Advincula vs Macabata

A.C. No. 7204, March 7, 2007

• Facts
Complainant filed a disbarment case against respondent for
acting against the former with gross immorality. Advincula seek the
legal advice of Atty. Ernesto Macabata regarding her collectibles from
Queensway Travel and Tours. The latter, as agreed, sent the demand
letter. To discuss the possibility of filing the complaint against
Queensway, the two met a couple of times. But according to the
complainant, respondent was taking advantage of her by kissing her on
the lips and on one occasion, touching her breast. The respondent
admitted that he kissed Advincula because she offered her lips to him
but denied holding her breast. He added that he didn’t use force or
intimidation was displayed.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Canon 1
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.
Canon 7– A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private
life, behave in scandalous manner to discredit of the legal profession.
• Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Macabata’s actions are grossly immoral that
would justify his disbarment or suspension from practice of law?
• Held
The Supreme Court ruled that the acts of Atty. Macabata are not
sufficient to disbar or suspend him from the practice of law. The term
“grossly immoral” is referred to acts, (1) so corrupt as constitute a
criminal act or; (2) so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree or: (3) committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to schock the common sense of decency.
Advincula also failed to establish a case that has a clear,
convincing and satisfactory proof. As a basic rule in evidence, the
burden of proof lies on the party who makes allegations which the
complainant miserably failed to comply with.
The petition for disbarment was not granted but the respondent
was reprimanded after being found guilty of an isolated act of
misconduct of a lesser nature under Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.