Tiong vs. Florendo

A lawyer's illicit affair with his client's spouse constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action, and the pardon extended by the offended spouse does not abate disbarment proceedings because such proceedings are sui generis, intended not to grant relief to the complainant but to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of undesirable members to protect the public and the courts.

Complainant Elpidio P. Tiong, an American citizen, and his wife Ma. Elena T. Tiong were real estate lessors in Baguio City and were also 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. The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes, and to at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

Complainant Elpidio P. Tiong and his wife Ma. Elena T. Tiong engaged the services of respondent Atty. George M. Florendo in 1991 as legal counsel and administrator of their businesses whenever complainant would leave for the United States. 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, complainant's 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 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 attesting to their illicit relationship and seeking their respective spouses' forgiveness. The affidavit stated that they committed adultery against their spouses from May 1993 to May 13, 1995, asked forgiveness, and assured their spouses that the affair would never happen again. The offended spouses, Elizabeth F. Florendo and Elpidio Tiong, also signed the affidavit, forgiving their spouses and assuring them that no criminal or legal action would be instituted against them.

Notwithstanding the affidavit, complainant instituted the present suit for disbarment on May 23, 1995, charging respondent with gross immorality and grave misconduct. In his Answer, respondent admitted the material allegations of the complaint but interposed the defense of pardon. The Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation and decision, and the CBD found merit in the complaint, recommending suspension for one year, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved. Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration was denied.

• Gross Immorality and Grave Misconduct: Complainant charged respondent with gross immorality and grave misconduct arising from respondent's illicit affair with complainant's wife, which began in 1993 and was discovered on May 13, 1995.

• Pardon as Defense: Respondent admitted the material allegations of the complaint but interposed the defense of pardon, maintaining that he and Ma. Elena had already been pardoned by their respective spouses in the May 15, 1995 Affidavit.
• Moment of Indiscretion: Respondent claimed that his consortium with Ma. Elena could be classified as a mere "moment of indiscretion."

• Effect of Pardon on Disbarment Proceedings: 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.

• Effect of Pardon on Disbarment Proceedings: No. The pardon extended by the offended spouses does not warrant dismissal of the disbarment case. 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. The Affidavit, which is akin to an affidavit of desistance, cannot have the effect of abating the proceedings.

• Effect of Pardon on Disbarment Proceedings: The Court held 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. 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.

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" considering that it lasted for two (2) years and was only aborted when complainant overheard their amorous phone conversation. 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. Likewise, he violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant, which in itself is prohibited under Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Undeniably, his 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. The Court disagreed with respondent's contention that he cannot be sanctioned because of the pardon, stressing 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. Hence, the Affidavit, which is akin to an affidavit of desistance, cannot have the effect of abating the instant proceedings.

However, considering the circumstances of the case, the Court found 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.

• Continuing requirement of good moral character — 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. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that respondent's illicit affair with his client's wife demonstrated his deficiency in moral character, warranting disciplinary action.

• Disbarment proceedings as sui generis — 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. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the pardon extended by the offended spouses, which is akin to an affidavit of desistance, cannot abate the disbarment proceedings.

• Lawyer's conduct in private life — 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. The Court applied this doctrine in considering respondent's illicit relationship with his client's wife, which occurred in his private life, as sufficient ground for disciplinary action.

• "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." — This passage articulates the foundational doctrine that good moral character is a continuing requirement for lawyers, forming the basis for disciplining lawyers for conduct in their private lives.

• "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." — This passage states the canonical formulation of the sui generis nature of disbarment proceedings, explaining why a pardon from the offended spouse cannot abate the administrative case.

• "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." — This passage explains the Court's characterization of respondent's conduct as grossly immoral, emphasizing the aggravating circumstance that the affair was with his client's wife.

• Advincula vs. Macabata, A.C. No. 7204, March 7, 2007, 517 SCRA 600 — Cited for the doctrine that possession of good moral character is a continuing requirement to maintain one's good standing in the legal profession.

• Guevarra vs. Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007, 529 SCRA 1 — Cited for the proposition that a lawyer's affair with a client's wife manifests disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and shows moral depravity and low regard for the ethics of the profession.

• Samaniego vs. Ferrer, A.C. No. 7022, June 18, 2008, 555 SCRA 1 — Cited for the doctrine that an illicit relationship with a client's wife amounts to disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action, and that disbarment proceedings are sui generis.

• Garrido vs. Garrido, A.C. No. 6593, February 4, 2010, 611 SCRA 508 — Cited for the proposition that an affidavit akin to an affidavit of desistance cannot have the effect of abating disbarment proceedings.

• Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The Court applied this provision in finding respondent guilty of gross immorality for his illicit affair with his client's wife.

• Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that 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. The Court applied this provision in considering respondent's private conduct as grounds for disciplinary action.

• Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. The Court applied this provision in finding that respondent violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant.

• Section 27, Rule 138, 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. The Court applied this provision as the statutory basis for disciplining respondent.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad, and Mendoza, JJ., concurred.