Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala A.C. No. 7136 August 1, 2007
Facts: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Committee on Bar Discipline against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for grossly immoral
conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyers oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first met the respondent in
January 2000 when his then fiance Irene Moje introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to
Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed that from January to March 2001, Irene
had been receiving from respondent Cellphone calls, as well as messages some which read I love you, I miss
you, or Meet you at Megamall. He also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in
the morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked her whereabouts,
she replied that she slept at her parents house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Respondent together on two occasions. On the second
occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001
complainant went uninvited to Irenes birthday celebration at which he saw her and the respondent celebrating
with her family and friends. Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately.
Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all her personal belongings.
Complainant later found a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2007, the day of his wedding to Irene,
Complainant soon saw respondents car and that of Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B11 Street, New Manila
where as he was later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was
already residing. He also learned still later that when his friends saw Irene on about January 18, 2002 together
with respondent during a concert, she was pregnant.
Issue: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the reason for the disbarment of Atty. Jose
Emmanuel Eala.
Held: Lawyers oath stated that a lawyer should support the Constitution and obey the laws, Meaning he shall
not make use of deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or be convicted in any
crime involving moral turpitude. In the case at bar Atty. Eala was accused of Concubinage, under ART. 334 of
the Revised Penal Code, Any husband who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual
intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any
other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium period. Section 2 of ART.
XV states that Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be
protected by the state. Respondents grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the constitution and the laws, that he
as a lawyer has sworn to uphold. Hence the court declared Atty. Jose Emmanul M. Eala DISBARRED for
grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and of canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
MARX ANDREI OSCAR V. YAUN
LEGAL RESEARCH
documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond
the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Under
Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law
cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and
regular standing, is entitled to practice law. Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only
true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession
condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his
profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the
advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other
circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best advertising possible for a
lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the
outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way
of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service
which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify
his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome
result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the following as allowed forms of advertisement:
1.Advertisement in a reputable law list
2.Use of ordinary simple professional card
3.Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization
Ong vs unto
FACTS:
This is a disbarment case filed by Alex Ong against Atty. Elpidio D. Unto, for malpractice of law and
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. It is evident from the records that he tried to coerce the complainant to
comply with his letter-demand by threatening to file various charges against the latter. When the complainant
did not heed his warning, he made good his threat and filed a string of criminal and administrative cases against
the complainant. They, however, did not have any bearing or connection to the cause of his client. The records
show that the respondent offered monetary rewards to anyone who could provide him any information against
the complainant just so he would have leverage in his actions against the latter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Untos acts constitute malpractice.
HELD:
Yes. Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates lawyers to represent their clients with zeal
but within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 further commands that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest
means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate, or threaten to present
unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.