Case Summary (A.C. No. 7353)
Factual Narrative of Sonia Romero Valdez
In her sworn affidavit of September 13, 2006, Sonia described a November 13, 2000 lunch date during which Atty. Dabon allegedly drugged her, brought her to a motel, and sexually molested her while she was unconscious. She maintained that thereafter he forced himself upon her once or twice weekly through persistent threats of humiliation. Sonia averred that she ended the relationship in March 2006, after which the respondent continued to harass and attempt to rekindle the affair, even confronting her in a judicial parking lot and delivering handwritten messages via his staff.
Respondent’s Denials and Defense
Atty. Dabon categorically denied any sexual assault, threat, or intimidation. He characterized his relationship with Sonia as purely platonic and emphasized her handwritten cards and expensive gifts as proof of mutual affection. He argued that Nelson lacked personal knowledge of any wrongdoing, that Sonia’s allegations were inconsistent, and that the disbarment filing was a vindictive scheme aimed at tarnishing his reputation and compelling his resignation.
Investigative Proceedings and IBP Findings
On August 15, 2007, the Supreme Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. Investigating Commissioner Manuel T. Chan, in an October 2, 2008 report, concluded that the evidence established Atty. Dabon’s gross immoral conduct and recommended his disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors unanimously adopted this recommendation in Resolution No. XVIII-2008-653 (December 11, 2008). A motion for reconsideration was denied in Resolution No. XX-2012-550 (December 14, 2012).
Supreme Court Analysis on Admission and Denial
The Court noted that Atty. Dabon’s denials were “negative pregnants”—denial of coercion but not of the affair itself—thereby tacitly admitting a consensual illicit relationship. The respondent failed to contest evidence of intimate handwritten notes, frequent office visits, and valuable gifts from Sonia, which corroborated a long‐standing emotional liaison. His general denials proved weak against the credibility of direct testimonies and documentary exhibits.
Rejection of Sexual Assault and Coercion Claims
Balancing the evidence, the Court found no clear preponderance supporting Sonia’s claims of drugging, forced sex, or intimidation. It observed that a purported victim of repeated sexual assault would not have lavished affectionate messages, expensive gifts, and repeated social visits on her alleged oppressor. Moreover, Sonia’s failure to report the alleged crimes to authorities further undermined the coercion theory. The Court thus concluded the relationship was consensual and devoid of threats.
Ethical Breaches and Applicable Professional Rules
Under the 1987 Constitution, admission and continued membership in the Bar require good moral character. The Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits unlawful, dishonest, or immoral conduct (Rule 1.01) and any behavior, public or private, that reflects adversely on a lawyer’s fitness to practice (Rule 7.03). A prolonged adulterous relationship by an officer of the court violates the high moral standards expected of the pro
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 7353)
Facts
- Nelson P. Valdez married Sonia Romero Valdez on January 28, 1998 in Paniqui, Tarlac; Sonia served as Court Stenographer at the Court of Appeals from 1992 until May 15, 2006.
- Sonia allegedly carried on an adulterous relationship with Atty. Antolin Allyson M. Dabon, Jr., Division Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals, from November 2000 until March 2006.
- Nelson first learned of the illicit liaison on April 18, 2006 via an anonymous text, and received confirmation on May 4, 2006 when Atty. Jocelyn Dabon (respondent’s wife) sent him a revelatory message.
- Sonia’s September 13, 2006 affidavit recounts that the affair began when respondent lured her to a lunch date, surreptitiously drugged her, conveyed her to a motel, and sexually molested her while she was unconscious.
- Thereafter, Sonia alleges respondent maintained the relationship through intimidation, threats of exposure, and repeated non‐consensual carnal knowledge once or twice weekly over several years.
Complainant’s Allegations
- The illicit affair, according to Nelson, was predicated on respondent’s sexual assaults, blackmail, and psychological coercion.
- Sonia’s affidavit details drugging, non‐consensual sex, threats to humiliate her publicly, and continuous harassment when she sought to end the relationship in March 2006.
- Nelson attached corroborative declarations: a Joint Affidavit by Atty. Barrozo and Atty. Ligot (May 19, 2006), and affidavits of Virginia D. Ramos and Marie Iris Magdalene Minerva (May 2006).
- He maintains that respondent’s conduct constitutes gross immorality warranting disbarment under the high moral standards of the Bar.
Respondent’s Defense
- Atty. Dabon categorically denies any sexual assault, threats or intimidation; he characterizes the complaint as a calculated effort to harass and malign him.
- He argues Nelson lacks personal knowledge of the affair, and Sonia’s statements contain inconsistencies and preposterous claims.
- Respondent portrays his relationship with Sonia as platonic, contending she pursued his companionship—bringi