JOSELANO GUEVARRA v ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA A.C. No. 7136. August 1, 2007

FACTS

Joselano Guevarra filed case for disbarment against Atty. Jose Emmanuel “Noli” Eala (6th PBA Commissioner) for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer’s oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first met the respondent in January 2000 when his then fiancée Irene Moje introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married with whom he had three children. Joselano and Irene got married on October 7, 2000 and soon after, complainant, from January to March 2001, saw that Irene had been receiving calls from Noli, as well as messages some of which read “I love you,” “I miss you,” or “Meet you at Megamall.” He also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from work. Her excuse was that she slept at her parents’ house or she was busy with work. Joselano also saw Irene and Noli together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them after which Irene abandoned the family house. In April 2001, Joselano went uninvited to Irene’s birthday celebration at which he saw her and Noli celebrating with her family and friends. Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the family house and hauled off all her personal belongings, pieces of furniture, and her share of the household appliances. Complainant later found a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2007, the day of his wedding to Irene, containing sweet words and vows from the respondent. On his complaint, petitioner contends that: 1. Respondent and Irene were FLAUNTING THEIR ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP as they attended social functions together and that adulterous conduct with his wife and his apparent abandoning or neglecting of his own family, demonstrate his gross moral depravity, making him morally unfit to keep his membership in the bar. 2. He flaunted his aversion to the institution of marriage, calling it a “piece of paper.” Morally reprehensible was his writing the love letter to complainant’s bride on the very day of her wedding, vowing to continue his love for her. 3. Respondents grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the Constitution and the laws he, as a lawyer, has been sworn to uphold. In pursuing obsessively his illicit love for the complainant’s wife, he mocked the institution of marriage, betrayed his own family, broke up the complainant’s marriage, commits adultery with his wife, and degrades the legal profession. On the other hand, respondent denied the allegations that the complainant is accussing him. He denied that: 1. they had ever flaunted an adulterous relationship with Irene, the truth of the matter being that their relationship was low profile and known only to the immediate members of their respective families. And his relationship with Irene was not under scandalous circumstances 2. he has flaunted his aversion to the institution of marriage by calling the institution of marriage a mere piece of paper because his reference to the marriage between Complainant and Irene as a piece of paper was merely with respect to the formality of the marriage contract. Meanwhile, respondent admitted The Rules of Court requires lawyers to support the Constitution and obey the laws. The Constitution regards marriage as an inviolable social institution and is the foundation of the family.

ISSUE

WON an illicit affair between a married lawyer and a married woman constitute gross immoral conduct.

HELD

Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be characterized as 'grossly immoral conduct' depends on the surrounding circumstances." The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly. Sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. Respondent has been carrying on an illicit affair with a married woman, a grossly immoral conduct and indicative of an extremely low regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession. This detestable behavior renders him regrettably unfit and undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges which his license confers upon him. Respondent in fact also violated the lawyer's oath he took before admission to practice law. Respondent admittedly is aware of Section 2 of Article XV (The Family) of the Constitution reading: Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. In this connection, the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209), which echoes this constitutional provision, obligates the husband and the wife "to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support." Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct," and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law."

DECISION

WHEREFORE, Petition is GRANTED. Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.