G.R. No. A.C. No. 3249 November 29, 1989
SALVACION DELIZO CORDOVA, complainant, vs. ATTY. LAURENCE D. CORDOVA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Salvacion Delizo Cordova, the wife of respondent Atty. Laurence D. Cordova, filed a verified complaint charging him with immorality and acts unbecoming a member of the Bar. The complaint detailed that after their marriage in 1976, respondent abandoned his family and his job as a Branch Clerk of Court in 1985 to cohabit in Bislig, Surigao del Sur with Fely G. Holgado, a married woman. He introduced her as his wife, and she used his surname. He financed her business while neglecting his legitimate family’s support. A brief reconciliation in 1986 failed, as respondent continued drunkenness and neglect. By early 1987, he had left again to cohabit with another mistress, Luisita Magallanes, even taking his young daughter to live with them, necessitating a habeas corpus suit by complainant to regain custody.
During the proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline, respondent was declared in default for failing to answer. Complainant, however, failed to appear at scheduled hearings to present evidence ex parte. The Commission later received a telegraphic message from complainant stating she and respondent had “reconciled.” Neither party complied with the Commission’s subsequent order to confirm this or file a motion to dismiss.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Laurence D. Cordova should be disciplined for immoral conduct constituting a violation of his oath as a lawyer.

RULING

Yes, respondent is suspended indefinitely from the practice of law. The Court affirmed the IBP Board of Governors’ factual findings, holding that the alleged reconciliation does not expunge respondent’s publicly carried-out misconduct. Good moral character is a continuing requirement for membership in the Bar, essential to the rightful practice of law. This standard encompasses conduct beyond professional duties, extending to behavior that outrages generally accepted moral standards of the community and makes a mockery of fundamental social institutions like marriage.
Respondent’s actions—maintaining a public, adulterous relationship with a married woman for years, neglecting his family’s support, and later cohabiting with another mistress while involving his minor daughter—demonstrate a flagrant disregard for marital obligations and community morals. Such conduct adversely reflects upon him and the entire legal profession. Following precedents like Mortel v. Aspiras and Royong v. Oblena, where similar immoral conduct led to disbarment, the Court found respondent unfit to continue in practice. Suspension is indefinite, liftable only upon satisfactory proof to the Court that he consistently supports his legitimate family and has definitively abandoned his immoral lifestyle.