G.R. No. A.C. No. 3405. March 18, 2014.
JULIETA B. NARAG, Complainant, vs. ATTY. DOMINADOR M. NARAG, Respondent.

FACTS

On November 13, 1989, Julieta B. Narag filed a disbarment complaint against her husband, Atty. Dominador M. Narag, for maintaining an amorous relationship with a 17-year-old college student, Gina Espita, and abandoning his family to live with her, allegedly violating Rule 1.01 and Canons 1 and 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The respondent denied the charges, claiming they were fabrications due to his wife’s jealousy. On June 29, 1998, the Court disbarred the respondent for gross immorality. His motion for reconsideration was denied with finality on September 22, 1998. On November 29, 2013, the respondent filed a petition for reinstatement to the Bar. He alleged repentance, claimed forgiveness from his wife and children on June 10, 2010, and submitted an affidavit from his son, Dominador, Jr., to this effect. He argued he had been disbarred for 15 years, was 80 years old and in poor health, had served in the Philippine Air Force Reserve Command, and presented various testimonials and recommendations in support of his petition.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Dominador M. Narag should be reinstated to the practice of law.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for reinstatement. The Court held that reinstatement depends on its sound discretion and whether the applicant is a person of good moral character and a fit and proper person to practice law, considering his character prior to disbarment, the nature of the charge, his conduct subsequent to disbarment, and the time elapsed. The respondent was disbarred for the grossly immoral act of abandoning his family to live with a paramour. The Court found his pleas for reinstatement insubstantial, as he failed to prove reformation. It was noted that he was still living with his paramour while legally married to Julieta, demonstrating a continuation of the immoral conduct. The affidavit of forgiveness from his son was insufficient, as claims regarding forgiveness from his wife and other children were hearsay, and forgiveness does not negate the ongoing immoral conduct. The execution of a holographic will in favor of his family was deemed immaterial and not proof of changed ways. The Court was not convinced the respondent showed genuine remorse or reformation required for reinstatement, emphasizing that the practice of law is a privilege requiring unassailable character.