A.C. No. 8335 - Ceniza vs. Ceniza, Jr.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 8335)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Initial marital facts: marriage of the parties on November 12, 1989 and two children. Relevant administrative and judicial actions span 2008–2017, culminating in the Supreme Court decision in 2019. Administrative findings were made by the Office of the Ombudsman (suspension, 2009), affirmed by the Court of Appeals, while the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigative commissioner recommended dismissal; the IBP Board initially dismissed but later denied reconsideration. The Supreme Court ultimately exercised its disciplinary jurisdiction.

Applicable Law and Institutional Authority

The Court exercised its disciplinary authority over members of the Bar pursuant to its constitutional and supervisory powers under the 1987 Constitution and the Court’s regulatory powers over the legal profession. Applicable professional standards cited include the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01(a) (prohibition against unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct) and Rule 7.03(a) (prohibition against conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law). Other legal references include Article 36 of the Family Code (psychological incapacity) as background to collateral civil litigation, and Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti‑Violence Against Women and Their Children) as referenced in the concurrence.

Factual Findings Established in the Record

The complainant alleged that the respondent left the family home in late April 2008 and thereafter cohabited with Binoya. Investigative findings and testimonial evidence show repeated visits by respondent to Binoya’s residence, vehicles registered to respondent observed parked at that residence for prolonged periods including overnight, and eyewitness accounts describing the respondent at Binoya’s home (including an eyewitness account of the respondent taking dinner half‑naked). Affidavits were submitted by the complainant’s daughter (Marie Agnes), by Roberto Joseph Galvan (neighbour/observer), and by Gabriel Jadraque (surveillance volunteer), together with photographs and documentary proof of Binoya’s ownership of the premises and her own marital status.

Respondent’s Defense and IBP Investigation Outcome

The respondent denied the charges, asserting that Binoya was only a business partner and claiming he moved to his parents’ home due to marital difficulties. The IBP investigating commissioner (Commissioner Hababag) reviewed the matter and recommended dismissal of the administrative suit, characterizing the evidence as insufficient to establish gross immorality and recommending only a caution. The IBP Board of Governors initially adopted that recommendation, dismissed the case, and deleted an offered warning, but subsequent procedural developments led the Court to reopen and refer the matter for further investigation and recommendation.

Office of the Ombudsman and Court of Appeals Findings

The Office of the Ombudsman conducted an administrative inquiry and found the respondent guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct, imposing suspension from public service for six months without pay. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s findings, reasoning that the aggregate evidence — though largely circumstantial and lacking a photograph of respondent and Binoya together — demonstrated repeated intimate conduct and overnight stays incompatible with marital fidelity and consistent with immorality for purposes of administrative discipline.

Standard of Proof and Treatment of Circumstantial Evidence

The Supreme Court reiterated the applicable evidentiary standards for disciplinary proceedings: the complainant bears the burden (the Court will discipline only when the case is established by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence). The Court explained that circumstantial evidence is admissible and may suffice; direct evidence is not a prerequisite. Where circumstantial facts, considered in aggregate, are more convincing than the respondent’s denials, they may constitute clearly preponderant evidence supporting disciplinary action.

Supreme Court’s Appraisal of the IBP Recommendation

The Court found the IBP investigating commissioner’s analysis deficient for failing to calibrate legal principles against the established facts and for issuing a perfunctory recommendation. The majority held that the findings of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals supplied substantial evidence that the respondent abandoned his lawful spouse and children to cohabit with a married woman, thereby demonstrating gross immorality that impugned his fitness to practice law.

Legal Characterization of the Conduct and Ethical Violations

The Court characterized the conduct as gross immorality: willful, flagrant, shameless behavior reflecting moral indifference to community standards and the ethical responsibilities of lawyers. The conduct was found to contravene Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because it adversely affected public confidence in the respondent’s moral character and thus his fitness to remain in the legal profession.

Penalty and Precedents Considered

Relying on precedent where attorneys were disbarred for abandoning their families to li

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 8335)

Title, Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported as 851 Phil. 372, En Banc; docketed A.C. No. 8335; decision dated April 10, 2019; authored Per Curiam.
Complainant: Amalia R. Ceniza; Respondent: Atty. Eliseo B. Ceniza, Jr.
Administrative/disbarment proceedings initiated by complainant’s letter-complaint to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) and by a separate complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB).
OMB rendered an administrative decision finding respondent guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct and meting suspension for six months; respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the OMB decision.
The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP‑CBD) where Commissioner Salvador Hababag recommended dismissal with a caution; the IBP Board of Governors adopted and modified that recommendation by Resolution No. XX‑2013‑148 dismissing the case and deleting the warning, and later denied reconsideration (Resolution No. XXII‑2017‑889).
The Supreme Court set aside the IBP resolution upon OBC recommendation, referred the matter back to the IBP for investigation and ultimately acted on the record; the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of gross immorality and disbarred him, ordering his name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys and related administrative dissemination.

Factual Background (Parties, Marriage, Children)

Complainant and respondent were married on November 12, 1989 at the Sacred Heart Parish in Cebu City.
The marriage produced two children: Marie Agnes (Agnes) and Christopher Chuck.
Complainant alleges respondent abandoned the family to cohabit with a married woman, Anna Fe Flores Binoya (Anna).

Chronology of Key Events Relied Upon by Complainant

April 21, 2008: Respondent told complainant he would attend a seminar in Manila; complainant planned travel to General Santos City and respondent agreed she need not accompany him.
April 26, 2008: Upon complainant’s return from General Santos City, respondent had already moved out of the family home, taking his car and personal belongings.
May 23–24, 2008: Complainant went to Mandaue City Hall (respondent’s workplace) and learned staff suspected respondent of an extra‑marital affair with Anna; complainant visited an address provided and met Anna’s sister who reported Anna had moved and that Anna and respondent were living together in Aldea Subdivision; later that evening complainant and her daughter confronted respondent at the new address and respondent denied wrongdoing.
July 9, 2008: Respondent commenced a civil action seeking declaration of nullity of his marriage to complainant, alleging her psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code.
August 11, 2008: Respondent visited complainant at work and asked her to agree to nullification; complainant refused and pleaded that respondent avoid displaying his paramour in public; respondent allegedly continued the relationship.
November 18, 2008: Complainant filed a complaint for immorality against respondent with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB‑V‑A‑10‑0345‑G).
April 2, 2009: Complainant wrote to President Gloria Macapagal‑Arroyo alleging respondent abandoned her and their children to live with another woman; Presidential Action Center forwarded the letter to the OBC on May 18, 2009.
October 26, 2009: Respondent filed his comment with the OBC denying immoral conduct and characterizing Anna as only a business partner; he asserted he had moved in with his parents and left because complainant’s behavior became unbearable.

Office of the Ombudsman Findings and Penalty

OMB examined affidavits, witness statements and documentary evidence and found respondent guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct.
OMB’s decision quoted ethical expectations for public officials: accountability, integrity, modest lives, and upholding public interest over personal interest.
Disposition by OMB: respondent meted the penalty of suspension from the service for six (6) months without pay with stern warning that subsequent violations will be dealt with more severe penalties.
OMB findings emphasized: complainant’s affidavits, her daughter’s affidavit, and affidavits/declarations of witnesses Roberto Joseph Galvan and Gabriel Jadraque, including observations of respondent’s vehicles parked at the house of Anna and respondent being seen in the house (including a described instance of dinner where respondent was “half‑naked”).

Evidence Presented by Complainant (Affidavits, Witnesses, Photographs, Civil Records)

Affidavit of complainant detailing timeline and allegations.
Affidavit of daughter Marie Agnes: she and others found out on May 24 that respondent had another woman named Anna Fe Flores Binoya and that he was living with her in Aldea Subdivision; recounted interactions at Umapad dump site and family statements identifying respondent as Anna’s “new husband.”
Affidavit of Roberto Joseph Galvan: resident of Aldea Buena Subdivision; averred seeing respondent’s vehicles (black Honda plate YDX 692; red Toyota Corolla plate GEJ 877) parked in front of Block 11 Lot 27 for long periods and overnight; recounted seeing respondent taking dinner half‑naked with a woman later identified as Anna.
Affidavit of Gabriel Jadraque: conducted surveillance with videocamera on January 9 (year recited as 2009 in narrative), observed red Toyota GEJ‑877 arrive and respondent alight and enter house #27; identified respondent in the video and signed declaration to that effect.
Photographs offered showing respondent frequented Binoya’s house and proof that the property visited belonged to Binoya.
Civil registry marriage certificate showing Anna Fe Flores Binoya’s marriage to Ebrahaim Angeles Yap on 18 October 2002 at Al Khariah Mosque; a certificate of marriage was submitted.
Complainant’s evidence characterized as circumstantial but collectively yielding an “unmistakable conclusion” of an illicit affair.

Respondent’s Defense and IBP Investigating Commissioner’s Recommendation

Respondent’s defenses before OBC/IBP: denied immoral conduct; claimed Anna was a business partner; asserted he moved in with parents; alleged complainant’s conduct made life unbearable; maintained denials were pure and that accusations were speculative or vendetta.
Commissioner Salvador Hababag (IBP‑CBD investigating commissioner) submitted Report and Recommendation (October 7, 2010) recommending dismissal of administrative complaint and advising a caution to respondent to be more circumspect to avoid impression of immorality.
Commissioner Hababag’s legal observations recited definitions of “immoral conduct” and the standard that to warrant disciplinary action a lawyer’s conduct must be “grossly immoral,” then concluded a warning/caution sufficed.
IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. XX‑2013‑148 (February 13,