Case Digest: Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon, Complainant, v. Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco, Respondent | A.C. No. 6116, 1 August 2012

Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon, Complainant, v. Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco, Respondent
A.C. No. 6116, 1 August 2012

Facts:
     According to the complainant, respondent undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to 10%, of the attorney’s fees, the latter would received in representing Spouses Yap whom he referred, in an action for partition of the estate of the spouses’ relative. Their agreement was reflected in a letter dated 11 August 1995. However, respondent failed to pay him the agreed commission notwithstanding receipt of attorney’s fees amounting to 17% of the total estate or about PhP 40 million. Instead, the complainant was informed through a letter dated 16 July 1997 that Spouses Yap assumed to pay the same after the respondent had agreed to reduce his attorney’s fees from 25% to 17%. He then demanded the payment of his commission which the respondent ignored.

    Complainant further alleged that the respondent has not lived up to the high moral standards required of his profession for having abandoned his legal wife with whom he has two children, and cohabited with another with whom he has four children. He also accused the respondent of engaging in money-lending business without the required authorization from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

    In his defense, the respondent disputed the 11 August 1995 letter for being a forgery and claimed that the Spouses Yap assumed to pay.

Issue:
     Whether or not Atty. Pefianco is in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and Lawyer’s Oath.

Held:
     Respondent’s defense that forgery of the 11 August 1995 letter was belied by his 16 July 1997 admitting to have undertaken the payment of the complaint’s commission but passing on the responsibility to the Spouses Yap. Clearly, the respondent has violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the CPR which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in certain cases which do not obtain in the case at bar.

     Furthermore, the respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned his legal family to cohabit with his mistress with whom he begot four children. The Supreme Court found credence to IBP’s findings that the respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR.

     The respondent was found guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath; Rule 1.01, Canon 1; and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the CPR. The respondent was suspended from active practice of law for one year.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edilion | A.M. No. 1928, 3 August 1978

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edilion A.M. No. 1928, 3 August 1978 Facts:     The respondent is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the Philippines. The IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Supreme Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rules of Court 139-A and the provisions of Paragraph 2, Section 24, Article III of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of the IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same.     Edilion contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good standing to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues and that as a consequence of this, compelled financial support of the said organization to which he is admi
Read more

Case Digest for Articles 143-146: Carino v. Carino G.R. No. 132529, 2 February 2001

SUSAN NICDAO CARIÑO, petitioner, v. SUSAN YEE CARIÑO, respondent. G.R. No. 132529, 2 February 2001 Facts: In 1969 SPO4 Santiago Cariño married Susan Nicdao Cariño. He had 2 children with her. In 1992, SPO4 contracted a second marriage, this time with Susan Yee Cariño. In 1988, prior to his second marriage, SPO4 is already bedridden and he was under the care of Yee. In 1992, he died 13 days after his marriage with Yee. Thereafter, the spouses went on to claim the benefits of SPO4. Nicdao was able to claim a total of P140,000.00 while Yee was able to collect a total of P21,000.00. In 1993, Yee filed an action for collection of sum of money against Nicdao. She wanted to have half of the P140k. Yee admitted that her marriage with SPO4 was solemnized during the subsistence of the marriage b/n SPO4 and Nicdao but the said marriage between Nicdao and SPO4 is null and void due to the absence of a valid marriage license as certified by the local civil registrar. Yee also claimed t
Read more

Case Digest: Conrado N. Que, Complainant, v. Atty Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., Respondent | A.C. No. 7054, 11 November 2014

Conrado N. Que, Complainant, v. Atty Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., Respondent A.C. No. 7054, 11 November 2014 Facts:     Que accused Revilla, Jr. of willfully delaying the final judgment of the lower court against his client. Respondent successfully filed a petition of certiorari before the Court of Appeals, two petitions of annulment of title and a petition for annulment of judgment before the Regional Trial Court, and a petition for declaratory execution of the lower court’s decision against his client. Issue:     Whether or not the respondent violated various canons and provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Held:     Respondent’s abuse of court remedies by filing multiple actions praying for the same cause delayed the execution of the final judgment of the court. The respondent’s willful and revolting falsehood is also alleged by the complainant that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico who was the previous
Read more