Cordova Vs Cordova

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCA.C. No. 3249 November 29, 1989

SALVACION DELIZO CORDOVA, complainant,vs.ATTY. LAURENCE D. CORDOVA, respondent.
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:
In an unsworn letter-complaint dated 14 April 1988 addressed to then Mr. Chief Justice
Claudio Teehankee, complainant Salvacion Delizo charged her husband, Atty. Laurence D.
Cordova, with immorality and acts unbecoming a member of the Bar. The letter-complaint
was forwarded by the Court to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Commission on Bar
Discipline (Commission), for investigation, report and recommendation.
The Commission, before acting on the complaint, required complainant to submit a
verified complaint within ten (10) days from notice. Complainant complied and submitted
to the Commission on 27 September 1988 a revised and verified version of her long and
detailed complaint against her husband charging him with immorality and acts
unbecoming a member of the Bar.
In an Order of the Commission dated 1 December 1988, respondent was declared in
default for failure to file an answer to the complaint within fifteen (15) days from notice.
The same Order required complainant to submit before the Commission her evidence ex
parte, on 16 December 1988. Upon the telegraphic request of complainant for the
resetting of the 16 December 1988 hearing, the Commission scheduled another hearing
on 25 January 1989. The hearing scheduled for 25 January 1989 was rescheduled two (2)
more times first, for 25 February 1989 and second, for 10 and 11 April 1989. The
hearings never took place as complainant failed to appear. Respondent Cordova never
moved to set aside the order of default, even though notices of the hearings scheduled
were sent to him.
In a telegraphic message dated 6 April 1989, complainant informed the Commission that
she and her husband had already reconciled. In an order dated 17 April 1989, the
Commission required the parties (respondent and complainant) to appear before it for
confirmation and explanation of the telegraphic message and required them to file a
formal motion to dismiss the complaint within fifteen (15) days from notice. Neither party
responded and nothing was heard from either party since then.
Complainant having failed to submit her evidence ex parte before the Commission, the IBP
Board of Governors submitted to this Court its report reprimanding respondent for his acts,
admonishing him that any further acts of immorality in the future will be dealt with more
severely, and ordering him to support his legitimate family as a responsible parent should.
The findings of the IBP Board of Governors may be summed up as follows:
Complainant and respondent Cordova were married on 6 June 1976 and out of this
marriage, two (2) children were born. In 1985, the couple lived somewhere in Quirino
Province. In that year, respondent Cordova left his family as well as his job as Branch Clerk
of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Cabarroguis, Quirino Province, and went to Mangagoy,
Bislig, Surigao del Sur with one Fely G. Holgado. Fely G. Holgado was herself married and
left her own husband and children to stay with respondent. Respondent Cordova and Fely
G. Holgado lived together in Bislig as husband and wife, with respondent Cordova
introducing Fely to the public as his wife, and Fely Holgado using the name Fely Cordova.
Respondent Cordova gave Fely Holgado funds with which to establish a sari-sari store in
the public market at Bislig, while at the same time failing to support his legitimate family.
On 6 April 1986, respondent Cordova and his complainant wife had an apparent
reconciliation. Respondent promised that he would separate from Fely Holgado and
brought his legitimate family to Bislig, Surigao del Sur. Respondent would, however,
frequently come home from beerhouses or cabarets, drunk, and continued to neglect the
support of his legitimate family. In February 1987, complainant found, upon returning from
a trip to Manila necessitated by hospitalization of her daughter Loraine, that respondent
Cordova was no longer living with her (complainants) children in their conjugal home; that
respondent Cordova was living with another mistress, one Luisita Magallanes, and had
taken his younger daughter Melanie along with him. Respondent and his new mistress hid
Melanie from the complainant, compelling complainant to go to court and to take back her
daughter by habeas corpus. The Regional Trial Court, Bislig, gave her custody of their
children.
Notwithstanding respondents promises to reform, he continued to live with Luisita
Magallanes as her husband and continued to fail to give support to his legitimate family.
Finally, the Commission received a telegram message apparently from complainant,
stating that complainant and respondent had been reconciled with each other.
After a review of the record, we agree with the findings of fact of the IBP Board. We also
agree that the most recent reconciliation between complainant and respondent, assuming
the same to be real, does not excuse and wipe away the misconduct and immoral behavior
of the respondent carried out in public, and necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a
member of the Bar and upon the Philippine Bar itself. An applicant for admission to
membership in the bar is required to show that he is possessed of good moral character.
That requirement is not exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership of
the bar. On the contrary, that requirement persists as a continuing condition for
membership in the Bar in good standing.
In Mortel v. Aspiras, 1 this Court, following the rule in the United States, held that the
continued possession . . . of a good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful
continuance in the practice of the law . . . and its loss requires suspension or disbarment,
even though the statutes do not specify that as a ground for disbarment. 2 It is important
to note that the lack of moral character that we here refer to as essential is not limited to
good moral character relating to the discharge of the duties and responsibilities of an
attorney at law. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to
continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards
of the community, conduct for instance, which makes a mockery of the inviolable social
institution or marriage. 3 In Mortel, the respondent being already married, wooed and won
the heart of a single, 21-year old teacher who subsequently cohabited with him and bore
him a son. Because respondents conduct in Mortel was particularly morally repulsive,
involving the marrying of his mistress to his own son and thereafter cohabiting with the
wife of his own son after the marriage he had himself arranged, respondent was disbarred.
In Royong v. Oblena, 4 the respondent was declared unfit to continue as a member of the
bar by reason of his immoral conduct and accordingly disbarred. He was found to have
engaged in sexual relations with the complainant who consequently bore him a son; and to
have maintained for a number of years an adulterous relationship with another woman.
In the instant case, respondent Cordova maintained for about two (2) years an adulterous
relationship with a married woman not his wife, in full view of the general public, to the
humiliation and detriment of his legitimate family which he, rubbing salt on the wound,
failed or refused to support. After a brief period of reform respondent took up again with
another woman not his wife, cohabiting with her, and bringing along his young daughter to
live with them. Clearly, respondent flaunted his disregard of the fundamental institution of
marriage and its elementary obligations before his own daughter and the community at
large.
WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law
indefinitely and until further orders from this Court. The Court will consider lifting his
suspension when respondent Cordova submits proof satisfactory to the Commission and
this Court that he has and continues to provide for the support of his legitimate family and
that he has given up the immoral course of conduct that he has clung to.
Fernan, (C.J.), Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento,
Cortes, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Melencio-Herrera, J., is on leave.
Footnotes
1. 100 Phil. 586 (1956).
2. 100 Phil. at 592.
3. 100 Phil. at 593.
4. 117 Phil. 865 (1963).
Case digest
179 SCRA 680 Legal Ethics Moral Delinquency

In 1985, Atty. Laurence Cordova, while being married to Salvacion Delizo and with two children, left
his wife and children to cohabit with another married woman. In 1986, Salvacion and Cordova had
a reconciliation where Cordova promised to leave his mistress. But apparently, Cordova still
continued to cheat on her wife as apparently, Cordova again lived with another woman and worse,
he took one of his children with him and hid the child away from Salvacion.
In 1988, Salvacion filed a letter-complaint for disbarment against Cordova. Eventually, multiple
hearing dates were sent but no hearing took place because neither party appeared. In 1989,
Salvacion sent a telegraphic message to the Commission on Bar Discipline intimating that she and
her husband has reconciled. The Commission, since Salvacion failed to submit her evidence ex
parte, merely recommended the reprimand and admonishment of Cordova.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cordova should be merely reprimanded.
HELD: No. He should be suspended indefinitely until he presents evidence that he has been
morally reformed and that there was true reconciliation between him and his wife. Before a person
can be admitted to the bar, one requirement is that he possesses good moral character. That
requirement is not exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. On
the contrary, that requirement persists as a continuing condition for membership in the Bar in good
standing. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such
includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct
for instance, which makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution or marriage such was the
case in the case at bar.

Cordova Vs Cordova

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cordova Vs Cordova

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cordova Vs Cordova

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCA.C. No. 3249 November 29, 1989

179 SCRA 680 Legal Ethics Moral Delinquency

You might also like