RURAL BANK OF SILAY, INC., complainant, vs. ATTY.

ERNESTO
H. PILLA, respondent.
Respondent executed a REM in favour of the complainant over a
parcel of land in Sagay, Negros Occidental, as an attorney in fact of
the registered owners, Pedro Torres and Oscar Granada together
with an SPA which was purportedly authorized by the owners to
mortgage the land in favour of the complainant.
The complainant released a loan in the amount of 91,427 Php in
favour of the respondent. Later, the complainant found out that the
respondent was not authorized by Oscar Granada to mortgage the
land when he was joined as defendant for removal of cloud on title
with preliminary injunction and damages.
Granada specifically denied having executed an SPA to respondent
to support the said loan. The trial court decided against the
respondent, and held that the SPA was forged and falsified because
the spouses Granada have not signed the same. The respondent did
not appeal from the said judgment. The foregoing acts of the
respondent in presenting to the complainant Bank a forged and
falsified Power of Attorney for the purpose of obtaining a loan is a
betrayal of his oath as a lawyer to do falsehood to no man and by his
conduct herein has forfeited his right to continue further in the
practice of law.
Respondent refuted the charges of deceit and gross misconduct
against him.
Upon the instance of the Court, respondent filed his comment
refuting the charges of deceit and gross misconduct against
him. Respondent denied employing any deceit or misrepresentation
in obtaining a loan from complainant rural bank. According to
respondent, he did not know that the signature of Oscar Granada on
the special power of attorney appointing him (respondent) as
attorney-in-fact was forged. The special power of attorney
purportedly authorized respondent to mortgaged the parcel of land in
Sagay, Negros Occidental in favor of complainant rural
bank. Respondent also claimed that if indeed said document was

forged, he was not a party to the forgery. IBP recommended he be

suspended for 5 years which was later reduced to 3.
Issue:
WON the respondent is guilty of deceit and gross misconduct.
Held: SUSPENDED FOR 3 YEARS
Since respondent actually benefited from the falsified document, he
is presumed to have a hand in the falsification of the
same. Respondent miserably failed to rebut this presumption with
his barefaced denial that he had no knowledge of the forgery. The
Court cannot give credence to respondents negative assertion that
he did not know that the special power of attorney issued in his favor
was falsified. As a lawyer, respondent knows or ought to know that
parties to a public document must personally appear before the
notary public to attest that the same is their own free act and
deed. In utter disregard of this requirement, respondent caused the
special power of attorney to be notarized without the parties
appearing before the notary public. Thereafter, respondent
presented the same to complainant rural bank in order to obtain a
loan therefrom. It is thus apparent that respondent had a hand in the
falsification of the document especially considering that it was he
who chiefly benefited from it. Indeed, the settled rule is that in the
absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and
who used a forged document is the forger and therefore guilty of
falsification. Further, if a person had in his possession a falsified
document and he made use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it
and profiting thereby, the clear presumption is that he is the material
author of the falsification.[
Respondents acts clearly fall short of the standards set by the
Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 1.01 thereof,
which provides that [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The fact that the conduct
pertained to respondents private dealings with complainant rural
bank is of no moment. A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for
ANY misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long

as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, or

good demeanor. Possession of good moral character is not only a
good condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing
qualification for all members of the bar.[9]
Considering the foregoing, the recommendation of the IBP that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of
three (3) years is approved.

CRISTINO G. CALUB, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ABRAHAM A. SULLER, respondent.
Facts:
In the morning of January 20, 1975, while complainant was away,
respondent Atty. Abraham A. Suller went to the complainant's abode
in Aringay, La Union ostensibly to borrow a blade.
As the respondent was a friend of the family and a neighbor, the
complainant's wife let him in. Thereafter, respondent began touching
her in different parts of her body. When she protested, respondent
threatened her and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. At
that moment, complainant returned home to get money to pay for
real estate taxes. When he entered the house, he saw his wife and
respondent having sexual intercourse on the bed. 1 She was kicking
respondent with one foot while the latter pressed on her arms and
other leg, preventing her from defending herself.
Complainant filed with the Municipal Court in La Union a criminal
complaint for rape against respondent. The case was later remanded
to the Court of First Instance, La Union.
On 1975, Cristino G. Calub filed with the Supreme Court the instant
complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Abraham A. Suller.
Respondent denied the accusation as a fabrication.
In 1992, the Committee issued an order terminating the proceedings
and considering the case submitted for resolution as notice to
complainant remained unserved while respondent failed to appear
despite due notice.

On March 3, 1993, the Board of Governors, Integrated Bar of the

Philippines issued a resolution recommending that the disciplinary
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
year be meted on respondent.
Issue:
WON the respondent is guilty of grossly immoral conduct and should
be disbarred.
Held: DISBARRED
The record discloses that the Court of First Instance acquitted
respondent Suller for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. Such acquittal, however, is not
determinative of this administrative case.
The testimonies of witnesses in the criminal complaint, particularly
that of the complainant suffice to show that respondent acted in a
grossly reprehensible manner in having carnal knowledge of his
neighbor's wife without her consent in her very home.
A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in
his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting
in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.12
In this case, we find that suspension for one year recommended by
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is not sufficient punishment for
the immoral act of respondent. The rape of his neighbor's wife
constituted serious moral depravity even if his guilt was not proved
beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal prosecution for rape. He is
not worthy to remain a member of the bar. The privilege to practice
law is bestowed upon individuals who are competent intellectually,
academically and, equally important, morally.13 "Good moral

character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal

profession, but it must also be possessed at all times in order to
maintain one's good standing in that exclusive and honored
fraternity."

Rationale
1) business transactions between an attorney and his client are
disfavored and discouraged by the policy of law no
presumption of innocence or improbability of wrongdoing is
considered in an attorneys favor

WHEREFORE, respondent Abraham A. Suller is DISBARRED from

the practise of law. Let his name be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.

2)

Cruz vs. Jacinto

Facts
A certain Concepcion Padilla requested a P285,000 loan from the
Cruz spouses through Atty. Ernesto Jacinto. The spouses, believing
the representation of their lawyer that Padilla was a good risk,
authorized Jacinto to prepare the necessary documents for the
registration of the Real Estate Mortgage as a security of the loan in
favor of the couple.
When the loan became due, Padilla was nowhere to be found. Later
it was discovered that the mortgage had for its object a fake TCT.
Estrella Palipada (secretary of Jacinto) testified that she was
instructed by Jacinto to notarize the mortgage by signing the name of
Atty. Ricardo Neri. His housemaid Avegail Payos also admitted that
she simulated the signature of Emmanuel Gimarino (Deputy Register
Of Deeds) upon the command of her amo.

Issue/s
whether or not Jacinto committed malpractice

Resolution
malamang !!! suspended from the practice of law for 6 months

a higher standard of good faith is required of a lawyer when he

engages in business dealings this is because his position
gives him an advantage which he might abuse

MAGLUCOT-AW v. MAGLUCOT
G.R. No. 132518. March 28, 2000.
Kapunan, J.
DOCTRINE: Parties to a partition proceeding, who elected to take
under partition, and who
took
possession of the portion allotted to them, are estopped from
questioning the title to
partition
allotted to another party.
FACTS: Petitioner filed a complaint for the recovery of possession
and damages alleging that
they are the owners of lot no. 1639-D which was originally part of lot
no. 1639 which was
covered by OCT no. 67 issued in the names of Hermogenes Olis,
Pascual Olis, Bartolome
Maglucot, Anselmo Lara, and Tomas Maglucot. Subsequently, Tomas
and respondent's
predecessor-in-interest filed a petition to subdivide the lot into six
portions and was granted.
Then in 1963, respondents rented portions of lot 1639-d paying
rentals therefore. They
likewise
built houses on their corresponding leased lots. However, in 1992,
they stopped paying

rentals
claiming ownership over the subject lot. Petitioners maintained that
there was a valid
partition
and that the respondents are stopped from claiming to be co-owners
of the subject lot in
view of
their agreement in 1946 and ruled that the sketch plan and tax
declarations relied upon by
petitioners are not conclusive evidence to partition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are estopped from
questioning the title to partition.
HELD: YES. Parties to a partition proceeding, who elected to take
under partition, and who
took
possession of the portion allotted to them, are estopped from
questioning the title to
partition
allotted to another party. Here, respondents already occupied the lots
in accordance with
the
sketch plan. This occupation continued until this action was filed.
They cannot now be heard
to question the possession and ownership of the other co-owners
who took exclusive
possession of lot 1639-d also in accordance with the sketch plan.
Also, the payment of
rentals
reveals that respondents' possession of the land is that of a holder
and not as owner
thereof.
One who possess as a mere holder acknowledges in another a
superior right which he
believes
to be ownership. Hence, petitioners were in possession of the
subject lot in the concept of
an
owner from 1952 up to the time the present action was commenced.
Petition was granted.

defendant) and to terminate all civil, criminal and

administrative proceedings filed against it.
i. Denied that they had negotiations, discussion,
formulation or execution.
ii. No longer connected with Pagulayan and Associates
Law Offices.
iii. Re-Admission Agreements nothing to do with
DISMISSAL OF CIVIL CASE involving 9 students of AMACC.

Camacho vs. Pangulayan

Camacho vs. Pangulayan

FACTS:
1.

PANGULAYAN INDICTED FOR VIOLATION OF CANON

9: Lawyer should not communicate upon subject of
controversy with a party represented by counsel, much
less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the
matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel.
Lawyer must avoid everything that may tend to mislead
party not represented by counsel and should not advise
him as to law.
1.
HIRED LAWYER OF DEFENDANTS who had
compromised agreements with CAMACHOS CLIENTS.
2.
Required them to waive all kinds of claims
they might have had against AMACC (principal

1. Civil case involved publishing of features or articles in

Editorial Board of DATALINE.
2. Found guilty by Student Disciplinary Tribunal of using
indecent language and unauthorized use of student
publication funds.
3. Expulsion
a. Students appeal and was denied by the AMACC President
which gave rise to civil case.
b. During civil case, apology letters and Re-Admission
Agreements were separately executed by some expelled
students.

ISSUE:
Does the Re-Admission Agreements have nothing to do
with DISMISSAL OF CIVIL CASE involving 9 students of
AMACC?

HELD:
3 MONTHS SUSPENSION AND DISMISSAL OF CASE
AGAINST OTHER RESPONDENTS THAT DID NOT TAKE PART
IN THE NEGOTIATION.
1.

Individual letters and Re-Admission Agreements

were formalized in which PANGULAYAN was already
counsel of AMACC.
1.
Had full knowledge; did not discuss it with
the students parents or their counsel.
i. Re-Admission Agreements affected the dismissal of the
civil case because signatories agreed to terminate all
civil, criminal and administrative proceedings against
AMACC.

PASTOR EDWIN VILLARIN, PACIANO DE VEYRA, SR., and

BARTOLOME EVAROLO, SR., vs. ATTY. RESTITUTO SABATE, JR.,
[A.C. No. 3324. February 9, 2000]
FACTS:
Atty. Restituto Sabate was a counsel in a case defending
his clients, in the verification it shows that he was the one who
signed for the defendants, alleging that it was done in good faith and
the word BY which suggests that he did not in any manner make it
appear that those persons signed in his presence; aside from the

fact that his clients authorized him to sign for and in their behalf,
considering the distance of their place of residence to that of the
respondent and the reglementary period in filing said pleadings he
had to reckon with.
Issue: Is the contentions of the respondent meritorious?
Ruling:
No. But while it would appear that in doing so, he acted in
good faith, the fact remains that the same cannot be condoned. He
failed to state in the preliminary statements of said motion/answer
that the three respondents were represented by their designated
attorneys-in-fact. Besides, having signed the Verification of the
pleading, he cannot swear that he appeared before himself as
Notary Public.
The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against
any illegal or immoral arrangements. That function would be
defeated if the notary public were one of the signatories to the
instrument. For then, he would be interested in sustaining the validity
thereof as it directly involves himself and the validity of his own act. It
would place him in an inconsistent position, and the very purpose of
the acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud, would be thwarted.
A member of the bar who performs an act as a notary public should
not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same
are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared
before said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what
are stated therein. The acts of affiants cannot be delegated to
anyone for what are stated therein are facts they have personal
knowledge of and swore to the same personally and not through any
representative. Otherwise, their representatives names should
appear in the said documents as the ones who executed the same
and that is only the time they can affix their signatures and personally
appear before the notary public for notarization of said document.
As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated
to subscribe to the sacred duties pertaining to his office, such duties
being dictated by public policy impressed with public interest. Faithful

observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in

an acknowledgement or jurat is sacrosanct. Simply put, such
responsibility is incumbent upon and failing therein, he must now
accept the commensurate consequences of his professional
indiscretion.
That respondent acted the way he did because he was confronted
with an alleged urgent situation is no excuse at all. As an individual,
and even more so as a member of the legal profession, he is
required to obey the laws of the land at all times. For notarizing the
Verification of the Motion to Dismiss With Answer when three of the
affiants thereof were not before him and for notarizing the same
instrument of which he was one of the signatories, he failed to
exercise due diligence in upholding his duty as a notary public.

acquired information relative to assets of clients and

their personal and business circumstances.
PCGG excluded Raul Roco from the complaint as partydefendant because of his undertaking that he will
reveal the identity of the principals for whom he acted
as nominee-stockholder in the companies involved.
Sandiganbayan promulgated a Resolution denying the
exclusion of ACCRA members in the complaint as
party-defendants. MR denied.

Regala v. Sandiganbayan

PETs contend: that the exclusion of Roco as partydefendant grants him a favourable treatment, on the
pretext of his alleged undertaking to divulge the
identity of his client, giving him an advantage over
ACCRA members; that lawyers are prohibited from
revealing the identity of their principal.

Ponente: Kapunan

Issue

Facts

W/N privileged communication between atty and client

may be asserted in refusing to disclose the name of
ACCRAs clients? Yes.

WHEREFORE, for lack of diligence in the observance of the Notarial

Law, respondent Atty. Restituto Sabate, Jr. is SUSPENDED from his
Commission as Notary Public for a period of one (1) year.

PCGG field a case against Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. for

the recovery of ill-gotten wealth. Among the
defendants were the ACCRA Law Firm and Raul Roco,
also a part of ACCRA. Case alleged that Cojuangco and
defendants conspired in setting up through the use of
coco levy funds numerous banks; that ACCRA acted as
dummies.
ACCRA performed legal services for clients, with the
incidental services where its members acted as
stockholders. In the process, members of ACCRA

Held
PETs inclusion as co-defendants is merely being used
as leverage to compel them to name their clients and
consequently to enable PCGG to nail these clients ->
thus PCGG has no valid cause of action against PETs
and should exclude them from the complaint.

An atty is more than a mere agent or servant because

he possesses special powers of trust and confidence
reposed on him by his client. If the price of disclosure
is too high, or if it amounts to self-incrimination, then
the flow of information would be curtailed, thereby
rendering the right to counsel practically nugatory.
An effective lawyer-client relationship is largely
dependent upon the degree of confidence which exists
between lawyer and client which in turn requires a
situation which encourages a dynamic and fruitful
exchange and flow of information.
General rule: a lawyer may not invoke the privilege
and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client.
Exception:
1. client identity is privileged where a strong
probability exists that revealing the clients name
would implicate that client in the very activity which
he sought the lawyers advice.
2. the content of any client communication to a lawyer
lies within the privilege if it is relevant to the subject
matter of the legal problem on which the client seeks
legal assistance.
3. where the nature of the atty-client relationship has
been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is
intended to be confidential, the identity of the client
has been held to be privileged

The instant case falls under exceptions: disclosure of

clients name would lead to establish said clients
connection with the very fact in issue of the case.
Link between the alleged criminal offense and the
legal advice/service sought duly established: clients
consulted the PETs regarding structure, framework and
set-up of corporations. In turn, PETs gave professional
advice in the form of, among others, deeds of
assignment covering clients shareholdings.
Preparation of documents part of PETs legal service to
clients. Thus PETs have legitimate fear that identifying
their clients would implicate them in the very activity
for which legal advice had been sought. Revelation
of clients name would provide necessary link for
the prosecution to build its case.
Where a client thinks he might have previously
committed something illegal and consults atty about it
-> falls within the exception. But where client seeks
services of an atty for illicit purposes, seeking advice
about how to go around the law to commit illegal
activities -> not covered by privilege.
Purpose of privilege: to avoid fishing expedition by the
prosecution. There are alternative sources of
information available to prosecutor w/c do not
depend on utilizing defendants counsel as
source.
Duration of privilege: exists not only during
relationship but extends even after termination.

PCGG failed to show that Roco actually revealed

identity of clients.
PCGG failed to show that Roco was treated as a
species apart from the rest of ACCRA lawyers -> no
substantial distinctions between him and ACCRA;
violates equal protection clause.