See - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/november2012/9608.pdf
"x x x.
From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the
admissions of respondent himself, we find that respondent’s act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his former employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction. Respondent not only admitted he had sexual intercourse with complainant but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her money. Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity.
Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by enticing a very young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the dignity of the human person and the ethics of his profession.
In Cordova v. Cordova, we held that the moral delinquency that
affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct for instance, which makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage.
Respondent has violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by
complainant, then a 13-year-old minor, who for a time was under
respondent’s care. Whether the sexual encounter between the respondent
and complainant was or was not with the latter’s consent is of no moment.
Respondent clearly committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and highly
reprehensible act. Such conduct is a transgression of the standards of
morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined
accordingly.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court expressly states that a
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for, among others, any deceit, grossly immoral conduct, or violation of the oath that he is required to take before admission to the practice of law. It bears to stress that membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. As a privilege bestowed by law through the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be withdrawn where circumstances concretely show the lawyer’s lack of the essential
qualifications required of lawyers.
Likewise, it was held in Maligsa v. Cabanting that a lawyer may be
disbarred for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty,
probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the
court. Similarly, in Dumadag v. Lumaya, the Court pronounced:
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. The fact that complainant filed an Affidavit of Desistance during the pendency of this case is of no moment. Complainant’s Affidavit of Desistance cannot have the effect of abating the instant proceedings in view of the public service character of the practice of law and the nature of disbarment proceedings as a public interest concern. 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. A
disbarment case is not an investigation into the acts of respondent but on his conduct as an officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.
Illicit sexual relations have been previously punished with disbarment,
indefinite or definite suspension, depending on the circumstances.
In this case, respondent’s gross misbehavior and unrepentant demeanor clearly shows a serious flaw in his character, his moral indifference to sexual exploitation of a minor, and his outright defiance of established norms. All these could not but put the legal profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate disciplinary action.
The Court is mindful of the dictum that the power to disbar must be
exercised with great caution, and only in a clear case of misconduct that
seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. Thus, where a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, could accomplis~ the end desired, disbarment should never be decreed.
However, in the present case, the seriousness of the offense compels the Court to wield its power to disbar as it appears to be the most appropriate penalty.
x x x."
