G.R. No. Bar Matter No. 68 November 21, 1984
Annabelle J. Pomperada, complainant, vs. Benjamin Jochico y Pama, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Annabelle J. Pomperada charged successful 1981 Bar examinee Benjamin Jochico with grossly immoral conduct, rendering him unfit for the Bar. She alleged that on February 20, 1979, they agreed to marry, and respondent facilitated a marriage contract purportedly signed by Judge Felino Garcia. Verification revealed the marriage was unregistered, and Judge Garcia denied signing the contract. Complainant further alleged respondent filed joint income tax returns for 1972-1976 with another woman, Nenita Martelino Ureta, listing her as his spouse and two children as dependents, and later filed returns for 1979-1980 listing complainant as his spouse.
Respondent vehemently denied the charges. He claimed the marriage was merely a “game” concocted during complainant’s birthday party. He admitted filing joint tax returns with Nenita Ureta but claimed this was an accounting practice because he claimed their children as dependents. He denied forging any signature. The Court referred the case to an Investigator, who found complainant’s testimony credible and respondent’s indicative of untruthfulness.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Benjamin Jochico possesses the good moral character required for admission to the Philippine Bar.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied respondent’s petition to take the lawyer’s oath, finding he failed to meet the standard of moral fitness for the legal profession. The Court upheld the Investigator’s findings and recommendation. The legal logic centers on the requirement of good moral character as a continuing condition for bar admission, which the Court assesses rigorously.
Whether the purported marriage was a “joke” or a trick, respondent’s actions made a mockery of marriage, a basic institution protected by public policy. His own testimony constituted a clear admission of a nine-year illicit liaison with complainant and a prior relationship with another woman, coupled with the filing of false income tax returns. These collective acts demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty and a lack of decency, failing to conform to the norms of honesty and moral conduct demanded of a lawyer. The Court concluded such conduct rendered him unfit for the Bar. Consequently, the Court also directed the filing of criminal complaints for falsification and perjury and informed the Board of Accountancy of its decision.