Tumbokon v Pefianco

Engr. Tumbokon v Atty. Pefianco  A.C. No. 6116 (August (August 21, 2012 !ACT"# Complainant Complainant filed an administrative administrative complaint complaint for disbarment against against respondent respondent for grave dishonesty, gross misconduct constituting deceit and grossly immoral conduct. Complainant narrated that respondent undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to 10%, of the attorney's fees the latter would receive in representing ps. !ap, whom he referred, in an action for partition of the estate of the late "en#amin !ap. $espondent failed to pay notwithstanding the 1% attorney&s fees of the total estate of 0(. $espondent told complainant that the ps. !ap assumed to pay the amount after respondent agreed to reduced fees. Complainant Complainant further further alleged alleged that respondent respondent has not lived lived up to the high moral standards standards re)uired re)uired of his profession. profession. $espondent $espondent abandoned abandoned his legal wife, (ilagros *ilado, *ilado, with whom he has two children, and cohabited with (ae +lor alido, with whom he has four children. Compla Complainan inantt also also accuse accused d respon responden dentt of engagi engaging ng in money money-len -lendin ding g busine business ss witho without ut authoriation from the "angko entral ng /ilipinas. n his defense, respondent respondent eplained eplained that he accepted accepted the case in a 2% contingent contingent fee basis and the letter of ps. !ap stating that they will pay the complainant&s commission is a forgery. 3he court referred the case to "/ wherein the commissioner recommended that the respondent be suspended for one 415 year from the practice of law for violation of the 6awyer&s 7ath, $ule 1.01, Canon 18 $ule .09, Canon  and $ule :.02, Canon : of the Code of /rofessional $esponsibility. $espondent moved for reconsideration but was denied. $""%E# ;hether or not respondent is guilty. &E'# !<. 3he practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the tate on those who show that they possess possess and continue continue to possess the legal )ualificati )ualifications ons for the profession. profession. Clearly, respondent has violated $ule :.02, Canon : of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law. +urthermore, respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned his legal family to cohabit with his mistress with whom he begot four children. 3he settled rule is that betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or seual 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. *owever, C finds the charge of engaging in illegal money lending not to have been sufficiently established. 3he lending of money to a single person without showing that such service is made available to other persons on a consistent basis cannot be construed as indicia that respondent is engaged in the business of lending. 3hus, the C deems it appropriate that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one 415 year as recommended.