Ecraela vs. Atty. Pangalangan

2/17/22, 4:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 769 Copy

A.C. No. 10676. September 8, 2015.*

ATTY. ROY B. ECRAELA, complainant, vs. ATTY. IAN
RAYMOND A. PANGALANGAN, respondent.
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Good Moral Character; Good moral

character is not only required for admission to the Bar, but must
also be retained in order to maintain one’s good standing in this
exclusive and honored fraternity.—The practice of law is a
privilege given to those who possess and continue to possess the
legal qualifications for the profession. Good moral character is not
only required for admission to the Bar, but must also be retained
in order to maintain one’s good standing in this exclusive and
honored fraternity. We are not unmindful of the serious
consequences of disbarment or suspension proceedings against a
member of the Bar. Thus, the Court has consistently held that
clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the
imposition of administrative penalties on a member of the Bar.
Same; Same; Same; Disbarment; The Supreme Court (SC)
has, in numerous occasions, revoked the licenses of lawyers who
were proven to have not only failed to retain good moral character
in their professional and personal lives, but have also made a
mockery of the institution of marriage by maintaining illicit
affairs.—This Court has, in numerous occasions, revoked the
licenses of lawyers who were proven to have not only failed to
retain good moral character in their professional and personal
lives, but have also made a mockery of the institution of marriage
by maintaining illicit affairs. In Guevarra v. Eala, 529 SCRA 1
(2007), respondent Atty. Eala was disbarred because he showed
disrespect for an institution held sacred by the law, by having an
extramarital affair with the wife of the complainant. In doing so,
he betrayed his unfitness to be a lawyer. A year later, Atty.
Arnobit met the same fate as Atty. Eala when the Court revoked
his privilege to practice law after his philandering ways was
proven by preponderant evidence in Arnobit v. Arnobit, 569 SCRA
247 (2008).
_______________
* EN BANC.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f06cbca2c12706c32000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/24

362
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ecraela vs. Pangalangan
Same; Same; Same; Aside from respondent’s illicit relations,

the Supreme Court (SC) agrees with Commissioner Villadolid’s
findings that respondent violated Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, as well as Rule 10.01 and Rule 10.03
thereof.—Respondent’s main defense against the alleged illicit
relations was that the same were not sufficiently established. In
his answer, respondent simply argued that complainant’s petition
contains self-serving averments not supported by evidence.
Respondent did not specifically deny complainant’s allegations
and, instead, questioned the admissibility of the supporting
documents. Due to respondent’s own failure to attend the
hearings and even submit his own position paper, the existence of
respondent’s illicit relations with DDD and CCC remain
uncontroverted. The IBP-CBD Report was correct when it found
that respondent violated Article XV, Section 2 of the 1987
Constitution, to wit: 4.21 In engaging in such illicit relationships,
Respondent disregarded the sanctity of marriage and the marital
vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws,
which as a lawyer he swore under oath to protect. The 1987
Constitution, specifically Article XV, Section 2 thereof clearly
provides that marriage, an inviolable social institution, is
the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the
State. (emphasis in the original) Aside from respondent’s illicit
relations, We agree with Commissioner Villadolid’s findings that
respondent violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, as well as Rule 10.01 and Rule 10.03 thereof.
Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) also agrees with
Commissioner Villadolid’s finding that respondent violated the
lawyer’s oath which he took before admission to the Bar.—We also
agree with Commissioner Villadolid’s finding that respondent
violated the lawyer’s oath which he took before admission to the
Bar, which states: I, ___________, do solemnly swear that I will
maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will
support its Constitution and obey 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 court; I will not wittingly nor
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or
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 to the

courts as to my clients; and I

363
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 363

impose upon myself this voluntary obligations without any

mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
Same; Same; Same; Atty. Pangalangan displayed deplorable
arrogance by making a mockery out of the institution of marriage,
and taking advantage of his legal skills by attacking the Petition
through technicalities and refusing to participate in the
proceedings.—In all, Atty. Pangalangan displayed deplorable
arrogance by making a mockery out of the institution of marriage,
and taking advantage of his legal skills by attacking the Petition
through technicalities and refusing to participate in the
proceedings. His actions showed that he lacked the degree of
morality required of him as a member of the bar, thus warranting
the penalty of disbarment.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

The Case

Before the Court is a Petition for Disbarment1 filed by
Atty. Roy B. Ecraela with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) on
April 12, 2007 against Atty. Ian Raymond A. Pangalangan
for his illicit relations, chronic womanizing, abuse of
authority as an educator, and “other unscrupulous
activities” which cause “undue embarrassment to the legal
profession.” Complainant claims that respondent’s actions
involve deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and grossly
immoral conduct in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath.
1 Rollo, pp. 2-47.

364

The Facts

Complainant and respondent were best friends and both
graduated from the University of the Philippines (UP)
College of Law in 1990, where they were part of a peer
group or barkada with several of their classmates. After
passing the bar examinations and being admitted as
members of the Bar in 1991, they were both registered with
the IBP Quezon City.
Respondent was formerly married to Sheila P. Jardiolin
(Jardiolin) with whom he has three (3) children.
Complainant avers that while married to Jardiolin,
respondent had a series of adulterous and illicit relations
with married and unmarried women between the years
1990 to 2007. These alleged illicit relations involved:
a. AAA,2 who is the spouse of a colleague in the UP
College of Law, from 1990 to 1992, which
complainant had personal knowledge of such
illicit relations;
b. BBB, sometime during the period from 1992 to
1994 or from 1994 to 1996, despite being already
married to Jardiolin;
c. CCC, despite being married to Jardiolin and
while also being romantically involved with
DDD;
d. DDD, sometime during the period from 2000 to
2002, despite still being married to Jardiolin and
while still being romantically involved with
CCC;
e. EEE, who is related to complainant, sometime
during the period from May 2004 until the filing
of the Petition, while still being romantically
involved with CCC.3
_______________
2 The real names of the women are withheld and replaced instead with
fictitious initials to represent them. Likewise, their personal
circumstances or any other information tending to establish or
compromise their identities remain undisclosed. (See People v.
Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419)
3 Rollo, pp. 413-414.

365
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 365

Complainant claims that respondent, with malice and

without remorse, deceived CCC and DDD by representing
himself to be a bachelor, thereby convincing the two women
to start a love affair with him, when in truth, he was then
still married to Jardiolin.4
Aside from these illicit affairs, complainant avers that
sometime during the period of 1998 to 2000, respondent, as
a lawyer of the Office of the Government Corporate
Counsel (OGCC), represented the interest of Manila
International Airport Authority (MIAA) in cancellation
proceedings filed by MIAA against Kendrick Development
Corporation (KDC). However, despite being a public officer
and a government counsel, respondent conspired with Atty.
Abraham Espejo, legal counsel of KDC, and assisted KDC
in its case, thereby sabotaging MIAA’s case, and, in effect,
that of the Philippine Government.5
Complainant further claims that respondent even
attempted to bribe then Solicitor Rolando Martin of the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in exchange for the
latter’s cooperation in the dismissal of the cancellation
proceedings in favor of KDC. In return for his “earnest
efforts” in assisting KDC in its case, respondent was
allegedly rewarded with a Toyota Corolla XL with plate
number ULS 835 by Atty. Espejo. The vehicle was seen
several times by respondent’s classmates and officemates
being driven and parked by respondent in his own home
and in the OGCC premises itself.6
In connection with his involvement in the MIAA case,
complainant claims that respondent was summoned in a
Senate inquiry concerning rampant faking of land titles in
the Philippines, which included an investigation of the
alleged spurious land titles of KDC. In Senate Committee
Final Report No. 367, the Senate Blue Ribbon and Justice
& Human Rights
_______________
4 Id., at p. 414.
5 Id., at pp. 414-415.

6 Id., at p. 415.

366

Committees recommended that respondent be

investigated and prosecuted by the Office of the
Ombudsman (Ombudsman) for graft and corruption, as
well as disbarment or disciplinary sanction by this Court
for grave misconduct or violation of the Revised Penal
Code.7
It was further alleged that, during the pendency of the
Senate Inquiry, respondent even attempted to conceal the
evidence by requesting complainant’s parents, spouses
Marcelo F. Ecraela and Visitacion B. Ecraela, to have the
Toyota Corolla XL parked in their residence in Cainta,
Rizal, for an indefinite period of time. Respondent’s
request, however, was refused by the spouses when they
learned that the vehicle was the subject of the Senate
Inquiry.8
It appears from the documents presented by
complainant that the Ombudsman issued a Resolution
finding probable cause against respondent, and an
Information was thereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan
for violation of Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019.9
Complainant also claims that respondent abused his
authority as an educator in Manuel L. Quezon University,
San Sebastian College, College of St. Benilde, and
Maryknoll College, where respondent induced his male
students to engage in “nocturnal preoccupations” and
entertained the romantic gestures of his female students in
exchange for passing grades.10
The Petition was docketed as CBD Case No. 07-1973.
In an Order11 dated April 16, 2007, the Director for Bar
Discipline, Honorable Rogelio A. Vinluan, required
respondent to file his verified answer.
_______________
7 Id.
8 Id., at p. 416.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id., at p. 48.

367
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 367

In his undated Answer,12 respondent opted not to

present any counter-statement of facts in support of his
defense. Instead, respondent simply argued that the
petition suffers from procedural and substantive
infirmities, claiming that petitioner failed to substantiate
the allegations or charges against him. Respondent pointed
out that Annex “J” of the Petition entitled “Arguments in
Support of the Disbarment” lacked formal requirements,
and thus, should be treated as a mere scrap of paper.
Respondent also asserts that the e-mail messages attached
to the petition were inadmissible for having been obtained
in violation of the Rules on Electronic Evidence.13 He
claims that the identities of the owners of the
e-mail messages, as well as the allegations
of illicit
relations and abuse of authority, were not properly
established. Respondent further argues that the
statements of complainant’s witnesses were merely self-
serving and deserved scant consideration.
Complainant filed a Comment (to the Respondent’s
Answer),14 stating that the allegations in the complaint
were deemed admitted by reason of respondent’s failure to
make specific or even general denials of such in his
Answer.
In his Reply (to the Comment filed by Complainant),15
respondent simply denied all of complainant’s accusations
in the petition, allegedly for “lack of knowledge and
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
falsity thereof.”16
On August 3, 2007, IBP-CBD Investigating
Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. (Commissioner
Villadolid) set the case for mandatory conference on August
28, 2007,17 which respondent failed to attend. It appears
that respondent filed a
_______________
12 Id., at pp. 52-60.
13 A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, promulgated on July 17, 2001.

14 Rollo, pp. 61-74.
15 Id., at pp. 77-82.
16 Id., at p. 79.
17 Id., at p. 83.

368

Motion to Cancel Hearing,18 praying for the resetting of the

mandatory conference allegedly due to a previously
scheduled hearing on the same date. Respondent’s motion
was opposed by complainant and eventually denied by
Commissioner Villadolid in his Order19 dated August 28,
2007. In the same order, complainant’s Manifestation20
praying that subpoenas be issued to several persons who
shall be complainant’s hostile witnesses was granted by
Commissioner Villadolid. Accordingly, the case was
scheduled for the presentation of complainant’s witnesses
on September 11, 2007 and the respective subpoenas21
were issued.
A day before the scheduled hearing, the IBP-CBD
received respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration,22
praying that the Order dated August 28, 2007 be set aside
and that the hearing be reset to sometime during the third
week of October. In said motion, respondent informed the
IBP-CBD that he has viral conjunctivitis or more
commonly known as “sore eyes” and has been ordered by
the doctor to rest for at least one to two weeks while his
eyes are being treated. Attached to his motion were
photocopies of two medical certificates, stating that a
certain R. Pangalangan was suffering from sore eyes.
During the scheduled hearing on September 11, 2007,
complainant opposed petitioner’s motion, arguing that
based on his personal verification with the court personnel
of Branch 77 of Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of
Parañaque City, there was no case calendared for hearing
on the date of the previous setting. Complainant also
argued that this is another ploy of respondent to delay the
proceedings because he knew that complainant worked
overseas and was only in the country for a limited period of
time. Finding merit in com-
_______________
18 Id., at p. 98.
19 Id., at pp. 101-102.
20 Id., at pp. 84-96.
21 Id., at pp. 103-110.
22 Id., at pp. 111-117.

369
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 369

plainant’s opposition, respondent’s motion was denied and

complainant was allowed to present his witnesses.23
Complainant presented his witnesses, as follows:
Assistant Solicitor General Karl Miranda (ASG Miranda),
Ms. Laarni Morallos (Ms. Morallos), Atty. Glenda T. Litong
(Atty. Litong), Atty. Emelyn W. Corpus (Atty. Corpus), Mr.
Marcelo Ecraela, and Mrs. Visitacion Ecraela.
ASG Miranda testified on his participation in the KDC
case as reflected in the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
Report, as well as on his recollection that the Senate
Report had recommended the disbarment of respondent.
Ms. Morallos, Atty. Litong, and Atty. Corpus were
presented to establish that the e-mail messages submitted
by complainant indeed originated from respondent based
on their familiarity with respondent, particularly, the e-
mail messages which contained references to his daughter,
his relationship with complainant, and respondent’s high
blood pressure.
Atty. Litong further testified that respondent personally
introduced DDD to her as his girlfriend and that sometime
in 2002 or 2003, she saw respondent with another girl in
Glorietta despite still being married to his wife. Atty.
Litong also recalled encountering respondent at a party
sometime in 2007 where he was with CCC, whom she
perceived to be respondent’s girlfriend at that time. She
also confirmed that respondent had, in more than one
occasion, brought with him his students during their
drinking sessions and had even one student driving for
him.
For her testimony, Atty. Corpus corroborated Atty.
Litong’s statements about respondent’s preoccupations
with his students. Atty. Corpus also testified that DDD
called her at her office sometime in 2000 or 2001 to inform

her that the latter had broken up with respondent upon
learning that he was
_______________
23 Id., at pp. 119-120.

370

actually married. Atty. Corpus surmised based on her

telephone conversation with DDD that respondent did not
tell the latter his actual marital status. Aside from this,
Atty. Corpus also recalled that during complainant’s
farewell party in February 2007, respondent introduced
CCC as his girlfriend of six years, or since the year 2000 or
2001.
To expedite the hearing, the spouses Ecraela were made
to affirm the execution of their affidavits since their
testimonies were based on the affidavits that complainant
included in his petition.
Once complainant’s presentation of witnesses was
concluded, the mandatory conference/hearing was
terminated and the parties were directed to submit their
respective verified position papers with supporting
documentary evidence within thirty (30) days from receipt
of the transcript of stenographic notes. After which, the
case was considered submitted for report and
recommendation.
On September 18, 2007, the IBP-CBD received
complainant’s Manifestation (with Comments),24
pertaining to respondent’s Motion to Cancel Hearing and
praying for the IBP-CBD to formally request for records
from Branch 77 of MTC, Parañaque City to verify
respondent’s claim that he had a hearing in said court
during the first scheduled mandatory conference. On the
same date, the IBP-CBD also received complainant’s
Compliance (with Comments),25 submitting the certified
photo copies of the Senate Committee Final Report No. 367,
the Resolution dated January 22, 2001 of the Ombudsman,
and the Information dated June 30, 2003 filed with the
Sandiganbayan.
On January 8, 2008, the IBP-CBD received

complainant’s Position Paper.26 Complainant thereafter
filed two Manifesta-
_______________
24 Id., at pp. 121-122.

25 Id., at pp. 123-137.
26 Id., at pp. 156-308.

371
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 371

tions,27 asserting that respondent is already barred from

submitting his verified position paper and that any
decision or judgment would have to be based solely on
complainant’s Verified Position Paper.28

Findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner

After the case was submitted for report and
recommendation, Commissioner Villadolid rendered a
Report,29 finding that there is more than sufficient
evidence establishing respondent’s gross misconduct
affecting his standing and moral character as an officer of
the court and member of the bar.
On the issue of respondent’s alleged violations of the
Revised Penal Code30 and/or RA 301931 as reflected in the
Senate Report, the Ombudsman’s Resolution, and the
Information, Commissioner Villadolid found that despite
respondent’s denials, complainant was able to present
certified true copies of the relevant documents which
support his allegations in the petition.
As for the alleged illicit affairs of respondent,
Commissioner Villadolid discredited complainant’s
assertion that respondent is guilty of gross immoral
conduct for his alleged adulterous relations with EEE.
Based on the Report, complainant was not able to
discharge the burden of proving the authenticity of the e-
mail messages pertaining to this adulterous affair; thus,
they were deemed inadmissible. However, Commissioner
Villadolid found merit in complainant’s claim that
respondent committed grossly immoral conduct by having
illicit relations with DDD, CCC, and BBB, all while still
married to Jardiolin, to wit:
_______________
27 Id., at pp. 309-314.

28 Id., at p. 412.
29 Id., at pp. 408-430.
30 Act No. 3815, An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal
Laws.
31 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

372

4.21 In engaging in such illicit relationships, Respondent

disregarded the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows
protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws, which as
a lawyer he swore under oath to protect. The 1987 Constitution,
specifically Article XV, Section 2 thereof clearly provides that
marriage, an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the
family and shall be protected by the state.
x x x x
4.23 Moreover, Respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1,
and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides that “a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct” nor shall a
lawyer “engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave
in scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.”32

Accordingly, the IBP-CBD reached and gave the
following conclusion and recommendation:
V. Conclusion/Recommendations
5.1 In view of the foregoing, and considering that there
is more than sufficient evidence establishing Respondent’s
gross misconduct affecting his standing and moral character
as an officer of the court and member of the bar, this
Commissioner respectfully recommends that Respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2)
years with a STERN WARNING that Respondent should
reform his conduct in a manner consistent with the norms

prescribed by the Canons of Professional Responsibility.33
_______________
32 Id., at pp. 428-429.

33 Id., at pp. 429-430.

373
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 373

Findings of the IBP Board of Governors

On March 20, 2013, the Board of Governors of the IBP
issued a Resolution34 adopting and approving, with
modification, the Report and Recommendation of
Commissioner Villadolid. As modified, the Board of
Governors disbarred respondent, thus:
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2013-280

CBD Case No. 07-1973
Atty. Roy B. Ecraela vs.
Atty. Ian Raymundo A. Pangalangan

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby
unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification,
the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner in the above entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution as Annex “A,” and finding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and
rules and considering Respondent’s violations of Article XV of the
1987 Constitution, Section 2, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 7.03
of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the
Lawyer’s Oath, Atty. Ian Raymundo A. Pangalangan is hereby
DISBARRED and his name Ordered Stricken Off from the Roll
of Attorneys.

On July 9, 2013, the IBP received respondent’s Motion
for Reconsideration35 dated July 3, 2013, to which
complainant was required to submit his comment.36
For his part, complainant filed a Motion for
Reconsideration (of the IBP-CBD Report dated June 28,
2012)37 dated August 17, 2013. Similarly, respondent was

required to com-
_______________
34 Id., at p. 407.
35 Id., at pp. 431-445.
36 Id., at p. 464.
37 Id., at pp. 446-463.

374

ment on complainant’s motion in an Order38 dated August

27, 2013. On the same date, complainant filed his
Comment and/or Opposition (to the Respondent’s Motion
for Reconsideration).39
Subsequently, respondent filed a Comment
on/Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration with
Leave40 dated September 12, 2013, as well as a Reply to the
Comment and/or Opposition41 dated September 20, 2013.
On May 3, 2014, the Board of Governors of the IBP
passed a resolution denying respondent’s motion for
reconsideration.42 Thereafter, the Director for Bar
Discipline forwarded the records of this case to this Court
on November 11, 2014.43

The Issue

The issue in this case is whether the respondent
committed gross immoral conduct, which would warrant
his disbarment.

The Court’s Ruling

After a thorough examination of the records, the Court
agrees with the Board of Governors’ resolution finding that
Atty. Pangalangan’s grossly immoral conduct was fully
supported by the evidences offered.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE

CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL

PROCESSES.
_______________
38 Id., at p. 465.
39 Id., at pp. 466-503.
40 Id., at pp. 504-509.
41 Id., at pp. 515-522.
42 Id., at pp. 535-536.
43 Id., at p. 534.

375
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 375

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,

immoral or deceitful conduct.
x x x x
CANON 7 – A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD
THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR.
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.

The practice of law is a privilege given to those who
possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for
the profession.44 Good moral character is not only required
for admission to the Bar, but must also be retained in order
to maintain one’s good standing in this exclusive and
honored fraternity.45
We are not unmindful of the serious consequences of
disbarment or suspension proceedings against a member of
the Bar. Thus, the Court has consistently held that clearly
preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the
imposition of administrative penalties on a member of the
Bar. This, We explained in Aba v. De Guzman, Jr.:
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by

one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that
of the other. It means evidence which is more convincing to the

court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition
thereto. Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or
not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may con-
_______________
44 Tumbokon v. Pefianco, A.C. No. 6116, August 1, 2012, 678 SCRA

60, 64.
45 Arnobit v. Arnobit, A.C. No. 1481, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 247,
252.

376

sider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case;
(b) the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their
means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are
testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the
probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses’
interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so
far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the
number of witnesses, although it does not mean that
preponderance is necessarily with the greater number.
When the evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or there
is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the decision
should be against the party with the burden of proof, according to
the equipoise doctrine.
To summarize, the Court has consistently held that in
suspension or disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer
enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests
upon the complainant to prove the allegations in his complaint.
The evidence required in suspension or disbarment proceedings is
preponderance of evidence. In case the evidence of the parties are
equally balanced, the equipoise doctrine mandates a decision in
favor of the respondent.46

The IBP-CBD Report sufficiently showed by
preponderant evidence the grounds by which respondent
has been found committing gross immorality in the conduct
of his personal affairs.
This Court has, in numerous occasions, revoked the

licenses of lawyers who were proven to have not only failed
to retain good moral character in their professional and
personal lives, but have also made a mockery of the
institution of marriage by maintaining illicit affairs.
In Guevarra v. Eala, respondent Atty. Eala was
disbarred because he showed disrespect for an institution
held sacred by the law, by having an extramarital affair
with the wife of the
_______________
46 A.C. No. 7649, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 361, 372-373.

377
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 377

complainant. In doing so, he betrayed his unfitness to be a

lawyer.47
A year later, Atty. Arnobit met the same fate as Atty.
Eala when the Court revoked his privilege to practice law
after his philandering ways was proven by preponderant
evidence in Arnobit v. Arnobit.48 We ruled:
As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good

moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral
character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral
standards of the community. A member of the bar and an officer
of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous
relationships or keeping a mistress but must also so behave
himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the
impression that he is flouting those moral standards.
x x x x
The fact that respondent’s philandering ways are far removed
from the exercise of his profession would not save the day for him.
For a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct
which, albeit unrelated to the actual practice of his profession,
would show him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the
privileges with which his license and the law invest him. To
borrow from Orbe v. Adaza, “[t]he grounds expressed in Section
27, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court are not limitative and are
broad enough to cover any misconduct x x x of a lawyer in his
professional or private capacity.” To reiterate, possession of good
moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of

law, but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar.49
_______________
47 A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007, 529 SCRA 1, 19.

48 Supra note 45.
49 Id., at pp. 252-253.

378

Similarly, in the more recent case of Dr. Elmar O. Perez

v. Atty. Tristan Catindig,50 the Court disbarred respondent
Atty. Catindig for blatantly and purposefully disregarding
our laws on marriage by resorting to various legal
strategies to render a façade of validity to his invalid
second marriage, despite the existence of his first marriage.
We said:
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 of marriage.’ In various cases, the Court has held
that disbarment is warranted when a lawyer abandons his
lawful wife and maintains an illicit relationship with
another woman who has borne him a child.51 (emphasis
ours)

In the present case, complainant alleged that
respondent carried on several adulterous and illicit
relations with both married and unmarried women
between the years 1990 to 2007, including complainant’s
own wife. Through documentary evidences in the form of e-
mail messages, as well as the corroborating testimonies of
the witnesses presented, complainant was able to establish
respondent’s illicit relations with DDD and CCC by
preponderant evidence.
Respondent’s main defense against the alleged illicit
relations was that the same were not sufficiently
established. In his answer, respondent simply argued that
complainant’s petition contains self-serving averments not
supported by evidence. Respondent did not specifically

deny complainant’s allegations and, instead, questioned the
admissibility of the supporting documents. Due to
respondent’s own failure to attend the hearings and even
submit his own position paper,
_______________
50 A.C. No. 5816, March 10, 2015, 752 SCRA 185.

51 Id.

379
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 379

the existence of respondent’s illicit relations with DDD and

CCC remain uncontroverted.
The IBP-CBD Report was correct when it found that
respondent violated Article XV, Section 2 of the 1987
Constitution, to wit:
4.21 In engaging in such illicit relationships, Respondent

disregarded the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows
protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws, which as
a lawyer he swore under oath to protect. The 1987 Constitution,
specifically Article XV, Section 2 thereof clearly provides that
marriage, an inviolable social institution, is the foundation
of the family and shall be protected by the State.52
(emphasis in the original)

Aside from respondent’s illicit relations, We agree with
Commissioner Villadolid’s findings that respondent
violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, as well as Rule 10.01 and Rule 10.03
thereof.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS

AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead,
or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
x x x x
Rule 10.03 – A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure

and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

In the Petition, complainant alleged that respondent
was the subject of a Senate Inquiry and had a pending case
for
_______________
52 Id., at p. 428.

380

graft and corruption against him with the Sandiganbayan,

to wit:
13. Respondent has been recommended by the Senate

Blue Ribbon and Justice & Human Rights Committees to be
investigated and prosecuted by the Ombudsman, the same
as contained in their “Committee Final Report No. 367”
herein attached as Annex D;
14. Respondent has also been recommended by the
above mentioned committees to suffer the penalty of
disbarment, among others, as evidenced by the herein
attached Annex D-1, and it is believed that a case for graft
and corruption against him is still pending with the
Sandiganbayan.53

Instead of refuting these claims, respondent merely
pointed out in his Answer that complainant failed to
adduce additional evidence that a case had been filed
against him, and that complainant’s statements were
merely self-serving averments not substantiated by any
evidence. In his Reply, respondent even specifically denied
complainant’s averments for “lack of knowledge and
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
falsity thereof.”
We agree with Commissioner Villadolid’s findings in the
IBP-CBD Report, viz.:
4.8 It (sic) is thus indisputable that Respondent’s pretensions

in his Answer were made in attempt to mislead this Commission.
Respondent could have easily admitted or denied said allegations
or explained the same, as he (sic) clearly had knowledge thereof,
however, he (sic) chose to take advantage of Complainant’s
position of being not present in the country and not being able to
acquire the necessary documents, skirt the issue, and mislead the
Commission. In doing so, he has violated Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which pro-
_______________
53 Supra note 1 at p. 2.

381
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 381

vides that “a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to

the court” as well as Rule 10.01 and Rule 10.03 thereof which
states that “a lawyer should do no falsehood nor consent to
the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow
the court to be misled by any artifice” and that “a lawyer
shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse
them to defeat the ends of justice.”
4.9 Courts [as well as this Commission] are entitled to expect
only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing
and pleading before them. Respondent, through his actuations,
has been lacking in the candor required of him not only as a
member of the Bar but also as an officer of the Court. In view of
the foregoing, the Commission finds that Respondent has violated
Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
for which he should be disciplined.54 (emphasis in the original)

In denying complainant’s allegations, respondent had no
other intention but to mislead the IBP, which intention was
more so established because complainant was able to
submit supporting documents in the form of certified true
copies of the Senate Report, the Ombudsman’s Resolution,
and Information.
We also agree with Commissioner Villadolid’s finding
that respondent violated the lawyer’s oath which he took
before admission to the Bar, which states:

I, ___________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey 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 court; I will not wittingly
nor willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or
give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice,
and will conduct
_______________
54 Id., at pp. 422-423.

382

myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion

with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose
upon myself this voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion. So help me God.

In all, Atty. Pangalangan displayed deplorable
arrogance by making a mockery out of the institution of
marriage, and taking advantage of his legal skills by
attacking the Petition through technicalities and refusing
to participate in the proceedings. His actions showed that
he lacked the degree of morality required of him as a
member of the bar, thus warranting the penalty of
disbarment.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the
Court resolves to ADOPT the resolution of the IBP Board
of Governors approving and adopting, with modification,
the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner. Accordingly, respondent Atty. Ian Raymond
A. Pangalangan is found GUILTY of gross immorality and
of violating Section 2 of Article XV of the 1987
Constitution, Canon 1 and Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule
7.03, and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyer’s Oath and is
hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.
Let a copy of this Decision be entered into the personal
records of Atty. Ian Raymond A. Pangalangan with the
Office of the Bar Confidant and his name is ORDERED

STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Likewise, let
copies of this Decision be furnished to all chapters of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and circulated by the
Court Administrator to all the courts in the country for
their information and guidance.
This Decision takes effect immediately.
SO ORDERED.

383
VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 383

Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro,

Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr.,
Perez, Mendoza, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen and Jardeleza,
JJ., concur.
Reyes, J., On Leave.
Respondent Atty. Ian Raymond A. Pangalangan

disbarred from the practice of law for gross immorality and
of violating Section 2 of Article XV of 1987 Constitution,
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03, and Rule
10.01 of Canon 10 of Code of Professional Responsibility
and Lawyer’s Oath.
Notes.—The possession of good moral character is both

a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to
warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership in
the legal profession; Any errant behavior on the part of a
lawyer, be it in the lawyer’s public or private activities,
which tends to show deficiency in moral character, honesty,
probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant
suspension or disbarment. (Abella vs. Barrios, Jr., 698
SCRA 683 [2013])
Good moral character is not only a condition precedent
relating to his admission into the practice of law, but is a
continuing imposition in order for him to maintain his
membership in the Philippine Bar. (Ong vs. Delos Santos,
717 SCRA 663 [2014])

——o0o——
© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ecraela vs. Atty. Pangalangan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecraela vs. Atty. Pangalangan

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Ecraela vs. Atty. Pangalangan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/17/22, 4:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 769 Copy

A.C. No. 10676. September 8, 2015.*

Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Good Moral Character; Good moral

362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Same; Same; Same; Aside from respondent’s illicit relations,

of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the

VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 363

impose upon myself this voluntary obligations without any

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

1 Rollo, pp. 2-47.

364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

3 Rollo, pp. 413-414.

VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 365

Complainant claims that respondent, with malice and

5 Id., at pp. 414-415.

366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Committees recommended that respondent be

VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 367

In his undated Answer,12 respondent opted not to

12 Id., at pp. 52-60.

13 A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, promulgated on July 17, 2001.

368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Motion to Cancel Hearing,18 praying for the resetting of the

VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 369

plainant’s opposition, respondent’s motion was denied and

called her at her office sometime in 2000 or 2001 to inform

23 Id., at pp. 119-120.

370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

actually married. Atty. Corpus surmised based on her

On January 8, 2008, the IBP-CBD received

24 Id., at pp. 121-122.

VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 371

tions,27 asserting that respondent is already barred from

27 Id., at pp. 309-314.

372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

4.21 In engaging in such illicit relationships, Respondent

reform his conduct in a manner consistent with the norms

32 Id., at pp. 428-429.

VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 373

Findings of the IBP Board of Governors

RESOLUTION NO. XX-2013-280

Atty. Roy B. Ecraela vs.

Atty. Ian Raymundo A. Pangalangan

2012)37 dated August 17, 2013. Similarly, respondent was

374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ment on complainant’s motion in an Order38 dated August

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE

AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL

VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 375

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,

Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by

of the other. It means evidence which is more convincing to the

44 Tumbokon v. Pefianco, A.C. No. 6116, August 1, 2012, 678 SCRA

376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

This Court has, in numerous occasions, revoked the

VOL. 769, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 377

complainant. In doing so, he betrayed his unfitness to be a

As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good

moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of