7/29/2019 Rebecca B

1/6

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 itsdisciplinary 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 passingthe bar, respondent left the conjugal dwelling and cohabited with Benita Buenafe, amarried woman, who bore him 4 more children. Rebecca filed a complaint for legalseparation and support. A criminal case of adultery against respondent and Benita laterfollowed.

Respondent denied the allegation that he cohabited with Benita. Instead, he alleged that itwas 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 tosupport her allegations of abandonment and immorality, 2 witnesses and affidavits fromNBI 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 hissuspension 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 fordisbarment?

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 legalprofession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

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

7/29/2019 Rebecca B

2/6

As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but mustalso be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highestmoral standards of the community. A member of the bar and an officer of the court is notonly required to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress but must alsoso behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the impression that he isflouting those moral standards.

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

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

WHEREFORE, Atty. Ponciano P. Arnobit is hereby DISBARRED

Elpidio Tiong vs Atty. George Florendoon December 2, 2012

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.

7/29/2019 Rebecca B

3/6

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. Florendos act of having an

affair with his clients 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.

Guevarra vs. Eala, A.C. No. 7136 , August 1, 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

http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/01/guevarra-vs-eala-ac-no-7136-august-1.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/01/guevarra-vs-eala-ac-no-7136-august-1.html

7/29/2019 Rebecca B

4/6

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

7/29/2019 Rebecca B

5/6

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.

GARRIDO vs. GARRIDO

Facts:The petitioner, the respondents legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a

supplemental affidavit for disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido andAtty. Romana P.Valencia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee onDiscipline, charging them with gross immorality, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1 .01,of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint arose after the petitionercaught wind through her daughter that her husband was having an affair with awoman other than his wife and already had a child with her; and the sameinformation was confirmed when one of her daughters saw that her husbandwalking in a Robinsons mall with the other respondent, Atty. Valencia, with their chi ld intow.

After a much further investigation into the matter, the time and effort given yieldedresultstelling her that Atty. Valencia and her legal husband had been married in HongKong. 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 neededfinancial support. In their defense, they postulated that they were not lawyers as of yetwhen they committed the supposed immorality , so as such, they were not guilty ofa violation of Canon1, Rule 1.01.

Issue:Whether or not Atty. Garridos andValencias actions constitute a violation of Canon

1, Rule1.01 and thus a good enough cause for their disbarment, despite the offense beingsupposedly committed when they were not lawyers.

Held:Yes. Membership in the Bar is a privi lege, and as a privilege bestowed by

law through the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be withdrawn wherecircumstances show the lawyers 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 ofCanon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which commandsthat a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

7/29/2019 Rebecca B

6/6

Furthermore, The contention of respondent that they were not yet lawyers when they gotmarried shall not afford them exemption from sanctions; good moral characterwas 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 Valenciawereshouldered with the expectation that they would set a good example in promotingobedience 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 thelegal profession. Such actions by themselves, without even including the fact ofGarridosabandonment 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 twoother women including the petitioner, are clear indications of a lack of moral values notconsistent with the proper conduct of practicing lawyers within the country. As such, theirdisbarment is affirmed