The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Rebene C. Carrera for engaging in an extramarital affair, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. This decision emphasizes that lawyers must adhere to the highest moral standards, and engaging in scandalous conduct, even in their private lives, can result in severe disciplinary action. The ruling underscores that maintaining the integrity of the legal profession is paramount, and actions that undermine public trust will not be tolerated.

Love, Law, and Lies: When a Lawyer’s Personal Life Costs Him His Profession

This case revolves around the complaint filed by Annaliza C. Chan against Atty. Rebene C. Carrera, accusing him of gross misconduct due to their illicit affair. Chan alleged that Carrera misrepresented himself as a widower, pursued her despite knowing she was married, and engaged in other scandalous behavior. While Chan later sought to withdraw her complaint, the Supreme Court proceeded with the investigation to uphold the ethical standards of the legal profession.

The core issue lies in whether Carrera’s extramarital affair constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, and Rule 7.03, which bars conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law or behaves scandalously to the discredit of the legal profession. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a married person abandoning their spouse to cohabit with another constitutes immorality.

The Court emphasizes that administrative proceedings against lawyers are sui generis, neither purely civil nor purely criminal, but an investigation into the conduct of its officers. Therefore, the desistance of a complainant does not halt the proceedings. The Supreme Court in Ferancullo v. Atty. Ferancullo stated that:

x x x In view of its nature, administrative proceedings against lawyers are not strictly governed by the Rules of Court. As we held in In re Almacen, a disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. Hence, an administrative proceeding continues despite the desistance of a complainant, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same.

Despite Chan’s attempt to withdraw her complaint, both parties admitted to engaging in an extramarital affair and cohabiting for approximately three years while still legally married to their respective spouses. This admission alone was sufficient for the Court to find Carrera administratively liable for grossly immoral conduct.

The Code of Professional Responsibility clearly outlines the expected behavior of lawyers. Specifically, the following rules apply:

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

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.

The Court has consistently defined immoral conduct as behavior that is willful, flagrant, or shameless, showing indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community. The facts of the case were not in dispute. Carrera and Chan acknowledged their love affair and their decision to leave their respective families to live together. The Court noted that Carrera’s extensive accomplishments could not excuse his scandalous behavior. His knowledge and experience should have made him aware of his duty to uphold the moral standards of the legal profession.

In determining the appropriate penalty, the Court referenced several similar cases where lawyers were disbarred for abandoning their spouses and engaging in illicit affairs. As the Court emphasized in Amalia R. Ceniza v. Atty. Ceniza, Jr., any lawyer guilty of gross misconduct should be suspended or disbarred, even if the misconduct relates to their personal life, as long as it demonstrates a lack of moral character, honesty, probity, or good demeanor.

Therefore, based on Carrera’s scandalous and highly immoral conduct, the Court found him deserving of the extreme penalty of disbarment.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Carrera’s extramarital affair constituted gross immorality, warranting disciplinary action, despite the complainant’s attempt to withdraw the charges.
What is the Code of Professional Responsibility?	The Code of Professional Responsibility is a set of ethical rules governing the conduct of lawyers in the Philippines, designed to ensure integrity, competence, and respect for the legal system.
Why did the Supreme Court proceed despite the complainant’s withdrawal?	The Supreme Court has the power to investigate the conduct of its officers, even if the complainant withdraws the charges. The proceedings serve to protect the integrity of the legal profession and the judicial system.
What constitutes immoral conduct for a lawyer?	Immoral conduct for a lawyer includes actions that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, showing indifference to the moral standards of the community. This can include adultery, concubinage, or other scandalous behavior.
What is the significance of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?	Rule 1.01 prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, emphasizing the need for lawyers to maintain high ethical standards in all aspects of their lives.
What is the significance of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?	Rule 7.03 states that lawyers should not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law or behave scandalously, ensuring that their behavior, both public and private, does not discredit the legal profession.
What penalty did Atty. Carrera receive?	Atty. Carrera was disbarred from the practice of law, meaning he was permanently removed from the Roll of Attorneys and can no longer practice law in the Philippines.
Can personal misconduct affect a lawyer’s professional standing?	Yes, personal misconduct that reflects poorly on a lawyer’s moral character, honesty, or integrity can lead to disciplinary action, including suspension or disbarment.
What is the standard of morality expected of lawyers?	Lawyers are expected to uphold the highest standards of morality, as they are officers of the court and play a crucial role in the administration of justice.

This case serves as a stark reminder that lawyers are held to a higher standard of conduct, both professionally and personally. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity and moral standing of the legal profession.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ANNALIZA C. CHAN VS. ATTY. REBENE C. CARRERA, A.C. No. 10439, September 03, 2019