Scribd
Upload
282 views2 pages

Royong vs. Oblena

- The respondent, a lawyer, was accused of not possessing good moral character as required to practice law. He had an ongoing adulterous relationship and lived with a married woman for over 15 years. He also raped and seduced a 17-18 year old girl, resulting in a pregnancy. - The respondent denied the rape but admitted to the extramarital relationships. The complainant claimed the rape occurred through violence and intimidation. - The Supreme Court ruled that though the conduct was unrelated to his profession, it rendered the respondent unfit to be a lawyer. His behavior showed a lack of honesty and good moral character. The respondent was disbarred and removed from the roll

Uploaded by

Tom Herrera
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
282 views2 pages

Royong vs. Oblena

- The respondent, a lawyer, was accused of not possessing good moral character as required to practice law. He had an ongoing adulterous relationship and lived with a married woman for over 15 years. He also raped and seduced a 17-18 year old girl, resulting in a pregnancy. - The respondent denied the rape but admitted to the extramarital relationships. The complainant claimed the rape occurred through violence and intimidation. - The Supreme Court ruled that though the conduct was unrelated to his profession, it rendered the respondent unfit to be a lawyer. His behavior showed a lack of honesty and good moral character. The respondent was disbarred and removed from the roll

Uploaded by

Tom Herrera
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ROYONG vs.

OBLENA

FACTS:

-  The respondent filed a sworn petition dated May 22, 1954 alleging "that he is a person of good
moral character" and praying that the Supreme Court permit him "to take the bar examinations
to be given on 1954, which he passed and made him a lawyer.

-    But he was not the person of good moral character he represented himself to be. From 1942 to
the present, he has continuously lived an adulterous life with Briccia Angeles whose husband is
still alive, knowing that his concubine is a married woman and that her marriage still subsists.

-    After more than fifteen years of adulterous relationship with Briccia Angeles and on the
convenient excuse that she, Briccia Angeles, could not bear a child, he raped and seduced
Josefina Rayong, herein petitioner, who was then 17 or 18 years of age, resulting in her
pregnancy and the birth of a child, on June 2, 1959. The rape and seduction were accomplished
with grave abuse of confidence and by means of promises of marriage. The respondent on the
witness stand denied that he raped the complainant and contended that it was well within the
consent of herein petitioner.

-   The complainant/petitioner claims she surrendered to him under circumstances of violence and
intimidation as respondent warned her not to report him to her foster parents, otherwise, he
would kill her and all the members of her family.

-    These facts should have permanently disqualified respondent from taking the bar examinations,
and had it been known to the Supreme Court in 1954, he would not have been permitted to take
the bar examinations that year or thereafter, or to take his oath of office as a lawyer. It is
submitted that the same misconduct should be sufficient ground for his permanent disbarment,
hence the current petition.

-  Respondent argues that he is not liable for disbarment notwithstanding his illicit relations with the
complainant and his open cohabitation with Briccia Angeles, a married woman, because he has
not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.

ISSUE:

-      WON respondent lawyer should be disbarred.

HELD:

-  Respondent's conduct though unrelated to his office and in no way directly bearing on his
profession, has nevertheless rendered him unfit and unworthy of the privileges of being a
lawyer.

-   Good moral character includes at least common honesty.

-  One's own approximation of himself is not a gauge to his moral character. Moral character is not a
subjective term, but one which corresponds to objective reality. Moral character is what a
person really is, and not what he or other people think he is.
-   Respondent, therefore, did not possess a good moral character at the time he applied for
admission to the bar. He lived an adulterous life with Briccia Angeles, and the fact that people
who knew him seemed to have acquiesced to his status, did not render him a person of good
moral character. It is of no moment that his immoral state was discovered then or now as he is
clearly not fit to remain a member of the bar.

-     Respondent is disbarred, and the name of herein respondent, Ariston J. Oblena, is removed
from the roll of attorneys.

You might also like