View full case

CYNTHIA ADVINCULA v. ATTY. ERNESTO M. MACABATA

FACTS:

The complainant, Cynthia Advincula, sought legal advice from the respondent, Atty. Ernesto Macabata, regarding her collectibles from Queensway Travel and Tours. As promised, the respondent sent a demand letter to the concerned parties. On February 10, 2005, they met at Zensho Restaurant to discuss the possibility of filing a complaint against Queensway Travel and Tours. After dinner, when the respondent dropped off the complainant, he held her arm, kissed her on the cheek, and embraced her tightly. Then, on March 6, 2005, they met at Starbucks coffee shop to finalize the draft of the complaint. After the meeting, the respondent offered the complainant a ride. Along the way, the complainant felt sleepy and realized the respondent had drugged her. When they reached a certain point, the respondent forcefully held her face, kissed her lips, and fondled her breast. The complainant managed to resist and get out of the car. The complainant then decided to refer the case to another lawyer and asked for the case folder, expressing her dismay at the respondent's behavior. The respondent apologized and admitted his guilt. In his defense, the respondent claimed that the acts imputed to him were impossible to commit in a busy street. He also mentioned a pending criminal case for Acts of Lasciviousness filed against him by the complainant and made allegations regarding the complainant's marital status and living arrangements. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) conducted a hearing and recommended the suspension of the respondent for one month for the violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In this case, the respondent, Atty. Ernesto A. Macabata, was facing a complaint alleging that he committed acts of gross immorality or serious moral depravity that warranted his disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. The issue at hand was whether the respondent's actions were beyond the norms of conduct required of a lawyer when dealing with or relating to a client.

The Code of Professional Responsibility sets out the ethical standards that lawyers must adhere to. It prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Furthermore, lawyers are expected to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and not engage in any conduct that reflects negatively on their fitness to practice law.

The possession of good moral character is a continuing requirement for lawyers to maintain their membership in the Bar and remain in the practice of law. Membership in the legal profession is considered a privilege, and lawyers are entrusted with upholding the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. It is the duty of the court to withdraw this privilege if it is determined that a lawyer is no longer worthy of the public's trust and confidence.

Lawyers are expected to adhere to the highest standards of morality, both in their professional and personal lives. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand nothing less than the highest degree of morality. Lawyers may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to their private activities, if it demonstrates a lack of moral character, honesty, probity, or good demeanor.

In this case, the respondent admitted to kissing the complainant on the lips. He stated in his answer that he asked for permission to kiss her goodnight, and she offered her left cheek. However, he claimed that he slightly pulled her right face towards him and kissed her gently on the lips.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent's conduct of kissing the complainant on the lips constitutes grossly immoral conduct.

  2. Whether or not the respondent should be disciplined for his actions.

  3. Whether the respondent committed grossly immoral acts.

  4. Whether the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the case against the respondent.

  5. Whether the respondent's acts warrant disbarment or suspension.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that the respondent's conduct of kissing the complainant on the lips constitutes grossly immoral conduct. The respondent admitted to kissing the complainant on two separate occasions, even though the complainant only offered her left cheek for a kiss. This act of forcibly kissing the complainant on the lips, without her consent, is considered a violation of moral standards and shows a lack of integrity and respect for personal boundaries.

  2. The Court ruled that the respondent should be disciplined for his actions. The requirement of good moral character for lawyers is not just limited to their professional conduct but also extends to their private behavior. Lawyers are expected to uphold a high standard of morality and conduct themselves in a manner that reflects honesty, probity, and good demeanor. The respondent's behavior in this case falls short of these standards and warrants appropriate disciplinary action.

  3. The acts of the respondent in turning the head of complainant towards him and kissing her on the lips, while distasteful, cannot be considered grossly immoral.

  4. The burden of proof rests on the complainant to establish the case against the respondent by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof. The complainant failed to comply with the burden of proof required.

  5. The respondent's acts are not grossly immoral or highly reprehensible to warrant disbarment or suspension.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Good moral character is not merely based on reputation or public opinion but is determined by a person's objective reality.

  • The requirement of good moral character for lawyers serves to protect the public, the public image of lawyers, prospective clients, and the lawyers themselves.

  • Grossly immoral conduct is behavior that is willful, flagrant, or shameless and shows indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. It must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under scandalous or revolting circumstances.

  • The abandonment of a lawful spouse, maintenance of an adulterous relationship, and engaging in illicit relationships during the subsistence of a marriage have been considered as constitutive of grossly immoral conduct.

  • Immorality includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness.

  • The burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations.

  • The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings are to protect the public, foster public confidence in the Bar, preserve the integrity of the profession, and deter other lawyers from similar misconduct.

  • The imposition of a disciplinary sanction should be controlled by the need to guard the purity and independence of the bar and to ensure strict compliance with duties to the court, clients, fellow lawyers, and the public.

  • The power to disbar or suspend a lawyer should be exercised with great caution and only for weighty reasons.

  • Disbarment or suspension should be based on clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the lawyer's standing and character.

  • Acts that cause loss of moral character may merit disbarment or suspension, while acts that do not affect the lawyer's moral character may justify a lesser sanction.

  • The dubious character of the act charged and the lawyer's motivation must be clearly demonstrated before suspension or disbarment is imposed.

  • Mitigating or aggravating circumstances should be considered.

  • Censure or reprimand may be imposed for isolated acts of misconduct of a lesser nature or minor infractions of the lawyer's duty.

  • Complaints should be supported by objective evidence.

  • A more severe sanction can be imposed on the lawyer for any repetition of the same or similar offense in the future.