G.R. No. A.C. No. 9459. [Date not fully provided in the text; the Separate Concurring Opinion is by Justice Leonen.]
Case Parties:

Complainant: Rene Hierro
Respondent: Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II

FACTS

The complainant, Rene Hierro, filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II. The complaint was based on the respondent’s grossly immoral conduct, specifically his sexual relationship with Hierro’s wife, who was also the respondent’s paramour. The respondent’s own wife, Cecilia Lim-Nava, testified against him. Two other witnesses in a related criminal case for adultery, including a relative named Mercedes Nava, corroborated the misconduct. Their testimony detailed that the respondent and his paramour would engage in sexual relations in his office and that the respondent had discussed making his paramour the sole beneficiary of his assets, excluding his children. Furthermore, the respondent represented his paramour in filing a petition against her husband (the complainant), who was also the respondent’s client, using his client’s cases as evidence in that petition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent’s conduct constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting disbarment.

RULING

Yes. The respondent is guilty of grossly immoral conduct and is disbarred. The Separate Concurring Opinion agrees with the majority’s decision to disbar the respondent. It emphasizes that gross immorality as a ground for disbarment must be analyzed based on secular moral standards, not religious doctrines, and must involve conduct that severely erodes public trust in the rule of law. The conduct must be “willful, flagrant, or shameless,” showing moral indifference to the opinion of the community. In this case, the respondent’s actions were not mere private marital indiscretions. The complaint was lodged by a directly affected victim—the husband of the respondent’s paramour, who was also his client—and was supported by the respondent’s own wife. The respondent’s behavior was repeated, callous, and demonstrated a sheer indifference to public opinion. It involved a conflict of interest, as he represented his paramour against his own client. This conduct is “so depraved as to reduce the public’s confidence in the Rule of Law” and merits the highest penalty of disbarment.