ELPIDIO P. TIONG vs. ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO A.C. No. 4428 Facts: Complainant Elpidio P. Tiong, an American Citizen, and his wife, Ma. Elena T. Tiong, are real estate lessors in Baguio City. In 1991, they engaged the services of respondent Atty. George M. Florendo not only as legal counsel but also as administrator of their businesses whenever complainant would leave for the United States of America (USA). On May 13, 1995, complainant confirmed the illicit affair between his wife and Atty. George Florendo by listening through the extension phone, he heard respondent utter the words "I love you, I'll call you later". Both his wife and respondent confessed to their love affair that began in 1993. On May 15, 1995, respondent and his wife executed and signed an affidavit attesting to their illicit relationship and seeking their respective spouses' forgiveness. Complainant instituted the present suit for disbarment on May 23, 1995 charging respondent of gross immorality and grave misconduct. In his Answer, respondent admitted the material allegations of the complaint but interposed the defense of pardon. Issue: Whether the pardon extended by complainant in the Affidavit dated May 15, 1995 is sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the present disbarment case against respondent for gross immoral conduct. Ruling: No. Respondent‟s illicit relationship with Ma. Elena amounts to a disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action from the Court. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that an attorney may be disbarred or suspended from his office by the Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, among others. Hence, the Affidavit dated March 15, 1995, which is akin to an affidavit of desistance, cannot have the effect of abating the instant proceedings. WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO is hereby found GUILTY of Gross Immorality and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTH, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
MAELOTISEA S. GARRIDO vs. ATTYS. ANGEL E. GARRIDO and ROMANA P. VALENCIA A.C. No. 6593 Facts: Maelotisea Sipin Garrido , 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. Atty. Valencia and her legal husband had been married in Hong Kong and had already a child. 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, the respondents 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. Ruling: Yes. 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. Garrido‟s abandonment of paternal responsibility and 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. As such, their disbarment is affirmed.
MANUEL G. VILLATUYA vs. ATTY. BEDE S. TABALINGCOS A.C. No. 6622 Facts: In this Complaint for disbarment filed on 06 December 2004 with the Office of the Bar Confidant, complainant Manuel G. Villatuya (complainant) charges Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos (respondent) with unlawful solicitation of cases, violation of the („ode or Professional Responsibility for non-payment of fees to complainant, and gross immorality for marrying two other women while respondent‟s first marriage was subsisting. On 27 February 2008, the Commission promulgated its Report and Recommendation addressing the specific charges against respondent. 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. And on 15 April 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 01 August 2008, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the recommendation to disbar him was premature. On 26 June 2011, the IBP Board of Governors denied the Motions for Reconsideration and affirmed their Resolution dated 15 April 2008 recommending respondent‟s disbarment. Issues: Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by nonpayment of fees to complainant; Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation; and Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married thrice.
Ruling: The Court affirms the recommendations of the IBP. The first charge of complainant against respondent for the nonpayment of the former‟s share in the fees, if proven to be true is based on an agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Considering that complainant‟s allegations in this case had not been proven, the IBP correctly dismissed the charge against respondent on this matter. On the second issue, a review of the records reveals that respondent indeed used the business entities mentioned in the report to solicit clients and to advertise his legal services, purporting to be specialized in corporate rehabilitation cases. 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, and 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. The third charge, 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. 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. WHEREFORE, this Court resolves the following charges against Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos as follows: (1.) The charge of dishonesty is DISMISSED for lack of merit. (2.) Respondent is REPRIMANDED for acts of illegal advertisement and solicitation. (3.) Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos is DISBARRED for engaging in bigamy, a grossly immoral conduct.
REBECCA B. ARNOBIT vs. ATTY. PONCIANO P. ARNOBIT A.C. No. 1481 Facts: In her complaint, Rebecca alleged that she and respondent were married on August 20, 1942. Twelve children were born out of this union. Rebecca further alleged seeing respondent through law school, continuously supporting him until he passed the bar examinations and became a member of the Philippine bar. Several years after, however, or in 1968, respondent left the conjugal home and started cohabiting with one Benita Buenafe Navarro who later bore him four more children. Respondent‟s infidelity, according to Rebecca, impelled her to file a complaint for legal separation and support. A criminal case for adultery against Benita and respondent later followed. In his Answer dated July 31, 1975, respondent admitted that Rebecca is his wedded wife and the mother of their 12 children. He denied, however, having cohabited with Benita. And he pointed to his complaining wife as the cause of their separation, stating the observation that she was “always traveling all over the country, ostensibly for business purposes, without his knowledge and consent neglecting her obligations. Issue: whether or not Immorality and Abandonment can be grounds for disbarment. Ruling: Yes. 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. 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. In the instant case, respondent‟s grossly immoral conduct compels the Court to wield its power to disbar. The penalty is most appropriate under the premises. WHEREFORE, Atty. Ponciano P. Arnobit is hereby DISBARRED.
JOSELANO GUEVARRA vs. ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA A.C. No. 7136 August 1, 2007 Facts: complainant Joselano Guevarra first met respondent Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala when his then-fiancée Irene Moje inteoduced Eala to him as a friend. Respondent, at that time was married to Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three children. After their marriage on October 7, 2000, Guevarra noticed that Irene was receiving from Atty. Eala calls and messages, some of which read “I love you”, “I miss you”, and “Meet you at the Megamall.” Irene also often went home very late and at times did not go home at all after work. On two occasions, Guevarra saw Irene and Atty. Eala together, and the second instance he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001, Guevarra went uninvited to Irene‟s birthday celebration at which he saw her and respondent. He later found out a card in their house bearing the words “I love you” and a handwritten dated October 7, 2007, the day of his wedding to Irene. Guevarra later learn that Irene was already cohabiting with Atty. Eala and that she was pregnant. This prompted Guevarra to file with the IBP a disbarment complaint against Atty. Eala for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of lawyer‟s oath. In his defense, Atty. Eala admitted his relationship with Irene but insisted that disbarment does not lie because their relationship was not under scandalous circumstances. The Investigating Commissioner recommended that he be disbarred for immoral conduct. The IBP Board of Governors, however, ruled to dismiss the complaint for lack of merit. Thus, Guevarra elevated the case to the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Eala is guilty of grossly immoral conduct and should thus be dismissed. Ruling: Yes, petition GRANTED. Atty. Eala disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
