155 BARRIENTOS v DAAROL

FACTS
Victoria BARRIENTOS is single, a college student and about 20 years and 7 months old during her
relationship with Transfiguracion DAVID, a lawyer and the General Manager of Zamboanga del Norte
Electric Cooperative who was about 40 years old and married to SUMAYLO.
DAVID had been known by the BARRIENTOS family for quite sometime being the former student of
Victoria BARRIENTOS father and a former classmate of Victoria BARRIENTOS mother. DAVID
courted BARRIENTOS and after a week of courtship, BARRIENTOS accepted DAVIDS love. At this
time, DAVID was separated from his wife for 16 years.
BARRIENTOS, with her parents permission, was DAVIDS partner during the Chamber
Commerce affair. After the event and before going home, they parked the jeep at the beach and
after the usual preliminaries (what a term), they consummated the sexual act. This was their set up
until BARRIENTOS got pregnant. DAVID suggested abortion but BARRIENTOS disagreed.
During her pregnancy until she gave birth, it was BARRIENTOS family who took care of her.
BARRIENTOS then filed an administrative case against DAVID with the National Electrification
Administration which was however dismissed. Hence, the present petition.
ISSUE

W/N DAVID SHOULD BE DISBARRED

HELD

YES, LACK GOOD MORAL CHARACTER

REQUIREMENT TO BE ABLE TO PRACTICE LAW

---

CONTINUING

RATIO
From the records, it is indubitable that BARRIENTOS was never informed by DAVID of his real
status as a married individual. The fact of his previous marriage was disclosed by DAVID only after
BARRIENTOS became pregnant. Moreover, DAVID misrepresented himself as being eligible to remarry for having been separated from his wife for 16 years and even dangled a marriage proposal.
Interestingly enough, DAVID lived alone in Dipolog City though his son also studies in the same
area. Moreover, he never introduced his son and went around with his friends as though he was
never married. These circumstances belie DAVIDS claim that the BARRIENTOS family knew
about his marital status at the very start of the courtship.
But what surprises the Court is the perverted sense of DAVIDS moral values when he said that I see
nothing wrong with this relationship despite my being married. Worse, he even suggested abortion.
The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure up to the exacting standards
of mental and moral fitness. DAVID having exhibited debased morality, the Court is constrained to
impose upon him the most severe disciplinary action --- disbarment.

VICTORIA BARRIENTOS V. TRANSFIGURACION DAAROL

FACTS:
This is a disbarment case filed by Barrientos against Atty Daarol, on grounds of deceit and
grossly immoral conduct.
Barrientos first knew Daarlo in 1969. She was a college student, single. Atty. Daarol went to her
house because he was a friend of her sister, hence they also became friends. She knew Daarol to be a
single and as a General Manager of ZANECO (electic cooperative).
On June 1973, Daarol went to Barrientos house and asked her to be one of the usherettes in the
Masons convention so the latter said he should ask for the permission of her parents. They consented and
so she served as an usherette, Daarol picking her up and taking her home everyday.
In July 1973, Daarol came to petitioners house and invited her for a joy ride, with the permission
of her mother (who was Daarols former classmate). They went to the beach and Daarol proposed his
love for Barrientos and told her that if she would accept him, he would marry her within 6 months from
her acceptance. After a few days of courting, she accepted the offer of love. Visitations continued and
they agreed to get married in Dec 1973.
In Aug 1973, he took Barrientos to a party and when they left, he took her for a joy ride to an
airport in Sicayab where there were no houses around. There, he pressured her into having sexual
intercourse reiterating that he loved her, and that he would marry her and that December was very near
anyway they would marry soon. She gave in after much hesitation because she loved him. She cried after
the deed.
This event happened frequently thereafter during August to October 1973, where she consented
because she loved him. Eventually, she became pregnant and informed Daarol. He however suggested
that she have the baby aborted. She refused. He told her that she didnt have to worry because they were
getting married soon anyway.
In late October 1973, Daarol came to see Barrientos and her mother and told them that he could
not marry her because he was already married. He reassured them though that he has been separated from
his wife for 16 years and that he would work for the annulment of his marriage and subsequently marry
her. So Barrientos waited and delivered the baby but eventually wasnt able to contact Daarol anymore
(he went MIA).
ISSUE:
W/N Daarol should be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct.
HELD/RATIO:
YES. The fact of his previous marriage was disclosed by respondent only after the
complainant became pregnant. Even then, respondent misrepresented himself as being eligible to
re-marry for having been estranged from his wife for 16 years and dangled a marriage proposal on
the assurance that he would work for the annulment of his first marriage. It was a deception after all
as it turned out that respondent never bothered to annul said marriage.
Respondent resorted to deceit in the satisfaction of his sexual desires at the expense of the
gullible complainant. He is perverted. He says that: "I see nothing wrong with this relationship despite my
being married." Worse, he even suggested abortion.
Finally, respondent even had the temerity to allege that he is a Moslem convert and as such, could
enter into multiple marriages and has inquired into the possibility of marrying complainant. As records
indicate, however, his claim of having embraced the Islam religion is not supported by any evidence save
that of his self-serving testimony.
By his acts of deceit and immoral tendencies to appease his sexual desires, respondent
Daarol has amply demonstrated his moral delinquency. Hence, his removal for conduct
unbecoming a member of the Bar on the grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct is in order.