IN RE TOLEDO (ADMINISTRATIVE)

OCA's recommendations as to the charge of immorality are untenable.

This Court has previously defined IMMORAL CONDUCT as the conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.

This Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment, the act complained of must not only be immoral but grossly immoral and the same must be established by clear and convincing proof, disclosing a case that is free from doubt as to compel the exercise by the Court of its disciplinary power. Likewise, the dubious character of the act done as well as the motivation thereof must be clearly demonstrated.

Thus, to warrant disciplinary action, we must examine if respondent's relationship with his common-law wife qualifies as grossly immoral conduct.

In disbarment cases, this Court has ruled that the mere fact of sexual relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behaviour. Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be characterized as grossly immoral conduct will depend on the surrounding circumstances.

While the court has the power to regulate official conduct and to a certain extent, private conduct, it is not within our authority to make for our employees, decisions about their personal lives, especially those that will affect their and their family's future, such as whether they should or should not be married.

There was no allegation that the two have been flaunting their status as common-law husband and wife, or that their cohabitation is attended by scandalous circumstances. Thus, the comportment of respondent and his common-law wife cannot be characterized as willful, flagrant, shameless or showing a moral indifference as to warrant the exercise of this Court's disciplinary power.