G.R. No. A.C. 3049 December 4, 1989
PERLA Y. LAGUITAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. SALVADOR F. TINIO, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Perla Y. Laguitan filed a disbarment petition against Atty. Salvador F. Tinio for immorality and acts unbecoming a lawyer. The case underwent investigation by the Solicitor General and was later referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline. Despite multiple hearing schedules, respondent repeatedly failed to appear. Consequently, the Commission allowed complainant to present her evidence ex parte. The formal offer of evidence included birth certificates, hospital receipts, baptismal certificates, family pictures, and school records, all establishing that the parties lived together as husband and wife from 1976, resulting in the birth of two children, and that respondent acknowledged and supported them initially.
The IBP investigation found that the parties began cohabiting in 1976, and complainant bore two children. She later discovered respondent was already married to another woman, yet the cohabitation continued until respondent abandoned her and the children in November 1986. Respondent admitted the illicit relationship and paternity before the IBP Commissioner and promised support but failed to fulfill this commitment. The IBP Board of Governors recommended suspension from law practice, primarily for refusal to support his illegitimate children.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Salvador F. Tinio should be disciplined for professional misconduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent is suspended from the practice of law. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s factual findings but expanded the grounds for discipline. The Court held that while the failure to provide support for his illegitimate children is a valid ground for disciplinary action, it is not the sole basis. The more critical ground is respondent’s prolonged cohabitation with complainant despite his existing marriage, which constitutes concubinage.
The legal logic is rooted in the foundational requirement for lawyers to possess good moral character, which is continuous and essential for the privilege to practice law. Concubinage is a form of immorality that involves moral turpitude, as it constitutes a public assault on the institution of marriage. By engaging in such conduct, respondent demonstrated a character flaw inconsistent with the integrity and moral standards demanded of a member of the Bar. His actions violated the ethical norms of the legal profession, warranting suspension to protect the public and the judiciary’s integrity.
Accordingly, the Court suspended respondent from the practice of law until further orders. The suspension may be lifted only upon satisfactory evidence presented to the Commission and the Court that respondent is supporting his children and has ceased his immoral conduct.