Carlos contracted two marriages: the first was with Consuelo, whom he left in the province, and the second was with Corinne in Manila, with whom he had six (6) children. Both women were unaware of Carlo’s marriage to the other.
When Carlos entered law school, he met Cristina, a classmate, to whom he confided his marital status. Not long after, Carlos and Cristina became involved in an extramarital affair, as a result of which Carlos left Corinne and their children. During Carlos and Cristina’s senior year in law school, Consuelo passed away. After their admission to the bar, Atty. Carlos and Atty. Cristina decided to get married in Hong Kong in a very private ceremony. When Corinne learned of Carlos and Cristina’s wedding in Hong Kong, she filed a disbarment case against Atty. Carlos and Atty. Cristina on the ground of gross immorality. Atty. Carlos and Atty. Cristina raised the following defenses:
a) the acts complained of took place before they were admitted to the bar; and
b) Atty. Carlos’ marriage to Corinne was void ab initio due to his subsisting first marriage with Consuelo, and they were free to marry after Consuelo died.
Rule on each defense. (2.5% each)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Both defenses are unmeritorious. Defense (a) fails because good moral character is a continuing requirement, while defense (b) fails because a judicial declaration of nullity is required before remarrying.
Under the CPRA, good moral character is a continuing condition for Bar membership, making pre-admission immoral acts actionable. Under Article 40 of the Family Code, a judicial declaration of nullity is mandatory prior to remarriage; without it, abandoning family and marrying a mistress constitute gross immorality.
Here, respondents cannot evade liability simply because their affair began before Bar admission. Further, Atty. Carlos could not validly marry Atty. Cristina without a judicial decree declaring his prior marriage void, rendering their extra-marital relationship grossly immoral.
Therefore, both defenses must be rejected, and respondents are administratively liable for gross immorality.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Does good moral character apply only at the time of admission to the Philippine Bar?
Good moral character is a continuing requirement for remaining a member of the Bar, making pre-admission immoral acts actionable.
Can a person contract a subsequent marriage without a judicial declaration of nullity of a previous void marriage?
Article 40 of the Family Code mandates a final judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage before contracting a subsequent marriage.
What is the effect if a law student commits grossly immoral conduct and later passes the Bar Examinations?
Immoral conduct committed prior to bar admission remains actionable after admission because good moral character is a continuing requirement.
How does Philippine law classify cohabitation and marriage with an extramarital partner without a judicial nullity decree?
Cohabiting or marrying an extramarital partner without a judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage constitutes gross immorality.
Is a female lawyer who knowingly marries a married man whose prior marriage has not been judicially declared void liable for disbarment?
A lawyer who knowingly engages in an illicit relationship and contracts a bigamous marriage commits gross immorality under the CPRA.
Learn more about these topics
1. Continuing Moral Character
Under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), good moral character is not only a mandatory prerequisite for admission to the practice of law but also a continuing requirement for maintaining membership in the Philippine Bar. Consequently, unlawful, immoral, or deceitful acts committed prior to bar admission remain actionable in disbarment or disciplinary proceedings once the applicant is admitted to the Bar. A lawyer cannot escape administrative liability for gross immorality by alleging that the immoral conduct commenced when he was still a law student or bar candidate.
2. Judicial Nullity Requirement
Under Article 40 of the Family Code of the Philippines, the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage solely on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. A party to a void marriage cannot unilaterally treat it as null and void and contract a subsequent marriage without first securing a judicial declaration of nullity. Contracting a subsequent marriage or cohabiting in an extramarital relationship without such judicial decree constitutes gross immorality, bigamy, and a grave violation of the lawyer's oath.
3. Gross Immorality Standard
Grossly immoral conduct is defined as conduct that is willful, flagrant, or shameless, showing a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community. Marrying or maintaining an illicit romantic relationship while a prior marriage remains legally subsisting, and abandoning one's spouse and children to cohabit with a mistress, demonstrates deplorable moral turpitude. Both the lawyer who abandons his family and the fellow attorney who knowingly participates in such illicit relationship are administratively liable for gross immorality under the CPRA.