CASE DIGESTS

1. Telan v CA
Facts:
Issues:
Ruling:
The right to counsel in civil cases exists just as forcefully as in criminal
cases, especially so when as a consequence, life, liberty, or property is subjected to
restraint or in danger of loss.
There is no reason why the rule in criminal cases has to be different from that in
civil cases. The preeminent right to due process of law applies not only to life and
liberty but also to property. There can be no fair hearing unless a party, who is in
danger of losing his house in which he and his family live and in which he has
established a modest means of livelihood, is given the right to be heard by himself
and counsel.
The right to counsel is absolute and may be invoked at all times. More so, in the
case of an on-going litigation, it is a right that must be exercised at every step of
the way, with the lawyer faithfully keeping his client company.
A client is generally bound by the action of his counsel in the management of a
litigation even by the attorney's mistake or negligence in procedural
technique. 22 But how can there be negligence by the counsel in the case at bar
when the "lawyer", "Atty. Palma," turned out to be fake?

2. Phil Lawyers Assoc v Agrava

Facts:
i.

Respondent Dir. Celedonio Agrava of the Phil Patent Office issued a

circular announcing the examination to qualify those who can be patent
attorneys before the said office.

ii.

Lawyers, engineers and others with sufficient technical training can take
the exam

iii.

Phil Lawyers Assoc assails the circular saying that anyone who passed the
Bar and is in good standing is qualified to practice. The imposition of this
condition precedent is in excess of the resps JD

iv.

Resp contends that:

a.

the prosec of patent cases is not entirely the practice of law but
requires technical and scientific knowledge.

b. He is empowered under the Patent Law of the Philippines w/c is the

same as the US Patent Law that allows the Patent Office to prescribe a
similar exam
Issues:
i.

W/N the appearance, preparation and prosecution of patent applications

constitute practice of law

ii.

W/N the Dir of Patents Office has the right to impose qualifications on
lawyers for practicing before said office

Ruling:
i.

Yes.
a. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct in court litigation. It
covers work that involves the determination by a trained legal mind of
the legal effects of facts and conditions such as preparation of
pleadings and papers incident to actions and social proceedings, all
advices to clients and all action taken on matters in connection with
law, as well as preparation and execution of legal instruments.
Although these are not directly connected with court proceedings, they
are always subject to become involved in litigation.
b. The conduct in assisting clients with their patent application involves
largely the interpretation of the Patent Law and other related laws and
the presentation of evidence to establish facts for which lawyers are
trained to perform.

ii.

No.
a. The Philippine Patent Law is silent about the power of the Director to
impose qualifications such as sufficient knowledge and expertise in the
scientific and technical matters related to patent application that may
take the form of an examination. Unlike the US Patent Law, our own
law only requires that the rules and regulations promulgated by the Dir
of Patent are not inconsistent with law.

b. If the Patent Dir will be allowed as the head of the Patent Office to
require examinations for the practice of lawyers before his office, then
other bureaus chiefs may also be allowed to conduct similar
examinations.
c. The functions of the Patent Director are judicial and quasi-judicial in
nature so much so that his orders and decisions are subject to be taken
before the Supreme Court.
-

Lawyers authorized by SC to practice law and are in good standing may

practice their profession before the Patents Office.

3. Khan v Simbillo
Facts:
i.

Resp Atty. Rizalino Simbillo advertised in the PDI and MB his legal services
for annulment cases

ii.

Upon investigation by the Pub Info Office, it was confirmed that Simbillo is
offering his services to interested clients.

iii.

Ismael Khan, chief of the PIO, filed an administrative charge vs resp for
improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services in violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility

iv.

Resp argues that advertising or solicitation is not per se a prohibited act:

a. Public interest is not served by the absolute prohibition
b. Its time for the Court to promulgate a ruling that such advertisement
is not contrary to law, public policy and public order.

v.

The IBP found the resp guilty and suspended him from the practice of law
for 1 year, writing it in a resolution

Issues:
W/N resps act was a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Ruling:
Yes.
i.

Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code states that a lawyer is prohibited from
performing acts designed to solicit legal business and that he is not
permitted to use self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding
his qualifications or legal services.

ii.

Practice of Law is not a business. It is a profession with public interest

as the primary duty. Its not a money-making venture and law
advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The duty is to
public service and the administration of justice. Elements that
distinguish it from business:
a. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product,
and in which one may attain the highest eminence without making
much money;
b. A relation as an officer of the court to the administration of justice
involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;
c. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
d. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor,
fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current business methods of
advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly
with their clients.

The solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for

solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal

profession. If it is made in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no

injury to the lawyer and to the bar

4. In Re Cunanan
Facts:
i.

From 1946 to 1953, bar takers had difficulty in attaining the passing rate
of 75%.

ii.

Due to the varying strictness in taking the exam during those years, the
Court allowed students with grades lower that 75% to pass the bar.

iii.

Feeling aggrieved, those who got a few percentages lower than those who
were allowed to pass the bar secured the passage of SB No. 2,

iv.

The bill is designed to benefit those who attained grades that are a few
percentage lower than the passing rate. It also provides that those who
obtained 75 in any of the subjects must not be required to take that
subject again in any subsequent exam.

v.

The rationale being, that those who were not able to pass had
insufficiency in reading materials and preparation because they took law
only a short period after the Japanese liberation.

vi.

Senate Bill No. 2 was passed despite the unfavourable comments from the
Court.

Issues:
The constitutionality of SB No. 2
Ruling:
Unconstitutional.
i.

Those who appeal to be considered for law practice without

passing the bar admit that they did not have sufficient reading
materials to study and they had inadequate preparation for the
exam. Allowing them to practice law that requires sufficient
preparation will pose social danger.

ii.

No precedent case in favor of its constitutionality

a. The New York case relied on by those who invoke the constitutionality
of SB No. 2 is inapplicable in the case at bar.
That foreign law does not allow a person who did not pass the
bar to be accepted in the legal practice.
It does not take away from the courts the power of admission to
the bar nor decree any lawyers admission
It just allows the Columbia College diploma to be considered an
evidence of sufficient qualification to the bar because of the
institutions acclaimed reputation in the area of legal education.
It does not run contrary to the constitution

iii.

SB No. 2 makes the admission to the bar a legislative and not a judicial
function.

 The bar is an attache of the courts. The quality of justice

dispensed by the courts depends in no small degree upon the
integrity of its bar. An unfaithful bar may easily bring scandal
and reproach to the administration of justice and bring the
courts themselves into disrepute.
Congress has exceeded its legislative power to repeal,
alter and supplement the rules on admission to the Bar.
While the legislature may legislate with respect to the
qualifications of attorneys to protect public interest, it cannot fix
a standard of qualifications beyond which the court cannot go in
fixing additional qualifications necessary for the proper
administration of judicial functions.
The
pretended
classification
is
arbitrary.
It
is
undoubtedly a class legislation. because the excuses of lack
of preparation and reading materials are contrary to facts which
are of general knowledge and do not justify the admission to the
Bar of law students inadequately prepared.
In decreeing the bar candidates who obtained in the bar
examinations of 1946 to 1952, a general average of 70 per cent
without falling below 50 per cent in any subject, be admitted to
the practice of law, the disputed law is not a legislation; it is a
judgment revoking the promulgation of the courts on
those years.
It seeks to take the place of the judiciary and repeal the will and
judgment of the latter as to the individuals to be admitted in the
Bar.
iv.

Article 2 of Republic Act No. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law,
contrary to what the Constitution enjoins, and being inseparable from the
provisions of article 1, the entire law is void.

v.

Lacking in eight votes to declare the nullity of that part of article 1

referring to the examinations of 1953 to 1955, said part of article 1,
insofar as it concerns the examinations in those years, shall continue in
force

5. Echegaray v Justice Sec

Facts:
i.

Echegaray was convicted by the Court of execution by lethal injection

ii.

The decision was suspended until the Sec. of Justice provides for review
and appeal of the the Lethal Injection Manual as it makes the manual
confidential, depriving the interested parties (convict, counsel and public)
of information on matters of public concern which is entrenched in the
Constitution

iii.

On Jan 4, 1999, SC issued a TRO staying the execution of Echegaray.

Issues:
Resp Sec of Justice, on the other hand contends that:
i.

The TRO is an usurpation of the executives exclusive right to execute the

judgment of conviction because upon the finality of the decision the Court
loses JD over the decision and is a dangerous precedent because it does
not put an end to litigation

ii.

Only the President can grant pardon, commutation or reprieve

iii.

Announcement made by Pres. Estrada, the Golez resolution and the lack
of sufficiency of Rocos reso to repeal the law make any repeal or
modification of the death penalty useless.

Ruling:
i.

No. The issuance of the TRO is well within the powers of the Courts
because it does not lose JD over the decision when the latter becomes
final and executory:
a. The JD of the Court on the execution of its decision remains in its hands
even after it loses JD to repeal, amend or modify the said decision,
which it did upon the finality of the decision. But the rule on finality of
judgment does not divest the Court of JD to execute and enforce the
same because there may be some supervening circumstances that
may render the execution unjust or impossible. Thus, the Court is
allowed to adjust the rights of the litigants.
b. It is a common law doctrine that an execution of a capital sentence
may be postponed at a later date such as by the command of the King,
by the discretion of the Court or by mandate of law.
c. The judiciary has the sole power to enforce its final decisions by setting
the rules on pleading, practice and procedure including the execution
of judgment. The 1987 Constitution took away the power of Congress
to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and
procedure. In fine, the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice
and procedure is no longer shared by this Court with Congress, more
so with the Executive.

ii.

No. The powers of the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary to save
the life of a death convict do not exclude each other for the simple reason

that there is no higher right than the right to life. Congress can amend the
capital punishment law and downgrade the penalty to life imprisonment
as much as the Court can suspend the date of execution of a convict.
iii.

The Court is not divested of its right to issue a TRO because of the same
was based on supervening circumstances stated in the Very Urgent
Motion for Issuance of TRO made by the counsel of the adjudged which
are as follows: the moves in Congress seeking to repeal the law on capital
punishment and other statements of lawmakers against the said law. The
Court issued the TRO because there was no time or opportunity to verify
the reasons of Echegaray and majority of the members of the Court agree
to the postponement of execution. Due to the lack of time before the time
set for execution arrives, the Court resolved to issue the TRO to delay the
execution. It was believed that law and equitable considerations demand
no less before allowing the State to take the life of one its citizens.
Nevertheless, in a marathon session yesterday, the Golez resolution was
signed by 113 congressmen as of January 11, 1999. In addition, the President
has stated that he will not request Congress to ratify the Second Protocol in
review of the prevalence of heinous crimes in the country. In light of these
developments, the Court's TRO should now be lifted as it has served its legal
and humanitarian purpose.

6. Grande v De Silva
Facts:
i.

Pet was the offended party in case of estafa and violation of BP 22.

ii.

Pet was persuaded by the resps lawyer on the previous case to agree on
a settlement by giving pet a check worth almost 145K and giving him
assurance that as a lawyer, he wouldnt issue a bouncing check

iii.

The resp agreed and he ceased to participate on the criminal case filed vs
the first resp leading to the dismissal of the case and release of the
accused

iv.

But when the pet deposited the check, it was returned unpaid for the
reason that the account was already closed.

v.

Pet sent letters to resp de Silva but they were ignored

vi.

Pet then instituted a case of of estafa and violation of BP 22 against resp.

vii.

He also instituted an admin case for the disbarment of de Silva

viii.

The Resolution was returned unserved because the resp already moved to
a different address

ix.

Another Reso was sent to resps latest address for her comment on the
case but it was returned unserved again for the reason that it was refused

x.

In a Report dated December 6, 2001, Investigating Commissioner

Florimond C. Rous found respondent guilty of deceit, gross misconduct
and violation of the Lawyers Oath. Thus, he recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years. IBP
adopted the recommendation.

xi.

Record shows that respondent committed a breach of trust in issuing a

bouncing check, amounting to deceit and constituted a violation of her
oath, for which she should be accordingly penalized.

Issue:
The basis for suspension of resp
Ruling:
i.

The deceit employed by resp is a gross misconduct in the practice of

legal profession that is sanctioned by the Rules of Court through
disbarment or suspension

ii.

Good moral character is a condition precedent to a license to enter

upon the practice of law, the maintenance thereof is equally essential
during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of the
privilege. Gross misconduct puts her moral character in serious doubt
that she may be rendered unfit for the practice of law.

iii.

Evading a debt is a conduct unbecoming and does not speak well of a

member of the bar.

iv.
-

Her deliberate refusal to accept court notices stains the nobility of the
legal profession as it shows lack of respect for authority.

The duty of a lawyer is to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession at all times.

7. Royong v Oblena
Facts:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.

vii.

viii.

Resp Ariston Oblena is a lawyer who had carnal relations with a 17 year
old lady, petitioner Josefina Royong.
Royong is the niece of Oblena who left her husband to be with him.
Pet alleged that she was raped by Oblena resulting to her pregnancy
Royong filed a rape case vs Oblena
SC referred the case to the Sol-Gen for investigation, report and
recommendation
The Sol-Gen, however, found that Royong was more of a sweetheart than
a victim of Oblena since she continuously frequent his house after the
alleged rape incident
It also recommended the permanent disbarment of Oblena and formulated
another complaint for misrepresenting himself as a person of good moral
character when he took the bar, when in fact, he had adulterous relations
with Briccia and maintained an illicit relations with Royong.
Resp filed for the dismissal of the complaint alleging it does not merit an
action because the allegations are different from that of the original rape
complaint

Issue:
W/N the open cohabitation of resp with Briccia and illicit relations with
Royong are sufficient grounds for his disbarment
Ruling:
Yes.
a. It is true that the respondent has not been convicted of rape,
seduction, or adultery on this count, and that the grounds upon which
the disbarment proceedings is based are not among those enumerated
by Section 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court for which a lawyer may
be disbarred. But it has already been held that this enumeration is not
exclusive and that the power of the courts to exclude unfit and
unworthy members of the profession is inherent; it is a necessary
incident to the proper administration of justice; it may be exercised
without any special statutory authority, and in all proper cases unless
positively prohibited by statute.

b. The continued possession of a fair private and professional character

or a good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful
continuance in the practice of law for one who has been admitted, and
its loss requires suspension or disbarment even though the statutes do
not specify that as a ground of disbarment.
c. To continue maintaining adulterous relations with a married woman
and simultaneously maintaining promiscuous relations with the latter's
niece is moral perversion that can not be condoned. Respondent's
conduct therefore renders him unfit and unworthy for the privileges of
the legal profession.
d. The law provides that should the Solicitor General find sufficient
grounds to proceed against the respondent, he shall file the
corresponding complaint, accompanied by the evidence introduced in
his investigation. The Solicitor General therefore is at liberty to file any
case against the respondent he may be justified by the evidence
adduced during the investigation.

8. Cordon v Balicanta
Facts:
i.

An administrative case was filed against Atty. Jesus Balicanta by Rosaura

Cordon

ii.

Cordon alleges that Balicanta was her lawyer in the settlement of the
estate of his deceased husband

iii.

In 1981, Balicanta enticed Cordon and her daughter to organize Rosaura

Enterprises, a corporation with a commercial complex.

iv.

Thereafter, Cordon and daughter assigned 19 parcels of land to Balicanta

and were registered in the name of the corporation

v.

Cordon and daughter became the major stockholder of the corp

vi.

Balicanta single-handedly ran the affairs of the corp and made Cordon
sign a voting trust agreement plus a special power ot atty to sell and MG
some parcels of land inherited by Cordon to a certain Tion Suy Ong.

vii.

Balicanta also submitted a spurious board resolution to the LBP so he can

secure a loan of 2.2M. He mortgaged the 9 parcels of the land contributed
by Cordon.

viii.

Balicanta intended to use the money for the new Baliwasan Commercial
Complex which, upon inspection, Cordon found out it was made of weak
materials that couldnt have cost 2.2M

ix.

Since Balicanta did not pay any of the installment, LBP foreclosed the MG
and sold the right to foreclose as well as another parcel of land to a
certain Jammang.

x.

Then he caused the ancestral house of the complainants to be demolished

and sold the lot to Tion Suy Ong using another false board resolution.

xi.

Balicanta never made any accounting of all these transactions and most
of them are not within the knowledge of the complainants.

xii.

When they found out about it, they demanded that Balicanta return the
real properties and account for the transactions.

xiii.

For failure to do any of these, they terminated the services of Balicanta.

xiv.

Despite his denials, the IBP Commissioner recommended the disbarment

of Balicanta for violation of Rule 1.01 and Canons 15-16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for employing unlawful, dishonest and immoral
acts in the exercise of his profession, for not observing candor, fairness

and loyalty for his dealings with clients, and for not holding in trust the
properties of his clients coming into his possession.
xv.

The IBP Board of Governors, for their part, imposed a 5-year suspension
on him.

Issue:
The penalty to be imposed to Balicanta
Ruling:
i.

The Court supports the findings of the IBP Board that Balicanta committed
condemnable deceit, in dealing with his client.

ii.

He committed grave misconduct that casts dishonor to the legal

profession. He used his knowledge of the law for his personal gains by
using the properties of his client for his own benefit.

iii.

Hes bereft of good moral character that is a requirement in the legal

profession. This is a requirement because a lawyer holds vast interests
and properties of his client, entrusted to him due to an unbounded trust
and confidence given by the client.

iv.

He failed to do his duty to account for all the moeny and property
collected or received from the client.

v.

The veil of corporate identity must be pierced and Balicanta, who

committed fraud, must be held personally liable to the third parties who
contracted with him in good faith.

vi.

The severe penalty of disbarment is imposed upon him for the gravity of
his offenses.

9. Narag v Narag
Facts:
i.

Julieta Narag filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty.

Dominador Narag, her husband, for having an illicit relationship with his
former student and for abandoning his family.

ii.

After the SC referred the case to the IBP for investigation, CJ Marcelo
Fernan received a letter seeking the dismissal of the admin complaint,
saying she had filed it only because of confusion due to extreme jealousy

iii.

But the following month, she, again, filed a complaint with her 7 children
as co-signatories, seeking for Atty. Narags disbarment.

iv.

Atty. Narag denied all the allegations of his wife, stressing that shes just
too jealous and all her accusations are a product of jealousy. He presented
evidence to impeach the credibility of his wife but he did not testify in the
witness stand, nor presented his alleged paramour.

v.

Mrs. Narag, for her part, presented the relatives of the alleged paramour
and her children to testify against Atty. Narag. She also presented
documentary evidence such as love letters of Atty. Narag to the paramour
and photos. All of which prove the adulterous relationship and the fact
that his paramour has borne him two kids.

vi.

The IBP recommended the disbarment of Atty. Narag for violating Canon 1,
Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, for engaging in an immoral, unlawful, dishonest and
deceitful conduct, for not upholding the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and for behaving in a scandalous manner so as to discredit the
legal profession.

Issues:
Penalty to be imposed
Ruling:
i.

Mrs. Narag has the burden of proof that Atty. Narag has indeed committed
gross immorality to warrant the penalty of disbarment.

ii.

She was able to present clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence to

support her claim that Atty. Narag has indeed abandoned his family for his
paramour.

iii.

It was Atty. Narags duty to prove to the Court that he maintains a good
moral character required of the legal profession, but he did not present

any evidence to that effect. All he did was to adamantly deny the
allegations of his wife.
iv.

He committed a gravely immoral conduct that is so wilful, flagrant and

shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of the respectable
members of the community. He committed acts that are too unprincipled
to be reprehensible to a high degree and he committed them under
scandalous and revolting circumstances so as to shock the common sense
of decency. His gravely immoral conduct warrants disbarment.

10.

Ui v Bonifacio

Facts:
i.

Leslie Ui filed an admin case for the disbarment of Atty. Iris Bonifacio for
allegedly having an illicit relationship with Uis husband, Carlos Ui. She
alleged that the two are living together as husband and wife, and that
despite her knowledge of Carlos Uis family life, Atty. Bonifacio continued
the illicit relationship.

ii.

In her response, Atty. Bonifacio said, she was not aware that Carlos Ui was
married when he courted her. Knowing him to be a single man with
children by a Chinese woman from whom he had long been estranged.
She later on got married with him in Hawaii and she begot him 2 children.
But when she discovered that Carlos Ui was married, she immediately cut
all her ties with him and she left for Hawaii with her 2 children.

iii.

The IBP dismissed the disbarment case but recommended for the
reprimand of Atty. Bonifacio for submitting a marriage certificate with an
intercalated date.

Issues:
W/N Atty. Bonifacio committed gravely immoral conduct to warrant her
disbarment
Ruling:
No. The complainant failed to present clear, convincing and satisfactory
evidence that Atty. Bonifacio committed gravely immoral conduct taht is wilful,
flagrant and shameless as to show moral indifference to the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community. In fact, upon discovering that Carlos Ui was
married, she immediately cut all her ties with him and left for the US. This does not
show indifference to the moral standards or the intention of flaunting the law and
the highest standrads of the legal profession.
But despite the permissiveness of the liberal society in regard to morality, its
the duty of lawyers to maintain a higher degree of social responsibility and to
observe their personal affairs with greater caution. Atty. Bonifacio should have
exercised prudence in finding out the personal background of Carlos Ui before
having an intimate relationship with him.
But she is reprimanded for attaching a Marriage Certificate with intercalated
date for a prudent lawyer is expected to verify all the attachments in her pleading.

11.

Dantes v Dantes

Facts:
i.

Emma Dantes filed a disbarment case against Atty. Crispin Dantes for
immorality, abandonment and violation of law and professional ethics for
having illicit relationships with two women and for having children with
them. She added they frequently quaralled because of his extra-marital
affairs. He failed to support his children financially, forcing her to work
abroad.

ii.

Atty. Dantes, for his part, said they had mutually agreed to separate 18
years ago and she abandoned him. But she went back after 18 years and
insisted on living with their children so he was forced to rent an
apartment. He alleged that his wife filed the charges against him to force
him to remit 70% of his salary to her.

iii.

Emma presented evidence to prove that Atty. Dantes was a womanizer,

including the letters of respondents legitimate children to him and the
affidavits of Atty. Dantes and his paramour he has three illegitimate
children with two women.

iv.

Attty. Dantes did not testify on the witness stand and he failed to attend
the hearings. Instead, he sought for the dismissal of the admin complaint
saying there was already a decision issued by the RTC for support alimony
pendente lite

v.

The IBP submitted recommended for the indefinite suspension of Atty.

Dantes for violation of Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for engaging in unlawful, deceitful, dishonest and immoral
conduct and for behaving in a scandalous manner as to discredit the legal
profession.

Issues:
Penalty for Atty. Dantes
Ruling:
Lawyers must not only be of good moral character but must be seen to have
a good moral character and living life according to the highest moral
standards. It is more important than the possession of legal learning. The
purposes of having a good moral character are:
a. To protect the public
b. To protect the public image of lawyers
c. To protect prospective clients
d. To protect errant lawyers from themselves
Atty. Crispin Dantes is disbarred for committing illicit relationships with two
women during the subsistence of his marriage with his wife. He breached the

standards of the law profession by making a mockery of the inviolable social

institution of marriage.

12.

De Guzman v De Dios

Facts:
i.

Atty. Lourdes De Dios assisted complainant Diana De Guzman as counsel

to form a corporation

ii.

De Dios assisted De Guzman to register Suzuki Beach Hotel, Inc. with SEC
and the latter paid a monthly retainer fee for the former.

iii.

More than a year after, the corporation asked De Guzman to pay her
unpaid subscribed shares of stocks.

iv.

The following year, she received a notice of pub auction to sell her
delinquent shares through a board reso authorizing the sale.

v.

She was then ousted from the corporation she built while the De Dios
became the president

vi.

De Guzman then filed an administrative case of disbarment against De

Dios for violation of Rule 15.03 of the CoPR for representing conflicting
interest and for acquiring property in litigation against Art. 1491 of the
NCC

vii.

De Guzman asserts that De Dios led her to believe that as a major stock
holder, she would help her manage the corporation and that she even
represented her in a case where De Guzman was one of the respondents.

viii.

De Dios, however, said she was representing SBHI during that case, that
the property subject fo that case was SBHIs, and that De Guzman
misappropriated the money of the corporation resulting to her ouster.

ix.

The IBP submitted a resolution finding De Dioss acts as no motivated by

ill-will because she acted in the best interest of her client, SBHI, and that
De Guzman failed to present proof of attorney-client relationship.

Issues:
i.

The existence of attorney-client relationship

ii.

W/N the ouster of De Guzman was proper

iii.

W/N De Dios conducted herself with honesty and integrity

Ruling:
i.

There was an attorney-client relationship considering that De Guzman was

the one who retained De Dios to form a corporation and she has appeared
as counsel for the complainant

ii.

The ouster was not proper because there was an evidence of collusion
between the respondent and the BoD, considering that the former was
later on made the President of the corporation, and the original shares of
stocks of De Guzman, apart from the delinquent shares, were not
accounted for.

iii.

No. She violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests

and engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. As a
lawyer, respondent is bound by her oath to do no falsehood or consent to
its commission and to conduct herself as a lawyer according to the best of

her knowledge and discretion. The lawyer's oath is a source of obligations

and violation thereof is a ground for suspension, disbarment, or other
disciplinary action. She was suspended for six months.

13.

Calub v Suller

Facts:
i.

Atty. Abraham Suller was charged for raping his neighbors wife. The
complainant also filed a disbarment case against him.

ii.

Suller had carnal knowledge of the woman referred to despite her refusal.

iii.

Suller was not convicted of rape in the CFI because his guilt was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt.

iv.

The IBP Board of Governors recommended the suspension of Suller for one
year.

Issue:
W/N Suller should be disbarred
Ruling:
Yes. Although his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the
testimonies and evidence presented in the case were sufficient to show that
Suller acted in a grossly reprehensible manner in having carnal knowledge of
his neighbors wife without her consent. He was disbared by the SC because
his act constituted moral depravity showing his moral incompetence to
remain a member of the Bar.
SC said, the privilege to practice law is bestowed upon individuals who are
intellectually, academically and morally competent. Good moral character is
not only a condition precedent to the practice of law but one must continually
possess it to maintain a good standing in the honored fraternity.

14.

Rural Bank of Silay v Pilla

Facts:
i.

acting as attorney-in-fact of a certain Pedro Torres and Oscar D. Granada,

by virtue of a special power of attorney, respondent applied for a loan and
concomitantly executed a Real Estate Mortgage in favor of the
complainant bank covering the property of Pedro Torres and Oscar D.
Granada.

ii.

With such security, complainant extended to the respondent his loan in

the amount of P91,427.00.

iii.

In view of the failure of the respondent to pay the loan, the mortgaged
property was foreclosed by the complainant bank.

iv.

Later, Oscar Granada, the real registered owner of the mortgaged

property filed a complaint against the respondent and the complainant for
the annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage and Special Power of
Attorney.

v.

After the trial, the court declared null and void the said Special Power of
Attorney as well as the Real Estate Mortgage for being products of
forgery.

vi.

Respondent asserts that he does not have a hand on the forgery and that
the complainant did not introduce evidence to prove that he forged that
the signatures in the SPA.

Issues:
i.

W/N respondent was part of the forgery

ii.

W/N respondent violated the CoPR

Ruling:
i.

Yes. Indeed, there is a settled rule that in the absence of satisfactory

explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document
is the forger and therefore guilty of falsification. He did not offer any
explanation on how he got the SPA with forged signature. If he maintains
the highest degree of morality, he should have not represented the SPA to
the notary public without ascertaining that the signatures were those of
the indicated signatories.

ii.

Respondents acts clearly fall short of the standards set by the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 1.01 thereof, which provides
that [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for ANY
misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows
him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, or good demeanor.

15.

De Jesus v Collado

Facts:
i.

Araceli De Jesus charged Consuelo Collado, Court Attorney IV in the Office

of the Clerk of Court [Third Division], Supreme Court, with committing "the
deceitful act of issuing nine [9] bouncing checks.They are all payments of
respondent to the merchandise she bought from complainant.

ii.

The same complainant further sought the disbarment of the respondent

for committing that alleged deceitful act.

iii.

An administrative investigation was commenced.

iv.

Despite due notice, respondent did not answer or comment on the

charges.

v.

SC required the respondent to submit a comment within ten days.

vi.

Respondent complied with this resolution after considerable delay,

submitting a two-page comment for the purpose. She admits having
issued postdated checks, allegedly upon complainant's request in order to
"fix" respondent's obligation to complainant but since her buyers did not
remit their payments to respondent, she was unable to pay. She adds that
the transactions were purely private in character and do not concern her
employment in SC, nor her membership in the bar.

vii.

Upon complainant's "Urgent Ex Parte Motion to Bar Atty. Collado's Trip to

US, Immigration issued a HDO to stop her from leaving

viii.

While the cases are pending, complainant submitted an affidavit of

desistance expressing her lack of interest to pursue the case since the
respondent paid her obligations

Issues:
i.

W/N the case should proceed

ii.

W/N respondent should be subject to a disciplinary action

Ruling:
i.

Yes. The bouncing checks gave rise to the criminal information filed
against respondent and these criminal cases are still pending in court. She
effectively waived such an opportunity in the civil service disciplinary
proceeding. There is no legal obstacle to a definitive resolution of the two
complaints filed against respondent.

ii.

Yes. We consider that issuance of checks in violation of the provisions of B.

P. Blg. 22 constitutes serious misconduct on the part of a member of the
Bar. The Court has stressed that the conduct of everyone connected with
the dispensation of justice, from the judges to the most junior of clerks
must, at all times, be characterized with propriety and decorum and be
above suspicion.

21. Figueroa v Barranco

Facts:
a. To be denied admission to the legal profession because they had been
sweethearts, had a child out of wedlock, but respondent failed to fulfil his
promise to marry her.
b. He promised to marry her after he passes the bar exam.
c. Their relationship ended when she learned that he married another
woman.
d. But for an unreasonable length of time from 1971 to 1988, the
complainant failed to prosecute the case and respondent asked for
permission from the Court to take his oath since he has proven himself to
be a good member of the community.
e. Case was referred to the IBP which recommended the dismissal of the
case and allowed him to take the oath.
Issue:
W/N respondent should take the oath
Ruling:
The facts of the case do not constitute gross immorality warranting the exclusion of
the respondent from the legal profession. To justify suspension or disbarment the
act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly
immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. It is a willful,
flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of
respectable members of the community.
Mere intimacy between a man and a woman, both of whom possess no impediment
to marry, voluntarily carried on and devoid of any deceit on the part of respondent,
is neither so corrupt nor so unprincipled as to warrant the imposition of disciplinary
sanction against him, even if as a result of such relationship a child was born out of
wedlock. Complainant was then an adult who voluntarily and actively pursued their
relationship and was not an innocent young girl who could be easily led astray.
We cannot help viewing the instant complaint as an act of revenge of a woman
scorned, bitter and unforgiving to the end. Even assuming that respondents past
indiscretions are ignoble, the twenty-six years that respondent has been prevented
from being a lawyer constitute sufficient punishment therefor.
CASE DISMISSED.

22. Cordova v Cordova

Facts:
i.

Complainant Salvacion Delizo charged her husband, Atty. Laurence D.

Cordova, with immorality and acts unbecoming a member of the Bar.

ii.

It was forwarded to IBP for investigation

iii.

Hearing never took place because complainant failed to appear.

iv.

Respondent Cordova never moved to set aside the order of default, even
though notices of the hearings scheduled were sent to him.

v.

In 1989, complainant, in a telegarm, informed IBP that she and husband have
reconciled.

vi.

Court asked for both parties to submit a motion to dismiss but none was had.

vii.

The IBP Board of Governors submitted to this Court its report reprimanding
respondent for his acts, admonishing him that any further acts of immorality
in the future will be dealt with more severely, and ordering him to support his
legitimate family as a responsible parent should.

Issue:
W/N respondent conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a member of the Bar
Ruling:
After a review of the record, we agree with the findings of fact of the IBP Board. We
also agree that the most recent reconciliation between complainant and
respondent, assuming the same to be real, does not excuse and wipe away the
misconduct and immoral behavior of the respondent carried out in public, and
necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a member of the Bar and upon the
Philippine Bar itself.
-

An applicant for admission to membership in the bar is required to show that

he is possessed of good moral character. That requirement is not exhausted
and dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. On the
contrary, that requirement persists as a continuing condition for membership
in the Bar in good standing.

23. Laguitan v Tinio

Facts:
i.

Pet charged resp of immorality and acts unbecoming of a bar member

ii.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found that resp cohabited with pet
which bore them two children, when resp had earlier contracted marriage
with another woman. It was likewise prove that resp refused to give support
to his children from pet.

iii.

The IBP recommended his suspension not for cohabiting with pet but for
refusing to give support to his children.

Issue:
W/N suspension is justified
Ruling:
The Court agrees with the suspension order but not solely for refusing to
support his children but also for cohabiting with another woman when he is already
married. The Court said, Concubinage imports moral turpitude and entails a public
assault upon the basic social institution of marriage. It is a course of conduct
inconsistent with the requirement of good moral character that is required for the
continued right to practice law as a member of the Philippine Bar. He was
suspended until further notice and proof of giving support to children.
-

Concubinage entails a public assault upon the basic social institution of

marriage. It is a course of conduct inconsistent with the requirement of good
moral character required of lawyers.

24. Santos v Tan

Facts:
i.

Pet instituted disbarment proceedings vs resp for gross misconduct,

specifically falsification, immorality and bigamy.

ii.

It was alleged that resp:

a. Maintained amorous relationship with a married clerk
b.

contracted a second marriage with Norma Pihid when he was already

married to Emilia Benito; and that they had a child, Noel.

c. Falsified his contract of marriage with Norma by indicating that he was

single at the time of their marriage
iii.

Resp, for his part,