AC 1392; (April, 1984) (Digest)
Adm. Case No. 1392, April 2, 1984
Preciosa R. Obusan, complainant, vs. Generoso B. Obusan, Jr., respondent.
FACTS
This disbarment case, filed in 1974 by Preciosa R. Obusan against her husband, lawyer Generoso B. Obusan, Jr., alleges adultery and grossly immoral conduct. The respondent, admitted to the bar in 1968, had a prior relationship with Natividad Estabillo, whom he believed to be a widow, resulting in the birth of a son in November 1972. Respondent later discovered Natividad’s marriage to another man was still subsisting. Despite this, he married Preciosa in civil and religious ceremonies in December 1972.
In April 1974, respondent left the conjugal home under the pretext of a vacation and never returned. Through investigation, Preciosa discovered he was cohabiting with Natividad at a Quezon City apartment. Multiple witnesses, including a housemaid, neighbors, and a barangay official, corroborated that respondent lived there as Natividad’s husband, introducing himself as the family head and appearing on barangay lists under that address.
ISSUE
Whether respondent lawyer’s conduct of abandoning his lawful wife and cohabiting with a married woman constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting disbarment.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ordered respondent’s disbarment. The Court found that complainant Preciosa successfully sustained her burden of proof. The evidence clearly established that respondent abandoned his wife and resumed an adulterous relationship with Natividad Estabillo, a married woman separated from her own husband. Respondent’s defense—that he only visited to provide financial support for his son and that he resided elsewhere—was insufficient to overcome the credible and corroborated testimonies and documentary evidence presented by the complainant.
The legal logic is grounded in the stringent ethical standards required of members of the bar. The Court held that such abandonment and adulterous cohabitation constitute grossly immoral conduct, defined as willful, flagrant, and shameless behavior showing moral indifference to the opinion of the respectable community. Citing precedent (Toledo vs. Toledo), the Court emphasized that a lawyer must maintain the highest degree of morality. By failing to do so, respondent violated this fundamental professional obligation. Consequently, his name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.