Q: Atty.

Dizon was convicted for the crime of frustrated homicide when he

shot an unarmed taxi driver due to road rage while he was drunk. The taxi
driver was paralyzed and could no longer work. Moreover, Atty. Dizon refused
to pay compensation to the driver and lied about the facts of the incident.
Could he be disbarred?
Q: Does the act of engaging in premarital relations with a woman, and
making promises to marry her constitute Gross Immoral Conduct?
Q: Differentiate
morality
from
immoral conduct
and
grossly immoral
conduct.
Q: What if other way around? Catherine and Atty. Rongcal had an illicit affair.
C filed a case for disbarment against Atty. Rongcal based on gross immoral
conduct alleging that he misrepresented himself to be single when he was in
fact married. Afterwards, he showed remorse and distanced himself from her.
Will the petition prosper?
Rule 1: A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful
conduct.
- usually goes with Rule 7.03
1) By
indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his pleadings
and thereby
misrepresenting to the public
and the courts
that he had paid his IBP dues
to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is

guilty of violating
the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:
Rule 1.01
. (Santos Jr. v. Atty Llamas, January 20, 2000)

2) Measured against the

definition of gross immorality
, we find Atty. Valencia's actions grossly immoral. Her actions were so corrupt
as to approximate a criminal act, for she married a man who, in all
appearances, was married to another and with whom he has a family. Her
actions were also unprincipled and reprehensible to a high degree; as the
confidante of Atty. Garrido, she preyed on his vulnerability and engaged in a
romantic relationship with him during the subsistence of his two previous
marriages. Atty. Valencias conduct could not but be scandalous and revolting
to the point of shocking the communitys sense of decency; while she
professed to be the lawfully wedded wife, she helped the second family build
a house prior to her marriage to Atty. Garrido, and did not object to sharing
her husband with the woman of his second marriage. (Garrido v. Garrido,
February 4, 2010)
Q: The Respondents were election officers/ lawyers of the COMELEC. They
helped conduct and oversee the 1995 elections. The Petitioner, senatorial
candidate, filed a disbarment case against them alleging that the
respondents tampered with the votes received by Pimentel. The respondents
claimed the discrepancies were due to oversight, fatigue, and honest
mistake. They also argued that the IBP Board had already exonerated them
from any offense and that the MR filed by Pimentel Jr. was not filed in time.
Are the respondents guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibilities?
(Pimentel, Jr. v. Atty. Llorente and Atty Salayon, 29 August 2000.)
A:
a lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a
member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a
government official.

XPN:

if the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional

Responsibility or the lawyers oath or is of such character as to affect his
qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part.

Here, by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, respondents

committed a
breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code which stipulates that a lawyer shall not
engage inunlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. By express
provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to lawyers in the government
service. In addition, they likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to
do no falsehood.

WHEREFORE,
the Court finds respondents Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salay- on
GUILTY.
FINE in the amount of P10,000.00 with a WARNING that commission of similar
acts will be dealt with more severely.

Q: A disbarment case was filed against Atty. Iris . She contended that she was
married to Carlos, so her affair with him is licit. Also, when she discovered
that Carlos was already married, she decided to cut off all ties with him.

Is Atty. Iris guilty of committing gross immoral conduct and could she be
disbarred? (Ui v. Atty. Bonifacio, June 8, 2000)
No.
However, the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui...
cannot be considered immoral.
For immorality connotes conduct that
shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community.

Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same

must be "grossly immoral," that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree.

Respondent's act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon

discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral indifference and
proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral
standard of the legal profession.
A: Yes. But, a fine of 15 K and stern warning will do. The SC said:
"There is a string of cases where the Court meted out the extreme penalty of
disbarment on the ground of gross immorality where the respondent..lured an
innocent woman into marriage. We heed the stern injunction on decreeing
disbarment where any lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, would
accomplish the end desired. We note that from the very beginning of this
case, herein respondent had expressed remorse over his indiscretion and had
in fact ended the brief illicit relationship years ago. We take these as signs
that his is not a character of such severe depravity and thus should be taken
as mitigating circumstances in his favor." (Vitug v. Rongcal, September 7,
2006)"
Yes, he may be disbarred.
When lawyers are convicted of frustrated homicide,
the attending circumstances not the mere fact of their conviction would
demonstrate their fitness to remain in the legal profession.
In the present case, the appalling vindictiveness, treachery, and brazen
dishonesty of respondent clearly show his unworthiness to continue as a
member of the bar (Soriano v. Dizon, January 25, 2006).
1)
Immoral conduct
- "that conduct which is
willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference
to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.
(Arciga v. Maniwang, August 14, 1981)

Note:
"what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not
be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment."

2.
Grossly Immoral Act
- 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.
[6] It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral indifference
to the opinion of respectable members of the community." (Figueroa v.
Barranco)
A: No. His engaging in premarital sexual relations with complainant and
promises to marry suggests a doubtful moral character on his part but the
same does not constitute grossly immoral conduct. The Court has held that to
justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not only be
immoral, but grossly immoral. (Figueroa v. Barranca), July 31, 1997
Q: Does the act of a lawyer in issuing worthless checks constitute gross
misconduct?

A: Depends on the circumstances of the case. Mere conviction doesn't

warrant disbarment. (Orbe v. Adaza)
Q: Can a member of the Sharia Bar affix the designation lawyer before his
name?

A: No. The title of "attorney" is reserved to those who, having obtained the
necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taken the Bar
Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and remain members thereof in good standing;
Canon 2
: A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient and

convenient manner compatible with the independence, integrity, and

effectiveness of the profession.

Rule 2.01
- A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.

Rule 2.02
- In such a case, even if a lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse
to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary
to safeguard latter's rights.

Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business.

Rule 2.04
- A lawyer shall not charge rates lower those customarily or prescribed,
unless the circumstances so warrant.
Canon 1: A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or
deceitful conduct.

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of
the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage
any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.

Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

The Primary Characteristics which Distinguish the Legal Profession from

Business:

1) A duty to public service

2) A relation as an 'officer of court' to the administration of justice.
3) A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary.
4) 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. (In re:
Sycip, 92 SCRA 1)
Improper Solicitation of Legal Business, Prohibited.
- As the practice of law is a practice of law is a profession, it is highly
unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skills as a merchant.
Ex. 1) "Marriage license promptly secured thru our assistance and the
annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if desired, and marriage arranged to
wishes of the poor. - Everything confidential. - Legal Assistance Service, 12
Escolta Manila, Room 105, Tel. x x x, June 13, 1943, Sunday Tribunal."
CHARGED WITH MALPRACTICE, Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot, 74 Phil.
579.

2)
Advertisement 1
"
SECRET MARRIAGE? P560.00 for a valid marriage. Info on DIVORCE, ABSENCE,
ANNULMENT, VISA.
The Legal Clinic, Inc.: Please call: 521-0767 x x x. 8:30am-6:00p.m.
7-Flr Victoria Bldg. UN Ave., Mla."

Advertisement 2
"Guam Divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext.
Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence. x x x"
HELD: Enjoined similar advertisements. Primary incorporator reprimanded.

So When is it Permissible to Advertise?

Must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession.
Made in a decorous and modest manner
Would bring no injury to the lawyer or to the Bar.
Ex. 1) Advertisements in legal periodicals bearing the name/s of the lawyer/s,
office, residence address, and special lines in law.

2) Professional cards with same details.

3) Legal Aid Program as a public service.

Note: The best advertisement for a lawyer is a well-deserved reputation for

competence, HONESTY, and fidelity to private trust and public duty.
Canon 3:
A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding
his qualifications or legal services.
Use true, honest, fair, and objective information in making legal services
known.
Self-Praises Or False Claims On Qualifications Or Quality Of Legal Services,
Unethical.
Q: Atty. Lana a famous family lawyer gave out calling cards with the phrase
"the best family lawyer in the Philippines." Did she commit an unethical act?
(Bar 1997 Question)

A: Yes. Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
Q: Why are firms allowed to use the name of a deceased partner?

A: Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed

name shall be used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is
permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that
said partner is deceased.
Purpose: Maintain clients who have been provided legal services by the law
firm.
A lawyer is not authorized to use in his practice of the profession a name
other than the one inscribed in the Roll of Attorneys.
The use of the firm name of a foreign law firm is unethical because that firm
is not authorized to practice law here. (Dacanay v. Baker Mckenzie)