Annabelle J. Pomperada vs. Benjamin Jochico y Pama

Annabelle J. Pomperada vs. Benjamin Jochico y Pama

B.M. No. L-68. November 21, 1984

Facts:

            On February 20, 1979, Anabelle J. Pomperada, complainant, and Benjamin Jochico y Pama, respondent, agreed to get married and respondent facilitated all the necessary papers and documents for a marriage contract which turned out to be fake. Respondent had complainant sign a prepared marriage contract and when complainant inquired whether it was necessary for them to appear before the officiating judge, respondent informed her that it was not necessary because the judge knew personally both complainant and respondent, and respondent assured complainant that he would just take care of the signing of the marriage contract by Judge Felino Garcia of the City Court of Bacolod, later respondent gave complainant a copy of the marriage contract which appeared to have been signed already by Judge Garcia.

A verification, however, revealed that the marriage between complainant and respondent was not registered in the Local Civil Registrar's Office and in a further confrontation with Judge Felino Garcia the latter denied having signed the marriage contract and denied as his own the signature which purports to be the signature of Judge Felino Garcia in the marriage contract. Respondent filed income tax returns jointly with Nenita Martelino Ureta, the latter indicated as his spouse for the years 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976 and enumerated two children as dependents. Then in the years 1979 and 1980 he filed income tax returns but he indicated complainant as his spouse.

Issue:

            Whether or not the respondent committed a gross immoral conduct, making him disqualified from the mass oath taking.

Held:

            Yes. The Supreme Court held that the respondent committed a gross immoral conduct, and in effect, he is disqualified from mass oath taking. It is evident that respondent fails to meet the standard of moral fitness for membership in the legal profession. Whether the marriage was a joke as respondent claims, or a trick played on her as claimed by complainant, it does not speak well of respondent's moral values. Respondent had made a mockery of marriage, a basic social institution, which public policy cherishes and protects (Article 216, Civil Code). Respondent's testimony was a long and clear admission of illicit liaison with Complainant for nine years, and before that with another woman, and of the filing of false Income Tax Returns. Those actuations do not conform to the standard norms of honesty, decency and moral conduct required of an aspiring member of the legal profession. Accordingly, the petition of respondent to be allowed to take the oath as a member of the Bar and to sign the Roll of Attorneys is hereby denied. The Court Administrator is directed to circularize all Courts that the respondent has not been allowed to take the oath as a member of the Bar.