Patricia FIGUEROA, Complainant, Barranco, JR., Respondent.: Resolution
Patricia FIGUEROA, Complainant, Barranco, JR., Respondent.: Resolution
Patricia FIGUEROA, Complainant, Barranco, JR., Respondent.: Resolution
SIMEON BARRANCO,
JR., respondent.
RESOLUTION
ROMERO, J.:
complainant alleged, that respondent first promised he would marry her after
he passes the bar examinations. Their relationship continued and respondent
allegedly made more than twenty or thirty promises of marriage. He gave
only P10.00 for the child on the latters birthdays. Her trust in him and their
relationship ended in 1971, when she learned that respondent married another
woman. Hence, this petition.
Upon complainants motion, the Court authorized the taking of testimonies
of witnesses by deposition in 1972. On February 18, 1974, respondent filed a
Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss the case citing complainants failure to
comment on the motion of Judge Cuello seeking to be relieved from the duty to
take aforesaid testimonies by deposition. Complainant filed her comment
stating that she had justifiable reasons in failing to file the earlier comment
required and that she remains interested in the resolution of the present
case. On June 18, 1974, the Court denied respondents motion to dismiss.
On October 2, 1980, the Court once again denied a motion to dismiss on
the ground of abandonment filed by respondent on September 17,
1979. Respondents third motion to dismiss was noted in the Courts Resolution
[2]
dated September 15, 1982. In 1988, respondent repeated his request, citing
[3]
On September 29, 1988, the Court resolved to dismiss the complaint for
failure of complainant to prosecute the case for an unreasonable period of time
and to allow Simeon Barranco, Jr. to take the lawyers oath upon payment of the
required fees.[5]
Respondents hopes were again dashed on November 17, 1988 when the
Court, in response to complainants opposition, resolved to cancel his scheduled
oath-taking. On June 1, 1993, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
The IBPs report dated May 17, 1997 recommended the dismissal of the
case and that respondent be allowed to take the lawyers oath.
We agree.
Respondent was prevented from taking the lawyers oath in 1971 because
of the charges of gross immorality made by complainant. To recapitulate,
respondent bore an illegitimate child with his sweetheart, Patricia Figueroa, who
also claims that he did not fulfill his promise to marry her after he passes the
bar examinations.
We find that these facts do not constitute gross immorality warranting the
permanent exclusion of respondent from the legal profession. His engaging in
premarital sexual relations with complainant and promises to marry suggests a
doubtful moral character on his part but the same does not constitute grossly
immoral conduct. The Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment
the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly
immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or
so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. It is a
[6]