FACTS:

The case involves an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Mrs. Julieta B. Narag against her husband, Atty. Dominador M. Narag. Mrs. Narag accused Atty. Narag of violating Canons 1 and 6, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Ethics for Lawyers. She alleged that Atty. Narag had courted and maintained an illicit relationship with a college student, eventually leaving his family to live with her. Mrs. Narag also claimed that Atty. Narag used his influence to secure employment for the college student. Initially, Mrs. Narag dropped the case against her husband due to his threats, but later appealed for his disbarment along with their seven children. Atty. Narag denied the allegations and described his wife as emotionally disturbed and prone to bouts of jealousy. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute, but the case was again referred to the Supreme Court for further action.

Atty. Jaime C. Narag filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage to Julieta B. Narag. He claimed that he suffered physical, mental, and emotional abuse from his wife throughout their marriage. Atty. Narag stated that his wife was violent and continuously destroyed their marriage and family. He asserted that he had always been gentle and compassionate, never inflicting violence on his wife and children. However, he felt enslaved in their relationship and decided to file for annulment to free himself. Atty. Narag presented a list of complaints that Julieta had filed against him and another woman to prove her propensity for filing false charges. He refuted all the allegations against him and maintained that Julieta spread false information, tarnishing his reputation. Atty. Narag clarified that he attempted reconciliation but was rejected by Julieta.

Atty. Dominador M. Narag Jr., a senior citizen, is facing disciplinary proceedings based on a complaint filed by his wife, Julieta Narag. The complaint alleges that Atty. Narag had been an abusive husband, subjecting Julieta to various forms of abuse throughout their marriage. The complaint also questions the authenticity of an affidavit executed by their son, Dominador Jr., which supports Atty. Narag's defense. Julieta claims that Dominador Jr. was coerced into executing the affidavit. Atty. Narag asserts that Dominador Jr. willingly executed the affidavit without any force or intimidation. Atty. Narag argues that his physical and medical conditions render him unfit and unable to engage in the alleged acts attributed to him by Julieta. The investigating officer recommended Atty. Narag's indefinite suspension from the practice of law based on the evidence presented.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Atty. Dominador M. Narag committed gross immorality by abandoning his family and living with Gina Espita.

2. Whether Atty. Narag, by engaging in grossly immoral conduct, violated Canons 1 and 7, Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

1. Yes, the Supreme Court found that Atty. Dominador M. Narag abandoned his family and lived with Gina Espita, establishing an illicit relationship which produced two children.

2. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Narag's conduct violated Canons 1 and 7, Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, thereby warranting his disbarment.

PRINCIPLES:

• Good moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member of the bar.

• Immoral conduct refers to willful, flagrant, or shameless acts that show indifference to respectable members of the community.

• Gross immorality involves conduct that is so corrupt as to be criminal or unprincipled to a high degree.

• Attorneys are required to avoid both public and private behavior that discredits the legal profession.

• A lawyer’s moral character may be assailed and must be proven consistently to remain in the legal profession.

• Disbarment is warranted for grossly immoral conduct that violates specific ethical canons and rules.