G.R. No. A.C. No. 10758, December 5, 2017
Glenda Alvaro vs. Atty. Bayani P. Dalangin

FACTS

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Bayani P. Dalangin for alleged gross immorality and misconduct. Complainant Glenda Alvaro alleged that Atty. Dalangin, while married, engaged in an illicit affair with Julita Pascual, a clerk at the Public Attorney’s Office in Talavera, Nueva Ecija, where he previously served as district public attorney. The complainant presented evidence, including witness testimonies that Pascual had confided about the affair, that the community knew of their relationship, and that they had a child together named Julienne. It was testified that Dalangin was often seen caring for the child, attending her school events, and was photographed with Pascual and the child on a vacation. When challenged to undergo DNA testing to disprove paternity, Atty. Dalangin refused.
The ponencia (main opinion) found the evidence insufficient to prove the illicit affair and imposed only a reprimand for imprudence. Justice Peralta, in this separate opinion, dissented from this finding on the sufficiency of evidence and the corresponding penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the quantum of evidence presented is sufficient to establish Atty. Dalangin’s grossly immoral conduct warranting the penalty of suspension from the practice of law.

RULING

Yes, substantial evidence exists to hold Atty. Dalangin administratively liable for grossly immoral conduct, warranting suspension. Justice Peralta disagreed with the ponencia’s finding of insufficient proof, arguing that the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) correctly found substantial evidence—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion. The collective testimonies of witnesses without proven ill motive, the common reputation in the courts and communities of Talavera and Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, Dalangin’s public demonstrations of affection towards Pascual’s family and the child, and his refusal to submit to DNA testing collectively constitute substantial evidence of an adulterous affair.
This conduct violates the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 and Canon 7 with Rule 7.03, which mandate lawyers to avoid unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct and to uphold the integrity of the legal profession. Gross immorality involves a willful, flagrant, or shameless act showing indifference to the opinion of the community and a deliberate disregard for the sanctity of marriage. Dalangin’s actions, as established by the evidence, demonstrate moral depravity and a low regard for fundamental professional ethics, falling below the moral standard required of lawyers. Therefore, Justice Peralta voted to uphold the IBP’s recommendation to suspend Atty. Dalangin from the practice of law for three years.