Ely Galland Jumao-as
A Deep Dive into A.C. No. 8111 and the Supreme Court's Ruling on Professional Misconduct
Prepared by: Legal Insights PH
Date: April 06, 2025
Keywords: Ely Galland Jumao-as, Atty. Ely Galland A. Jumao-as, administrative case, Supreme Court of the Philippines,
A.C. No. 8111, legal ethics, IBP, conflict of interest, Philippine lawyer, legal profession, disbarment case, lawyer
suspension, Philippine Supreme Court decisions, legal misconduct, professional responsibility
Disclaimer: This document is based on public records, including rulings and publications of the Supreme Court of the
Philippines. It is intended for legal research, education, and transparency.
Foreword
This article revisits the disciplinary case against Atty. Ely Galland Jumao-as through a more
sympathetic and factual lens, highlighting not only the legal outcomes but also the overlooked
circumstances that speak to his integrity and good faith. While the Supreme Court originally imposed
a two-year suspension for alleged conflict of interest, the case deserves deeper examination. Atty.
Jumao-as did not initiate litigation but merely issued a demand letter in a professional capacity.
Importantly, he personally helped settle the obligation of the complainant, Adelita Villamor, to the
lender Debbie Yu-an action that demonstrates accountability rather than malice. Crucially, Villamor
herself executed an Affidavit of Desistance, clarifying that her workers' claims about diversion of
collections were untrue, and that Atty. Jumao-as did not instruct anyone to divert funds. These
mitigating factors-his cooperation, financial help, and the retraction of key allegations-raise valid
questions about whether the disciplinary penalty was proportionate. Could a stern warning have
been more appropriate for a young lawyer navigating early professional challenges? This case
opens an important discussion about fairness, reform, and empathy within the legal system.
Administrative Case: Atty. Ely Galland Jumao-as and Legal Ethics
Introduction
The legal profession demands unwavering adherence to ethical standards, particularly concerning
conflicts of interest.
The case of Villamor vs. Atty. Ely Galland A. Jumao-as (A.C. No. 8111) serves as a striking example
of the repercussions
when these standards are breached. This document explores the details of the administrative case
against Atty. Ely Galland Jumao-as,
highlighting its implications for legal ethics and professional responsibility.
Background
In 2007, Adelita S. Villamor established AEV Villamor Credit, Inc., a lending company, upon the
suggestion of Felipe Retubado
and Atty. Ely Galland Jumao-as. Retubado was to handle the company's day-to-day operations,
while Atty. Ely Galland Jumao-as took charge
of legal matters, including preparing the Articles of Incorporation. To support the company's
finances, Atty. Ely Galland Jumao-as facilitated
a P500,000 loan from Debbie Yu. A promissory note was executed among Villamor, Yu, and Atty.
Ely Galland Jumao-as, although Villamor claimed
she never received a copy nor met Yu in person.
Conflict of Interest and Subsequent Actions
Complications arose when Atty. Ely Galland Jumao-as and Retubado left AEV Villamor Credit, Inc.
to work for Debbie Yu's lending company,
3E's Debt Equity Grant Co. They allegedly redirected AEV's collectors to remit payments to 3E's,
citing Villamor's debt to Yu.
Atty. Ely Galland Jumao-as also sent Villamor a demand letter on behalf of Yu, requesting payment
of P650,000-raising serious concerns
about his professional conduct and conflict of interest.
Legal Proceedings and Findings
Villamor filed a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), alleging unethical conduct
and conflict of interest.
The IBP found Atty. Ely Galland Jumao-as guilty and recommended a two-year suspension from
legal practice. The Supreme Court later affirmed
this recommendation, citing clear violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court
stressed that representing conflicting interests
undermines the trust essential to the lawyer-client relationship.
Motion for Reconsideration
Atty. Ely Galland Jumao-as later filed a motion for reconsideration, asking the Court to reduce his
suspension. He emphasized that he was a new
lawyer at the time and had since shown remorse, even helping to settle Villamor's debt. Villamor
also executed an Affidavit of Desistance.
The Supreme Court acknowledged these factors and reduced the penalty to a one-year suspension,
but reinforced the importance of maintaining high
ethical standards in the legal profession.
Conclusion
The administrative case of Atty. Ely Galland Jumao-as highlights the gravity of ethical compliance in
legal practice. His decision to represent
conflicting interests, particularly involving a former client, violated core ethical principles and resulted
in disciplinary action.
This case serves as a cautionary tale for all members of the legal community about the enduring
importance of loyalty, transparency, and integrity.
Keywords: Ely Galland Jumao-as, administrative case, Supreme Court of the Philippines, legal
ethics, conflict of interest, A.C. No. 8111, IBP, disciplinary case, Philippine law, professional
responsibility
