B.

THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

1. TIONG VS FLORENDO
[A.C. No. 4428 : December 12, 2011]

ELPIDIO P. TIONG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Before the Court is an administrative complaint [1] for disbarment filed by Elpidio P. Tiong against Atty.
George M. Florendo for gross immorality and grave misconduct.

The facts of the case are as follows:

Complainant Elpidio P. Tiong, an American Citizen, and his wife, Ma. Elena T. Tiong, are real estate
lessors in Baguio City. They are likewise engaged in the assembly and repair of motor vehicles in
Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan. 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).

Sometime in 1993, complainant began to suspect that respondent and his wife were having an illicit
affair. His suspicion was confirmed in the afternoon of May 13, 1995 when, in their residence, he
chanced upon a telephone conversation between the two. Listening through the extension phone, he
heard respondent utter the words "I love you, I'll call you later". When confronted, his wife initially
denied any amorous involvement with respondent but eventually broke down and confessed to their
love affair that began in 1993. Respondent likewise admitted the relationship. Subsequently, at a
meeting initiated by respondent and held at the Salibao Restaurant in Burnham Park, Baguio City,
respondent and complainant's wife, Ma. Elena, confessed anew to their illicit affair before their
respective spouses.

On May 15, 1995, the parties met again at the Mandarin Restaurant in Baguio City and, in the
presence of a Notary Public, Atty. Liberato Tadeo, respondent and Ma. Elena executed and signed
an affidavit[2] attesting to their illicit relationship and seeking their respective spouses' forgiveness, as
follows:
"WE, GEORGE M. FLORENDO, a resident of Baguio City and of legal age and MA. ELENA T.
TIONG, likewise a resident of Baguio City, of legal age, depose and state:

We committed adultery against our spouses from May 1993 to May 13, 1995 and we hereby ask
forgiveness and assure our spouses that this thing will never happen again with us or any other
person. We assure that we will no longer see each other nor have any communication directly or
indirectly. We shall comply with our duties as husband and wife to our spouses and assure that there
will be no violence against them. That any behaviour unbecoming a husband or wife henceforth shall
give rise to legal action against us; We shall never violate this assurance;

We, the offended spouses Elizabeth F. Florendo and Elpidio Tiong forgive our spouses and assure
them that we will not institute any criminal or legal action against them because we have forgiven
them. If they violate this agreement we will institute legal action.

This document consists of four (4) typewritten copies and each party has been furnished a copy and
this document shall have no validity unless signed by all the parties.
1
B. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have set out hands this 15th day of May 1995 at Baguio City,
Philippines.
(SIGNED) (SIGNED)
GEORGE M. FLORENDO ELPIDIO TIONG
(SIGNED) (SIGNED)
MA. ELENA T. TIONG ELIZABETH F. FLORENDO"

Notwithstanding, complainant instituted the present suit for disbarment on May 23, 1995 charging
respondent of gross immorality and grave misconduct. In his Answer [3], respondent admitted the
material allegations of the complaint but interposed the defense of pardon.

In the Resolution[4] dated September 20, 1995, the Court resolved to refer the case to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and decision.

Finding merit in the complaint, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), through Commissioner
Agustinus V. Gonzaga, submitted its Report and Recommendation [5] dated September 21, 2007 for
the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for one (1) year, which was adopted and
approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution [6] dated October 19, 2007. Respondent's
Motion for Reconsideration[7] therefrom was denied in the Resolution[8] dated June 26, 2011.

Hence, the instant petition on the sole 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.

After due consideration, the Court resolves to adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP-
CBD except as to the penalty imposed.

The pertinent provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility provide, thus:

"CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

xxxx

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.

xxxx

Rule 7.03. - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession."

It has been consistently held by the Court that possession of good moral character is not only a
condition for admission to the Bar but is a continuing requirement to maintain one's good standing in
the legal profession. It is the bounden duty of law practitioners to observe the highest degree of
morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar. [9] Consequently, any errant behaviour on the
part of a lawyer, be it in his public or private activities, which tends to show him deficient in moral
character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant his suspension or disbarment.
2
B. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

In this case, respondent admitted his illicit relationship with a married woman not his wife, and worse,
that of his client. Contrary to respondent's claim, their consortium cannot be classified as a mere
"moment of indiscretion"[10] considering that it lasted for two (2) years and was only aborted when
complainant overheard their amorous phone conversation on March 13, 1995.

Respondent'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.[11] Likewise, he violated the trust and confidence reposed on
him by complainant which in itself is prohibited under Canon 17 [12] of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Undeniably, therefore, his illicit relationship with Ma. Elena amounts to a disgraceful
and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action from the Court. [13] 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.

Respondent, however, maintains that he cannot be sanctioned for his questioned conduct because
he and Ma. Elena had already been pardoned by their respective spouses in the May 15, 1995
Affidavit[14].

The Court disagrees.

It bears to stress that a case of suspension or disbarment is sui generis and not meant to grant relief
to a complainant as in a civil case but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its
undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts. It is not an investigation into the
acts of respondent as a husband but on his conduct as an officer of the Court and his fitness to
continue as a member of the Bar.[15] Hence, the Affidavit dated March 15, 1995, which is akin to an
affidavit of desistance, cannot have the effect of abating the instant proceedings. [16]

However, considering the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that a penalty of suspension
from the practice of law for six (6) months, instead of one (1) year as recommended by the IBP-CBD,
is adequate sanction for the grossly immoral conduct of respondent.

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO is hereby found GUILTY of Gross

Immorality and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS effective upon notice
hereof, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with
more severely.

Let copies of this Decision be entered in the personal record of respondent as a member of the
Philippine Bar and furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.

3
B. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

2. POBRE VS DEFENSOR
ANTERO J. POBRE v. SEN. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, AC. No. 7399, 2009-08-25
Facts:
statements reflected a total disrespect on the part of the speaker towards then Chief Justice
Pobre asks that disbarment proceedings or other... disciplinary actions be taken against the lady
senator.
Senator Santiago, through counsel,... explained that those statements were covered by the
constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity
Issues:
constituted an act of utter disrespect on her part towards the Court and its members.
Ruling:
remind her anew that the parliamentary non-accountability thus granted to members of Congress is
not to protect them against prosecutions for their own benefit, but to enable them, as the people's
representatives, to perform the functions of... their office without fear of being made responsible
before the courts or other forums outside the congressional hall.[18] It is intended to protect members
of Congress against government pressure and intimidation aimed at influencing the decision-
making... prerogatives of Congress and its members.
But as to Senator Santiago's unparliamentary remarks, the Senate President had not apparently
called her to order, let alone referred the matter to the Senate Ethics Committee for appropriate
disciplinary action, as the Rules dictates under such circumstance.[20] The lady senator clearly
violated the rules of her own chamber. It is unfortunate that her peers bent backwards and avoided
imposing their own rules on her.
Principles:

4
B. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

3. NOE-LACSAMANA VS BUSMENTE
ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA v. ATTY. YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE, AC. No. 7269, 2011-11-23
Facts:
Noe-Lacsamana alleged... that
Ulaso's deed of sale over the property... was annulled, which resulted... in the filing of an ejectment
case
Busmente appeared as counsel.
Another case... for falsification was filed against Ulaso where Busmente also appeared as counsel.
Noe-Lacsamana alleged that upon... verification with this Court and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, she discovered that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer.
Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa was a law graduate and was his paralegal assistant for a few
years.
Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa's employment with him ended in 2000 but Dela Rosa was able to
continue misrepresenting herself as a lawyer... and that his signature in the Answer... presented as
proof by Noe-Lacsamana was forged.
Issues:
whether Busmente is guilty of directly or indirectly assisting Dela Rosa in her illegal practice of law
that warrants his suspension from the practice of law.
Ruling:
Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa's employment in his office ended in 2000 and that Dela Rosa was
able to continue with her illegal practice of law through connivance with Macasieb, another member of
Busmente's staff
It would have been impossible for Dela Rosa to continue representing Ulaso in the case, considering
Busmente's claim that Macasieb already resigned, if Dela
Rosa had no access to the files in Busmente's office.
And furthermore the untruthful narrations of facts must affect the integrity which is not so in the instant
case.
The counter-affidavit clearly showed that Busmente was the legal counsel in Civil Case No. 9284 and
that he allowed Dela Rosa to give legal assistance to Ulaso.
Hence, we agree with the findings of the IBP-CBD that there was sufficient evidence to prove that
Busmente was guilty of violation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Principles:

5
B. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

4. HELEN JOSELINA MENDOZA VS ATTY LORENZO GADON