MA.

CECILIA CLARISSA C, ADVINCULA, Complainant, v. ATTY. LEONARDO C.

ADVINCULA, Respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

This administrative case stemmed from the complaint for disbarment dated June 16,
2006 brought to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Leonardo C.
Advincula (Atty. Advincula) by no less than his wife, Dr. Ma. Cecilia Clarissa C.
Advincula (Dr. Advincula).

In her complaint,1 Dr. Advincula has averred that Atty. Advincula committed unlawful
and immoral acts;2 that while Atty. Advincula was still married to her, he had extra-
marital sexual relations with Ma. Judith Ortiz Gonzaga (Ms. Gonzaga);3 that the extra-
marital relations bore a child in the name of Ma. Alexandria Gonzaga Advincula
(Alexandria);4 that Atty. Advincula failed to give financial support to their own children,
namely: Ma. Samantha Paulina, Ma. Andrea Lana, and Jose Leandro, despite his having
sufficient financial resources;5 that he admitted in the affidavit of late registration of
birth of Alexandria that he had contracted another marriage with Ms. Gonzaga;6 that
even should Atty. Advincula prove that his declaration in the affidavit of late registration
of birth was motivated by some reason other than the fact that he truly entered into a
subsequent marriage with Ms. Gonzaga, then making such a declaration was in itself
still unlawful;7 that siring a child with a woman other than his lawful wife was conduct
way below the standards of morality required of every lawyer;8 that contracting a
subsequent marriage while the first marriage had not been dissolved was also an
unlawful conduct;9 that making a false declaration before a notary public was an
unlawful conduct punishable under the Revised Penal Code;10 and that the failure of
Atty. Advincula to provide proper support to his children showed his moral character to
be below the standards set by law for every lawyer.11 Dr. Advincula prayed that Atty.
Advincula be disbarred.12 chanrobleslaw

In his answer,13 Atty. Advincula denied the accusations. He asserted that during the
subsistence of his marriage with Dr. Advincula but prior to the birth of their youngest
Jose Leandro, their marital relationship had deteriorated; that they could not agree on
various matters concerning their family, religion, friends, and respective careers; that
Dr. Advincula abandoned the rented family home with the two children to live with her
parents; that despite their separation, he regularly gave financial support to Dr.
Advincula and their children; that during their separation, he got into a brief
relationship with Ms. Gonzaga; and that he did not contract a second marriage with Ms.
Gonzaga.14 chanrobleslaw

Atty. Advincula further acknowledged that as a result of the relationship with Ms.
Gonzaga, a child was bom and named Alexandra;15 that in consideration of his moral
obligation as a father, he gave support to Alexandra;16 that he only learned that the
birth of Alexandra had been subsequently registered after the child was already
enrolled in school;17 that it was Ms. Gonzaga who informed him that she had the birth
certificate of Alexandria altered by a fixer in order to enroll the child;18 that he strived
to reunite his legitimate family, resulting in a reconciliation that begot their third child,
Jose Leandro; that Dr. Advincula once again decided to live with her parents, bringing
all of their children along; that nevertheless, he continued to provide financial support
to his family and visited the children regularly; that Dr. Advincula intimated to him that
she had planned to take up nursing in order to work as a nurse abroad because her
medical practice here was not lucrative; that he supported his wife's nursing school
expenses;19 that Dr. Advincula left for the United States of America (USA) to work as a
nurse;20 that the custody of their children was not entrusted to him but he agreed to
such arrangement to avoid further division of the family;21 that during the same period
he was also busy with his law studies;22 that Dr. Advincula proposed that he and their
children migrate to the USA but he opposed the proposal because he would not be able
to practice his profession there;23 that Dr. Advincula stated that if he did not want to
join her, then she would just get the children to live with her;24 that when Dr. Advincula
came home for a vacation he was not able to accompany her due to his extremely busy
schedule as Chief Legal Staff of the General Prosecution Division of the National Bureau
of Investigation;25  and that when they finally met arguments flared out, during which
cralawred

she threatened to file a disbarment suit against him in order to force him to allow her to
bring their children to the USA.26 Atty. Advincula prayed that the disbarment case be
dismissed for utter lack of merit.27 chanrobleslaw

Findings and Recommendations of the IBP-CBD

After exhaustive hearings, Commissioner Angelito C. Inocencio of the IBP Commission

on Bar Discipline (CBD) rendered the following findings and observations, and
recommended the following sanctions, to wit: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers comes

this provisions (sic): "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct."

This means that members of the bar ought to possess good moral character.
Remember we must (sic) that the practice of law is a mere privilege. The moment that
a lawyer no longer has the required qualifications foremost of which is the presence of
that character earlier mentioned, the Honorable Supreme Court may revoke the said
practice.

No doubt, Respondent Leanardo (sic) C. Advincula, probably due to the weakness of the
flesh, had a romance outside of marriage (sic) with Ma. Judith Ortiz Gonzaga. This he
admitted.

From such affair came a child named Ma. Alexandria. He supported her as a moral
obligation.

How, then, must we categorize his acts? It cannot be denied that he had committed an
adulterous and immoral act.

Was his conduct grossly immoral?

Before answering that, let us recall what the highest Court of the Land defined as
immoral conduct: "that conduct which is willful, flagrant or shameless and which shows
a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the
community."28 chanrobleslaw

xxxx

It is the Commissioner's view that what he did pales when compared to Respondent Leo
Palma's case earlier cited.

In that case, the Honorable Supreme Court stressed that Atty. Palma had made a
mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.

The highest Court of the Land intoned in the same case: "But what respondent forgot is
that he has also duties to his wife. As a husband, he is obliged to live with her; observe
mutual love, respect and fidelity: and render help and support."

Deemed favorable to Respondent's cause were the various exhibits he presented

evidencing the fact that he supported their children financially. Such conduct could not
illustrate him as having championed a grossly immoral conduct.

Another factor to consider is this: Complainant should share part of the blame why their
marriage soured. Their constant quarrels while together would indicate that harmony
between them was out of the question.

The possibility appears great that she might have displayed a temper that ignited the
flame of discord between them.

Just the same, however, while this Commissioner would not recommend the supreme
penalty of disbarment for to deprive him of such honored station in life would result in
irreparable injury and must require proof of the highest degree pursuant to the
Honorable Supreme Court's ruling in Angeles vs. Figueroa, 470 SCRA 186 (2005), he
must be sanctioned.

And the proof adduced is not of the highest degree.

VI. RECOMMENDATION

In the light of the foregoing disquisition, having, in effect, Respondent's own admission
of having committed an extra-marital affair and fathering a child, it is respectfully
recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for at least one month
with the additional admonition that should he repeat the same, a more severe penalty
would be imposed.

It would be unjust to impose upon him the extreme penalty of disbarment. What he did
was not grossly immoral.29 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The IBP Board of Governors unanimously adopted the findings and recommendations of
the Investigating Commissioner with slight modification of the penalty, thus: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and

APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex
"A" and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
applicable laws and rules, and considering respondent's admission of engaging in a
simple immorality and also taking into account the condonation of his extra-marital
affair by his wife, Atty. Leonardo C. Advincula is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for two (2) months.30 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Atty. Advincula accepted the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors as final and
executory, and manifested in his compliance dated February 26, 2013, as follows: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

1. That on 28 November 2011 this Honorable Court issued a resolution

suspending the undersigned Attorney from the practice of law for two (2)
months under "A.C. No. 9226 (formerly CBD Case No. 06-1749) (Ma.
Cecilia Clarissa C. Advincula vs. Atty. Leonardo C. Advincula) x x x

2. That on 30 October 2012 in faithful compliance with the above order, the
undersigned attorney applied for Leave for two (2) months starting
November up to December thereby refraining himself from the practice of
law as Legal Officer on the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) x x x

3. That the undersigned Attorney would like to notify this Honorable Court of
his compliance with the above resolution/order so that he may be able to
practice his law profession again.31

Ruling of the Court

The good moral conduct or character must be possessed by lawyers at the time of their
application for admission to the Bar, and must be maintained until retirement from the
practice of law. In this regard, the Code of Professional Responsibility states: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

xxxx

CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

xxxx

Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Accordingly, it is expected that every lawyer, being an officer of the Court, must not
only be in fact of good moral character, but must also be seen to be of good moral
character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the
community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the Court is required
not only to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping mistresses but also to
conduct himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is
flouting those moral standards. If the practice of law is to remain an honorable
profession and attain its basic ideals, whoever is enrolled in its ranks should not only
master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity
to them. The requirement of good moral character is of much greater import, as far as
the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning.32 chanrobleslaw

Immoral conduct has been described as conduct that is so willful, flagrant, or

shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of
the community. To be the basis of disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be
immoral, but grossly immoral, that is, it must be so corrupt as to virtually constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed
under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of
decency.33chanrobleslaw

On different occasions, we have disbarred or suspended lawyers for immorality based

on the surrounding circumstances of each case. In Bustamante-Alejandro v.
Alejandro,34 the extreme penalty of disbarment was imposed on the respondent who
had abandoned his wife and maintained an illicit affair with another woman. Likewise,
disbarment was the penalty for a lawyer who carried on an extra-marital affair with a
married woman prior to the judicial declaration that her marriage was null and void,
while he himself was also married.35 In another case we have suspended for two years,
a married attorney who had sired a child with a former client.36 In Samaniego v.
Ferrer,37 suspension of six months from the practice of law was meted on the
philandering lawyer.

Yet, we cannot sanction Atty. Advincula with the same gravity. Although his siring the
child with a woman other than his legitimate wife constituted immorality, he committed
the immoral conduct when he was not yet a lawyer. The degree of his immoral conduct
was not as grave than if he had committed the immorality when already a member of
the Philippine Bar. Even so, he cannot escape administrative liability. Taking all the
circumstances of this case into proper context, the Court considers suspension from the
practice of law for three months to be condign and appropriate.

As a last note, Atty. Advincula manifested in his compliance dated February 26, 2013
that he had immediately accepted the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors
suspending him from the practice of law for two months as final and executory; that he
had then gone on leave from work in the NBI for two months starting in November and
lasting until the end of December, 2012; and that such leave from work involved
refraining from performing his duties as a Legal Officer of the NBI.

The manifestation of compliance is unacceptable. A lawyer like him ought to know that
it is only the Court that wields the power to discipline lawyers. The IBP Board of
Governors did not possess such power, rendering its recommendation against him
incapable of finality. It is the Court's final determination of his liability as a lawyer that
is the reckoning point for the service of sanctions and penalties. As such, his supposed
compliance with the recommended two-month suspension could not be satisfied by his
going on leave from his work at the NBI. Moreover, his being a government employee
necessitates that his suspension from the practice of law should include his suspension
from office. A leave of absence will not suffice. This is so considering that his position
mandated him to be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing. The suspension
from the practice of law will not be a penalty if it does not negate his continuance in
office for the period of the suspension. If the rule is different, this exercise of
reprobation of an erring lawyer by the Court is rendered inutile and becomes a mockery
because he can continue to receive his salaries and other benefits by simply going on
leave for the duration of his suspension from the practice of law.

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS AND DECLARES ATTY. LEONARDO C. ADVINCULA

GUILTY of immorality; and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period
of THREE MONTHS EFFECTIVE UPON NOTICE HEREOF, with a STERN
WARNING that a more severe penalty shall be imposed should he commit the same
offense or a similar offense; DIRECTS ATTY. ADVINCULA to report the date of his
receipt of the Decision to this Court; and ORDERS the Chief of the Personnel Division of
the National Bureau of Investigation to implement the suspension from office of ATTY.
ADVINCULA and to report on his compliance in order to determine the date of
commencement of his suspension from the practice of law.

Let a copy of this Decision be made part of the records of the respondent in the Office
of the Bar Confidant; and furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Civil
Service Commission for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED. chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary