Re: Atty. Jose Principe, Bar Matter No.

543, September 20,

1990
Facts
There is no retirement in the IBP as contemplated in the
Labor Code. There is only voluntary termination of membership in
the IBP.

Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU),

Enrique Entila, and Victoriano Teneza v Binalbagan Isabela
Sugar Company, Court of Industrial Relations and Quintin
Muning
Facts
Petitoners Enrique Entila (Entila) and Victoriano Teneza
(Teneza) were represented by Cipriano Cid and Associates in Case
No. 72-ULP-Iloilo. In the said the petitioners were dismissed and
were reinstated in the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations.
In the judgement of the said case backwages was awarded to the
petitioners. Cipiriano Cid and Associates filed a notice of
attorney’s fees equivalent to 30% of the backwages awarded.
Later, Atty. Anatacio Pacis also filed a similar notice for 25% of
the backwages. Entila and Teneza filed a manifestation indicating
their non-objection to an award of attorney’s fees of 25%.
However, on the same day, Quintin Muning who also represented
Entila and Teneza also filed a petition for “Award of Services
Rendered” to the amount of 20% of the backwages. Muning’s
petition was opposed by Cipriano Cid and Associates on the
ground that Muning is not a lawyer and is not entitled to
attorney’s fees. Eventually the Court of Industrial Relations
awarded 25% of backwages as compensation for professional
services rendered. The award was divided in the following
manner:
Attys. Cipriano Cid and Associates – 10%
Quintin Muning – 10%
Atty. Antanacio Pacis – 5%
The present petition is to have the order awarding attorney’s fees
to Muning be voided.
Issue
Whether or not Muning is entitled to receive an award for
attorney’s fees?
Ruling
The Court ruled in the negative. Muning is not entitled to
attorney’s fees. The Court gave the following reasons why Muning
is should not receive attorney’s fees:
That even though a non-member of the bar is given permission to
represent the litigant does not entitle such representative to
compensation for such representation. Sec. 24 of Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court provide that
"Sec. 24. Compensation of attorney's agreement as to fees. An
attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no
more than a reasonable compensation for his services, . . . "
The Court said that this provision provides that an attorney-
client relationship should exist as a condition for the recovery of
attorney’s fees. In the case at bar, there is no attorney-client
relationship between Muning and Entila and Teneza. Since,
Muning is not a lawyer he cannot establish an attorney-client
relationship between the petitioners and himself, therefore he
cannot recover attorney’s fees.
The Court also cited American Jurisprudence which stated, “No
one is entitled to recover compensation for services as an
attorney at law unless he as been duly admitted to practice…and
is in good standing at the time.”
The Court further ruled, to wit:
“The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession
should not be violated; that acting as an attorney without
authority constitutes contempt of court, which is punishable by
fine or imprisonment or both, and the law will not assist a person
to reap the fruits or benefit of an unlawful act or an act done in
violation of law; and that if fees were to be allowed to non-
lawyers, it would leave the public in hopeless confusion as to
whom to consult in case of necessity and also leave the bar in a
chaotic condition, aside from the fact that non-lawyers are not
amenable to disciplinary measures.”
Furthermore, the Court also ruled that, the general rule
regarding the collection of attorney’s fees are for lawyers for the
rendering of purely legal services cannot be circumvented by
portraying one’s self as an agent.
Disposition: the order awarding attorney’s fees to Muning
are set aside and all other aspects of the order are affirmed.

Amalia R. Ceniza v. Atty. Eliseo Ceniza, Jr., April 10, 2019.

Facts
Atty. Eliseo Ceniza (Eliseo) and Amalia R. Ceniza (Amalia)
were married on November 12, 1989. They have two children
named Marie Agnes and Christopher Chuck. On April 21, 2008,
Eliseo told Amalia that he would be attending a seminar in Manila,
however Amalia would not be able to join him since she had
business in General Santos City. On Amalia’s return from General
Santos City on April 26, 2008 she found that Eliseo had already
moved out of the house with his belongings and car.
Amalia then went to Mandaue City to investigate about the
whereabouts of Eliseo. She found out from the colleagues of
Eliseo that they suspected him of having an affair with one Anna
Fe Flores Binoya. Amalia was given the address in Aldea
Subdivision. Amalia and her daughter were able to confront Eliseo
that night however the latter did not admit that he committed any
wrongdoing. Eliseo later on filed a civil action for annulment of his
and Amalia’s marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity
in Art. 36 of the Family Code.
Amalia subsequently filed complaint with the Office of the
Ombudsman for immorality against Eliseo. Amalia also sent a
letter to then, President GMA. The Presidential Action Center of
GMA sent the letter to the Office of the Bar Confidant. Eliseo then
filed his comment alleging that he did not commit any
wrongdoing. And that he was living with his parents and that
Anna Binoya is only a business partner of his.
The Ombudsman then issued its decision in the complaint
filed by Amalia and found Eliseo guilty of disgraceful and immoral
conduct for violating the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees in that:
“all public officials and employees shall at all times be
accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties
with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and
loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives,
and uphold public interest over personal interest.”
Eliseo appealed to the CA; however, the CA affirmed the
decision of the Ombudsman. On the other hand the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline rendered its judgment through
Commissioner Hababag which ruled that the complaint against
Eliseo should be dismissed. Subsequently the IBP Board of
Governors adopted the findings of Commissioner Hababag.
Hence, the present petition before the Court.
Issue
Whether or not, Eliseo should be disciplined for the actions
attributed to him?
Ruling
Yes, the Court disagreed with the findings of the IBP-CBD
and the IBP Board of Governors.
The Court ruled that the evidence presented by Amalia were
preponderant enough to prove the gross immorality committed by
Eliseo. The Court reiterated the evidence presented by Amalia
through the testimony of Roberto Joseph Galvan, a resident of
Aldea Subdivision. Galvan testified that he has seen Eliseo in the
house of Binoya on several occasions and on one occasion he was
even seen eating half naked. Galvan further testified that Eliseo
would often stay for quite a long time at Aldea, sometimes even
days. Galvan likewise noted the red Corolla of Eliseo, his car
which he often used.
Eliseo countered by denying and claiming that there was not
even a single photograph of him and Binoya holding hands,
kissing, or making beso-beso. The Court shut down the defense of
denial by Eliseo, the Court ruled that such defense is not enough
to overcome the preponderant evidence presented by Amalia.
Further it was even found that Binoya was married to Ebrahim
Angeles Yap.
As another defense, Eliseo claimed that his actions were not
immoral with respect to his professional responsibilities, rather
the issues presented were part of his personal life. The Court
cited the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
Thus, the Court ruled that there is no question that the
abandonment of one’s spouse and family to for another
constitutes immorality. The Court ruled that such act would even
be criminal as concubinage or as adultery.
Further, the defense of Eliseo that such acts pertains to his
private life did not stand in the Court. The Court cited the case of
Advincula v Advincula:
“More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of
the Court is required not only to refrain from adulterous
relationships or keeping mistresses but also to conduct
himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating
the belief that he is flouting those moral standards. If
the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession
and attain its basic ideals, whoever is enrolled in its
ranks should not only master its tenets and principles
but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity
to them. The requirement of good moral character is of
much greater import, as far as the general public is
concerned, than the possession of legal learning.”
As regards the penalty to be imposed upon Eliseo that Court
cited several cases with similar facts and issues presented one of
which is the case of Guevarra v Eala wherein the respondent was
having an affair with another married woman. The penalty
imposed the cases presented by the Court was disbarment.
Thus, the Court found Eliseo guilty of gross immorality and
violations of Rule 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and imposed the penalty of disbarment and had his
name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.