FACTS:
Complainant is a second year medical student of the
Southwestern University in which respondent Atty. Aznar is the then Chairman of
the College of Medicine. Complainant was compelled to go to Manila with
respondent for three days where he repeatedly had carnal knowledge of her upon
the threat of respondent that if she would not give in to his lustful desires,
she would flunk in all her subjects and she would never become a medical
intern. After due investigation, the Solicitor General found the respondent guilty
of gross immoral conduct and recommends that since the complainant is partly to
blame for having gone with respondent to Manila knowing fully well that
respondent is a married man ,with children, a rich man and is not practicing
his profession before the court, he should merely be suspended from the
practice of law for not less than three (3) years.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the imposition of the penalty is proper.
HELD: NO.
The fact that he is a rich man and does not practice his
profession as a lawyer, does not render respondent a person of good moral
character. Evidence of good moral character precedes admission to bar (Sec.2,
Rule 138, Rules of Court) and such requirement is not dispensed with upon
admission thereto. Good moral character is a continuing qualification necessary
to entitle one to continue in the practice of law.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court enumerates
the grounds for disbarment or suspension from his office as attorney, among
others, by grossly immoral conduct. Immoral conduct has been defined as that
which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference
to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.
In the present case, it was highly immoral of respondent
to have taken advantage of his position in asking complainant to go with him
under the threat that she would flunk in all her subjects in case she refused.
Respondent Jose B.
Aznar is DISBARRED.
Comments
Post a Comment