Arciga vs Maniwang Case Digest

Elesterio, Dessa Marie V. 16101108 Subject: Legal Profession Professor: Judge Francisco A. Seville Jr. A.M. No. 1608 August 14, 1981 MAGDALENA T. ARCIGA complainant, vs. SEGUNDINO D. MANIWANG respondent. Facts: In 1970, Arciga was a medical technology student and Maniwang was a law student. The two acquainted and had a sexual relationship. In 1973, Arciga got pregnant. In 1975, Maniwang passed the bar exams. After which, he stopped communicating with Arciga. Arciga then found out that Maniwang married another woman. She confronted the wife and this irked Maniwang to inflict physical injuries upon Arciga. Arciga filed a disbarment case against Maniwang grounded on gross immoral conduct. Maniwang admitted that he is the father of Arciga’s child; that he did promise to marry Arciga many times; that he broke those promises because of Arciga’s shady past because apparently Arciga had an illegitimate child even before her son with Maniwang was born. Issue: W/N Maniwang should be disbarred and be held liable for gross immoral conduct. Arguments of the Parties: Arciga, complainant said that Maniwang reassured he many times that he would marry her once he passed the bar examinations. She reported that Maniwang inflicted physical injuries upon herr and secured medical treatment in a hospital Maniwang, respondent contended that the cohabitation with the complainant and his reneging on his promise of marriage do not warrant his disbarment. Maniwang admitted that he is the father of Arciga’s child; that he did promise to marry Arciga many times; that he broke those promises because of Arciga’s shady past because

apparently Arciga had an illegitimate child even before her son with Maniwang was born. Decision of the Court: The Supreme Court ruled that Maniwang’s case is different from the cases of Mortel vs Aspiras and Almirez vs Lopez, and other cases therein cited. Maniwang’s refusal to marry Arciga was not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment. But the Supreme Court did say that it is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is “grossly immoral conduct” or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment. Immoral conduct has been defined as “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”. The complaint for disbarment against the respondent is hereby dismissed. Relevance to the subject (Legal Profession) The case of Arciga vs Maniwang is important in determining whether the act that the lawyer has done was immoral or grounds of disbarment. It is very crucial for a lawyer especially in his profession to maintain his/ her etiquette in order to become an example to the other citizens of the Philippines. A litigator must be the first one that the people must look up to. Legal profession does not only apply to the duties of a lawyer to the bar and to his clients but also to the people surrounding him.