Case Digest (Adm. Case. No. 1392)
Facts:
Preciosa R. Obusan v. Generoso B. Obusan, Jr., Adm. Case No. 1392, April 02, 1984, the Supreme Court En Banc, Aquino, J., writing for the Court. Complainant Preciosa R. Obusan filed this disbarment complaint in 1974 against her husband, respondent Generoso B. Obusan, Jr., who had been admitted to the bar in 1968, charging him with adultery and grossly immoral conduct.The factual chronology begins before the marriage: while employed at the Peoples Homesite and Housing Corporation in 1967, respondent became acquainted with Natividad Estabillo, who represented herself as a widow; they had carnal relations, and a son (John/“Jun‑Jun”) was born on November 27, 1972 (Exh. D). Four days later, on December 1, 1972, Generoso (33) married Preciosa (37) in a civil ceremony, ratified by a religious ceremony on December 30, 1972 (Exhs. C, C‑1). The couple lived with the wife’s mother in Tondo for more than a year.
On the evening of April 13, 1974, respondent left the conjugal home purportedly to take a vacation to his hometown and never returned. Complainant investigated and discovered respondent living and cohabiting with Natividad at an apartment in Cubao, Quezon City; respondent had brought his car there. Witnesses — the maid Linda Delfin (Exh. A), laundress Remedios Bernal (Exh. B), and plumber Ernesto Bernal (Exh. F) — executed affidavits and testified corroborating the cohabitation. Pook leader Romegil Q. Magana testified that respondent introduced himself as head of the family and his name appeared atop the barangay list (Exhs. E, G, H). Apartment owner Nieves Cacnio identified photographs (Exhs. I–I‑D) showing respondent. Respondent later learned that Natividad’s marriage to Tony Garcia was subsisting.
Respondent denied living with Natividad, claimed his visits were only to give financial assistance to his son, and asserted he resided with his sister in Cypress Village; lawyer Rogelio Panotes (ninong of Jun‑Jun) corroborated the financial‑assistance explanation. He also blamed marital discord and his wife’s alleged nagging and absences for leaving the home. He did not answer the complaint, waived presentation of additional evidence, and his counsel did not file a memorandum.
The Office of the Solicitor General investigated and filed the formal complaint for disbarment. After examining the record, the Supreme...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the complainant prove, by substantial evidence, that respondent engaged in grossly immoral conduct warranting disbarment?
- Was respondent’s abandonment of his lawful wife and cohabitation with a former paramour a sufficient ground for disbarment under ex...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)