G.R. No. A.M. No. 145 December 28, 1956
Josefina Mortel, petitioner, vs. Anacleto F. Aspiras, respondent.

FACTS

On March 17, 1953, Josefina Mortel complained to the Supreme Court against Attorney Anacleto F. Aspiras. She alleged that in August 1952, respondent, representing himself as single, courted and won her affection. On December 22, 1952, she came to Manila to marry him. From December 31, 1952, upon his assurance of marriage, she allowed him to live with her. On January 3, 1953, a marriage license was applied for, with respondent’s son, Cesar Aspiras, as one of the applicants. Upon respondent’s suggestion, she married Cesar Aspiras on January 14, 1953, although not in love with him. After this marriage, she and respondent continued cohabiting, the ceremony being a mere formality as respondent was a married man. Petitioner initially moved to withdraw her complaint on April 9, 1953, but the Court denied it, believing the matter affected the legal profession. The case was referred to the Solicitor General. After petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, the case was initially dismissed on November 5, 1953, for lack of evidence. However, on December 17, 1953, petitioner moved to reopen, alleging she had dismissed the case due to an amicable settlement, but the truth was she and respondent lived together from April to November 1953, resulting in her pregnancy. The Court granted the reopening. After reinvestigation, the Solicitor General filed a complaint for disbarment, charging that respondent seduced Josefina Mortel by a promise of marriage, and to cover his illicit relations, made his minor son, Cesar, marry her, and after the marriage, continued sexual relations with her. Evidence established that respondent, a married man with seven children, wooed and seduced the complainant, a 21-year-old teacher, under a promise of marriage. He arranged her marriage to his son, whom he introduced as his nephew, and continued adulterous relations with her after the marriage, resulting in the birth of a child. Respondent denied the allegations.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Attorney Anacleto F. Aspiras should be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent is disbarred. The Supreme Court ordered his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. The Court found respondent’s moral delinquency established beyond reasonable doubt. His actions included seducing the complainant under a false promise of marriage, arranging a sham marriage between her and his own minor son to cover up the illicit relationship, and thereafter continuing adulterous relations with his son’s wife. This conduct constituted a mockery of the institution of marriage and corruption of his own descendant. The Court held that the continued possession of good moral character is a requisite condition for the practice of law, and its loss requires suspension or disbarment. The proceeding was not for the complainant’s relief but to purge the profession of unworthy members; thus, the complainant’s being in pari delicto was not a defense. Even if the specific conduct was not enumerated in the disbarment rules, lawyers may be removed on grounds other than those specified by statute if found unfit. Respondent’s grossly immoral conduct, aggravated by corrupting his son and mocking marriage, rendered him unfit to continue as a member of the bar.