Case Digest (A.C. No. 13132)
Facts:
The case involves complainant Teodora Altobano-Ruiz and respondents Attys. Wilfredo A. Ruiz, Cherry Anne Dela Cruz, and Francisco S. Benedicto III. The complaint was filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) - Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) on January 31, 2023. Teodora accused the respondents of various violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), including Canon 1, Canon 7, Canon 10, Canon 12, Canon 17, Canon 18, and Canon 19. The allegations stemmed from a series of synchronized acts of harassment against her, particularly by Atty. Ruiz, her estranged husband.
On June 4, 2008, Teodora filed a case against Atty. Ruiz for violating Republic Act No. 9262, known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, and sought a Permanent Protection Order (PPO). The Regional Trial Court Branch 162 in Pasig City ruled in her favor on September 10, 2008, granting the PPO, which included provisions for support and protection from Atty. Rui...
Case Digest (A.C. No. 13132)
Facts:
Background of the Case
Complainant Teodora Altobano-Ruiz filed a disbarment complaint against respondents, Attys. Wilfredo A. Ruiz, Cherry Anne Dela Cruz, and Francisco S. Benedicto III, alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The respondents were accused of conspiring in synchronized acts of harassment against her.
Issuance of Permanent Protection Order (PPO)
On June 4, 2008, complainant sued Atty. Ruiz for violation of Republic Act (RA) 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act) and sought a Permanent Protection Order (PPO). The trial court granted the PPO on September 10, 2008, prohibiting Atty. Ruiz from committing further acts of violence and ordering him to provide financial support to complainant and their children.
Failure to Comply with the PPO
Despite the issuance of the PPO and subsequent writ of execution, Atty. Ruiz allegedly refused to provide financial support and attempted to hide his earnings and properties by executing a Memorandum of Agreement with Undertaking (MAU) with his mistress, Radelia C. Sy. The MAU included provisions that excluded complainant’s child, Leri Jarren, from receiving support.
Role of Atty. Dela Cruz
Atty. Dela Cruz, complainant’s former counsel, was accused of mishandling her cases, including the Anti-VAWC case, by failing to enforce the PPO and misrepresenting her actions in court. Complainant also alleged that Atty. Dela Cruz conspired with Atty. Ruiz to hide his whereabouts.
Role of Atty. Benedicto
Atty. Benedicto, who represented Atty. Ruiz in a petition for nullity of marriage, was accused of conspiring with the other respondents to harass complainant. He allegedly helped hide Atty. Ruiz’s whereabouts and delayed the execution of the PPO.
Criminal Charges Against Complainant
Atty. Ruiz filed multiple criminal charges against complainant, including adultery and estafa, which complainant claimed were part of the harassment scheme. She also alleged that Atty. Dela Cruz mishandled her defense in the estafa case.
Issue:
- Whether respondents violated the CPR by engaging in synchronized acts of harassment against complainant.
- Whether Atty. Ruiz’s refusal to comply with the PPO and his execution of the MAU constitute violations of the CPR.
- Whether Attys. Dela Cruz and Benedicto conspired with Atty. Ruiz to harass complainant.
- Whether the respondents’ actions warrant their disbarment.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Ruiz for multiple violations of the CPR, including economic abuse, immorality, and abuse of court processes. The complaints against Attys. Dela Cruz and Benedicto were dismissed for lack of merit.