A.C. No. 1334. November 28, 1989. ROSARIO DELOS REYES, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE B. AZNAR, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Rosario delos Reyes, a second-year medical student at Southwestern University, filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Jose B. Aznar, the university’s Chairman. She alleged that Aznar, threatening she would fail her Pathology subject, coerced her into sexual intercourse on multiple occasions. She further claimed that after she became pregnant, Aznar, through a Dr. Gil Ramas, subjected her to a forced abortion. In his Answer, Aznar denied all allegations, asserted he had no personal knowledge of the complainant, and impugned her morality as a special defense. The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation.
The Solicitor General’s investigation substantiated the complainant’s account. Evidence, including testimonies and documentary exhibits such as airline tickets and hotel records, established that Aznar compelled delos Reyes to accompany him to Manila under threat of academic failure. They stayed at the Ambassador Hotel, where Aznar had carnal knowledge of her. Testimonies also detailed the subsequent abortion procedure. In contrast, the respondent’s defense relied solely on the testimonies of two witnesses who claimed Aznar was in Manila with male companions during the relevant period. Notably, Aznar himself never appeared to testify or refute the allegations directly during the entire investigation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Jose B. Aznar should be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ordered the disbarment of Atty. Jose B. Aznar. The legal logic centers on the imperative of good moral character as a continuing requirement for the practice of law. The Court found the Solicitor General’s factual findings, which were based on substantial evidence, to be conclusive. Aznar, a married man and a figure of authority as Chairman of the College of Medicine, exploited his position to sexually exploit a student under his academic control, using the threat of failure to coerce her compliance. This conduct was deemed grossly immoral, defined as willful, flagrant, and shameless behavior showing moral indifference to community standards.
The Court rejected Aznar’s defenses. His failure to personally testify was construed against him, and the allegations of the complainant’s motive for vengeance were insufficient to overcome the credible evidence presented. The argument that suspension was pointless because he was wealthy and did not actively practice law was also dismissed. The Court emphasized that good moral character is not a dispensable qualification upon admission but a perpetual condition for retaining the privilege to practice law. The grossly immoral conduct, involving moral turpitude and a violation of his attorney’s oath, warranted the ultimate penalty of disbarment to protect the integrity of the legal profession. His name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.