Sbc 519; (July, 1997) (Digest)
SBC Case No. 519 July 31, 1997
Patricia Figueroa, complainant, vs. Simeon Barranco, Jr., respondent.
FACTS
Patricia Figueroa filed a complaint in 1971 seeking to deny Simeon Barranco, Jr.’s admission to the legal profession. Barranco had passed the 1970 bar exams. Figueroa alleged that she and Barranco, townmates from Janiuay, Iloilo, had been sweethearts since 1953. Their intimate relationship, which began around 1960, resulted in the birth of a son, Rafael Barranco, on December 11, 1964. Figueroa claimed Barranco repeatedly promised to marry her after passing the bar exams but failed to fulfill these promises. Their relationship ended in 1971 when Figueroa learned Barranco had married another woman. The case underwent prolonged proceedings, including hearings in 1971, motions for depositions, and several motions to dismiss filed by Barranco. The Court initially dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute in 1988 and allowed Barranco to take the oath, but this was canceled after Figueroa’s opposition. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in 1993, which recommended dismissal and allowing Barranco to take the oath.
ISSUE
Whether or not the acts of Simeon Barranco, Jr.—fathering an illegitimate child with his sweetheart and failing to fulfill promises of marriage—constitute gross immorality warranting his permanent exclusion from the legal profession.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and allowed Simeon Barranco, Jr. to take his lawyer’s oath. The Court held that while engaging in premarital sexual relations and making unfulfilled promises of marriage suggest a doubtful moral character, these acts do not constitute grossly immoral conduct. Gross immorality requires a willful, flagrant, or shameless act showing moral indifference to the opinion of the respectable community. The consensual relationship between two unmarried individuals, even resulting in a child, is not so corrupt or unprincipled as to warrant disbarment or denial of admission. The Court viewed the complaint as an act of revenge, and the twenty-six years Barranco was prevented from becoming a lawyer constituted sufficient punishment, especially given his clean record during that period and his current age of sixty-two.