Scribd
Upload
187 views2 pages

Disbarment Abaigar V. Paz: Topic Author Case Title GR No Tickler Date Doctrine

This case involves a complaint filed against respondent attorney Paz seeking his disbarment on grounds of deceit and immoral conduct. The complainant alleged that Paz deceived her into believing they could legally marry, when he was still married. However, the Court found that the complainant failed to prove deceit, noting she was intelligent and aware a second marriage was illegal. The Court also found the evidence failed to establish cause for disciplinary action. It exercised caution in disbarment due to its serious consequences, and required convincing proof to be established, which was lacking. The Court dismissed the complaint.

Uploaded by

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

Disbarment Abaigar V. Paz: Topic Author Case Title GR No Tickler Date Doctrine

This case involves a complaint filed against respondent attorney Paz seeking his disbarment on grounds of deceit and immoral conduct. The complainant alleged that Paz deceived her into believing they could legally marry, when he was still married. However, the Court found that the complainant failed to prove deceit, noting she was intelligent and aware a second marriage was illegal. The Court also found the evidence failed to establish cause for disciplinary action. It exercised caution in disbarment due to its serious consequences, and required convincing proof to be established, which was lacking. The Court dismissed the complaint.

Uploaded by

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

LEGAL ETHICS

TOPIC DISBARMENT AUTHOR 6_Loda

CASE TITLE ABAIGAR V. PAZ GR NO A.M. No. 997

TICKLER Diligan ng suka ang tigang na lumpia DATE September 10, 1979

DOCTRINE It has been held that the power of this Court to disbar a lawyer should be exercised with caution
because of its serious consequences. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant and the case
against a respondent must be established by convincing proof.
FACTS Complainant filed a disbarment case against respondent Paz on grounds that may properly fall under
the category of deceit and grossly immoral conduct as found in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, alleging the following:
 That complainant called the office of Congressman Bagatsing seeking for a legal counsel
regarding her divorce case.
 Respondent was the one who answered said phone call, and volunteered to be complainant’s
legal counsel.
 After termination of the divorce case, respondent started to profess his love for her.
 Respondent informed complainant of his wife, however saying that his marriage with said wife
was void because it was forced, and that it was only a civil marriage, which was not under the
church laws. This led complainant to believe that there would be no impediment if they
decided to marry.
 Respondent proposed to complainant, which she accepted. He told her that since they were
going to get married anyway, they should act as husband and wife, thus, they had sex.
Furthermore, complainant alleged that application for a marriage license was made and
executed.
 Respondent introduced to complainant Virginia Paz, the woman whom respondent referred
to as the wife whom he was forced to marry. Virginia told complainant that she and
respondent in fact also contracted marriage in church. Complainant confronted respondent,
but the latter remained silent.

Respondent, for his part, denied said allegations.

(Petitioner’s Points)
xxx
(Respondent’s Points)
xxx

ISSUE/S Procedural
xxx
Substantive
1. Whether or not allegations of complainant as to the respondent deceiving her is true.
2. Whether or not respondent should be disbarred.

RULING/S Procedural
xxx
Substantive
1
LEGAL ETHICS
1. No, respondent did not deceive complainant.
Whether there was deceit hinges on whether complainant actually believed the
representation of respondent that they could legally marry. Highly intelligent that she is and
with the educational background that she has, it is difficult to accept the proposition that she
swallowed hook, line and sinker his supposed assurances that notwithstanding full awareness
by both of the existence of each other's previous marriages, no legal impediment stood in the
way of their getting married ecclesiastically. Before jumping headlong into accepting
respondent's proposal that they act as husband and wife, she should have pondered upon the
serious legal implications and complications of a second marriage for both of them. She could
have easily asked a lawyer for advice on the matter. The truth however, of the matter is that
complainant did not even have to consult a lawyer to know that she could not legally marry
respondent. It is of no little significance that some persons utilized by complainant as
witnesses on her behalf because of their supposed knowledge of her relations with
respondent, were themselves aware that divorce is not recognized in this country.

2. No, the respondent should not be disbarred. The Court dismissed the , the administrative
complaint for disbarment.

In her complainant for disbarment, she pictured the respondent as morally perverse.
However, in the aforementioned letter, she states that there never was an illicit relationship
between her and the respondent, Atty. David D.C. Paz, and that their relationship was
aboveboard just like any engaged couple. And finally, she avers that she was only after the
collection of the loan which the respondent got from her and not for revenge for his
deception.

It has been held that the power of this Court to disbar a lawyer should be exercised with
caution because of its serious consequences. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant
and the case against a respondent must be established by convincing proof. Citing Arboleda
vs. Gatchalian, the Court said that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon
the complainant and the charge against the lawyer must be established by convincing proof.
The record must disclose as free from doubt a case which compels the exercise by this Court
of its disciplinary powers. The corrupt character of the act done must be clearly demonstrated.
Moreover, considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a
member of the Bar, the Court has consistently held that clearly preponderant evidence is
necessary to justify the imposition of either penalty.

The evidence adduced by the complainant has failed to establish any cause for disciplinary
action against the respondent. As the Solicitor General said in his report, "From all indications,
there is little room for doubt that she filed his disbarment case not in redress of a wrong, for
there was no wrong committed. It was a voluntary act of indiscretion between two consenting
adults who were fully aware of the consequences of their deed and for which they were
responsible only to their own private consciences.

NOTES

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