AC 9608; (November, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 9608; November 27, 2012
MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Maria Victoria B. Ventura, then thirteen years old, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Danilo S. Samson for grossly immoral conduct. She alleged that in December 2001 and March 2002, the respondent, a married man, sexually abused her. She stated the first incident occurred while she was sleeping in his house, and the second at his poultry farm, where he gave her money and threatened her. A criminal complaint for rape was filed but the Provincial Prosecutor dismissed it, finding probable cause instead for qualified seduction.
In his Answer, respondent admitted to a single act of sexual intercourse but claimed it was consensual and compensated, denying it was grossly immoral. He asserted the complaint was orchestrated by the complainant’s mother, a former employee, as vengeance for her termination, alleging extortion attempts. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation for disbarment, which the Supreme Court reviewed.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Danilo S. Samson should be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Danilo S. Samson. The Court emphasized that a lawyer must uphold high standards of morality, honesty, and integrity. Grossly immoral conduct, which reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law, is a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The respondent’s admission to sexual intercourse with a minor, coupled with the factual findings of abuse, constitutes such conduct.
The Court found the respondent’s defenses unavailing. His claim of consensual and compensated sex does not negate immorality; it instead highlights a deplorable misuse of position and exploitation. The complainant’s minority, certified by her birth certificate, aggravates the transgression. The alleged motive of vengeance by the complainant’s mother does not absolve the respondent of his own admitted actions. The Court held that the act of a married lawyer sexually abusing a young girl is a blatant violation of the moral standards demanded by the legal profession. This conduct, being so corrupt and indecent, justifies the ultimate penalty of disbarment to protect the public and preserve the integrity of the bar. The decision is immediately executory.