G.R. No. A.C. No. 10676 September 8, 2015
Atty. Roy B. Ecraela, Complainant, vs. Atty. Ian Raymond A. Pangalangan, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Roy B. Ecraela filed a Petition for Disbarment against respondent Atty. Ian Raymond A. Pangalangan, his former best friend and law school classmate, before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD). The charges included: (1) illicit relations and chronic womanizing, involving adulterous affairs with several women (identified as AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, and EEE) while married to Sheila P. Jardiolin, including deceiving some by representing himself as a bachelor; (2) abuse of authority as an educator by inducing male students into “nocturnal preoccupations” and entertaining romantic gestures from female students for grades; and (3) “other unscrupulous activities,” specifically, while serving as a lawyer for the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) representing the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA), he allegedly conspired with the opposing counsel for Kendrick Development Corporation (KDC), sabotaged the government’s case, attempted to bribe a Solicitor, and received a Toyota Corolla as a reward. A Senate Committee Report recommended his investigation and disbarment, and the Ombudsman found probable cause and filed an Information against him with the Sandiganbayan for graft.
During the IBP proceedings, respondent filed an Answer opting not to present a counter-statement of facts, instead raising procedural objections and denying allegations for “lack of knowledge.” He failed to attend the mandatory conference. Complainant presented witnesses, including ASG Karl Miranda (on the Senate report), Atty. Glenda T. Litong and Atty. Emelyn W. Corpus (on respondent’s illicit affairs and misconduct with students), and the spouses Ecraela (on the attempt to conceal the Toyota Corolla). Respondent did not present evidence. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s report recommending disbarment.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Ian Raymond A. Pangalangan should be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court DISBARRED respondent Atty. Ian Raymond A. Pangalangan. The Court found the charges substantiated by substantial evidence. His series of adulterous affairs constituted grossly immoral conduct, reflecting a pattern of deception and moral indifference that discredited the legal profession. His attempt to conceal his marital status from his paramours involved deceit. His actions as a government lawyer, involving conflict of interest, conspiring with the opposing party, attempting bribery, and receiving a vehicle as a reward, constituted gross misconduct and malpractice, betraying public trust. His abuse of authority as an educator by exploiting students further demonstrated moral unfitness. His failure to substantively refute the allegations and his procedural tactics to delay the proceedings were noted. The Court held that such conduct violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (specifically Canons 1, 7, and 10, and Rules 1.01, 7.03, and 10.01), warranting the ultimate penalty of disbarment to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession. His name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.