Case Summary (A.C. No. 6116)
Factual Background
Tumbokon alleged that Pefianco had initially agreed to pay him a 20% commission, later reduced to 10%, on attorney's fees arising from the representation of Spouses Amable and Rosalinda Yap in a partition case regarding the estate of the late Benjamin Yap. This agreement was formalized in a letter dated August 11, 1995. However, despite Pefianco receiving significant fees amounting to approximately P40 million, he failed to compensate Tumbokon. A subsequent letter from Pefianco on July 16, 1997, claimed that the Spouses Yap had assumed responsibility for this payment. Tumbokon further accused Pefianco of failing to uphold moral standards by abandoning his legal wife and engaging in a relationship resulting in children with another woman.
Respondent's Defense
Pefianco contested the allegations by asserting that he had a valid agreement with the Spouses Yap to accept a 25% fee, claiming that the August 11, 1995 letter was forged. He stated that it was the responsibility of the Spouses Yap to pay Tumbokon, not him. Additionally, he called for dismissal of the complaint and sanctions against Tumbokon’s counsel for what he termed a baseless claim.
Administrative Proceedings
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and recommendation. The IBP’s commissioner reported on October 10, 2008, recommending a one-year suspension from the practice of law for Pefianco due to violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and various rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility. These recommendations were later adopted by the IBP Board of Governors on August 28, 2010. Pefianco's motion for reconsideration was denied on October 28, 2011.
Findings and Conclusions
The Supreme Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege that requires adherence to high ethical standards. It highlighted that lawyers must conduct themselves with integrity and morality both professionally and in their private lives. It concluded that Pefianco’s defense regarding the alleged forgery was undermined by his own acknowledgment in the July 16, 1997 letter, which indicated a recognition of his obligation to pay Tumbokon's commission.
Furthermore, Pefianco violated the rule against sharing legal fees with non-lawyers, as stipulated in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Although the cl
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 6116)
Case Background
- This case involves an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon against Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco.
- The complaint cites allegations of grave dishonesty, gross misconduct constituting deceit, and grossly immoral conduct on the part of the respondent.
Allegations by the Complainant
- The complainant asserted that the respondent had promised him a 20% commission on the attorney's fees received for representing Spouses Amable and Rosalinda Yap in a partition case concerning the estate of the late Benjamin Yap.
- This commission was later reduced to 10% as reflected in a letter dated August 11, 1995.
- Despite the attorney's fees amounting to approximately P40 million (17% of the total estate), the respondent failed to pay the agreed commission.
- The complainant received a letter dated July 16, 1997, indicating that the Spouses Yap would assume payment of the commission after the respondent reduced his fees from 25% to 17%.
- The complainant's demand for payment was unaddressed by the respondent.
- Tumbokon accused Pefianco of abandoning his legal wife, Milagros Hilado, and cohabiting with another woman, Mae Flor Galido, with whom he has four children.
- Additionally, the respondent was accused of engaging in a money-lending business without the necessary authorization from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
Defense by the Respondent
- Atty. Pefianco contended that he had taken the case on a 25% contingent fee basis and had advanced all necessary expenses.
- He disputed the authenticity of the August 11