G.R. No. A.C. No. 266; April 27, 1963
PAZ ARELLANO TOLEDO, complainant, vs. ATTY. JESUS B. TOLEDO, respondent.

FACTS

Paz Arellano Toledo filed a sworn complaint for disbarment against her husband, Atty. Jesus B. Toledo. She alleged they were married in 1946 while he was a law student, that she supported his studies, and that after his admission to the bar, he abandoned her. She further charged that he was cohabiting with another woman, Corazon, who had borne him children. The respondent, in his answer, questioned the complaint’s form and denied the allegations, attaching an affidavit from an informant to refute the claims of cohabitation. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation.
During the investigation, the complainant presented evidence, including her testimony and that of witnesses Marina Payot and Lino Domingo. Payot, a former maid for the respondent, testified to living arrangements where the respondent and Corazon presented themselves as husband and wife and shared a bedroom. Domingo corroborated this, identifying Corazon as the respondent’s common-law wife. The respondent cross-examined witnesses but reserved his right to present evidence. After investigation, the Solicitor General filed a formal complaint in the Supreme Court. Instead of filing an answer as required by the rules, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Jesus B. Toledo should be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, specifically for abandoning his lawful wife and cohabiting with another woman.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is disbarred. The Court found the charges substantiated by credible evidence. The testimonies of witnesses Marina Payot and Lino Domingo were deemed credible. Payot, despite a rigorous cross-examination, consistently testified to the respondent’s cohabitation with Corazon. The Court attributed minor inconsistencies in her testimony to her simple-mindedness and the stress of examination by lawyers. Domingo’s frank testimony provided further corroboration. The respondent’s procedural failure was fatal. Under Section 6, Rule 128, a respondent must state in their answer any intention to present evidence. By filing only a motion to dismiss, the respondent waived his right to present countervailing evidence. The annexes in his memorandum were not properly introduced during the investigation and could not be considered. The respondent’s actions—abandoning his lawful wife who supported his legal education and cohabiting with another woman—constitute grossly immoral conduct. Such conduct violates the high moral standards required of a lawyer, which is essential to maintaining public confidence in the legal profession. The practice of law is a privilege conditioned upon moral fitness, and the respondent’s behavior demonstrated a clear lack of such fitness, warranting disbarment.