AM 2505; (February, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 2505. February 21, 1992. EVANGELINE LEDA, complainant, vs. ATTY. TREBONIAN TABANG, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Evangeline Leda and respondent Atty. Trebonian Tabang contracted marriage in 1976 under Article 76 of the Civil Code, agreeing to keep it secret until he finished law studies and took the Bar. In his 1981 Bar application, Tabang declared himself “single.” After he passed, Leda filed Bar Matter No. 78 to block his oath-taking, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation. The case was dismissed following Leda’s affidavit of desistance, and Tabang took his oath in August 1982.
Subsequently, Leda filed this disbarment case in February 1983, alleging Tabang lacked good moral character for misrepresenting his marital status and for deceiving her into signing the desistance. She presented an unsigned letter, allegedly from Tabang, which stated their marriage was void under Article 76 due to non-compliance with its requisites, such as the five-year cohabitation, and taunted that she could not undo his professional attainment. Tabang denied authoring the letter.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Trebonian Tabang should be disciplined for lack of good moral character.
RULING
Yes, the Court suspended respondent from the practice of law indefinitely. The core issue is his moral fitness. While the validity of the marriage was contested, the administrative case turns on Tabang’s conduct. His conflicting statements before the Court demonstrated a lack of candor. In Bar Matter No. 78, he admitted the marriage but justified his “single” declaration because it was not public. In this case, he averred he believed he was legally single because the marriage was void from the start for lacking Article 76 requisites. This shifting position, aimed at suiting his convenience, violates Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which demand candor, fairness, and good faith to the court.
The unsigned letter, whose authorship the Court credited given contextual evidence including his initials on the envelope, revealed a devious intent to secure his professional status by manipulating Leda and then disavowing her. This conduct, coupled with his inconsistent pleadings, shows he is “unsafe and unfit” to be a lawyer. Good moral character is a continuing requirement for law practice. His actions betray a deficiency in this essential qualification, warranting suspension until further orders to protect the integrity of the legal profession.