A.C. No. 13496 - Rojas vs. Quiambao

Case Summary (A.C. No. 13496)

Petitioner / Complaint and Allegations

Complainant filed a verified Complaint‑Affidavit with the IBP‑CBD (received September 15, 2017) alleging that respondent (while married to complainant) sexually abused and sexually harassed several employees and engaged in multiple extramarital relations. Allegations included showing pornographic photos and videos, cupping breasts, masturbating in victims’ presence, offering money for sexual acts, and engaging in consensual sexual relations with other women during the marriage. The complaint was supported by multiple judicial affidavits from former employees detailing instances of sexual assault, harassment, and coercive circumstances.

Respondent’s Admissions and Denials

In his verified Answer respondent admitted certain allegations: he showed pornographic photographs and videos to AAA and DDD; he had sexual relations with BBB (former law secretary) and with CCC (two instances, which he characterized as consensual); he acknowledged infidelity, expressed contrition, and stated he sought psychiatric and spiritual counseling. He denied other allegations by EEE, FFF, and GGG, attributing some interactions to mutual spontaneity or voluntary participation. Respondent later produced a marriage certificate showing a later marriage to HHH and submitted photographs of public appearances with HHH and their children.

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Marriage of the spouses: March 20, 2005. Complainant’s discovery via AAA: October 26, 2016. Permanent Protection Order (PPO) issued by RTC Butuan: February 28, 2017 (directed respondent to obtain expert counseling for sex offenders). Verified Complaint filed with IBP‑CBD: received September 15, 2017. RTC Cabadbaran judgment on legal separation and approved compromise: March 20, 2018. Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation to disbar: June 22, 2020. IBP Board adoption of recommendation: April 10, 2021. CPRA applicable to pending cases (effective May 30, 2023). Supreme Court decision: June 4, 2024.

Applicable Law and Ethical Standards

Constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution — Article XV, Section 2 recognizing marriage as an inviolable social institution. Statutory and regulatory framework relied upon: Rules of Court, Rule 138 Section 27 (grounds for disbarment/suspension), Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti‑Sexual Harassment Act of 1995) and implementing DOLE/administrative guidelines defining sexual harassment, and the Family Code (Article 63 regarding effects of legal separation). Professional ethics: Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) — applicable to pending cases by transitory provision — specifically Canon II (Propriety), Canon III (Fidelity), Canon VI (definitions and penalties for Grossly Immoral Conduct, including Sections 33, 37, 38, 39, 40).

Investigative and IBP Proceedings

IBP‑CBD conducted a mandatory conference; respondent attended and reiterated admissions of extramarital affairs and showing pornographic materials, and asked for leniency. The Investigating Commissioner recommended disbarment based on respondent’s admissions and corroborating judicial affidavits. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation and recommended disbarment. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration supported by a subsequent marriage certificate to HHH; IBP denied reconsideration. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final administrative disposition.

Findings of Fact Adopted by the Court

The Court accepted as substantial the judicial affidavits of multiple former employees alleging sexually charged conduct and, in some instances, sexual assault. The Court credited respondent’s own admissions as to showing pornographic materials to AAA and DDD and his extramarital sexual relations with CCC, BBB, and HHH. The PPO’s directive that respondent seek professional counseling for sex offenders was treated as confirming concern about his conduct. Several victims were found to be particularly vulnerable (working students, economically dependent), and respondent’s conduct spanned multiple years (allegations dating as early as 2009) and involved multiple victims.

Legal Characterization: Grossly Immoral Conduct

Applying the CPRA and prior jurisprudence, the Court characterized respondent’s conduct as Grossly Immoral Conduct. The Court explained the CPRA definition and jurisprudential standard: an act so immoral, flagrant, or shameless that it demonstrates moral indifference to community standards and may constitute or be analogous to criminal conduct. The Court identified four separate counts of grossly immoral conduct: (1) blatant engagement in multiple extramarital affairs while married to complainant; (2) siring illegitimate children with HHH, publicly flaunting the relationship, and contracting a subsequent marriage that appears bigamous; (3) sexual harassment of house helper AAA; and (4) sexual harassment of law secretary DDD.

Extramarital Relations and Constitutional/Family Law Considerations

The Court stressed that lawyers are held to a continuing standard of moral probity; extramarital affairs, particularly when accompanied by public flaunting, abandonment, bigamous marriage, or repeated pattern, may constitute grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary sanctions. The Court invoked Article XV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution and Family Code principles (noting that legal separation does not dissolve the marriage tie or authorize remarriage) to conclude respondent’s conduct was a grave breach of marital fidelity and public standards, and that his admissions and conduct evidenced a cavalier attitude toward marital obligations and the law.

Sexual Harassment Analysis and Application of RA 7877

Under RA 7877 and implementing rules, sexual harassment in the workplace includes acts resulting in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment, particularly when committed by a person who has authority or moral ascendancy over the victim. The Court found respondent’s conduct toward AAA and DDD — showing pornographic materials, sexualized conduct, offers and sexual advances, and use of position over subordinates — met the statutory and administrative definitions of sexual harassment. The economic vulnerability of several victims and the superior‑subordinate relationship were material in assessing the gravity and credibility of the claims.

Credibility and Evidentiary Assessment

The Court gave greater weight to the sworn judicial affidavits of multiple victims and to respondent’s own admissions than to respondent’s bare denials and unsupported assertions that the affiants acted only out of pity for complainant. The duration, number of affiants, respondent’s admissions, and the PPO directive together supplied substantial corroboration. The Court referenced jurisprudence that victims often delay reporting or remain silent because of economic dependence or fear, and that such circumstances do not undermine credibility.

Penalty Framework and Rationale

Under CPRA Canon VI and related provisions, Grossly Immoral Conduct is a serious offense punishable by disbarment, suspension, fines, and revocation of notarial commission. The Court applied Section 40 concerning multiple offenses and Section 39 regarding aggravating circumstances to determine appropriate sanctions. The Court concluded that the first count (multiple extramarital relations and brazen disregard for marriage) warranted the supreme penalty of disbarment. The second count (bigamous marriage, illegitimate children, public flaunting) also warranted disbarment in prior analogous cases; the Court recorded disbarment for that count as well. The third and fourth counts (sexual harassment of two employees) were asse

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 13496)

Case Caption, Nature and Relief Sought

En Banc, A.C. No. 13496 (Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5681), June 04, 2024: A verified Complaint-Affidavit for disbarment filed by Atty. Merriam Fe G. Rojas (complainant) against Atty. Lovejoy B. Quiambao (respondent).
Relief sought by complainant: administrative discipline up to disbarment for alleged grossly immoral conduct and related violations of the lawyer’s ethical duties.

Procedural History and Key Dates

September 15, 2017: Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP‑CBD) received the verified Complaint.
February 28, 2017: Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City issued a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) in favor of complainant.
March 20, 2018: RTC of Cabadbaran City rendered a Judgment on Compromise Agreement in the parties’ legal separation proceedings.
May 28, 2018: IBP‑CBD directed respondent to file his verified answer.
November 14, 2019: IBP mandatory conference scheduled; only respondent filed a preliminary conference brief and attended.
June 22, 2020: Investigating Commissioner issued Report and Recommendation finding respondent guilty of grossly immoral conduct and recommending disbarment.
April 10, 2021: IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s findings and recommendation for disbarment.
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration attaching a Marriage Certificate (respondent’s subsequent marriage to HHH on June 5, 2021) and wedding photographs.
March 22, 2022: IBP Board of Governors denied the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
May 30, 2023: Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) took effect and applies to pending administrative cases.
June 04, 2024: Supreme Court En Banc rendered the Decision per curiam adopting and modifying IBP findings and imposing penalties.

Allegations in the Complaint — Factual Background

Parties: Complainant and respondent were married on March 20, 2005 before a Baptist Church reverend in Cebu City; they shared a law firm annexed to their conjugal house.
Complainant’s role: Managed the law firm (research, reviewing pleadings), and operated a small store selling beauty/cosmetic products and providing photocopy services to augment family income.
Initial report: On October 26, 2016, complainant learned from house helper AAA (an 18‑year‑old working student) that respondent sexually abused her.
AAA’s allegations (as summarized in complaint): respondent cupped her breasts; showed pornographic photos and videos; offered to teach sexual intercourse; masturbated in her presence; offered PHP 1,000.00 to touch his penis.
Respondent’s partial admission: admitted to being hooked on pornography and sought psychiatric help in Cagayan de Oro.
Complainant’s further investigation: identified at least 13 former employees who allegedly suffered sexual abuse by respondent; two of these women were alleged minors (16 and 17 years old); complainant alleged sexual relations between respondent and BBB (former law secretary and daughter of a pastor).
Judicial Affidavits attached to Complaint:
- CCC (house helper July 2015–May 2016): alleged respondent insisted she drink tequila, she lost consciousness, woke to respondent’s penis inside her vagina, alleged repeated rape and forced oral sex; family indebtedness to the Spouses of PHP 9,000.00 and economic vulnerability impeded reporting.
- DDD (law secretary since August 2009): alleged respondent repeatedly showed photographs of his penis, asked if it was large, watched pornographic videos in the office and invited her to watch.
- EEE (house helper in 2009): alleged respondent grabbed her breasts, showed pornographic videos, and sent photos of his penis by phone.
- FFF (storekeeper 2012–2014): alleged respondent exhibited his penis, pushed/stroked his penis against her butt, and appeared before her naked.
- GGG (photocopy operator 2014–2015): alleged respondent slapped her butt and repeatedly invited her to drinks.
Vulnerability of victims: EEE, FFF, and CCC identified as working students dependent on wages to continue education; CCC’s family indebtedness heightened vulnerability.
Complainant filed petitions before trial courts, resulting in the PPO and the legal separation judgment on compromise.

Respondent’s Verified Answer, Admissions and Defenses

Admissions:
- Admitted showing AAA and DDD pornographic photographs and videos.
- Admitted sexual relations with BBB (former law secretary) on at least two occasions.
- Admitted having consensual sexual relations with CCC on two occasions but denied forcing himself on her.
- Admitted extramarital affairs and requested leniency.
Specifics offered by respondent:
- Asserts BBB seduced him via “dirty dancing,” which led to kissing, petting and ultimately condom‑protected intercourse—he purchased a condom at a nearby gas station prior to intercourse with BBB and likewise prior to intercourse with CCC on one occasion.
- Acknowledged he sought psychiatric treatment and spiritual counsel; in email sought complainant’s forgiveness and pledged to submit to professional/psychiatric intervention and spiritual counseling.
Denials/qualifications:
- Denied allegations by FFF, EEE, and GGG; characterized some conversations as natural/spontaneous “green” talk and claimed EEE voluntarily invited him to drink and to view pornographic materials.
- During IBP mandatory conference asserted complainant was absent due to being vice‑consul in Taiwan and alleged an annulment of the marriage had been granted (assertion not supported by record).
- Claimed some former employees executed judicial affidavits out of pity for complainant (assertion unsupported by evidence).

IBP Investigation, Findings and Recommendation

Investigating Commissioner (Atty. Carmelita R. Eleazar) findings:
- Relied upon respondent’s admissions of infidelity, extramarital relations, and showing lewd/pornographic materials to workers.
- Found respondent guilty of Grossly Immoral Conduct and recommended disbarment pursuant to Rule 138 Section 27.
IBP Board of Governors actions:
- April 10, 2021: Adopted and approved Investigating Commissioner’s findings and recommended disbarment.
- Denied respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration on March 22, 2022, for lack of merit after respondent alleged subsequent marriage to HHH and attached marriage certificate and photographs.
Investigative record: respondent filed the preliminary conference brief and participated in mandatory conference; complainant filed a Reply‑Affidavit emphasizing respondent’s admissions and additional allegations including respondent’s relationship with HHH and two illegitimate children.

Issue before the Court

Whether respondent Atty. Lovejoy B. Quiambao should be held administratively liable for his actions, specifically whether his conduct constitutes Grossly Immoral Conduct under the applicable Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability and whether corresponding penalties should be imposed.

Legal Framework Applied by the Court

Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) — transitory provision applies CPRA to pending cases (effective May 30, 2023).
Canon II (Propriety): requires lawyers to act with propriety, prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, and forbids behaving in a scandalous manner in public or private life.
Canon III (Fidelity): requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey laws, promote respect f