Digested by: Atty. Arly Micayabas [not yet a lawyer, just manifesting and claiming *fingers crossed*] S.Y. 2022 – 2023 Dura lex, sed lex CASE NAME: Figueroa v. Barranco, respondents CASE NUMBER: SBC Case No. 519, JULY 31, 1997 Ponente: Romero, J Relevant Terms, Laws, Acronyms, and Descriptions: ✓ Grossly Immoral Act It is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree." It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community. ✓ IBP (Integrated Bar of the Philippines) National Organization of lawyers created on January 6, 1973 under Rule of Court 139-A. It is composed of all persons included in the Roll of Attorneys od the Supreme Court. ✓ Disbarment It is the disciplinary withdrawal of an attorney’s privilege to practice law by sanctioning the attorney’s license to practice law. It is the most severe sanction for attorney misconduct. A disbarment proceeding is an investigation by the state bar regarding the conduct of a member of the bar in order to determine whether the attorney will be disbarred. Facts: Patricia Figueroa filed a complaint on 1971 and petitioned that Simeon Barranco, who is the respondent, be denied admission to the legal profession. Both were townmates at Janiuay, Iloilo and were in a relationship since 1953 (both teens). Facts were manifested in hearings held before Investigator Victor F. Sevilla. Respondent had passed the 1970 bar examinations on 4 th attempt after unsuccessful attempts. (1966- 1968). Before he could take his oath, complainant filed the petition stating that they had been sweethearts and a child out of wedlock was born to them named Rafael Barranco born on December 11, 1964 and Simeon had failed to fulfill his promises to her. Respondent promised to marry the complainant after he passes the bar examination and gave P10.00 only for son’s previous birthday. Their relationship ended in 1971 when she learned that he married another woman. In 1972, upon complainant’s motion, Court authorized the taking of testimonies of witnesses by deposition. February 18, 1974, respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss the case citing complainant’s failure to comment on the motion. On June 18, 1974, the Court denied respondent's motion to dismiss. On October 2, 1980, the Court once again denied a motion to dismiss on the ground of abandonment filed by respondent on September 17, 1979. Respondent's third motion to dismiss was noted in the Court's Resolution dated September 15, 1982. Respondent repeated his request in 1988 (citing his good standing in the community and length of time the case has been pending as reasons to allow him to take his oath as a lawyer). On September 29, 1988, the Court resolved to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute the case for an unreasonable period and to allow Simeon to take the oath upon payment of the required fees. On November 17, 1988 when the Court, in response to complainant's opposition, resolved to cancel his scheduled oath-taking. On June 1, 1993, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. On May 17, 1997, IBP recommended the dismissal of the case and that respondent be allowed to take the lawyer's oath. (Respondent filed three motions; on the third motion, it was granted and Court allowed him to take oath but then, it was cancelled after the complainant’s opposition.)