LEGAL ETHICS is a branch of moral science, which treats of the duties which an attorney owes to

the court, to the client, to his colleagues in the profession and to the public as embodied in the
Constitution, Rules of Court, the Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons of Professional Ethics,
jurisprudence, moral laws and special laws.
Original Bases of Legal Ethics:
1.
Canons of Professional Ethics
2.
Supreme court Decisions
3.
Statistics
4.
Constitution
5.
Treatises and publications
Present Basis of the Philippine Legal System: Code of Professional Responsibility.
BAR V. BENCH
BAR Refers to the whole body of attorneys and body of judges.
BENCH denotes the whole body of counselors, collectively the members of
the legal profession.
Practice of Law any activity, in or out of court which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to give notice
or render any kind of service, which or devise or service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill (Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210).
Attorney-at-law/Counsel-at-law/Attorney/Counsel/ Abogado/Boceros: that class of persons who
are licensed officers of the courts, empowered to appear prosecute and defend and upon whom
peculiar duties, responsibilities, and liabilities are developed by law as a consequence(Cui v. Cui,
120 Phil. 729).
Attorney in fact an agent whose authority is strictly limited by the instrument appointing him,
though he may do things not mentioned in his appointment necessary to the performance of the
duties specifically required of him by the power of attorney appointing him, such authority being
necessarily implied. He is not necessarily a lawyer.
Counsel de Oficio a counsel, appointed or assigned by the court, from among members of the
Bar in good standing who, by reason of their experience and ability, may adequately defend the
accused.
Note: In localities where members of the Bar are not available, the court may appoint any person,
resident of the province and good repute for probity and ability, to defend the accused. Sec. 7,
Rule 116, Rules of Court.
Attorney ad hoc a person named and appointed by the court to defend an absentee defendant
in the suit in which the appointment is made (Bienvenu v. Factors of Traders Insurance Cp.,
33 La.Ann.209)
Attorney of Record one who has filed a notice of appearance and who hence is formally
mentioned in court records as the official attorney of the party. Person whom the client has
named as his agent upon whom service of papers may be made.
(Reynolds v. Reynolds, Cal.2d580).
Of Counsel to distinguish them from attorneys of record, associate attorneys are referred to as
of counsel (5 Am. Jur. 261).
Lead Counsel The counsel on their side of a litigated action who is charged with the principal
management and direction of a partys case.
House Counsel Lawyer who acts as attorney for business though carried as an employee of that
business and not as an independent lawyer.
Bar Association an association of members of the legal profession.
Advocate The general and popular name for a lawyer who pleads on behalf of someone else.

Barrister (England) a person entitled to practice law as an advocate or counsel in superior

court.
Proctor (England) Formerly, an attorney in the admiralty and ecclesiastical courts whose duties
and business correspond to those of an attorney at law or solicitor in Chancery.
Titulo de Abogado it means not mere possession of the academic degree of Bachelor of Laws
but membership in the Bar after due admission thereto, qualifying one for the practice of law.
Admission to the Practice of Law
The Supreme Court has the power to control and regulate the practice of law. Thus, the
Constitution, under Article VIII, Sec. 5 (5) provides:
Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the under privileged.
The Supreme Court acts through a Bar Examination Committee in the Exercise of his judicial
function to admit candidates to the legal profession.
The Bar Examination Committee:

Composed of (1) member of the Supreme Court who acts as Chairman and eight (8) members of
the bar.

The 8 members act as examiners for the 8 bar subjects with one subject assigned to each.

The Bar Confidant acts as a sort of liason officer between the court and the Bar Chairman on
the other hand, and the individual members of the committee on the other. He is at the same
time a deputy clerk of court.

Admission of examinees is always subject to the final approval of the court.

Practice of Law
The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the STRICT INTELLECTUAL AND
MORAL QUALIFICATIONS required of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and efficient
administration of justice. (In Re: Argosino, 1997).
Requirements for admission to the Bar:
1.
citizen of the Philippines
2.
at least 21 years old
3.
of good moral character
4.
Philippine resident
5.
Production before the supreme court satisfactory evidence of:
1.
good moral character
2.
no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in
any court in the Philippines.
Requirement of Good Moral Character: a continuing requirement; good moral character is not
only a condition precedent for admission to the legal profession, but it must also remain intact in
order to maintain ones good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity. (Tapucar vs.
Tapucar, 1998)
Academic Requirements for Candidates:
1.
a bachelors degree in arts and sciences (pre-law course)
2.
a completed course in:
1.
civil law
2.
commercial law
3.
remedial law
4.
public international law
5.
private international law
6.
political law
7.
labor and social legislation
8.
medial jurisprudence
9.
taxation

10.

legal ethics

Non-lawyers who may be authorized to appear in court:

1.
Cases before the MTC: Party to the litigation, in person OR through an agent or friend or
appointed by him for that purpose (Sec. 34, Rule 138, RRC)
2.
Before any other court: Party to the litigation, in person (Ibid.)
3.
Criminal case before the MTC in a locality where a duly licensed member of the Bar is not
available: the judge may appoint a non-lawyer who is:
1.
resident of the province
2.
of good repute for probity and ability to aid the accused in his defense (Rule 116, Sec.
7, RRC).
4.
Legal Aid Program A senior law student, who is enrolled in a recognized law schools clinical
education program approved by the supreme Court may appear before any court without
compensation, to represent indigent clients, accepted by the Legal Clinic of the law
school. The student shall be under the direct supervision and control of an IBP member duly
accredited by the law school.
5.
Under the Labor code, non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any Labor Arbiter, if
1.
they represent themselves, or if
2.
they represent their organization or members thereof (Art 222, PO 442, as amended).
6.
Under the Cadastral Act, a non-lawyer can represent a claimant before the Cadastral
Court (Act no. 2259, Sec. 9).
Public Officials who cannot engage in the private practice of Law in the Philippines:
1.
Judges and other officials as employees of the Supreme Court (Rule 148, Sec. 35, RRC).
2.
Officials and employees of the OSG (Ibid.)
3.
Government prosecutors (People v. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109).
4.
President, Vice-President, members of the cabinet, their deputies and assistants (Art. VIII Sec.
15, 1987 Constitution).
5.
Members of the Constitutional Commission (Art IX-A, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution)
6.
Ombudsman and his deputies (Art. IX, Sec. 8 (2nd par), 1987 Constitution)
7.
All governors, city and municipal mayors (R.A. No. 7160, Sec. 90).
8.
Those prohibited by special law
Public Officials with Restrictions in the Practice of Law:
1.
1.
No Senator as member of the House of Representative may personally appear as counsel
before any court of justice as before the Electoral Tribunals, as quasi-judicial and other
administration bodies (Art. VI, Sec. 14, 1987 Constitution).
2.
Under the Local Government Code (RA 7160, Sec. 91)Sanggunian members may practice their
professions provided that if they are members of the Bar, they shall not:
1.
appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or
any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;
2.
appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national
or local government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office;
3.
collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local
government unit of which he is an official;
4.
use property and personnel of the government except when the Sanggunian member
concerned is defending the interest of the government.
3.
Under RA 910, Sec. 1, as amended, a retired justice or judge receiving pension from the
government, cannot act as counsel in any civil case in which the Government, or any of its
subdivision or agencies is the adverse party or in a criminal case wherein an officer or employee
of the Government is accused of an offense in relation to his office.
Attorneys Oath:
I, __________________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines; I will support its constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal
orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in court; I will not willingly nor wittingly promote or sue any groundless, false or

unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and
will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all
good fidelity as well to the court as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary
obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God. (Form 28,
RRC)
Nature of Lawyers Oath

The lawyers oath is not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be
upheld and kept inviolable. (Sebastian vs. Calis, 1999)

It is NOT a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should at all times
weigh his actions according to the sworn promises he made when taking the lawyers oath. (In
Re: Argosino, 1997, In Re: Arthur M. Cuevas, 1998).
Code of Professional Responsibility
Chapter 1:
Lawyer and Society
CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and for legal processes

Duties of Attorneys:
1.
to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and
obey the laws of the Philippines;
2.
to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;
3.
to counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him as just, and such
defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the laws;
4.
to employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are
consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by
an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
5.
to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of
his client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his clients business except from
him or with his knowledge and approval;
6.
to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or
reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is
charged;
7.
not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or
delay any mans cause for any corrupt motive or interest;
8.
never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or
oppressed;
9.
in the defense of a person accused of a crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of
his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law
permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Conviction for crimes involving moral turpitude a number of lawyers have been suspended or
disbarred for conviction of crimes involving moral turpitude such as:
1.
estafa
2.
bribery
3.
murder
4.
seduction
5.
abduction
6.
smuggling
7.
falsification of public documents

Morality as understood in law This is a human standard based on natural moral law which is
embodied in mans conscience and which guides him to do good and avoid evil.

Moral Turpitude: any thing that is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals.

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 vs. Maniwag, 106 SCRA 591).
Grossly Immoral Conduct: 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. (Narag vs. Narag, 1998)

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 mans cause.
Rule 1.04 A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will
admit of a fair settlement.

If a lawyer finds that his clients cause is defenseless, it is his burden/duty to advise the latter
to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible.

It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases
where the blood, relationship or trust makes it his duty to do so.

Temper clients propensity to litigate.

Should not be an instigator of controversy but a mediator for concord and conciliator for
compromise.

The law violated need not be a penal law. Moral Turpitude everything which is done
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals.

Give advice tending to impress upon the client and his undertaking exact compliance with the
strictest principles of moral law.

Until a statute shall have been construed and interpreted by competent adjudication, he is
free and is entitled to advise as to its validity and as to what he conscientiously believes to be
its just meaning and extent.

A lawyer has the obligation not to encourage suits. This is so as to prevent barratry and
ambulance chasing.

Barratry offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels and suits, either at law or
otherwise; Lawyers act of fomenting suits among individuals and offering his legal services to
one of them.

Ambulance Chasing Act of chasing victims of accidents for the purpose of talking to the said
victims (or relatives) and offering his legal services for the filing of a case against the person(s)
who caused the accident(s).

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
oppressed.
Rule 2.02 In such a case, even if a lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to
render legal advise to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard
latters rights.
Rule 2.03 a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit
legal business.

Primary characteristics which distinguish the legal profession from business;

1.
duty of service, of which the emolument is a by product, and in which one may attain the
highest eminence without making such money;
2.
a relation as an officer of court to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity,
integrity and reliability;
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 with
their clients.
Defenseless not in the position to defend themselves due to poverty, weakness, ignorance or

other similar reasons.

Oppressed victims of acts of cruelty, unlawful exaction, domination or excessive use of
authority.

Rule on Advertisements

General Rule: No advertisements allowed. The most worthy and effective advertisement
possible is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity
to trust.
Lawyers may not advertise their services or expertise nor should not resort to indirect
advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments,
or procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in which the lawyer has
been engaged or concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved,
the importance of the lawyers position, and all other self-laudation.

1.
2.

3.

4.

5.

Exceptions/ Permissible advertisements:

Reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the
canons, of brief biographical and informative data, are allowed.
Ordinary simple professional Card. It may contain only a statement of his name, the name of
the law firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number and the special branch of
law practiced.
A simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership,
associates, firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the profession, is not
objectionable.
Advertisements or simple announcement of the existence of a lawyer or his law firm posted
anywhere it is proper such as his place of business or residence except courtrooms and
government buildings.
Advertisements or announcement in any legal publication, including books, journals, and legal
magazines.

Rule 2.04 A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily or prescribed, unless
circumstances so warrant.

A lawyer cannot delay the approval of a compromise agreement entered into between parties,
just because his attorneys fees were not provided for in the agreement.

Rule: A lawyer cannot compromise the case without clients consent (special authority).
Exception: Lawyer has exclusive management of the procedural aspect of the litigation (e.g.
Submission for decision on the evidence so far presented. But in case where lawyer is confronted
with an emergency and prompt/urgent action is necessary to protect clients interest and theres
no opportunity for consultation, the lawyer may compromise.

Rule: Refrain from charging rates lower than the customary rates.
Valid Justification: relatives, co-lawyers, too poor
CANON 3 A lawyer in making known is legal services shall use only true, honest, fair dignified
and objective information or statement of facts.
Rule 3.01 A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-auditory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications
or legal services.

Violation of Rule 3.01 is unethical, whether done by him personally or through another with his
permission.
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 communication that said partner is deceased.

Rule 3.03 Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm and his
name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law
concurrently.
Rule 3.04 A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the mass
media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business.

It is unethical to use the name of a foreign firm.

Death of a partner does not extinguish attorney-client relationship with the law firm.

Negligence of a member in the law firm is negligence of the firm.

CANON 4 A lawyer shall participate in the improvement of the legal system by initiating or
supporting efforts in law reform and in the administration of justice.

Examples: Presenting position papers or resolutions for the introduction of pertinent bills in
congress; Petitions with the Supreme Court for the amendment of the Rules of Court.
CANON 5 A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal
education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the
practical training of students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and
jurisprudence.

Objectives of integration of the Bar

To elevate the standards of the legal profession

To improve the administration of justice

To enable the Bar to discharge its responsibility more effectively.

The three-fold obligation of a lawyer

First, he owes it to himself to continue improving his knowledge of the laws;

Second, he owes it to his profession to take an active interest in the maintenance of high
standards of legal education;

Third, he owes it to the lay public to make the law a part of their social consciousness.
CANON 6 These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their
official tasks.

Public Officials include elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or
temporary, whether in the career or non-career service, including military and police personnel,
whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of amount. (Sec. 3 (b), RA 6713).

The law requires the observance of the following norms of conduct by every public official in
the discharge and execution of their official duties:
1.
commitment to public interest
2.
professionalism
3.
justness and sincerity
4.
political neutrality
5.
responsiveness to the public
6.
nationalism and patriotism
7.
commitment to democracy
8.
simple living (Sec. 4, RA 6713)
Rule 6.01 The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to
see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of
establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause of disciplinary
action.
Rule 6.02 A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or
advance his private interest, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.
Rule 6.03 A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagements or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.

Various ways a government lawyer leaves government service:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

retirement
resignation
expiration of the term of office
dismissal
abandonment
Q: What are the pertinent statutory provisions regarding this Rule?

A: Sec. 3 (d) RA 3019 as amended and Sec. 7 (b), RA 6713

Sec 3. Corrupt practice of Public Officers. In addition to acts or omission of public officers
already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practice of any public
officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(d) accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which
has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after
termination.
Section 7 (b) of RA 6713 prohibits officials from doing any of the following acts:
1.

own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker,
agent, trustee or nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their
office unless expressly allowed by law.

These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after resignation,
retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above, but
the professional concerned cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter before
the office he used to be with, in which case the one year prohibition shall likewise apply.

Lawyers in the government service are prohibited to engage in the private practice of their

profession unless authorized by the constitution or law, provided that such practice will not
conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.
Misconduct in office as a public official may be a ground for disciplinary action (if of such

character as to affect his qualification as lawyer or to show moral delinquency).

Should recommend the acquittal of the accused whose conviction is on appeal, IF he finds no

legal basis to sustain the conviction.

Includes restriction is representing conflicting interest (e.g. Accepting engagements vs. former

employer, PNB)
The OSG is not authorized to represent a public official at any state of a criminal case.

Legal Ethics Notes Outline: Code Of Professional Responsibility

A. CODE OF PROFFESIONAL RESPONSIBILTY

ANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF 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 clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy
if it will admit of a fair settlement.

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 cases, even if the 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 the 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 than those customarily prescribed
unless the circumstances so warrant.
B. CASES (AS TO RELEVANCE)
1)

CANON 1

a)

Rule 1.01

i)

Spouses Yu vs. Atty. Palaa, July 14, 2008

FACTS:
Mr. Mark Anthony U. Uy who introduced himself as the Division Manager of
Wealth Marketing and General Services Corporation engaged in spot currency
trading.
Mr. Uy persuaded the complainants to invest a minimum amount of P100,000.00
or its dollar equivalent. Wealth Marketings promises were false and fraudulent, and
that the checks earlier issued were dishonored for the reason account closed. It
had already ceased its operation and a new corporation was formed named Ur-Link
Corporation which supposedly assumed the rights and obligations of the former.
As Wealth Marketings Chairman of the Board of Directors, respondent assured
the complainants that Ur-Link would assume the obligations of the former company.
Respondent signed an Agreement to that effect which, again, turned out to be
another ploy to further deceive the investors.
complainants lodged a criminal complaint for syndicated estafa against the
respondent and his co-accused.
Despite the standing warrant for his arrest, respondent went into hiding and has
been successful in defying the law, to this date.

 In an Order dated November 17, 2006, Director for Bar Discipline required
respondent to submit his Answer to the complaint but the latter failed to comply.
Respondent was thereafter declared in default and the case was heard ex parte.
Commissioner recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of
law.
ISSUE: W/N Mr. Uy should be disbarred.
HELD:
YES.
Lawyers
instruments in the administration of justice
expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality,
honesty, integrity and fair dealing.
may be disciplined whether in their professional or in their private capacity for any
conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor.
Respondent, being a member of the bar, should note that administrative cases
against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may
proceed independently of criminal cases.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by
the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such
office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority to do so. x x x.
power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution for only the most
imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and
moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar.
The Court notes that this is not the first time that respondent is facing an
administrative case, for he had been previously suspended from the practice of law
in Samala v. Palaa and Sps. Amador and Rosita Tejada v. Palaa. In Samala,
respondent also played an important role in a corporation known as First Imperial
Resources Incorporated, being its legal officer.
Respondent meted the penalty of suspension for 3 years with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely. Likewise,
in Tejada, he was suspended for 6 months for his continued refusal to settle his loan
obligations.
The fact that respondent went into hiding in order to avoid service upon him of
the warrant of arrest issued by the court (where his criminal case is pending)
exacerbates his offense.
Finally, we note that respondents case is further highlighted by his lack of regard
for the charges brought against him. His disobedience to the IBP is in reality a
gross, blatant and unpardonable disrespect of the Court.
The contumacious behaviour of respondent in the instant case which grossly
degrades the legal profession indeed warrants the imposition of a much graver
penalty --- disbarment.

ii)

Samala vs. Atty. Palaa, AC No. 6395, April 15, 2005

ADM. CASE No. 6595. April 15, 2005. AZCUNA, J.

FACTS:
complainant was looking for a company where he could invest his dollar savings.
He met Raymond Taino, a trader-employee of First Imperial Resources, Inc. (FIRI), a
company located at Legaspi Village, Makati City. Taino introduced him to FIRI
Manager Jun Agustin, Chief Trader Diosdado Bernal, and Legal Officer Antonuitti K.
Palaa, the respondent herein.
Respondent assured him that through FIRI he would be directly putting his
investment with Eastern Vanguard Forex Limited, a reputable company based in the
Virgin Islands which has been in the foreign exchange business for 13 years.
Subsequently, complainant decided to pull out his investment. He sent FIRI a
letter requesting the withdrawal of his investment amounting to US$10,000 and
giving FIRI 10 days to prepare the money.
On April 15, 2001, complainant asked Agustin when his money would be
returned. Agustin told him that the request was sent to Thomas Yiu of Eastern
Vanguard at Ortigas Center. Yiu was surprised when he saw the documents
involving complainants investment. On the same day, in the presence of
respondent, Agustin delivered to complainant a check in the amount of
P574,045.09, as the peso equivalent of complainants investment with FIRI. The
said check was dishonored because it was drawn against insufficient funds.
On June 1, 2001, respondent, as legal officer of FIRI, gave complainant P250,000
in cash and a check in the amount of P329,045.09. The check was dishonored
because it was drawn against insufficient funds.
complainant charged Paul Desiderio of Estafa and Violation of Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22 at the Prosecutors Office of Makati. a warrant of arrest was issued
against Paul Desiderio.
Complainant alleged that respondents act of representing himself to be the legal
officer of FIRI and his assurance that the check he personally delivered to him was
signed in his presence by FIRI Officer Paul Desiderio, when no such person appears
to exist, is clearly fraudulent and violative of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
Complainant requested the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for a thorough
investigation of respondent as a member of the bar.
Commissioner Navarro thus recommended that respondent be suspended from
the practice of law for 6 months.
Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with the modification that
respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for 3 years.
ISSUE: W/N the respondent should be penalized according to the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
HELD: Atty. Antonuitti K. Palaa is found GUILTY of violating Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and hereby suspended from the practice of law for a
period of three (3) years effective from receipt of this Resolution, with a warning
that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
YES.
Respondent was found to have violated Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which states:

Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
FIRI prohibited it from engaging in investment or foreign exchange business and
its primary purpose is to act as consultant in providing professional expertise and
reliable data analysis related to partnership and so on.
Hence, it is clear that the representations of respondent as legal officer of FIRI
caused material damage to complainant. In so doing, respondent failed to uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and lessened the confidence of the
public in the honesty and integrity of the same.

iii)

Spouses Amador vs. Atty. Palaa, AC No. 7434 April 15, 2005

JR., JJ.

FACTS:
Petitioners-spouses Rosita and Amador Tejada filed a Complaint Affidavit before
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to initiate disbarment proceedings against
respondent Atty. Antoniutti K. Palaa for his continued refusal to settle his long
overdue loan obligation to the complainants, in violation of his sworn duty as a
lawyer to do justice to every man and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
It turned out that all his assurances that he had a torrens title, he will
reconstitute the same and deliver an amount of P170,000.00 to petitioner spouses
were all fraudulent representations on his part or else were only fictitious in
character to defraud petitioner spouses of their hard owned monies
Despite due notice, respondent failed to file his answer to the complaint as
required by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP. Respondent likewise failed
to appear on the scheduled date of the mandatory conference despite due notice.
Investigating Commissioner recommended respondent's suspension from the
practice of law for 3 months.
ISSUE: W/N respondent should be penalized according tothe Code of Responsibility.
HELD: Antoniutti K. Palaa is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of 6
months.
YES.
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A high sense of
morality, honesty, and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar.
strength of the legal profession lies in the dignity and integrity of its members.
In the instant case, respondents unjustified withholding of petitioners money
years after it became due and demandable demonstrates his lack of integrity and
fairness, and this is further highlighted by his lack of regard for the charges brought
against him. Instead of meeting the charges head on, respondent did not bother to
file an answer nor did he participate in the proceedings to offer a valid explanation
for his conduct.
respondents acts, which violated the Lawyer's Oath to delay no man for money
or malice as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility, warrant the imposition
of disciplinary sanctions against him.

 It is clear that he employed deceit in convincing complainants to part with their

hard earned money and the latter could not have been easily swayed to lend the
money were it not for his misrepresentations and failed promises as a member of
the bar.
Failing in this duty as a member of the bar which is being supervised by the Court
under the Constitution, we find that a heavier sanction should fall on respondent.

iv)

Guevara vs. Atty. Eala, AC No. 7136, Aug 1, 2007

PUNO, C.J.

FACTS:
After his marriage to Irene, complainant noticed that Irene had been receiving
from respondent cellphone calls, as well as messages some of which read I love
you, I miss you, or Meet you at Megamall.
Complainant 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 about her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her
parents house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work. Complainant
saw Irene and respondent together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he
confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. Irene was
already residing and she was pregnant
The Commissioner recommended that respondent be disbarred for violating Rule
1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
The IBP Board of Governors annulled and set aside the Recommendation by
Resolution XVII-2006-06 CBD Case No. 02-936
ISSUE: W/N Respondent is should be disbarred.
HELD: Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral
conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
YES.
Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are
distinct from and they may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.
In a criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; in an
administrative case for disbarment or suspension, clearly preponderant evidence
is all that is required.
As a lawyer, respondent should be aware that a man and a woman deporting
themselves as husband and wife are presumed, unless proven otherwise, to have
entered into a lawful contract of marriage. In carrying on an extra-marital affair
with Irene prior to the judicial declaration that her marriage with complainant was
null and void, and despite respondent himself being married, he showed disrespect
for an institution held sacred by the law.
their illicit affair that was carried out there bore fruit a few months later when
Moje gave birth to a girl
It bears emphasis that adultery is a private offense which cannot be prosecuted
de oficio and thus leaves the DOJ no choice but to grant complainants motion to
withdraw his petition for review. But even if respondent and Irene were to be

acquitted of adultery after trial, if the Information for adultery were filed in court,
the same would not have been a bar to the present administrative complaint.

v)

Advincula vs. Atty. Macabata, AC No. 7204, March 7, 2007

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

FACTS:
complainant Cynthia Advincula seeked the legal advice of the respondent Atty.
Macabata, regarding her collectibles from Queensway Travel and Tours.
After their dinner, respondent sent complainant home and while she is about to
step out of the car, respondent hold her arm and kissed her on the cheek and
embraced her very tightly.
After the meeting at Starbucks coffee shop in West Avenue, Quezon City,
respondent offered again a ride, which he usually did every time they met. When
she was almost restless respondent stopped his car and forcefully hold her face and
kissed her lips while the other hand was holding her breast. Complainant even in a
state of shocked succeeded in resisting his criminal attempt and immediately
manage to go out of the car.
In the late afternoon, complainant sent a text message to respondent informing
him that she decided to refer the case with another lawyer and needs to get back
the case folder from him.
Respondent replied "talk to my lawyer in due time." Then another message was
received by her at 4:06:33 pm saying "Ano k ba. Im really sri. Pls. Nxt ime bhave n
me." (Ano ka ba. Im really sorry. Please next time behave na ko), which is a clear
manifestation of admission of guilt.
By way of defense, respondent further elucidated that:
there was a criminal case for Acts of Lasciviousness filed by complainant against
respondent pending
legal name of complainant is Cynthia Advincula Toriana since she remains married
to a certain Jinky Toriana
complainant was living with a man not her husband
complainant never bothered to discuss respondents fees and it was respondent
who always paid for their bills every time they met and ate at a restaurant.
Commissioner recommended the imposition of the penalty of 1 month
suspension on respondent for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
IBP passed Resolution No. XVII-2006-117, approving and adopting, with
modification that Atty. Ernesto A. Macabata is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for 3 months
ISSUE: whether respondent committed acts that are grossly immoral or which
constitute serious moral depravity that would warrant his disbarment or suspension
from the practice of law.
HELD: Atty. Ernesto Macabata, for alleged immorality, is DISMISSED. However,
REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING.

NO.
Moral character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective
reality.
requirement of good moral character has 4 ostensible purposes:
to protect the public
to protect the public image of lawyers
to protect prospective clients
to protect errant lawyers from themselves.
It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is
"grossly immoral conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which
render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies
that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be
the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment
Zaguirre v. Castillo:
definition of immoral conduct
o conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the
opinion of good and respectable members of the community.
o must not simply be immoral, but grossly immoral.
o must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.
In the case at bar, complainant miserably failed to comply with the burden of
proof required of her. A mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing does not suffice.
Moreover, while respondent admitted having kissed complainant on the lips, the
same was not motivated by malice. We come to this conclusion because right after
the complainant expressed her annoyance at being kissed by the respondent
through a cellular phone text message, respondent immediately extended an
apology to complainant also via cellular phone text message.
Be it noted also that the incident happened in a place where there were several
people in the vicinity considering that Roosevelt Avenue is a major jeepney route for
24 hours. If respondent truly had malicious designs on complainant, he could have
brought her to a private place or a more remote place where he could freely
accomplish the same.
All told, as shown by the above circumstances, respondents acts are not grossly
immoral nor highly reprehensible to warrant disbarment or suspension.
The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the preservative
and not on the vindictive principle, with great caution and only for the most weighty
reasons and only on clear cases of misconduct which seriously affect the standing
and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the Bar. Only
those acts which cause loss of moral character should merit disbarment or
suspension, while those acts which neither affect nor erode the moral character of
the lawyer should only justify a lesser sanction unless they are of such nature and to
such extent as to clearly show the lawyers unfitness to continue in the practice of
law. The dubious character of the act charged as well as the motivation which
induced the lawyer to commit it must be clearly demonstrated before suspension or
disbarment is meted out. The mitigating or aggravating circumstances that
attended the commission of the offense should also be considered.

 Based on the circumstances of the case as discussed and considering that this is
respondents first offense, reprimand would suffice.
it was difficult and agonizing on complainants part to come out in the open and
accuse her lawyer of gross immoral conduct. However, her own assessment of the
incidents is highly subjective and partial, and surely needs to be corroborated or
supported by more objective evidence.

vi)

Heirs of the Late Spouses Lucas vs. Atty. Beradio, AC No. 6270, Jan. 22, 2007

CARPIO, J.

FACTS:
During their lifetime, the spouses Villanueva acquired several parcels of land in
Pangasinan. Their 5 children, Simeona, Susana, Maria, Alfonso, and Florencia,
survived them.
Alfonso executed an Affidavit of Adjudication stating that as "the only surviving
son and sole heirs of the spouses Villanueva. Alfonso then executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale, conveying the property to Adriano Villanueva. Respondent appeared
as notary public on both the affidavit of adjudication and the deed of sale.
Contrary to the misrepresentations of Alfonso, his sister Florencia was still alive
at the time he executed the affidavit of adjudication and the deed of sale, as were
descendants of the other children of the spouses Villanueva. Complainants claimed
that respondent was aware of this fact, as respondent had been their neighbor in
Balungao, Pangasinan, from the time of their birth, and respondent constantly
mingled with their family. Complainants accused respondent of knowing the "true
facts and surrounding circumstances" regarding the properties of the spouses
Villanueva, yet conspiring with Alfonso to deprive his co-heirs of their rightful shares
in the property.
Commissioner Villadolid found that respondent violated the provisions of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and the spirit and intent of the notarial law when
she notarized the affidavit knowing that Alfonso was not the sole compulsory heir of
the spouses Villanueva. It was recommended that respondent be reprimanded or
suspended from the practice of law for up to 6 months.
ISSUE: W/N respondent should be suspendended for his actions.
HELD: REVOKE the commission as Notary Public, if still existing, and DISQUALIFY
from being commissioned a notary public for 1 year. SUSPEND from the practice of
law for 6 months.
YES.
notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common
of which are the acknowledgment and affirmation of a document or instrument. In
the performance of such notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the
significance of the notarial seal as affixed on a document. The notarial seal converts
the document from private to public, after which it may be presented as evidence
without need for proof of its genuineness and due execution.
By this instrument, Alfonso claimed a portion of his parents estate all to himself,
to the exclusion of his co-heirs. Shortly afterwards, respondent notarized the deed
of sale, knowing that the deed took basis from the unlawful affidavit of adjudication.
Respondent never disputed complainants allegation of her close relationship
with the Villanueva family spanning several decades. Respondent even underscored

this closeness by claiming that Lucas himself requested her to come to his house
the day Lucas handed to Alfonso a copy of OCT No. 2522, allegedly so she could
hear the conversation between them.
Where admittedly the notary public has personal knowledge of a false statement
or information contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet proceeds to affix his
or her notarial seal on it, the Court must not hesitate to discipline the notary public
accordingly as the circumstances of the case may dictate. Otherwise, the integrity
and sanctity of the notarization process may be undermined and public confidence
on notarial documents diminished.
In this case, respondents conduct amounted to a breach of Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for the law and legal processes. Respondent also violated Rule
1.01 of the Code which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral, or deceitful conduct.
We also view with disfavor respondents lack of candor before the IBP
proceedings. The transcript of hearings shows that respondent denied preparing or
notarizing the deed of sale, when she already admitted having done so in her
Comment.

vii) Samala vs. Atty. Valencia, AC 5439, Jan. 22, 2007

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

FACTS:
Complainant Clarita J. Samala filed against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia for
Disbarment on the following grounds:
serving on 2 separate occasions as counsel for contending parties
knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence
initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees
having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and recommended the penalty of suspension for 6
months.
IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of
Commissioner Reyes but increased the penalty of suspension from 6 months to 1
year.
ISSUE: W/N respondent should be suspended.
HELD: respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia GUILTY of misconduct and violation of
Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. SUSPENDED for 3
years.
YES.
In Civil Case No. 98-6804 filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court entitled "Editha S.
Valdez and Joseph J. Alba, Jr. v. Salve Bustamante and her husband" for ejectment,
respondent represented Valdez against Bustamante, 1 of the tenants in the property
subject of the controversy. Presiding Judge warned respondent to refrain from
repeating the act of being counsel of record of both parties in Civil Case No. 95-105MK.

 Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a

lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. A lawyer may not, without being
guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest
conflicts with that of his present or former client. This stern rule is founded on the
principles of public policy and good taste. One of the tests of inconsistency of
interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full
discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty.
Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility "a lawyer shall preserve the
confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is
terminated."
respondent's representation of :
Valdez and Alba against Bustamante and her husband
Valdez against Alba
is a clear case of conflict of interests which merits a corresponding sanction from
this Court.
Respondent may have withdrawn his representation in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK
upon being warned by the court, but the same will not exculpate him from the
charge of representing conflicting interests in his representation in Civil Case No.
2000-657-MK.
Respondent is reminded to be more cautious in accepting professional
employments, to refrain from all appearances and acts of impropriety including
circumstances indicating conflict of interests, and to behave at all times with
circumspection and dedication befitting a member of the Bar, especially observing
candor, fairness and loyalty in all transactions with his clients.
respondent cannot feign ignorance of the fact that the title he submitted was
already cancelled in lieu of a new title issued in the name of Alba in 1995 yet, as
proof of the latter's ownership.
What is decisive in this case is respondent's intent in trying to mislead the court
by presenting TCT No. 273020 despite the fact that said title was already cancelled
and a new one, TCT No. 275500, was already issued in the name of Alba.
The act of respondent of filing the aforecited cases to protect the interest of his
client, on one hand, and his own interest, on the other, cannot be made the basis of
an administrative charge unless it can be clearly shown that the same was being
done to abuse judicial processes to commit injustice.
respondent liable for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
respondent admitted that he sired three children by Teresita Lagmay who are all
over 20 years of age, while his first wife was still alive. He also admitted that he has
eight children by his first wife, the youngest of whom is over 20 years of age, and
after his wife died in 1997, he married Lagmay in 1998.
In this case, the admissions made by respondent are more than enough to hold
him liable on the charge of immorality. He even justified his transgression by saying
that he does not have any relationship with Lagmay and despite the fact that he
sired 3 children by the latter, he does not consider them as his second family
Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be
difficult to specify the degree of moral delinquency that may qualify an act as
immoral, yet, for purposes of disciplining a lawyer, immoral conduct has been

defined as that "conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a
moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community.

viii)
St. Louis University High School Faculty and Staff vs. Atty. dela Cruz, AC
No. 6010, Aug. 28,2006
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

FACTS:
disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and Staff of the Saint Louis
University-Laboratory High School against Atty. Rolando C. Dela Cruz, principal of
SLU-LHS on the grounds that:
1.

Gross Misconduct:

a.
pending criminal case for child abuse allegedly committed by him against a
high school student
b.
a pending administrative case filed by the Teachers, Staff, Students and
Parents before an Investigating Board created by SLU for his alleged unprofessional
and unethical acts of misappropriating money supposedly for the teachers
c.
pending labor case filed by SLU-LHS Faculty before the NLRC, Cordillera
Administrative Region, on alleged illegal deduction of salary by respondent.
2.
Grossly Immoral Conduct: second marriage despite the existence of his first
marriage
o respondent was legally married to Teresita Rivera before Honorable Judge Tomas
W. Macaranas. He subsequently married with Mary Jane Pascua before the
Honorable Judge Guillermo Purganan which was subsequently annulled for being
bigamous.
3.

Malpractice: notarizing documents despite the expiration of his commission.

o On the charge of malpractice, complainant alleged that respondent deliberately

subscribed and notarized certain legal documents on different dates from 1988 to
1997, despite expiration of respondents notarial commission on 31 December
1987. A Certification dated 25 May 1999 was issued by the Clerk of Court of
Regional Trial Court to the effect that respondent had not applied for commission as
Notary Public for the period 1988 to 1997.
Pacheco submitted his report and recommended that:
1.
For contracting a second marriage without taking the appropriate legal steps
to have the first marriage annulled first, he be suspended from the practice of law
for 1 year
2.
For notarizing certain legal documents despite full knowledge of the expiration
of his notarial commission, he be suspended from the practice of law for another 1
year.
IBP Board of Governors approved and adopted the recommendation of the
Commissioner.
ISSUE: W/N respondent should be penalized for a suspension of 2 years in total.
HELD: Atty. Rolando Dela Cruz guilty of immoral conduct, in disregard of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of 2
years, and another 2 years for notarizing documents despite the expiration of his
commission

 A member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might
lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity,
honesty and integrity of the legal profession. Towards this end, an attorney may be
disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney
and counselor, which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138
of the Rules of Court, all of these being broad enough to cover practically any
misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity.
Equally worthy of remark is that the law profession does not prescribe a
dichotomy of standards among its members. There is no distinction as to whether
the transgression is committed in the lawyers professional capacity or in his private
life.
One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must
possess good moral character. Possession of such moral character as requirement
to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice must be continuous. Otherwise,
membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good
moral conduct.
Respondent was already a member of the Bar when he contracted the bigamous
second marriage. As such, he cannot feign ignorance.
the acquittal of a lawyer in a criminal action is not determinative of an
administrative case against him. So long as the quantum of proof - clear
preponderance of evidence - in disciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar
is met, then liability attaches.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court cites grossly immoral conduct as a
ground for disbarment.
o Immoral conduct-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
o grossly immoral- must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or
so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree
In particular, he made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution
demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage while the
first marriage was still in place, is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and
morality.
However, measured against the definition, we are not prepared to consider
respondents act as grossly immoral. This finds support in the following
recommendation and observation of the IBP Investigator and IBP Board of
Governors, thus:
1.
After his first failed marriage and prior to his second marriage or for a period
of almost 7 years, he has not been romantically involved with any woman
2.
His second marriage was a show of his noble intentions and total love for his
wife, whom he described to be very intelligent person
3.

He never absconded from his obligations to support his wife and child

4.
He never disclaimed paternity over the child and husbandry with relation to
his wife
5.
After the annulment of his 2nd marriage, they have parted ways when the
mother and child went to Australia
6.

Since then up to now, respondent remained celibate.

 respondent himself acknowledged and declared his abject apology for his
misstep. He was humble enough to offer no defense save for his love and
declaration of his commitment to his wife and child.
imposition of disbarment upon him to be unduly harsh. The power to disbar must
be exercised with great caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of
misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an
officer of the Court. Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty
could accomplish the end desired. I
a penalty of 2 years suspension is more appropriate.
respondent humbly admitted having notarized certain documents despite his
knowledge that he no longer had authority to do so. He alleged that he received no
payment in notarizing said documents.
Notarization of a private document converts the document into a public one
making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial
document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason,
notaries public must observe with the utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity
of this form of conveyance would be undermined.
The requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be
treated as a mere casual formality. The Court has characterized a lawyers act of
notarizing documents without the requisite commission to do so as reprehensible,
constituting as it does not only malpractice but also x x x the crime of falsification of
public documents.
The Court had occasion to state that where the notarization of a document is
done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or
commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action or one,
performing a notarial act without such commission is a violation of the lawyers oath
to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it
appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and
purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyers oath similarly
proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: A lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. By acting as a
notary public without the proper commission to do so, the lawyer likewise violates
Canon 7 of the same Code, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
Other charges constituting respondents misconduct such as the pending criminal
case for child abuse allegedly committed by him against a high school student filed
before the Prosecutors Office of Baguio City; the pending administrative case filed
by the Teachers, Staff, Students and Parents before an Investigating Board created
by SLU; and the pending labor case filed by SLU-LHS Faculty before the NLRC,
Cordillera Administrative Region, on alleged illegal deduction of salary by
respondent, need not be discussed, as they are still pending before the proper
forums. At such stages, the presumption of innocence still prevails in favor of the
respondent.

ix)

Donton vs. Atty. Tansingco, AC No. 6057, June 27, 2006

Related Canons: Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
FACTS:


disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco for
estafa thru falsification of a public document against Duane O. Stier, a U.S. citizen
and thereby disqualified to own real property in his name, as the notary public who
notarized the Occupancy Agreement, recognizing Mr. Stiers free and undisturbed
use of the property for his residence and business operations.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco should be liable for
violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code.
HELD: YES. GUILTY. SUSPEND for SIX MONTHS.

Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code.

o A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will
involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey.
o A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating
the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer.10

In effect, respondent advised and aided Stier in circumventing the

constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of lands by preparing said
documents.
o Respondent had sworn(oath) to uphold the Constitution.

x)

Ronquillo vs. Atty.Chavez, AC No. 6288, June 16, 2006

Ronquillo vs. Atty.Chavez

FACTS:

Atty. Homobono t. Cezar entered into a Deed of Assignment for the price of
P1.5M in favor of Marili C. Ronquillo, a Filipino citizen residing in Cannes, France his
rights and interests over a townhouse unit and lot and obligated himself to deliver
to complainants a copy of the Contract to Sell he executed with Crown Asia, the
townhouse developer

Respondent received P750,000.00 u pon execution of the Deed of Assignment

and was able to encash the first check of P187,500.00

Complainants subsequently received information from Crown Asia that

respondent has not paid in full the price of the townhouse and he also failed to
deliver a copy of the Contract to Sell he allegedly executed with Crown Asia.
o Complainant ordered stop payment on the second check of P187,500.00

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Homobono t. Cezar should be disbared or suspended for
deceit and grossly immoral conduct

HELD: YES. SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of 3 YEARS.

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a member of the
Bar may be disbarred or suspended on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2)
malpractice or other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4)
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyers oath; (6)
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party without authority.

o He did not inform the complainants that he has not yet paid in full the price of
the subject townhouse unit and lot, and, therefore, he had no right to sell, transfer
or assign said property at the time of the execution of the Deed of Assignment.

Respondents adamant refusal to return to complainant Marili Ronquillo the

money she paid him, which was the fruit of her labor as an Overseas Filipino Worker
for 10 years, is morally reprehensible.

Respondent failed to live up to the strict standard of morality required by the

Code of Professional Responsibility and violated the trust and respect reposed in
him as a member of the Bar, and an officer of the court.
o Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they
are dealing with their clients or the public at large, and a violation of the high moral
standards of the legal profession

whether or not the attorney is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member

of the Bar; cannot rule on the issue of the amount of money that should be returned

xi)

Tomlin vs. Atty. Moya, AC No. 6971, Feb. 23, 2006

Tomlin vs. Atty. Moya

FACTS:

Atty. Salvador N. Moya II borrowed from Quirino Tomlin II P600,000.00 partially

covered by seven postdated checks which are all dishonored by the drawee bank
o made several demands, the last being a formal letter but still failed and refused
to pay his debt without justifiable reason.

Complaint:

o a case for seven counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against the respondent before
the Municipal Trial Court
o case for respondents disbarment
ISSUES: Whether or not Atty. Salvador N. Moya II is liable for gross misconduct and
violation of the Code.
HELD: YES. GUILTY of gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 2 years with a warning
that any further infraction by him shall be dealt with most severely.

good character is an essential qualification for the admission to the practice

of law and for the continuance of such privilege.

respondent admitted his monetary obligations to the complainant but offered

no justifiable reason for his continued refusal to pay.
o he refused to recognize any wrongdoing nor shown remorse for issuing worthless
checks, an act constituting gross misconduct
o As part of his duties, he must promptly pay his financial obligations.
NOTE:

administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own

may proceed independently of criminal cases.

o burden of proof in a criminal case is guilt beyond reasonable doubt while in an

administrative case, only preponderance of evidence is required.

xii) Soriano vs. Atty. Dizon, AC No. 6792, Jan 25, 2006
Soriano vs. Atty. Dizon
FACTS:

Atty. Manuel Dizon was driving his brown Toyota Corolla with his wife. Along
Abanao Street, a taxi driver overtook him so he tailed the taxi driver until the latter
stopped to make a turn. He berated the taxi driver and held him by his shirt. To
stop the aggression, the taxi driver forced open his door causing the accused to fall
to the ground. Taking pity on the accused who looked elderly, the taxi driver got out
of his car to help him get up. When he was about to hit the taxi driver, he hit the
accused in the chest then he got up again and was about to box the taxi driver but
the latter caught his fist and turned his arm around. The accused went back to his
car and got his revolver making sure that the handle was wrapped in a
handkerchief. The taxi driver was on his way back to his vehicle when he noticed
the eyeglasses of the accused on the ground. He picked them up intending to
return them to the accused. But as he was handing the same to the accused, he
was met by the barrel of the gun held by the accused who fired and shot him hitting
him on the neck. He fell on the thigh of the accused so the latter pushed him out
and sped off.

witness, Antonio Billanes, who came to the aid of Soriano and brought the
latter to the hospital.
o sustained a spinal cord injury, which caused paralysis on the left part of his body
and disabled him for his job as a taxi driver.

Despite positive identification and overwhelming evidence, Respondent

denied that he had shot Complainant;

Apart from [his] denial, Respondent also lied when he claimed that he was the
one mauled by Complainant and two unidentified persons

Although he has been placed on probation, Respondent has not yet (for 4
years) satisfied his civil liabilities to Complainant.

convicted, by final judgment, of frustrated homicide

ISSUE: Whether or not frustrated homicide involves moral turpitude and where ot
not guilt warrants disbarment.

HELD: YES. DISBARRED.

Moral turpitude has been defined as everything which is done contrary to

justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the
private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general,
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.
o Good moral character includes at least common honesty.

Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of
the crime.
o a question of fact and frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances
act of aggression shown by respondent will not be mitigated by the fact that he
was hit once and his arm twisted by complainant. Under the circumstances, those
were reasonable actions clearly intended to fend off the lawyers assault.

 He shot the victim when the latter was not in a position to defend himself.
To make matters worse, respondent wrapped the handle of his gun with a
handkerchief so as not to leave fingerprints.
his illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm and his unjust refusal to satisfy his
civil liabilities

Where their misconduct outside of their professional dealings is so gross as to

show them morally unfit for their office and unworthy of the privileges conferred
upon them by their license and the law, the court may be justified in suspending or
removing them from that office.

xiii)

Po Cham vs. Atty. Pizarro, AC No. 5499, August 16, 2005

Po Cham vs. Atty. Pizarro

FACTS:

Emelita Caete, Elenita Alipio, and now deceased Mario Navarro, offered for
sale to him a parcel of land with an area of approximately 40 hectares.
o Respondent being extensively conversant and knowledgeable about the law took
advantage of his versatility in the practice of law and committed misrepresentations
Respondent presented to him 1) Real Property Tax Order of Payment 2) a Deed of
Absolute Sale 3) Special Power of Upon investigation
Dead of sale conttained: The SELLERS hereby agree with the BUYER that they are
the absolute owners of the rights over the said property; that they have the perfect
right to convey the same
discovered that the property is not an alienable or disposable land susceptible of
private ownership because , said lands fall within the Bataan Natural Park. Under
the Public Land Law, lands within this category are not subject for disposition.

a finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in a finding of
liability in the administrative case. Conversely, respondents acquittal does not
necessarily exculpate him administratively.
HELD: SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 1 Year and STERNLY WARNED

b)

Unlawful Conduct

i)

Rural Bank of Silay vs. Pilla, 350 SCRA 28

ii)

Calub vs. Suller, 323 SCRA 556

iii)

Orbe vs. Adaza, AC No. 5252, May 20, 2004

iv)

Emilio Grande vs. Atty. Evangeline de Silva, AC No. 4838, July 29, 2003

c)

Immoral Conduct

i)

ii)

Paras vs. Paras, 343 SCRA 414

Ui vs. Bonifacio, 333 SCRA 38

iii)

Tapucar vs. Tapucar, 293 SCRA 331

iv)

Narag vs. Narag, 291 SCRA 451

d)

Deceit

i)

ii)

iii)

Cordon vs. Balicanta, AC No. 2797, Oct. 4, 2002

Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos, 265 SCRA 83

De los Reyes vs. Aznar, 19 SCRA 753

e)

Scandalous Conduct

i)

Rau Sheng Mo vs. Atty. Velasco, AC No. 4881, Oct. 6, 2003

2)

CANON 2

a)

Rule 2.01
i)

Canoy vs. Ortiz, 453 SCRA 410

CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY
TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF
FACTS.

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.

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.

Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawal from the firm
and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to
practice law currently.

Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the
mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business.

CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL

SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE
IMPROVEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE

IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE
HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF
LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN

THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to
convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment
of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly
reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his
public duties.
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service.

B. CASES

READ THE CASES ONLY INSOFAR AS THEY ARE RELEVANT TO THE ASSIGNED
CANONS

1) CANON 2

Canoy vs. Ortiz, 453 SCRA 410

Tan Tek Beng vs. David, 126 SCRA 389

In re: Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37 (1929)

People vs. Holgado, 85 Phil. 752

Ulep vs. Legal Clinic 223 SCRA 378 (only as to advertising))

2) CANON 3

San Jose Homeowners Assn. v Romanillos, AC No. 5580, June 18, 2005

Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr. v Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo, AC No. 5299, Aug. 10, 2002

B.R. Sebastian Enterprises Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 28

Dacanay vs. Baker & Mckenzie, Adm. Case No. 2131 May 10, 1985*

Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot, A.C. No. L-1117, March 20, 1944*

Beltran v. Abad, A. M. No. 139 March 28, 1983*

In re Tagorda, March 23, 1929*

3) Canon 6

U.S. vs. Barredo, 32 Phil. 449, G.R. No. L-9278 December 7, 1915

Suarez vs. Platon, 69 Phil. 556

Gonzales-Austria, et al. vs. Abaya, 176 SCRA 634

Enriquez Sr. vs. Hon. Gimenez, 107 Phil. 933*