G.R. No. 41506 - Philippine Refining Co., Inc. vs. Corominas

The case is a complaint for disbarment filed in 1974 by Preciosa R. Obusan against her husband, Generoso B. Obusan, Jr.
The grounds for the complaint are adultery and grossly immoral conduct.

Generoso B. Obusan, Jr. was admitted to the Bar in 1968 and was actively practicing law at the time of the incident.
Prior to the incidents underlying the disbarment complaint, he was respected enough in his professional capacity to hold a position in a legal practice.

In 1967, while employed with the Peoples Homesite and Housing Corporation, the respondent became acquainted with Natividad Estabillo, who represented herself as a widow.
The affair resulted in a child, John Obusan, who was born on November 27, 1972, evidencing the respondent’s intimate relationship with Natividad.
Later, it was discovered that Natividad was still married to Tony Garcia, a fact that brought into question the legitimacy of her marital status.

Generoso B. Obusan, Jr. married Preciosa R. Obusan on December 1, 1972, just four days after the birth of his child with Natividad, thereby formalizing a civil marriage.
The marriage was later ratified in a religious ceremony on December 30, 1972.
The newlywed couple resided with Preciosa’s mother at 993 Sto. Cristo Street, Tondo, Manila for over a year.

On April 13, 1974, the respondent left the conjugal abode with his mother-in-law’s permission to visit his hometown, Daet, Camarines Norte, and did not return.
Concerned, Preciosa conducted an investigation which led her to discover that the respondent was living and cohabiting with Natividad at 85-A Felix Manalo Street, Cubao, Quezon City.
Evidence confirming the cohabitation was provided through the testimonies of several witnesses, including the maid Linda Delfin, a laundress Remedios Bernal, and a plumber Ernesto Bernal, all of whom executed affidavits corroborating the facts.

The respondent argued that his affair with Natividad had ended upon his marriage to Preciosa.
He admitted to occasionally visiting 85-A Felix Manalo Street, justifying these visits as attempts to furnish financial assistance for his son Jun-Jun.
Lawyer Rogelio Panotes, the ninong of his son, testified in support of the respondent’s version and sought to discredit the lay witnesses by alleging they were paid, while clarifying that he himself did not reside with Natividad.

The case was thoroughly investigated by the Office of the Solicitor General.
The respondent did not provide a sufficient or convincing rebuttal against the evidence presented by the complainant.
He also waived the presentation of additional evidence, and his lawyer did not file any memorandum in his defense.

Whether the respondent’s abandonment of his lawful wife and subsequent cohabitation with Natividad constitutes grounds for his disbarment.
Whether the conduct of the respondent, particularly his extramarital relations and abandonment, falls under adultery or constitutes grossly immoral behavior as defined in legal and ethical standards for attorneys.
Whether the evidence presented by the complainant and corroborated by various witnesses suffices to establish the respondent’s willful, flagrant, and shameless conduct that undermines the moral standards expected of a member of the bar.