ELPIDIO P. TIONG v. ATTY. GEORGE M.

FLORENDO
(A.C. No. 4428, December 12, 2011)
FACTS:
Atty. George Florendo has been serving as the lawyer of spouses Elpidio and Ma. Elena Tiong. Elpidio, a
US citizen is often times away. For two years, he suspected that his wife and Atty. Florendo were having
an affair. Finally in 1995, he was able to listen to a telephone conversation where he heard Atty. Florendo
mention amorous words to Ma. Elena. Atty. Florendo confronted the two and both eventually admitted to
their illicit relationship. Atty. Florendo and Ma. Elena then executed and signed an affidavit, which was
later notarized, stating that they admit of their illicit relationship; that they are seeking the forgiveness of
their respective spouse. Elpidio forgave Florendo and Ma. Elena. But nevertheless, Elpidio filed a
disbarment case against Florendo. Florendo said he can no longer be sanctioned because he was already
pardoned.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Florendo is correct.
RULING: No. A petition for suspension or disbarment of a lawyer is a sui generis case. This class of
cases is meant to protect the public and the courts of undesirable members of the legal profession. As
such, pardon by the offended party of the act complained of does not operate to offset the ground for
disbarment or suspension. Florendo’s act of having an affair with his client’s wife manifested his
disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his
utmost moral depravity and low regard for the ethics of his profession. He violated the trust reposed upon
him by his client (Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility). His illicit relationship with Ma. Elena
amounts to a disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action. Section 27, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court provides that an attorney may be disbarred or suspended from his office for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, among others. It cannot
be also said, as he claims, that their relationship is merely a moment of indiscretion considering that their
affair went on for more than two years. Florendo was suspended for 6 months.

ATTY. REYES v. ATTY. CHIONG JR.

(A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003)
FACTS:
Complainant Atty. Reyes filed a case for disbarment against respondent Atty. Chiong because of
the latter’s violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility dealing with the idea that
lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity and civility. Chiong’s client did not appear upon
the court when Prosecutor Salonga issued a subpoena for their preliminary investigation, the Prosecutor
filed a criminal complaint for estafa against said client. After which Chiong made an urgent motion to
quash the warrant concomitant with his filing for a civil complaint and collection for a sum of money and
damages against Atty. Reyes, Xu (the complainant’s client) and the Prosecutor. Upon their confrontation,
no settlement was reached. Chiong argues that there was no disrespect impleading Atty. Reyes as co-
defendant in Civil Case No. 4884 and no basis to conclude that the suit was groundless. He argues that he
impleaded the Prosecutor because the criminal investigation had irregularities due to the action of the
Prosecutor to file estafa case despite the pendency for his client’s motion for an opportunity to submit
counter affidavit and evidence.

ISSUE:
Did respondent violate Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

RULING:
Yes, it was recommended by the IBP that defendant’s purpose of filing for the collection suit with
damages was to be able to obtain leverage against the estafa case of his client. Clearly there was no need
to implead complainant and Prosecutor Salonga because they never had any participation in the business
transactions between Pan and Xu, clearly it was for the mere harassment of the two. Chiong was
suspended for two (2) years from the practice of law and was implemented immediately.