FACTS:

Julieta B. Narag filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against her husband, Dominador M. Narag, whom she accused of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by maintaining an amorous relationship with a 17-year-old college student named Gina Espita. Julieta also claimed that Dominador had abandoned her and their children to live with Gina. Dominador denied the allegations and claimed that Julieta was just jealous and fabricated the stories.

The Court rendered a decision on June 29, 1998, imposing the penalty of disbarment on Dominador for committing gross immorality by abandoning his family to live with his mistress. Dominador filed a motion for the reopening of the administrative investigation or reconsideration, alleging that he was denied due process during the investigation. The Court denied the motion in a resolution dated September 22, 1998.

Dominador filed a petition for reinstatement to the Bar on November 29, 2013, alleging that he had repented and expressed remorse to his wife and children, who had forgiven him. He also claimed to have been punished enough and highlighted his current age and physical ailments. Dominador further asserted that he enlisted in the Philippine Air Force Reserve Command and had participated in various rescue, relief, and recovery missions. He submitted recommendations, testimonials, and affidavits in support of his petition.

The Court stated that the applicant's reinstatement to the Bar depended on whether the Court deemed that the applicant is a fit and proper person to practice law, considering his character and standing prior to disbarment, the nature of the charges, his conduct since disbarment, and the time that has elapsed.

The Court held that Dominador's conduct of abandoning his family for his mistress was grossly immoral and made him unsuitable for the legal profession. The Court found Dominador's claims of remorse and repentance unsubstantiated, noting that he was still living with his mistress and that only one of his children signed the affidavit claiming forgiveness. The Court also disregarded Dominador's holographic will bequeathing his properties to his wife and children. Ultimately, the Court found no convincing evidence of reform and denied Dominador's petition for reinstatement.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the respondent should be reinstated to the practice of law.

2. Whether the respondent has shown remorse and changed his ways.

RULING:

1. The petition for reinstatement to the Bar filed by the respondent is denied. The Court is not convinced that the respondent has shown remorse over his transgressions and has already changed his ways. The Court emphasizes that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege and is enjoyed only by those who continue to display unassailable character.

PRINCIPLES:

• The Court has the discretion to reinstate an applicant to the practice of law based on whether the public interest in the orderly and impartial administration of justice will continue to be preserved with the applicant's reentry as a counselor at law.

• The applicant must satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character and a fit and proper person to practice law.

• The extreme penalty of disbarment is imposed on lawyers who commit grossly immoral conduct, such as betraying one's own family to satisfy personal desires.

• Repentance and remorse, together with the time elapsed since the disbarment, may be considered in the reinstatement of a disbarred lawyer. However, such pleas must be genuine and supported by evidence of reformation.

• Forgiveness from the family of the respondent does not discount the fact that he is still involved in a grossly immoral conduct.

• The practice of law is a privilege that should be enjoyed only by those who continue to display unassailable character.