100 Ferancullo v. Fernacullo, Jr.
100 Ferancullo v. Fernacullo, Jr.
100 Ferancullo v. Fernacullo, Jr.
Doctrine: R130S7 (evidence admissible when original document is a public record) provides that when
the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its
contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.
The rule is that a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its
due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption
of regularity.
FACTS: Aileen was a client of Atty. Ferancullo in an estafa case. During the course of their client-
attorney relationship, a romantic relationship started. They started cohabitating. Aileen became pregnant
with his child. Because of this, they contracted a marriage. However, another client of Atty. Ferancullo
informed Aileen that Atty. Ferancullo was already married. When she confronted him, he admitted such
first marriage but assured her that he was already planning to leave his legal wife. After the confrontation,
their relationship became sour. This prompted Aileen to file an administrative case against Atty.
Ferancullo. The IBP recommended its dismissal on the ground that Aileen failed to show clear and
convincing evidence against Atty. Ferancullo. This was reversed by the SC which ordered Atty.
Ferancullo’s suspension from the practice of law. According to the Court, Aileen has sufficiently provided
evidence of their illicit affair—from the VCD of Atty. Ferancullo’s birthday celebration where he
introduced her as his wife, the pictures showing intimate poses, utility bills, and a certified true copy of
their marriage certificate.
Facts:
This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Aileen Ferancullo against Atty.
Sancho M. Ferancullo, Jr. grounded on his alleged commission of estafa, bigamy and violation of
the lawyer’s oath.
Aileen’s version:
Atty. Ferancullo took advantage of their attorney-client relationship to extort money from her in
consideration of the out-of-court settlement of her criminal cases and deceived her into marrying
him by concealing his previous marriage.
February 2004: A certain SPO1 Lino Taytay referred her to Atty. Ferancullo as she was in need
of legal aid concerning a string of complaints for estafa filed against her. They allegedly agreed to
a monthly retainer fee of ₱10,000 in consideration for his legal services. The first payment was
made in the same month of February at her residence in Central Park Condominium, Pasay City.
Atty. Ferancullo advised her to stay for the meantime at his office to avoid arrest and to keep her
safe from the people suing and threatening her.
She was further prodded to move into a more secure location, the Youth and Student Travel
Association of the Philippines in Parañaque, which allegedly became the start of his courtship.
Atty. Ferancullo would send her breakfast and flowers. He told her that he was still single
although he had a child out of wedlock. She saw no apparent indications suggesting that he was
married.
As indicative of their romantic relationship, they traveled to different places.
In the beginning, he diligently attended to her cases and advised her not to appear at the hearings
before the Office of the Prosecutor, assuring her that he would attempt at a compromise
agreement with the adverse parties.
o For this purpose, between February and July 2004, she entrusted to him varying amounts
of money totaling ₱431,000 based on his assurance that her cases merely involved money
claims which can be settled amicably. She had to ask this amount from her parents.
Furthermore, she did not ask for any receipt evidencing the transaction.
They then moved to a unit in Pasay City where they started living together as husband and wife.
Such unit was purportedly owned by a client of Atty. Ferancullo who agreed to offset the amount
of rental with the legal fees due him.
To corroborate her allegation that they lived together as husband and wife, she annexed to her
complaint-affidavit 5 photographs, 3 of which show their intimate poses.
During Atty. Ferancullo’s birthday celebration, he introduced her as his wife to his guests.
She attached a VCD copy documenting the event. At the start of the video, she can be seen
entertaining the guests and overseeing the food preparation. Early in the party, her three children
arrived. As the guests started to get food from the buffet table, she approached Atty. Ferancullo
who placed his hand on her hips while the latter whispered at him. All throughout the video, she
was either standing behind the buffet table or conversing with Atty. Ferancullo and the guests.
She found out that she was pregnant in June 2004. Because of this, they contracted a marriage in
Kawit, Cavite. She annexed to the complaint a photocopy of the marriage certificate.
2 months thereafter, in a casual conversation with a certain Teresita Santos, another client of
Atty. Ferancullo, Santos told her that Atty. Ferancullo was already married to a certain Marlin M.
Maranan.
She then confronted him who allegedly admitted that he was married but assured complainant
that he was ready to leave his wife so that they can be together. Their relationship turned sour
eventually leading to their separation.
Thereafter, she sought assistance from the IBP. Through a letter, Atty. Romarico Ayson sent a
demand letter to Atty. Ferancullo, urging him to shoulder Aileen’s hospitalization until her
delivery and provide monthly support for the child worth ₱30,000.
She was contending that since their separation, Atty. Ferancullo and his agents had been
threatening her with arrest and lawsuits. She also discovered that the criminal complaints
remained pending filed against her with the OP.
Issues + Held: WON Atty. Ferancullo is found guilty of gross immorality about engaging in illicit
relationships and abandoning his family—YES.
Aileen’s version is more credible. There is substantial evidence suggesting that more than a
business or professional relationship existed between them.
The Court, however, finds no sufficient evidence indicating that he falsely promised the
settlement of Aileen’s criminal cases in consideration of the amount of ₱431,000. The bank
statements showing the deposits made by her parents are not conclusive of said claim because
they do not prove that said amounts were received by respondent.
In Dantes v. Dantes, the Court ordered the disbarment of a lawyer, describing as grossly immoral
his conduct of engaging in illicit relationships and abandoning his family.
It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character has three ostensible purposes,
namely: (i) to protect the public; (ii) to protect the public image of lawyers; and (iii) to protect
prospective clients. A writer added a fourth: to protect errant lawyers from themselves.
Atty. Ferancullo’s intimate relationship with a woman other than his wife shows his moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community. Good moral
character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law. Its continued
possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law.
The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and only in a clear case of misconduct
that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a
member of the bar. Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty, such as
temporary suspension, could accomplish the end desired.
The penalty for maintaining an illicit relationship may either be suspension or disbarment,
depending on the circumstances of the case. In case of suspension, the period would range from
one year to indefinite suspension.
In Dantes v. Atty. Dantes, disbarment was imposed as a penalty on the lawyer who maintained
illicit relationships with at least two women during the subsistence of his marriage.
In the case at bar, the Court finds that suspension from the practice of law is adequate to penalize
respondent for his grossly immoral conduct.
Ruling: Atty. Sancho M. Ferancullo, Jr. is found GUILTY of gross immorality and is SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of two (2) years effective upon notice hereof, with the specific
WARNING that a more severe penalty shall be imposed should he commit the same or a similar offense
hereafter.