Elpidio P. Tiong, Complainant, vs. Atty. George M. Florendo, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Elpidio P. Tiong, an American citizen, and his wife, Ma. Elena T. Tiong, were real estate lessors in Baguio City and engaged in vehicle assembly/repair in Pangasinan. In 1991, they engaged the services of respondent Atty. George M. Florendo as their legal counsel and business administrator whenever complainant was abroad. In 1993, complainant began suspecting an illicit affair between respondent and his wife. This was confirmed on May 13, 1995, when complainant overheard a telephone conversation between them where respondent said, “I love you, I’ll call you later.” Both respondent and Ma. Elena eventually admitted to the affair, which began in 1993. On May 15, 1995, at a meeting in a restaurant with a notary public present, respondent and Ma. Elena executed and signed an affidavit attesting to their illicit relationship from May 1993 to May 13, 1995, seeking forgiveness from their respective spouses and promising to cease all contact. The affidavit also stated that the offended spouses, complainant and Elizabeth F. Florendo, forgave them and would not institute any legal action. Despite this pardon, complainant filed the present disbarment complaint on May 23, 1995, charging respondent with gross immorality and grave misconduct. In his Answer, respondent admitted the material allegations but interposed the defense of pardon.
ISSUE
Whether the pardon extended by complainant in the Affidavit dated May 15, 1995, is sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the disbarment case against respondent for gross immoral conduct.
RULING
No. The Court found respondent guilty of gross immorality and suspended him from the practice of law for six (6) months. The Court held that possession of good moral character is a continuing requirement for membership in the legal profession. Respondent’s admitted illicit relationship with his client’s wife, which lasted for two years, manifested disrespect for the sanctity of marriage, his marital vows, and the ethics of his profession. It constituted a violation of the trust and confidence reposed in him by his client, contrary to Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and amounted to disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The Court ruled that a disbarment case is sui generis; it is not intended to grant relief to a complainant but to cleanse the legal profession of undesirable members to protect the public and the courts. Therefore, the affidavit of pardon, akin to an affidavit of desistance, cannot abate the proceedings. Considering the circumstances, the Court modified the IBP-CBD’s recommended penalty of one year suspension to six months.
