ChanRobles Virtual law Library



chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[A.C. No. 3249. October 3, 2006]

SALVACION DELIZO-CORDOVA v. ATTY. LAWRENCE D. CORDOVA

En Banc

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT. 3, 2006 .

A.C. No. 3249 (Salvacion Delizo-Cordova v. Atty. Lawrence D. Cordova)

In the Resolution dated November 29, 1989, the Court suspended respondent Atty. Lawrence D. Cordova indefinitely from the practice of law after finding him guilty of immorality and acts unbecoming a member of the bar for womanizing, neglect of duty to support his legitimate family and deliberate maltreatment of the complainant. In the said Resolution, the Court resolved that it will consider lifting his suspension when respondent submits satisfactory proof showing that he has and continues to provide for the support of his legitimate family and that he has given up the immoral course of conduct that he has clung to.

On February 5, 1992, complainant filed a petition for the lifting of the suspension of the respondent stating that she is fully satisfied that respondent has given up his immoral activities. However, in a letter dated March 17, 1992, complainant averred that respondent has gone back to his immoral activities, i.e. to that date, respondent has maintained his mistress and has stopped giving support to her and their children.

On January 30, 1998, respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion praying for the lifting of his suspension alleging that: the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Surigao del Sur Chapter, has issued a Resolution recommending the lifting of his suspension for having sufficiently proven to have regained the fitness to be allowed to resume the practice of law by commendably supporting and taking care of his children despite the absence, neglect and abandonment of complainant who is now living with another man; he also wrote under oath to the IBP Surigao Chapter President explaining in detail the extra-marital affairs of complainant which respondent tried to keep from their children; upon receipt of such Resolution, the Board of Governors, IBP, directed the IBP Surigao Chapter to report on the behavior and substantiation of respondent's activities; in its report dated April 5, 2000, the IBP Surigao Chapter recommended the lifting of the suspension of the respondent; he has been deprived of the practice of law for seven years and this has tremendously affected his children.

In a Resolution dated May 29, 2000, the IBP adopted and approved the recommendation of the Surigao Chapter for it is convinced that respondent has reformed and the more than 10 years suspension from the practice of law appears to be sufficient penalty for the acts complained of.

In a Resolution dated August 2, 2000, the Court directed complainant to file her Comment. In a letter dated January 18, 2002, complainant by way of opposition, alleged that contrary to the findings of the IBP, respondent has not reformed a bit for he has sired a son with a new mistress. Complainant surmises that the alleged reformation of respondent concerns the giving up of his other mistresses which he maintained at the same time in favor of the new mistress who gave him a son. Complainant also stated that more than 10 years of suspension is not enough for the maltreatment (physical and mental abuse which resulted to the death of her unborn child) she suffered from the respondent.

In a Resolution dated May 27, 2002, the Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation, report and recommendation. On the basis of the report of the OBC dated January 13, 2003, the Court issued a Resolution dated January 27, 2003 directing respondent to Comment on the opposition of the complainant and submit proof satisfactory to the Court that he has provided for the support of his legitimate family and continues to do so and has given up his immoral activities.

Respondent failed to comply with the said directive. Thus, in the Resolution dated August 9, 2004, the Court denied the motion of respondent for the lifting of his indefinite suspension.

Now, before the Court are: (a) Manifestation and/or Motion to Lift Suspension from the Practice of Law of Respondent Atty. Lawrence D. Cordova dated November 14, 2005, filed by complainant; (b) Motion and/or Manifestation with Prayer for Immediate Resolution dated November 21, 2005 filed by respondent; (c) Affidavit to Withdraw Complaint and Declaration to Lift Respondent Atty. Lawrence D. Cordova's Suspension from the Practice of Law dated December 8, 2005 of complainant; d) Motion to Withdraw Complaint Against Respondent dated December 8, 2005 filed by complainant; and (e) Affidavit dated January 9, 2006 of Lorraine D. Cordova and Melanie D. Cordova, daughters of complainant and respondent pleading that the indefinite suspension of their father be lifted.

Respondent in his motion alleges that: he has been out of the practice of his profession as a lawyer for 15 years, 11 months and 10 days since his indefinite suspension on November 29, 1989; he sacrificed and endeavored to keep up his life and continue living with the meager support that he can give to his family for the past long years not to mention the fact that complainant was equally guilty of the same sins; he simply went into farming to survive and even tried other means to keep on living including his involvement in politics; the indefinite suspension for more than 15 years now has eaten up his life and future and the future of his children and family; his children are living a difficult life because they could not be gainfully employed due to non-completion of their college courses; more than 15 years of respondent's prime life is lost, and at age 55 now, he may not be able to accomplish the dreams and ambitions of his children for the remaining years of his life; his stance and last option is to bend and plead to the Court for the restoration of his profession not only for himself and his family but also those who have faith in law and justice including those who believed in the capability of respondent in giving and dispensing fair play in a Court of law; the mental torment and public humiliation he suffered is immeasurable and his suspension from the practice of law is more than "indefinite" but a "lifetime"; he accepted the punishment without rancor in his heart but continue to believe and trust that the Supreme Court is a great dispenser of justice; he also maintained his competence of the law by upgrading himself in attending seminars conducted and the Mandatory Compulsory Legal Education (MCLE); he also tried to protect his family from offenses where the children are victims of serious physical injuries committed against their persons, and tried as possible that they should be given the needed legal protection; and, at present, his brother-in-law who was charged of murder needs legal help but he cannot extend it because of his suspension.

In her aforesaid Manifestation, Motion and Affidavit, complainant urges the Court to lift the suspension of respondent and avers in the main that for all the while of his suspension, respondent had supported his family and suffered the loss of his profession for 16 years; that respondent has given up his immoral conduct; that he lives with his legitimate family now and has recently protected their children in their legal battle against a person who mauled them and that complainant's brother needs a lawyer for his defense in a case of murder.

Respondent's children in their affidavit attest that: respondent supported them during his suspension even with his meager income; he protected them in their legal battle against a person who mauled them; as to immoral conduct, they believe that the complaint must be filed with clean hands alleging that when their mother filed the complaint, she herself, was equally guilty of immoral behavior which they kept secret from the respondent; when respondent was suspended, they were still minors of ages 9 and 13; now that they are already of majority ages of 30 and 26, they are still indirectly deprived of the needed support from the respondent.

The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. [1] cralaw

The indefinite suspension of respondent has the effect of giving him the chance to purge himself on his own good time of his contempt and misconduct, by acknowledging such misconduct, exhibiting appropriate repentance and demonstrating his willingness and capacity to live up tot the exacting standards of conduct rightly demanded from every member of the bar and officer of the courts. [2] cralaw

In the present case, 16 years has passed. Although the Court notes that complainant, who had been very active in opposing every move of respondent for the lifting of his suspension, has come to Court attesting to respondent's reformation and that the children likewise support the motion of respondent, nowhere in the Motion of the respondent does he acknowledge his misconduct or demonstrate repentance. Neither did he state that he has given up the immoral course of conduct that he has clung to. Respondent merely stated that he supported and protected his family no matter how difficult during the past years, that he wholeheartedly accepted his punishment, and updated his knowledge of law by attending seminars. These asseverations of the respondent fall short of the conditions of the Court for the lifting of his indefinite suspension. Respondent failed to show to the satisfaction of the Court that he is now worthy to be re-admitted to the bar. The Court has always been firm in its pronouncement that every member of the bar should live up to the exacting standards of conduct demanded by the legal profession. Thus, respondent's Motion for the lifting of his indefinite suspension cannot be granted.

ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for the lifting of the indefinite suspension from the practice of law of Atty. Lawrence D. Cordova is DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Dumadag v. Atty. Lumaya, 390 Phil. 1, 10 (2000).

[2] cralaw Id. at 9-10.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com