[A.C. No. 3405. June 29, 1998.
JULIETA B. NARAG, complainant, vs. ATTY. DOMINADOR
M. NARAG, respondent.
Facts:
1. On November 13, 1989, Mrs. Julieta B. Narag filed an
administrative complaint [1] for disbarment against her
husband, Atty. Dominador M. Narag(Instructor at St. Louis
College of Tuguegarao), whom she accused of having violated
Canons 1 and 6, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Ethics for Lawyers.
2. Respondent who is now a senior citizen was charged by his
wife with gross immorality in cohabiting with his former
student, Gina Espita (17 years old), and with whom he begot
two (2) children.
3. Evidence for complainant consisted of the testimonies of two
of their children and of Charlie Espita; brother of Gina, who
corroborated that respondent and Gina are living together as
husband and wife, and also with love letters and envelopes
written by respondent addressed to his paramour.
4. Respondent denied the charges claiming that for 38 years of
marriage, his wife was unbearably jealous which prompted
him now to file a petition for the annulment of their marriage.
5. Respondent presented witnesses who, however, did not
contradict that he abandoned his family and cohabited with
another.
6. The IBP initially recommended the indefinite suspension of
respondent but granted a stiffer penalty when complainant
sought the disbarment of respondent.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty Narag is guilty of gross immorality.
Held:
Yes, Dominador M. Narag is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. In the present case, the complainant was
able to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent had breached the
high and exacting moral standards set for members of the law profession
Doctrine:
Cordova vs. Cordova [56] : "The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of
a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages the
generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct for instance, which
makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage."
Toledo vs. Toledo, [57] the respondent was disbarred from the practice of
law, when he abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with another woman who
had borne him a child.
Obusan vs. Obusan, [58] the respondent was disbarred after the complainant proved
that he had abandoned her and maintained an adulterous relationship with a married
woman. This Court declared that respondent failed to maintain the highest degree
of morality expected and required of a member of the bar.
Maligsa vs. Cabanting, 59 "a lawyer may be disbarred for any misconduct, whether in
his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral
character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an
officer of the court."
