A.C. No. 266 TOLEDO v. TOLEDO 7 SCRA 757

TOLEDO v. TOLEDO

7 SCRA 757

A.C. No. 266

April 27, 1963

FACTS: Paz Arellano Toledo, a dentist, alleged that she is the wife of Atty. Jesus Toledo, that she supported and spent for his studies in FEU but after passing the bar, he abandoned. She also alleged that he is cohabiting with another woman and borne him 3 children. She prayed for his disbarment from the practice of law.

Upon the hearing conducted by the Solicitor General which his alleged wife presented pieces of evidence, respondent was charged for abandonment and immorality and the Solicitor prayed that he be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law.

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground "that the charges contained therein are not based on and supported by the facts and evidence adduced at the investigation conducted by the Office of the Solicitor General." Hence, the Court set the case for hearing. The respondent prayed that his motion be first resolved or be denied, hence invoking Section 6, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court.

However, instead of doing what the rule requires, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss without stating that he intended to present evidence in his behalf, thereby waiving his right. The fact that at the close of the hearing conducted by the Solicitor General, he made of record his desire to present evidence in his behalf, is not sufficient. The correct manner and proper time for him to make known his intention is by and in the answer seasonably filed in this Court.

Now, to resolve the case.

ISSUE: Whether or not Jesus Toledo be disbarred or suspended.

RULING: Yes. The respondent, by abandoning his lawful wife and cohabiting with another woman who had borne him a child, has failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a member of the Bar. Hence, he is disbarred from the practice of law.

Through a rigorous test by the Solicitor, the maid of respondent, Marina Payot, also testified that the lawyer was living with a person named Corazon Toledo as wife of the respondent with a child of their own, named Angie. Lino Domingo, operator-mechanic in the Bureau of Public Highways, also stated that he knows the lawyer and her wife, Corazon, for he goes to the lawyer’s residence every now and then.

The testimony of these two witnesses are worthy of credence.