G.R. No. 233767 - Heirs of Elliot vs. Corcuera

Case Summary (G.R. No. 233767)

Procedural History

Petitioner filed a complaint before the Supreme Court on March 17, 1953, accusing respondent of seduction by promise of marriage and of using his son to effect a sham marriage. Petitioner later moved to withdraw/dismiss (April 9, 1953); the Court denied dismissal and required respondent to answer. The matter was referred to the Solicitor General (May 13, 1953). The Solicitor General initially recommended dismissal (November 2, 1953) and the complaint was dismissed (November 5, 1953). Petitioner subsequently moved to re‑open (December 17, 1953); the Court granted re‑opening (January 5, 1954) and ordered re‑investigation. The Solicitor General filed a formal complaint seeking respondent’s disbarment. Respondent filed an answer (May 6, 1953; replied to official charges May 6, 1955), failed to produce additional evidence when allowed, did not appear at oral argument but later filed a memorandum.

Core Factual Findings

The Court found beyond reasonable doubt that: (1) respondent represented himself as single and courted petitioner, promising marriage and ultimately seducing her; (2) petitioner moved to Manila in December 1952 to marry respondent and, following respondent’s instructions, applied for a marriage license on January 3, 1953 naming Cesar Aspiras as spouse; (3) on January 14, 1953 petitioner and Cesar underwent a City Hall marriage ceremony which was a formality and the parties never lived together as husband and wife; (4) respondent continued to cohabit with and have sexual relations with petitioner after the ceremony, up to November 1953; (5) respondent allegedly ordered his son Cesar to live with them to camouflage the illicit relationship; and (6) petitioner gave birth to a child on January 24, 1954.

Evidentiary Basis for Findings

The Court relied on petitioner’s sworn testimony corroborated by documentary evidence: love letters from respondent to petitioner (Exhibit A‑6, September 22, 1952; Exhibit A, November 2, 1952), respondent’s letters to petitioner’s mother (Exhibits A‑19, A‑21, February 9 and March 6, 1953), and marriage application forms (Exhibits 7 and 8). Respondent produced no affirmative evidence to contradict the Solicitor General’s proofs despite opportunity to do so.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the respondent’s conduct (seduction by promise of marriage, arranging a sham marriage between petitioner and his son to conceal the affair, and cohabitation with his son’s wife) constituted sufficient grounds for disciplinary removal from the bar.
Whether the petitioner’s complicity (pari delicto) should bar disciplinary proceedings against respondent.
Whether the Supreme Court may remove an attorney from the roll on grounds not strictly enumerated in statutory lists of disbarable offenses.

Applicable Law and Precedent (constitutional and procedural basis)

Because the decision in the record falls before 1990, the Court applied the appropriate pre‑1987 constitutional framework and exercised its disciplinary power over members of the bar. The Court proceeded pursuant to the established rule that it may remove attorneys on its own motion (citing Section 1, Rule 128 as referenced in the record) and under antecedent jurisprudence recognizing removal for conduct demonstrating lack of the continuing moral qualifications necessary for practice (cited authorities in the record include In re Pelaez, Balinon v. De Leon, and Re Stolen, as well as American jurisprudential commentary).

Court’s Legal Analysis and Reasoning

The Court treated the case as implicating the integrity of the legal profession and the public interest in maintaining the courts’ dignity. It emphasized that admission to and continuation in the practice of law requires continued moral fitness; loss of that qualification may justify removal even if the statutory grounds for disbarment are not precisely met. The respondent’s misconduct was not limited to private immorality: the conduct involved a calculated scheme to misrepresent marital status, to enlist a minor descendant as an instrument to cover the illicit relationship, and to cohabit with the son’s wife after arranging and witnessing her marriage to his son. These aggravating circumstances—mockery of marriage and corruption of a descendant—were held to amount to such moral delinquency as to render respondent unfit to practice law. The Court rejected the respondent’s pari delicto defense as insufficient to defeat disciplinary action, observing that the proceeding aimed to protect the public and the administration of justice, not to adjudicate civil remedies between private parties. The respondent’s failure to present exculpatory evidence or to appear at oral argument further supported the Court’s acceptance of t

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 233767)

Procedural Posture and Chronology

Complaint filed before the Supreme Court on March 17, 1953 by Josefina Mortel against Attorney Anacleto F. Aspiras alleging seduction by promise of marriage, a sham marriage to the respondent’s son to cover up the illicit relationship, and continuing illicit cohabitation.
Petitioner moved to “withdraw and/or dismiss” the complaint on April 9, 1953, alleging that the complaint did not reflect her true sentiments, that the respondent acted in good faith, and that her marriage to respondent’s son Cesar Aspiras was “without any fraud or deceit whatsoever.”
The Court denied the motion to dismiss, treating the matter as affecting the legal profession, and required respondent to answer.
Respondent filed an answer on May 6, 1953 denying amorous or sexual relations with petitioner and asserting that petitioner knew he was married.
Case was referred to the Solicitor General on May 13, 1953 for investigation, report and recommendation.
Solicitor General initially recommended dismissal on November 2, 1953 in view of petitioner’s motion to withdraw; the complaint was dismissed for lack of evidence on November 5, 1953.
Petitioner filed a motion to re-open the case on December 17, 1953, alleging that her earlier request for dismissal was procured by an amicable settlement and asserting renewed facts including continued cohabitation with respondent from April to November 1953 and that she was pregnant.
Court granted reopening on January 5, 1954 and again referred the case to the Solicitor General for re-investigation.
Following re-investigation, the Solicitor General filed a formal complaint for disbarment against respondent alleging seduction by promise of marriage, subornation of his minor son to marry the petitioner to cover up illicit relations, and continued sexual relations with the son’s spouse.
The Court ordered respondent to reply to the official charges on May 6, 1955; respondent filed a reply repeating denials and was granted an opportunity to present evidence but failed to produce any.
Respondent did not appear at oral argument but filed a memorandum reiterating defenses; the Court rendered decision dated December 28, 1956 striking respondent’s name from the Roll of Attorneys.

Material Facts Found by the Court

In 1952, Josefina Mortel, age 21, a teacher residing with her widowed mother in Romblon, met Attorney Anacleto F. Aspiras, an employee of Cebu Portland Cement Co., who represented himself as single though he was married to Carolina Bautista Aspiras and had seven children.
Respondent courted Josefina from about August 1952 by personal visits and correspondence, and won her affection; the mother apparently approved of the respondent’s courtship.
During a typhoon night in November 1952, respondent stayed at Josefina’s house; about 3 or 4 a.m. he entered her room, promised marriage, and seduced her.
After the seduction, and without benefit of marriage, Josefina gave the respondent the privileges of a husband and later came to Manila in December 1952 to marry him, staying with a sister at No. 10 Espiritu, Pasay City.
On January 3, 1953, accompanied by respondent, Josefina went to Manila City Hall to apply for a marriage license; there she met Cesar (introduced by respondent as a “nephew”), who was listed as the prospective husband on the marriage application (Exhibits 7 and 8, Respondent).
At the respondent’s suggestion, and despite not being in love with Cesar, Josefina entered into the marriage ceremony with Cesar on January 14, 1953 at Manila City Hall before Judge Aragon; respondent and Rosario R. Veloso (Cesar’s aunt) were witnesses.
After the ceremony, Josefina and Cesar separated and never lived together as husband and wife.
From January through November 1953, petitioner and respondent continued to live together and maintain adulterous relations at No. 383 Int. 5 Tejeron, Sta. Ana, Manila, during which petitioner became pregnant and later gave birth to a baby boy on January 24, 1954.
Petitioner alleged, and evidence supported, that respondent had Cesar live with them at times to “camouflage their living together.”
The Court found petitioner’s testimony corroborated by respondent’s love letters (cited excerpts in exhibits), and by respondent’s letters addressed to petitioner’s mother dated February 9 and March 6, 1953 (Exhibits A-19 and A-21).

Documentary and Oral Evidence Considered

Petitioner’s sworn testimony describing seduction by promise of marriage, cohabitatio