Cordova v. Cordova

Constitutional Law I

1

Cordova v. Cordova

Key words: 2 mistresses, good moral character

A.M. no. 3249, November 29, 1989 Ponente: I. Terms  February 1987: Upon returning home from a trip II. to Manila necessitated by hospitalization of her III. Reliefs Sought daughter, Salvacion discovers that Laurence  Complaint by Salvacion Delizo against Atty. had their home for another mistress, Luisita Laurence Cordova, her husband, for disbarment Magallanes, and had taken their other daughter, for immorality and acts unbecoming of a Melanie with him. member of the Bar.  April 14, 1988: Salvacion submitted her IV. Facts complaint against Atty. Laurence Cordova for  June 6, 1976: Salvacion Delizo and Laurence immorality and acts unbecoming a member of Cordova got married, and had 2 children out of the bar. the marriage.  December 1, 1998: Laurence Cordova was  1985: The couple lived in the Quirino province, found to be in default for failure to file an answer but in the same year Cordova left his family, and to Salvacion’s complaint. his job as Clerk of Court of the RTC, and went  The hearing was moved many times, because to live with Fely Holgado, who was also married both of them failed to appear. In April 6, 1989, and had left her family, in Surigao del Sur, living the complainant informed the Commission that as husband in wife in public. they had already reconciled.  April 6, 1986: Cordova and his wife had an V. apparent reconciliation with Cordova promising VI. Issue/s and Held to leave Fely. He brought his family to Surigao 1. Whether or not Atty. Laurence Cordova was guilty del Sur, but frequently came home drunk and for immorality and acts unbecoming a member of failed to support his family. the bar? | 1C

Constitutional Law I

2

VII. VIII.

Held: Yes. He was suspended indefinitely until he presents evidence that he has continued supporting his family, and has given up immoral conduct. IX. X. As a requirement to the admission in the Bar, a candidate must show that he is of good moral character. As held in In Mortel v. Aspiras, 1 this Court, following the rule in the United States, held that "the continued possession ... of a good moral character is a requisite condition for the

rightful continuance in the practice of the law ... and its loss requires suspension or disbarment, even though the statutes do not specify that as a ground for disbarment. " Good moral character is not limited to the discharge of one’s duties as a laywer. XI. Clearly, respondent flaunted his disregard of the fundamental institution of marriage and its elementary obligations before his own daughter and the community at large. XII.

Separate Opinions XIII. None.

| 1C