View full case

MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA v. ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON

FACTS:

Complainant Maria Victoria B. Ventura filed a complaint for Disbarment or Suspension against respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson for "grossly immoral conduct." In her complaint, complainant alleged that she was raped by respondent on two occasions and provided details of the incidents. Respondent admitted in his counter-affidavit that sexual intercourse took place between him and complainant. The Provincial Prosecutor dismissed the charge of rape and found probable cause for the crime of qualified seduction, which led to the filing of an information for qualified seduction. Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The case was elevated to the Department of Justice by way of a petition for review and is pending resolution. Complainant argues that the acts of respondent constitute "grossly immoral conduct" under Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which provides for disbarment or suspension as a penalty. Respondent countered that the sexual acts were done with mutual agreement and compensation, and that complainant's allegations were influenced by her guardian who had a grudge against him. Respondent also claimed that complainant had a loose moral character and had engaged in sexual activities with other boys.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the penalty imposed by the IBP is commensurate to the gravity and depravity of the offense.

  2. Whether respondent's conduct adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.

  3. Whether the respondent's act of engaging in sex with a minor constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants disciplinary action.

  4. Whether the respondent's conduct violates the standards of morality required of the legal profession.

  5. Whether or not the suspension of the respondent is warranted based on her violation of the prohibition against engaging in the private practice of law.

  6. Whether or not the respondent should be held liable for violation of Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court has the power to review and modify the penalty imposed by the IBP if it finds the penalty to be too lenient or too severe. In this case, the Court finds that the penalty of five years suspension imposed by the IBP is sufficient considering the gravity of the offense committed by the respondent. The Court takes into account the respondent's admission and remorse, as well as the fact that it is his first administrative liability. However, the Court also gives a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.

  2. The Court finds that respondent's conduct adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. His immoral behavior of forcing himself to have sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old minor, and his betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity, are considered grossly immoral conduct. This behavior renders him unfit and undeserving of the honor and privilege which his license to practice law confers upon him.

  3. The respondent's act of engaging in sex with a minor constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants disciplinary action. The Supreme Court found that the respondent admitted to having sexual intercourse with the complainant and showed no remorse for his actions. This act of having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife demonstrates disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he enticed a young woman with money shows his moral depravity and low regard for the dignity of the human person and the ethics of his profession.

  4. The respondent's conduct violates the standards of morality required of the legal profession. The Court held that membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, and the essential qualifications required of lawyers include adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality, and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession. The respondent's act of engaging in sex with a minor is a transgression of these standards and warrants disciplinary action.

  5. The Court ruled that the respondent's suspension is warranted. It found that the respondent violated the prohibition against engaging in the private practice of law while serving as a public prosecutor. As a result, she is guilty of misconduct and has prejudiced the public service by not devoting her full time to her official duties.

  6. The respondent is held liable for violation of Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in the private practice of law while being employed in a government service requiring a full time of the employee's services.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership in the legal profession. Lawyers are expected to observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar.

  • The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that lawyers shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, and that they shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law or behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

  • Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community. Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under scandalous or revolting circumstances that shock the community's sense of decency.

  • 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, such as conduct that makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage.

  • A lawyer may be disbarred for any misconduct, whether in their professional or private capacity, that shows them to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.

  • The power to disbar must be exercised with caution and only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and as a member of the bar. Disbarment should only be decreed if a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, cannot accomplish the desired end.

  • Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law while employed in a government service requiring a full time of the employee's services. (Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court)

  • Violation of the prohibition against engaging in the private practice of law while serving as a public prosecutor constitutes misconduct and a prejudicial act to the public service.