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 for Article 91 of the Family Code: Munoz v. Ramirez and Carlos

FRANCISCO MUÑOZ, JR., Petitioner, v. ERLINDA RAMIREZ and ELISEO CARLOS, Respondents G.R. No. 156125, 25 August 2010 FACTS: The residential lot in the subject property was registered in the name of Erlinda Ramirez, married to Eliseo Carlos (respondents). On 6 April 1989, Eliseo, a Bureau of Internal Revenue employee, mortgaged said lot, with Erlinda’s consent, to the GSIS to secure a P136,500.00 housing loan, payable within twenty (20) years, through monthly salary deductions of P1,687.66. The respondents then constructed a thirty-six (36)-square meter, two-story residential house on the lot. On 14 July 1993, the title to the subject property was transferred to the petitioner by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale, dated 30 April 1992, executed by Erlinda, for herself and as attorney-in-fact of Eliseo, for a stated consideration of P602,000.00. On 24 September 1993, the respondents filed a complaint with the RTC for the nullification of the deed of absolute sa...
Read more

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 org...
Read more

Case Digest: Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco, Complainants, v. Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo, Respondent | A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012

Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco, Complainants, v. Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo, Respondent A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012 Facts:     Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo for deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar, and violation of duties and oath as a lawyer. From 15 April 1997 to 22 July 1997, the respondent – with the connivance of Andres Magat – willfully and illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud against the complainants by using false pretenses and deceitful words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of land belonging to the Miranda Family of Tagaytay City, who are the acquaintance of the complainants.     It started when the respondent convinced the complainants to finance and deliver to him PhP 495,000.00 as advanced money to expedite the titling of the subject land. He further committed misrepresentation by presenting himself as the lawyer of ...
Read more