G.R. No. A.C. No. 13082. November 16, 2021.
PAULINE S. MOYA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROY ANTHONY S. ORETA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainant Pauline S. Moya and respondent Atty. Roy Anthony S. Oreta, both married to other persons at the time, reconnected in 2002 and began an amorous relationship. They cohabited starting November 2003. Complainant alleged that respondent became verbally and physically abusive towards her and her children, failed to provide financial support, and acted irresponsibly. Specific incidents of violence included respondent slamming her against a wall on March 14, 2010, and a severe physical attack on April 22, 2010. Complainant also discovered that respondent had taken nude photos and videos of her without her consent. She obtained a Barangay Protection Order on August 19, 2010, filed a criminal complaint under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004), and secured a Temporary Protection Order from the Quezon City RTC on September 23, 2010, which was later made permanent on January 5, 2012. Respondent, in his defense, claimed he was emotionally vulnerable when the relationship began and alleged that complainant was the abusive party. He admitted to taking intimate photos and videos but claimed it was with complainant’s consent.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Roy Anthony S. Oreta should be held administratively liable for gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility based on his acts of violence, abuse, and immoral conduct.

RULING

Yes. The Court found respondent guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s professional duties are not confined to the practice of law but extend to their personal and private conduct. Respondent’s acts of violence and abuse against complainant and her children, as substantiated by the issuance of a Permanent Protection Order under R.A. 9262, constituted gross misconduct. His conduct was deemed scandalous, immoral, and dishonorable, adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law. The defense of emotional distress and the claim of mutual fault were rejected. The Court held that the factual findings in the civil case for the Protection Order, which attained finality, were conclusive on the matter of respondent’s abusive behavior. Accordingly, respondent was DISBARRED, his name ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and he was perpetually disqualified from reinstatement.