G.R. No. A.C. No. 8700, September 8, 2020
Nena Ybañez Zerna, Complainant, vs. Atty. Manolo M. Zerna, Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION: LEONEN, J.

FACTS

This is a disbarment complaint filed by the respondent’s wife, Atty. Manolo Zerna, alleging gross immorality due to his alleged illicit affairs. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commissioner found sufficient evidence of these affairs, relying on affectionate email exchanges with a woman named Grace (using phrases like “wish you were here”) and sworn statements from witnesses describing his “romantic” public conduct with other women, Judelyn and Evelyn. The ponencia adopted these findings, concluding the respondent maintained adulterous relationships, which constituted grossly immoral conduct warranting disbarment.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to hold Atty. Manolo Zerna liable for gross immorality warranting the penalty of disbarment.

RULING

No. The dissenting opinion argues that the penalty of suspension, not disbarment, is appropriate. The legal logic is anchored on the need for a clear, objective, and secular standard in administrative cases for gross immorality to avoid arbitrary impositions of moral benchmarks. An act, to constitute gross immorality as a ground for disbarment, must be so corrupt and reprehensible to a high degree that it diminishes public confidence in the rule of law; it should ideally be tantamount to an illegal act.
Applying this standard, the evidence is insufficient. The affectionate words in the emails are equivocal and subject to interpretations other than a romantic relationship. Similarly, the observations of third-party witnesses regarding “romantic” conduct are subjective impressions, not an objective criterion. While the respondent’s conduct in leaving his family and being indiscreet is morally disagreeable, it does not rise to the level of an illegal act like concubinage, which the ponencia explicitly refused to rule on. Therefore, the facts do not meet the high threshold for gross immorality warranting disbarment.
Nevertheless, the respondent remains administratively liable. Under Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer must not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law. His highly improper personal conduct, inconsistent with the integrity and dignity of the profession, merits sanction. Consequently, the dissenting vote is to SUSPEND Atty. Manolo M. Zerna from the practice of law for three (3) years.