Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 7022 June 18, 2008
MARJORIE F. SAMANIEGO, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ANDREW V. FERRER, respondent.
RESOLUTION
QUISUMBING, J.:
For resolution is the Complaint of Marjorie F. Samaniego against respondent Atty. Andrew V. Ferrer for immorality, abandonment and willful refusal to give support to their daughter, filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and docketed as CBD Case No. 04-1184.
The facts are as follows:
Early in 1996, Ms. Samaniego was referred to Atty. Ferrer as a potential client. Atty. Ferrer agreed to handle her cases1 and soon their lawyer-client relationship became intimate. Ms. Samaniego said Atty. Ferrer courted her and she fell in love with him.2 He said she flirted with him and he succumbed to her temptations.3 Thereafter, they lived together as "husband and wife" from 1996 to 1997,4 and on March 12, 1997, their daughter was born.5 The affair ended in 20006 and since then he failed to give support to their daughter.7
Before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, Ms. Samaniego presented their daughter's birth and baptismal certificates, and the photographs taken during the baptism. She testified that she knew that Atty. Ferrer was in a relationship but did not think he was already married. She also testified that she was willing to compromise, but he failed to pay for their daughter's education as agreed upon.8 Atty. Ferrer refused to appear during the hearing since he did not want to see Ms. Samaniego.9
In his position paper,10 Atty. Ferrer manifested his willingness to support their daughter. He also admitted his indiscretion; however, he prayed that the IBP consider Ms. Samaniego's complicity as she was acquainted with his wife and children. He further reasoned that he found it unconscionable to abandon his wife and 10 children to cohabit with Ms. Samaniego.
In Resolution No. XVII-2005-13811 dated November 12, 2005, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and imposed upon Atty. Ferrer the penalty of six (6) months suspension from the practice of law for his refusal to support his daughter with Ms. Samaniego. The IBP also admonished him to be a more responsible member of the bar and to keep in mind his duties as a father.
On February 1, 2006, Atty. Ferrer filed a Motion for Reconsideration12 with prayer for us to reduce the penalty, to wit:
Without passing judgment on the correctness or incorrectness of the disposition of the Honorable Commission on Bar Discipline, herein respondent most humbly and respectfully begs the compassion of the Honorable Court and states that the gravity of the penalty imposed and meted out, depriving herein respondent to earn a modest living for a period of six (6) months, will further cause extreme hardship to his family of ten (10) children.13
We referred the motion to the Office of the Bar Confidant for evaluation. Upon finding that Atty. Ferrer lacked the degree of morality required of a member of the bar for his illicit affair with Ms. Samaniego, with whom he sired a child while he was lawfully married and with 10 children, the Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that we affirm Resolution No. XVII-2005-138 and deny the prayer for reduced penalty.14
We agree with the IBP on Atty. Ferrer's failure to give support to his daughter with Ms. Samaniego. We also agree with the Office of the Bar Confidant that Atty. Ferrer's affair with Ms. Samaniego showed his lack of good moral character as a member of the bar. We dismiss, however, Ms. Samaniego's charge of abandonment since Atty. Ferrer did not abandon them. He returned to his family.
Atty. Ferrer admitted his extra-marital affair; in his words, his indiscretion which ended in 2000. We have considered such illicit relation as a disgraceful and immoral conduct subject to disciplinary action.15 The penalty for such immoral conduct is disbarment,16 or indefinite17 or definite18 suspension, depending on the circumstances of the case. Recently, in Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Jr.,19 we ruled that suspension from the practice of law for two years was an adequate penalty imposed on the lawyer who was found guilty of gross immorality. In said case, we considered the absence of aggravating circumstances such as an adulterous relationship coupled with refusal to support his family; or maintaining illicit relationships with at least two women during the subsistence of his marriage; or abandoning his legal wife and cohabiting with other women.20
In this case, we find no similar aggravating circumstances. Thus we find the penalty recommended by the IBP and Office of the Bar Confidant as adequate sanction for the grossly immoral conduct of respondent.
On another point, we may agree with respondent's contention that complainant was not entirely blameless. She knew about his wife but blindly believed him to be unmarried. However, that one complicit in the affair complained of immorality against her co-principal does not make this case less serious since it is immaterial whether Ms. Samaniego is in pari delicto.21 We must emphasize that this Court's investigation is not about Ms. Samaniego's acts but Atty. Ferrer's conduct as one of its officers and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.22
Finally, it is opportune to remind Atty. Ferrer and all members of the bar of the following norms under the Code of Professional Responsibility:
x x x x
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
x x x x
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.
x x x x
Rule 7.03 - 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.
x x x x
Needless to state, respondent ought always to keep in mind the responsibilities of a father to all his children. If there be a resultant hardship on them because of this case, let it be impressed on all concerned that the direct cause thereof was his own misconduct.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Andrew V. Ferrer GUILTY of gross immorality and, as recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar Confidant, SUSPEND him from the practice of law for six (6) months effective upon notice hereof, with WARNING that the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
To enable us to determine the effectivity of the penalty imposed, the respondent is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this Decision to this Court.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the courts all over the country. Let a copy of this Decision likewise be attached to the personal records of the respondent.
SO ORDERED.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice |
*RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice |
**TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice |
Footnotes
* Additional member in place of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. who is on official leave.
** Additional member in place of Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales who is on official leave.
1 Rollo, pp. 1, 34.
2 Id. at 1.
3 Id. at 35.
4 Id. at 78.
5 Id. at 1, 60.
6 Id. at 35.
7 Id. at 2 and 35.
8 Id. at 72-80 (TSN, March 30, 2005).
9 Id. at 54, 81.
10 Id. at 34-36.
11 Id. at 84.
12 Id. at 93-94.
13 Id. at 93.
14 Id. at 109.
15 Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Jr., A.C. No. 7214, November 30, 2006, 509 SCRA 1, 15.
16 Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, A.C. No. 4256, February 13, 2004, 422 SCRA 527, 532-533; Guevarra v. Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007, 529 SCRA 1, 21.
17 Zaguirre v. Castillo, Adm. Case No. 4921, March 6, 2003, 398 SCRA 658, 666.
18 Zaguirre v. Castillo, A.C. No. 4921, August 3, 2005, 465 SCRA 520, 525; Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Jr., supra note 15, at 18.
19 Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Jr., id.
20 Id. at 17-18.
21 Zaguirre v. Castillo, supra note 17, at 664.
22 Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, Adm. Case No. 2474, September 15, 2004, 438 SCRA 306, 317.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
