Leda v. Tabang

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A.C. No. 2505 February 21, 1992 EVANGELINE LEDA, complainant, vs. ATTY. TREBONIAN TABANG, respondent. PER CURIAM: Complainant, It appears that on 3 October 1976, Code1 as one of exceptional character (Annex "A", Petition).

The parties agreed to keep the fact of marriage Respondent finished his law studies in 1981 and thereafter applied to take the Bar. The Court deferred Respondent's Oath-taking and required Respondent filed his "Explanation," dated 26 May 1982 which was received on 7 June 1982.

Respondent also filed a Motion to Dismiss, dated 2 June 1982. Acting on the aforesaid Motion and Comment, the Court dismissed Bar Matter No. 78 and allowed Respondent to take his Oath in a Resolution dated 20 August 1982. On 14 February 1983, however, Complainant filed this Administrative Case, this time praying for Respondent's disbarment based on the following grounds: a.

For having made use of his legal knowledge to contract an invalid marriage with me assuming that our marriage is not valid, and making a mockery of our marriage institution. b. For having misrepresented himself as single when in truth he is already married in his application to take the bar exam.

c. For being not of good moral character contrary to the certification he submitted to the Supreme Court; d. For (sic) guilty of deception for Attached to Complainant's Petition for Disbarment, as Annex "F,"

is an undated and unsigned letter addressed to Complainant, allegedly sic) professional and there is nothing you can do for it to take away from me even (sic) you Respondent denied emphatically that he had sent such a letter contending that it is In his Comment in the present case, Respondent avers that he and Complainant had covenanted not to disclose the marriage On 7 May 1984, the Court referred the Complaint to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. On Upon the facts on Record even without testimonial evidence from Complainant, we find Respondent's lack of good moral character sufficiently established. Firstly, his declaration in his application for Admission to the 1981 Bar Examinations that he was Respondent's protestations that he had acted in good faith in declaring his status as "single"

not only because of his pact with Complainant to keep the marriage under wraps but also because that marriage to the Complainant was void from the beginning, are mere afterthoughts absolutely wanting of merit. Secondly, Respondent's conduct in adopting conflicting positions The records show that in Bar Matter No. 78, Respondent had submitted an "Explanation," in paragraph 1, page 1 of which he admits having been "legally married"

to ibid., pp. 59-60). Again, while in said "Explanation" he admitted having been "legally married"

to Complainant (par. 1), in this case, however, he denies the legality of the marriage and, instead, harps on its being void ab initio. He even denies his signature in the marriage contract.

In Bar Matter No. 78, Respondent also averred that the fact of marriage was not to be made public so as to allow him to finish his studies and take the Bar. Thirdly, Respondent Fourthly,sic) lawyer," he again refused to honor his marriage to Complainant.

Respondent's lack of good moral character is only too evident. It cannot, when the attorney's character is bad in such respects as to show that he is unsafe and unfit to be entrusted with the powers of

WHEREFORE, Copies SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero and Nocon, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1 Art. 76. No marriage license shall be necessary when a man and a woman who have attained the age of majority and who, being