1

CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the

laws of the land and promote respect for law and the legal
processes.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.

Supreme Court
Manila
EN BANC
MAELOTISEA S. GARRIDO,
Complainant,

versus -

ATTYS. ANGEL E. GARRIDO

and ROMANA P. VALENCIA,
Respondents.

A.C. No. 6593

Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
CARPIO,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
*
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ, and
**
MENDOZA, JJ.
Promulgated:
February 4, 2010

He violated ethical rules of the profession, specifically, Rule 1.01 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility, which commands
that he shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct; Canon 7 of the same Code, which demands
that [a] lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession; Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides that, [a] lawyer shall
not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private
life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
We are not unmindful of Atty. Valencias expressed belief that Atty.
Garridos second marriage to Maelotisea was invalid; hence, she felt
free to marry Atty. Garrido. While this may be correct in the strict
legal sense and was later on confirmed by the declaration of the
nullity of Atty. Garridos marriage to Maelotisea, we do not believe at
all in the honesty of this expressed belief.

SECOND DIVISION
NEMESIO FLORAN and
CARIDAD FLORAN,
Complainants,

A.C. No. 5325

Present:

- versus -

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

BRION,
SERENO,
REYES, and
PERLAS-BERNABE,* JJ.

ATTY. ROY PRULE EDIZA,

Respondent.

Promulgated:
October 19, 2011

Lamentably,
Atty. Ediza played
on
the
navet
of
the
Spouses Floran to deprive them of their valued property. This is an
unsavory behavior from a member of the legal profession. Aside
from giving adequate attention, care and time to his clients case, a
lawyer is also expected to be truthful, fair and honest in protecting
his clients rights. Once a lawyer fails in this duty, he is not true to
his oath as a lawyer.

Supreme Court
Manila
EN BANC
MARITES E. FREEMAN,
Complainant,

A.C. No. 6246

[Formerly CBD No. 00-730]
Present:

- versus -

CORONA, C.J.,*
CARPIO,
VELASCO, JR.,*
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,**
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,*
DEL CASTILLO,**
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,
SERENO,
REYES, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
Promulgated:

ATTY. ZENAIDA P. REYES,

Respondent.

November 15, 2011

Law advocacy, it has been stressed, is not capital that yields

profits. The returns it births are simple rewards for a job done or
service rendered. It is a calling that, unlike mercantile pursuits which
enjoy a greater deal of freedom from government interference, is
impressed with public interest, for which it is subject to State
regulation.[55]Respondent's repeated reprehensible acts of employing
chicanery and unbecoming conduct to conceal her web of lies, to the
extent of milking complainant's finances dry, and deceitfully
arrogating upon herself the insurance proceeds that should rightfully
belong to complainant, in the guise of rendering legitimate legal
services, clearly transgressed the norms of honesty and integrity
required in the practice of law. This being so, respondent should be
purged from the privilege of exercising the noble legal profession.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.C. No. 9608

November 27, 2012

MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON, Respondent.

From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the
admissions of respondent himself, we find that respondents act of
engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his former
employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants
sanction. Respondent not only admitted he had sexual intercourse
with complainant but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he
asserted that he did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed
and he even gave her money. Indeed, his act of having carnal
knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect
for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of
fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by enticing a
very young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity
and low regard for the dignity of the human person and the ethics of
his profession.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.C. No. 6490
July 9, 2013
(Formerly CBD Case No. 03-1054)
LILIA TABANG AND CONCEPCION TABANG, Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT, Respondent.

While it may be true that complainant Lilia Tabang herself engaged

in illicit activities, the complainants own complicity does not negate,
or even mitigate, the repugnancy of respondents offense. Quite the
contrary, his offense is made even graver. He is a lawyer who is held
to the highest standards of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair
dealing. Perverting what is expected of him, he deliberately and
cunningly took advantage of his knowledge and skill of the law to
prejudice and torment other individuals. Not only did he
countenance illicit action, he instigated it. Not only did he acquiesce
to injustice, he orchestrated it. Thus, We impose upon respondent
the supreme penalty of disbarment.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.C. No. 4191

June 10, 2013

ANITA C. PENA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. CHRISTINA C. PATERNO, Respondent.

Given the facts of this case, wherein respondent was in possession

of complainant's copy of the certificate of title (TCT No. N-61244) to
the property in Marikina, and it was respondent who admittedly
prepared the Deed of Sale, which complainant denied having
executed or signed, the important evidence of the alleged forgery of
complainant's signature on the Deed of Sale and the validity of the
sale is the Deed of Sale itself. However, a copy of the Deed of Sale
could not be produced by the Register of Deeds of Marikina City, as
it could not be located in the general files of the registry, and a
certification was issued stating that the Deed of Sale may be
considered lost.45 Moreover, respondent did not submit to the Clerk
of Court of the RTC of Manila her Notarial Report for the month of
November 1986,46 including the said Deed of Sale, which was
executed
on
November
11,
1986.
Hence,
Investigating
Commissioner Sordan opined that it appears that efforts were
exerted to get rid of the copies of the said Deed of Sale to prevent
complainant from getting hold of the document for the purpose of
handwriting verification from an expert to prove that her alleged
signature on the Deed of Sale was forged. The failure of respondent
to submit to the proper RTC Clerk of Court her Notarial
Register/Report for the month of November 1986 and a copy of the
Deed of Sale, which was notarized by her within that month, has farreaching implications and grave consequences, as it in effect
suppressed evidence on the veracity of the said Deed of Sale and
showed the deceitful conduct of respondent to withhold the truth
about its authenticity. During her testimony, it was observed by the
Investigating Commissioner and reflected in the transcript of records
that respondent would neither directly confirm nor deny that she
notarized the said Deed of Sale.