A.C. No. 559-SBC. January 31, 1984. CARMEN E. BACARRO, complainant, vs. RUBEN M. PINATACAN, respondent.
FACTS:

Complainant Carmen E. Bacarro filed an administrative case in 1975 to prevent Ruben M. Pinatacan, a successful 1975 Bar candidate, from taking the lawyer’s oath. She alleged they were engaged while students at Liceo de Cagayan. Their relationship resulted in her pregnancy, after which Pinatacan abandoned her, reneged on his promise of marriage, and suggested an abortion. She gave birth to a daughter on December 4, 1971. Pinatacan initially denied paternity and any promise of marriage in his sworn Answer. The case was referred for investigation. Complainant presented evidence, including love letters from Pinatacan and the child’s birth certificate, while respondent failed to attend hearings. The Investigator recommended admission, finding the intimacy not sufficiently corrupt. In 1977, Pinatacan manifested a willingness to recognize and support the child. The Court, in 1979, ordered him to publicly acknowledge paternity, which he complied with by submitting a notarized affidavit.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Ruben M. Pinatacan possesses the good moral character required for admission to the Philippine Bar.

RULING

The Court, while condemning respondent’s conduct, ultimately allowed him to take the lawyer’s oath. The legal logic proceeds from the fundamental requirement under the Rules of Court that an applicant for bar admission must be of good moral character. The Court found Pinatacan’s actions—abandoning the complainant after impregnation, initially denying paternity under oath, and failing to support his child—demonstrative of moral delinquency and a lack of the integrity expected of a lawyer. These acts justified the prolonged deferment of his admission. However, the Court ruled that the eight-year delay since the complaint constituted sufficient punishment. The decisive factor for leniency was Pinatacan’s eventual compliance with the Court’s directive to formally acknowledge paternity and undertake support obligations, which indicated a realization of his wrongs and a willingness to reform. The Court also cited precedent noting shared blame in such personal relationships. His admission was made conditional, with a stern admonition that his continued membership in the Bar hinges on faithfully fulfilling his moral and legal duties as a father. The dissenting opinions advocated for further deferment or outright denial.