Cordova Vs Cordova
Cordova Vs Cordova
Cordova Vs Cordova
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