A.C. No. 7022 - Samaniego vs. Ferrer

Complaint and docketing before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
Marjorie F. Samaniego filed a Complaint against respondent Atty. Andrew V. Ferrer for immorality, abandonment, and willful refusal to give support to their daughter.
The Complaint was filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and docketed as CBD Case No. 04-1184.

Lawyer-client relationship and subsequent cohabitation
Early in 1996, Ms. Samaniego was referred to Atty. Ferrer as a potential client.
Atty. Ferrer agreed to handle her cases, and their lawyer-client relationship soon became intimate.
Ms. Samaniego narrated that Atty. Ferrer courted her and she fell in love with him.
Atty. Ferrer allegedly stated that Ms. Samaniego flirted with him and he succumbed to her temptations.
They lived together as “husband and wife” from 1996 to 1997.

Birth of the child and continuation of illicit relations
On March 12, 1997, their daughter was born.
The affair ended in 2000.
Since the affair ended, Atty. Ferrer failed to give support to their daughter.

Presentation of evidence before the IBP
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 Atty. Ferrer was in a relationship but believed he was not yet married.
She testified that she was willing to compromise, but Atty. Ferrer failed to pay for their daughter’s education as agreed upon.

Respondent’s participation and position paper
During the hearing, Atty. Ferrer refused to appear because he did not want to see Ms. Samaniego.
In his position paper, Atty. Ferrer manifested willingness to support their daughter.
He admitted his indiscretion, but asked the IBP to consider Ms. Samaniego’s complicity because she was acquainted with his wife and children.
He further reasoned that he found it unconscionable to abandon his wife and ten (10) children to cohabit with Ms. Samaniego.

IBP Board of Governors ruling
In Resolution No. XVII-2005-138 dated November 12, 2005, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s report and recommendation.
The IBP imposed upon Atty. Ferrer the penalty of six (6) months suspension from the practice of law for refusal to support his daughter with Ms. Samaniego.
The IBP admonished Atty. Ferrer to be a more responsible member of the bar and to keep in mind his duties as a father.

Motion for reconsideration and referral to Office of the Bar Confidant
On February 1, 2006, Atty. Ferrer filed a Motion for Reconsideration with prayer that the penalty be reduced.
He argued that the gravity of the six-month suspension would cause extreme hardship to his family of ten (10) children.
The Court referred the motion to the Office of the Bar Confidant for evaluation.
The Office of the Bar Confidant found that Atty. Ferrer lacked the degree of morality required of a member of the bar due to his illicit affair with Ms. Samaniego, with whom he sired a child while lawfully married and with ten children.
The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended affirmance of Resolution No. XVII-2005-138 and denial of the prayer for reduced penalty.

Court’s findings and treatment of the charges
The Court agreed with the IBP on Atty. Ferrer’s failure to give support to his daughter.
The Court also agreed with the Office of the Bar Confidant that Atty. Ferrer’s affair showed lack of good moral character as a member of the bar.
The Court dismissed Ms. Samaniego’s charge of abandonment because Atty. Ferrer did not abandon them; he returned to his family.
The Court considered Atty. Ferrer’s extra-marital affair as disgraceful and immoral conduct subject to disciplinary action.

Comparative case consideration and possible penalty
The Court cited Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Jr. for the rule that the penalty for gross immorality may be disbarment, or indefinite or definite suspension, depending on circumstances.
In Ferancullo, the Court ruled that two years suspension was an adequate penalty where aggravating circumstances were absent, such as:

an adulterous relationship coupled with refusal to support the family;
maintaining illicit relationships with at least two women during the subsistence of marriage; or
abandoning the legal wife and cohabiting with other ...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether respondent Atty. Andrew V. Ferrer was guilty of gross immorality as a member of the bar based on his extra-marital affair and its circumstances.
Whether respondent was guilty of refusal to support the daughter born of the relationship with Ms. Samaniego.
Whether respondent was guilty of abandonment of Ms. Samaniego and their child.
Whether complainant’s alleged complicity affected the seriousness of the disciplinary case or the Court’s determination of respondent’s fitness to practice law.
Whether the proper p...(Subscriber-Only)