378 Phil. 377
PANGANIBAN, J.:
"3. Petitioner's acqu[ai]ntance with the respondent traces its origin as early as September 1991 when she (petitioner) was facing multiple criminal charges of estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, then pending in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Manila, where respondent serves as the Branch Clerk of Court, and in other sala.In an Order dated August 21, 1997, IBP Commissioner Plaridel Jose directed respondent to submit an answer to the Complaint within ten days from notice.[2]
"4. Respondent's good Samaritan attitude in personally assisting and facilitating petitioner's release on bail and other legal maneuvers, through his connections and influence saved and alleviated her (petitioner) from all legal predicaments.
"5. Respondent's magnanimity, care and sympathy towards petitioner was not without any hidden meaning. It later turned into a whirlwind courtship, which surprise[d] and puzzle[d] the latter, considering his (respondent) background as a family man.
"6. Despite resistance and apathy of petitioner, respondent's concern [for] petitioner became more manifest and convincing when he started staying and spending his after-office-hours in her residence, showing and making petitioner believe that he [was] separated [form] his wife coupled with his assurance to take the necessary steps to annul his marriage and that of petitioner to legalize and justify whatever relationship he may have with the petitioner.
"7. Relying on his assurance and representation, petitioner finally settled into a relationship with him, [the two of them] staying and living together as husband and wife, such that even petitioner's children considered him as their step-father and her relatives as their brother-in-law.
"8. For years, petitioner and respondent openly and publicly lived as husband and wife, attending and gracing special occasions hosted by friends and relatives, until on one late evening, respondent's wife, suddenly and surprisingly entered her restaurant-residence and thereat assaulted and inflicted her injuries.
"9. Petitioner discovered that by reason of the aforesaid incident all the assurance and representations of respondent [were] all lies and in vain. It turned out that contrary to his representations to petitioner, he still maintain[ed] a relationship with his wife and his family.
"10. [In spite] of the above incident, respondent continuously, persistently and openly bothered and troubled petitioner and insisted [on maintaining] his illicit acts.
"11. Respondent's acts of openly and publicly cohabiting with a woman in an illicit manner, and taking advantage of her situation, when she was in her darkest and decisive moments, on the pretext of assurance and representation which all turned out to be false, makes him unfit to be a member of the legal profession who must uphold the highest degree of morality, integrity and reputation."[1]
"A reading of the complaint will show damaging allegations of facts which the respondent never bothered to deny and x x x the substance and circumstances contained in the complaint will show the truth of the complainant's allegation not only because it contains [a] narration of facts against the respondent but because no woman in her right mind will state that she cohabited with another man openly and publicly until the respondent's wife suddenly and surprisingly entered her restaurant-residence and thereat assaulted and inflicted her injuries.On September 16, 1998, this Court received from the IBP Board of Governors a Notice of Resolution which reads:
"In a long line of decision[s], this Commission [has laid] down the rule that a motion to dismiss or [a] withdrawal of complaint hardly deserves consideration as [a] proceeding of this nature cannot be interrupted or terminated by reason of desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of charges or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same.
"Likewise, it was ruled that any person not necessarily the aggrieved party may bring to the court's attention the misconduct of any lawyer and corresponding action can be taken regardless of lack of interest of the aggrieved concerned if the facts and circumstances so warrant. The power of disciplining lawyers -- officers of the court -- may not be cut short by a compromise or withdrawal of the charges.
"This Commission could not find or discern any ulterior motive or purpose to completely disregard petitioner's allegations in her sworn complaint."x x x x x x x x x
"Considering that the respondent ch[o]se to be silent on the seriousness of the allegations against him, his silence is a clear indication of admitting the facts alleged by the complainant."[3]
"Please take notice [that] on December 13, 1997 a resolution was passed by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in the above-entitled case the original of which is now on file in this office, quote:"RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex `A', and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, Respondent Atty. Manolo Rubi is SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY from the practice of law considering that he ch[o]se to be silent on the seriousness of the allegations against him, which silence is a clear indication of admitting the facts alleged by the complainant."[4]
"RESOLUTION NO. XIII-97-166 CBD Case No. 97-492 Rita De Ere vs. Atty. Manolo Rubi
"Rule 1.01. -- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.In other words, lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times.[5] "More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards."[6]
"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 Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. x x x "[9]Moreover, complainant's withdrawal does not render the IBP powerless to conduct the investigation. Indeed, it is authorized to issue subpoena to compel the appearance of persons and witnesses before it. Moreover, refusal to obey its subpoena shall be dealt with as contempt of court.