G.R. No. 191053 November 28, 2011 SO ORDERED.

"5

MARIO B. DIMAGAN, Petitioner, In holding that petitioner was illegally dismissed, the Labor
vs. Arbiter pointed out that there was no denial by respondents that
Dacworks United, Incorporated and/or Dean A. they relegated petitioner from the position of OIC to supervisor
Cancino, Respondents. and then to ordinary technician. The last assignment was meant
to humiliate him and deprive him of his dignity as stockholder of
DECISION the company. Moreover, the immediate filing by petitioner of the
complaint for dismissal negated the defense of abandonment
interposed by respondents.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
On appeal, the NLRC rendered a Resolution6 dated May 29, 2007
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the affirming the Labor Arbiter's Decision in toto. It took note of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Decision1dated July dearth of evidence to show that petitioner duly received the
10, 2009 and the Resolution2 dated January 22, 2010 rendered by memoranda allegedly sent by respondents informing him of his
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 105771. The CA suspension from work. In affirming petitioner's constructive
reversed and set aside the Resolutions3 of the National Labor dismissal, the NLRC ratiocinated that he was not given overtime
Relations Commission (NLRC) dated May 29, 2007 and July 15, pay despite the fact that he frequently worked late nights because
2008 in NLRC NCR CA No. 047312-06/NLRC NCR-00-07-07590- he was supposedly a managerial employee. But when
03 finding petitioner Mario B. Dimagan to have been illegally respondents started treating him as a rank-and-file employee by
dismissed. making him work as a mere technician, such act of "clear
discrimination, insensibility or disdain" became unbearable to
Petitioner Mario B. Dimagan is a stockholder of respondent petitioner.
DACWORKS UNITED, INC., which is engaged in the business of
installing, maintaining and repairing airconditioning systems. In Further, the NLRC clarified that the phrase "as of this date" in the
July 1997, he started working for respondent company as Officer- decretal portion of the Decision of the Labor Arbiter signified that
in-Charge (OIC) for mechanical installation with a monthly salary the computation of petitioner's backwages starts from the date
of ₱8,000.00. when his compensation was withheld from him until the date of
his actual reinstatement, as provided in Article 279 of the Labor
Sometime in 2002, petitioner was downgraded from his post as Code.
OIC to supervisor. Then, in March of the following year, he was
made to work as a mere technician. When he vocally expressed Respondents sought reconsideration7 of the NLRC's Resolution.
his concerns regarding his assignments, one Loida Aquino, who However, in his Comment/Opposition8 thereto, petitioner alleged
was in charge of servicing/personnel under the direct that respondents "rigged, tampered, distorted and perverted" the
supervision of respondent Dean A. Cancino, told him not to report mailing of their motion for reconsideration to make it appear that
for work anymore. Thereafter, a certain Carlito Diaz, Operations it was mailed on the last day for filing thereof, or on June 25,
Manager of respondent company, castigated petitioner for not 2007, at the Mayamot Post Office. To prove the same, petitioner
following Aquino's instruction to work as a technician. This submitted a Certification9 from the postmaster of the Mayamot
prompted petitioner to file a complaint for illegal dismissal, non- Post Office, Antipolo City, stating that there was no record of
payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave and registered mails posted on June 25, 2007 by Atty. Gerardo B.
separation pay against respondents. Collado, counsel for the respondents, and addressed to the NLRC
and to petitioner's counsel, Atty. Jonathan Polines.
Respondents denied that petitioner was illegally dismissed
arguing that, since April 4, 2003 up to the time of the filing of the On July 15, 2008, the NLRC issued a Resolution10 denying
complaint, petitioner never reported for work and continuously respondents' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit
violated the company policy on absence without official leave without, however, passing judgment on the allegation that
(AWOL). They allegedly sent a total of four (4) memoranda for respondents manipulated the filing of their motion for
the period August 2002 to March 2003 informing petitioner of his reconsideration. The NLRC merely directed respondents to file a
offenses, including being AWOL, but he nonetheless unjustifiably comment and/or explanation within five (5) days from receipt of
refused to return to work. the aforesaid Resolution, to which the latter complied.11

In reply, petitioner denied ever receiving any one of the four Subsequently, respondents filed a petition for certiorari12under
memoranda allegedly sent by respondents. Rule 65 of the same Rules before the CA. In its challenged
Decision13dated July 10, 2009, the CA reversed and set aside the
On October 28, 2005, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision4in Resolutions of the NLRC upon a finding that there was no
favor of petitioner disposing as follows: dismissal of petitioner to speak of, whether actual or
constructive, considering the absence of substantial evidence to
"WHEREFORE, respondents are hereby ordered to reinstate prove that his services were, in fact, terminated by respondents;
complainant to his former position with full backwages which as or that there was a demotion in rank or a diminution of his
of this date has amounted to ₱240,800.00. salaries, benefits and privileges

All the other claims are hereby DISMISSED. With regard to the procedural aspect, the CA held that, since the
NLRC did not categorically address the issue on the alleged
1
manipulation in the mailing of respondents' motion for The elements of forum shopping are: (1) identity of parties, or at
reconsideration even after the required explanation was least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions;
submitted by the latter, then said motion was considered as (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief
timely filed. being founded on the same set of facts; and (3) the identity of the
two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in
Aggrieved, petitioner moved14 for reconsideration of the CA the other action will, regardless of which party is successful,
Decision, but it was denied in the Resolution15 dated January 22, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.19
2010 for lack of merit. Hence, the instant recourse on the
following grounds, to wit: There was no confluence of the foregoing elements in the instant
case. Records show that when respondents filed their petition for
"(A) certiorari before the CA, their motion for reconsideration before
the NLRC had already been resolved on the merits, and the only
incident left for the NLRC to adjudicate was the alleged mail
THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS FAILED IN ITS DUTY TO tampering of respondents. The pendency of such investigation,
DETERMINE THAT RESPONDENTS HAVE FAILED TO however, is merely incidental, such that its resolution will not
COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS ON THE amount to res judicata in the petition for certiorari before the CA.
APPROPRIATE SWORN CERTIFICATION ON FORUM- Be that as it may, the Court examined the certification on forum
SHOPPING TO BE SUBMITTED TOGETHER WITH THE shopping20 attached to respondents' petition for certiorari before
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, THAT WOULD CALL FOR the CA, and found the same to have substantially complied with
THE EXERCISE BY THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT the requirements under the rules.
OF ITS POWER OF SUPERVISION.
On the merits, the Court finds petitioner's arguments
(B) meritorious.

THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS FAILED IN ITS DUTY TO At the outset, it must be pointed out that the main issue in this
DETERMINE THAT RESPONDENTS HAVE VIOLATED case involves a question of fact. It is an established rule that the
THE CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING, BY jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from
REFUSING AND FAILING TO DISCLOSE THE PENDING the CA via Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is
INVESTIGATION BEING CONDUCTED BY THE NLRC ON generally limited to reviewing errors of law. This Court is not a
THE RESPONDENTS' MANIPULATION OF THE MAILING trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of
OF THEIR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BELOW, fact of the CA are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is
THAT WOULD CALL FOR THE EXERCISE BY THIS not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again.21
HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF ITS POWER OF
SUPERVISION.
This rule, however, is not ironclad. One of the recognized
exceptions is when there is a divergence between the findings of
(C) facts of the NLRC and that of the CA,22 as in this case. There is,
therefore, a need to review the records to determine which of
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary
DECLARING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT ILLEGALLY facts.23
DISMISSED, DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF EVIDENCE
INDICATING THE CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL BY After a judicious scrutiny of the records, the allegations of
REASON OF CLEAR DISCRIMINATION, INSENSIBILITY petitioner and the defenses raised by respondents, the Court
OR DISDAIN COMMITTED BY THE EMPLOYER AGAINST cannot sustain the finding of the CA that petitioner was not
THE PETITIONER."16 illegally or constructively dismissed.

Before delving into the merits of the instant case, the Court shall Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting because continued
first resolve petitioner's claim that respondents are guilty of employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely;
forum shopping having failed to comply with the required form of when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay.24The
the certification, as prescribed17 by the Rules of Court, and to test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in
disclose the pendency of an investigation being conducted by the the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his
NLRC with regard to the allegation of manipulation and/or position under the circumstances. It is an act amounting to
tampering in the mailing of respondents' motion for dismissal but is made to appear as if it were not. Constructive
reconsideration. dismissal is therefore a dismissal in disguise. The law recognizes
and resolves this situation in favor of employees in order to
The Court is not convinced. protect their rights and interests from the coercive acts of the
employer.25
"Forum shopping exists when a party repetitively avails himself
of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or As held in the case of Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Del
successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions Villar,26 the burden falls upon the company to prove that the
and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising employee's assignment from one position to another was not
substantially the same issues either pending in, or already tantamount to constructive dismissal. In the case at bar,
resolved adversely by, some other court."18 respondents failed to discharge said burden. In fact,
respondents never even disputed that petitioner was relegated
2
from the position of OIC to supervisor and, subsequently, to an respect to the investigation being conducted by the NLRC
ordinary technician. Clearly, the reduction in petitioner's regarding the alleged tampering and/or manipulation of the
responsibilities and duties, particularly from supervisor to mailing of respondents' motion for reconsideration filed before it,
ordinary technician, constituted a demotion in rank tantamount the Court no longer finds it necessary to pass upon the same.
to constructive dismissal.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed
Thus, contrary to the position of the CA, it is of no consequence Decision and Resolution of the CA are SET [Link]
that petitioner failed to substantiate his allegation that Loida Resolutions of the NLRC affirming the Decision of the Labor
Aquino, an employee of respondent company, informed him that Arbiter are REINSTATED. Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement
he will be working as an ordinary technician, and that when he without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full
openly voiced out his concern regarding the transfer, he was told backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits
not to report for work anymore. As with all the other allegations computed from the time his compensation was withheld from
made by petitioner, respondents never disputed or rebutted this him or on April 4, 2003, up to the time of his actual
fact. reinstatement, in accordance with Article 27932 of the Labor
Code.
Similarly, We cannot concur with the finding of the CA that it was
petitioner who abandoned his employment by failing to report SO ORDERED.
for work or having gone AWOL.1âwphi1
EN BANC
"Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an
employee to resume his employment."27 To constitute [A.M. No. P-11-3011 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 09-3143-P) :
abandonment of work, two elements must concur: "(1) the November 29, 2011]
employee must have failed to report for work or must have been
absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) there must EVELINA C. BANAAG, COMPLAINANT, VS. OLIVIA C.
have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever ESPELETA, INTERPRETER III, BRANCH 82, REGIONAL TRIAL
the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt COURT, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.
act."28 The employer bears the burden of proof to show the
deliberate and unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his DECISION
employment without any intention of returning.29
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
In the case of Hodieng Concrete Products, Inc. v. Emilia30,
citing Samarca v. Arc-Men Industries, Inc.31, the Court has ruled “Can a man scoop fire into his lap without his clothes being
thus: burned? Can a man walk on hot coals without his feet being
scorched?” So goes an early admonition against immorality from
the Holy Book that is as valuable today as it was thousands of
"x x x. Absence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly
years ago. In the judiciary, “moral integrity is more than a virtue;
pointing to the fact that the employee simply does not want to
it is a necessity”.1 A court employee who has fallen short of the
work anymore. And the burden of proof to show that there was
exacting standards of morality and decency has to face the
unjustified refusal to go back to work rests on the employer.
consequences, even after the embers have died and the scars
have faded.
xxx
The Facts
Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be
presumed from certain equivocal acts. To constitute The present administrative case originated from a letter-
abandonment, there must be clear proof of deliberate and complaint2 dated May 3, 2009 filed by complainant Evelina C.
unjustified intent to sever the employer-employee Banaag before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
relationship. Clearly, the operative act is still the employee’s charging respondent Olivia C. Espeleta with Gross
ultimate act of putting an end to his employment. Immorality and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service for engaging in an illicit and immoral relationship with
her husband, Avelino C. Banaag.
Settled is the rule that mere absence or failure to report for
work is not tantamount to abandonment of work. x x x."
Evelina met Olivia for the first time in October 2005 when the
(Emphasis supplied)
latter accompanied Gloria Tubtub to her house at JB Crystal
Building, Quirino Highway, Lagro, Quezon City, to request for
In this case, petitioner's failure to report for work was caused by encashment of a check in the amount of P11,000.00. It turned out
the unwarranted demotion in rank that was imposed upon him that the check, which Evelina encashed out of pity for Gloria who
by respondents, not by any intention to sever employment ties was her “sister” in a Marriage Encounter group and who told her
with them. And his filing of the instant complaint for illegal that she needed money for her grandchild who was supposedly
dismissal indubitably negates the allegation of abandonment. Had hospitalized, actually belonged to Olivia. According to Gloria, she
petitioner intended to forsake his job, then he would not have did not intend to deceive her friend but only wanted to help
found it necessary to institute this case against respondents. Olivia, who gave her a “small token” for the transaction.3

In sum, the CA committed reversible error when it held that At the same meeting, Olivia introduced herself as a court
petitioner was not illegally or constructively dismissed. With interpreter in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City,

3
Branch 82. Believing that Olivia could assist her and her husband Olivia be directed for the last time to submit her comment
in their pending cases before the court, Evelina introduced Olivia otherwise the case against her shall be resolved on the basis of
to her husband who, after learning that they both hail from the record on file. Accordingly, the First Division issued the
Batangas, asked for Olivia's cellphone number. Little did Evelina pertinent Resolution16 dated April 28, 2010, which was, however,
know that said casual meeting would eventually blossom into an returned unserved with the notation “No occupant at given
amorous relationship between Olivia and her husband. address”. It was served anew per Resolution17 dated August 16,
2010, but was likewise returned unserved for the reason “RTS-
Evelina claimed that she learned about the affair the following Moved”.18 The Court thereafter sent the case back to the OCA for
year, 2006, when her husband asked to withdraw P180,000.00 evaluation, report and recommendation.19
from their joint bank account to lend to his brother, Reynaldo,
who was then confined in the hospital. She later found out from Upon verification with the Office of Administrative Services
the latter's wife, Ana Fe, that Avelino gave him (Reynaldo) only (OAS), it was found that Olivia had filed a letter20 of resignation
P80,000.00. Ana Fe cautioned Evelina against releasing more dated June 11, 2009, which was favorably endorsed21 both by the
money to her husband who has a mistress working at the City Presiding Judge of Branch 82 and the Executive Judge of the RTC.
Hall. In a subsequent letter22 dated August 12, 2009, Presiding Judge
Severino B. De Castro, Jr. informed the OCA that Olivia had gone
Upon investigation, Evelina learned that on two separate to the United States, and that it was not known whether she
occasions in 2006, her husband had gone to Olivia’s house in San intended to return to the country. Hence, upon the
Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, accompanied by his friend, Engr. recommendation23 of the OCA, the resignation was accepted by
Pacifico “Jun” R. Sabigan. On both occasions, according to Sabigan, this Court on February 26, 2010 without prejudice to the
they had some drinks, and Olivia danced. Avelino, already tipsy, outcome of the instant administrative case.
danced with her. Although Sabigan did not witness any
compromising exchanges between the two, nonetheless, Avelino On August 11, 2011, the OCA reported its findings24 on the case
had confided to him that he and Olivia were seeing each other, and recommended that:
and that he had been giving Olivia P5,000.00 for her groceries.4
1. The instant administrative matter be RE-DOCKETED as a
Evelina confronted her husband right away. He was tight-lipped regular administrative complaint against Olivia C. Espeleta,
at first, but he eventually admitted his romantic involvement with former Interpreter III. Regional Trial Court, Branch 82, Quezon
Olivia. Worse, Evelina discovered that her husband, using their City; and
conjugal funds, had been depositing substantial amounts of
money to Olivia's Landbank account5 for three years spanning 2. Respondent Olivia C. Espeleta be found GUILTY of Gross
2006 to 2009, as well as to the Metrobank account6 of the latter's Immoral Conduct, and be ORDERED to pay a FINE in the amount
daughter, Ana Kharmela E. Rules. He also made deposits to the of P50,000.00, which may be deducted from whatever sums that
Landbank accounts of Olivia's co-employees, Pacencia are due her, as accrued leave credits, if sufficient.25
Rodriguez7 and Olga Abesamis8. When confronted, Olga allegedly
confirmed that the deposits to her account were for the benefit of The Issue
Olivia who, at that time, had no ATM card.
The only issue to be resolved is whether respondent Olivia C.
Evelina claimed that more than P3 Million had been deposited to Espeleta is guilty of immoral conduct.
Olivia's account but she was able to retain in her possession
deposit slips amounting only to P1.429 Million, having lost the The Ruling of the Court
others in a scuffle with her husband, who tore them to pieces and
flushed them in the toilet. For a long time, Avelino was the After a careful evaluation of the records of the instant case, the
administrator of the family-owned JB Crystal Building, which Court finds respondent Olivia C. Espeleta guilty of Disgraceful
earned rentals that he himself collected in cash. This, Evelina and Immoral Conduct under Section 46(b)(5), Chapter 7,
surmised, enabled her husband to support Olivia financially. Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987
which, as defined in Section 1 of CSC Resolution No. 100912
To bolster her claims, Evelina attached to her letter-complaint (1) dated May 17, 2010 (Revised Rules on the Administrative Offense
photocopies9 of cash deposit slips evidencing Avelino's deposits of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct), is “an act which violates the
to Olivia's account wherein he indicated his relationship to the basic norm of decency, morality and decorum abhorred and
latter as a “cousin”, as well as to the accounts of Olivia's daughter condemned by the society” and “conduct which is willful, flagrant
and co-employees; and (2) summaries10 of unremitted rentals or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the
from their commercial building and unauthorized withdrawals opinions of the good and respectable members of the
made by Avelino from their bank account. She likewise submitted community.”
in evidence the affidavits executed by Gloria Tubtub11 and Engr.
Sabigan12 confirming the illicit relationship. Respondent's act of maintaining an illicit relationship with a
married man comes within the purview of disgraceful and
The Action and Recommendation of the OCA immoral conduct,26 which is classified as a grave offense
punishable with suspension from the service for six (6) months
The OCA directed respondent Olivia to comment on the letter- and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense, and dismissal
complaint within ten (10) days from receipt of its 1st for the second offense.27
Indorsement13 dated May 18, 2009. However, Olivia failed to
comply therewith. A similar notice14 was subsequently issued by In Sealana-Abbu vs. Laurenciana-Huraño28 (2007), where two
the OCA on August 19, 2009, to no avail. On January 21, 2010, the court stenographers engaged in an illicit affair were suspended
OCA reported15 the matter to this Court recommending that for one (1) year, the Court emphasized that “(i)t is morally

4
reprehensible for a married man or woman to maintain intimate found GUILTY of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct. In view of
relations with another person of the opposite sex other than his her resignation, a FINE in the amount of P50,000.00 is imposed
or her spouse.” In Elape vs. Elape29 (2008), a process server of the on respondent, to be deducted from her accrued leave credits, if
RTC was suspended for six (6) months and one (1) day for sufficient; otherwise, she is ORDERED to pay the amount of the
cohabiting with his mistress, abandoning his family and depriving fine directly to this Court.
them of financial support. Another process server was suspended
for the same period in Regir vs. Regir30 (2009) for carrying on an The Employees Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services
illicit relationship with a woman not his wife, with whom he of the Office of the Court Administrator, is DIRECTED to compute
begot a child. Recently, in Babante-Caples vs. Caples31 (2010), a respondent’s accrued leave credits, if any, and deduct therefrom
utility worker in the MTC, who had resigned, was nonetheless the amount representing the payment of the fine.
ordered to pay a fine for maintaining an illicit relationship with a
woman not his wife. Let a copy of this Decision be filed in the personal record of
respondent.
As in Babante-Caples, respondent herein was given the
opportunity to be heard and refute the charges against her; yet, SO ORDERED.
she chose not to file any comment. Instead, as aptly pointed out
by the OCA, respondent rather hastily tendered her resignation
on June 11, 2009, just a few days after receipt on June 2, 200932 of
the 1st Indorsement specifically requiring her to answer the G.R. No. 192813 January 18, 2012
letter-complaint. That respondent fully intended to run away
from accountability for her indiscretions is betrayed by her VASHDEO GAGOOMAL, Petitioner,
perfectly-timed departure for the United States of America vs.
shortly after her resignation. Respondent's actuations when SPOUSES RAMON AND NATIVIDAD
confronted with the charges against her are, thus, strongly VILLACORTA, Respondents.
indicative of guilt on her part.
DECISION
The deposit slips indicating various amounts credited both
directly and indirectly to respondent's account indubitably prove
the allegation that she had been receiving substantial amounts of PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
money from complainant's husband, in callous disregard of the
heartache and financial dislocation of the latter's family. There Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of
could thus not be any serious doubt that respondent was indeed the Rules of Court is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals ("CA")
in an intimate relationship with Avelino, a married man. dated March 8, 2010 in CA-G.R. SP No. 109004, as well as the
Resolution2 dated July 7, 2010 denying the motion for
In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence, i.e., that reconsideration thereof. The dispositive portion of the assailed
amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept Decision reads:
as adequate to support a conclusion, is required.33The standard
of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED.
ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the The assailed Orders dated August 5, 2008 and March 20, 2009
misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be issued by Hon. Danilo S. Cruz of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
overwhelming or even preponderant.34 152, Pasig City are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and
another one entered, the Motion to Quash Writ of Possession filed
"It cannot be overstressed that the image of a court of justice is by spouses Ramon and Natividad Villacorta in Civil Case No.
mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel 67381 is GRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, the Writ of Possession
who work thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel. issued in Civil Case No. 67381 is ordered QUASHED.
Court employees have been enjoined to adhere to the exacting
standards of morality and decency in their professional and
private conduct in order to preserve the good name and integrity SO ORDERED."
of courts of justice."35 This Court has thus consistently penalized
court personnel who had been found wanting of such standards, The Facts
even if they have precipitately resigned from their positions.
Resignation should not be used either as an escape or as an easy Albert Zeñarosa ("Zeñarosa") was the registered owner of a
way out to evade an administrative liability or an administrative parcel of land located in Ayala Alabang Village, Alabang,
sanction.36 Muntinlupa City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. 170213. He mortgaged the same in favor of BPI Family
Had respondent not resigned from the service, she would have Savings Bank ("BPI") which was duly annotated on the title on
been suspended for six months and one day in accordance with June 7, 1990.
the prescribed penalty in the Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service37, this being her first offense involving
immorality. Instead, the Court adopts the OCA's recommended Subsequently, Zeñarosa obtained a loan in the amount of
fine in the amount of P50,000.00 not exceeding respondent's six $300,000.00 from RAM Holdings Corporation ("RAM"), secured
months' salary, which may be deducted from her accrued leave by a second mortgage3 over the property and a Promissory Note4 .
credits, if sufficient. The parties likewise executed a Memorandum of
Agreement5 ("MOA") dated March 2, 1995 whereby Zeñarosa,
WHEREFORE, respondent OLIVIA C. ESPELETA is through an Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney, authorized

5
RAM, among others, to sell the subject property in case of his ₱6,000,000.00. Immediately after purchasing the property,
failure to pay. respondents took possession thereof.

Zeñarosa failed to settle his obligations prompting RAM to file a Meanwhile, Zeñarosa's appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 84523 was
Complaint6 for collection of sum of money with damages against dismissed, and the decision in favor of RAM became final and
him and BPI before the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 152, docketed executory on October 7, 2005. With a sale annotated in its favor,
as Civil Case No. 67381. RAM also caused the annotation of a and without Zeñarosa exercising his right of redemption, a final
notice of lis pendens on TCT No. 170213 on June 11, 1999. Deed of Sale was issued in favor of petitioner, the successor-in-
interest of RAM, on December 14, 2005. By virtue of a writ of
Pending Civil Case No. 67381, Zeñarosa failed to pay his possession11 issued by the RTC on February 1, 2007 in Civil Case
obligation to BPI resulting in the foreclosure of the subject No. 67381, petitioner divested the respondents of possession of
property. The certificate of sale was annotated on TCT No. the disputed property.
170213 on March 24, 2000.
The foregoing developments prompted the respondents to file a
Meanwhile, RAM sold its rights and interests over the subject Motion to Quash Writ of Possession12 in Civil Case No. 67381
property to New Summit International, Inc., represented by its before the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 152, on March 20, 2007.
President, Vashdeo Gagoomal, herein petitioner. The assignment They also filed a case for quieting of title and recovery of
was annotated on TCT No. 170213 on October 16, 2000. possession before the RTC of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276,
docketed as Civil Case No. 08-011.
On August 29, 2002, one Luis P. Lorenzo, Jr. ("Lorenzo") filed a
complaint for recovery of sum of money with application for a On August 5, 2008, the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 152, issued an
writ of preliminary attachment against Zeñarosa before the RTC Order13 in Civil Case No. 67381 denying respondents' Motion to
of Makati City, Branch 64, docketed as Civil Case No. 02-1038. A Quash Writ of Possession. It also directed the Registry of Deeds of
writ of preliminary attachment was issued on September 20, Muntinlupa City to issue a new transfer certificate of title in the
2002, pursuant to which the Branch Sheriff of Makati City name of petitioner Vashdeo Gagoomal. The motion for
attached the subject property. The lien was annotated on TCT No. reconsideration14thereof was similarly denied.15
170213 on September 30, 2002.
Aggrieved, the respondents filed a petition for certiorari with
On the other hand, Zeñarosa redeemed the foreclosed property prayer for injunctive relief16 before the CA, ascribing grave abuse
from BPI on March 23, 2003.1âwphi1 Thereafter, he sold the of discretion on the part of the RTC in directing the "transfer of
property to a certain Patricia A. Tan ("Tan") in whose favor TCT title over the subject property" to petitioner; in denying their
No. 102067 was issued on April 4, 2003. The annotations of the motion to quash the writ of possession; and in refusing to restore
notice of lis pendens in Civil Case No. 67381, as well as the notice to them the possession of the subject property.
of levy on attachment in Civil Case No. 02-1038, were carried
over to her title. In its assailed Decision, the CA granted respondents' petition,
ratiocinating as follows:
In the meantime, in Civil Case No. 02-1038, Lorenzo obtained a
favorable decision which had become final and executory. A "Records show that spouses Villacorta derived their rights in the
notice of levy and execution on the subject attached property was subject property from their predecessor-in-interest, Lorenzo,
issued and annotated on the title. On January 15, 2004, the who purchased the same in a sale on execution on January 15,
property was sold at public auction to 2004. The title to the subject property was consolidated in favor
of Lorenzo on January 29, 2005 and said annotation was reflected
Lorenzo for ₱9,034,166.00 and the Certificate of Sale was on the certificate of title. Gagoomal, on his part, maintains that he
annotated on TCT No. 10206 on January 30, 2004, giving has a superior right over Lorenzo because his predecessor-in-
Zeñarosa until January 29, 2005 within which to redeem the interest, Ram, was able to cause the annotation of lis
property. pendens ahead of Lorenzo's writ of attachment.

Subsequently, or on April 30, 2004, the RTC rendered judgment The fact that the notice of lis pendens regarding to [sic] Civil Case
in favor of RAM in Civil Case No. 67381 for sum of No. 67381 was annotated ahead of the attachment of the subject
money.8 Pending Zeñarosa's appeal to the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. property in Civil Case No. 02-1038 is of no moment. Hence, We
CV No. 84523, RAM filed a motion for execution pending appeal, agree with spouses Villacorta that Gagoomal did not acquire any
which was granted.9 On December 14, 2004, the property subject title to the property since what he purchased during the public
of notice of lis pendenswas sold at public auction to petitioner, the auction on October 14, 2004 was only the remaining right of
successor-in-interest of RAM, for ₱19,793,500.00.10 The redemption of Zeñarosa.
certificate of sale was annotated on Tan's TCT No. 10206 on
December 17, 2004. xxx xxx xxx

On January 29, 2005, in view of Zeñarosa's failure to redeem the In the present case, the annotation of Ram of the lis pendens was
property from Lorenzo, the title over the subject property was improper because the case filed by Ram against Zeñarosa was
consolidated in the latter's name. A writ of possession was issued purely a personal action. Civil Case No. 67381, entitled Ram
in favor of Lorenzo, who subsequently sold the property to Holdings Corporation vs. Albert Zeñarosa, et. al., is for Collection of
Natividad Villacorta, one of the respondents herein, for Sum of Money with Damages. It has been held that the doctrine

6
of lis pendenshas no application to a proceeding in which the only The petition is bereft of merit.
object sought is the recovery of a money judgment, though the
title or right of possession to property may be affected. It is A writ of possession is an order by which the sheriff is
essential that the property be directly affected, as where the commanded to place a person in possession of a real or personal
relief sought in the action or suit includes the recovery of property. We clarified in the case of Motos v. Real Bank (A Thrift
possession, or the enforcement of a lien, or an adjudication Bank), Inc.19 that a writ of possession may be issued under any of
between conflicting claims of title, possession, or right of the following instances: (a) land registration proceedings under
possession to specific property, or requiring its transfer or sale Section 17 of Act No. 49620 ; (b) judicial foreclosure, provided the
[citation omitted]"17 debtor is in possession of the mortgaged realty and no third
person, not a party to the foreclosure suit, had intervened; and
Essentially, the CA concluded that the RTC committed grave (c) extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under
abuse of discretion when it ordered the Register of Deeds to Section 7 of Act No. 3135 as amended by Act No. 411821 .
transfer to petitioner the title and possession of the subject
property notwithstanding unrebutted evidence that Zeñarosa, Corollary thereto, Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
the judgment debtor in Civil Case No. 67381, was no longer its provides:
owner and had only the remaining right of redemption at the
time the property was sold at public auction to petitioner on
December 14, 2004. "SEC. 33. Deed and possession to be given at expiration of
redemption period; by whom executed or given. - If no
redemption be made within one (1) year from the date of the
Corollary thereto, the CA held that the power of the RTC to registration of the certificate of sale, the purchaser is entitled to a
execute its judgment extends only to property belonging to the conveyance and possession of the property; or, if so redeemed
judgment debtor in Civil Case No. 67381, Zeñarosa in this case, whenever sixty (60) days have elapsed and no other redemption
and did not include the respondents. The CA likewise refused to has been made, and notice thereof given, and the time for
give merit to petitioner's contentions that the respondents can no redemption has expired, the last redemptioner is entitled to the
longer ask for the modification or abrogation of the decision of conveyance and possession; but in all cases the judgment obligor
the RTC which had already attained finality, and that since the shall have the entire period of one (1) year from the date of the
writ of possession had already been implemented, then it can no registration of the sale to redeem the property. The deed shall be
longer be quashed. executed by the officer making the sale or by his successor in
office, and in the latter case shall have the same validity as though
The Issues the officer making the sale had continued in office and executed
it.
Hence, this petition advancing the following issues for Our
resolution, to wit: Upon the expiration of the right of redemption, the purchaser or
redemptioner shall be substituted to and acquire all the rights,
"I. title, interest and claim of the judgment obligor to the property as
of the time of the levy. The possession of the property shall be
given to the purchaser or last redemptioner by the same officer
RESPONDENTS DO NOT HAVE A RIGHTFUL CLAIM TO unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to
THE PROPERTY. the judgment obligor."

II. In this case, the writ of possession was issued and executed in
favor of petitioner under the foregoing provision. However, a
RESPONDENTS HAD NO BASIS TO ASK FOR THE punctilious review of the records will show that its grant
QUASHAL OF THE WRIT OF POSSESSION. and enforcement against the subject property, over which the
respondents – third parties to Civil Case No. 67381 – claim an
III. adverse interest, are devoid of legal basis.

THE PASIG REGIONAL TRIAL COURT CAN RULE ON It is a basic principle of law that money judgments are
TRANSFER OF TITLE. enforceable only against property incontrovertibly belonging to
the judgment debtor, and if property belonging to any third
person is mistakenly levied upon to answer for another man’s
IV. indebtedness, such person has all the right to challenge the levy
through any of the remedies provided for under the Rules of
PETITIONER'S RIGHTS ARE SUPERIOR TO THAT OF Court. Section 1622 , Rule 39 thereof specifically provides that a
RESPONDENT'S. third person may avail himself of the remedies of
either terceria, to determine whether the sheriff has rightly or
V. wrongly taken hold of the property not belonging to the
judgment debtor or obligor, or an independent "separate action"
to vindicate their claim of ownership and/or possession over the
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION foreclosed property.23 However, "a person other than the
OVERSTEPPED ISSUES."18 judgment debtor who claims ownership or right over the levied
properties is not precluded from taking other legal remedies to
The Ruling of the Court prosecute his claim".24

7
In the present case, respondents filed a motion to quash the writ Thus, a notice of lis pendens is only valid and effective when it
of possession substantiating their preferential rights over the affects title over or right of possession of a real property.
subject property which they had purchased from Lorenzo. As
earlier stated, Lorenzo, in Civil Case No. 02-1038, caused the In this case, it cannot be denied that Civil Case No. 67381, which
annotation of a writ of preliminary attachment on September 30, RAM, predecessor-in-interest of petitioner, instituted against
2002 and thereafter, a notice of levy and execution, finally Zeñarosa was for collection of sum of money with damages –
acquiring the property in a public auction sale on January 30, a purely personal action. Hence, the notice of lis pendens in favor
2004. Similarly, respondents have instituted a separate civil of RAM annotated on the cancelled TCT No. 170213 and carried
action for quieting of title and recovery of property before the over to Tan's TCT No. 10206 conferred upon it no rights over the
RTC of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276, docketed as Civil Case No. subject property and, as a necessary consequence, upon
08-011. petitioner, its successor-in-interest.

Petitioner's argument that he acquired a superior right over the To be sure, in Atlantic Erectors, Inc. v. Herbal Cove Realty
subject property by virtue of the earlier annotation of a notice Corporation27 , We have previously explained that the doctrine
of lis pendens on June 11, 1999 by his predecessor-in-interest of lis pendens has no application to a proceeding in which the only
RAM on the same title cannot be given credence. object sought is the recovery of a money judgment, though the
title or right of possession to property be incidentally affected. It
Section 14, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides: is essential that the property be directly affected such as when
the relief sought in the action or suit includes the recovery of
"Sec. 14. Notice of lis pendens. - In an action affecting the title or possession, or the enforcement of a lien, or an adjudication
the right of possession of real property, the plaintiff and the between conflicting claims of title, possession, or the right of
defendant, when affirmative relief is claimed in his answer, may possession to specific property, or requiring its transfer or sale.
record in the office of the registry of deeds of the province in Even if a party initially avails of a notice of lis pendens upon the
which the property is situated a notice of the pendency of the filing of a case in court, such notice is rendered nugatory if the
action. Said notice shall contain the names of the parties and the case turns out to be a purely personal action. In such event, the
object of the action or defense, and a description of the property notice of lis pendens becomes functus officio.
in that province affected thereby. Only from the time of filing
such notice for record shall a purchaser, or encumbrancer of the Accordingly, petitioner has not created a superior right over the
property affected thereby, be deemed to have constructive notice subject property as against respondents by reason of the prior
of the pendency of the action, and only of its pendency against the annotation in 1999 of the notice of lis pendens by his predecessor
parties designated by their real names. RAM. Hence, the subsequent levy on execution on October 14,
2004 arising from the final money judgment in favor of petitioner
The notice of lis pendens hereinabove mentioned may be cannot prevail over the earlier annotated attachment made by
cancelled only upon order of the court, after proper showing that Lorenzo on September 30, 2002 and its subsequent notice of levy
the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party, or on execution and sale of the property to respondents on January
that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who 30, 2004, who then took possession. On October 14, 2004, what
caused it to be recorded." [emphasis ours] petitioner merely levied upon on execution was the remaining
redemption rights of Zeñarosa until January 29, 2005 which
period expired without any redemption having been made.
The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a dual effect: (1) to keep Consequently, the writ of possession issued as a result of a
the property subject matter of the litigation within the power of wrongful execution was not proper and cannot be enforced
the court until the entry of the final judgment in order to prevent against the respondents who are third parties in possession of
the defeat of the final judgment by successive alienations; and (2) and claiming an adverse interest on the property in controversy.
to bind a purchaser, bona fide or otherwise, of the property
subject of the litigation to the judgment that the court will
subsequently promulgate.25 It bears to stress that the court issuing the writ of execution may
enforce its authority only over properties or rights of the judgment
debtor, and the sheriff acts properly only when he subjects to
Relative thereto, a notice of lis pendens is proper in the following execution property undeniably belonging to the judgment debtor.
actions and their concomitant proceedings: Should the sheriff levy upon the assets of a third person in which
the judgment debtor has not even the remotest interest, then he
"(a) an action to recover possession of real estate; is acting beyond the limits of his authority. A judgment can only
be executed or issued against a party to the action, not against
(b) an action to quiet title thereto; one who has not yet had his day in court.28

(c) an action to remove clouds thereon; Neither can We affirm petitioner's contention that in seeking the
quashal of the writ of possession, the respondents were, in effect,
asking the RTC to abrogate its decision, which had already
(d) an action for partition; and attained finality. As correctly observed29by the CA, the quashal of
a writ of possession does not have the effect of modifying or
(e) any other proceedings of any kind in Court directly abrogating the judgment of the RTC. "The settled rule is that a
affecting the title to the land or the use or occupation judgment which has acquired finality becomes immutable and
thereof or the buildings thereon."26 unalterable, and hence may no longer be modified in any respect
except only to correct clerical errors or mistakes – all the issues
between the parties being deemed resolved and laid to rest."30 To
8
reiterate, however, the court's power with regard to execution of the two. Listening through the extension phone, he heard
judgments extends only to properties irrefutably belonging to the respondent utter the words "I love you, I'll call you later". When
judgment debtor, which does not obtain in this case. confronted, his wife initially denied any amorous involvement
with respondent but eventually broke down and confessed to
Therefore, petitioner's contention that the writ of possession had their love affair that began in 1993. Respondent likewise
already been enforced and can no longer be quashed deserves admitted the relationship. Subsequently, at a meeting initiated by
scant consideration. Unquestionably, the RTC has a general respondent and held at the Salibao Restaurant in Burnham Park,
supervisory control over the entire execution process, and such Baguio City, respondent and complainant's wife, Ma. Elena,
authority carries with it the right to determine every question confessed anew to their illicit affair before their respective
which may be invariably involved in the execution.31 Respondents spouses.
invoked this supervisory power when they sought the quashal of
the writ of possession. On May 15, 1995, the parties met again at the Mandarin
Restaurant in Baguio City and, in the presence of a Notary Public,
Atty. Liberato Tadeo, respondent and Ma. Elena executed and
Finally, considering the circumstances of this case, We cannot signed an affidavit[2] attesting to their illicit relationship and
uphold the RTC's directive to transfer the title over the subject seeking their respective spouses' forgiveness, as follows:
property from respondents to petitioner, for utter lack of legal
basis. To emphasize, apart from the motion to quash the writ of
"WE, GEORGE M. FLORENDO, a resident of Baguio City and of
possession, respondents have instituted a case for quieting of
legal age and MA. ELENA T. TIONG, likewise a resident of Baguio
title and recovery of possession before the RTC of Muntinlupa
City, of legal age, depose and state:
City, docketed as Civil Case No. 08-011.
We committed adultery against our spouses from May 1993 to
In sum, We find that the RTC erred in implementing the writ of May 13, 1995 and we hereby ask forgiveness and assure our
execution against the subject property which does not irrefutably spouses that this thing will never happen again with us or any
belong to Zeñarosa, the judgment debtor in Civil Case No. 67381. other person. We assure that we will no longer see each other nor
Hence, the writ of possession issued relative thereto was likewise have any communication directly or indirectly. We shall comply
improper and must necessarily be quashed, as correctly ruled by with our duties as husband and wife to our spouses and assure
the CA. Accordingly, since the respondents were unduly deprived that there will be no violence against them. That any behaviour
of possession of the subject property, they must be immediately unbecoming a husband or wife henceforth shall give rise to legal
restored into its possession, without prejudice to the result of action against us; We shall never violate this assurance;
Civil Case No. 08-011.
We, the offended spouses Elizabeth F. Florendo and Elpidio Tiong
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed forgive our spouses and assure them that we will not institute
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are any criminal or legal action against them because we have
hereby AFFIRMED. forgiven them. If they violate this agreement we will institute
legal action.
SO ORDERED.
This document consists of four (4) typewritten copies and each
party has been furnished a copy and this document shall have no
THIRD DIVISION validity unless signed by all the parties.
[ A.C. No. 4428, December 12, 2011 ] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have set out hands this 15th day of
ELPIDIO P. TIONG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. GEORGE M. May 1995 at Baguio City, Philippines.
FLORENDO, RESPONDENT.
(SIGNED) (SIGNED)
DECISION GEORGE M. FLORENDO ELPIDIO TIONG
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is an administrative complaint[1] for disbarment
filed by Elpidio P. Tiong against Atty. George M. Florendo for (SIGNED) (SIGNED)
gross immorality and grave misconduct. MA. ELENA T. TIONG ELIZABETH F. FLORENDO"

The facts of the case are as follows: Notwithstanding, complainant instituted the present suit for
disbarment on May 23, 1995 charging respondent of gross
Complainant Elpidio P. Tiong, an American Citizen, and his wife, immorality and grave misconduct. In his Answer[3], respondent
Ma. Elena T. Tiong, are real estate lessors in Baguio City. They are admitted the material allegations of the complaint but interposed
likewise engaged in the assembly and repair of motor vehicles in the defense of pardon.
Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan. In 1991, they engaged the services of
respondent Atty. George M. Florendo not only as legal counsel but In the Resolution[4] dated September 20, 1995, the Court resolved
also as administrator of their businesses whenever complainant to refer the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
would leave for the United States of America (USA). investigation and decision.

Sometime in 1993, complainant began to suspect that respondent Finding merit in the complaint, the Commission on Bar Discipline
and his wife were having an illicit affair. His suspicion was (CBD), through Commissioner Agustinus V. Gonzaga, submitted
confirmed in the afternoon of May 13, 1995 when, in their its Report and Recommendation[5] dated September 21, 2007 for
residence, he chanced upon a telephone conversation between the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for one (1)

9
year, which was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of warranting disciplinary action from the Court.[13] Section 27, Rule
Governors in its Resolution[6] dated October 19, 2007. 138 of the Rules of Court provides that an attorney may be
Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration[7] therefrom was disbarred or suspended from his office by the Court for any
denied in the Resolution[8] dated June 26, 2011. deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly
immoral conduct, among others.
Hence, the instant petition on the sole issue - whether the pardon
extended by complainant in the Affidavit dated May 15, 1995 is Respondent, however, maintains that he cannot be sanctioned for
sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the present disbarment case his questioned conduct because he and Ma. Elena had already
against respondent for gross immoral conduct. been pardoned by their respective spouses in the May 15, 1995
Affidavit[14].
After due consideration, the Court resolves to adopt the findings
and recommendation of the IBP-CBD except as to the penalty The Court disagrees.
imposed.
It bears to stress that a case of suspension or disbarment is sui
The pertinent provisions in the Code of Professional generis and not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil
Responsibility provide, thus: case but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of
its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the
"CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, courts. It is not an investigation into the acts of respondent as a
OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR husband but on his conduct as an officer of the Court and his
LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.[15] Hence, the Affidavit
dated March 15, 1995, which is akin to an affidavit of desistance,
Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, cannot have the effect of abating the instant proceedings.[16]
immoral or deceitful conduct.
However, considering the circumstances of this case, the Court
xxxx finds that a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six
(6) months, instead of one (1) year as recommended by the IBP-
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE CBD, is adequate sanction for the grossly immoral conduct of
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND respondent.
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO is
xxxx hereby found GUILTY of Gross Immorality and
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6)
Rule 7.03. - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely MONTHS effective upon notice hereof, with a STERN
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in WARNINGthat a repetition of the same or similar offense will be
public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the dealt with more severely.
discredit of the legal profession."
Let copies of this Decision be entered in the personal record of
It has been consistently held by the Court that possession of good respondent as a member of the Philippine Bar and furnished the
moral character is not only a condition for admission to the Bar Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
but is a continuing requirement to maintain one's good standing and the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the
in the legal profession. It is the bounden duty of law practitioners country.
to observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard
the integrity of the Bar.[9] Consequently, any errant behaviour on SO ORDERED.
the part of a lawyer, be it in his public or private activities, which
tends to show him deficient in moral character, honesty, probity
or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant his suspension or
disbarment.

In this case, respondent admitted his illicit relationship with a

married woman not his wife, and worse, that of his client.
Contrary to respondent's claim, their consortium cannot be
classified as a mere "moment of indiscretion"[10]considering that
it lasted for two (2) years and was only aborted when
complainant overheard their amorous phone conversation on
March 13, 1995.

Respondent'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.[11] Likewise, he violated the trust and confidence
reposed on him by complainant which in itself is prohibited
under Canon 17[12] of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Undeniably, therefore, his illicit relationship with Ma. Elena
amounts to a disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct

10