G.R. No. A.C. No. 3405 June 29, 1998
Julieta B. Narag, complainant, vs. Atty. Dominador M. Narag, respondent.

FACTS

On November 13, 1989, complainant Julieta B. Narag filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against her husband, respondent Atty. Dominador M. Narag, for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. She alleged that while a full-time college instructor and professor at St. Louis College of Tuguegarao and a member of the Sangguniang Bayan, respondent courted his then 17-year-old student, Gina Espita, and later maintained an illicit relationship with her. She further claimed he used his influence to secure Espita employment at the Department of Trade and Industry and subsequently abandoned his family to live with Espita. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). On June 26, 1990, complainant filed an Affidavit of Desistance and Motion to Dismiss, claiming her allegations were fabricated due to emotional confusion and jealousy. The IBP Board of Governors dismissed the complaint on October 8, 1991. However, on November 25, 1991, complainant, joined by her seven children, reinstituted the complaint, explaining her desistance was due to continuous threats from respondent. In his defense, respondent denied all allegations, portrayed his wife as incurably jealous and violent, and listed numerous complaints she had previously filed against him. He also filed a Petition for Annulment of Marriage. The IBP Board of Governors later found respondent guilty of grossly immoral conduct and recommended disbarment.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Dominador M. Narag should be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors. The Court held that good moral character is a continuing qualification for membership in the bar. The evidence, including testimonies from the complainant, her children, and other witnesses, convincingly established that respondent maintained an illicit relationship with his former student, Gina Espita, and abandoned his family to live with her. This conduct constituted gross immorality, which justifies disbarment. The Court rejected respondent’s defenses, including his attack on his wife’s character and his claim that the love letters were inadmissible, finding them insufficient to overcome the weight of the evidence against him. His actions betrayed the integrity and moral standards required of a lawyer. Accordingly, Atty. Dominador M. Narag was DISBARRED, and his name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.