Joselano Guevarra v. Atty Jose Emmanuel Eala, AC No.

7136, August 1, 2007

Facts:
On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Committee on Bar Discipline against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for grossly immoral
conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyers oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first met the
respondent in January 2000 when his then fiance Irene Moje introduced respondent to him as her
friend who was married to Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed that from January to March 2001,
Irene had been receiving intimate texts from respondent and habitually went home very late. He also
found a love letter from the respondent addressed to his wife.
Complainant had seen Irene and Respondent together on a few ocassions, and in fact, their illicit
relationship was seemingly public and known to friends and family. He further learned that Irene and
Eala were already living together. Few months thereafter, Irene gave birth to a baby girl and wrote the
name of the respondent ( Eala) as the father in the certificate of live birth.
Petitioner filed a petition for annulment of marriage to Irene and a criminal complaint for adultery
against respondent and Irene.
Petitioner also filed a complaint for disbarment before the IBP-CBD on the ground of gross immoral
conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath which was dismissed by the IBP Board of
Governors due to lack of merit.
Hence, the petition of complaint before the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Would an illicit affair between a married lawyer and a married woman constitute gross immoral conduct
and unmitigated violation of the lawyers oath ?
Ruling:
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. (Vitug v. Rongcal)
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.(Tucay v. Atty. Tucay)
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."
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.

EN BANC

JOSELANO GUEVARRA,
Complainant,
versus
ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL
EALA,
Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Joselano Guevarra (complainant) filed on March 4, 2002 a Complaint for Disbarment

[1]

before the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel

M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala (respondent) for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the
lawyers oath.
In his complaint, Guevarra gave the following account:
He first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainants) then-fiancee Irene Moje (Irene)
introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to Marianne (sometimes spelled Mary Ann)
Tantoco with whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, complainant noticed that from January to March
2001, Irene had been receiving from respondent cellphone calls, as well as messages some of which
read I love you, I miss you, or Meet you at Megamall.
Complainant 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. When he asked about her
whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parents house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with
her work.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and respondent together on two
occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal
house.
On April 22, 2001, complainant went uninvited to Irenes birthday celebration at which he saw
her and respondent celebrating with her family and friends. Out of embarrassment, anger and
humiliation, he left the venue immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house
and hauled off all her personal belongings, pieces of furniture, and her share of the household
appliances.
Complainant later found, in the masters bedroom, a folded social card bearing the words I Love
You on its face, which card when unfolded contained a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000, the
day of his wedding to Irene, reading:
My everdearest Irene,
By the time you open this, youll be moments away from walking down the aisle. I will say a
prayer for you that you may find meaning in what youre about to do.
Sometimes I wonder why we ever met. Is it only for me to find fleeting happiness but experience
eternal pain? Is it only for us to find a true love but then lose it again? Or is it because
theres a bigger plan for the two of us?
I hope that you have experienced true happiness with me. I have done everything humanly
possible to love you. And today, as you make your vows . . . I make my own vow to YOU!
I will love you for the rest of my life. I loved you from the first time I laid eyes on you, to the time
we spent together, up to the final moments of your single life. But more importantly, I will
love you until the life in me is gone and until we are together again.
Do not worry about me! I will be happy for you. I have enough memories of us to last me a
lifetime. Always remember though that in my heart, in my mind and in my soul, YOU
WILL ALWAYS

. . . AND THE WONDERFUL THINGS YOU DO!

BE MINE . . . . AND MINE ALONE, and I WILL ALWAYS BE YOURS AND YOURS ALONE!
I LOVE YOU FOREVER, I LOVE YOU FOR ALWAYS. AS LONG AS IM LIVING MY TWEETIE
YOULL BE![2]
Eternally yours,
NOLI

Complainant soon saw respondents car and that of Irene constantly parked at No. 71B 11th Street, New Manila where, as he was to later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was already
residing. He also learned still later that when his friends saw Irene on or about January 18,
2002 together with respondent during a concert, she was pregnant.

In his ANSWER,

[3]

respondent admitted having sent the I LOVE YOU card on which the above-

quoted letter was handwritten.

On paragraph 14 of the COMPLAINT reading:
14. Respondent and Irene were even FLAUNTING THEIR ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP as
they attended social functions together. For instance, in or about the third week of
September 2001, the couple attended the launch of the Wine All You Can promotion of
French wines, held at the Mega Strip of SM Megamall B at Mandaluyong City. Their
attendance was reported in Section B of the Manila Standard issue of 24 September
2001, on page 21. Respondent and Irene were photographed together; their picture was
captioned: Irene with Sportscaster Noli Eala. A photocopy of the report is attached
as Annex C.[4] (Italics and emphasis in the original; CAPITALIZATION of the phrase
flaunting their adulterous relationship supplied),

respondent, in his ANSWER, stated:

4.
Respondent specifically denies having ever flaunted an adulterous
relationship with Irene as alleged in paragraph 14 of the Complaint, the truth of the
matter being that their relationship was low profile and known only to the
immediate members of their respective families , and that Respondent, as far as
the general public was concerned, was still known to be legally married to Mary
Anne Tantoco.[5] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

On paragraph 15 of the COMPLAINT reading:

15. Respondents adulterous
conduct
with
the
complainants
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. He flaunted his
aversion to the institution of marriage, calling it a piece of paper. Morally reprehensible
was his writing the love letter to complainants bride on the very day of her wedding,
vowing to continue his love for her until we are together again, as now they are.
[6]
(Underscoring supplied),

respondent stated in his ANSWER as follows:

5. Respondent specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Complaint

regarding his adulterous relationship and that his acts demonstrate gross moral depravity
thereby making him unfit to keep his membership in the bar, the reason being
that Respondents
relationship
with
Irene
was not
under
scandalous
circumstances and that as far as his relationship with his own family:
5.1 Respondent has maintained a civil, cordial and peaceful relationship with
[his wife] Mary Anne as in fact they still occasionally meet in public, even if Mary
Anne is aware ofRespondents special friendship with Irene.
xxxx
5.5 Respondent also denies that he has flaunted his aversion to the institution
of marriage by calling the institution of marriage a mere piece of paper because his
reference [in his above-quoted handwritten letter to Irene] to the marriage between
Complainant and Irene as a piece of paper was merely with respect to the formality of
the marriage contract.[7] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Respondent admitted

[8]

paragraph 18 of the COMPLAINT reading:

18. 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 (Article XV, Sec. 2).[9]

And on paragraph 19 of the COMPLAINT reading:

19. 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
complainants wife, he mocked the institution of marriage, betrayed his own family,
broke up the complainants marriage, commits adultery with his wife, and degrades the
legal profession.[10] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied),

respondent, in his ANSWER, stated:

7. Respondent specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of the
Complaint, the reason being that under the circumstances the acts of Respondent with
respect to his purely personal and low profile special relationship with Irene is
neither under scandalous circumstances nor tantamount to grossly immoral
conduct as would be a ground for disbarmentpursuant to Rule 138, Section 27 of the
Rules of Court.[11] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

To respondents ANSWER, complainant filed a REPLY,

[12]

alleging that Irene gave birth to a girl

and Irene named respondent in the Certificate of Live Birth as the girls father. Complainant attached to
the REPLY, as Annex A, a copy of a Certificate of Live Birth

[13]

bearing Irenes signature and naming

respondent as the father of her daughter Samantha Irene Louise Moje who was born on February 14,
2002 at St. Lukes Hospital.
Complainants REPLY merited a REJOINDER WITH MOTION TO DISMISS

[14]

dated January 10,

2003 from respondent in which he denied having personal knowledge of the Certificate of Live Birth
attached to the complainants Reply.

[15]

Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint due to

the pendency of a civil case filed by complainant for the annulment of his marriage to Irene, and a
criminal complaint for adultery against respondent and Irene which was pending before the Quezon City
Prosecutors Office.
During

the

investigation

before

the

IBP-CBD,

complainants

and REPLY to ANSWER were adopted as his testimony on direct examination.

did not cross-examine complainant.

Complaint-Affidavit

[16]

Respondents counsel

[17]

After investigation, IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, in a 12-page

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

[18]

dated October 26, 2004, found the charge against respondent

sufficiently proven.
The Commissioner thus recommended

[19]

that respondent be disbarred for violating Rule 1.01

of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility reading:

Rule 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage
deceitful conduct (Underscoring supplied),

in

unlawful,

dishonest, immoral or

and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code reading:

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. (Underscoring supplied)

The IBP Board of Governors, however, annulled and set aside the Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner and accordingly dismissed the case for lack of merit, by Resolution
dated January 28, 2006 briefly reading:
RESOLUTION NO. XVII-2006-06
CBD Case No. 02-936
Joselano C. Guevarra vs.
Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala
a.k.a. Noli Eala
RESOLVED to ANNUL and SET ASIDE, as it is hereby ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE, the
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and to APPROVE the DISMISSAL of
the above-entitled case for lack of merit.

Hence, the present petition

[22]

Rule 139

[21]

[20]

(Italics and emphasis in the original)

of complainant before this Court, filed pursuant to Section 12 (c),

of the Rules of Court.

The petition is impressed with merit.

Oddly enough, the IBP Board of Governors, in setting aside the Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner and dismissing the case for lack of merit, gave no reason therefor as its
above-quoted 33-word Resolution shows.

Respondent contends, in his Comment

evidence against him.

[24]

[23]

on the present petition of complainant, that there is no

The contention fails. As the IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner observed:

While it may be true that the love letter dated October 7, 2000 (Exh. C) and the
news item published in the Manila Standard (Exh. D), even taken together do not
sufficiently prove that respondent is carrying on an adulterous relationship with
complainants wife, there are other pieces of evidence on record which support the
accusation of complainant against respondent.
It should be noted that in his Answer dated 17 October 2002, respondent
through counsel made the following statements to wit: Respondent specifically
denies having [ever] flaunted an adulterous relationship with Irene as alleged in
paragraph [14] of the Complaint, the truth of the matter being [that] their relationship
was low profile and known only to immediate members of their respective
families . . . , and Respondent specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of
the complaint, the reason being that under the circumstances the acts of the
respondents with respect to his purely personal and low profile relationship with Irene
is neither under scandalous circumstances nor tantamount to grossly immoral
conduct . . .
These statements of respondent in his Answer are an admission that
there is indeed a special relationship between him and complainants wife,
Irene, [which] taken together with the Certificate of Live Birth of Samantha
Louise Irene Moje (Annex H-1) sufficiently prove that there was indeed an
illicit relationship between respondent and Irene which resulted in the birth of the
child Samantha. In the Certificate of Live Birth of Samantha it should be noted
that complainants wife Irene supplied the information that respondent was
the father of the child. Given the fact that the respondent admitted his special
relationship with Irene there is no reason to believe that Irene would lie or
make any misrepresentation regarding the paternity of the child. It should be
underscored that respondent has not categorically denied that he is the father
of Samantha Louise Irene Moje.[25] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Indeed, from respondents ANSWER, he does not deny carrying on an adulterous relationship
with Irene, adultery being defined under Art. 333 of the Revised Penal Code as that committed by any
married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who
has carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared
void.

[26]

(Italics supplied) What respondent denies is having flaunted such relationship, he maintaining

that it was low profile and known only to the immediate members of their respective families.
In other words, respondents denial is a negative pregnant,
a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded
to which are not squarely denied. It was in effect an admission of the averments it was
directed at. Stated otherwise, a negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which
carries with it in affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the
adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in
the pleading. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the
words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, it has been held
that the qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is
admitted.[27] (Citations omitted; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

A negative pregnant too is respondents denial of having personal knowledge of Irenes daughter
Samantha Louise Irene Mojes Certificate of Live Birth. In said certificate, Irene named respondent a
lawyer, 38 years old as the childs father. And the phrase NOT MARRIED is entered on the desired
information on DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE. A comparison of the signature attributed to Irene in the
certificate

[28]

with her signature on the Marriage Certificate

[29]

shows that they were affixed by one and

the same person. Notatu dignum is that, as the Investigating Commissioner noted, respondent never
denied being the father of the child.
Franklin A. Ricafort, the records custodian of St. Lukes Medical Center, in his January 29, 2003
Affidavit

[30]

which he identified at the witness stand, declared that Irene gave the information in the

Certificate of Live Birth that the childs father is Jose Emmanuel Masacaet Eala, who was 38 years old
and a lawyer.

[31]

Without doubt, the adulterous relationship between respondent and Irene has been sufficiently
proven by more than clearly preponderant evidence that evidence adduced by one party which is more
conclusive and credible than that of the other party and, therefore, has greater weight than the
other

[32]

which is the quantum of evidence needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.

Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are
distinct from and they may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.
. . . of proof for these types of cases differ. In a criminal case, proof beyond
reasonable doubt is necessary; in an administrative case for disbarment or
suspension, clearly preponderant evidence is all that is required.[33] (Emphasis
supplied)

Respondent insists, however, that disbarment does not lie because his relationship with Irene
was not, under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, reading:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such
office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to
a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose
of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or
other disciplinatory agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as
an attorney is a ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action
includes any of the acts hereinabove enumerated.
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall
be prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied),

under scandalous circumstances.

[34]

The immediately-quoted Rule which provides the grounds for disbarment or suspension uses the
phrase grossly immoral conduct, not under scandalous circumstances.Sexual intercourse under
scandalous circumstances is, following Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code reading:
ART. 334. Concubinage. - Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal
dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a
woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished
by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
x x x x,

an element of the crime of concubinage when a married man has sexual intercourse with a woman
elsewhere.

Whether a lawyers 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.

[35]

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. Apropos is the following
pronouncement of this Court in Vitug v. Rongcal:

[36]

On the charge of immorality, respondent does not deny that he had an extramarital affair with complainant, albeit brief and discreet, and which act is
not so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree in order to merit disciplinary sanction. We disagree.
xxxx
While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual
relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative
sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital
vow of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under
penal law, 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. [37](Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

And so is the pronouncement in Tucay v. Atty. Tucay:

[38]

The Court need not delve into the question of whether or not the respondent
did contract a bigamous marriage . . . It is enough that the records of this
administrative case substantiate the findings of the Investigating Commissioner, as
well as the IBP Board of Governors, i.e., that indeed 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.
[39]
(Underscoring supplied)

Respondent in fact also violated the lawyers oath he took before admission to practice law which
goes:

I _________, having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the

Philippines, do solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of
the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal
orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless,
false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money
or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge
and discretion with all good fidelity as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I impose
upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion. So help me God. (Underscoring supplied)

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.

[40]

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.
Clutching at straws, respondent, during the pendency of the investigation of the case before the
IBP Commissioner, filed a Manifestation

[41]

on March 22, 2005 informing the IBP-CBD that complainants

petition for nullity of his (complainants) marriage to Irene had been granted by Branch 106 of
the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, and that the criminal complaint for adultery complainant filed
against respondent and Irene based on the same set of facts alleged in the instant case, which was
pending review before the Department of Justice (DOJ), on petition of complainant, had been, on motion
of complainant, withdrawn.
The Secretary of Justices Resolution of January 16, 2004 granting complainants Motion to
Withdraw Petition for Review reads:
Considering that the instant motion was filed before the final resolution of the
petition for review, we are inclined to grant the same pursuant to Section 10 of
Department Circular No. 70 dated July 3, 2000, which provides that notwithstanding the
perfection of the appeal, the petitioner may withdraw the same at any time before it is
finally resolved, in which case the appealed resolution shall stand as though no
appeal has been taken.[42] (Emphasis supplied by complainant)

That the marriage between complainant and Irene was subsequently declared void ab initio is
immaterial. The acts complained of took place before the marriage was declared null and void.

[43]

As a

lawyer, respondent should be aware that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and

wife are presumed, unless proven otherwise, to have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.

[44]

In

carrying on an extra-marital affair with Irene prior to the judicial declaration that her marriage with
complainant was null and void, and despite respondent himself being married, he showed disrespect for
an institution held sacred by the law. And he betrayed his unfitness to be a lawyer.
As for complainants withdrawal of his petition for review before the DOJ, respondent glaringly
omitted to state that before complainant filed his December 23, 2003Motion to Withdraw his Petition for
Review, the DOJ had already promulgated a Resolution on September 22, 2003 reversing the
dismissal by the Quezon City Prosecutors Office of complainants complaint for adultery. In reversing
the City Prosecutors Resolution, DOJ Secretary Simeon Datumanong held:
Parenthetically the totality of evidence adduced by complainant would, in the fair
estimation of the Department, sufficiently establish all the elements of the offense of
adultery on the part of both respondents. Indeed, early on, respondent Moje conceded to
complainant that she was going out on dates with respondent Eala, and this she did
when complainant confronted her about Ealas frequent phone calls and text messages to
her. Complainant also personally witnessed Moje and Eala having a rendezvous on two
occasions. Respondent Eala never denied the fact that he knew Moje to be married
to complainant[.] In
fact,
he
(Eala)
himself
was
married
to
another
woman. Moreover, Mojes eventual abandonment of their conjugal home, after
complainant had once more confronted her about Eala, only served to confirm the illicit
relationship involving both respondents. This becomes all the more apparent
by Mojes subsequent relocation in No. 71-B, 11 th Street, New Manila, Quezon City, which
was a few blocks away from the church where she had exchange marital vows with
complainant.
It was in this place that the two lovers apparently cohabited. Especially
since Ealas vehicle and that of Mojes were always seen there. Moje herself admits that
she came to live in the said address whereas Eala asserts that that was where he held
office. The happenstance that it was in that said address that Eala and Moje had decided
to hold office for the firm that both had formed smacks too much of a coincidence. For
one, the said address appears to be a residential house, for that was where Moje stayed
all throughout after her separation from complainant. It was both respondents love nest,
to put short; their illicit affair that was carried out there bore fruit a few months later
when Moje gave birth to a girl at the nearby hospital of St. Lukes Medical Center. What
finally militates against the respondents is the indubitable fact that in the certificate of
birth of the girl, Moje furnished the information that Eala was the father. This speaks all
too eloquently of the unlawful and damning nature of the adulterous acts of
the respondents. Complainants supposed illegal procurement of the birth certificate is
most certainly beside the point for both respondents Eala and Moje have not
denied, in any categorical manner, that Eala is the father of the child
Samantha Irene Louise Moje.[45] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

It bears emphasis that adultery is a private offense which cannot be prosecuted de oficio and
thus leaves the DOJ no choice but to grant complainants motion to withdraw his petition for review. But
even if respondent and Irene were to be acquitted of adultery after trial, if the Information for adultery
were filed in court, the same would not have been a bar to the present administrative complaint.
Citing the ruling in Pangan v. Ramos,

[46]

viz:

x x x The acquittal of respondent Ramos [of] the criminal charge is not a bar to
these [administrative] proceedings. The standards of legal profession are not satisfied by
conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties of x x x criminal

law. Moreover, this Court, in disbarment proceedings is acting in an entirely different

capacity from that which courts assume in trying criminal case [47] (Italics in the original),

this Court in Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pools, Inc. v. Atty. Naldoza,[48] held:
Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are
distinct from and they may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Resolution No. XVII-2006-06 passed on January 28,
2006 by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
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.
Let a copy of this Decision, which is immediately executory, be made part of the records of
respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of thePhilippines. And let copies of the
Decision be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and circulated to all courts.
This Decision takes effect immediately.

SO ORDERED.