A.C. No. 6116 - Tumbokon vs. Pefianco

An administrative complaint for disbarment was filed by Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon against Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco.
The allegations centered on grave dishonesty, gross misconduct constituting deceit, and grossly immoral conduct.
The case arose out of a disputed arrangement regarding attorney’s fees and commission in a case involving Spouses Amable and Rosalinda Yap in a partition of the late Benjamin Yap’s estate.

Complainant asserted that respondent had undertaken to give him a commission initially agreed at 20%, later reduced to 10%, from the attorney’s fees received from representing the Yap spouses.
The agreement was documented in a letter dated August 11, 1995.
Despite the respondent receiving fees amounting to 17% of the total estate value (approximately P40 million), he failed to remit the agreed commission directly to the complainant.
Respondent later communicated, through a letter dated July 16, 1997, that the Yap spouses would assume the payment of the commission after an agreement to reduce his fee from 25% to 17%.

Beyond the financial dispute, complainant charged respondent with failing to uphold the high moral standards of the legal profession.

It was alleged that respondent abandoned his legal wife, Milagros Hilado, with whom he has two children.
He cohabited with Mae Flor Galido, with whom he has four children.

Complainant further accused respondent of engaging in money-lending activities without the requisite authorization from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

Respondent contended that he accepted the Yap spouses’ case on a contingent fee basis of 25% and advanced all expenses related to the case.
He challenged the authenticity of the August 11, 1995, letter, characterizing it as a forgery.
He argued that his July 16, 1997 letter confirmed that the responsibility for the commission payment was assumed by the Yap spouses.
Respondent also requested the dismissal of the complaint and sanctions against the complainant’s counsel for filing a baseless case.

The case was referred by the Court to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation after the Resolution dated February 16, 2004.
The Investigating IBP Commissioner, in a Report and Recommendation dated October 10, 2008, recommended a one-year suspension from the active practice of law for respondent.
The IBP Board of Governors approved the recommendation in Resolution No. XIX-2010-453 dated August 28, 2010.
A motion for reconsideration by the respondent was duly denied in Resolution No. XIX-2011-141 dated October 28, 2011.

Whether respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath by engaging in conduct that is unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful, as required by Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether the respondent's alleged failure to pay the agreed commission, as evidenced by conflicting communications (the August 11, 1995 and July 16, 1997 letters), constitutes a violation of professional duty.

Whether respondent’s arrangement of having a commission divided or presumed to be paid by persons not licensed to practice law violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code, which prohibits dividing legal fees with non-lawyers except in limited circumstances.

Whether respondent’s personal conduct—specifically, his abandonment of his legal wife and cohabitation with another woman leading to the birth of additional children—affects his moral character and fitness to remain in the Roll of Attorneys.

Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that respondent engaged in unauthorized money-lending activities in contravention of the regulatory requirements of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.