G.R. No. A.C. No. 13496 (Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5681), June 04, 2024
Atty. Merriam Fe G. Rojas, Complainant, vs. Atty. Lovejoy Quiambao, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Merriam Fe G. Rojas and respondent Atty. Lovejoy B. Quiambao are married lawyers. Complainant discovered that respondent had sexually abused their 18-year-old house helper, AAA, by cupping her breasts, showing her pornography, offering to teach her sexual intercourse, masturbating in her presence, and offering money to touch his penis. Respondent admitted to being hooked on pornography. Complainant’s further investigation revealed respondent had sexually abused at least 13 other former employees (house helpers, secretaries, storekeepers), including two who were minors. Judicial Affidavits from several victims were attached to the complaint. CCC alleged respondent made her drink tequila, and when she was dizzy, he raped her and later repeatedly raped her and forced oral sex. DDD, his law secretary, stated respondent showed her photos of his penis and pornographic videos. Other victims (EEE, FFF, GGG) detailed similar acts of sexual harassment. Respondent, in his verified Answer, admitted to showing AAA and DDD pornography, and to having consensual sexual relations with former secretary BBB and with CCC (though he denied forcing CCC). He sought forgiveness from complainant via email, acknowledging his infidelity and indiscretions and promising professional and spiritual counseling. Complainant obtained a Permanent Protection Order from the RTC and a Judgment on Compromise Agreement for legal separation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Lovejoy Quiambao should be held administratively liable for his conduct and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found respondent guilty of gross immorality and gross misconduct, violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. His acts of sexual abuse and harassment against multiple employees, who were in a vulnerable position due to their employment and economic status, and his admitted extramarital affairs, constitute conduct grossly immoral, scandalous, and indicative of moral depravity unbefitting a lawyer. His admissions in his Answer and email corroborated the allegations. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s professional and personal conduct must be beyond reproach. Considering the gravity of the offenses, the number of victims, the abuse of position, and the absence of mitigating circumstances, the Supreme Court imposed the penalty of DISBARMENT. Respondent’s name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and he was perpetually disqualified from reinstatement.