A.C. No. 10145 - Fabugais vs. Faundo Jr.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10145)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Alleged factual events occurred in October 2006 (Ipil, Zamboanga‑Sibugay) and in mid/late February 2007 (incidents in Zamboanga City). The complaint was forwarded by the IBP chapter to the IBP Board (April 26, 2007) and later consolidated (Order dated August 2, 2007). The IBP Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation finding a violation of Rule 1.01 and recommending a one‑month suspension. The IBP‑BOG adopted that recommendation. The complainant died (June 12, 2011) and his counsel filed a motion to withdraw; nonetheless, the disciplinary proceedings continued. The IBP‑BOG denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration (June 21, 2013). The case reached the Supreme Court for final action pursuant to Section 12(c) of Rule 139‑B of the Rules of Court.

Applicable Law and Ethical Standards

Because the Court’s decision falls in the post‑1990 period, the 1987 Constitution is the governing charteral context. The disciplinary proceeding was governed by the Code of Professional Responsibility, primarily Rule 1.01 (duty to maintain good moral character), Canon 7 (duty to uphold integrity and dignity of the profession), and Rule 7.03 (prohibition against conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice). The procedural vehicle is Section 12(c) of Rule 139‑B, Rules of Court. The decision and analysis cite applicable precedents addressing the meaning and threshold of “immoral conduct” and appropriate sanctions (e.g., Tolosa v. Cargo; Ui v. Bonifacio; Advincula v. Macabata), as reflected in the record.

Factual Allegations

The principal factual allegations arise from Marie Nicole’s sworn statement: while staying at respondent’s house in Ipil, respondent allegedly slept in the same bed with Marie Nicole and her mother Annaliza; Marie Nicole saw respondent embracing her mother while they slept. The following morning, respondent allegedly entered a room wearing only a towel (“tapis”), prompting Marie Nicole and two companions to step outside while respondent remained alone in the room with Marie Nicole’s mother. Complainant also alleged that respondent followed and shouted at him while riding motorcycles on February 16–17, 2007, issued threats and challenges to fight, and chased complainant’s sister on February 27, 2007. In the related nullity and custody litigation, respondent had appeared as collaborating counsel for Annaliza. Respondent denied any immoral relations, maintained that he was assisting Annaliza legally and providing shelter at his parents’ house, supplied affidavits (including from his driver) disputing the vehicular incidents, and characterized the complaint as harassment designed to interfere with his practice.

Investigating Commissioner’s Findings and Recommendation

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found insufficient evidence to establish the motorcycle‑chasing and harassment allegations because identity could not be categorically established given moving motorcycles and helmet use. On the allegations of an immoral relationship, the Investigating Commissioner concluded there was no categorical proof of sexual activity; nonetheless, respondent’s conduct created an appearance of immorality, especially in the presence of a minor. The Investigating Commissioner relied on the principle that conduct creating an appearance of flouting moral standards is sanctionable (citing Tolosa v. Cargo). Concluding that respondent’s behavior—lying in bed with a married woman while being himself married, and other indiscreet actions—was improper and exhibited lack of consideration for minors, the Investigating Commissioner recommended sanction of suspension from the practice of law for one (1) month for violation of Rule 1.01.

IBP Board of Governors Action

The IBP‑BOG adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s findings and recommendation. After procedural developments including complainant’s death and counsel’s motion to withdraw, and after respondent’s motion for reconsideration, the IBP‑BOG denied reconsideration and forwarded the matter to the Supreme Court under the applicable Rules of Court for final disposition.

Issues Presented to the Court

The Court framed the core issues as: (1) whether the evidence established that respondent committed the alleged vehicular harassment and chasing incidents; and (2) whether respondent engaged in grossly immoral conduct or serious moral depravity warranting suspension or disbarment, or whether a lesser sanction would suffice.

Court’s Analysis — Chasing and Harassment Accusations

The Court agreed with the IBP’s finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that respondent committed the alleged motorcycle chasing, threats, and harassment of the complainant and his sister. The Court noted the factual difficulties in proving identity in fast‑moving motorcycle episodes when helmets were worn; consequently, those allegations were not proven.

Court’s Analysis — Standard for “Immoral Conduct”

The Court reiterated controlling principles: “immoral conduct” is conduct so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to public opinion of respectable community members and, to warrant disbarment, must be “grossly immoral” or of such degree as to render a lawyer unfit to practice. The Court observed that the threshold for disbarment is high; not every impropriety meets the standard of gross moral depravity. Nevertheless, lawyers are required to uphold the integrity and dignity of the profession (Canon 7; Rule 7.03), and their private conduct must not adversely reflect upon their fitness to practice or be scandalous to the discredit of the profession.

Court’s Findings on Respondent’s Conduct and Credibility

Applying those standards to the facts, the Court found Marie Nicole’s eyewitness testimony credible in substantiating behavior by respondent that created an appearance of immorality: sharing a bed with a married woman while married himself, being physically embraced by the woman in the presence of her minor daughter, and entering a small room of women wearing only a towel or similar scanty garment. Although explicit sexual activity was not established and the Investigating Commissioner had observed that imagination would be required to conjure sexual intercourse, the Court emphasized that the conduct was nonetheless inappropriate and capable of lowering public esteem for the Bar. The Court rejected responde

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 10145)

Factual Antecedents

The case arises from a complaint filed by Oliver Fabugais against Atty. Berardo C. Faundo, Jr. for gross misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, alleging illicit and immoral relations between respondent and complainant’s wife, Annaliza Lizel B. Fabugais.
Complainant’s minor daughter, Marie Nicole Fabugais (then 10 years old), submitted a Sinumpaang Salaysay describing events in October 2006 while she, her mother Annaliza, Michelle “Ate Mimi” Lagasca, and Ada Marie “Ate Ada” Campos stayed at respondent’s house in Ipil, Zamboanga-Sibugay.
Marie Nicole alleged that at night respondent slept in the same bed with her and her mother and that she saw respondent embracing her mother while sleeping.
Marie Nicole recounted that the next morning respondent, having just taken a shower and clad only in a towel or “tapis,” entered the room; Marie Nicole, “Ate Mimi,” and “Ate Ada” were told to step outside while her mother and respondent remained inside.
These factual allegations prompted complainant to file a case for declaration of nullity of marriage with a prayer for custody; respondent Faundo entered his appearance as collaborating counsel for Annaliza in that civil case.

Complaint Allegations (Specific Acts Alleged)

Allegation of illicit and immoral relations between respondent and complainant’s wife, evidenced by sharing a bed and embraces observed by the complainant’s daughter.
Allegation that respondent, while riding a motorcycle in tandem with his driver, slowed down beside complainant on February 17, 2007, yelled at him “Nah, cosa man?!” (“So, what now?!”), followed and shouted at complainant, challenged him to a fistfight, and threatened to kill him.
Allegation that respondent harassed complainant’s sister on February 27, 2007 by chasing and trailing her car.

Respondent’s Answer and Defenses

Respondent denied any immoral relations with Annaliza and claimed he was assisting her in her custody battle.
He asserted that Marie Nicole’s maternal grandmother, Ma. Eglinda L. Bantoto, sought his help and he allowed them to stay in his parents’ house in Ipil for safety.
Respondent explained his cordiality with Annaliza by familial connections: Annaliza was the stepdaughter of his late uncle and a former student of his at Western Mindanao State University.
On the motorcycle incident, respondent asserted the chasing occurred on February 16, 2007, and claimed complainant was the one who stared menacingly at him while he rode in tandem with his driver.
He presented the affidavit of his driver Romeo T. Mirasol and two other individuals to support his version.
Respondent argued he is incapable of such misconduct, citing he is a good father to three children, a respected civic leader, and has never been the subject of a police complaint.
He claimed complainant filed the disciplinary complaint merely to harass him from practicing his profession.

Investigation, Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) ZAMBASULTA Chapter Board forwarded the case to the IBP Board of Governors (BOG) on April 26, 2007; the case was consolidated with a similar case by order dated August 2, 2007.
IBP Investigating Commissioner Dennis A. B. Funa conducted inquiry and issued a Report and Recommendation finding respondent guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended a suspension from the practice of law for one (1) month.
On the motorcycle chasing allegations, the Investigating Commissioner found the evidence insufficient and doubted respondent’s identity could be categorically established due to the motorcycles’ speed and helmet use.
The Investigating Commissioner likewise found insufficient evidence to establish harassment of complainant’s sister.
On the immoral conduct allegation, while categorical sexual activity was not established, the Investigating Commissioner concluded respondent’s behavior created the appearance of immorality, particularly in the presence of a minor child, and was improper and not in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession.
The Investigating Commissioner relied on precedent (Tolosa v. Cargo) holding that creating the appearance of flouting moral standards is sanctionable, and emphasized respondent should have been considerate of perceptions, especially of minor children.

IBP-BOG Action and Subsequent Filings

The IBP-BOG, by Resolution No. XIX-2011-302, adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s findings and recommendation.
In 2011 complainant’s counsel, Atty. Mario Frez, filed a Notice, Manifestation, and Motion for Withdrawal reporting complainant’s death on June 12, 2011 and expressing uncertainty whether