This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-09-22 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In Toledo vs. Toledo,[30] we disbarred respondent for abandoning his lawful wife and cohabiting with another woman who had borne him a child. Likewise, in Obusan vs. Obusan,[31] we ruled that abandoning one's wife and resuming carnal relations with a paramour fall within that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community. | |||||
|
2004-09-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| (5) In Toledo vs. Toledo,[29] respondent abandoned his wife, who supported him and spent for his law education, and thereafter cohabited with another woman. We ruled that he "failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a member of the bar." For this, respondent was disbarred. | |||||
|
2003-10-08 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be difficult to specify the degree of moral delinquency that may qualify an act as immoral, yet, for purposes of disciplining a lawyer, immoral conduct has been defined as that "conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community."[7] Thus, in several cases, the Court did not hesitate to discipline a lawyer for keeping a mistress in defiance of the mores and sense of morality of the community.[8] | |||||