7/28/2019 Cojuanco vs Palma

1/2

FLORDELIZ H. FLORIDAPROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

Adm. Case No. 2474 September 15, 2004

Eduardo M. Cojuangco Jr. vs. Atty. Leo Palma

FACTS:

Respondent despite his subsisting marriage wed MariaLuisa Cojuangco, the daughter ofcomplainant. Thus, the latter filed complaint disbarment against respondent. Respondent movedto dismiss the complaint. The court referred the case to OSG for investigation andrecommendation. The Assistant Solicitor General heard the testimonies of the complainant and hiswitn ess in the presence of respondents counsel.

Respondent filed with the OSG an urgent motion to suspend proceedings on the ground that thefinal actions of his civil case for the declaration of nullity of marriage between him and his wife Lisa,poses a prejudicial question to the disbarment proceeding, but it was denied. The OSG transferredthe disbarment case to the IBP, the latter found respondent guilty of gross immoral conduct andviolation of his oath as a lawyer, hence, was suspended from the practice of law for a period ofthree years. In his motion for reconsideration, respondent alleged that he acted under a firmfactual and legal conviction in declaring before the Hong Kong Marriage Registry that he is abachelor because his first marriage is void even if there is judicial declaration of nullity.

ISSUE:Whether or not the respondent committed grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as alawyer and whether or not he should be disbarred.

HELD:

Undoubtedly, respondents act constitutes grossl y immoral conduct, a ground for disbarmentunder Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. He exhibited a deplorable lack of thatdegree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. In particular, he made a mockery ofmarriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting asecond marriage is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality.

The interdict upon lawyers, as inscribed in Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, isthat they shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

In sum, respondent committed grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer. Thepenalty of one (1) year suspension recommended by the IBP is not commensurate to the gravity of

7/28/2019 Cojuanco vs Palma

2/2

his offense. The bulk of jurisprudence supports the imposition of the extreme penalty ofdisbarment.

Respondent is found GUILTY of grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer, and isDISBARRED from the practice of law. Respondent s name is stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.