View full case

JOSELANO GUEVARRA v. ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA

FACTS:

Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, alleging that the respondent engaged in immoral conduct and violated the lawyer's oath. Guevarra claimed that he discovered an adulterous relationship between Eala and his then-fiancée, Irene Moje. He cited instances of Irene receiving love messages and calls from Eala, and witnessed Irene and Eala together on two occasions. As a result, Irene left their conjugal house and took her personal belongings. Guevarra later found a folded social card with a love letter from Eala to Irene, dated on their wedding day. Respondent admitted sending the card, but denied flaunting the relationship and argued that it was low profile.

In response to the complaint, Eala denied the allegations of adultery and immoral conduct. He stated that his relationship with Irene was not scandalous and that he had a civil and peaceful relationship with his wife. Eala denied making derogatory remarks about marriage, stating that his reference to the marriage between Guevarra and Irene as a "piece of paper" was in relation to the formality of the marriage contract. Complainant filed a reply, attaching a Certificate of Live Birth indicating Eala as the father of Irene's child. Eala denied having personal knowledge of the certificate and moved to dismiss the complaint due to the pending civil and criminal cases involving the annulment of his marriage and a charge of adultery. The Investigation by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline found the charges against Eala proven and recommended his disbarment. However, the IBP Board of Governors dismissed the case for lack of merit. Guevarra filed a petition before the Supreme Court, challenging the dismissal.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala's conduct constitutes "grossly immoral conduct" warranting disbarment.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court found that Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala engaged in grossly immoral conduct. The Court ruled that the adulterous affair between Eala and Irene Guevarra, the wife of complainant Joselano Guevarra, was sufficiently established by preponderant evidence, and thus, Eala violated his oath as a lawyer and specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court disbarred Eala for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

  • Rule 7.03, Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility: A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

  • Quantum of Evidence in Administrative Cases Against Lawyers: "Clearly preponderant evidence" is required in administrative cases against lawyers, which means evidence that is more convincing and has greater weight than the opposing evidence.

  • Betrayal of Marital Vow of Fidelity: Sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifestly disregards the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by laws.

  • Negative Pregnant: A form of denial pregnant with the admission of substantial facts alleged in the pleading, implying an admission of the facts not squarely denied.

  • Administrative Independence: Administrative cases against lawyers may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases, and the standards of the legal profession are not merely satisfied by conduct that enables one to escape the penalties of criminal law.