NICOLE ATIWAG BEGNAEN
LEGAL ETHICS (UC JD ID : 1ST SEM 2022)
MORAL TURPITUDE
WHAT IS CRIME AGAINST MORAL TURPITUDE?
In the U.S., the term "moral turpitude" first appeared in the Immigration Act of March 3,
1891, which directed the exclusion of persons who have been convicted of a felony or
other infamous crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; this marked the first time
the U.S. Congress used the term "moral turpitude" in immigration laws.
In the Philippines, the term moral turpitude was first introduced in 1901 in Act No. 190,
otherwise known as the Code of Civil Actions and Special Proceedings. The Act provided
that a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as lawyer by the
Supreme Court upon conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Subsequently, the
term "moral turpitude" has been employed in statutes governing disqualifications of
notaries public, priests and ministers in solemnizing marriages, registration to military
service, exclusion and naturalization of aliens, discharge of the accused to be a state
witness admission to the bar, suspension and removal of elective local officials, and
disqualification of persons from running for any elective local position.
WHAT IS CRIME AGAINST MORAL TURPITUDE?
[An] act of baseness, vileness, or the depravity in private and social duties which man
owes to his fellow man, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary
rule of right and duty between man and man. (BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY)
Act or behavior that gravely violates moral sentiment or accepted moral standards of
community and is a morally culpable quality held to be present in some criminal offenses
as distinguished from others.
The quality of a crime involving grave infringement of the moral sentiment of the
community as distinguished from statutory mala prohibita.
WHAT ARE EXAMPLES OF CRIME AGAINST MORAL TURPITUDE?
Since the early 1920 case of In re Basa, the Court has maintained its case-by-case
categorization of crimes on the basis of moral turpitude and has labeled specific crimes
as necessarily involving moral turpitude. (CONCURRING OPINION OF JUSTICE BRION IN
TEVES VS COMELEC)
APPROCHES IN DETERMINING IF AN ACT IS AGAINST MORAL TURPITUDE
(CONCURRING OPINION OF JUSTICE BRION INTEVES VS COMELEC)
● objective perspective of the act itself, irrespective of whether or not the act is a crime
● perspective of the crime itself, as defined through its elements
● subjective perspective that takes into account the perpetrator’s level of depravity when
he committed the crime
WHAT ARE EXAMPLES OF CRIMES AGAINST MORAL TURPITUDE?
1. Abduction with consent
2. Bigamy
3. Concubinage
4. Smuggling
5. Rape
6. Estafa through falsification of a document
7. Attempted Bribery
8. Profiteering
NICOLE ATIWAG BEGNAEN
LEGAL ETHICS (UC JD ID : 1ST SEM 2022)
9. Robbery
10. Murder, whether consummated or attempted
11. Estafa
12. Theft
13. Illicit Sexual Relations with a Fellow Worker
14. Violation of BP Bldg. 22
15. Falsification of Document
16. Intriguing against Honor
17. Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law
18. Violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Drug-pushing)
19. Perjury
20. Forgery
21. Direct Bribery
22. Frustrated Homicide
WHAT ARE EXAMPLES OF CRIME AGAINST MORAL TURPITUDE? (ZARI VS. FLORES)
● adultery,
● concubinage,
● rape,
● arson,
● evasion of income tax,
● barratry,
● bigamy,
● blackmail,
● bribery,
● criminal conspiracy to smuggle opium, dueling,
● embezzlement,
● extortion,
● forgery,
● libel,
● making fraudulent proof of loss on insurance contract,
● murder,
● mutilation of public records,
● fabrication of evidence,
● offenses against pension laws,
● perjury, seduction under the promise of marriage,
● estafa,
● falsification of public document,
● estafa thru falsification of public document.
CASE DIGESTS
EDGAR Y. TEVES VS COMELEC AND HERMINIO TEVES
ISSUE FOR RESOLUTION
Whether the crime of which petitioner Edgar Y. Teves was convicted in Teves v.
Sandiganbayan of a crime involving moral turpitude.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Petitioner was a candidate for the position of Representative of the 3rd legislative district of
Negros Oriental during the May 14, 2007 elections.
On March 30, 2007, respondent Herminio G. Teves filed a petition to disqualify petitioner
on the ground that he was convicted of violating Section 3(h), Republic Act (R.A.) No.
NICOLE ATIWAG BEGNAEN
LEGAL ETHICS (UC JD ID : 1ST SEM 2022)
3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for possessing pecuniary or financial
interest in a cockpit, which is prohibited under Section 89(2) of the Local Government
Code (LGC) of 1991, and was sentenced to pay a fine of P10,000.00.
Respondent alleged that petitioner is disqualified from running for public office because
he was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude which carries the accessory penalty
of perpetual disqualification from public office.
On May 11, 2007, the COMELEC First Division disqualified petitioner from running for the
position of member of House of Representatives and ordered the cancellation of his
Certificate
of
Candidacy.
Petitioner filed a MR before the COMELEC en banc which was denied for being moot.
RELATED LAWS AND LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section
12
of
the
Omnibus
Election
Code:
Sec. 12. Disqualifications. - Any person who has been declared by competent authority
insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion,
insurrection, rebellion, or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of
more than eighteen months, or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified
to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary pardon or
granted amnesty.
Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019 of which petitioner was convicted, reads:
Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. -- In addition to acts or omissions of public
officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices
of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or
in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
LOCAL GOV’T CODE: Section 89. Prohibited Business and Pecuniary Interest.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any local government official or employee, directly or indirectly,
to:
(2) Hold such interests in any cockpit or other games licensed by a local government unit....
SC RULING
However, conviction under the second mode does not automatically mean that the same
involved moral turpitude. A determination of all surrounding circumstances of the violation
of the statute must be considered. Besides, moral turpitude does not include such acts as
are not of themselves immoral but whose illegality lies in their being positively prohibited,
as in the instant case.
IN DELA TORRE VS COMISSION ON ELECTIONS:
Not every criminal act, however, involves moral turpitude. It is for this reason that "as to
what crime involves moral turpitude, is for the Supreme Court to determine." In resolving
the foregoing question, the Court is guided by one of the general rules that crimes mala
in se involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita do not.
IN ZARI VS FLORES:
"It (moral turpitude) implies something immoral in itself, regardless of the fact that it is
punishable by law or not. It must not be merely mala prohibita, but the act itself must be
inherently immoral. The doing of the act itself, and not its prohibition by statute fixes the
moral turpitude. Moral turpitude does not, however, include such acts as are not of
themselves immoral but whose illegality lies in their being positively prohibited."
NICOLE ATIWAG BEGNAEN
LEGAL ETHICS (UC JD ID : 1ST SEM 2022)
Lastly, it may be argued that having an interest in a cockpit is detrimental to public morality
as it tends to bring forth idlers and gamblers, hence, violation of Section 89(2) of the LGC
involves moral turpitude.
SC STAND ON COCK FIGHTING
1. PART OF TRADITION
● “…sabong…has a long and storied tradition in our culture and was prevalent even
during the Spanish occupation.”
2. MORALITY OF GAMBLING IS NOT JUSTICIABLE
● “Gambling is not illegal per se...There is nothing in the Constitution categorically
proscribing or penalizing gambling…”
3. CONGRESS ALLOWED SOME FORMS OF GAMBLING
● “In the exercise of its own discretion, the legislature may prohibit gambling altogether
or allow it without limitation or it may prohibit some forms of gambling… That is the
prerogative of the political departments…Whichever way these branches decide,
they are answerable only to their own conscience and the constituents who will
ultimately judge their acts, and not to the courts of justice.”
SC DECISION
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions of the Commission on Elections
dated May 11, 2007 and October 9, 2007 disqualifying petitioner Edgar Y. Teves from running for
the position of Representative of the 3rd District of Negros Oriental, are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE and a new one is entered declaring that the crime committed by petitioner (violation of
Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019) did not involve moral turpitude.
VS ATTY. RODOLFO PACTOLIN
ISSUE FOR RESOLUTION
Whether or not the conviction of a lawyer for a crime involving moral turpitude constitutes
sufficient ground for his disbarment from the practice of law.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In May 1996, Elmer Abastillas, the playing coach of the Ozamis City volleyball team, wrote
Mayor Benjamin A. Fuentes of Ozamis City, requesting financial assistance for his team.
Mayor Fuentes approved the request and sent Abastillas’ letter to the City Treasurer for
processing. Mayor Fuentes also designated Mario R. Ferraren, a city council member, as
Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the city while Mayor Fuentes was away. Abastillas eventually
got the ₱10,000.00 assistance for his volleyball team.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Aggrieved, Ferraren filed with the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case 25665 a complaint
against Atty. Pactolin for falsification of public document which found Atty. Pactolin guilty
of falsification and sentenced him to the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 2 years
and 4 months of prision correccional as minimum to 4 years, 9 months and 10 days of prision
correccional as maximum, to suffer all the accessory penalties of prision correccional, and
to pay a fine of ₱5,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Meanwhile, respondent lawyer, Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin, then a Sangguniang
Panlalawigan member of Misamis Occidental, got a photocopy of Abastillas’ letter and,
NICOLE ATIWAG BEGNAEN
LEGAL ETHICS (UC JD ID : 1ST SEM 2022)
using it, filed on June 24, 1996 a complaint with the Office of the Deputy OmbudsmanMindanao against Ferraren for alleged illegal disbursement of ₱10,000.00 in public funds.
Atty. Pactolin claimed it was Ferraren, not Mayor Fuentes, who approved the
disbursement.
SC affirmed his conviction. Since the Court treated the matter as an administrative
complaint against him as well under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, it referred the case
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for appropriate action.
Because complainant Ferraren neither appeared nor submitted any pleading during the
administrative proceedings. The case against Atty. Pactolin was dismissed for insufficiency
of evidence.
RELATED LAWS AND LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
A lawyer may be removed or suspended on the following grounds: (1) deceit;
(2) malpractice;
(3) gross misconduct in office;
(4) grossly immoral conduct;
(5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(6) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court; and (8) corruptly or willfully appearing as a lawyer for a party to a case without
authority so to do.
SC RULING
This Court relied on the settled rule that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, one
found in possession of and who used a forged document is the forger and therefore guilty
of falsification.
Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty,
or good morals. It involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties
which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and
customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals.
SC DECISION
WHEREFORE, Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin is hereby DISBARRED and his name REMOVED from the
Rolls of Attorney. Let a copy of this decision be attached to his personal records and furnished
the Office of the Bar Confidant, Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
ELPIDIO P. TIONG VS GEORGE M. FLORENDO
ISSUE FOR RESOLUTION
Whether or not the pardon extended by complainant is sufficient to warrant the dismissal
of a disbarment case against respondent for gross immoral conduct
FACTS OF THE CASE
Complainant Elpidio P. Tiong, an American Citizen, and his wife, Ma. Elena T. Tiong, are
real estate lessors in Baguio City. They are likewise engaged in the assembly and repair of
motor vehicles in Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan. In 1991, they engaged the services of
respondent Atty. George M. Florendo not only as legal counsel but also as administrator
of their businesses.
NICOLE ATIWAG BEGNAEN
LEGAL ETHICS (UC JD ID : 1ST SEM 2022)
Sometime in 1993, complainant began to suspect that respondent and his wife were
having an illicit affair. His suspicion was confirmed in the afternoon of May 13, 1995 when,
in their residence, he chanced upon a telephone conversation between the two.
When confronted, his wife initially denied any amorous involvement with respondent but
eventually broke down and confessed to their love affair that began in 1993. Respondent
likewise admitted the relationship.
On May 15, 1995, in the presence of a Notary Public, Atty. Liberato Tadeo, respondent and
Ma. Elena executed and signed an affidavit attesting to their illicit relationship and seeking
their respective spouses' forgiveness
RELATED LAWS AND LEGAL PROVISIONS
CANON 1
A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
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 a scandalous manner to
the discredit of the legal profession."
SC RULING
It has been consistently held by the Court that possession of good moral character is not
only a condition for admission to the Bar but is a continuing requirement to maintain one's
good standing in the legal profession. It is the bounden duty of law practitioners to observe
the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the
Bar.[9] Consequently, any errant behaviour on the part of a lawyer, be it in his public or
private activities, which tends to show him deficient in moral character, honesty, probity
or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant his suspension or disbarment.
Respondent's act of having an affair with his client's wife manifested his disrespect for the
laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost
moral depravity and low regard for the ethics of his profession. Likewise, he violated the
trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant which in itself is prohibited under
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
It bears to stress that a case of suspension or disbarment is sui generis and not meant to
grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the
legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts.
It is not an investigation into the acts of respondent as a husband but on his conduct as
an officer of the Court and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar. Hence, the
Affidavit, which is akin to an affidavit of desistance, cannot have the effect of abating the
instant proceedings.
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO is hereby found GUILTY of Gross
Immorality and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS effective upon
notice hereof, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will
be dealt with more severely.