AC 389; (February, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. 389 February 28, 1967
Flora Quingwa, complainant, vs. Armando Puno, respondent.
FACTS
On April 16, 1959, Flora Quingwa filed a verified complaint before the Supreme Court charging Armando Puno, a member of the Bar, with gross immorality and misconduct. The complaint alleged that on June 1, 1958, Puno, who was engaged to marry Quingwa, took her to the Silver Moon Hotel in Manila. He registered as “Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno” and, upon the promise of marriage, succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her twice. Quingwa later gave birth to a child on February 20, 1959. Puno denied all allegations, disclaimed the handwriting in the hotel register, disowned the child, and asserted that the allegations did not constitute grounds for disbarment under the Rules of Court. The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation. After hearings, the Solicitor General filed a formal complaint for immorality, seeking Puno’s disbarment. Puno, in his answer to this complaint, admitted a past romantic relationship with Quingwa that ended in 1955 but denied the 1958 incident. He did not state an intention to present additional evidence. The Supreme Court deemed this a waiver of his right to present further evidence and proceeded to evaluate the evidence from the Solicitor General’s investigation.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent Armando Puno should be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ordered the disbarment of Armando Puno. The Court found the facts as stated in the Solicitor General’s complaint to be established by the evidence. Quingwa’s testimony was credible and corroborated by the hotel register showing the entry for “Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno,” her subsequent correspondence with Puno about her pregnancy, the birth certificate of the child, and the testimony of witnesses regarding their intimate relationship. The Court held that Puno’s act of having carnal knowledge of Quingwa through a false promise of marriage constituted grossly immoral conduct. It rejected his defense that the alleged acts were not statutory grounds for disbarment, ruling that the court’s inherent power to discipline lawyers is not limited to statutory enumerations and that grossly immoral conduct is a ground for disbarment. The Court emphasized that good moral character is a continuing requirement for the practice of law, and Puno’s actions showed he was unfit for the profession. Consequently, his name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.