A.C. No. 6116; August 1, 2012
Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon, Complainant, vs. Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco. The complaint alleged that respondent agreed in writing to pay complainant a 10% commission from the attorney’s fees he would earn from representing Spouses Yap in a partition case, a referral from complainant. After receiving approximately ₱40 million in fees, respondent failed to pay the commission, instead informing complainant via letter that the clients had assumed the obligation after he reduced his contingent fee. Complainant also accused respondent of grossly immoral conduct for abandoning his legal wife and cohabiting with another woman, with whom he has four children, and of engaging in an unauthorized money-lending business.
In his defense, respondent disputed the authenticity of the commission agreement, claiming it was forged, and asserted that the clients had indeed assumed the payment. He denied the other charges and sought sanctions against complainant’s counsel for filing a baseless complaint. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which recommended a one-year suspension from law practice.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco should be administratively disciplined for his actions.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the IBP’s findings and recommendation. On the charge of fee-splitting, respondent’s defense of forgery was contradicted by his own subsequent letter acknowledging the undertaking to pay the commission, albeit shifting responsibility to his clients. This act violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which prohibits lawyers from dividing legal fees with non-lawyers, none of the exceptions being applicable here.
Regarding the charge of grossly immoral conduct, respondent did not deny abandoning his legal family to cohabit with another woman and father children. The Court ruled that such betrayal of marital fidelity constitutes disgraceful and immoral conduct, violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, which proscribes unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. However, the charge of illegal money-lending was not sufficiently proven, as isolated lending to a single individual does not constitute engaging in business.
While the misconduct was serious, the Court held it did not warrant disbarment, as the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution in only the clearest cases. Considering the circumstances, a one-year suspension from the practice of law was deemed appropriate. Respondent Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco was found GUILTY and SUSPENDED for one year.