ELPIDIO P. TIONG v. ATTY. GEORGE M.

FLORENDO
A.C. No. 4428, December 12, 2011

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics – Pardon Does Not Bar Sanction Against an Erring
Lawyer – Moral Depravity – Grossly Immoral Conduct

Atty. George Florendo has been serving as the lawyer of spouses Elpidio and Ma. Elena
Tiong. Elpidio, a US citizen is often times away. For two years, he suspected that his wife
and Atty. Florendo were having an affair. Finally in 1995, he was able to listen to a
telephone conversation where he heard Atty. Florendo mention amorous words to Ma.
Elena. Atty. Florendo confronted the two and both eventually admitted to their illicit
relationship. Atty. Florendo and Ma. Elena then executed and signed an affidavit, which
was later notarized, stating that they admit of their illicit relationship; that they are
seeking the forgiveness of their respective spouse. Elpidio forgave Florendo and Ma.
Elena. But nevertheless, Elpidio filed a disbarment case against Florendo.
Florendo said he can no longer be sanctioned because he was already pardoned.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Florendo is correct.

HELD: No. A petition for suspension or disbarment of a lawyer is a sui generis case. This
class of cases is meant to protect the public and the courts of undesirable members of the
legal profession. As such, pardon by the offended party of the act complained of does not
operate to offset the ground for disbarment or suspension. Florendo’s act of having an
affair with his client’s wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of
marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost moral depravity and
low regard for the ethics of his profession. He violated the trust reposed upon him by his
client (Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility). His illicit relationship with
Ma. Elena amounts to a disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary
action. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that an attorney may be
disbarred or suspended from his office for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, among others. It cannot be also said,
as he claims, that their relationship is merely a moment of indiscretion considering that
their affair went on for more than two years. Florendo was suspended for 6 months.
MAELOTISEA S. GARRIDO v. ATTYS. ANGEL E. GARRIDO AND
ROMANA P. VALENCIA
A.C. No. 6593, February 04, 2010

Facts:
The petitioner, the respondent’s legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a
supplemental affidavit for disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and
Atty. Romana P.Valencia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on
Discipline, charging them with gross immorality, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01,
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint arose after the petitioner
caught wind through her daughter that her husband was having an affair with a
woman other than his wife and already had a child with her; and the same
information was confirmed when one of her daughters saw that her husband
walking in a Robinsons mall with the other respondent, Atty. Valencia, with their child in
tow.

After a much further investigation into the matter, the time and effort given yielded
resultstelling her that Atty. Valencia and her legal husband had been married in Hong
Kong. Moreover, on June 1993, her husband left their conjugal home and joined Atty.
Ramona Paguida Valencia at their residence, and has since failed to render much needed
financial support. In their defense, they postulated that they were not lawyers as of yet
when they committed the supposed immorality, so as such, they were not guilty of
a violation of Canon1, Rule 1.01.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Garrido’s and Valencia’s actions constitute a violation of Canon
1, Rule1.01 and thus a good enough cause for their disbarment, despite the offense being
supposedly committed when they were not lawyers.

Held:
Yes. Membership in the Bar is a privilege, and as a privilege bestowed by
law through the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be withdrawn where
circumstances show the lawyer’s lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers,
be they academic or moral.

In the present case, the Court had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty.
Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Rowena P. Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which commands
that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Furthermore, The contention of respondent that they were not yet lawyers when they got
married shall not afford them exemption from sanctions; good moral character
was already required as a condition precedent to admission to the Bar.

As a lawyer, a person whom the community looked up to, Atty. Garrido and Valencia
wereshouldered with the expectation that they would set a good example in promoting
obedience to the Constitution and the laws. When they violated the law and distorted it to
cater to his own personal needs and selfish motives, not only did their actions discredit the
legal profession. Such actions by themselves, without even including the fact of Garrido’s
abandonment of paternal responsibility, to the detriment of his children by the petitioner;
or the fact that Valencia married Garrido despite knowing of his other marriages to two
other women including the petitioner, are clear indications of a lack of moral values not
consistent with the proper conduct of practicing lawyers within the country. As such, their
disbarment is affirmed
MANUEL G. VILLATUYA v. ATTY. BEDE S. TABALINGCOS
A.C. No. 6622, July 10, 2012

FACTS:
Complainant, Manuel G. Villatuya filed a Complaint for Disbarment on December 06,
2004 against respondent, Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos. In a resolution, the court required the
respondent to file a comment, which the respondent did. The complaint was then referred
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation.

In a mandatory conference called for by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP,
complainant and his counsel, and the respondent appeared and submitted issues for
resolution. The commission ordered the parties to submit their verified position papers.

In the position paper submitted by the complainant on August 1, 2005, he averred that he
was employed by the respondent as financial consultant to assist the respondent in a
number of corporate rehabilitation cases. Complainant claimed that they had a verbal
agreement whereby he would be entitled to ₱50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the
court in the cases they would handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by
their clients. Notwithstanding, 18 Stay Orders that was issued by the courts as a result of
his work and the respondent being able to rake in millions from the cases that they were
working on together, the latter did not pay the amount due to him. He also alleged that
respondent engaged in unlawful solicitation of cases by setting up two financial
consultancy firms as fronts for his legal services. On the third charge of gross immorality,
complainant accused respondent of committing two counts of bigamy for having married
two other women while his first marriage was subsisting.

In his defense, respondent denied charges against him and asserted that the complainant
was not an employee of his law firm but rather an employee of Jesi and Jane Management,
Inc., one of the financial consultancy firms. Respondent alleged that complainant was
unprofessional and incompetent in performing his job and that there was no verbal
agreement between them regarding the payment of fees and the sharing of professional
fees paid by his clients. He proffered documents showing that the salary of complainant
had been paid. Respondent also denied committing any unlawful solicitation. To support
his contention, respondent attached a Joint Venture Agreement and an affidavit executed
by the Vice-President for operations of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc. On the charge of
gross immorality, respondent assailed the Affidavit of a dismissed messenger of Jesi and
Jane Management, Inc., as having no probative value, since it had been retracted by the
affiant himself. Respondent did not specifically address the allegations regarding his
alleged bigamous marriages with two other women

On January 9, 2006, complainant filed a Motion to Admit Copies of 3 Marriage Contracts

of respondent wherein he attached the certified true copies of the Marriage Contracts
referred to in the Certification issued by the NSO.

On January 16, 2006, respondent submitted his Opposition to the Motion to Admit filed
by complainant, claiming that he was not given the opportunity to controvert them. He
disclosed that criminal cases for bigamy were filed against him by the complainant before
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. He also informed the Commission that he filed
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the first two marriage contracts. In both petitions, he
claimed that he had recently discovered that there were Marriage Contracts in the records
of the NSO bearing his name and allegedly executed with Rowena Piñon and Pilar Lozano
on different occasions.

The Commission scheduled a clarificatory hearing on 20 November 2007. Respondent

moved for the suspension of the resolution of the administrative case against him, pending
outcome of petition for nullification he filed with RTC, but was denied. The Commission
resolved that the administrative case against him be submitted for resolution.

On February 27, 2008, the Commission promulgated its Report and Recommendation
addressing the specific charges against respondent. The first charge, for dishonesty for the
nonpayment of certain shares in the fees, was dismissed for lack of merit. On the second
charge, the Commission found respondent to have violated the rule on the solicitation of
client for having advertised his legal services and unlawfully solicited cases. It
recommended that he be reprimanded for the violation. As for the third charge, the
Commission found respondent to be guilty of gross immorality for violating Rules 1.01 and
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court. Due to the gravity of the acts of respondent, the Commission recommended that he
be disbarred, and that his name be stricken off the roll of attorneys.

On April 15, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors, through its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-
154, adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner.

On August 1, 2008, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the
recommendation to disbar him was premature.

On June 26, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors denied the Motions for Reconsideration
and affirmed their Resolution dated April 15, 2008 recommending respondent’s
disbarment.

ISSUES:
1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by nonpayment of
fees to complainant;

2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation; and

3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married thrice.
RULING:

First charge: Dishonesty for non-payments of share in the fees.

Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s dismissal of the first charge against respondent, but did
not concur with the rationale behind it. The first charge, if proven to be true is based on an
agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A
lawyer is proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for legal services
rende-red with a person not licensed to practice law. In the case of Tan Tek Beng v. David,
Supreme Court held that an agreement between a lawyer and a layperson to share the fees
collected from clients secured by the layperson is null and void, and that the lawyer
involved may be disciplined for unethical conduct. Considering that complainant’s
allegations in this case had not been proven, the IBP correctly dismissed the charge
against respondent on this matter.

Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients.

In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these allegations and ruled that respondent
had violated the rule on the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point out the specific
provision that was breached. Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the
Code, which prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.

A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation.

Impropriety arises, though, when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a
manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyer’s duties as a member of the bar. This
inconsistency arises when the business is one that can readily lend itself to the
procurement of professional employment for the lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for
indirect solicitation on the lawyer’s behalf; or is of a nature that, if handled by a lawyer,
would be regarded as the practice of law.

It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by complainant that Jesi & Jane
Management, Inc., which purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was indeed a
vehicle used by respondent as a means to
procure professional employment; specifically for corporate rehabilitation cases.

Rule 15.08 of the Code mandates that the lawyer is mandated to inform the client whether
the former is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity. This duty is a must in those
occupations related to the practice of law. In this case, it is confusing for the client if it is
not clear whether respondent is offering consultancy or legal services.

Considering, however, that complainant has not proven the degree of prevalence of this
practice by respondent, the Supreme Court affirm the recommendation to reprimand the
latter for violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code.

Third charge: Bigamy.

The Supreme Court have consistently held that a disbarment case is sui generis. Its focus is
on the qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue membership in the bar and not the
procedural technicalities in filing the case. Thus, in Garrido v. Garrido:
Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure — such as the verification of
pleadings and prejudicial questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the filing of
affidavits of desistance by the complainant — do not apply in the determination of a
lawyer's qualifications and fitness for membership in the Bar. We have so ruled in the past
and we see no reason to depart from this ruling. First, admission to the practice of law is a
component of the administration of justice and is a matter of public interest because it
involves service to the public. The admission qualifications are also qualifications for the
continued enjoyment of the privilege to practice law. Second, lack of qualifications or the
violation of the standards for the practice of law, like criminal cases, is a matter of public
concern that the State may inquire into through this Court.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. In this case,
complainant submitted NSO-certified true copies to prove that respondent entered into
two marriages while the latter’s first marriage was still subsisting. While respondent
denied entering into the second and the third marriages, he resorted to vague assertions
tantamount to a negative pregnant.

What has been clearly established here is the fact that respondent entered into marriage
twice while his first marriage was still subsisting. In Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro,
56 we held thus:

[W]e have in a number of cases disciplined members of the Bar whom we found guilty of
misconduct which demonstrated a lack of that good moral character required of them not
only as a condition precedent for their admission to the Bar but, likewise, for their
continued membership therein. No distinction has been made as to whether the
misconduct was committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his private life. This
is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a
mere citizen at another. He is expected to be competent, honorable and reliable at all times
since he who cannot apply and abide by the laws in his private affairs, can hardly be
expected to do so in his professional dealings nor lead others in doing so. Professional
honesty and honor are not to be expected as the accompaniment of dishonesty and
dishonor in other relations. The administration of justice, in which the lawyer plays an
important role being an officer of the court, demands a high degree of intellectual and
moral competency on his part so that the courts and clients may rightly repose confidence
in him.

Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a

member of the bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding
respect and dignity.57 His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral
conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules
of Court.58

The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the IBP to disbar respondent and
ordered that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Rebecca B. Arnobit vs. Atty Ponciano P. Arnobit,
A.C. No. 1481, October 17, 2008

Facts:

Rebecca B. Arnobit, filed an affidavit-complaint, praying that the Court exercise its
disciplinary power over her husband, respondent Atty. Ponciano Arnobit, on the grounds
of Immorality and Abandonment.

Complainant and respondent were married with 12 children. Several years after passing
the bar, respondent left the conjugal dwelling and cohabited with Benita Buenafe, a
married woman, who bore him 4 more children. Rebecca filed a complaint for legal
separation and support. A criminal case of adultery against respondent and Benita later
followed.

Respondent denied the allegation that he cohabited with Benita. Instead, he alleged that it
was Rebecca who was the cause of their separation due to her frequent travels around the
country without his consent and thereby neglecting her obligations toward her family.

Hearings were conducted before the Office of the Solicitor General and subsequently,
before the IBP-CBD. Complainant presented both oral and documentary evidence to
support her allegations of abandonment and immorality, 2 witnesses and affidavits from
NBI agents to show the existence of prima facie case for adultery. Respondent, however,
failed to present evidence to support his claim and failed to personally attend hearings.

The Commission found respondent liable for abandonment and recommended his
suspension from the practice of law to the IBP Board Governors for 3 months. It was
accepted and adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.

Issues:

Does leaving the conjugal home and cohabiting with a married woman a ground for
disbarment?

Ruling:

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct:
CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must
also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest
moral standards of the community. A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not
only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress but must also
so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the impression that he is
flouting those moral standards.

The fact that respondent’s philandering ways are far removed from the exercise of his
profession would not save the day for him. For a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for
any misconduct which, albeit unrelated to the actual practice of his profession, would
show him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges with which his license
and the law invest him. To borrow from Orbe v. Adaza, "[t]he grounds expressed in
Section 27, Rule 138,9 of the Rules of Court are not limitative and are broad enough to
cover any misconduct x x x of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity." To reiterate,
possession of good
moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing
qualification for all members of the bar.

Undoubtedly, respondent’s act of leaving his wife and 12 children to cohabit and have
children with another woman constitutes grossly immoral conduct. And to add insult to
injury, there seems to be little attempt on the part of respondent to be discreet about his
liaison with the other woman.As we have already ruled, disbarment is warranted against a
lawyer who abandons his lawful wife to maintain an illicit relationship with another
woman who had borne him a child.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Ponciano P. Arnobit is hereby DISBARRED

JOSELANO GUEVARRA v. ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA
A.C. No. 7136, August 01, 2007

Facts: Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M.
Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala (respondent) for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation
of the lawyer's oath."

The complainant first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainant's) then-
fiancee Irene Moje (Irene) introduced respondent Atty. Eala, a lawyer and a sportscaster,
to him as her friend who was married to Mary Ann Tantoco with whom he had three
children.

After his marriage to Irene, complainant noticed that Irene had been receiving from
respondent cellphone calls, as well as messages some of which read "I love you," "I miss
you," or "Meet you at Megamall." He also noticed that Irene habitually went home very
late at night or early in the morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home
from work. When he asked about her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her
parents' house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work. More so, complainant
has seen Irene and respondent together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he
confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house.

Moreover, Complainant later found, in the master's bedroom, a folded social card bearing
the words "I Love You" on its face, which card when unfolded contained a handwritten
letter dated October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to Irene. Also, it was revealed that
Irene gave birth to a girl in 2002 and Irene named respondent in the Certificate of Live
Birth as the girl's father.

In his answer, Respondent specifically denies having ever flaunted an adulterous

relationship with Irene, the truth of the matter being that their relationship was low
profile and known only to the immediate members of their respective families. He also
said that his special relationship with Irene is neither under scandalous circumstances nor
tantamount to grossly immoral conduct as would be a ground for disbarment.

Issue: Whether the respondent be disbarred from the practice of Law.

Held: YES. The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a
married woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out
discreetly.

While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between
two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit
behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Even if not all
forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside
marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the
sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by
our laws.

Respondent in fact also violated the lawyer's oath he took before admission to practice law.
Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct," and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a
lawyer from engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law."

As a lawyer, respondent should be aware that a man and a woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife are presumed, unless proven otherwise, to have entered into a lawful
contract of marriage. In carrying on an extra-marital affair with Irene prior to the judicial
declaration that her marriage with complainant was null and void, and despite respondent
himself being married, he showed disrespect for an institution held sacred by the law. And
he betrayed his unfitness to be a lawyer.
Synthesize
Attorney; bigamy; gross immorality. A disbarment case is sui generis. Its focus is on the qualification and fitness of a
lawyer to continue membership in the bar and not the procedural technicalities in filing the case.Respondent’s
regard for marriage contracts as ordinary agreements indicates either his wanton disregard of the sanctity of
marriage or his gross ignorance of the law on what course of action to take to annul a marriage under the old Civil
Code provisions. Respondent entered into marriage twice while his first marriage was still subsisting. He exhibited a
deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a
sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral
conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. Manuel G.
Villatuya vs. Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos A.C. No. 6622, July 10, 2012.