A.C. No. 7353 - Separate Opinion




Nelson P. Valdez v. Atty. Antolin Allyson Dabon, Jr., A.C. No. 7353, November 16, 2015 ♦ Decision, Per Curiam ♦ Concurring Opinion, Leonen [J] EN BANC November 16, 2015 A.C. No. 7353 NELSON P. VALDEZ, Petitioner, vs. ATTY. ANTOLIN ALLYSON DABON, JR., Respondent. CONCURRING OPINION LEONEN, J.: This court resolves an administrative Complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Nelson P. Valdez (Nelson) against respondent Atty. Antolin Allyson M. Dabon, Jr., (Atty. Dabon) for gross immoral and indecent conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar.1 Nelson claims that he and his wife, Sonia Romero Valdez (Sonia), were married on January 28, 1998 in Paniqui, Tarlac.2 Sonia was a Court Stenographer at the Court of Appeals from 1992 to 2006.3 She admitted that she had an adulterous and immoral relationship with Atty. Dabon, a Division Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals, from 2000 to 2006.4 According to Nelson, Sonia told him that the illicit affair was carried out through Atty. Dabon's sexual assaults, intimidation, and threats on Sonia.5 Sonia's affidavit was attached to Nelson's Complaint. In her affidavit, Sonia claims that her sexual relationship with Atty. Dabon started when they had a friendly lunch date on November 13, 2000.6 Unknown to her, Atty. Dabon put a sleep-inducing substance in either her food or drink, which caused her to feel drowsy and weak.7Atty. Dabon then brought her to a motel and took advantage of her.8 He sexually assaulted her while she was unconscious.9 Sonia felt ashamed of what had happened; thus, she kept the incident to herself.10 She also feared the ramifications of the incident on her and her family.11 Sonia asked Atty. Dabon to forget about the incident and leave her alone. However, Atty. Dabon threatened her that he would tell everyone they knew about it.12 From then on, Atty. Dabon was successful in having carnal knowledge with her once to twice a week.13 This went on for several years.14 In March 2006, Sonia ended her affair with Atty. Dabon.15 This resulted in a series of unpleasant occasions where Sonia and Atty. Dabon publicly clashed in a motel and inside the Court of Appeals and involved other employees of the judiciary as well as their spouses.16 For his part, Atty. Dabon denies the allegations in the Complaint. He denies the acts constituting gross immoral conduct imputed by Nelson and Sonia. He also denies being attracted to Sonia and drugging and sexually assaulting her.17 At most, they were just good friends.18 Atty. Dabon also points to the alleged inconsistencies in the claims of Sonia and her husband.19 Sonia's true feelings for him are evident in the cards she signed and sent to him, together with the expensive gifts such as signature shoes, watches, and shirts she gave him.20 Sonia even spent time in the United States with him and his sons.21 Atty. Dabon further alleges that Sonia had become emotionally dependent on him since he was always there to listen to her problems.22 According to Atty. Dabon, Sonia started to act strangely when she learned of his plans to settle in the United States for good.23 Atty. Dabon also claims that Nelson and Sonia are good friends with the Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Ruben Reyes as Sonia had worked as Court Stenographer for him for three (3) years.24 The Presiding Justice had allegedly asked Atty. Dabon to resign, else cases would be filed against him.25 Moreover, contrary to Nelson and Sonia's claims, it was actually Atty. Dabon who was harassed through text messages and phone calls, which prompted him to leave the country earlier than scheduled.26 On August 15, 2007, this court referred the Complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation.27 In his October 2, 2008 Report and Recommendation, Integrated Bar of the Philippines Investigating Commissioner Manuel T. Chan found Atty. Dabon guilty of gross immoral conduct.28 The Commissioner recommended that Atty. Dabon be disbarred and dropped from the Roll of Attorneys.29 On December 11, 2008, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVIII-2008-653, which adopted and approved the recommendations of the Investigating Commissioner: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and finding Respondent guilty of gross immoral conduct, Atty. Antolin Allyson M. Dabon, Jr. is hereby DISBARRED and his name be stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.30 Atty. Dabon filed his motion for reconsideration of the Resolution.31 However, this was denied by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors in Resolution No. XX-2012-550 dated December 4, 2012: RESOLVED to unanimously DENY Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration there being no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Commission and it being a mere reiteration of the matters which had already been threshed out and taken into consideration. Thus, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-653 dated December 11, 2008 is hereby AFFIRMED.32 I concur with this court's finding that Atty. Dabon is guilty of gross immoral conduct.33 The ponencia declares that Atty. Dabon's illicit relationship with Nelson's wife amounts to gross immoral conduct that transgresses the Code of Professional Responsibility,34 thus: In the case at bench, Atty. Dabon's intimate relationship with a woman other than his wife showed his moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community. It manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and for his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession. Indeed, he has fallen below the moral bar. Such detestable behavior warrants a disciplinary sanction. Even if not all forms of extramarital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside of marriage are considered disgraceful and immoral as they manifest deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.35 However, the ponencia also declared that Sonia's claims of sexual assaults, threats, and intimidation are false: In light of the above disquisition, the Court finds Sonia's allegation that the illicit relationship was made possible by sexual assaults and maintained through threat and intimidations, to be untrue. Certainly, a sexually abused woman could not be expected to lavish her oppressor with expensive gifts or pay him affectionate compliments or words of endearment. The natural reaction of a victim of a sexual molestation would be to avoid her ravisher. In this case, however, it appeared that Sonia continually remained in the company of Atty. Dabon for more than five years, even inviting him for lunch-outs and frequenting his office to bring whenever the latter was preoccupied with his workload and could not go out with her to eat. Verily, Sonia's actuations towards Atty. Dabon are in stark contrast to the expected demeanor of one who had been repeatedly sexually abused. Further, the Court cannot fathom why Sonia never reported the alleged sexual abuse to the police, if such was the truth.1âwphi1 She could have placed the respondent behind bars and put an end to her claimed misery. Also, the Court cannot lend credence to Sonia's claim that she merely succumbed to the respondent's sexual advances because of his continuous threats of public exposure and humiliation. It must be stressed that Atty. Dabon would be in a much more precarious situation if he would carry out such threats, as this would exposed [sic] himself to countless criminal and administrative charges. The Court believes that Nelson's allegation of sexual assaults and continuing threat and intimidation was not established by clear and preponderant evidence. The Court is left with the most logical conclusion that Sonia freely and wittingly entered into an illicit and immoral relationship with Atty. Dabon sans any threat and intimidation. 36 (Emphasis supplied) The relationship between Atty. Dabon and Sonia was consensual. Relationships between men and women traditionally involve power exerted by one against the other. In Garcia v. Drilon,37 this court recognized the unequal power relationship between a man and a woman, justifying the valid classification provided under Republic Act No. 9262:38 I. R.A. 9262 rests on substantial distinctions. The unequal power relationship between women and men; the fact that women are more likely than men to be victims of violence; and the widespread gender bias and prejudice against women all make for real differences justifying the classification under the law. As Justice Mcintyre succinctly states, "the accommodation of differences . . . is the essence of true equality." A. Unequal power relationship between men and women According to the Philippine Commission on Women (the National Machinery for Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment), violence against women (VAW) is deemed to be closely linked with the unequal power relationship between women and men otherwise known as "gender-based violence". Societal norms and traditions dictate people to think men are the leaders, pursuers, providers, and take on dominant roles in society while women are nurturers, men's companions and supporters, and take on subordinate roles in society. This perception leads to men gaining more power over women. With power comes the need to control to retain that power. And VAW is a form of men's expression of controlling women to retain power. The United Nations, which has long recognized VAW as a human rights issue, passed its Resolution 481104 on the Declaration on Elimination of Violence Against Women on December 20, 1993 stating that "violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into subordinate positions, compared with men."39 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted) "Sexual harassment in the workplace is not about a man taking advantage of a woman by reason of sexual desire - it is about power being exercised by a superior officer over his women subordinates."40 The superior can cause the removal of the subordinate from the workplace if the latter refuses his or, in certain cases, her amorous advances.41 These acts, which necessarily result in an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working environment for subordinates, constitute sexual harassment.42 Under A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC (Re: Rule on Administrative Procedure in Sexual Harassment Cases and Guidelines on Proper Work Decorum in the Judiciary), work-related sexual harassment is defined as an act of: an official or employee in the Judiciary who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the latter.43 It is committed when: (a) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in any way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee. It shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following modes: 1. Physical, such as malicious touching, overt sexual advances, and gestures with lewd insinuation. 2. Verbal, such as requests or demands for sexual favors, and lurid remarks. 3. Use of objects, pictures or graphics, letters or written notes with sexual underpinnings. 4. Other acts analogous to the foregoing. (b) The above acts would impair the employee's rights or privileges under existing laws; or (c) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the employee.44 While Sonia was technically not a subordinate of Atty. Dabon, his actions nevertheless resulted in an intimidating, hostile, and offensive working environment for Sonia, especially towards the end of their illicit relationship. The gravity of Atty. Dabon's actions should be considered in determining the proper penalty to be imposed in this disbarment case for O gross immoral conduct. As the Integrated Bar of the Philippines found, Atty. Dabon refused to accept that his relationship with Sonia had already ended, to the point of harassing Sonia publicly several times: It has not escaped the Court's attention either that Atty. Dabon really tried hard to win back Sonia because he could not let go of their relationship, even to the point of pestering her with his persistent pleas of reconciliation. In one instance, Atty. Dabon boarded Sonia's car and refused to alight unless she would talk to him. Sonia had to seek the assistance of her officemates, Atty. Barrazo and Atty. Ligot, who pleaded with him to alight from the vehicle. Moreover, Atty. Dabon made several attempts to communicate with Sonia in the hope of rekindling their relationship through letters and phone calls but she remained firm in her stand to avoid him. Such incident was recounted by Ramos and Minerva in their respective affidavits. Incidentally, vis-a-vis Nelson's overwhelming evidence of said harassments, he offered only denials which was [sic] self-serving and weak under the law on evidence. Other than his general claim that Atty. Barrazo, Atty. Ligot, Ramos, and Minerva were biased witnesses because they were former officemates of Sonia, the respondent did not even bother to proffer his own version of the supposed harassment incidents.45 Conduct is immoral when it is "so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community."46 Further: [The] conduct [to warrant disciplinary action] must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. . . . [I]t must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency."47 Good moral character is a continuing requirement to maintain one's good standing in the legal profession.48 "It is the bounden duty of law practitioners to observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar."49 There is no fixed standard of what constitutes gross immoral conduct, or "moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar."50 Hence, "what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment."51 Disbarment is clearly warranted for gross immoral conduct that entails abuse of power of whatever kind or nature.1âwphi1 In Barrientos v. Daarol, 52 the respondent was held guilty of gross immoral conduct and was disbarred for inducing a female half his age to have sexual relations with him after promising marriage, despite him being married already, and later on abandoning the woman and his child. In Tucay v. Tucay, 53 this court held that having an illicit affair with a married woman, regardless of whether a bigamous marriage was contracted, constitutes gross immoral conduct that merits the extreme penalty of disbarment. In Arnobit v. Arnobit,54this court disbarred the respondent for abandoning his wife and 12 children to cohabit with another woman. In Garrido v. Garrido, 55 two lawyers who engaged in an extra-marital affair were disbarred since their actions established a "pattern of grave and immoral misconduct that demonstrates their lack of mental and emotional fitness and moral character to qualify them for the responsibilities and duties imposed on lawyers as professionals and as officers of the court."56 In his Comment, Atty. Dabon averred that there could not have been an illicit affair between him and Sonia since Sonia was merely "an ordinary plain-looking middle aged woman with two (2) teen aged children."57 He alleged that: It is an outrage for herein respondent for the complainant and Ms. Valdez to accuse him of sexually assaulting the latter. There is absolutely no iota of truth to this incredible claim of the Valdezes. Why would a man like the respondent, a married lawyer at that with no prior encounter with the law, would suddenly tum crazed with lust despite the aloofness and coldness of Ms. Valdez towards him as alleged in her affidavit, drugging her--- then dragging her to his car and sexually assaulting her in a motel? Is Ms. Valdez that irresistibly attractive and compelling that would turn the respondent into an unthinking sex pervert and criminal, risking everything just to get her to satisfy his alleged lust for her?58 (Emphasis in the original) This statement is nothing but an attempt to obviate the consequence of his actions by degrading the appearance of another human being. This strongly reveals Atty. Dabon's character and the extent to which he is willing to go to gain impunity for his infractions. Atty. Dabon carried out illicit relations with Sonia, a married woman and his co-worker in the judiciary, for at least five (5) years. Atty. Dabon's blase attitude towards the affair and its aftermath not only made a mockery of the position he holds as member of the bar and an employee of the judiciary, but also showed his utter disregard for laws protecting and respecting the dignity of women. He failed to meet the high standard of morality required of his profession. He is unfit to be a member of the bar. ACCORDINGLY, I vote that respondent Atty. Antolin Allyson Dabon, Jr. be DISBARRED and his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN Associate Justice Footnotes 1 Ponencia, p. 1. 2 Rollo, p. 3 and 6, Affidavit. 3 Id. at 3, Affidavit, and 526, Report and Recommendation of the IBP. 4 Id. at 3-4, Affidavit and 525-526, Report and Recommendation of the IBP. 5 Id. 6 Id. at 8, Affidavit. 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 8-9, Affidavit. 12 Id. at 9. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 Id. at 10. 16 Id. at 10-12. 17 Id. at 107-108, Comment. 18 Id. 19 Id. at 109, Comment. 20 Id. at 109-110. 21 Id. at 113. 22 Id. at 112. 23 Id. at 114. 24 Id. at 115. 25 Id. at 116. 26 Id. at 118. 27 Id. at 166. 28 Id. at 523-530. 29 Id. at 530. 30 Id. at 522. 31 Id. at 536-555. 32 Id. at 521. 33 Ponencia, p. 13. 34 See CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Rule 1.0 I and Rule 7 .03. 35 Ponencia, p. 11. 36 Id. at 9. 37 G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013, 699 SCRA 352 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc]. 38 Rep. Act No. 9262 is entitled An Act Defining Violence Against Women And Their Children, Providing For Protective Measures For Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefore, And For Other Purposes. 39 Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013, 699 SCRA 352, 411-412 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc]. 40 Paiste v. Mamenta, Jr., 459 Phil. 10, 24 [Per Curiam, En Banc]. 41 Id. 42 See Flora/de v. Court of Appeals, 392 Phil. 146, 150 (2000) [Per J. Pardo, En Banc]. 43 A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC (2004), sec. 3. 44 A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC (2004), sec. 4. 45 Ponencia, pp. 8-9. 46 Zaguirre v. Castillo, 446 Phil. 861, 867 (2003) [Per Curiam, En Banc], citing Narag v. Narag, 353 Phil. 643, 655 (1998) [Per Curiam, En Banc]. 47 Id. 48 Tiong v. Florendo, 678 Phil. 195, 199 (2011) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Third Division]. 49 Id. at 199-200. 50 Advincula v. Macabata, 546 Phil. 431, 442 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division]. 51 Id. at 443. 52 A.C. No. 1512 (Resolution), January 29, 1993, 218 SCRA 30 [Per Curiam, En Banc]. 53 376 Phil. 336 (1999) [Per Curiam, En Banc]. 54 590 Phil. 270 (2008) [Per Curiam, En Banc]. 55 625 Phil. 347 (2010) [Per Curiam, En Banc]. 56 Id. at 366. 57 Rollo, p. 107. 58 Id. at 108. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation