The Supreme Court affirmed the disbarment of Atty. Bernie E. Panagsagan for gross immorality, specifically for engaging in an adulterous relationship, fathering children out of wedlock, and abandoning his legitimate family. This decision reinforces the high moral standards required of lawyers, emphasizing that their private conduct reflects on the integrity of the legal profession. The court underscored that maintaining an illicit affair and neglecting familial duties constitute a severe breach of ethical obligations, warranting the ultimate penalty of removal from the Bar.

When Lawyering Leads to Love Affairs: Can Professional Ethics Survive?

This case arose from a complaint filed by Daisy D. Panagsagan against her husband, Atty. Bernie E. Panagsagan, accusing him of immorality, infidelity, and abandonment. The core issue revolves around whether Atty. Panagsagan’s actions render him unfit to continue practicing law. The complainant detailed that after a strong start, their marriage faltered when Atty. Panagsagan began an affair with a colleague, Corazon Igtos, with whom he had two children. The affair became public, exacerbated by online displays of affection. Subsequently, Atty. Panagsagan left the conjugal home, eventually confessing his love for his mistress and prompting the complainant to consider a petition for nullity of marriage, which she ultimately declined. Furthermore, the complainant alleged physical abuse and complete abandonment, including cessation of financial support for their child.

In response, Atty. Panagsagan claimed it was the complainant who left the conjugal home, citing her alleged suicidal tendencies, violent outbursts, and infidelity. He admitted to fathering Igtos’s children but denied any extra-marital affair. He accused his wife of having an affair with another man and argued that he later converted to Islam and remarried. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended a two-year suspension, but upon reconsideration, recommended disbarment. The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) also recommended disbarment, supporting the complainant’s allegations of immorality. The Supreme Court aligned with the OBC’s findings, underscoring the serious breach of ethical standards committed by Atty. Panagsagan.

The Code of Professional Responsibility sets forth the ethical guidelines that all lawyers must adhere to, both in their professional and personal lives. Specifically, Rule 1.01 states: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Similarly, Rule 7.03 provides: “A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.” These rules form the bedrock of ethical conduct expected of lawyers in the Philippines.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that for an attorney to face disbarment for immorality, the conduct must be grossly immoral. Grossly immoral conduct is defined as behavior that is so corrupt that it constitutes a criminal act, or so unprincipled that it is reprehensible to a high degree, or committed under scandalous circumstances that shock the common sense of decency. The court emphasized the gravity of Atty. Panagsagan’s actions, citing that a married attorney abandoning his spouse to cohabit with another woman constitutes gross immorality, amounting to criminal concubinage or adultery. In this case, the evidence presented by the complainant clearly demonstrated that Atty. Panagsagan engaged in such conduct.

The Court scrutinized Atty. Panagsagan’s defense, particularly his claim of converting to Islam. The court found his conversion suspect, noting the timing of the registration of his certificate of conversion relative to the filing of the complaint. Moreover, the court highlighted that the birth certificates of his children with Igtos indicated his religion as “Catholic” and the marital status as “Not Married.” These inconsistencies undermined his claim and suggested an attempt to legitimize his affair after the fact. The Court highlighted that:

From the foregoing, it is crystal clear that respondent attempts to hide his infidelity and gross immoral conduct behind a flimsy claim of having converted to Islam. Assuming for the sake of argument that he indeed converted to Islam, he could have only done so after the birth of his second child with Igtos which indicates that he did so as a way to legitimize his illicit affair with Corazon Igtos. Either way, his act is reprehensible and cannot be tolerated in a lawyer.

In similar cases, the Supreme Court has consistently imposed severe penalties on lawyers found to have engaged in extramarital affairs and abandonment. In Ceniza v. Ceniza and Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, the Court imposed disbarment for similar misconduct. Likewise, in Guevarra v. Eala, the respondent attorney was disbarred for engaging in an affair with a married woman. The court emphasized that:

Every lawyer is expected to be honorable and reliable at all times. This must be so, because any lawyer who cannot abide by the laws in his private life cannot be expected to do so in his professional dealings.

This consistent stance underscores the Court’s commitment to upholding the integrity of the legal profession. These cases underscore the principle that a lawyer’s personal conduct is inextricably linked to their professional responsibilities. By failing to uphold the moral standards required of him, Atty. Panagsagan violated the fundamental canons of ethics expected of members of the legal profession. His actions demonstrated a lack of respect for the institution of marriage, the welfare of his family, and the ethical obligations of his profession. Accordingly, the Supreme Court deemed it necessary to impose the extreme penalty of disbarment.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Panagsagan’s adulterous relationship, abandonment of his family, and alleged conversion to Islam constituted gross immorality warranting his disbarment.
What is considered “grossly immoral conduct” for a lawyer?	Grossly immoral conduct is behavior that is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or committed under scandalous or revolting circumstances that shock the common sense of decency.
What evidence did the complainant present against Atty. Panagsagan?	The complainant presented birth certificates of Atty. Panagsagan’s children with his mistress, his signed admission of paternity, and photographs from social media depicting their romantic relationship.
What was Atty. Panagsagan’s defense?	Atty. Panagsagan claimed that his wife had been unfaithful and had suicidal tendencies, and he also alleged that he converted to Islam, which permitted him to take another wife.
How did the Court view Atty. Panagsagan’s conversion to Islam?	The Court viewed his conversion with skepticism, noting the timing of its registration and inconsistencies in his statements regarding his religion and marital status.
What ethical rules did Atty. Panagsagan violate?	Atty. Panagsagan violated Rule 1.01, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in immoral conduct, and Rule 7.03, which prohibits conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law.
Has the Supreme Court disbarred other lawyers for similar conduct?	Yes, the Supreme Court has consistently disbarred lawyers who engaged in extramarital affairs and abandoned their families, as seen in cases like Ceniza v. Ceniza and Guevarra v. Eala.
What is the significance of this decision for the legal profession?	This decision reinforces the high moral standards expected of lawyers and underscores that their personal conduct reflects on the integrity of the legal profession.

This case serves as a potent reminder that lawyers must adhere to the highest standards of morality, both in their professional and personal lives. Any deviation can have severe consequences, including disbarment. By upholding these ethical standards, the legal profession can maintain its integrity and public trust.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: DAISY D. PANAGSAGAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. BERNIE E. PANAGSAGAN, RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 7733, October 01, 2019