View full case

AMALIA R. CENIZA v. ATTY. ELISEO B. CENIZA

FACTS:

The complainant, who is the legitimate wife of the respondent, filed a letter-complaint accusing her husband, a lawyer, of immoral conduct. She alleged that the respondent abandoned their family and cohabited with a married woman named Anna Fe Flores Binoya (Anna). The complainant confirmed the alleged affair when she visited the respondent's workplace and verified the information from Anna's sister. Confronting the respondent, he denied any wrongdoing. Despite the complainant's pleas, the respondent continued the illicit relationship. The complainant then filed a complaint for immorality against the respondent with the Office of the Ombudsman, which found him guilty and suspended him for six months. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld the Office of the Ombudsman's decision. The case was also referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) where the complaint was recommended to be dismissed, with a caution to the respondent to be more circumspect in his actions.

The case involves an administrative suit filed against Atty. Eliseo B. Ceniza Jr. for alleged immorality. The complainant accused Atty. Ceniza of abandoning his legitimate spouse and family to live with a married woman named Anna Fe Flores Binoya. Supporting the claim, affidavits from their daughter, Marie Agnes, as well as two other individuals, Roberto Joseph Galvan and Gabriel Jadraque, were presented. Marie's affidavit stated that she discovered her father's relationship with Binoya and that they were living together. Galvan's affidavit mentioned witnessing Atty. Ceniza and Binoya spending time together at a house in Aldea Buena Subdivision. Jadraque's affidavit stated that he was approached by Atty. Ceniza's wife, who asked for assistance in conducting surveillance on her husband's activities. The Office of the Ombudsman also found against Atty. Ceniza in an administrative case, supporting the charge of immorality. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, and the IBP Board of Governors initially dismissed the charge due to insufficient evidence. However, upon review, the Court set aside the dismissal and required Atty. Ceniza to comment on the complainant's motion for reconsideration. The IBP Board of Governors subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration, prompting the complainant to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The petitioner, Mrs. Ceniza, provided the respondent with information regarding her husband's alleged infidelity. She informed the respondent that her husband had a girlfriend residing at blk 11, lot 27, Aldea Buena Subd., Timpolok, Lapu-Lapu City Cebu. On a specific date, she requested her husband to pick up their daughter from school, predicting the time his car would be in the area where the girlfriend lived. The respondent positioned herself near the place and recorded the events using a videocam. Minutes later, she witnessed a car matching the description and immediately started recording.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Atty. Eliseo B. Ceniza Jr. engaged in an illicit relationship with Anna Fe Binoya.

  2. Whether or not there is substantial evidence to support the finding of an illicit relationship.

  3. Whether the petitioner is guilty of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct

  4. Whether the evidence presented sufficiently established the administrative liability of the petitioner

  5. Whether the respondent's immoral conduct warrants disciplinary action.

  6. Whether the respondent should be disbarred for his gross immorality.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that Atty. Eliseo B. Ceniza Jr. engaged in an illicit relationship with Anna Fe Binoya. The court considered the testimonies of witnesses, photographs, and other documentary evidence presented by the complainant. Despite the lack of direct evidence such as a photograph of the two individuals together, the cumulative evidence was deemed sufficient to establish the illicit relationship.

  2. The Court affirms the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals that the petitioner is guilty of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct.

  3. The positive and categorical assertions of the complainant and the uncontradicted statements of the witnesses that they saw the petitioner staying overnight at the house of the person he was involved with, along with the petitioner's admission of visiting the said person's home, sufficiently establish the petitioner's administrative liability for Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct.

  4. Yes, the respondent's immoral conduct warrants disciplinary action. The Court held that when the integrity or morality of a lawyer is challenged, it is not enough for the lawyer to deny the charges. The lawyer must meet the issue and overcome the evidence presented on the charge. In this case, the respondent failed to present proof that he maintains the degree of integrity and morality expected of him. The respondent's abandoning his wife and family to cohabit with his married mistress, which resulted in the suffering of his wife and children, constituted gross immorality that violated the high standards of morality imposed upon lawyers.

  5. Yes, the respondent should be disbarred for his gross immorality. The Court cited previous cases where lawyers were disbarred for similar immoral conduct, such as abandoning their families and maintaining illicit affairs. The Court reiterated that any lawyer guilty of gross misconduct, even if the misconduct relates to their personal life, may be suspended or disbarred if it evidences a lack of moral character, honesty, probity, or good demeanor. The respondent's scandalous and highly immoral conduct showed that he did not possess the required good moral character for the continued practice of law. Therefore, the Court disbarred the respondent from the practice of law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Denials are weak defense if unsupported by evidence.

  • Denial is an intrinsically weak defense that must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.

  • Substantial evidence refers to relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

  • In cases where there is a lack of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to establish an illicit relationship.

  • It is morally reprehensible for a married person to maintain intimate relations with another person of the opposite sex other than their spouse.

  • Immorality includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness.

  • The burden of proof in disbarment proceedings rests upon the complainant, and the Court will exercise its disciplinary authority only if the case against the respondent is established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence.

  • Direct evidence is not necessary for the adjudication of a dispute, as circumstantial evidence may be available for that purpose.

  • Lawyers are expected to maintain the highest moral standards of the community and conduct themselves in a manner that avoids scandalizing the public by creating the belief that they are flouting the moral standards of the legal profession.

  • The requirement of good moral character is of greater import than the possession of legal learning for lawyers.

  • Any lawyer guilty of gross misconduct may be suspended or disbarred, even if the misconduct relates to their personal life, as long as it evidences a lack of moral character, honesty, probity, or good demeanor.

  • Every lawyer is expected to be honorable and reliable at all times, as those who cannot abide by the laws in their private life cannot be expected to do so in their professional dealings.

  • The abandonment of a spouse and maintaining an illicit affair with another person can constitute gross immorality that warrants disciplinary action, including disbarment.