Facts:
Complainant
Gizale O. Tumbaga filed a verified administrative complaint dated October 9, 2001 against respondent
Atty. Manuel P. Teoxon, then City Legal Officer of Naga City, alleging that they began an illicit relationship after meeting in September 1999, that she moved in with him at the Puncia Apartment in Naga City on December 19, 1999, that she became pregnant in April 2000 and thereafter bore a son, Billy John, and that respondent made promises of support which he later reneged upon, executed documents acknowledging paternity and promising support, and thereafter forcibly raided her residence on September 9, 2001; complainant attached photographs, a Certificate of Live Birth containing an Affidavit of Acknowledgment/Admission of Paternity, an affidavit of support, a promissory note, and a police blotter entry as evidence. Respondent denied the allegations, contending that complainant sought to extort money, denying paternity, asserting that he only visited as a kumadre and that his belongings had been left with complainant, and he attached an affidavit of Antonio Orogo, a decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Naga City in Civil Case No. 11546 dated May 8, 2006 (replevin), and other documents to his answer; the case was heard by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline which initially ordered DNA testing but later annulled that order, the IBP Commission issued a Report and Recommendation on November 14, 2008 finding respondent guilty and recommending suspension for two years, the IBP Board of Governors in Resolution No. XVIII-2009-15 dated February 19, 2009 approved and increased the suspension to three years, respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied in Resolution No. XX-2012-539 dated December 14, 2012, and the IBP transmitted the record to the Court for final action leading to the Court’s Decision rendered November 21, 2017.
Issues:
Did respondent Atty. Manuel P. Teoxon commit gross immorality and other professional misconduct warranting disciplinary sanction? Was paternity of Billy John by respondent sufficiently established in this administrative proceeding? If respondent is guilty, what penalty should be imposed?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: