Title
Ui vs. Bonifacio
Case
A.C. No. 3319
Decision Date
Jun 8, 2000
A lawyer accused of immorality and falsifying a marriage certificate was reprimanded for document tampering but cleared of gross misconduct due to lack of evidence.
disbarment case
lawyer
reprimanded

Case Summary (A.C. No. 3319)

Factual Background

Leslie Ui and Carlos L. Ui were married on January 24, 1971 and had four children surnamed Ui. Sometime in December 1987, Leslie Ui learned that her husband had been maintaining an intimate relationship with Atty. Iris Bonifacio, who allegedly begot a child in 1986 and later a second child in or about December 1988. Leslie Ui asserted that respondent and her husband lived together at No. 527 San Carlos Street, Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City. Respondent, a graduate of the University of the Philippines College of Law, was admitted to the bar in 1982. Complainant confronted respondent in June 1988; respondent admitted having a child by Carlos Ui and at that time represented that the relationship had ended. Complainant later discovered that the relationship continued and again confronted respondent in March 1989, but the illicit relations reportedly persisted.

Procedural History

Complainant filed an administrative complaint for disbarment before the Integrated Bar Commission on August 11, 1989, docketed as Adm. Case No. 3319. Complainant also filed a criminal complaint for concubinage against respondent and Carlos Ui before the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal (I.S. No. 89-5247), which was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause. The dismissal was affirmed at the Department of Justice. During the IBP proceedings complainant moved to cite respondent in contempt for allegedly presenting an altered marriage certificate and for making false allegations. Hearings were conducted before the Commission on Bar Discipline, which issued a Report and Recommendation. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar issued a Notice of Resolution dated December 13, 1997 adopting the Commission’s recommendation to dismiss the complaint for gross immorality but to reprimand respondent for knowingly and willfully attaching a falsified Certificate of Marriage. The matter was then before the Supreme Court for review.

The Parties’ Contentions

Complainant alleged that respondent knowingly carried on an illicit relationship with a married man, that respondent cohabited with Carlos Ui at the Alabang address, that respondent bore two children by Carlos Ui, and that respondent submitted a marriage certificate with an intercalated date to conceal the illegitimacy of the first child. Complainant sought disbarment and alleged violations of Articles 183 and 184, Revised Penal Code, and contempt of the Commission.
Respondent maintained that she began her relationship with Carlos Ui believing him to be single, that they contracted marriage in Hawaii (respondent alternatively alleged October 22, 1985 or relied on a copy indicating October 22, 1987), that she left for Honolulu upon learning of his prior marriage, that she did not cohabit with Carlos Ui at Alabang, and that she ceased contact after discovering his true civil status. Respondent denied moral turpitude and counterclaimed for moral damages in the amount of Php 10,000,000 for malicious prosecution.

Evidence Presented

Complainant offered photographs allegedly showing respondent with a child, respondent with Carlos Ui, and exterior shots of a residence and vehicle with Plate No. PNS 313. The photographer from a private security agency who took the pictures was not presented at the hearings. Complainant presented a copy of a marriage certificate showing the date October 22, 1987 certified by the Hawaii State Department of Health and authenticated by the Philippine Consulate General in Honolulu, while respondent’s Answer alleged the marriage occurred on October 22, 1985 and attached a certificate with that date. The Provincial Fiscal found that the prosecution failed to establish cohabitation at the Alabang address and recommended dismissal of the criminal complaint for lack of probable cause. The Department of Justice likewise dismissed the appeal.

Findings of the Commission and the Integrated Bar

The Commission on Bar Discipline found that respondent was credibly portrayed as more victim than offender. The Commission observed that married men who court single women often represent themselves as single, and that upon discovery of Carlos Ui’s true civil status respondent left for the United States and broke off contacts, living instead with family members upon return. The Commission concluded that there was no act that could be characterized as so unprincipled or disgraceful as to warrant disbarment. The Board of Governors adopted the Commission’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed the complaint for gross immorality, but imposed a reprimand on respondent for knowingly and willfully attaching a falsified Certificate of Marriage to her Answer and issued a stern warning against repetition.

Issues Presented

The principal issues were whether respondent’s conduct in maintaining an intimate relation with Carlos Ui warranted disciplinary removal from the bar for gross immorality, and whether respondent’s attachment of a marriage certificate containing an intercalated date constituted misconduct deserving sanction.

Ruling of the Court

The Court agreed with the findings of the Commission and the Board of Governors. The Court dismissed the complaint for disbarment for lack of clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence that respondent engaged in conduct amounting to gross immorality or that she manifested moral indifference to community standards. The Court found, however, that respondent acted imprudently and unprofessionally in attaching a photocopy of a marriage certificate with an altered date and that such act could not be excused by good faith reliance on a copy provided by Carlos Ui. Accordingly, the Court imposed a reprimand on respondent for that misconduct and issued a stern warning that repetition would merit a more severe penalty.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated that admission to the bar and continued membership require the possession of good moral character and that loss of that quality is ground for termination of bar membership. The Court cited the standard that a lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct" or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude and explained that gross immorality denotes conduct that is willful, flagrant, or shameless and that manifests mora

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms