PER CURIAM:
(1) | During a family recollection in April of 2014, respondent allegedly confessed having an affair with a lady friend even before he and complainant got married, and that the affair bore a child which they agreed to have aborted. Upon hearing respondent's confession, complainant retorted that she had suspected the affair all along because of the nights when respondent would leave complainant alone, despite her being pregnant. Complainant further recalled several instances when somebody would call complainant and say ''pahiram ng asawa mo sandali." According to complainant, respondent did not refute these allegations;[7] | |||
(2) | In the early part of May 2014, complainant saw a picture of a woman displayed in the wallpaper of respondent's mobile phone. When complainant asked respondent about the woman's identity, respondent replied that the woman is a friend and former classmate in high school whom he reconnected with during their recent homecoming;[8] | |||
(3) | Complainant found a compilation of profile pictures of the same woman in a separate and exclusive folder in respondent's Facebook feed. The folder includes childhood and travel pictures; | |||
(4) | Complainant read and saved a copy of a series of text message exchanges between respondent and the same lady friend which indicated that they had likely nurtured an illicit relationship; | |||
a. | Message Exchange dated June 10, 2014:[9] | |||
[Respondent]: | miss you | |||
[Lady friend]: | I'm sure. Miss you too. Love you, Honey. | |||
[Lady friend]: | Yes because Reb might interpret it in another way[.] | |||
[Respondent]: | yes n it becomes a tsismis; | |||
[Lady friend]: | Yeah, enough that she is told about the two of us, we should keep our family away from that especially the children. | |||
[Lady friend]: | Right, I don't want other people's nose in this matter. Yeah[.] | |||
[Respondent]: | Dear you may rest. [W]ill call you around 7 pm here. [L]ove you[.] | |||
[Respondent]: | yes will call tonight. [L]ove you. Tsupmmmmm. | |||
[Lady friend]: | [Hmmmm, love it!] Hello hon, call ok? | |||
b. | Message dated June 13, 2014[10] | |||
[Respondent]: | Hello dear. I miss you. How are you? | |||
c. | Message Exchange dated June 14, 2014[11] | |||
[Lady friend]: | Thank you manang. He's very lucky to have you in his life. You are the rainbow in his cloud. I'm really happy for you both. Lorie's note. | |||
[Respondent]: | [O]hh. [F]rom [L]orie. | |||
(Note: Lorie is Respondent's sister based in Australia) | ||||
d. | Message Exchange dated June 14, 2014[12] | |||
[Lady friend]: | I fell asleep. Let me get dresse[d] and talk to you later[.] | |||
[Respondent]: | where are you dear? [Get dressed?] | |||
[Lady friend]: | Just got to the train station. | |||
[Lady friend]: | Relax, Honey, remember, his loss not yours. Love you. | |||
[Respondent]: | yes. | |||
[Lady friend]: | Ex also sent me a friend request in FB yesterday. I blocked him so he won't be able to send again. | |||
[Respondent]: | tsupmmmm.[13] | |||
(5) | When complainant confronted respondent about the series of messages, respondent admitted in front of their children that the woman is his girlfriend, and even quipped "disente" and "maraming pera 'yon."[14] | |||
(6) | During one confrontation, respondent showed no remorse for his actions, and treated his extra-marital affair as if it is morally acceptable, and stated "Ano masama sa ginagawa ko? Maghihiwalay naman tayo;[15]" | |||
(7) | Respondent offered to clarify his relationship with the woman, stating that, "She is my girlfriend, she is not my mistress. There is no mistress for me;"[16] | |||
(8) | Respondent went to the United States of America to allegedly visit his friend and same woman on July 3 to 18, 2014. On August 8, 2014, complainant found posted on Facebook pictures of respondent and the woman smiling closely beside each other,[17] respondent with his arm wrapped around the woman's shoulder, and respondent and the woman holding hands with interlocking fingers.[18] | |||
(9) | Respondent made it known to complainant that he will move out of their conjugal home in September or October 2014, or as soon as the turnover of their condominium unit is completed. When complainant told respondent to not bring in prostitutes, respondent replied "kasama ko [siya] sa condo pag nandito siya sa Pilipinas. She is my new wife."[19] |
It has been repeatedly held that to justify suspension or disbarment, the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral.[34] A grossly immoral act is one the extent of which is so corrupt to constitute a criminal act, or grossly unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under circumstances so scandalous and revolting as to shock the common sense of decency.[35] An act to be considered grossly immoral shall be willful, flagrant, or shameless, as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.[36]CANON 1
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.CANON 7
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
[x x x] When deciding upon the appropriate sanction, the Court must consider that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings are to protect the public; to foster public confidence in the Bar; to preserve the integrity of the profession; and to deter other lawyers from similar misconduct. Disciplinary proceedings are means of protecting the administration of justice by requiring those who carry out this important function to be competent, honorable and reliable men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. While it is discretionary upon the Court to impose a particular sanction that it may deem proper against an erring lawyer, it should neither be arbitrary and despotic nor motivated by personal animosity or prejudice, but should ever be controlled by the imperative need to scrupulously guard the purity and independence of the bar and to exact from the lawyer strict compliance with his duties to the court, to his client, to his brethren in the profession and to the public.The respondent's arrogance and cavalier attitude has not escaped the Court's attention. He unabashedly admitted his illicit affair before his wife and children. He even boasted that his paramour is monied. This only shows that respondent is rotten to the core and no longer deserves to belong to the legal profession.
The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle, with great caution and only for the most weighty reasons and only on clear cases of misconduct which seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the Bar. Only those acts which cause loss of moral character should merit disbarment or suspension, while those acts which neither affect nor erode the moral character of the lawyer should only justify a lesser sanction unless they are of such nature and to such extent as to clearly show the lawyer's unfitness to continue in the practice of law. The dubious character of the act charged as well as the motivation which induced the lawyer to commit it must be clearly demonstrated before suspension or disbarment is meted out. The mitigating or aggravating circumstances that attended the commission of the offense should also be considered.[39] Citations omitted)