Case Digest (A.C. No. 1377)
Facts:
Doris R. Radaza v. Roberto T. Tejano, Adm. Case No. 1377, promulgated July 31, 1981, before the Supreme Court Second Division, Barredo, J., writing for the Court.
Complainant Doris R. Radaza filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Roberto T. Tejano, alleging that he had sexual relations with her while both were unmarried, that she became pregnant and delivered a child on December 16, 1973, and that respondent recognized the child and supported it financially. At the time the relationship began in February–March 1973, the parties were adults (Radaza about 30 years old; Tejano about 28) and met in Cabadbaran and later in Butuan City. The Solicitor General conducted an investigation and compiled testimony and documentary exhibits establishing dates of courtship and the parties' intimate encounters (first sexual intercourse alleged on March 11, 1973), hospital and medical payments by respondent, and respondent’s acknowledgment of paternity.
The record also shows that while engaging in the relationship with complainant, respondent was courting and eventually married complainant’s cousin Florminda Buque on September 21, 1974; complainant admitted she knew of that engagement and at one point confronted Buque. The Solicitor General’s report concluded that the intercourse was consensual, that complainant voluntarily participated, and that the evidence did not establish the sort of “gross immorality” required to justify disbarment; accordingly it recommended dismissal of the complaint with a stern warning and that respondent be reminded of his obligations as the child’s father.
The matter proceeded as an administrative discipl...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the sexual relations between complainant and respondent, both unmarried at the time, resulting in pregnancy and respondent’s subsequent marriage to another woman, constitute gross immoral conduct warranting disbarment or disciplinary action against respondent as a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)