TEODORA ALTOBANO-RUIZ, complainant

v.
ATTYS. WILFREDO A. RUIZ, CHERRY ANNE DELA CRUZ, AND FRANCISCO S.
BENEDICTO, III, respondents
A.C. No. 13132 January 31, 2023
EN BANC

DOCTRINES:
1. As a privilege bestowed by law through the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be
withdrawn where circumstances concretely show the lawyer’s lack of essential qualifications
required of them, including good moral character. Indeed, good moral character is not only a
condition precedent for admission to the legal profession, but it must also remain intact to
maintain one’s good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity.

2. The deprivation and denial of financial support to the child is considered an act of violence
against women and children

3. A lawyer who delays the execution of a final and executory judgment subjects himself or
herself to disciplinary action for willful violations of his or her duties as an attorney to act with
all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions consistent with truth and honor.

4. A lawyer cannot be held responsible for cases he or she had no hand in, and more so, for
another’s liability.

Facts:

Anti-VAWC Case
***To have a full grasp of the antecedent events of the disbarment case, the precedent Anti-
VAWC case against Atty. Ruiz shall be discussed. ***

On June 4, 2008, complainant, Teodora Altobano-Ruiz, sued her husband, Atty. Ruiz, one of
the respondents, for violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children (Anti-VAWC) Act
and applied for a Permanent Protection Order (PPO). Complainant accused Atty. Ruiz of inflicting
on her physical violence, emotional stress, and economic abuse by depriving her and her children
of support.

On September 10, 2008, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 162 of Pasig ruled in her
favor and granted her petition for PPO, which includes directing Atty. Ruiz to provide support to
the complainant and their children, Leri Jaren and Irel Mikhail, if still studying and unemployed
equivalent to 50% (for the time being) of the income or salaries of the respondent from the
following sources, to wit:
1. Atty. Ruiz’s monthly salaries as reflection in his income tax return for the years 2006 and
2007 of his law office, whichever is higher;
2. His monthly income from Benedicto Pormento & Ruiz Law Office; and
3. His monthly income from Novastar Consultancy and Trading.

Page 1 of 6
 Failure of said Law Office, Partnership, or Company to remit and/or withhold, or any delay in
the remittance of support to the offended party without justifiable cause, shall render Atty. Ruiz or
his employer, his Law Office, his partnership or his company, liable for indirect contempt of court.
Such judgment shall be immediately executory, as Atty. Ruiz no longer appealed this Decision.

On July 16, 2023, complainant filed a Motion for Execution on Support (Motion for Execution)
before the RTC, alleging that Atty. Ruiz still has not complied with the portion of the PPO pertaining
to support despite the Decision being final and executory. Atty. Ruiz opposed this, arguing that
the PPO has already been revoked by operation of law. He claimed that the complainant no longer
needed protection as she was already cohabiting with another man. He added that a petition to
nullify their marriage was already pending.

Worse, he attempted to hide his earnings and properties by executing jointly with his mistress,
Radelia C. Sy, a Memorandum of Agreement with Undertaking (MAU) dated January 16, 2012,
and notarized on even date. It states that respondent and his mistress have been engaged for
more than five (5) years, and have decided to fix their properties from the fruit of their earnings
from 2005 until they decide to get married. They have thus agreed that all acquired real or
personal property shall be temporarily placed or registered under the name of the mistress’ son,
John Paul C. Sy, with the knowledge and consent of Atty. Ruiz’s daughter, Mikhail Ruiz. Further,
when Atty. Ruiz and his mistress would decide to get married two (2) years after the dissolution
of the respondent’s marriage with the complainant, they agreed to divide the real properties
already acquired and still to be acquired which temporarily be placed under the name of the
mistress’ son, John Paul Sy. Finally, the mistress has agreed with Atty. Ruiz to exclude the latter’s
youngest son, Leri Jarren Ruiz of any financial support or share from his earnings provided that
the mistress shall allow the respondent for the visitation of his son when he desires.

On April 22, 2014, the RTC issued an Order granting complainant’s Motion for Execution and
maintaining that the PPO shall be in force and effect.

On February 27, 2015, the Regional Trial Court issued a Writ of Execution. Respondent
moved to stay or quash the Writ, but the RTC denied this and even his subsequent Motion for
Reconsideration.

Respondent, Atty. Ruiz, then pursed an appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), and on October
3, 2016, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. As respondent did not deny failing to provide support
after the PPO had already been issued, the CA found that he may not ignore the Writ.

Raised to the Supreme Court (SC) in Ruiz v. AAA, the SC partially granted the petition of Atty.
Ruiz, modifying the resolutions of the RTC and CA. The Writ of Execution issued by the RTC shall
remain valid as to all reliefs granted by the PPO except as to the grant of legal support in favor of
Teodora Ruiz. She shall no longer be entitled to legal support from the time of the finality of the
Decision declaring her marriage with complainant null and void. However, Atty. Ruiz shall be liable
for 6% interest for any delinquent support from the time of the issuance of the PPO.

Disbarment case

Page 2 of 6
 As established by the complainant, one of the respondents, Atty. Dela Cruz, is her former
counsel in three cases: the (1) Anti-VAWC case; (2) Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage;
and (3) Estafa case filed against her.

The complainant alleged that Atty. Dela Cruz conspired with Atty. Ruiz to allow the Anti-VAWC
case to still go through preliminary investigation despite the latter’s default in filing his answer.
The former refused to perform her duty and intentionally did not seek to implement or enforce the
PPO on the latter. Their synchronized acts of harassment continued when Atty. Ruiz filed a petition
for declaration of nullity of marriage.

Atty. Ruiz was represented by another respondent to this case, Atty. Benedicto III, who was a
colleague of Attys. Ruiz and Dela Cruz at the Public Attorney’s Office, and later on, became Atty.
Ruiz’s partner in the law firm, Benedicto Promento & Ruiz. Meanwhile, the complainant retained
the services of Atty. Dela Cruz in the nullity case, but the latter misrepresented in open court that
she had filed an Answer while in truth, she had not. In addition, the PPO could not be enforced
on Atty. Ruiz because Atty. Dela Cruz, together with Atty. Benedicto III conspired with Atty. Ruiz
to hide his real whereabouts, where he used five (5) different addresses during the proceedings
before the RTC.

Subsequently, Atty. Ruiz filed three (3) criminal charges against the complainant for adultery.
One got dismissed for lack of probably cause and two prospered and resulted in her indictment.
Through respondents’ conspiratorial schemes, she was deprived of the opportunity to counter the
charges in the preliminary investigation.

In 2012, a warrant of arrest for alleged estafa was issued on complainant just a month before
the Bar Examination she was set to take that year. She once again sought the assistance of Atty
Dela Cruz to defend her in the estafa case. Dela Cruz simply moved to defer the arraignment and
had the case returned for preliminary investigation.

She alleged that such negligence and mishandling of her case were part of respondents’
collective plot against her. Teodora Ruiz then filed a complaint before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) – Commission on Bar Discipline for the disbarment of the respondents who she
alleged to have violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent Atty. Ruiz countered that the cases are mere harassment suits allegedly filed in
retaliation for the adultery case filed against the complainant. He reasoned out that he did not
provide support to complainant and their minor child because the complainant had been
adulterous and because Jarren is not his biological child.

On the other hand, Respondent Atty Dela Cruz riposted that the allegations against her are
baseless, false, and malicious. She simply followed the regular procedure and available remedies
under the rules. To be clear, the RTC had already declared Atty. Ruiz in default and allowed the
presentation of evidence ex parte. Hence, there was no longer need to file a motion to declare
him in default.

As for her supposed mishandling of complainant’s other cases, she emphasized that her
attorney-client relationship with complainant already got terminated after the Anti-VAWC case was

Page 3 of 6
resolved in 2008; that she had not spoken with complainant for four (4) years until the latter called
her again relative to the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed against her. For that
case, she was not engaged as complainant’s lawyer, nor did she represent the complainant in the
estafa case filed against her.

As for respondent Atty. Benedicto, he asserted that he only represented Atty. Ruiz as a
member of the legal profession. He did not circumvent any legal processes or commit any
misrepresentation in court, and thus, cannot be held administratively liable for violations of the
CPR.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)

recommended the disbarment of Atty. Ruiz for violating the CPR when he refused to comply with
the order of the RTC to provide support to complainant and minor child when he expected to obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes (Cf. Canon 1). He
impeded the execution of the judgment and misused court processes by filing motions to delay
the execution of the RTC Decision.

On the other hand, the IBP – Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) recommended the dismissal of
the complaint against Attys. Dela Cruz and Benedicto III for lack of merit. It held that Benedicto
merely acted as counsel for respondent Atty. Ruiz, and there appears to be no conduct which
violates the CPR. Similarly, Dela Cruz cannot be held liable as she ably represented complainant
and was able to cause the reversal of adverse resolutions against her and obtain favorable rulings
in complainant’s favor

In his subsequent motion for reconsideration, Atty. Ruiz asserted that he had a private
arrangement with complainant for support to the latter and Jarren after the dissolution of their
marriage. He paid for Jarren’s school expenses, gave allowances for his needs, and spent for
home renovations.

As a result, through its Extended Resolution, the IBP-BOG modified its earlier resolution and
reduced the penalty of disbarment to suspension from practice of law for one (1) year.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Atty. Ruiz shall be disbarred from the practice of law for (a) economic
abuse and (b) committing falsehood and exploiting court processes?
2. Whether or not Attys. Dela Cruz and Benedicto III shall be disbarred for their negligence
in and mishandling of the complainant’s case?

RULING
LEGEND:
Response
Legal Basis
Analysis
Conclusion

1. Yes, the Supreme Court (SC) finds respondent Atty. Ruiz guilty of violating various rules
in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Page 4 of 6
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.

Here, Atty. Ruiz left the complainant and their children, maintained an illicit affair and
brazenly record their unlawful relationship and agreement in a public document—and
worse, concealed his properties beyond the reach of his family and the court.

Atty. Ruiz continued to show his propensity to disobey the law by claiming he had no
obligation to support Jarren who was purportedly not his biological child. He “bolstered”
this argument by presenting judicial decree of nullity of his marriage to complainant in his
Motion for Reconsideration before the IBP-BOG.

The SC held that the argument is totally baseless.

Art. 54 of the Family Code provides that children conceived or born before the judgment
of annulment or absolute nullity of the marriage under Article 36 has become final and
executory shall be considered legitimate.

Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate. For another,
the legitimate status of Jarren is not affected by the declaration of nullity of marriage
between complainant and Atty Ruiz.

B.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court;
nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment
or misuse Court processes.

Here, instead of admitting his fault in repeatedly evading the PPO and the Writ of
Execution, Atty. Ruiz blamed the complainant for not filing a Motion to Execute the order
of support. The PPO is a permanent one, which “shall be effective until revoked by a court
upon application of the person in whose favor the order was issued.”

Page 5 of 6
 Here, Atty. Ruiz used different bogus addresses to deceive the Court and its legal
processes, unduly delayed the case, impeded the execution of a judgment, and misused
court processes. He abused his position as a lawyer as well as his knowledge of the law
with his continued and intentional refusal to heed court orders.

Furthermore, instead of admitting his fault in repeatedly evading the PPO and the Writ of
Execution, Atty. Ruiz blamed the complainant for not filing a Motion to Execute the order
of support. The PPO is a permanent one, which “shall be effective until revoked by a court
upon application of the person in whose favor the order was issued.”

2. No, the complaint against Attys. Dela Cruz and Benedicto III lacks merit.

Here, the following rules of the CPR are alleged by the complainant to have been violated
the aforementioned respondents:

Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.

Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.

Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to
present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.

However, the SC affirms the findings of the IBP-CBD that Atty. Dela Cruz ably represented
complainant and even obtained favorable rulings in complainant’s favor. The strategies
she used in the proceedings were within the bounds of law and the rules. As for the nullity
of marriage and estafa cases, Atty. Dela Cruz did not even represent complainant in said
cases making it impossible for her to have mishandled them, let alone, conspired with her
co-respondents against complainant.

As for Atty. Benedicto III, he simply acted as counsel for Atty. Ruiz in the latter’s cases.
Absent any showing that he committed punishable acts, proven with substantial evidence,
he cannot be held liable for representing his client as deemed proper. For the right to
counsel is guaranteed by the Constitution, laws, and the Rules of Court.

***
Accordingly, Atty. Ruiz is disbarred from the practice of law.

However, Attys. Dela Cruz and Benedicto III cannot suffer the same penalty imposed upon
Atty. Ruiz. There is no reason for the Court to find them administratively liable. Wherefore,
the complaints against them are dismissed.

Page 6 of 6