A.C. No. 3319 - Ui vs. Bonifacio

Salvacion E. Marcayda, the complainant, initiated the case by filing a handwritten letter on April 19, 1977, alleging an immorality charge against respondent Justiniano P. Naz.
The complaint sought the withholding of Naz’s oath-taking as a member of the bar, pending negotiation for the support of an alleged child born out of an extramarital affair.

In his answer dated April 27, 1977, Naz denied paternity of the child and claimed that the complaint was meant to harass and blackmail him.
Naz argued that Salvacion could have pursued an administrative complaint with the Department of Education and Culture, where he was employed, instead of seeking to block his admission to the bar.

On April 28, 1977, both parties executed a notarized agreement before lawyer Braulio R. G. Tansinsin in Manila.

In the agreement, Naz admitted that he had an affair with Salvacion in 1964 which resulted in the birth of a boy, Rey E. Marcayda, on January 8, 1965 (noted in the records as March 8, 1965, per Exhibit 2).
Although Naz was married, Salvacion had been married to Primo Marcayda, who had died of tuberculosis on July 5, 1965 (Exhibit 1).

A one-time payment of P2,000 on or before December 25, 1977 and an additional P2,000 on or before December 25, 1978.
A monthly payment of P100 or its dollar equivalent, payable in advance within the first five days of each month starting May 1977 until Rey reached the age of twenty-one.

Salvacion, having executed the notarized agreement, withdrew her initial complaint filed on April 19, 1977, thereby permitting Naz to take his oath on April 29, 1977.

The withdrawal document was recorded as document No. 628 and the acknowledgment and support agreement as document No. 629 in Tansinsin’s notarial record.

Despite the notarized commitment, Naz allegedly failed to fulfill his promise of support.
In a verified complaint dated December 23, 1977, Salvacion requested the reopening of the administrative case on the ground of non-compliance, asserting that Naz had only given minimal support immediately after the withdrawal of the original complaint.
Naz maintained his position by further denying paternity of Rey, asserting that he was coerced into signing the agreement and even likening the situation to being “fired upon” by an "Armalite."

Whether respondent Naz’s admission of paternity and the notarized agreement to support the child, Rey, render him liable for the immorality charge traditionally warranting disciplinary action such as disbarment.

The issue of the validity and irrevocability of the notarized agreement on the basis of alleged coercion.
Whether his subsequent repudiation of the agreement and the allegation of coercion might justify nullifying the document.

Whether the acts of respondent Naz, in light of his public acknowledgment and subsequent non-compliance, constitute grounds for disbarment on the charge of gross immorality.

Consideration of the professional standards expected of a member of the bar as compared to the behavior demonstrated by his actions.
The impact of his conduct on the integrity of the legal profession.

The appropriate legal remedy available to Salvacion within the context of administrative and civil compliance for the support of the child.