Scribd
Upload
35 views2 pages

Facts:: PATRICIA FIGUEROA v. SIMEON BARRANCO, SBC Case No. 519, 1997-07-31

Patricia Figueroa filed a petition in 1971 to prevent Simeon Barranco Jr. from being admitted to the legal profession after he passed the bar exam. She claimed they had a child out of wedlock and he did not fulfill promises to marry her. Over the years, Barranco filed multiple motions to dismiss which were denied. In 1988, the Court dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute and allowed Barranco to take the lawyer's oath. The Court found that having a consensual relationship and child out of wedlock did not constitute gross immorality and was ruling was intended to punish Barranco for choosing another woman over the complainant.

Uploaded by

ron dominic dagum
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
35 views2 pages

Facts:: PATRICIA FIGUEROA v. SIMEON BARRANCO, SBC Case No. 519, 1997-07-31

Patricia Figueroa filed a petition in 1971 to prevent Simeon Barranco Jr. from being admitted to the legal profession after he passed the bar exam. She claimed they had a child out of wedlock and he did not fulfill promises to marry her. Over the years, Barranco filed multiple motions to dismiss which were denied. In 1988, the Court dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute and allowed Barranco to take the lawyer's oath. The Court found that having a consensual relationship and child out of wedlock did not constitute gross immorality and was ruling was intended to punish Barranco for choosing another woman over the complainant.

Uploaded by

ron dominic dagum
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PATRICIA FIGUEROA v. SIMEON BARRANCO, SBC Case No.

519, 1997-07-31
Facts:
1971, Patricia Figueroa petitioned that respondent Simeon Barranco, Jr. be denied admission to the
legal profession. Respondent had passed the 1970 bar examinations on the fourth attempt, after
unsuccessful attempts in 1966,... 1967 and 1968. Before he could take his oath, however,
complainant filed the instant petition averring that respondent and she had been sweethearts, that
a child out of wedlock was born to them and that respondent did not fulfill his repeated promises to
marry her.
Upon complainant's 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 complainant's 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 respondent's 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.[2] Respondent's third motion to dismiss
was noted in the Court's Resolution dated September 15, 1982.[3] In 1988, respondent repeated his
request, citing his election as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Janiuay, Iloilo from 1980-
1986, his active participation in civic organizations and good standing in the community as well as
the length of time this case has... been pending as reasons to allow him to take his oath as a lawyer.
[4]
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
lawyer's oath upon payment of the required fees.[5]
Issues:
Respondent was prevented from taking the lawyer's 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.
Ruling:
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."[6] It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community.[7]
We find the ruling in Arciga v. Maniwang[8] quite relevant because mere intimacy between a man
and a woman, both of whom possess no impediment to marry, voluntarily carried on and devoid of
any deceit on the part of respondent, is neither so corrupt nor so... unprincipled as to warrant the
imposition of disciplinary sanction against him, even if as a result of such relationship a child was
born out of wedlock.[9]... espondent and complainant were sweethearts whose sexual relations
were evidently consensual. We do not find complainant's assertions that she had been forced into
sexual intercourse, credible. She continued to see and be respondent's girlfriend even after she had
given birth to... a son in 1964 and until 1971. All th... course, credible. She continued to see and be
respondent's girlfriend even after she had given birth to... a son in 1964 and until 1971. All those
years of amicable and intimate relations refute her allegations that she was forced to have sexual
congress with him. Complainant was then an adult who voluntarily and actively pursued their
relationship and was not an innocent young girl... who could be easily led astray. Unfortunately,
respondent chose to marry and settle permanently with another woman. We cannot castigate a
man for seeking out the partner of his dreams, for marriage is a sacred and perpetual bond which
should be entered into because of love, not... for any other reason.
We cannot help viewing the instant complaint as an act of revenge of a woman scorned, bitter and
unforgiving to the end. It is also intended to make respondent suffer severely and it seems,
perpetually, sacrificing the profession he worked very hard to be admitted into. Even... assuming
that his past indiscretions are ignoble, the twenty-six years that respondent has been prevented
from being a lawyer constitute sufficient punishment therefor. During this time there appears to be
no other indiscretion attributed to him.[10]
Respondent, who is now sixty-two years of age, should thus be allowed, albeit belatedly, to take the
lawyer's oath
HEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. Respondent Simeon Barranco, Jr. is ALLOWED
to take his oath as a lawyer upon payment of the proper fees.
SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. Respondent Simeon Barranco, Jr. is
ALLOWED to take his oath as a lawyer upon payment of the proper fees.
SO ORDERED.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy