AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR.

, complainant,
vs.
ATTYS. VITALIANO C. FABROS and PACIFICO S. PAAS, respondents.
A complaint for disbarment was filed against Attys. Vitaliano C. Fabros and Pacifico S. Paas by Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. for
"unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct" in relation to the discharge of their duties as chairman and vice-chairman, respectively,
of the provincial board of canvassers, Province of Isabela (PBC-Isabela) in the 1995 elections. A complaint for disbarment was filed against
Attys. Vitaliano C. Fabros and Pacifico S. Paas by Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. for "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct" in
relation to the discharge of their duties as chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the provincial board of canvassers, Province of
Isabela (PBC-Isabela) in the 1995 elections.
Issue: WON respondents are guilty of misconduct
Ruling: Based on the evidence presented, we find respondents guilty of misconduct. The records reflect, and respondents admit, the
discrepancy between the questioned certificate of canvass and the statement of votes of the Province of Isabela in the 1995 elections.
While there was no question that the municipal/city certificates of canvass were not tampered with, the tabulation of the figures on the
statement of votes was anomalous. For this, respondents were responsible. 7
As public officers, respondents failed to live up to the high degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill required of
them.16 As lawyers, they were found to have engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. 17 They also violated their oath
as officers of the court to foist no falsehood on anyone. Furthermore, by express provision of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the avoidance of such conduct is demanded of them as lawyers in the government service:
CANON 6 These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks.
As lawyers in the government service, respondents were under an even greater obligation to observe the basic tenets of the legal
profession because public office is a public trust.18
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondents Atty. Vitaliano C. Fabros and Atty. Pacifico S. Paas GUILTY of misconduct and imposes on
them a FINE in the amount of P10,000 each, with a WARNING that the commission in the future of a similar act will be dealt with more
severely.

AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., complainant, vs. ATTYS. ANTONIO M. LLORENTE and LIGAYA P.
SALAYON, respondents.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:

This is a complaint for disbarment against respondents Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon for gross
misconduct, serious breach of trust, and violation of the lawyers oath in connection with the discharge of their duties as
members of the Pasig City Board of Canvassers in the May 8, 1995 elections. Salayon, then election officer of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC), was designated chairman of said Board, while Llorente, who was then City
Prosecutor of Pasig City, served as its ex oficio vice-chairman as provided by law. Complainant, now a senator, was also
a candidate for the Senate in that election.
[1]

respondent has not shown when petitioner received a copy of the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors denying his motion for
reconsideration. It would appear, however, that the petition was filed on time because a copy of the resolution personally served on
the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court was received by it on May 18, 1999.

ISSUE :won respondents are guilty of misconduct

RULING:Respondents participation in the irregularities herein reflects on the legal profession, in general, and on
lawyers in government, in particular. Such conduct in the performance of their official duties, involving no less than the
ascertainment of the popular will as expressed through the ballot, would have merited for them suspension were it not for
the fact that this is their first administrative transgression and, in the case of Salayon, after a long public service. Under
the circumstances, a penalty of fine in the amount of P10,000.00 for each of the respondents should be sufficient.
[29]

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

FRANCISCO LORENZANA, complainant, vs. ATTY. CESAR G. FAJARDO, respondent.

DECISION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

Francisco Lorenzana, complainant, charges respondent Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo with violation of the Civil
Service Law and Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and seeks his disbarment from the
practice of the law profession.
In a verified complaint dated May 27, 2002, complainant alleged that respondent, while employed as
Legal Officer V at the Urban Settlement Office in Manila, until his retirement on May 15, 2002, was a
member of the Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) of Quezon City, receiving a monthly honorarium
of P4,000.00.[1] He was also a member of the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Novaliches Proper, also
receiving a monthly allowance/ honorarium.[2]
Complainant also alleged that respondent was engaged in the private practice of law, receiving
acceptance fees ranging from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00. He lives in a house and lot owned by
complainants family without paying any rental and refuses to leave the place despite the latters demands.

ISSUE: WON RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF THE APPOINTMENT AS A MEMBER OF THE PLEB QC

Anent the penalty to be imposed, as mentioned earlier, the IBP Board of Governors recommended that respondent be
suspended for one (1) month for accepting a prohibited appointment as a member of the PLEB of Quezon City and be
reprimanded for failing to obtain a written permission from his superiors to appear as counsel for certain friends and
relatives. We believe that a heavier penalty should be imposed upon him for he transgressed not only the statutes but the
very fundamental law itself, in violation of his Attorneys Oath and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

LOLITA ARTEZUELA, complainant, vs. ATTY. RICARTE B. MADERAZO, respondent.

On November 24, 1994, Artezuela filed before this Court a verified complaint for disbarment against the
respondent. She alleged that respondent grossly neglected his duties as a lawyer and failed to represent her interests
with zeal and enthusiasm. He withdrew as counsel without obtaining complainants consent. [10]
Complainant also claimed that respondent engaged in activities inimical to her interests. While acting as her
counsel, respondent prepared Echavias Answer to the Amended Complaint. The said document was even printed in
respondents office. Complainant further averred that it was respondent who sought the dismissal of the case, misleading
the trial court into thinking that the dismissal was with her consent. [11]
To be guilty of representing conflicting interests, a counsel-of-record of one party need not also be counsel-of-record
of the adverse party. He does not have to publicly hold himself as the counsel of the adverse party, nor make his
efforts to advance the adverse partys conflicting interests of record--- although these circumstances are the most
obvious and satisfactory proof of the charge
ISSUE: WON RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF MISCOONDUCT ACCORDING TO CANON 6 OF THE CODE OF
PROFESSIONALRESPONSIBILITY
RULING:

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Resolution of the IBP finding the respondent guilty of violating Canon 6 of the Code of
Professional Ethics, and Canon 15 and Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is affirmed. Respondent
is suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months with a stern warning that a similar act in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.
Finally, we remind the respondent that the practice of law is not a property right but a mere privilege, and as such,
must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyers public responsibilities.
[26]
The suspension of the respondents privilege to practice law may result to financial woes. But as the guardian of
the legal profession, we are constrained to balance this concern with the injury he caused to the very same
profession he vowed to uphold with honesty and fairness.

DOROTEO IGOY, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. GILBERT F. SORIANO, respondent.
RESOLUTION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
On October 11, 2001, this Court unanimously ruled to dismiss respondent Atty. Gilbert Soriano from the service, with forfeiture of all
retirement benefits and leave credits, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government including
government-owned or controlled corporations, and indefinitely suspended him from the practice of law. We denied with finality respondent's
motion for reconsideration on June 10, 2003.
He claimed that at 61 years of age, he may no longer find gainful employment but as a lawyer, he could still be a productive citizen and
family provider. On even date, respondent also filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Recover Money Equivalent of Respondent's Accrued Leave
Credits which he earned during his 28 years of service in the judiciary.

In fine, respondent is now asking this Court (a) to lift the order suspending him from the practice of law; (b) to release the monetary
equivalent of his accrued leave credits; and (c) to lift the order prohibiting his re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the
government including government-owned or controlled corporation.
ISSUE: WON respondent is suspended from the practice of law

Finally, respondent is sternly warned that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of
mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of legal profession are the conditions
required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law.6
ACCORDINGLY, the order suspending respondent Atty. Gilbert Soriano from the practice of law is LIFTED. The monetary equivalent of his
accrued leave credits is ordered RELEASED. However, respondent shall REMAIN DISQUALIFIED for re-employment in any branch or
instrumentality of the government including government-owned or controlled corporations.
The Fiscal Management and Budget Office is directed to compute the monetary equivalent of respondent's accrued leave credits and
release the same to him.

Generoso Trieste, Sr. vs Sandiganbayan

Trieste was the mayor of Numancia, Aklan. In 1980, during his term, the Municipality of Numancia purchased construction
materials from Trigen Agro-Industrial Development Corporation. Trieste was allegedly the president of said corporation. Trieste
was then sued for allegedly violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act particularly for willfully and unlawfully having
financial or pecuniary interest in a business, contract or transaction in connection with which said accused intervened or took
part in his official capacity and in which he is prohibited by law from having any interest.

Trieste, in defense, said that he already divested his interest from the corporation when he took his office as mayor; that he sold
his shares to his sister; he presented evidence to that effect. The Solicitor General doubted said sale because it was not
registered in the Securities and Exchange Commission. Further, the advertisement of Trigen in the local rotary club shows that
Trieste is the president of the corporation.
In time, the old Sol-Gen was replaced by a new one. The new Sol-Gen gave credit to the arguments presented by Trieste as it
recommended the dismissal of the case on the ground that Trieste did divest his interest from the corporation by virtue of his
selling his shares to his sister; that said sale cannot be doubted simply because it was not reported to the SEC; that sales of
stocks are not required to be reported in the SEC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the recommendation of the Solicitor General is correct.
HELD: Yes. The Solicitor General is well within his rights to make such recommendation. A public prosecutor should not
hesitate to recommend to the court the accuseds acquittal if the evidence in his possession shows that the accused is
innocent. If on appeal by the accused from a conviction by the trial court he finds no legal basis to sustain the conviction, he
should not also hesitate to recommend that the accused be acquitted.

PEOPLE VS. DRAMAYO [42 SCRA 60; G.R. L-21325; 29 OCT 1971]
Facts:

Dramayo brought up the idea of killing Estelito Nogaliza so that he could not testify in the robbery

case where he is an accused. The idea was for Dramayo and Ecubin to ambush Estelito, who was returning
from Sapao. The others were to station themselves nearby. Only Dramayo and Ecubin were convicted in the
RTC
for
murder.
Hence
the
appeal

Issue:
Held:

Whether

or

not

the

accuseds

criminal

liability

proved

beyond

reasonable

doubt.

Yes. It is to be admitted that the starting point is the Presumption of innocence. So it must be,

according to the Constitution. That is a right safeguarded both appellants. Accusation is not, according to the
fundamental law, synonymous with guilt. It is incumbent on the prosecution demonstrate that culpability lies.
Appellants were not even called upon then to offer evidence on their behalf. Their freedom is forfeit only if the
requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence. Their guilt be shown beyond reasonable
doubt. The judgment of conviction should not have occasioned any surprise on the part of the two appellants,
as from the evidence deserving of the fullest credence, their guilt had been more than amply demonstrated.
The presumption of innocence could not come to their rescue as it was more than sufficiently overcome by the
proof that was offered by the prosecution. The principal contention raised is thus clearly untenable. It must be
stated likewise that while squarely advanced for the first time, there had been cases where this Court,
notwithstanding a majority of the defendants being acquitted, the element of conspiracy likewise being
allegedly present, did hold the party or parties, responsible for the offense guilty of the crime charged, a moral
certainty having arisen as to their capability.

People of the Philippines vs Pablo

Esquivel

In 1946, a group of armed men robbed two jeepney drivers and divested them of the jeepneys they were driving. They also
killed the two drivers. Five of the malefactors were arrested: Amado Dizon, Pablo Esquivel, Ben Pascual, Simplico Navarro and
Gorgonio Rivera. The last two later on became state witnesses. On the strength of these twos testimonies, Dizon, Esquivel,
and Pascual were convicted. Only Dizon and Esquivel appealed the conviction.
Their appeal is grounded on the fact that Navarros and Riveras testimonies were conflicting.
ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction is correct.
HELD: No, but only as to the conviction of Esquivel the conviction of Dizon is sustained. It was found by the Supreme Court
that in both testimonies sworn by Navarro and Rivera, that Esquivel played no active hand in the commission of the crime. The
testimonies of the two as to the participation of Esquivel is likewise conflicting as when Rivera testified that it was Esquivel who
suggested the killing of the drivers while on the other hand Navarro testified that it was someone else. This was never clarified
by the prosecution therefore, Esquivels conviction is based on shaky grounds.
The case for the prosecution was not presented with the care and thoroughness which the gravity of the offense demanded.
There is absolute necessity for a government prosecutor to lay before the court the pertinent facts at their disposal with
methodical and meticulous attention, clarifying contradictions and filling up gaps and loopholes in their evidence, to the end that
the courts mind may not be tortured by doubts, that the innocent may not suffer and the guilty not escape unpunished. Obvious
to all, this is the prosecutions prime duty to the court, to the accused, and to the state.

Fortunato Suarez vs Servillano Platon

In May 1935, Atty. Fortunato Suarez was riding a train on his way to Calauag, Tayabas. Apparently he was very vocal and he
was despising the abuses made by government officers. Incidentally, Lieutenant Vivencio Orais was aboard the train. Orais
arrested Suarez and charged him with sedition. Orais however later moved for the dismissal of the case upon the instruction of
his superior. Thereafter, Suarez filed a case against Orais for arbitrary detention. Provincial Fiscal Ramon Valdez moved for the
dismissal of the case due to insufficiency of evidence. Suarez asked Valdez to inhibit and later asked for a special prosecutor to
take his place as he alleged that Valdez does not have the courage to prosecute the case. Valdez was then replaced by special
prosecutor Jacinto Yamzon who also found that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute the case. Eventually, the case was
dismissed by Judge Servillano Platon on the ground that there is insufficiency of evidence. Suarez appealed the dismissal of
the case but his appeal was denied on the ground that mandamus is the proper remedy. Hence, Suarez filed this Mandamus
case to compel Platon to reinstate the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the case should be reinstated.
HELD: No. The fiscals are well within their rights not to push through with the case if they find the evidence to be insufficient.
The prosecuting officer is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to
govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is
not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the
law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence shall suffer.