Ceniza v. Ceniza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Amalia R. Ceniza filed a letter-complaint against her husband, respondent Atty. Eliseo B. Ceniza, Jr., for alleged immoral conduct. Complainant alleged that they were married on November 12, 1989, and had two children. On April 26, 2008, respondent moved out of their home. Complainant discovered that respondent was allegedly having an extra-marital affair with Anna Fe Flores Binoya. On July 9, 2008, respondent filed a civil action for nullity of marriage. On November 18, 2008, complainant filed a complaint for immorality against respondent before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMBV- A-10-0345-G). On August 5, 2011, the Office of the Ombudsman found respondent guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct and suspended him for six months without pay. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld this decision. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) initially recommended dismissal of the complaint with a warning. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation with modification, deleting the warning and dismissing the case. The Supreme Court referred the case back to the IBP for investigation. Subsequently, the Court set aside its earlier resolution and required respondent to comment on complainant's motion for reconsideration. The case was again referred to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation. The IBP Board of Governors denied the motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case based on the findings and recommendations of the IBP and the Office of the Ombudsman.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Eliseo B. Ceniza, Jr. is guilty of gross immorality for abandoning his family and cohabitating with a married mistress. Whether respondent should be disciplined for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in conduct that reflects adversely on his fitness to practice law and failing to maintain good moral character.
Ruling
The Supreme Court finds and declares respondent Atty. Eliseo B. Ceniza, Jr. guilty of gross immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is disbarred from the practice of law effective upon receipt of this decision, and his name is ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of respondent's guilt for gross immorality: The Court found that respondent failed to disprove the substantial evidence against him, including affidavits and surveillance footage, showing his illicit relationship with Anna Fe Flores Binoya. The Court emphasized that denials are weak without supporting evidence and that the circumstantial evidence compelled the conclusion that respondent had abandoned his wife and children to cohabit with his married mistress, which constitutes gross immorality. The findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, which were adopted and reiterated by the Court, were deemed sufficient to show respondent's immorality and failure to live up to the legal and ethical obligations of a lawyer. On the issue of disciplinary action: The Court held that respondent's conduct violated Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct) and Rule 7.03 (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law or behaves scandalously) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found that the complainant presented clearly preponderant evidence showing that respondent, while lawfully married, maintained an illicit relationship with a married woman. The respondent's failure to present proof of his continued good moral character, coupled with his abandonment of his wife and children to cohabit with his married mistress, transgressed decency and morality, causing suffering to his family. The Court concluded that respondent deserved the extreme penalty of disbarment for failing to possess the requisite good moral character for the practice of law.
Main Doctrine
The abandonment by an attorney of his legitimate family in order to cohabit with a married woman constitutes gross immorality that warrants his disbarment.