PEÑA vs. PATERNO
Respondent
FACTS: Anita C. Peña personally knew Atty.
Christina C. Paterno as respondent was her lawyer
in a legal separation case, which she filed against
her husband and the aforementioned property
was her share in their property settlement.
Complainant stated that she also knew personally
one Estrella D. Kraus, as she was respondent’s
trusted employee who did secretarial work for
respondent. Paterno suggested that she
(complainant) apply for a loan from a bank to
construct townhouses on her property for sale to
interested buyers, and that her property be offered
as collateral. Paterno assured Peña that she would
work out the speedy processing and release of the
loan. Peña discovered that her apartment was
already demolished, and in its place, four
residential houses were constructed on her
property, which she later learned was already
owned by one Ernesto D. Lampa, who bought her
property from Estrella D. Kraus. Complainant
learned that her property was sold to Krisbuilt
Traders Company, Ltd., and respondent was the
Notary Public before whom the sale was
acknowledged. Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd.,
through its Managing Partner, Estrella D. Kraus,
sold the same to one Ernesto D. Lampa.
Complainant stated in her Complaint that she did
not sell her property to Krisbuilt Traders
Company, Ltd., and that she neither signed any
deed of sale in its favor nor appeared before
respondent to acknowledge the sale. She alleged
that respondent manipulated the sale of her
property. Respondent alleged that complainant
took hold of the Deed of Sale. Complainant
allegedly told respondent that she would inform
respondent when the transaction was completed
so that the Deed of Sale could be recorded in the
Notarial Book. Thereafter, respondent claimed
that she had no knowledge of what transpired
between complainant and the Spouses Kraus.
Respondent stated that she was never entrusted
with complainant’s certificate of title. Moreover, it
was only complainant who negotiated the sale of
her property. According to respondent,
complainant’s inaction for eight years to verify
what happened to her property only meant that
she had actually sold the same, and that she
concocted her story when she saw the prospect of
her property had she held on to it.
prayed for the dismissal of the case.
ISSUE: WON Paterno should be disbarred.
HELD: YES.
RATIO: Pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court, a lawyer may be removed or
suspended for any deceit or dishonest act, thus:
Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by
Supreme Court on what grounds. – A member of
the bar may be removed or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason
of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which
he is required to take before admission to practice,
or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of
a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority to do so. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Given the facts of this case, wherein respondent
was in possession of complainant’s copy of the
certificate of title to the property in Marikina, and
it was respondent who admittedly prepared the
Deed of Sale, which complainant denied having
executed or signed, the important evidence of the
alleged forgery of complainant’s signature on the
Deed of Sale and the validity of the sale is the Deed
of Sale itself. However, a copy of the Deed of Sale
could not be produced by the Register of Deeds of
Marikina City, as it could not be located in the
general files of the registry, and a certification was
issued stating that the Deed of Sale may be
considered lost. Moreover, respondent did not
submit to the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Manila
her Notarial Report for the month of November
1986, including the said Deed of Sale, which was
executed on November 11, 1986. Hence,
Investigating Commissioner Sordan opined that it
appears that efforts were exerted to get rid of the
copies of the said Deed of Sale to prevent
complainant from getting hold of the document
for the purpose of handwriting verification from
an expert to prove that her alleged signature on
the Deed of Sale was forged. The failure of
respondent to submit to the proper RTC Clerk of
Court her Notarial Register/Report for the month
of November 1986 and a copy of the Deed of Sale,
which was notarized by her within that month,
has far-reaching implications and grave
consequences, as it in effect suppressed evidence
on the veracity of the said Deed of Sale and
showed the deceitful conduct of respondent to
withhold the truth about its authenticity. During
her testimony, it was observed by the
Investigating Commissioner and reflected in the
transcript of records that respondent would
neither directly confirm nor deny that she
notarized the said Deed of Sale. For the
aforementioned deceitful conduct, respondent is
disbarred from the practice of law. As a member
of the bar, respondent failed to live up to the
standards embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility, particularly the following Canons:
CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
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.
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor should he, whether in public or private
life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.
DISPOSITION: Respondent Atty. Christina C.
Paterno is DISBARRED
EDUARDO A. ABELLA vs. RICARDO G.
BARRIOS, JR.
FACTS: Complainant obtained a favorable
judgment from the Court of Appeals involving a
Labor Case. Complainant then filed a Motion for
Issuance of a Writ of Execution before the
Regional Arbitration Branch which the
respondent was the Labor Arbiter. After the lapse
of five (5) months, complainant’s motion
remained unacted, prompting him to file a Second
Motion for Execution. However, still, there was
no action until the complainant agreed to give
respondent a portion of the monetary award
thereof after the latter asked from the former how
much would be his share. Thereafter, respondent
issued a writ of execution but the employer of the
complainant moved to quash the said writ.
Eventually, issued a new writ of execution
wherein complainant’s monetary awards were
reduced to the effect that it modifies the
DECISION of the CA. Complainant now filed the
instant disbarment complaint before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), averring
that respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility for (a) soliciting money from
complainant in exchange for a favorable
resolution; and (b) issuing a wrong decision to
give benefit and advantage to PT&T,
complainant’s employer.
ISSUE:Whether or not respondent is guilty of
gross immorality for his violation of Rules 1.01
and 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the
Code.
HELD: YES. The above-cited rules, which are
contained under Chapter 1 of the Code, delineate
the lawyer’s responsibility to society: Rule 1.01
engraves the overriding prohibition against
lawyers from engaging in any unlawful,
dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct; Rule
1.03 proscribes lawyers from encouraging any suit
or proceeding or delaying any man’s cause for any
corrupt motive or interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is
particularly directed to lawyers in government
service, enjoining them from using one’s public
position to: (1) promote private interests; (2)
advance private interests; or (3) allow private
interests to interfere with public duties. It is well
to note that a lawyer who holds a government
office may be disciplined as a member of the Bar
only when his misconduct also constitutes a
violation of his oath as a lawyer.
The infractions of the respondent constitute
gross misconduct. Jurisprudence illumines that
immoral conduct involves acts that are willful,
flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral
indifference to the opinion of the upright and
respectable members of the community. It treads
the line of grossness when it is so corrupt as to
constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to
be reprehensible to a high degree, or when
committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the community’s sense
of decency. On the other hand, gross misconduct
constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the
transgression of some established and definite
rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of
duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful
intent and not mere error of judgment."
In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court states that when a lawyer is found
guilty of gross immoral conduct or gross
misconduct, he may be suspended or
disbarred.However, the Court takes judicial notice
of the fact that he had already been disbarred in a
previous administrative case, entitled Sps. Rafols,
Jr. v. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr., which therefore
precludes the Court from duplicitously decreeing
the same. In view of the foregoing, the Court
deems it proper to, instead, impose a fine in the
amount of P40,000.00 in order to penalize
respondent’s transgressions as discussed herein
and to equally deter the commission of the same
or similar acts in the future.
JOCELYN DE LEON v. ATTY. TYRONE
PEDRENA
Facts: Atty. Tyrone Pedreña, a Public Attorney of
Parañaque City. Jocelyn De Leon is a single
mother of two minor children. Atty. Pedreña is the
counsel of Jocelyn De Leon on the case for support
for the two minor children.
Records show, as established by the IBP
Investigating Commissioner, on January 30, 2006
after asking about the status of the case Atty.
Pedreña told Jocelyn De Leon then to ride with
him and he would just drop Jocelyn by the jeepney
station, she refused to ride with him but Atty.
Pedreña persistently told her to get in the car, and
so she acceded to his request so as not to offend
him. Inside the car Atty. Pedreña rubbed the
Jocelyn’s right leg with his hand; tried to insert his
finger into her firmly closed hand; grabbed her
hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area; and
pressed his finger against her private part. Jocelyn
thereafter tried at all cost to unlock the car’s door
and told him categorically that she was getting off
the car. Instead he accelerated a bit more but
sensing her insistence to get off, he stopped the
car, and allowed her to get off.
Jocelyn de Leon then filed with the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) a complaint for
disbarment or suspension from the practice of law
against Atty. Tyrone Pedreña.
IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended
for his disbarment, the IBP Board of Governors
however modified the penalty to three-month
suspension from practice of law. Upon Motion for
Reconsideration by Atty. Pedreña which the
Board denied, they increased the penalty to six
months. Thereafter transmitted records and
resolution to the Court for approval.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Pedreña is guilty of
violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Ruling: Yes, Atty. Pedreña is guilty. The Supreme
Court adopted the findings and conclusions of the
Investigating Commissioner. Yet, the Court
consider the recommended penalty of suspension
for six months not commensurate with the gravity
of the offensive acts committed.
Given the circumstances in which Atty. Pedreña
committed them, his acts were not merely
offensive and undesirable but repulsive,
disgraceful and grossly immoral. In this regard, it
bears stressing that immoral conduct is gross
when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act,
or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree, or when committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock
the community’s sense of decency.
Therefore, the Court took into consideration
judicial precedents on gross immoral conduct
bearing on sexual matters. The Court consider the
acts committed by Atty. Pedreña to be not of the
same degree as the acts committed by the
respondent lawyer in Calub v. Suller, among other
cases whereby the respondent lawyer was
disbarred for raping his neighbor’s wife. Unlike in
Barrientos where there was deceit and in Delos
Reyes where there were threats and taking
advantage of a lawyer’s position, Atty. Pedreña
did not employ any scheme to satiate his lust, but,
instead, he desisted upon the first signs of the De
Leon’s firm refusal to give in to his advances.
In view of these considerations, according to the
Court penalty of suspension from the practice of
law for two years is fitting and just.
Victor Lingan VS. Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and
Jimmu P. Baliga
FACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed by
Victor Lingan against Attys. Romeo Calubaquib
and Jimmy Baliga on November 16, 2000.
Complainant alleged that respondents, both
notaries public, falsified certain public documents,
as follows:
1. A complaint for annulment of title with
damages filed by Isaac Villegas against
complainant with the Regional Trial Court of
Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Respondent Calubaquib
signed the verification and certification of non-
forum shopping of the complaint as notary public
and entered the same as Doc. No. 182; Page No. 38;
Book No. CLXXII; Series of 1996, which according
to the records of the National Archives, the
document entered as Doc. No. 182; Page 38; Book
No. CLXXII; Series of 1996 in respondent
Calubaquib’s notarial register was an affidavit of
one Daniel Malayao.
2. A special power of attorney dated
September 10, 1996 executed by Isaac Villegas
appointing respondent Calubaquib as his
attorney-in-fact to “enter into a compromise
agreement under such terms and conditions
acceptable to him” which was notarized by
respondent Baliga and entered as Doc. No. 548,
Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996, which
according to respondent Baliga’s notarial register,
Doc. No. 548; Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series
of 1996 pertains to an affidavit of loss of one Pedro
Telan, dated August 26, 1996.
3. A petition for reappointment as notary
public for and in Tuguegarao,Cagayan by
respondent Baliga, which was notarized by
respondent Calubaquib and entered in his notarial
register as Doc. No. 31, Page No. 08, Book No.
CXXX, Series of 1995. However, Notarial Register
Book No. CXXX was for the year 1996 and entered
there as Doc. No. 31, Page No. 08 was a
cancellation of real estate mortgage dated January
11, 1996.
Respondents Calubaquib and Baliga both
admitted the incorrectness of the entries and
simply attributed them to the inadvertence in
good faith of their secretary and legal assistants to
whom they had left the task of entering all his
notarial documents.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents
violated the Notarial Practice Law
RULING: It is abundantly clear that the notary
public is personally accountable for all entries in
his notarial register. Section 245 of the Notarial
Law provides that every notary public shall keep
a register to be known as the notarial register,
wherein record shall be made of all his official acts
as notary; and he shall supply a certified copy of
such record, or any part thereof, to any person
applying for it and paying the legal fees therefore.
Section 246 of the same law also provides that the
notary public shall enter in such register, in
chronological order, the nature of each instrument
executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him,
the person executing, swearing to, or
acknowledging the instrument, the witnesses, if
any, to the signature, the date of execution, oath,
or acknowledgment of the instrument, the fees
collected by him for his services as notary in
connection therewith, and, when the instrument is
a contract, he shall keep a correct copy thereof as
part of his records, and shall likewise enter in said
records a brief description of the substance thereof
and shall give to each entry a consecutive number,
beginning with number one in each calendar year.
The notary shall give to each instrument executed,
sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number
corresponding to the one in his register, and shall
also state on the instrument the page or pages of
his register on which the same is recorded. No
blank line shall be left between entries.
In this connection, Section 249(b) provides that the
failure of the notary to make the proper entry or
entries in his notarial register touching his notarial
acts in the manner required by law shall, in the
discretion of the proper judge of first instance, be
sufficient ground for the revocation of his
commission:
Respondents cannot be relieved of responsibility
for the violation of the aforesaid sections by
passing the buck to their secretaries, a
reprehensible practice which to this day persists
despite our open condemnation.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless or
routinary act but one invested with substantive
public interest, such that only those who are
qualified or authorized to do so may act as
notaries public. The protection of that interest
necessarily requires that those not qualified or
authorized to act must be prevented from
inflicting themselves upon the public, the courts
and the administrative offices in general.
Notarization by a notary public converts a private
document into a public one and makes it
admissible in evidence without further proof of its
authenticity. Notaries public must therefore
observe utmost care with respect to the basic
requirements of their duties.
FALLO: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
respondents Atty. Romeo I. Calubaquib and Atty.
Jimmy P. Baliga are hereby found guilty of
violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and of their lawyer’s
oath. They are both ordered SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for ONE YEAR effective
immediately, with a warning that another
infraction shall be dealt with more severely.
Their present commissions as notaries public, if
any, are hereby REVOKED, with
DISQUALIFICATION from reappointment as
notaries public for a period of two years.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the
personal records of Atty. Romeo I. Calubaquib
and Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga, and copies furnished
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of
the Court Administrator and Office of the Bar
Confidant for dissemination to all courts
nationwide.
Mary Ann T. Flores vs Atty. Jovencio LL. Mayor,
Jr
FACTS: This administrative case stemmed from
the Complaint for illegal dismissal filed with the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) by
the complainants husband, Jose Roberto Flores
against JMJB International Services, Inc. The case
was raffled to respondent, who is a Labor Arbiter.
Respondent dismissed the case on a
finding that Flores had voluntarily resigned from
employment. The case was elevated to the NLRC,
but was dismissed for having been filed out of
time. The case was then brought to the Court of
Appeals (CA).
The CA ruled that the appeal to the
NLRC had been timely filed, sets aside the NLRC
Resolution for being null and void and granted
monetary awards to Flores. On 19 February 2003,
the CA Decision became final and executory.
Flores filed before respondent a Motion for
Execution of the CA Decision.
Accordingly, complainant filed an
administrative case against respondent, citing that
the latter's act of archiving the records of the labor
case and refusal to amend the Writ of Execution
constituted a violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and other
ethical standards.
In a Resolution dated 11 April 2007, the IBP Board
found respondent guilty and recommended his
disbarment. The gist of the report reads:
“We find as unacceptable the
respondent's gross delay in performing what is
supposedly a purely ministerial act on his part, his
unexplained and unsanctioned resort to
"archiving" which led to the disappearance of the
case records, and his gross ignorance of the law in
refusing to issue a writ of execution against what
the SEC has essentially certified to be a company
hiding under a new name. We believe that the
respondent's actions were not a product of
ignorance, indolence, or negligence, but rather,
were clearly borne out of a willful, deliberate, and
wholly malicious intent to misuse his position by
favoring one of the parties in NLRC Case No. 99-
06-0972, thus causing no small degree of serious
injury to the complainant therein and to the
integrity of the legal process as a whole.”
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of
violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and other ethical
standards.
HELD: There is a clear neglect of duty and
ignorance of the law on the part of respondent on
account of his failure to immediately act on the
Motion for Execution, as well as his refusal to
amend the Writ of Execution despite having been
informed of the amendment of the name - but not
the dissolution - of the corporation against which
the writ was issued.
As a Labor Arbiter, respondent is a
public officer who must at all times be accountable
to the people, whom he must serve with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.
The unjustified delay in his actions and his failure
to act according to law constituted a breach of his
accountability not only to complainant, but also to
the public in general. Further, respondent violated
his oath as a lawyer to delay no man for money or
malice, and abandoned his professional
responsibility to exert every effort and consider it
his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.
The Court, however, does not hesitate to
impose the penalty of disbarment when the guilty
party has become a repeat offender. Herein
respondent was already suspended from the
practice of law for a period of six ( 6) months in
another case, Lahm Ill v. Mayor, Jr., in which he
was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law in
violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Respondent ATTY. JOVENCIO LL.
MAYOR, JR. was found guilty of grave
misconduct and gross ignorance of the law in
violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility rendering him
unworthy of continuing membership in the legal
profession.
Natividad Navarro vs Ivan Solidum, Jr.
Canon 16 applies sans lawyer-client relationship
In April 2006, Hilda Presbitero engaged the
services of Atty. Ivan Solidum, Jr. to help her in
the quieting of her title over a parcel of land.
Presbitero paid Solidum P50,000.00 as acceptance
fee.
In May 2006, Ma. Theresa Yulo, daughter of
Presbitero also engaged the services of Solidum
for the registration of a parcel of land. Yulo
however asked the help of her sister, Natividad
Navarro, to finance the case. Hence, Navarro gave
Solidum Php200,000.00 for the registration
expenses.
Meanwhile, Solidum in May and June 2006,
obtained a total of Php2 million from Navarro. The
loan was covered by two Memorandum of
Agreement (MOAs). The MOA was prepared by
Solidum. The MOA stated that the monthly
interest shall be 10%.
Solidum also borrowed Php 1 million from
Presbitero during the same period. He again
drafted a MOA containing the same terms and
conditions as with Navarro. As additional security
for the loan, Solidum mortgaged his 263-hectare
land for P1 million in favor of Presbitero.
Nothing happened in the quieting of title case
field by Presbitero since Solidum did nothing after
receiving the acceptance fee.
In the land registration case of Yulo financed by
Navarro, Navarro later found out that the land
was already registered to someone else. Navarro
claims that she should not have financed the case
if only Solidum advised her of the status of the
land.
Anent the loans, Solidum failed to pay them.
Instead, he questioned the terms of the loans as he
claimed that the interest rate of said loans at 10%
is unconscionable.
Navarro and Presbitero later filed an
administrative case against Solidum.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ivan Solidum, Jr.
should be disbarred.
HELD: Yes.
Although Solidum acted in his private capacity
when he obtained a total of Php3 million from
Navarro and Presbitero, he may still be
disciplined for misconduct committed either in his
private capacity. The test is whether his conduct
shows him to be wanting in moral character,
honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether
it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer
of the court. In this case, such act displayed by
Solidum merited his disbarment.
Solidum is guilty of engaging in dishonest and
deceitful conduct, both in his professional
capacity with respect to his client, Presbitero, and
in his private capacity with respect to Navarro.
Both Presbitero and Navarro allowed Splidum to
draft the terms of the loan agreements. Solidum
drafted the MOAs knowing that the interest rates
were exorbitant. Later, using his knowledge of the
law, he assailed the validity of the same MOAs he
prepared.
In the case of Navarro, who financed the Yulo
case, Solidum also violated Canon 16 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which provides that
a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his
possession. This is notwithstanding the fact that
Navarro is not actually his client in the Yulo case
but was only the financier of the Yulo case.
In Presbitero’s case, since Presbitero is his client,
Solidum also violated Rule 16.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides that a
lawyer shall not borrow money from his client
unless the client’s interests are fully protected by
the nature of the case or by independent advice.
Even though Solidum secured the loan with a
mortgage and a MOA, Presbitero’s interest was
not fully protected because the property Solidum
mortgaged was overvalued. He claimed that his
263-hectare land was worth P1 million but in fact
Solidum sold it later for only P150,000.00. Clearly,
Presbitero was disadvantaged by Solidum’s
ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege
on his obligation. He took advantage of his
knowledge of the law as well as the trust and
confidence reposed in him by his client.
Solidum was disbarred by the Supreme Court.
Elpidio Tiong vs Atty. George Florendo
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.
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.
Florendo’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. 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.