A.C. No. 1512 - Barrientos vs. Daarol

Case Summary (A.C. No. 1512)

Petitioner and Relief Sought

Petitioner (complainant) filed a sworn complaint on August 20, 1975, seeking the disbarment of respondent on grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct for having induced sexual relations by deception, making promises of marriage, suggesting abortion, and abandoning the complainant and their child.

Procedural History

Respondent filed an answer. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation; the Provincial Fiscal of Zamboanga del Norte conducted the inquiry and submitted transcripts and exhibits. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Report and Recommendation on November 9, 1987, recommending disbarment. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and rendered its resolution disbarring respondent on January 29, 1993.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Framework

Because the decision was rendered in 1993, the applicable constitutional framework is the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The controlling procedural and disciplinary provisions invoked are Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (specifically Sec. 2 — good moral character as a continuing qualification for admission and practice — and Sec. 27 — conduct constituting cause for disbarment). The decision references established precedents concerning moral fitness and disciplinary sanctions for lawyers whose conduct is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality.

Undisputed Factual Findings

The Court adopted the Solicitor General’s findings that are not disputed: (1) complainant and respondent’s ages and marital status; (2) respondent’s long-standing acquaintance with the Barrientos family and the courtship beginning in 1973; (3) the consummation of a sexual relationship beginning on August 20, 1973, and continuing two to three times weekly through October 1973; (4) complainant’s pregnancy, decision to deliver in Manila (then Cebu), and the birth of a daughter on June 14, 1974 registered as “Dureza Barrientos”; and (5) respondent provided some financial support but failed to marry complainant or secure annulment of his prior marriage.

Evidence Presented by the Complainant

Complainant testified that respondent courted her with parental consent, repeatedly promised to marry her within six months, and induced her to have sexual relations by assuring marriage. She described a particular incident on August 20, 1973, when the parties went to the airport and engaged in sexual intercourse in respondent’s jeep after respondent repeated promises to marry. She testified that respondent later suggested abortion when she became pregnant, then promised to obtain an annulment and support her, but ultimately disclosed he was married only after she was pregnant and failed to follow through with annulment and marriage.

Evidence Presented by the Respondent

Respondent testified that he had been married since 1955 and estranged from his wife for 16 years; that he embraced Islam in 1953 (a claim unsupported by documentary evidence in the record); that the sexual relations were consensual and not procured by force, trickery, or deceit; that he told complainant he could not remarry without risking bigamy but promised to seek annulment; and that he provided some support for complainant while she was in Manila and Cebu.

Court’s Assessment of Credibility and Material Facts

The Court found that complainant was not informed of respondent’s true marital status at the outset and that respondent disclosed his prior marriage only after complainant became pregnant. The Court found respondent’s claim that complainant and her family were aware of his marital status to be belied by the circumstances — respondent lived and socialized as a single man and did not introduce his son to complainant’s family. The Court also found respondent’s alleged conversion to Islam unsubstantiated by evidence and inconsistent with respondent’s own admission that he believed he could not validly marry complainant without committing bigamy.

Legal Analysis: Deceit and Moral Turpitude

The Court held that respondent’s conduct constituted deceit and grossly immoral conduct. Key points of the Court’s legal analysis include: (1) a lawyer’s good moral character is a continuing qualification for practice; (2) misrepresenting one’s marital status and promising marriage to induce sexual relations is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality; (3) separation from a spouse does not constitute a ground for annulment nor does it give legal capacity to remarry; (4) respondent’s suggestion of abortion and his admission that he saw nothing wrong with the relationship despite being married evidenced

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 1512)

Procedural History

Complaint for disbarment filed with the Supreme Court on August 20, 1975 by Victoria C. Barrientos against respondent Transfiguracion Daarol alleging deceit and grossly immoral conduct.
Respondent filed an answer (Rollo, p. 12).
The Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation (Rollo, p. 18).
For convenience of parties and witnesses residing in Zamboanga del Norte, the Provincial Fiscal of that province was authorized to conduct the investigation and to submit a report, including transcripts and exhibits (Rollo, p. 20).
On November 9, 1987, the Office of the Solicitor General submitted a Report and Recommendation containing summaries of evidence and a recommendation for disbarment (Rollo, pp. 28–51).
After review, the Supreme Court rendered a Resolution finding respondent guilty of grossly immoral conduct and deceit and ordered his disbarment on January 29, 1993 (291-A Phil. 33 EN BANC; A.C. No. 1512).

Parties

Complainant: Victoria C. Barrientos — single, college student, resident of Bonifacio St., Dipolog City; born December 23, 1952 (source gives age during relevant period).
Respondent: Transfiguracion Daarol (middle initial T. in respondent's answer dated October 3, 1975, Rollo, p. 16) — a member of the Philippine Bar, General Manager of Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ZANECO), married to Romualda A. Sumaylo, born August 6, 1932.

Allegations and Narrative of the Complainant (Evidence of the Complainant as reported by the Solicitor General)

Complainant met respondent in 1969 through family/friends; respondent visited the Barrientos household and was known to be single and living alone in Dipolog City at that time (pp. 109–111, tsn, Sept. 30, 1976).
Respondent invited complainant to be an usherette at the Masonic convention in Sicayab, Dipolog City (June 28–30, 1973); he fetched and returned her each day (pp. 112–114).
On July 1, 1973 respondent took complainant for a joy ride to Sicayab, strolled on the beach, and proposed marriage promising to marry her within six months; complainant initially postponed her decision (pp. 115–119).
After repeated courtship respondent and complainant agreed to marry in December 1973; complainant accepted on July 7, 1973 (pp. 115–119).
On August 20, 1973 respondent took complainant to a party at Lopez Skyroom; later that night he took her to the airport at Sicayab, parked on the beach where there were no houses, and, during a car encounter, fondled her, removed her panty, and had sexual intercourse with her in the back seat of the jeep after repeated assurances he would marry her in December (pp. 119–124).
After August 20, 1973 respondent continued to court complainant, frequently taking her out to eat (Honeycomb Restaurant) and to the airport where they had sexual intercourse two to three times weekly from August to October 1973; complainant consented because she loved him and believed his promises (pp. 125–127).
In mid-September 1973 complainant missed her menstrual period; pregnancy test was positive. Respondent suggested abortion but complainant objected; respondent then promised to marry and said he would talk to her parents (pp. 129–132).
On October 20, 1973 respondent spoke to complainant’s parents about marrying and they planned to marry in Manila to avoid scandal because complainant was pregnant; complainant and her mother left for Manila on October 22, 1973 to meet respondent in Singalong, Manila (pp. 132–135).
On October 26, 1973 respondent disclosed to complainant and her mother that he could not marry because he was already married; he thereafter represented that he had been separated from his wife for 16 years and would seek annulment and subsequently marry complainant, and assured monthly support of P250.00; respondent sent some promised support and visited complainant in Manila in January, February and March 1974 asserting the annulment would be approved (pp. 137–142).
Complainant ultimately delivered a baby girl on June 14, 1974 at Perpetual Succor Hospital in Cebu City; the child was registered as "Dureza Barrientos" (pp. 143–148).
After delivery and in late June 1974 respondent became unavailable; complainant filed an administrative complaint with the National Electrification Administration which was dismissed, leading to the present disbarment complaint (pp. 150–151).

Respondent’s Evidence and Testimony

Respondent testified as sole witness and offered the birth certificate of the child (Exh. 1).
Personal background: born August 6, 1932 in Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte; married Romualda Sumaylo in Liloy on September 24, 1955 by Catholic priest Rev. Fr. Anacleto Pellamo; has a son then about 20 years old; estranged from his wife for about 16 years (pp. 173–180).
Claimed he was baptized a Muslim in 1953 and thus embraced Islam (pp. 173–180, tsn Jan. 13, 1977).
Admitted acquaintance with the Ba