#25Tolosa vs Cargo

Clarisse Rosiel O. Zosa Legal Profession

LLB-1

Room EH407

respondent . JOSE TOLOSA, complainant , vs. vs. ALFREDO CARGO, respondent . A.C. No. 2385. March 8, 1989

Law Principle of the Case:

1.LEGAL ETHICS; FAILURE OF A LAWYER TO COMPLY WITH THE RIGOROUS STANDARDS OF CONDUCT REQUIRED OF MEMBERS OF THE BAR AND OFFICERS OF THE COURT. —  COURT. — A member of the Bar and and officer of the court is is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by b y creating the belief that he is flouting moral standards. 2. LAWYERS MUST NOT ONLY BE OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER BUT MUST LIVE AND BE SEEN TO BE OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER. —  CHARACTER. — As As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of o f good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance accord ance with the highest moral standards of the community. 3. IMPOSITION OF REPRIMAND UPON A LAWYER FOR CONDUCT UNBECOMING A MEMBER OF THE BAR. —  BAR. — The The Court will imposed REPRIMAND for  those conduct of unbecoming a member of the Bar and an officer of the court, and to WARN that continuation of the same or similar conduct will be dealt with more severely in the future.

Facts of the Case:

On 7 April 1982, complainant Jose Tolosa filed with the Court an Affidavit-Complaint a disbarment case towards Attorney Alfredo Cargo claiming immorality. Complainant claimed that respondent had been seeing his (complainant's) (complain ant's) wife Priscilla M. Tolosa in his house and elsewhere. Complainant further alleged that in June 19 81, his wife left his conjugal home and went to live with respondent at No. 45 Sisa Street, Barrio Tenejeros, Malabon, Metro Manila and that since then has been living l iving with respondent at that address. Respondent denied allegations of complainant. Respondent acknowledged that complainant's wife had been seeing him but that she had done so in the course of seeking advice from respondent (in view of the continuous cruelt y and unwarranted marital accusations of  complainant against her), as to what to do about the "continuous quarrels qua rrels between affiant and his wife and the beatings and physical injuries (sometimes less serious) that the latter sustained from the former. The complainant moreover alleged that responden t had paid for the hospital and medical bills of  complainant's wife during latter’s confinement, and that respondent visited her at the hospital everyday; he still added that the respondent paid for the rental of his wife and that all the appliances in the said house was bought buy the respondent;

The respondent, on the other hand, deniedthe further allegations of complainant, and stating that he had merely given complainant's wife the amount of P35.00 by way of financial assistance during her confinement in the hospital and she did not pay the house rental nor bought household appliances of complainant’s wife.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Cargo be disbarred?

Decision:

The complainant’s allegations does not contain sufficient evidence to show that respondent had indeed been cohabiting with complainant's wife or was otherwise guilty of acts of immorality. The Court do not believe that the penalty of suspension from the practice of law may be  properly imposed upon respondent. However, the Court agrees that respondent had failed "to properly deport himself by avoiding any possible action or behavior which may be misinterpreted by complainant, thereby causing  possible trouble in the complainant's family," which behavior was "unbecoming of a lawyer and an officer of the court." ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to REPRIMAND respondent attorney for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar and an officer of the court, and to WARN him that continuation of the same or similar conduct will be dealt with more severely in the future.