FACTS:

Complainant Evangeline Leda filed two complaints against respondent Atty. Trebonian Tabang that questioned his good moral character. The first complaint, Bar Matter No. 78, claimed that the respondent fraudulently filled out his application to take the Bar exams and lacked good moral character. The second complaint, Administrative Case No. 2505, was a petition for disbarment based on various grounds, including the nullity of their marriage, misrepresentation as single in his application, lack of good moral character, and deception in obtaining complainant's affidavit of desistance.

The complainant and respondent were secretly married on October 3, 1976, under exceptional circumstances, but they agreed to keep the marriage confidential until after respondent completed his law studies and took the Bar exams for a stable future. It was revealed that they never lived together as husband and wife. Respondent acknowledged their legal marriage but explained that they kept it private to allow him to finish his studies and the Bar exams. He represented himself as single in his Bar application because he believed he had yet to publicly declare his marital status.

Initially, Bar Matter No. 78 was dismissed by the Court based on the complainant's affidavit of desistance, allowing the respondent to take his oath. However, the complainant later filed the present administrative case, alleging additional grounds for disbarment. Complainant attached an undated letter, supposedly written by respondent after taking his oath, declaring the marriage as void and expressing no love for her. The respondent denied sending the letter, asserting that the complainant fabricated it.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not respondent Atty. Trebonian Tabang has good moral character.

2. Whether or not respondent committed fraud in filling out his application to take the Bar examinations.

3. Whether or not respondent is guilty of deception for convincing complainant to sign documents supporting his motion to dismiss.

RULING:

1. The Court found that respondent does not possess good moral character based on his actions and misrepresentations.

2. The Court concluded that respondent committed fraud in declaring himself as "single" in his Bar application despite being legally married to complainant.

3. The Court determined that respondent is guilty of deception for inducing complainant to sign documents by making her believe that he intended to reconcile with her, while he actually considered their marriage void and did not have any feelings for her.

PRINCIPLES:

• Good moral character is an essential requirement for lawyers.

• Misrepresentations and fraud in any aspect of the legal profession are grounds for disciplinary action.

• Deception and manipulation of parties involved in a legal dispute are considered unethical and can result in disciplinary sanctions.