barrientos. Respondent provided some support but later ceased contact.

Respondent admitted his estranged marriage and sexual relations with complainant but claimed the relations were consensual with no deceit or force.
He claimed to have been baptized a Muslim in 1953 and argued that as a Muslim convert, he could have multiple wives. Still, he never married complainant civilly due to potential bigamy charges because complainant was Christian.
Respondent admitted to courting complainant with her family’s consent and to the sexual relations but denied wrongdoing.

The investigation confirmed undisputed facts such as respondent’s marital status, the course of courtship, sexual relations, pregnancy, and respondent’s promises.
It found respondent had deceived complainant by not disclosing his marital status until after pregnancy and by assuring marriage he never intended to fulfill.
Respondent’s claim of Muslim conversion was unsubstantiated and contradicted by his refusal to marry complainant civilly.
The Solicitor General recommended disbarment for deceit and grossly immoral conduct.

Whether respondent’s deceit and conduct constituted grossly immoral behavior that warrants disbarment.
Whether respondent’s failure to disclose his marital status and to fulfill promises of marriage constitutes grounds for removal from the Bar.
Whether respondent’s claim of Muslim conversion exempts him from culpability in this case.