Pale Mid Term Cases

CASES:
1. CAYETANO VS. MONSOD

PRACTICE OF LAW- any activity, in or out of court which requires application of law, legal procedures, knowledge,
training or experience.
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is also a violation of Rule 10.01
which provides that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor mislead or
allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Lawyer was suspended for 1 year or until he has paid his IBP dues,
whichever is later.
5. PHIL. LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION VS. ANGARA
Black defines "practice of law" as:

The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and technique to serve the
interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of
litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings,
conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It
embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law. An attorney engages
in the practice of law by maintaining an office where he is held out to be-an attorney, using a letterhead describing
himself as an attorney, counseling clients in legal matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about pending litigation,
and fixing and collecting fees for services rendered by his associate. (Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd ed.)
The provision on qualifications regarding members of the Bar does not necessarily refer or involve actual practice of
law outside the COA We have to interpret this to mean that as long as the lawyers who are employed in the COA are
using their legal knowledge or legal talent in their respective work within COA, then they are qualified to be
considered for appointment as members or commissioners, even chairman, of the Commission on Audit.
2. LEE VS. TAMBAGO
3. DOCENA VS. ATTY. LIMON

HELD: Atty. limon committed a violation of notarial law and Ethics of legal profession for notarizing a spurious last
will and testament. SC said that he is guilty of professional misconduct as he violated the Lawyers Oath, Rule 138 of
the ROC, Canon 1 and rule 1.01 of the CPR, article 806 of the civil code and provision of notarial law. Thus, atty. is
suspended from the practice of law for 1 yr. and his notarial commission revoked. In addition, because he has not
lived up to the trustworthiness expected of him as a notary public as an officer of the court he is perpetually
disqualified from re appointment as a Notary Public.
4. SANTOS VS. ATTY. LLAMAS
Facts: Complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues. It appears that Atty. Llamas,
who for a number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in his pleadings. If at
all, he only indicated IBP Rizal 259060 but he has been using this for at least 3 years already. On the other hand,
respondent, who is now of age, averred that he is only engaged in a limited practice of law and under RA 7432, as
a senior citizen, he is exempted from payment of income taxes and included in this exemption is the payment of
membership dues.
Held: GUILTY. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues and default
thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of membership and if nonpayment covers a period of 1-year, default
shall be a ground for removal of the delinquents name from the Roll of Attorneys. It does not matter whether or not
respondent is only engaged in limited practice of law. Moreover, the exemption invoked by respondent does not
include exemption from payment of membership or association dues. In addition, by indicating IBP Rizal 259060 in
his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal
Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule 1.01 A
FACTS: Respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had scheduled an examination for the purpose
of determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office. According to the
circular, members of the Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and technical training
are qualified to take the said examination. The petitioner contends that one who has passed the bar examinations
and is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good standing is duly qualified
to practice before the Philippines Patent Office and that the respondent Directors holding an examination for the
purpose is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution of patent
application, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law.
HELD: The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent Office, the
representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their applications for patent, their
opposition thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. Moreover, the practice before the patent Office
involves the interpretation and application of other laws and legal principles, as well as the existence of facts to be
established in accordance with the law of evidence and procedure. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases or litigation in court but also embraces all other matters connected with the law and any work involving the
determination by the legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions. Furthermore, the law provides that any
party may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final order or decision of the director. Thus, if the transactions of
business in the Patent Office involved exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge and training, then
logically, the appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial body, but rather to a board of scientists, engineers or
technical men, which is not the case.
6. CRUZ VS. ATTY. CABRERA
FACTS: AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT DATED FILED BY FERDINAND A. CRUZ CHARGES ATTY.
STANLEY CABRERA WITH MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY.
COMPLAINANT ALLEGES THAT HE IS A FOURTH YEAR LAW STUDENT SINCE 2001, DURING A HEARING
ON JANUARY 14, 2012 IN ONE CASE IN REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 112 PASAY CITY, THE
RESPONDENT ENGULFED WITH ANGER IN A RAISING VOICE TO THE COMPLAINANT SAYING APPEAR KA
NG APPEAR, PUMASA KA MUNA; WHEREIN THE MANNER, SUBSTANCE AND TONE OF VOICE AND HOW
THE WORDS WERE UTTERED WERE TOTALLY WITH THE INTENTION TO ANNOY, VEX AND HUMILIATE,
MALIGN, RIDICULE, INCRIMINATE AND DISCREDIT COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE PUBLIC.
THE RESPONDENT PRAYS THAT THE COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM BE DISMISSED CITING THE CASE OF
THE COMPLAINANT AGAINST JUDGE PRISCILLA MIJARES.
MARCH 4, 2004 IBP COMMISSIONER LYDIA A NAVARO RECOMMENDED RESPONDENT'S SUSPENSION
FOR VIOLATING RULE 8.01 OF CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
1
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
APRIL 16, 2004, THE IBP BOARD, THE IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS PASSED A RESOLUTION TO ANNUL
AND SET ASIDE THE RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE FOR LACK OF
MERIT. THE COURT HELD THAT IBP GOVERNORS FAILED TO OBSERVE THE PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC.12 OF RULE 139.B OF THE RULES OF COURT. THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS
OPTED TO RESOLVE THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES.
merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret
marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly
reprehensible.
COURT HELD THAT RESPONDENT'S OUTBURST OF APPEAR KA NG APPEAR, PUMASA KA MUNA; DOES
NOT AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF RULE 8.01 OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
WHEREFORE THE COMPLAINT AGAINST RESPONDENT ATTY. STANLEY FOR MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION
OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT. HE IS, HOWEVER
IS ADMONISHED TO BE MORE CIRCUMSPECT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES AS AN OFFICER IN
COURT.
Facts: Atty. Evelyn J. Magno, President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Nueva Ecija Chapter had a
disagreement with her uncle, Lorenzo Inos, over a landscaping contract they had entered into. During the
conciliation/confrontation proceeding, Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba appeared on the strength of a Special Power of
Attorney signed by Lorenzo Inos. Atty. Magno objected to Atty. Jacobas appeareance in the conciliation but the latter
interpose that Lorenzo Inos is entitled to be represented by a lawyer inasmuch as complainant is herself a lawyer.
7. ULEP VS. LEGAL CLINIC

FACTS:In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales was to move
toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep
filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latters advertisements which contain the following:
SECRET MARRIAGE? P560.00 for a valid marriage. Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041 8:30am 6:00pm 7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN
Ave., Manila
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems in Star Week of Philippine
Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can take care of a clients
problem no matter how complicated it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion
situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are specialists in various fields, can take care
of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation and
family law. These specialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the US which now allows it
(John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the advertisement is merely making known to the public
the services that The Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is allowed; whether or not
its advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not allowed. The Legal
Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include various legal problems wherein a client may
avail of legal services from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these
services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in
the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute
practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is
in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information
or statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A
lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a
8.ATTY MAGNO VS. ATTY VELASCO - JACOBA
Thus, this petition for willful violation of (a) Section 415 of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 and (b)
Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba violated the Local Government Code and the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Held: Section 415 of the LGC of 1991, on the subject Katarungang Pambarangay, provides: Section 415.
Appearance of Parties in Person. - In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person
without the assistance of the counsel or representative, xxxx. There can be no quibbling that laymen of goodwill can
easily agree to conciliate and settle their disputes between themselves without what sometimes is the unsettling
assistance of lawyers whose presence could sometimes obfuscate and confuse issues. Worse still, the participation
of lawyers with their penchant to use their analytical skills and legal knowledge tend to prolong instead of expedite
settlement of the case. Doubtless, respondents conduct tended to undermine the laudable purpose of the
katarungan pambarangay system. What compounded matters was when respondent repeatedly ignored
complainants protestation against her continued appearance in the barangay conciliation proceedings.
Hence, Atty. Jacoba was ordered to fine P5,000 and warned that commission of similar acts of impropriety on her
part in the future will be dealt with more severely.
9. ZIGA VS. JUDGE AREJOLA
10. JAVELLANA VS. DILG
FACTS: Javellana is an incumbent member of the City Council or Sanggunian Panglungsod of Bago City, and a
lawyer by profession who has continuously engaged in the practice of law without securing authority for that purpose
from the Regional Director, Department of Local Government, as required by DLG Memorandum Circular No. 80-38
in relation to DLG Memorandum Circular No. 74-58. As to members of the bar the authority given for them to
practice their profession shall always be subject to the restrictions provided for in Section 6 of Republic Act 5185. In
all cases, the practice of any profession should be favorably recommended by the Sanggunian concerned as a body
and by the provincial governors, city or municipal mayors, as the case may be. c) That no conflict of interests
between the practice of profession or engagement in private employment and the official duties of the concerned
official shall arise thereby; Five months later or on October 10, 1991, the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160)
was signed into law, Section 90 of which provides: Sec. 90. Practice of Profession. - (a) All governors, city and
municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other than the
exercise of their functions as local chief executives. (b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions,
engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except during session hours: Provided, That sanggunian members
who are members of the Bar 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
2
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; and (4) Use property and personnel of the Government
except when the sanggunian member concerned is defending the interest of the Government.
HELD: Petitioner's contention that Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG Memorandum
Circular No. 90-81 violate Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution is completely off tangent. Neither the statute nor
the circular trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of law. The
Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for public
officials to avoid conflicts of interest between the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of their
profession, in those instances where the law allows it.
11. IN RE: CUNAMAN
FACTS: Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The title of the law
was, An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and including 1955.
Section 1 provided the following passing marks:
1946-195170%
1952 .71%
1953..72%
1954..73%
1955..74%
Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%. Section 2 of the Act provided that A bar
candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any subject shall be deemed to have already passed that subject and the
grade/grades shall be included in the computation of the general average in subsequent bar examinations.
ISSUE: Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.
RULING: Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of not being embraced in the title of the
Act. As per its title, the Act should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar examinations.
Section2 establishes a permanent system for an indefinite time. It was also struck down for allowing partial
passing, thus failing to take account of the fact that laws and jurisprudence are not stationary.
As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to 1955 was declared
in force and effect. The portion that was stricken down was based under the following reasons: The law itself admits
that the candidates for admission who flunked the bar from 1946 to 1952 had inadequate preparation due to the fact
that this was very close to the end of World War II; The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the
court on the petitions of the said candidates; The law is an encroachment on the Courts primary prerogative to
determine who may be admitted to practice of law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to repeal, alter and
supplement the Rules of Court.
The rules laid down by Congress under this power are only minimum norms, not designed to substitute the
judgment of the court on who can practice law; and The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to class
legislation. As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could not muster enough votes to declare it void.
Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to take effect in 1953. Hence, it will not revoke existing Supreme Court
resolutions denying admission to the bar of an petitioner. The same may also rationally fall within the power to
Congress to alter, supplement or modify rules of admission to the practice of law.
12. IN RE: ALAMACEN
Facts: Atty. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. They lost in said civil case but
Almacen filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He notified the opposing party of said motion but he failed to indicate
the time and place of hearing of said motion. Hence, his motion was denied. He then appealed but the Court of
Appeals denied his appeal as it agreed with the trial court with regard to the motion for reconsideration. Eventually,
Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute
resolution.
This earned the ire of Almacen who called such minute resolutions as unconstitutional. He then filed before the
Supreme Court a petition to surrender his lawyers certificate of title as he claimed that it is useless to continue
practicing his profession when members of the high court are men who are calloused to please for justice, who
ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with
impunity. He further alleged that due to the minute resolution, his client was made to pay P120k without knowing the
reasons why and that he became one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy. He also stated that
justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.
The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacens petition as the Court wanted to wait for Almacen to ctually
surrender his certificate. Almacen did not surrender his lawyers certificate though as he now argues that he chose
not to. Almacen then asked that he may be permitted to give reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should
be taken against him . . . in an open and public hearing. He said he preferred this considering that the Supreme
Court is the complainant, prosecutor and Judge. Almacen was however unapologetic.
ISSUE: Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are needed because the Supreme Court cannot
accept every case or write full opinion for every petition they reject otherwise the High Court would be unable to
effectively carry out its constitutional duties. The proper role of the Supreme Court is to decide only those cases
which present questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties
involved. It should be remembered that a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of
right, but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully explain the courts denial. For one thing, the
facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals opinion.
On Almacens attack against the Supreme Court, the High Court regarded said criticisms as uncalled for; that such is
insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory. It is true that a lawyer, both as an officer of the court
and as a citizen, has the right to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of
courts and judges. His right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful manner, and
the independence of the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has always been encouraged by the courts. But it is the
cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and
propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.
In the case at bar, Almacens criticism is misplaced. As a veteran lawyer, he should have known that a motion for
reconsideration which failed to notify the opposing party of the time and place of trial is a mere scrap of paper and
will not be entertained by the court. He has only himself to blame and he is the reason why his client lost. Almacen
was suspended indefinitely.
13. IN RE: LANUEVO
FACTS: Disbarment complaint was filed against Victorio Lanuevo. Lanuevo was the Bar Confidant during the
1971 Bar Examination. He brought 5 examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang to the respective examiners for rechecking. As a result, Galang passed the examination.
ISSUE: Whether or not should Lanuevo be disbarred?
HELD: YES. Lanuevo has no authority to request for re-evaluation of examination results. As a Bar Confidant, his
function is to serve as a custodian of the examination notebooks only. All requests should be made by the examinee
himself. Lanuevo breached the trust and confidence given by the court.
3
14. APPLICATION FOR THE BAR ADMISSION, VICENTE CHING

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION OF THE BAR:
a) Citizen of the Philippines
b) at least 21 yrs old
c) of good moral character
d) resident of the Philippines
e) must produce before the SC satisfactory evidence of good moral character
f) no charges against him, involving moral turpitude have been filed or pending in any court
g) must have complied with the academic requirements
h) pass the bar examinations
i) take the lawyers oath
j) sign the roll of atty. and receive from the clerk of court of the SC the certificate of license of the practice of
law
15. PETITION TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW, BENJAMIN DACANAY
Loss of Phil. citizenship ipso jure terminates the privelege to the practice of law in the Phil.
However, pursuant to RA 9225 a filipino lawyer who become a citizen of another country is deemed never to have
lost his Phil. citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225. Nevertheless, his right to practice law does
not automatically accrue. he must first secure authority from the SC upon compliance with the following conditions:
1. Updating and payment in Full of annual membership dues in the
IBP
2. payment of Prof. tax
3. Completion of at least 36 credit hours of MCLE
4. retaking of lawyer's oath
16. PETITION TO REACQUIRE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW, EPIFANIO MUNESES
17. VILLA VS. AMA
18. NARAG VS. NARAG
Facts: Atty. Narags spouse filed a petition for disbarment in the IBP alleging that her husband courted one of his
students, later maintaining her as a mistress and having children by her. Atty. Narag claims that his wife was a
possessive, jealous woman who abused him and filed the complaint out of spite. IBP disbarred him, hence, this
petition.
Held: Narag failed to prove his innocence because he failed to refute the testimony given against him and it was
proved that his actions were of public knowledge and brought disrepute and suffering to his wife and children. Good
moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member of the bar. Thus, when a lawyer fails to meet
the exacting standard of moral integrity, the Supreme Court may withdraw his or her privilege to practice law.
(Canons 1&7, Rule 7.03, Code of Ethics for Lawyers) It is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a
continuing qualification for all members. Hence when a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he may be
suspended or disbarred. Grossly immoral means it 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. As a lawyer, one must not only refrain from adulterous relationships but
must not behave in a way that scandalizes the public by creating a belief that he is flouting those moral standards.
19. AGUIRRE VS. RANA
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons of good
moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes
possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of
the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The
practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person
seeking admission had practiced law without a license.
True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyers oath. However, it is the signing in
the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar
examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent
should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyers oath
to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
20. TOLENTINO VS. ATTY. MENDOZA
21. LETTER OF ATTY AREVALO REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM IBP DUES PAYMET
22. TING - DUMALI VS. ATTY TORRES
II. LEGAL ETHICS
DEFINITIONS - it is a branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an attorney owes to the court, to his
client, to his colleagues in the profession and to the public.
SOURCES OF LEGAL ETHICS:
1. THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
INCLUDES: Constitution
Canons of prof. ethics
Rules of Court
Statutes
Special Law
Treaties
Decisions
2. THE NEW CODER OF JUDICIAL FOR PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
A. A LAWYERS DUTY TO THE PUBLIC
a) Canon 1: THE LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESS.
RULE 1.01 - The lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
RULE 1.02 - The lawyer shall not counsel or or abet activities at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence
in the legal system.
RULE 1.03 - The lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest encourage suit or proceeding or delay any
man's cause.
RULE 1.04 - The lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair
settlement.
PALE
Cases:
4
Lawyers Duty to the Public

(a) Canon 1
23. Endaya vs Atty. Oca, AC# 3967, 9/3/2003
FACTS:
A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Artemio Endaya and his wife. An answer was prepared by a Mr.
Ramirez for the spouses. At the beginning of the preliminary conference, spouses appeared without counsel.
Endaya sought the services of the Public Attorneys Office. Atty. Oca was assigned to handle the case. At the
continuation of the prelim conference, Oca filed motion for amendment of answer. Motion was denied. The judge
then ordered all parties to submit their affidavits and position papers. The court also said that 30 days after the
submission of the last paper or upon expiration of the period for filing, judgment shall be rendered on the case. Oca
failed to submit any affidavit or position paper. Nonetheless, the complaint for unlawful detainer was dismissed
because those who filed the case were not really parties-in-interest. The case was appealed to RTC. Oca failed to
submit anything again. RTC reversed the MTC decision. Spouses were ordered to vacate the property and pay a
certain amount for rentals. Endaya confronted Oca about the decision. Oca feigned that he did not receive anything.
Upon checking with the clerk of court, Oca did indeed receive a copy of the decision. Hence this administrative
complaint.
ISSUE:
W/N Oca committed professional misconduct
HELD:
Yes. Suspended for 2 months from practice of law.
In his comment, Oca put up the defense that he did not file any paper in the MCTC because it would just be a
repetition of the answer. Endaya filed his reply which just reiterated what he put in his complaint. SC ordered Oca to
file a rejoinder. Guess what, Oca once again failed to file anything. Oca explained that he failed to file a rejoinder
because he believed in good faith that it was no longer necessary. In the IBP investigation, Oca once again failed to
submit anything.
Oca only appeared once in the MCTC and practically abandoned the spouses thereafter. The facts show that Oca
failed to employ every legal and honorable means to advance the cause of his client. For intentionally failing to
submit the pleadings required by the court, respondent practically closed the door to the possibility of putting up a
fair fight for his client. Oca cannot just appear only once for the spouses. A lawyer continues to be a counsel of
record until the lawyer-client relationship is terminated. Ocas story shows his appalling indifference to his clients
cause, deplorable lack of respect for the courts and a brazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer.
However Endaya misrepresented that the original answer was prepared by a non-lawyer when in fact it was
prepared by a lawyer. He also assured Oca that he had strong evidence to support their case. Endaya never gave
anything to Oca to support their claim.The PAO is burdened with a heavy caseload. Given these circumstances the
professional conduct of Oca does not warrant disbarment.
24. Barrientos vs Atty. Libran-Meteoro, AC# 6408, 8/31/2004
FACTS:
In September 2000, the lawyer issued several Equitable PCIBank Checks in favor of Barrientos and Mercado for the
payment of a pre-existing debt. The checks bounced due to insufficient funds, thus, charges for violation of B.P. 22
were filed. The lawyer asked for deferment of the criminal charges and promised to pay her debt several times, but
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
***The issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account indicates a
lawyers unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on her. It shows a lack of personal honesty and good moral
character as to render her unworthy of public confidence. ***
Mere issuance of worthless checks by a lawyer, regardless of whether or not the same were issued in his
professional capacity to a client, calls for appropriate disciplinary measures.
25. Alejandro vs Atty. Alejandro, AC# 4256, 2/31/2004
FACTS:
Complainant submitted a photocopy of the marriage contract between her and respondent Atty. Alejandro in support
of her charge of bigamy and concubinage against the latter and Villarin. She also submitted a photocopy of the birth
certificate of a child of the respondent and also stated that they were married in May 1, 1990 in Isabela, Province.
The Supreme Court directed respondents to file their comment on the complaint within 10 days but they failed to
comply. Copies of the resolution, complaint and its annexes were returned to both respondents unserved with
notation moved, same as when served personally. Complainant was required anew to submit the correct, present
address of respondents under pain of dismissal of her administrative complaint. She disclosed respondents address
at 12403 Develop Drive Houston, Texas in a handwritten letter.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that both respondents be disbarred. The Supreme Court
ordered Atty. Alejandro to be disbarred while the complaint against his co-respondent Atty. Villarin was returned to
the IBP for further proceedings or it appears that a copy of the resolution requiring comment was never deemed
served upon her as it was upon Atty. Alejandro.
ISSUE:
Whether or not abandonment of lawful wife and maintaining an illicit relationship with another woman are grounds for
disbarment.
HELD:
Sufficient evidence showed that respondent Atty. Alejandro, lawfully married to complainant, carried on an illicit
relationship with co-respondent Atty. Villarin. Although the evidence was not sufficient to prove that he co0ntracted a
subsequent bigamous marriage, that fact remains of his deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as
member of the bar. A disbarment proceeding is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife and
maintains an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne him a child. We can do no less in this case where
Atty. Alejandro even fled to another country to escape the consequences of his misconduct.
Therefore, Atty. Alejandro disbarred from the practice of law while the complaint against Atty. Villarin was referred
back to the IBP.
26. Vda. De Espino vs Atty. Prequito, AC# 4762, 6/28/2004
5
FACTS:
Complainants husband sold a piece of land to Respondent who issued 8 post-dated checks as payment and which
checks however subsequently bounced prompting Complainant and her husband to make repeated demands but to
no avail. Complainant alleged that Respondents unlawful refusal and dilatory tactics partly triggered the death of her
husband, who died disillusioned and embittered. Respondent countered that, Complainant did not know the real
story, and that the non-payment of the checks was justified by the unresolved problem of right-of-way which
Complainants husband supposedly had guaranteed. He also alleged that he was entitled to set-off what he owed for
the land acquisition against advances made by Complainants husband and for cost incurred when he defended
Complainants son in a criminal case.
RULING:
***Respondent SUSPENDED. Respondent issued eight (8) worthless checks, seemingly without regard to its
deleterious effects to public interest and public order. The issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross
misconduct, and puts the erring lawyers moral character in serious doubt, though it is not related to his professional
duties as a member of the bar. He not only sets himself liable for a serious criminal offense under B.P. Blg. 22, but
also transgresses the CPR, specifically the mandate of Canon 1 to obey the laws of the land and promote the
respect for law.***
27. Guevarra vs Atty. Eala, AC# 7136, 8/1/2007
FACTS:
Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on
Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala (respondent) for "grossly immoral
conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath."
The complainant first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainant's) then-fiance Irene Moje (Irene)
introduced respondent Atty. Eala, a lawyer and a sports caster, to him as her friend who was married to Mary Ann
Tantoco with whom he had three children.
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." He also noticed that
Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go
home from work. When he asked about her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parents' house in
Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work. More so, complainant has seen Irene and respondent together on
two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house.
Moreover, Complainant later found, in the master's bedroom, a folded social card bearing the words "I Love You" on
its face, which card when unfolded contained a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to
Irene. Also, it was revealed that Irene gave birth to a girl in 2002 and Irene named respondent in the Certificate of
Live Birth as the girl's father.
In his answer, Respondent specifically denies having ever flaunted an adulterous relationship with Irene, the truth of
the matter being that their relationship was low profile and known only to the immediate members of their respective
families. He also said that his special relationship with Irene is neither under scandalous circumstances nor
tantamount to grossly immoral conduct as would be a ground for disbarment.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent be disbarred from the practice of Law.
HELD:
YES. The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is not his wife. It
is immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly.
***While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between two unmarried adults is
not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the
marital vow of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations
outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of
marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.***
28. Bautista vs. Atty. Gonzales, 182 SCRA 151
FACTS:
In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista, respondent Ramon A. Gonzales was charged with malpractice,
deceit, gross misconduct and violation of lawyers oath. Required by this Court to answer the charges against him,
respondent filed a motion for a bill of particulars asking this Court to order complainant to amend his complaint by
making his charges more definite. In a resolution the Court granted respondents motion and required complainant to
file an amended complaint. Complainant submitted an amended complaint for disbarment, alleging that respondent
committed the following acts:
1. Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients, namely, Alfaro Fortunado, Nestor Fortunado and Editha
Fortunado [hereinafter referred to as the Fortunados] to pay all expenses, including court fees, for a contingent fee
of fifty percent (50%) of the value of the property in litigation.
xxx
4. Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a contract with him on August 30, 1971 for the
development into a residential subdivision of the land involved in Civil Case No. Q-15143, covered by TCT No. T1929, claiming that he acquired fifty percent (50%) interest thereof as attorneys fees from the Fortunados, while
knowing fully well that the said property was already sold at a public auction on June 30, 1971, by the Provincial
Sheriff of Lanao del Norte and registered with the Register of Deeds of Iligan City;
xxx
Pertinent to No. 4 above, the contract, in No. 1 above, reads:
We the [Fortunados] agree on the 50% contingent fee, provided, you [respondent Ramon Gonzales] defray all
expenses, for the suit, including court fees.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent committed serious misconduct involving a champertous contract.
HELD:
YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for six (6) months.
RATIO:
The Court finds that the agreement between the respondent and the Fortunados contrary to Canon 42 of the Canons
of Professional Ethics which provides that a lawyer may not properly agree with a client to pay or bear the expenses
of litigation. [See also Rule 16.04, Code of Professional Responsibility]. Although a lawyer may in good faith,
advance the expenses of litigation, the same should be subject to reimbursement. The agreement between
respondent and the Fortunados, however, does not provide for reimbursement to respondent of litigation expenses
paid by him. An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the clients rights
is champertous [citation omitted]. Such agreements are against public policy especially where, as in this case, the
attorney has agreed to carry on the action at his own expense in consideration of some bargain to have part of the
thing in dispute [citation omitted]. The execution of these contracts violates the fiduciary relationship between the
6
lawyer and his client, for which the former must incur administrative sanctions.
29. Mecaral vs Atty. Vasquez, AC# 8392, 6/29/2010
FACTS: Complainant was Respondents secretary (in 2002), later she became his lover and common-law wife. Still
later, Respondent brought her to a mountainous part in Biliran where he left her with the Faith Healers Association of
the Philippines, a religious group which Respondent headed. Thereafter, and upon Respondents instruction, his
followers tortured, brainwashed and injected Complainant with drugs. She remained in captivity until her mother
aided by the Provincial Welfare Development and the police, rescued her. Complainant sought Respondents
disbarment alleging as well that Respondent contracted a bigamous marriage in marrying Leny Azur despite the
subsistence of a prior marriage to Ma. Shirley Yunzal.
RULING: Respondent DISBARRED for violating Canon 1 (A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law and legal processes) and Rule 7 (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) of the CPR; ***his name ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of
Attorneys. Respondents acts of converting his secretary into a mistress, contracting two marriages with Shirley and
Leny are grossly immoral which no civilized society in the world can countenance. Complainants subsequent
detention and torture is gross misconduct which only a beast may be able to do. Canon 1 of the CPR.***
already use the lot. Complainant, upon learning that the certificate could not be registered with the Register of
Deeds, then confronted Respondent who admitted that the real owner was a certain Rubio and that the lot was still
pending litigation.
RULING: Respondent SUSPENDED from law practice for 2 years. Respondents credibility is highly questionable
he even issued a bogus certificate of land occupancy to Complainant whose only fault was that he did not know
better. To the unlettered, said certificate could have easily passed off as a document evidencing title. In fact,
Complainant actually tried, but failed, to register the Certificate of Land Occupancy in the Register of Deeds.
Complainant readily parted with P70T because of the false assurance afforded by the sham certificate.
Respondent violated Rule 1.01 (not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct) of the CPR.
Conduct, as used in the Rule, is not confined to the performance of a lawyers professional duties. A lawyer may be
disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is whether his conduct
shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
Respondent acted in his private capacity, misrepresented that he owned the lot he sold to Complainant, later refused
to return his money. As a final blow, he denied having any transaction with complainant. It is crystal-clear in the mind
of the Court that he fell short of his duty under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
PART 2 OF CANON 1
30. Cham vs Atty. Paita-Maya, AC# 7494, 6/27/2008
32. SAMANIEGO VS. ATTY FERRER 6/18/2008
FACTS: Respondent leased an apartment unit from Greenville Realty and Development Corp. represented by
Complainant as its president and general manager. Her total unpaid account reached P71,1007.88. Despite
repeated demands, Respondent failed to pay her account and even vacated the leased premises without notifying
Complainant.
RULING: Respondent SUSPENDED for 1 month; WARNED that repetition of same or similar act will be dealt with
more severely. ***Having incurred just debts, Respondent had the moral duty and legal responsibility to settle them
when they became due.***
Respondent left the apartment unit without settling her unpaid obligations, and without the complainants knowledge
and consent. *** Respondents abandonment of the leased premises to avoid her obligations for the rent and
electricity bills constitutes deceitful conduct violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon
I*** (a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes) and Rule 1.01 (a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct).
Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to
maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In so
doing, the peoples faith and confidence in the judicial and legal system is ensured.
31. Roa vs Atty. Moreno, AC#8382, 4/21/10
FACTS: Complainant paid Respondent P70T for the purchase of a piece of land. Instead of a deed of sale,
Respondent issued a temporary receipt and a certificate of land occupancy assuring Complainant that he could
Facts:
Early in 1996, ms. Samaniego was referred to atty. Ferrer as a potential client and the latter agreed to handle her
case and soon their lawyer-client relationship became intimate.subsequently, they cohabiatating with each other as
husband and wife for about a year from 1996 to 1997 and have their daughter born. The affair ended in 2000 and
since then,respondent failed to support his daughter.ms. Samaniegao, filed a complaint against the respondent
before the IBP commission on bar discipline.A member of the bar?
Issue: is the act of the respondent a violation of the code of professional responsibility?
Ruling:
Yes, the court finds the respondents illicit affair as disgraceful and immoral conduct subject to disciplinary actions.
rule 101 of the code of professional conduct as well as the canon 7 explicitly prohibits acts which discredit of the
legal profession, thus the court sustaining the recommendation of the bar confidant that the respondent be
suspended for 6 months in the practice of law.
Principle:
-legal ethics; we have considered such illicit relation as a disgraceful and immoral conduct subj. to disciplinary
action---We have considered such illicit relation as a disgraceful and immoral conduct subject to disciplinary action.
[15] The penalty for such immoral conduct is disbarment,[16] or indefinite[17] or definite[18] suspension, depending
on the circumstances of the case. Recently, in Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Jr.,[19] we ruled that suspension from the
7
practice of law for two years was an adequate penalty imposed on the lawyer who was found guilty of gross
immorality. In said case, we considered the absence of aggravating circumstances such as an adulterous
relationship coupled with refusal to support his family; or maintaining illicit relationships with at least two women
during the subsistence of his marriage; or abandoning his legal wife and cohabiting with other women.
- That one complicit in the affair complained of immorality against her co-principal does not make this case less
serious since it is immaterial whether Ms. Samaniego is in pari delicto.[21] We must emphasize that this Courts
investigation is not about Ms. Samaniegos acts but Atty. Ferrers conduct as one of its officers and his fitness to
continue as a member of the Bar.[ On another point, we may agree with respondents contention that complainant
was not entirely blameless. She knew about his wife but blindly believed him to be unmarried. However, that one
complicit in the affair complained of immorality against her co-principal does not make this case less serious since it
is immaterial whether Ms. Samaniego is in pari delicto.[21] We must emphasize that this Courts investigation is not
about Ms. Samaniegos acts but Atty. Ferrers conduct as one of its officers and his fitness to continue as a member
of the Bar.]
33. VENTURA VS. ATTY. SAMSON 11/27/2012
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.
Respondent has violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant, then a 13-year-old minor, who for
a time was under respondents care. Whether the sexual encounter between the respondent and complainant was or
was not with the latters consent is of no moment. Respondent clearly committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and
highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is a transgression of the standards of morality required of the legal
profession and should be disciplined accordingly.
Principles:
Legal ethics; As we explained in Zaguirre v. Castillo, 14 the possession of good moral character is both a condition
precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership in the legal
profession. It is the bounden duty of members of the bar to observe the highest degree of morality in order to
safeguard the integrity of the Bar.15 Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in the lawyers
public or private activities, which tends to show said lawyer deficient in moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment.
Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the
opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community.16 Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt
as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under
such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the communitys sense of decency.
*** 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. ***
34.Juanita manaois, complainantVs.Atty. Victor v. Deciembre,respondent

Facts: complainant,a government employee work as a mail sorter in manila central postoffice.she applied for a loan
thru the assistance of atty. Deciembre in the amount of 20thousand pesos from rodella loans inc.as security of the
loan,respondent required her toissue blank check that she would fill out according to their agreed
monthlyamortizations.notwithstanding upon full payment of the loan respondent did not return the remaining blank
checks.respondent also made falsification of the amount of the check and made it appear complainant had
exchanged them for cash.the respondent filed severalcases against the complainant pertaining to the blank checks
issuance as well as the loan payments.the ibp board of go vernors investigate the matter.
Issue: is the act of the respondent a violation of the code of professional responsibility?
Ruling. Yes, the court finds the respondent guilty of the violation of canon 1, rule 101 of the code of professional
responsibility.his conduct is a serious dishonesty and and professionla misconduct,rendering him to be suspended
indefinitely in practicing law.
Principle:
Legal ethics; atty; disbarment; Code of professional responsibility; nothing should b done by any member of the
legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and
integrity of the profession---CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF
THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.The Code of Professional Responsibility likewise
mandates that "a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession."7 To this end,
nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the
confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.
Evidently, respondent failed to comply with the foregoing canons. As shown by the records and as found by the
Commissioner, complainant had supplied respondent with blank personal checks as security for the P20,000 loan
she had contracted and which respondent subsequently deceitfully filled out with various amounts they had not
agreed upon and with full knowledge that the loan had already been paid. After the filled-out checks had been
dishonored upon presentment, respondent even imprudently filed multiple lawsuits against complainant. Verily,
respondent is guilty of serious dishonesty and professional misconduct. He committed an act indicative of moral
depravity not expected from and highly unbecoming of a member of the Bar.9 The fact that the conduct pertained to
respondents private dealings with complainant 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 also a continuing qualification for all members of the Bar.
35.RONQUILLO VS. ATTY. CEZAR, 2006
Facts: Complainants seek the disbarment or suspension of respondent from the practice of law for unlawful,
dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. They allege that respondent sold them a piece of property over which he
has no right nor interest, and that he refuses to return to them the amount they have paid him for it.
In May 1999, complainants and respondent entered into a Deed of Assignment, respondent transferred, in favor of
the complainants, his rights and interests over a townhouse unit and lot, located at 75 Granwood Villas Subd., BF
Homes, Quezon City.
Respondent received from complainants P750,000.00 upon execution of the Deed of Assignment. The balance was
to be paid by complainants in four equal quarterly installments of P187,500.00 each. Thus, complainants issued in
favor of respondent four postdated checks in the amount of P187,500.00 each. Respondent was able to encash the
first check dated August 17, 1999.2
Complainants subsequently received information from Crown Asia that respondent has not paid in full the price of
the townhouse at the time he executed the Deed of Assignment.
On March 6, 2000, complainants, through their counsel, wrote respondent, informing him that they were still willing to
8
pay the balance of the purchase price of the townhouse on the condition that respondent work on Crown Asias
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor.
Hence, this administrative complaint6 that respondent engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Allegedly, respondent violated his oath under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and he
ought to be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law..
Issue: WON respondent is guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct proscribed under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held: Yes,
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. Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." "Conduct," as used in this rule, does not refer exclusively to the
performance of a lawyers professional duties. This Court has made clear in a long line of cases7 that 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, honesty, probity and good demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
In the instant case, respondent may have acted in his private capacity when he entered into a contract with
complainant Marili representing to have the rights to transfer title over the townhouse unit and lot in question. When
he failed in his undertaking, respondent fell short of his duty under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. It cannot be gainsaid that it was unlawful for respondent to transfer property over which one has no
legal right of ownership. Respondent was likewise guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct when he concealed this
lack of right from complainants. 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. His acceptance of the bulk of the purchase price amounting to Nine
Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P937,500.00), despite knowing he was not entitled to it,
made matters worse for him.
36. LEE VS. ABASTILLAS, 234 SCRA 28
The 3 meetings by the judge Abastillas with interested who had a stake on the outcome of the criminal case and the
record of telephone conversation where said cases were discussed manifested judge abastillas willingness, nay,
propensity to enter into deals with motivation incongruous to the merits of the cases pending before him. Judge
Abastillas committed serious misconduct no less. It is peculiarity essential that the system for establishing and
dispensing justice be developed to a high degree to proficiency, to gain the absolute confidence of the public in the
integrity and impartiality of its administration, because appearance is as important as reality, so much so that a
judge, like cesars wif, must be pure but beyond suspicion.
Principles:
Code of judicial Conduct requires that a judge be embodiment of competence, integrity and independence, he
should administer justice impartially and without delay. He should behave at all times as to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. The actuations of the judge abastillas transgressed against
the high standard of moral ethics required for judges.
37.VITUG VS. ATTY. RONGCAL 9/7/2006
FACTS:
Catherine Joie P. Vitug sought the service of respondent Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal who was introduced to her by
her former classmate. Complainant asked Atty. Rongcal to represent her in the support case she was going to file
against her former lover, Arnulfo Aquino. Soon after, herein complainant and respondent started having sexual
relationship with each other. According to Vitug, respondent also gave her sweet inducements such as the promise
of a job, financial security for her daughter, and his services as counsel for the prospective claim for support against
Aquino.
On 9 February 2001, respondent allegedly convinced complainant to sign anAffidavit of Disclaimer which the latter
signed without reading the saidaffidavit. On 14 February 2001, respondent allegedly advised complainant that
Aquino gave him P150,000.00 cash and P58,000.00 in two (2) postdated checks to answer for the medical expenses
of her daughter. Instead ofturning them over to her, respondent handed her his personal check in the amount of
P150,000.00 and promised to give her the balance of P58,000.00 soon thereafter. However, sometime in April or
May 2001, respondentinformed her that he could not give her the said amount because he used it for his political
campaign as he was then running for the position ofProvincial Board Member of the 2nd District of Pampanga
Complainant argues that respondent's acts constitute a violation of his oath as a lawyer. She filed an administrative
case against Rongcal which was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. It was then recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months and that he be ordered to return to complainant
the amount of P58,000.00 within two months. The same was approved by the IBP Board of Governors.Respondent
then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Set Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the IBP and a
Motion to Reopen/Remand Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not respondent be disbarred for immorality
(2) Whether or not respondents act of preparing and notarizing the Affidavit, a document disadvantageous to his
client, is a violation of the Code.
HELD:
(1) NO. One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character.
Said requirement persists as a continuing condition for the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the
loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. The Court has held that to justify suspension or
disbarment the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is
so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal actor so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high
degree. On sexual relation and on respondents subsequent marriage, by his own admission, respondent is
obviously guilty of immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code which states that a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The Court find credence in respondent's assertion that it was
impossible for her not to have known of his subsisting marriage, complainants allegations of deceit were not
established by clear preponderant evidence required in disbarment cases.
(2) NO. It was not unlawful for respondent to assist his client in entering intoa settlement with Aquino after explaining
all available options to her. The law encourages the amicable settlement not only of pending cases but also of
disputes which might otherwise be filed in court. Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
states that: A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair
settlement. As complainant voluntarily and intelligently agreed to a settlement with Aquino, she cannot later blame
her counsel when she experiences a change of heart. Suspicion, no matter how strong, is not enough in the
absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his
duty in accordance with his oath.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal GUILTY of immorality and impose
on him a FINE of P15,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be
dealt with more severely.
9
The charge of misappropriation of funds of the client is REMANDED to the IBP for further investigation, report and
recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of this Decision.
38.ABELLA VS. BARRIOS 6/18/2013
Facts:
Complainant obtained a favorable judgment from the Court of Appeals involving a Labor Case. Complainant then
filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution before the Regional Arbitration Branch which the respondent was
the Labor Arbiter. After the lapse of five (5) months, complainants motion remained unacted, prompting him to file a
Second Motion for Execution. However, still, there was no action until the complainant agreed to give respondent a
portion of the monetary award thereof after the latter asked from the former how much would be his share.
Thereafter, respondent issued a writ of execution but the employer of the complainant moved to quash the said writ.
Eventually, issued a new writ of execution wherein complainants monetary awards were reduced to the effect that it
modifies the DECISION of the CA. Complainant now filed the instant disbarment complaint before the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP), averring that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for (a) soliciting
money from complainant in exchange for a favorable resolution; and (b) issuing a wrong decision to give benefit and
advantage to PT&T, complainants employer.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality for his violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.03, Canon 1, and
Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code.
HELD:
YES. The above-cited rules, which are contained under Chapter 1 of the Code, delineate the lawyers
responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the overriding prohibition against lawyers from engaging in any
unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct; Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers from encouraging any suit or
proceeding or delaying any mans cause for any corrupt motive or interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly
directed to lawyers in government service, enjoining them from using ones public position to: (1) promote private
interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interests to interfere with public duties. It is well to note
that a lawyer who holds a government office may be disciplined as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct
also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer.
The infractions of the respondent constitute gross misconduct. Jurisprudence illumines that immoral conduct
involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright
and respectable members of the community. It treads the line of grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute a
criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous
or revolting circumstances as to shock the communitys sense of decency. On the other hand, gross misconduct
constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a
forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment."
In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that when a lawyer is found guilty of gross
immoral conduct or gross misconduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.However, the Court takes judicial notice of
the fact that he had already been disbarred in a previous administrative case, entitled Sps. Rafols, Jr. v. Ricardo G.
Barrios, Jr., which therefore precludes the Court from duplicitously decreeing the same. In view of the foregoing, the
Court deems it proper to, instead, impose a fine in the amount of P40,000.00 in order to penalize respondents
transgressions as discussed herein and to equally deter the commission of the same or similar acts in the future.
Principles:
Legal Ethics; Disbarment; A lawyer who holds a government office may disciplined as a member of the bar only
when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of the oath as a lawyer--chapter 1 of the Code, delineate the
lawyers responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the overriding prohibition against lawyers from engaging in any
unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct; Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers from encouraging any suit or
proceeding or delaying any mans cause for any corrupt motive or interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly
directed to lawyers in government service, enjoining them from using ones public position to: (1) promote private
interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interests to interfere with public duties.26 It is well to note
that a lawyer who holds a government office may be disciplined as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct
also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer.27In this light, a lawyers compliance with and observance of the
above-mentioned rules should be taken into consideration in determining his moral fitness to continue in the practice
of law.
To note, "the possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to
warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the legal profession."28This proceeds from the lawyers
duty to observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the Bars integrity.29 Consequently, any errant
behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in the lawyers public or private activities, which tends to show deficiency in
moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment.
Jurisprudence illumines that immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a
moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community.36 It treads the line of
grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the communitys sense of
decency.37 On the other hand, gross misconduct constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a
wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment."
RAMOS VS. ATTY. NGASEO 12/9/2004
FACTS: Raamos went to atty. Ngaseo to engage his services as counsel in a case involving a piece of land. After the
CA rendered a favorable decision ordering the land to be returned to Ramos and his siblings (such decision having
been final and executor). Atty. Ngaseo sent a demand letter to ramos asking for the delivery of a pieceof alnd without
the complainant allegedly promised as payment for respondents appearancefee. As a result, ramos filed bfore the
IBP a comlaint charging atty. Ngaseo of vioalationof the CPR for demanding the delivery of a parcel of land whih was
subj. of litigation. The IBP found atty. Ngaseo guilty. Atty. Ngaseo argues that he did not violate 1491 cc because
when he demand the delivery of the piece of land, the case has been transmeitted, when the appellate ordered the
return of the land to the family of ramos.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Ngaseo violated 1491 of CC.
HELD:
NO, under art 1491 CC lawyrs are prohibited from acquiring either by purchase or assignment the property or rights
involved which are the object of the litigation in which they intervene by virtue of their public/ judicial sles. However
such prohibition applies only if the sale or assignment of the property takes place during the pendency of the
litigation involving the clients property. Consequently, where the property is acquired after the termination of the
case, as in the instant case, no violation of art. 1491.
Principles:
- LEGAL ETHICS;Under Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, lawyers are prohibited from acquiring either by purchase
or assignment the property or rights involved which are the object of the litigation in which they intervene by virtue of
their professional applies only if the sale or assignment of the property takes place during the pendency of the
litigation involving the clients property----Under Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, lawyers are prohibited from
acquiring either by purchase or assignment the property or rights involved which are the object of the litigation in
which they intervene by virtue of their profession.[7] The prohibition on purchase is all embracing to include not only
sales to private individuals but also public or judicial sales. The rationale advanced for the prohibition is that public
policy disallows the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship involved, i.e., the relation of trust and confidence
and the peculiar control exercised by these persons.[8] It is founded on public policy because, by virtue of his office,
10
an attorney may easily take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client and unduly enrich himself at the
expense of his client.[9] However, the said prohibition applies only if the sale or assignment of the property takes
place during the pendency of the litigation involving the clients property. Consequently, where the property is
acquired after the termination of the case, no violation of paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the Civil Code attaches.
-The power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with a great cautiononly in clear casesof misconduct that
seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and ember of the bar will
disbarment or suspension be imposed as penalty---We note that the report of the IBP Commissioner, as adopted by
the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XVI-2003-47, does not clearly specify which acts of the respondent
constitute gross misconduct or what provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility have been violated. We
find the recommended penalty of suspension for 6 months too harsh and not proportionate to the offense committed
by the respondent. The power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of
misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of
the bar will disbarment or suspension be imposed as a penalty.[12] All considered, a reprimand is deemed sufficient
and reasonable.
BEL-AIR TRANSIT SERVICE CORP VS. ATTY MENDOZA 3/31 2005
Facts:
On September 19, 2001, the respondent rented a car from it and the respondent personally signed, the latter was to
be fetched at his residence. The respondent rented another Toyota Camry from the complainant on September 28,
2001, this time with Plate No. WRT 557, and was, likewise, fetched at his residence. This second contract was also
personally signed by the respondent. The statements of account[4] were, thereafter, sent to the respondent at his
office and business address. Despite repeated demands for payment, the respondent refused to pay his account.
Hence this complaint charging Atty. Esteban Y. Mendoza with grossly immoral and unethical conduct, praying for his
disbarment and that his name be stricken-off from the Roll of AttorneysAccording to the complainant, the
respondents refusal to pay for the complainants car rental services constitutes deceit and grossly immoral and
unethical conduct, which violates the Canons of Professional Ethics and Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code on
Human RelationsRespondent offers two reasons for non-payment: First, that the obligation was incurred not by him
but by his law office Martinez & Mendoza. Second, that the respondent almost met an accident on the two
occasions he used the services of the complainant and therefore he should not be penalized for exercising its right
to contest complainants questionable billings.
...
Issue: WON Atty. Mendoza is guilty with with grossly immoral and unethical conduct.
Held:
As to the first reason, we reiterate that as decided by the Metropolitan Trial Court, respondent was liable for the
obligation to the complainant. Indeed, respondent cannot avoid the obligation and pass it on to his law firm and just
make a complete denial considering that he is a name partner in the firm and law partnership of Martinez and
Mendoza
As to the second reason, respondent admits that there was no written demand made for the complainant to account
and answer for the near accidents alleged by respondent, which near accidents as we understand are his
reasons for not immediately paying. We find the absence of a written demand from the respondent quite odd
especially in the case of a lawyer who is seeking to exercise his right to contest complainants questionable billings
or otherwise hold complainant accountable for the said near accidents. It would perhaps be understandable if the
omission was made by a layman; but for a lawyer not to put his demand in writing, it would be uncharacteristic to say
the least.
The reason offered by respondent for not paying complainant particularly the alleged near accident is, therefore,
not justifiable. The said reason appears to us trite and contrived.

Principles:
Legal ethics; administrative complaints; 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 and integrity in the legal
profession--- It is settled that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any 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.[11] A lawyer must, at all times, uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession. Indeed, a lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his
duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, 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 in the legal profession.[12] Thus, lawyers must promptly pay their financial obligations.
[13] Their conduct must always reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.[14]
DE GUZMAN VS. ATTY. DE DIOS 1/26/2001
Facts:In 1995, complainant engaged the services of respondent as counsel in order to form a corporation, which
would engage in hotel and restaurant business in Olongapo City.On January 10, 1996, with the assistance of Atty.
De Dios, complainant registered Suzuki Beach Hotel, Inc. (SBHI) with the Securities and Exchange Commission.[2]
Complainant paid on respondent a monthly retainer fee of P5,000.00. On December 15, 1997, the corporation
required complainant to pay her unpaid subscribed shares of stock amounting to two million two hundred and thirty
five thousand pesos (P2,235,000.00) or 22,350 shares, on or before December 30, 1997. On January 29, 1998,[3]
complainant received notice of the public auction sale of her delinquent shares and a copy of a board resolution
dated January 6, 1998 authorizing such sale.[4] Complainant soon learned that her shares had been acquired by
Ramon del Rosario, one of the incorporators of SBHI. The sale ousted complainant from the corporation
completely. While respondent rose to be president of the corporation, complainant lost all her lifes savings invested
therein.
Issue:
WON Atty. De Dios in violation of canon 15 and Art 1491 of CC.
Held:
Yes, because she remised in her sworn duty to her client, and to the bar. Respondent claims that there was no
attorney-client relationship between her and complainant. The claim has no merit. It was complainant who retained
respondent to form a corporation. She appeared as counsel in behalf of complainant.
There was evidence of collusion between the board of directors and respondent. Indeed, the board of directors
nowe included respondent as the president, Ramon del Rosario as secretary, Hikoi Suzuki as chairman, Agnes
Rodriguez as treasurer and Takayuki Sato as director.[7] The present situation shows a clear case of conflict of
interest of the respondent.
Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty
and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
Clearly, respondent violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests and engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Principles:
Legal ethics; conflict of interest; where a lawyer wa retained by a person to form a corporation and appeared as
counsl in behalfof said person but said lawyer wa subsequently shown to be in collusion with the board of directors
of the corporation against the said client, there is a clear conflict of interest.
11
Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially intheir dealins with their clients and the public at large with honesty
aand integrity in a manner beyond reproach-- Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with
their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.[8]We said:To say that
lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the law is to state the obvious, but such statement can never be
overemphasized. Considering that, of all classes and professions, [lawyers are] most sacredly bound to uphold the
law, it is imperative that they live by the law. Accordingly, lawyers who violate their oath and engage in deceitful
conduct have no place in the legal profession.
The lawyers oath of obligations ad violation thereof is a ground for suspension , disbarment or other disciplinary
action.
sir: 12/ 3/ 19
(b) NOTARIAL LAW
section 2 rule 3. an atty. must apply as a notary public., because it is impressed with public interest thats why there is
a petition requirement and publication.
authority is valid in 2 yrs ending 31st day of dec. may be renewed by written application fro renewal, within 45 days
before the expiration an atty. may file their renewal, to renew submit a written application. in case of renewal no
hearing, unlike in applications, hearing is required. if your certification is expired and you did not file application for
renewal, then it os deemed original application. the jurisdiction is limited only to the province where you filed your
application. every notary public entitled with 1 commission and 1 seal. kaning imo seal, buy it in accredited seller or
manufacturing and you cannot buy it just like over the counter drug.
what if the seal is destroyed? report to the notarial judge in order to buy new seal
RULE 4
SECTION 1. Powers. - (a) A notary public is empowered to perform the following notarial acts:
(1) acknowledgments;
(2) oaths and affirmations;
(3) jurats; chan robles virtual law library
(4) signature witnessings;
(5) copy certifications; and
(6) any other act authorized by these Rules.
(b) A notary public is authorized to certify the affixing of a signature by thumb or other mark on an instrument or
document presented for notarization if:
(1) the thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of the notary public and of two (2) disinterested and
unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document;
(2) both witnesses sign their own names in addition to the thumb or other mark;
(3) the notary public writes below the thumb or other mark: "Thumb or Other Mark affixed by (name of signatory
by mark) in the presence of (names and addresses of witnesses) and undersigned notary public"; and chan robles
virtual law library
(4) the notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or other mark through an acknowledgment, jurat, or
signature witnessing.
(c) A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a person who is physically unable to sign or make a mark on an
instrument or document if:
(1) the notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or make a mark to sign on his behalf;
(2) the signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence of two disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the
instrument or document;
(3) both witnesses sign their own names ;
of person and two [2] witnesses); and

(5) the notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment or jurat.
RULE 4
SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - (a) A notary public shall not perform a notarial act outside his regular place of work or
business; provided, however, that on certain exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial act may be performed at
the request of the parties in the following sites located within his territorial jurisdiction: chan robles virtual law library
(1) public offices, convention halls, and similar places where oaths of office may be administered;
(2) public function areas in hotels and similar places for the signing of instruments or documents requiring
notarization;
(3) hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to an instrument or document is confined for treatment;
and
(4) any place where a party to an instrument or document requiring notarization is under detention.
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules. chan robles virtual law library
when a a lawyer is one of the recipient? he cannot notarized.
a notary public cannot notarized family relative.
RULE 11
SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. - (a) The Executive Judge shall revoke a notarial commission
for any ground on which an application for a commission may be denied. chan robles virtual law library
(b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose appropriate administrative sanctions
upon, any notary public who:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(1) fails to keep a notarial register;
(2) fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning his notarial acts;
(3) fails to send the copy of the entries to the Executive Judge within the first ten (10) days of the month following;
(4) fails to affix to acknowledgments the date of expiration of his commission;
(5) fails to submit his notarial register, when filled, to the Executive Judge;
(6) fails to make his report, within a reasonable time, to the Executive Judge concerning the performance of his
duties, as may be required by the judge;
(7) fails to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial act;
(8) fails to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent evidence;
(9) executes a false or incomplete certificate under Section 5, Rule IV;
(10) knowingly performs or fails to perform any other act prohibited or mandated by these Rules; and
(11) commits any other dereliction or act which in the judgment of the Executive Judge constitutes good cause for
revocation of commission or imposition of administrative sanction.
(c) Upon verified complaint by an interested, affected or aggrieved person, the notary public shall be required to file a
verified answer to the complaint. If the answer of the notary public is not satisfactory, the Executive Judge shall
conduct a summary hearing. If the allegations of the complaint are not proven, the complaint shall be dismissed. If
the charges are duly established, the Executive Judge shall impose the appropriate administrative sanctions. In
either case, the aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court for review. Pending the appeal, an
order imposing disciplinary sanctions shall be immediately executory, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme
Court.
(d) The Executive Judge may motu proprio initiate administrative proceedings against a notary public, subject to the
procedures prescribed in paragraph (c) above and impose the appropriate administrative sanctions on the grounds
12
mentioned in the preceding paragraphs (a) and (b).

RULE 6
SEC. 5. Loss, Destruction or Damage of Notarial Register. - (a) In case the notarial register is stolen, lost, destroyed,
damaged, or otherwise rendered unusable or illegible as a record of notarial acts, the notary public shall, within ten
(10) days after informing the appropriate law enforcement agency in the case of theft or vandalism, notify the
Executive Judge by any means providing a proper receipt or acknowledgment, including registered mail and also
provide a copy or number of any pertinent police report.
42. TAN TIONG BIO VS. ATTY. GONZALEZ
the lawyer notarized a document in pasig city, when in fact his commission s jurisdiction is quezon city. SC said
while seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident, respondents act of notarizing documents in a place outside of
or beyond the authority granted by his notarial commission, partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. While
perhaps not on all fours because of the slight dissimilarity in the violation involved, what the Court said in Nunga v.
Viray [13]
s very much apropos:
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. For 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.
It cannot be over-emphasized that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. Far from it. Notarization
is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries
public.[14] Hence, the requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public are treated with a formality
definitely more than casual.[15]
43. DELA CRUZ VS. ATTY. DIMAANO
Facts: In their complaint for disbarment against respondent, complainants alleged that on July 16, 2004, respondent
notarized a document denominated as Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate with Waiver of Rights purportedly
executed by them and their sister, Zenaida V.L. Navarro. According to complainants, respondent had made untruthful
statements in the acknowledgment portion of the notarized document when he made it appear, among other things,
that complainants "personally came and appeared before him" and that they affixed their signatures on the
document in his presence.
In the process, complainants added, respondent effectively enabled their sister, Navarro, to assume full ownership of
their deceased parents' property in and sell the same to the Department of Public Works and Highways.
The respondent however argued that "he notarized the document in good faith relying on the representation and
assurance of Zenaida Navarro that the signatures and the community tax certificates appearing in the document
were true and correct." Navarro would not, according to respondent, lie to him having known, and being neighbors
of, each other for 30 years.
Issue: Whether or not respondent should be penalized for committing violations of his duties as a notary public.
Held: YES.
It bears reiterating that notaries public should refrain from affixing their signature and notarial seal on a document
unless the persons who signed it are the same individuals who executed and personally appeared before the
notaries public to attest to the truth of what are stated therein, for under Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 or the
Notarial Law, an instrument or document shall be considered authentic if the acknowledgment is made in
accordance with the following requirements:
(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to
take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the
officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known
to him and that he is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed.
The certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate
shall so state.[2]
Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question, notaries public would be
unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is
the partys free act or deed.
Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such
duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. It must be remembered that notarization is
not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a private document to a public instrument, making it
admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution.
44. ATTY. LINCO VS. LACEBAL
Attorney; notarization. The fact that the affiant previously appeared in person and signed the Deed of Donation
before the respondent notary public does not justify the respondents act of notarizing the Deed of Donation,
considering the affiants absence on the very day the document was actually notarized. In the notarial
acknowledgment of the Deed of Donation, respondent attested that Atty. Linco personally came and appeared
before him on July 30, 2003. Yet obviously, Atty. Linco could not have appeared before him on July 30, 2003,
because the latter died on July 29, 2003 a day before the Deed of Donation was notarized, and respondent was
aware of that fact. Clearly, respondent made a false statement and violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in
an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Respondent should not notarize a document unless the persons who
signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the
contents and truth of what are stated therein. Atty. Florita S. Linco v. Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal. A.C. No. 7241.
October 17, 2011.
Sir: SC said that atty lacebal is suspended because in notarizing a document the parties who executed the
document must appear personally before the notary public, even if they previously met and the party informed him
his intention for notarizing his document.
45. NEVADA VS. ATTY. CASUGA (Not discussed)
46. JANDOQUILE VS. ATTY REVILLA
Issue: Is whether the single act of notarizing the complaintaffidavit of relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity
and, at the same time, not requiring them to present valid identification cards is a ground for disbarment.
13
Ruled: SC agreed with him, however, that his violation is not a sufficient ground for disbarment.
we agree with Atty. Revilla, Jr. that he cannot be held liable. If the notary public knows the affiants personally, he
need not require them to show their valid identification cards. This rule is supported by the definition of a jurat
under Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice or . A jurat refers to an act in which an individual on
a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document; (b) is
personally known to the notary public identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity ; (c)
signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the
notary public as to such instrument or document.
Sir: a lawyer notarized a document which the parties to it is his relatives within 4th civil consanguinity. SC said the
notary public does not need competent proof of identity if he personally known the parties because it it shown in the
JURAT of the documents.
47. ESPINOSA VS. ATTY. OMANA
FACTS: On 17 November 1997, Rodolfo Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal sought Omanas legal advice on
whether they could dissolve their marriage and live separately. Omana prepared a document entitled Kasunduan Ng
Paghihiwalay. Espinosa and Marantal started implanting the conditions of the said contract. However, Marantal took
custody of all their children and took possession of most of the conjugal property. Espinosa sought the advice of
Glindo, his fellow employee who is a law graduate, who informed him that the contract executed by Omana was not
valid. They hired the services of a lawyer to file a complaint against Omana before the IBP-CBD. Omana denied that
she prepared the contract. She admitted that Espinosa went to see her and requested for the notarization of the
contract but she told him that it was illegal. Omana alleged that Espinosa returned the next day while she was out of
the office and managed to persuade her part-time office staff to notarize the document. Her office staff forged her
signature and notarized the contract.
ISSUE: W/N Omaa violated the CPR in notartizing the Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay.
HELD: YES.
We cannot accept Omaas allegation that it was her part-time office staff who notarized the contract. We agree with
the IBP-CBD that Omaa herself notarized the contract. Even if it were true that it was her part-time staff who
notarized the contract, it only showed Omaas negligence in doing her notarial duties. We reiterate that a notary
public is personally responsible for the entries in his notarial register and he could not relieve himself of this
responsibility by passing the blame on his secretaries9 or any member of his staff.
signed the document she died. SC suspended the lawyer reasoning that he violated his lawyer oath. Notarial act
should be Truthful carrying out its duty, for the purpose of preserving the public integrity. Courts and public at large
must relied the document being notarized.
(c) Canon 2 & 3
CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT
MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVE-NESS 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 latters 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.
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, selflaudatory 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 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.
53. Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378

Sir: SC said in preparing a void document, he violated the CPR for engaging unlawful conduct. In the matter of
notarizing a document, a lawyer is personally liable for entries in the notarial book.
48. UY VS. ATTY. SANO
The lawyer was supended because he notarized a document even though his commission is already expired.
49. BRENNISEN VS. ATTY CONTAWI (Not discussed)
50. WILLIAMS VS. ATTY ICAO (not discussed)
51. PENA VS. ATTY PATERNO (not discussed)
52. GOKIOCO VS. ATTY. MATEO
Sir: the defendants in civil case the compliant is subscribed and sworn to, but in fact her death certificate says that
she was dead at the time the complaint was said to be subcribed and sworn to. . Before the complainant died before
We repeat, the canon of the profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and
conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and
catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. A good
and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the
difference between a normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda.
54. Atty. Khan vs. Atty. Simbillo, AC#5299, 8/19/2003
Facts:
Simbillo advertised himself as an Annulment of Marriage Specialist. These advertisements appeared in the July 5,
14
2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, and further research showed that similar advertisements were published
in the Manila Bulletin in August 2 and 6, 2000 and in the Philippine Star in August 5, 2000.
Issue:
1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by nonpayment of fees to complainant;
In September 1, 2000, Simbillo was charged for improper advertising and solicitation of legal services, filed by
Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of Public Information Office, Atty. Ismael G, Khan.
2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation; and

Held:
First charge: Dishonesty for non-payments of share in the fees.
Simbillos advertisement undermined the stability and sanctity of marriage, and violated rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and Rule 138, Sec. 27 of the Rules of Court.
Simbillo professed repentance and beg for the Courts indulgence, this rings hollow as he again advertised his
services in an issue of Buy and Sell Free Ads Newspaper in August 14, 2001, and again in October 5, 2001.
Rulings:
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business.[12] It is a profession in which duty to public
service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture,
and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits.[13] The gaining of a livelihood should be a
secondary consideration.[14] The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary
consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves.[15] The
following elements distinguish the legal profession from a business:
1.
A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one may attain the highest
eminence without making much money;
2.
A relation as an officer of the 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 directly with their clients.
Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation to be proper, it
must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a modest and decorous manner, it would
bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.[20] Thus, the use of simple signs stating the name or names of the
lawyers, the office and residence address and fields of practice, as well as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing
the same brief data, are permissible.
Sir: a lawyer was also suspended due to unlawful solicitation. the practice is not a business but a
profession...gaining of a livelihood is a secondary considerations but the duty of the public
legal solicitation - in accordance with the dignity legal profession
55. Villatuya vs. Atty. Tabalingcos, AC#6622, 7/10/2012
Facts:
In his position paper submitted by the complainant on August 1, 2005, he averred that he was employed by the
respondent as financial consultant to assist the respondent in a number of corporate rehabilitation cases.
Complainant claimed that they had a verbal agreement whereby he would be entitled to 50,000 for every Stay
Order issued by the court in the cases they would handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their
clients.
Supreme Court affirmed the IBPs dismissal of the first charge against respondent, but did not concur with the
rationale behind it. The first charge, if proven to be true is based on an agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. ***A lawyer is proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for
legal services rende-red with a person not licensed to practice law. ***In the case of Tan Tek Beng v. David, Supreme
Court held that an agreement between a lawyer and a layperson to share the fees collected from clients secured by
the layperson is null and void, and that the lawyer involved may be disciplined for unethical conduct. Considering
that complainants allegations in this case had not been proven, the IBP correctly dismissed the charge against
respondent on this matter.
Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients.
In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these allegations and ruled that respondent had violated the rule on the
solicitation of clients, but it failed to point out the specific provision that was breached. Based on the facts of the
case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.
A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises, though, when the
business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyers duties as a
member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the business is one that can readily lend itself to the procurement
of professional employment for the lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyers
behalf; or is of a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law.
Sir:can a lawyer engage other profession or business?
practice does not make us rich, Villatuya is an accountant. atty. Tabalingcos promise to give the former 10% of the
atty. fees for the service rendered to the client. However the latter did not pay the obligations.
Atty. fees should not be shared with a non-lawyer. SC said he violated CPR the prohibition of soliciting cases.
(suspended)
(d)Canon 4 & 5 MCLE (BM#850, 10/2/2001)
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 INFORMATION
REGARDING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
MCLE Purposes: Rule 1, Section 1 (36 UNITS)
1.) Ensure that IBP members keep abreast with Law and Jurisprudence
throughout their career.
15
2.) Maintain ethics of profession

3.) Enhance the standard practice of law.
RULE 2
SECTION 1. Commencement of the MCLE. Within two (2) months from the approval of these Rules by the
Supreme Court En Banc, the MCLE Committee shall be constituted and shall commence the implementation of the
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program in accordance with these Rules.
RULE 15
SECTION 1. Composition. The MCLE Committee shall be composed of five (5) members, namely, a retired
Justice of the Supreme Court as Chair, and four (4) members respectively nominated by the IBP, the Philippine
Judicial Academy, a law center designated by the Supreme Court and associations of law schools and/or law
professors.
The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and integrity. They shall be appointed by the Supreme
Court for a term of three (3) years and shall receive such compensation as may be determined by the Court.
-commission shall monitor the program, every IBP members is req. within 3 yrs.
to complete 36 units.
2 hours of international
RULE 3:
SECTION 1. Initial compliance period. -- The initial compliance period shall begin not later than three (3) months
from the adoption of these Rules. Except for the initial compliance period for members admitted or readmitted after
the establishment of the program, all compliance periods shall be for thirty-six (36) months and shall begin the day
after the end of the previous compliance period.
RULE 7
SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following members of the Bar are exempt from the MCLE
requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executive
Departments;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;

(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least ten (10) years
in accredited law schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lecturers of the
Philippine Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
*any group maybe accredited to become an MLCE provider
RULE 9 (To issue accreditation)
SEC. 3. Requirements of all providers. -- All approved accredited providers shall agree to the following:
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the activity shall be maintained by the provider for at least four (4)
years after the completion date. The provider shall include the member on the official record of attendance only if the
members signature was obtained at the time of attendance at the activity. The official record of attendance shall
contain the members name and number in the Roll of Attorneys and shall identify the time, date, location, subject
matter, and length of the education activity. A copy of such record shall be furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(b) The provider shall certify that:
(1)
This activity has been approved BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE in the amount of ________ hours of which
______ hours will apply in (legal ethics, etc.), as appropriate to the content of the activity;
(2)
The activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by these Rules and
such regulations as may be prescribed by the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all participants identifying the time, date, location, subject matter
and length of the activity.
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;

(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of the judiciary,
incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial
Academy program of continuing judicial education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice;
(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all approved continuing legal education activity by THE MCLE
COMMITTEE, members of the IBP Board of Governors, or designees of the Committee and IBP staff Board for
purposes of monitoring compliance with these Rules.
(e) The provider shall indicate in promotional materials, the nature of the activity, the time devoted to each topic and
identity of the instructors. The provider shall make available to each participant a copy of THE MCLE COMMITTEEapproved Education Activity Evaluation Form.
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;

(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor of the
Office of the Ombudsman;
(f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education Activity Evaluation Forms for a period of not less than one
(1) year after the activity, copy furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized activity under this program or issues a spurious certificate in
violation of these Rules shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.
RULE 12-constitutes non- compliance
16
SECTION 1. What constitutes non-compliance. The following shall constitute non-compliance:

(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance period;
(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of exempt status) within the prescribed
period;
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such compliance within sixty (60) days from
receipt of non-compliance notice;
(e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period;
(f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade compliance with
the MCLE requirements.
(e) Canon 6
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF
THEIR OFFICIAL 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.
56. Atty. Vitriolo vs. Atty. Dasig, AC#4984, 4/1/2003 (ND)
57. Lim vs. Atty. Barcelona, AC#5438, 3/10/2004
We had held previously that if a lawyers misconduct in the discharge of his official duties as government official is of
such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, he may be disciplined as a
member of the Bar on such ground.[19] More significantly, lawyers in government service in the discharge of their
official tasks have more restrictions than lawyers in private practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely
condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office.
Time and again, we have declared that the practice of law is a noble profession. It is a special privilege bestowed
only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally. A lawyer must at all times conduct
himself, especially in his dealings with his clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner
beyond reproach. He must faithfully perform his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. A
violation of the high standards of the legal profession subjects the lawyer to administrative sanctions which includes
suspension and disbarment.[21] More importantly, possession of good moral character must be continuous as a
requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice; otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the
revocation of such privilege.
58. Collantes vs. Atty. Renomeron, AC#3056, 8/16/1991
Facts: This complaint for disbarment is relative to the administrative case filed by Atty. Collantes, house counsel for
V& G Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. (V&G), against Atty. Renomeron, Register of Deeds of Tacloban City, for the
latters irregular actuations with regard to the application of V&G for registration of 163 pro forma Deed of Absolute
Sale with Assignment (in favor of GSIS) of lots in its subdivision.
Although V&G complied with the desired requirements, respondent suspended the registration of the documents
with certain special conditions between them, which was that V&G should provide him with weekly round trip ticket
from Tacloban to Manila plus P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip, or, in lieu thereof, the sale of respondents
Quezon City house and lot by V&G or GSIS representatives.
Eventually, respondent formally denied the registration of the documents. He himself elevated the question on the
registrability of the said documents to Administrator Bonifacio (of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration
Administration-NLTDRA). The Administrator then resolved in favor of the registrability of the documents. Despite the
resolution of the Administrator, the respondent still refused the registration thereof but demanded from the parties
interested the submission of additional requirements not adverted in his previous denial.
Issues: (1) WON the respondent, as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by the Court for his malfeasance as a public
official, and (2) WON the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to government service in the discharge of
official tasks.
Held: (1) Yes, a lawyers misconduct as a public official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. The
lawyers oath imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The lawyers oath is a
source of obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action.
(2) Yes, the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to government service in the discharge of their official tasks
(Canon 6). The Code forbids a lawyer to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01,
Code of Professional Responsibility), or delay any mans cause for any corrupt motive or interest (Rule 1.03).
59. Catu vs. Atty. Rellosa, AC#5738, 2/19/2008 (ND)
60. Sierra vs. Lopez, AC#7549, 8/29/2008 61. Abella vs. Barrios, Jr., AC#7332, 6/18/2013 (ND)
Canon 7
1. In re Edillon
FACTS: The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the Philippines. The IBP Board of
Governors recommended to the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for
stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions
of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of IBP, payment of membership fee
and suspension for failure to pay the same.
Edillon contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is
being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a member of the IBP
and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a consequence of this compelled financial support of the said
organization to which he is admitted personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and properly
guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the respondent concludes the above provisions of the Court Rule and
17
of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court may compel Atty. Edillion to pay his membership fee to the IBP.
HELD: The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which every lawyer must be a member of as distinguished from
bar associations in which membership is merely optional and voluntary. All lawyers are subject to comply with the
rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar including payment a reasonable annual fees as one of the
requirements. The Rules of Court only compels him to pay his annual dues and it is not in violation of his
constitutional freedom to associate. Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free
to attend or not the meeting of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its election as he chooses. The
only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme Court in order to further the
States legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services, may require thet the cost of the
regulatory program the lawyers.
Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the State. The right to practice law before the
courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to regulation and inquiry. And if the power to impose the fee
as a regulatory measure is recognize then a penalty designed to enforce its payment is not void as unreasonable as
arbitrary. Furthermore, the Court has jurisdiction over matters of admission, suspension, disbarment, and
reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation as part of its inherent judicial functions and responsibilities thus the
court may compel all members of the Integrated Bar to pay their annual dues.
2. Francia vs Atty Abdon
He has, nonetheless, engendered the suspicion that he is engaged in an illegal deal when he introduced the
complainant to Vistan, who was the one who allegedly demanded P1,000,000.00 in facilitation fee from the union
members. The records bear out that the complainant, at the outset, made clear his intention to seek the
respondents assistance in following up the unions case in the CA. The respondent, however, instead of promptly
declining the favor sought in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, even volunteered to introduce the
complainant to Vistan, a former client who allegedly won a case in the CA in August 2006. It later turned out that
Vistan represented to the complainant that he has the capacity to facilitate the favorable resolution of cases and
does this for a fee. This fact was made known to him by Vistan himself during a telephone conversation when the
latter told him he was given P350,000.00 as facilitation fee.34 His connection with Vistan was the reason why the
complainant had suspected that he was in connivance with him and that he got a portion of the loot. His gesture of
introducing the complainant to Vistan precipitated the idea that what the latter asked of him was with his approval. It
registered a mistaken impression on the complainant that his case can be expeditiously resolved by resorting to
extraneous means or channels. Thus, while the respondent may not have received money from the complainant,
the fact is that he has made himself instrumental to Vistans illegal activity. In doing so, he has exposed the legal
profession to undeserved condemnation and invited suspicion on the integrity of the judiciary for which he must be
imposed with a disciplinary sanction.
MELENDREZ filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) from
taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the
Philippine Sharia Bar.
a.
Alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he
has three (3) pending criminal cases both for Grave Oral Defamation and for Less Serious Physical
Injuries.
i.
Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife in front of media
practitioners and other people.
ii. Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the face of Melendrez wife causing the injuries to the latter.
b.
Alleges that Meling has been using the title Attorney in his communications, as Secretary to
the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the fact that he is not a member of the Bar.
MELING explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases because retired Judge Corocoy Moson, their former
professor, advised him to settle misunderstanding.
a.
Believing in good faith that the case would be settled because the said Judge has moral
ascendancy over them, considered the three cases that arose from a single incident as closed and
terminated.
i. Denies the charges and added that the acts do not involve moral turpitude.
b.
Use of the title Attorney, Meling admits that some of his communications really contained the
word Attorney as they were typed by the office clerk.
Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the charge of non-disclosure against Meling:
a.
Meling should have known that only the court of competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases, not a
retired judge nor a law professor. In fact, the cases filed against Meling are still pending.
b.
Even if these cases were already dismissed, he is still required to disclose the same for the
Court to ascertain his good moral character.
ISSUE: WON Melings act of concealing cases constitutes dishonesty. YES.
HELD: PETITION IS GRANTED. MEMBERSHIP IS SUSPENDED until further orders from the Court, the suspension
to take effect immediately. Insofar as the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from taking the Lawyers Oath
and signing the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the Philippine Bar, the same is DISMISSED for having become
moot and academic (Meling did not pass the bar).
1.
2.
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession. For, the strength of the legal profession lies in the dignity and integrity of its
members. It is every lawyers duty to maintain the high regard to the profession by staying true to his oath and
keeping his actions beyond reproach.
Also, the respondent, as a member of the legal profession, has a further responsibility to safeguard the dignity of the
courts which the public perceives as the bastion of justice.
3.
In re: Haron Meling
3.
Rule 7.01: A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a
material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.
a. He is aware that he is not a member of the Bar, there was no valid reason why he signed as
attorney whoever may have typed the letters.
i. Unauthorized
use of the appellation attorney may render a person liable for indirect contempt of court.
PRACTICE OF LAW IS A HIGH PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
a. Limited to citizens of good moral character, with special educational qualifications, duly
ascertained and certified.
b. Requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of greater importance so far as the general
public and the proper administration of justice are concerned, than the possession of legal
learning.
Application form of 2002 Bar Examinations requires the applicant that applicant to aver that he or she has
not been charged with any act or omission punishable by law, rule or regulation before a fiscal, judge, officer
or administrative body, or indicted for, or accused or convicted by any court or tribunal of, any offense or crime
involving moral turpitude; nor is there any pending case or charge against him/her.
18
a.
Meling did not reveal that he has three pending criminal cases. His deliberate silence constitutes
concealment, done under oath at that.
4. Arnobit vs Atty Arnobit

Facts:
Rebecca B. Arnobit, filed an affidavit-complaint, praying that the Court exercise its disciplinary power over her
husband, respondent Atty. Ponciano Arnobit, on the grounds of Immorality and Abandonment.
Complainant and respondent were married with 12 children. Several years after passing the bar, respondent left the
conjugal dwelling and cohabited with Benita Buenafe, a married woman, who bore him 4 more children. Rebecca
filed a complaint for legal separation and support. A criminal case of adultery against respondent and Benita later
followed.
Respondent denied the allegation that he cohabited with Benita. Instead, he alleged that it was Rebecca who was
the cause of their separation due to her frequent travels around the country without his consent and thereby
neglecting her obligations toward her family.
Hearings were conducted before the Office of the Solicitor General and subsequently, before the IBP-CBD.
Complainant presented both oral and documentary evidence to support her allegations of abandonment and
immorality, 2 witnesses and affidavits from NBI agents to show the existence of prima facie case for adultery.
Respondent, however, failed to present evidence to support his claim and failed to personally attend hearings.
The Commission found respondent liable for abandonment and recommended his suspension from the practice of
law to the IBP Board Governors for 3 months. It was accepted and adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.
Issues:
Does leaving the conjugal home and cohabiting with a married woman a ground for disbarment?
Ruling:
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct: CANON 7 A lawyer shall
at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03- 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.
As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good
moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. A member of the
bar and an officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress but
must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the impression that he is flouting those
moral standards.
The fact that respondents philandering ways are far removed from the exercise of his profession would not save the
day for him. For a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct which, albeit unrelated to the actual
practice of his profession, would show him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges with which his
license and the law invest him. To borrow from Orbe v. Adaza, "[t]he grounds expressed in Section 27, Rule 138,9 of
the Rules of Court are not limitative and are broad enough to cover any misconduct x x x of a lawyer in his
professional or private capacity." To reiterate, possession of good
moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing qualification for all members
of the bar.
Undoubtedly, respondents act of leaving his wife and 12 children to cohabit and have children with another woman
constitutes grossly immoral conduct. And to add insult to injury, there seems to be little attempt on the part of
respondent to be discreet about his liaison with the other woman.As we have already ruled, disbarment is warranted
against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife to maintain an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne
him a child.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Ponciano P. Arnobit is hereby DISBARRED
5. Sps. Rafols vs Atty Barrios
FACTS: The complainants were the plaintiffs in CiviL case of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in General SantosCity,
wherein they sought the cancellation of a deed of sale. The case was assigned to Judge Dizon, Jr.The complainants
were represented by the respondent, paying to him P15,000.00 as acceptance fee.On December 22, 1997, the
respondent visited the complainants at their residence and informedcomplainant Manuel that the judge handling their
case wanted to talk to him. The respondent andManuel thus went to the East Royal Hotel's coffee shop where Judge
Dizon, Jr. was already waiting. Therespondent introduced Manuel to the judge, who informed Manuel that their case
was pending in hissala. The judge likewise said that he would resolve the case in their favor, assuring their success
up tothe Court of Appeals, if they could deliver P150,000.00 to him.
ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of misconduct
HELD: YES Court approved and adopted the report and recommendations of the OBC (Office of the Bar
Confidant)but imposed the supreme penalty of disbarment.Respondent's act of introducing the complainants to the
judge strongly implied that the respondent wasaware of the illegal purpose of the judge in wanting to talk with the
respondent's clients. Thus, the courtunqualifiedly accepted the aptness of the following evaluation made in the
OBC's Report andRecommendation, viz.:. . . Being the Officer of the Court, he must have known that meeting
litigants outside the court issomething beyond the bounds of the rule and that it can never be justified by any
reason.By his overtact in arranging the meeting between Judge Dizon and complainants-litigants in the Coffee Shop
of theEast Royal Hotel, it is crystal clear that he must have allowed himself and consented to Judge Dizon'sdesire to
ask money from the complainants-litigants for a favorable decision of their case which waspending before the sala of
Judge Dizon.The practice of law is a privilege heavily burdened with conditions. The attorney is a vanguard of
ourlegal system, and, as such, is expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a very highstandard of
morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing in order that the people's faith and confidencein the legal system are
ensured. Any violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifiesthe imposition on the attorney of
the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.Specifically, the Code of Professional Responsibility
enjoins an attorney from engaging in unlawful,dishonest, or deceitful conduct. Corollary to this injunction is the rule
that an attorney shall at all timesuphold the integrity and dignity of the Legal Profession and support the activities of
the Integrated Bar
6.
Garrido vs Atty Garrido

19
F a ct s: The petitioner, the respondents legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a supplementalaffidavit for
disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana P.Valencia before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines Committee on Discipline, chargingt h e m w i t h g r o s s i m m o r a l i t y, i n v i o l a t i o n o f C a n o n 1 ,
R u l e 1 .0 1 , o f t h e C o d e o f P r o f e s si o n a l Responsibility. The complaint arose after the petitioner caught wind
through her daughter t h a t h e r h u sb a n d wa s h a v i n g a n a ffa i r wi th a w o m a n o th e r th a n h i s w i f e a n d
a l r e a d y h a d a ch i l d w i t h h e r ; a n d th e sa m e i n f o r m a t i o n w a s co n f i r m e d w h e n o n e r o f h e r
d a u gh t e r s sa w th a t her husband walking in a Robinsons mall with the other respondent, Atty. Valencia, with
their ch i l d i n to w. After a much further investigation into the matter, the time and effort given yielded resultstelling
her that Atty. Valencia and her legal husband had been married in Hong Kong.Moreover, on June 1993, her husband
left their conjugal home and joined Atty. RamonaPaguida Valencia at their residence, and has since failed to render
much needed financialsupport. In their defense, they postulated that they were not lawyers as of yet when
theyco m m i t te d t h e su p p o se d i m m o r a l i ty, so a s su ch , th e y we r e n o t g u i l ty o f a v i o l a t i o n o f
C a n o n 1 , R u l e 1 .0 1 .
Issue:Whether or not Atty. Garridos and Valencias actions constitute a violation of Canon 1, Rule1.01 and thus a
good enough cause for their disbarment, despite the offense beingsu p p o se d l y co m m i t te d w h e n t h e y w e r e
n o t l a w ye r s .
H e l d : Yes. M e m b e r sh i p i n th e Ba r i s a p r i v i l e g e , a n d a s a p r i v i l e ge b e s to we d b y l a w th r o u g h
t h e Su p r e m e C o u r t, m e m b e r sh i p i n th e B a r ca n b e w i t h d r a wn wh e r e ci r cu m s ta n ce s sh o w
t h e lawyers lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers, be they academic or moral.In the present case,
the Court had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty. Angel E.Garrido and Atty. Rowena P. Valencia for the
reason of their blatant violation of Canon 1,R u l e 1 .0 1 o f th e C o d e o f Pr o f e s si o n a l R e sp o n s i b i l i ty, wh i ch
co m m a n d s th a t a l a w ye r sh a l l not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Furthermore,
Thecontention of respondent that they were not yet lawyers when they got married shall nota ffo r d th e m
e x e m p ti o n f r o m sa n c ti o n s; go o d m o r a l ch a r a c te r wa s a l r e a d y r e qu i r e d a s a condition precedent to
admission to the Bar. As a lawyer, a person whom the community looked up to, Atty. Garrido and Valencia
wereshouldered with the expectation that they would set a good example in promoting obedienceto the Constitution
and the laws. When they violated the law and distorted it to cater to hisown personal needs and selfish motives, not
only did their actions discredit the legalprofession. Such actions by themselves, without even including the fact of
Garridosabandonment of paternal responsibility, to the detriment of his children by the petitioner; or the fact that
Valencia married Garrido despite knowing of his other marriages to two other women including the petitioner, are
clear indications of a lack of moral values not consistentwith the proper conduct of practicing lawyers within the
country. As such, their disbarment isa ffi r m e d
7. Mendoza vs Atty Deciembre
FACTS:
Complainant Augenia Mendoza, a mail sorter at the Central Post Office Manila, borrowed from Rodela Loans, Inc.,
through respondent Atty. Victor Deciembre, the amount of P20,000.00 payable in six months at 20% interest,
secured by 12 blank checks, with numbers 47253, 47256 to 47266, drawn against the Postal Bank. Although she
was unable to faithfully pay her obligations on their due dates, she made remittances, however, to respondent's
Metrobank account from November 11, 1998 to March 15, 1999 in the total sum of P12,910.00. Claiming that the
amounts remitted were not enough to cover the penalties, interests and other charges, respondent warned
complainant that he would deposit Postal Check No. 47253 filled up by him on March 30, 1999 in the amount of
P16,000.00. Afraid that respondent might sue her in court, complainant made good said check and respondent was
able to encash the same on March 30, 1999. Thereafter, complainant made subsequent payments to the Metrobank
account of respondent from April 13, 1999 to October 15, 1999, thereby paying respondent the total sum of
P35,690.00.
Respondent filled up two of the postal checks she issued in blank, Check Nos. 47261 and 47262 with the amount of
P50,000.00 each and with the dates January 15, 2000 and January 20, 2000 respectively, which respondent claims
was in exchange for the P100,000.00 cash that complainant received on November 15, 1999. Complainant insisted
however that she never borrowed P100,000.00 from respondent and that it was unlikely that respondent would lend
her such amount. Complainant also claimed that respondent victimized other employees of the Postal Office by filling
up, without authorization, blank checks issued to him as condition for loans.
Respondent averred that his dealings with complainant were done in his private capacity and not as a lawyer, and
that when he filed a complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P. Blg.) 22 against complainant, he was only
vindicating his rights as a private citizen. He alleged further that: it was complainant who deliberately deceived him
by not honoring her commitment to their November 15, 1999 transaction involving P100,000.00 and covered by two
checks which bounced for the reason account closed; the October 13, 1999 transaction was a separate and
distinct transaction; complainant filed the disbarment case against him to get even with him for filing the estafa and
B.P. Blg. 22 case against the former; complainant's claim that respondent filled up the blank checks issued by
complainant is a complete lie; the truth was that the checks referred to were already filled up when complainant
affixed her signature thereto; it was unbelievable that complainant would issue blank checks, and that she was a
mere low-salaried employee, since she was able to maintain several checking accounts; and if he really intended to
defraud complainant, he would have written a higher amount on the checks instead of only P50,000.00.
ISSUE: whether or not Atty. Victor Deciembre is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and should therefore be disbarred from the practice of law.
HELD:
The practice of law is not a right but merely a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show that they
possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. A high
sense of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of members of the bar. They must conduct
themselves with great propriety, and their behavior must be beyond reproach anywhere and at all times.
The fact that there is no attorney-client relationship in this case and the transactions entered into by respondent
were done in his private capacity cannot shield respondent, as a lawyer, from liability.
A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for acts which tend to bring reproach on
the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. Indeed, there is no distinction as to whether
the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his
personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.
In this case, evidence abounds that respondent has failed to live up to the standards required of members of the
legal profession. Specifically, respondent has transgressed provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to
wit:
* CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes.
20
Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the
activities of the integrated bar.
Rule 7.03. 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.
As manifested [in the Olbes and Acosta] cases, respondent's offenses are manifold. First, he demands excessive
payments from his borrowers; then he fills up his borrowers' blank checks with fictitious amounts, falsifying
commercial documents for his material gain; and then he uses said checks as bases for filing unfounded criminal
suits against his borrowers in order to harass them. Such acts manifest respondent's perversity of character, meriting
his severance from the legal profession.
While the power to disbar is exercised with great caution and is withheld whenever a lesser penalty could
accomplish the end desired, the seriousness of respondent's offense compels the Court to wield its supreme power
of disbarment. Indeed, the Court will not hestitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of
lawyers where the evidence calls for it. This is because in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely
calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court, with the end in view of
preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the
profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the
duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.
As respondent's misconduct brings intolerable dishonor to the legal profession, the severance of his privilege to
practice law for life is in order.
8.
Atty Embido vs Atty Pe
In light of the established circumstances, the respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for having authored
the falsification of the decision in a non-existent court proceeding. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility demands that all lawyers should uphold at all times the dignity and integrity of the Legal
Profession. Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "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." Lawyers are further required by Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or fraudulent transactions can justify a
lawyers disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. Specifically, the deliberate falsification of the court
decision by the respondent was an act that reflected a high degree of moral turpitude on his part. Worse, the
act made a mockery of the administration of justice in this country, given the purpose of the falsification, which
was to mislead a foreign tribunal on the personal status of a person. He thereby became unworthy of continuing
as a member of the Bar.
It then becomes timely to remind all members of the Philippine Bar that they should do nothing that may in any
way or degree lessen the confidence of the public in their professional fidelity and integrity.The Court will not
hesitate to wield its heavy hand of discipline on those among them who wittingly and willingly fail to meet the
enduring demands of their Attorneys Oath for them to:
x x x support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein; xxx do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; x x x not wittingly or willingly promote or
sue on groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; x x x delay no man for money or
malice, and x x x conduct themselves as lawyers according to the best of their knowledge and discretion with all
good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients x x x.
No lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that the practice of the legal profession is always a privilege that
the Court extends only to the deserving, and that the Court may withdraw or deny the privilege to him who fails
to observe and respect the Lawyers Oath and the canons of ethical conduct in his professional and private
capacities. He may be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law not only for acts and omissions of
malpractice and for dishonesty in his professional dealings, but also for gross misconduct not directly
connected with his professional duties that reveal his unfitness for the office and his unworthiness of the
principles that the privilege to practice law confers upon him. 27 Verily, no lawyer is immune from the disciplinary
authority of the Court whose duty and obligation are to investigate and punish lawyer misconduct committed
either in a professional or private capacity.28 The test is whether the conduct shows the lawyer to be wanting in
moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, and whether the conduct renders the lawyer unworthy to
continue as an officer of the Court.29 WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS AND PRONOUNCES ASST.
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR SALVADOR N. PE, JR. guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, and Rule 7.03 of
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and DISBARS him effective upon receipt of this decision.
The Court DIRECTS the Bar Confidant to remove the name of ASST. PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
SALVADOR N. PE, JR. from the Roll of Attorneys.
9. Zaguirre vs Atty Castillo
Facts:
Atty. Alfredo Castillo was already married with three children when he had an affair with Carmelita Zaguirre.
This occurred sometime from 1996 to 1997, while Castillo was reviewing for the bar and before the release of
its results. Zaguirre then got pregnant allegedly with Castillos daughter. The latter, who was already a lawyer,
notarized an affidavit recognizing the child and promising for her support which did not materialize after the birth
of the child. The Court found him guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct to which Castillo filed a motion for
reconsideration.
The IBP commented that until Castillo admits the paternity of the child and agrees to support her. In his
defense, the latter presented different certificates appreciating his services as a lawyer and proving his good
moral character. His wife even submitted a handwritten letter stating his amicability as a husband and father
despite the affair. More than a year since the original decision rendered by the Court, Castillo reiterated his
willingness to support the child to the Court and attached a photocopy of post-dated checks addressed to
Zaguirre for the months of March to December 2005 in the amount of Php2,000.00 each.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Castillo is guilty of gross immoral conduct, making him punishable of Indefinite
Suspension.
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent, Atty. Alfredo Castillo, is guilty of gross immoral conduct and
should be punished with the penalty of Indefinite Suspension. The attempt of respondent to renege on his
notarized statement recognizing and undertaking to support his child by Carmelita demonstrates a certain
unscrupulousness on his part which is highly censurable, unbecoming a member of a noble profession,
tantamount to self-stultification.
This Court has repeatedly held: "as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral
character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest
21
moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only
required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself
as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards." While
respondent does not deny having an extra-marital affair with complainant he seeks understanding from the
Court, pointing out that "men by nature are polygamous," and that what happened between them was "nothing
but mutual lust and desire." The Court is not convinced. In fact, it is appalled at the reprehensible, amoral
attitude of the respondent.
The Court found that Castillos show of repentance and active service to the community is a just and
reasonable ground to convert the original penalty of indefinite suspension to a definite suspension of two
years. Furthermore, the Court noted that Zaguirres further claim for the support of her child should be
addressed to the proper court in a proper case.
Canon 8
1. Atty Reyes vs Atty Chiong
FACTS
Two Chinese-Taiwanese businessmen (Xu and Pan) entered into a business venture to set up a factory for
seafood products. Xu invested P300,000. Eventually, Xu discovered that Pan had not established the factory
and asked for his money back. Pan became hostile and ignored Xu. Xu engaged the services of Atty. Reyes,
who filed a complaint for estafa against Pan (represented by Atty. Chiong). The complaint was assigned to Asst.
Manila City Prosecutor Pedro Salanga, who issued a subpoena for Pan to appear for preliminary investigation.
For failure to appear and submit a counter-affidavit, Salanga filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Pan in
the RTC of Manila. The RTC issued a warrant of arrest against Pan. In response, Atty. Chiong filed a motion to
quash the warrant of arrest. He also filed with the RTC of Zamboanga a civil complaint for the collection of a
sum of money, damages, and for the dissolution of the business venture against Xu, Atty. Reyes and Salanga.
Atty. Reyes then filed a disbarment case against Atty. Chiong for filing a groundless suit, alleging that it was
instituted to exact vengeance. Atty. Chiong alleges that Atty. Reyes was impleaded for conniving with Xu in filing
the estafa case. Salanga was impleaded because of the supposed irregularities in conducting the investigation.
The SC referred the case to the IBP.
ISSUE
W/N the civil complaint was groundless
W/N is was proper to implead Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga in the civil complaint
HELD
Yes, civil complaint was groundless and it was improper to implead Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga in
said civil complaint.
IBP: civil complaint was filed purposely to obtain leverage against the estafa case. There was no need to
implead Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga since they were not parties in the business venture. Their
inclusion in the complaint was improper and highly questionable and the suit was filed to harass both of them.
In filing the civil suit, Atty. Chiong violated his oath of office and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. IBP recommended 2 years suspension
SC: affirmed IBPs recommendation. In addition, the Court mentioned some alternative remedies Atty. Chiong
could have taken if his allegations were indeed true. Chiong could have filed a motion for reinvestigation or
motion for reconsideration of Salangas decision to file the information for estafa. Motion to Dismiss the estafa
case was also available if it was indeed filed without basis.
2.
Alcantara vs Atty Pefianco
Facts:
Atty. Alcantara (incumbent District Pubic Attorney of PAO in Anitque) filed a complaint against Atty. Pefianco for
conduct unbecoming of the bar for using improper and offensive language and threatening and attempting to
assault complainant. This happened when Atty, Salvani was conferring with his client in the PAO office when
the wife of the murdered victim, in tears, came and askef for a settlement. Moved by the plight of the woman,
Pefianco, who was standing nearby, scolded and shouted at Salvani to not settle the case and to have his client
imprisoned so that he would realize his mistake. As head of the office, Alcantara reproached Pefianco, but this
ended up with Pefianco saying that Alcantara was an idiot for sending him out of the PAO. Also, Pefianco tried
to attack Alcantara and even shouted at him, Gago ka!
The IBP Committee on Bar Discipline found that Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Issue:
W/N Pefianco is guilty of violating Canon 8
Held:
Yes. Canon 8 admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow
lawyers. Pefiancos meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so caused the incident. And although
Pefianco was moved by the womans plight, what he thought was righteous did not give him the right to scold
Salvani and insult and berate those who tried to calm him down. Whatever moral righteousness he had was
negated by the way he chose to express his indignation.
3. Saberon vs Atty Larong

Facts:
Complainant saberon charged atty. larong respondent of grave misconduct for allegedly using abusive and offensive
language in pleadings filed before the BSP.In An anwer filed by respondent atty. larong with affirmative defenses to
the petition stating inter alia,that this is another in the series of blackmail suits filed by plaintiff(complainant) and his
wife to coerce the bank and mr.bonpin for financial gain.
Finding the aformentioned statements to be "totally malicious,viscous and bereft of any factual or legal basis"
complainant filed the present complaint.
By res.,the court referred the case to IBP for investigation.IBP Investigating commissioner held that the word
"blackmail" connotes something sinister and criminal.Unless the person accused thereof is criminally charged with
extortion,he added,it would be imprudent,if not offensive,to characterize that persons act as blackmail.In view
thereof,he recommended that respondent be found culpable of gross misconduct and suspended from the practice
of law for 30days.IBP Board of Governor disapproved the recommendation and instead dismissed the case for lack
of merit
Issue:
Complainant appealed challenges hthev res. as illegal and void ab initio for violating the mandatory requirements of
sec12(a) of rule 139-b of the revised rules of court that the same be reduced to writing,clearly and distinctly stating
the facts and the reasons on which it is based.
22
Held:
This court finds respondent guilty of simple misconduct for using intemperate language in his pleadings.
The code of professional responsibility mandates:
canon 8- a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues,and
shall avoid harassing tactics against oppossing counsel.
canon 8.01-a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings,use language which is abusive,offensive or otherwise
improper.
canon11-a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the court and to judicial officer and should insist on
similar conduct.
rule11.03-a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,offensive,or menacing language or behavior before the courts
4. Camacho vs Pagulayan
FACTS
AMA Computer College (AMACC) had a pending case in the RTC for expelling some students due to having
published objectionable features or articles in the school paper. Thereafter, Atty. Camacho who is the counsel
for the expelled students filed a complaint against Atty. Pangulayan, counsel for AMACC, for violation of Canon
9 of the Code of Professional Ethics which provides that "A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon
the 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. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most
particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not
undertake to advise him as to law." The complaint was based on the fact that Atty. Pangulayan procured and
effected from the expelled students and their parents compromise agreements in which the students waived all
kinds of claims they may have against AMACC and to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative
proceedings filed against it. The compromise agreements were procured by Atty. Pangulayan without the
consent and knowledge of Atty. Camacho given that he was already the counsel for the students at that time. It
was averred that the acts of Atty. Pangulayan was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession
warranting either disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Pangulayan violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics
HELD
YES! Atty. Pangulayan is suspended for 3 months from the practice of law for having ciolated the Code of
Professional Ethics.
In this case, when the compromise agreements were formalized and effected by Atty. Pangulayan, Atty.
Camacho was already the retained counsel for the students in the pending case filed by the students against
AMACC and Atty. Pangulayan had full knowledge of such fact. However, Atty. Pangulayan still proceeded to
negotiate with the students and the parents without at least communicating the matter with their lawyer even
being aware that the students were being represented by counsel.
Such failure of Atty. Pangulayan, whether by design or oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the canons of
professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Atty. Pangulayan in this case fell short
of the demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.
*In relation to our topic (not stated in case), such act of Atty. Pangulayan is also in violation of Canon 8.02 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which states that "A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon
the professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to
give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel."
5. Dallong-Galincinao vs Atty. Castro

Facts:
Atty. Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of RTC and Atty. Castro was a private practitioner and VP of IBPNueva Vizcaya. Respondent went to complainants office to inquire whether the records of Civil Case No.
784 had already been remanded to the MCTC. Respondent was not the counsel of either party in that case.
Complainant replied that the record had not yet been transmitted since a certified true copy of the CA
decision should first be presented. To this respondent retorted, You mean to say, I would have to go to Manila
to get a copy? Complainant replied that respondent may show instead the copy sent to the party he
represents. Respondent then replied that complainant shouldve notified him. Complainant explained that it is
not her duty to notify the respondent of such duty. Angered, respondent yelled stuff in Ilocano and left the office,
banging the door so loud. He then returned to the office and shouted, Ukinnam nga babai! (Vulva of your
mother, you woman!)
Later, complainant filed a manifestation that she wont appear in the hearing of the case in view of the
respondents public apology, and that the latter was forgiven already.
Held:
Respondent is fined the amount of 10k with a warning.
Respondent was not the counsel of record of Civil Case No. 784. His explanation that he will enter his
appearance in the case when its records were already transmitted to the MCTC is unacceptable. Not being the
counsel of record respondent had no right to impose his will on the clerk of court. He violated Rule 8.02,
because this was an act of encroachment. It matters not that he did so in good faith.
His act of raising his voice and uttering vulgar invectives to the clerk of court was not only ill-mannered but
also unbecoming considering that he did these in front of the complainants subordinates. For these, he
violated Rules 7.03 and 8.01 and Canon 8.
The penalty was tempered because respondent apologized to the complainant and the latter accepted
it. This is not to say, however, that respondent should be absolved from his actuations. People are accountable
for the consequences of the things they say and do even if they repent afterwards.
6. Garcia vs Atty Lopez
In a complaint dated September 24, 2002, complainant Atty. Wilfredo T. Garcia charged respondent Atty.
Beniamino A. Lopez with violation of his oath as a member of the bar and officer of the court, and
misrepresentation, amounting to perjury and prayed that respondent be suspended or disbarred.
Complainant was the counsel of the late Angelina Sarmiento, applicant in LRC Case No. 05-M-96 which was
pending in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 15. Sarmiento sought the registration
and confirmation of her title over a 376,397 sq. m. tract of land. This was granted by the court. The case went
all the way to the Supreme Court and ultimately, the RTC decision was upheld. The decision became final and
executory and the RTC, in an order dated February 21, 2002, directed the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to
issue the decree of registration and certificate of title. The LRA failed to comply, prompting the complainant to
file an urgent motion to cite the LRA administrator or his representative in contempt of court. Hearings were
scheduled.
On September 19, 2002, respondent, claiming to be the counsel of the heirs of Sarmiento, filed his entry of
appearance and motion for postponement.
23
Complainant alleged that he was surprised by this, considering that he had not withdrawn from the case. He
contended that respondent should be sanctioned for misrepresenting to the court that he was the counsel of all
the heirs of Sarmiento and omitting to mention that complainant was the counsel of record. According to him,
his attorney's fee was arranged on a contingent basis and therefore, the attempt of respondent to enter his
appearance at the final stage of the proceedings was tantamount to unfair harvesting of the fruit of
complainant's labors since 1996.
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall
he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Moreover, Canon 8 of the CPR demands that lawyers conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor
toward their fellow lawyers:
It appears that Sarmiento was succeeded by the following compulsory heirs: Gina Jarvia (Angelina's daughter
by her common-law husband Victor Jarvia), Alfredo, Zenaida, Wilson, Jeanette and Geneva, all surnamed Ku
(Angelina's children by her husband prior to her relationship with Victor). Complainant presented an affidavit
executed by Gina Jarvia and Alfredo Ku wherein they stated that they did not engage the services of
respondent and that they recognized complainant as their only counsel of record.
CANON 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Rule 8.02 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of
another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and
assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
In his defense, respondent claimed that he was merely representing Zenaida and Wilson Ku who sought his
help on September 19, 2002 and told him that they wanted to retain his services. They allegedly did not have a
lawyer to represent them in a hearing scheduled the next day. Because of the scheduled hearing, he had to
immediately file an entry of appearance with motion for postponement. He asserted that it was an honest
mistake not to have listed the names of his clients. He claimed it was not deliberate and did not prejudice
anyone. He insisted that he had no intention of misrepresenting himself to the court.
Respondent failed to observe the foregoing rules. He made it appear that he was entering his appearance as
counsel for all the heirs of Sarmiento which was highly unfair to complainant who had worked on the case from
the very beginning (i.e. since 1996) and who had not been discharged as such. It is true that without the formal
withdrawal of complainant as counsel of record, respondent would merely be considered as collaborating
counsel. Nevertheless, by being less than candid about whom he was representing, respondent undeniably
encroached upon the legal functions of complainant as the counsel of record.
The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP). The investigating commissioner, Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes, in his report and recommendation dated January
8, 2004, found respondent guilty of misrepresentation and violation of Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) when he failed to specify in his entry of appearance the individuals he was representing.
He recommended that respondent be strongly reprimanded for his act with a reminder that a repetition of the
same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely. This was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of
Governors in its resolution passed on February 27, 2004.
We cannot casually brush aside what respondent did. Even assuming that it was not a calculated deception,
he was still remiss in his duty to his fellow lawyer and the court. He should have been more careful about his
actuation since the court was relying on him in its task of ascertaining the truth.
We affirm the factual findings of the IBP but modify the penalty recommended.
Let this resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant for appropriate annotation in the record of respondent.
Lawyers are officers of the court who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend the causes of their
clients. The law imposes on them peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities. Membership in the bar
imposes on them certain obligations. They are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They
must act honorably, fairly and candidly towards each other and otherwise conduct themselves beyond reproach
at all times.
Complainant was the counsel of Sarmiento, the original applicant. Upon her death, the attorney-client
relationship was terminated. However, complainant was retained as counsel by Gina Jarvia and Alfredo Ku. In
filing an entry of appearance with motion of postponement in behalf of the compulsory heirs of the late Angelita
Sarmiento when in truth he was merely representing some of the heirs but not all of them, respondent was
guilty of misrepresentation which could have deceived the court. He had no authorization to represent all the
heirs. He clearly violated his lawyer's oath that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in
court.
Likewise, the CPR states:
CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one
(1) month for violating Canons 8 and 10, Rules 8.02 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
warned that the commission of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
7. Atty Barandon jr vs Atty Ferrer

Canon 9
1. Cambaliza vs Stty Cristal-Tenorio
FACTS
Cabliza, a former employee of Cristal-Tenorio in her law office, filed a disbarment complaint on the grounds of
deceit, grossly immoral conduct and malpractice or other gross misconduct in office.
Deceit: represented herself to be married to Felicisimo Tenorio Jr, who has a prior existing marriage
Grossly immoral conduct: disseminated libellous affidavits against a Makati City counselor.
Malpractice: allowed her husband, a non-lawyer, to practice by making him a senior partner in her law office.
This is evidenced by 1) the law office letterhead which included the husband as a senior partner, 2) an id
wherein he signed as an atty, 3) appearance in court as counsel.
HELD
Guilty of malpractice. Violated Canon 9 and Rule 9.01
Canon 9: a lawyer shall not assist in unauthorized practice of law
Rule 9.01: a lawyer shall not delated to any unqualified person the performance of a task that may only be
performed by members of the bar in good standing
24
Even though Cabliza later on withdrew her complaint, IBP still pushed through with the investigation because
such is a disciplinary proceeding. There is no private interest affected such that desistance of the complainant
will terminate the proceedings. The purpose is to protect the bar from those unfit to practice law.
2. Villatuya vs Atty Tabalingcos

FACTS:
Complainant, Manuel G. Villatuya filed a Complaint for Disbarment on December 06, 2004 against respondent,
Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos. In a resolution, the court required the respondent to file a comment, which the
respondent did. The complaint was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation.
In a mandatory conference called for by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP, complainant and his
counsel, and the respondent appeared and submitted issues for resolution. The commission ordered the parties
to submit their verified position papers.
In the position paper submitted by the complainant on August 1, 2005, he averred that he was employed by the
respondent as financial consultant to assist the respondent in a number of corporate rehabilitation cases.
Complainant claimed that they had a verbal agreement whereby he would be entitled to 50,000 for every Stay
Order issued by the court in the cases they would handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by
their clients. Notwithstanding, 18 Stay Orders that was issued by the courts as a result of his work and the
respondent being able to rake in millions from the cases that they were working on together, the latter did not
pay the amount due to him. He also alleged that respondent engaged in unlawful solicitation of cases by setting
up two financial consultancy firms as fronts for his legal services. On the third charge of gross immorality,
complainant accused respondent of committing two counts of bigamy for having married two other women while
his first marriage was subsisting.
petitions, he claimed that he had recently discovered that there were Marriage Contracts in the records of the
NSO bearing his name and allegedly executed with Rowena Pion and Pilar Lozano on different occasions.
The Commission scheduled a clarificatory hearing on 20 November 2007. Respondent moved for the
suspension of the resolution of the administrative case against him, pending outcome of petition for nullification
he filed with RTC, but was denied. The Commission resolved that the administrative case against him be
submitted for resolution.
On February 27, 2008, the Commission promulgated its Report and Recommendation addressing the specific
charges against respondent. The first charge, for dishonesty for the nonpayment of certain shares in the fees,
was dismissed for lack of merit. On the second charge, the Commission found respondent to have violated the
rule on the solicitation of client for having advertised his legal services and unlawfully solicited cases. It
recommended that he be reprimanded for the violation. As for the third charge, the Commission found
respondent to be guilty of gross immorality for violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Due to the gravity of the acts of respondent,
the Commission recommended that he be disbarred, and that his name be stricken off the roll of attorneys.
On April 15, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors, through its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-154, adopted and
approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
On August 1, 2008, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the recommendation to disbar
him was premature.
On June 26, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors denied the Motions for Reconsideration and affirmed their
Resolution dated April 15, 2008 recommending respondents disbarment.
ISSUES:
In his defense, respondent denied charges against him and asserted that the complainant was not an employee
of his law firm but rather an employee of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., one of the financial consultancy
firms. Respondent alleged that complainant was unprofessional and incompetent in performing his job and that
there was no verbal agreement between them regarding the payment of fees and the sharing of professional
fees paid by his clients. He proffered documents showing that the salary of complainant had been paid.
Respondent also denied committing any unlawful solicitation. To support his contention, respondent attached a
Joint Venture Agreement and an affidavit executed by the Vice-President for operations of Jesi and Jane
Management, Inc. On the charge of gross immorality, respondent assailed the Affidavit of a dismissed
messenger of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., as having no probative value, since it had been retracted by
the affiant himself. Respondent did not specifically address the allegations regarding his alleged bigamous
marriages with two other women
On January 9, 2006, complainant filed a Motion to Admit Copies of 3 Marriage Contracts of respondent wherein
he attached the certified true copies of the Marriage Contracts referred to in the Certification issued by the
NSO.
On January 16, 2006, respondent submitted his Opposition to the Motion to Admit filed by complainant,
claiming that he was not given the opportunity to controvert them. He disclosed that criminal cases for bigamy
were filed against him by the complainant before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. He also informed
the Commission that he filed Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the first two marriage contracts. In both
1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by nonpayment of fees to complainant;
2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation; and
3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married thrice.
RULING:
First charge: Dishonesty for non-payments of share in the fees.
Supreme Court affirmed the IBPs dismissal of the first charge against respondent, but did not concur with the
rationale behind it. The first charge, if proven to be true is based on an agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer is proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the
fees for legal services rende-red with a person not licensed to practice law. In the case of Tan Tek Beng v.
David, Supreme Court held that an agreement between a lawyer and a layperson to share the fees collected
from clients secured by the layperson is null and void, and that the lawyer involved may be disciplined for
unethical conduct. Considering that complainants allegations in this case had not been proven, the IBP
correctly dismissed the charge against respondent on this matter.
25
Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients.

In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these allegations and ruled that respondent had violated the rule
on the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point out the specific provision that was breached. Based on the
facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the
purpose of profit.
A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises, though,
when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyers
duties as a member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the business is one that can readily lend itself to
the procurement of professional employment for the lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for indirect
solicitation on the lawyers behalf; or is of a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the
practice of law.
It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by complainant that Jesi & Jane Management, Inc., which
purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was indeed a vehicle used by respondent as a means to
procure professional employment; specifically for corporate rehabilitation cases.
Rule 15.08 of the Code mandates that the lawyer is mandated to inform the client whether the former is acting
as a lawyer or in another capacity. This duty is a must in those occupations related to the practice of law. In this
case, it is confusing for the client if it is not clear whether respondent is offering consultancy or legal services.
Considering, however, that complainant has not proven the degree of prevalence of this practice by respondent,
the Supreme Court affirm the recommendation to reprimand the latter for violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the
Code.
Third charge: Bigamy.
The Supreme Court have consistently held that a disbarment case is sui generis. Its focus is on the qualification
and fitness of a lawyer to continue membership in the bar and not the procedural technicalities in filing the case.
Thus, in Garrido v. Garrido:
Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure such as the verification of pleadings and prejudicial
questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the filing of affidavits of desistance by the complainant
do not apply in the determination of a lawyer's qualifications and fitness for membership in the Bar. We have so
ruled in the past and we see no reason to depart from this ruling. First, admission to the practice of law is a
component of the administration of justice and is a matter of public interest because it involves service to the
public. The admission qualifications are also qualifications for the continued enjoyment of the privilege to
practice law. Second, lack of qualifications or the violation of the standards for the practice of law, like criminal
cases, is a matter of public concern that the State may inquire into through this Court.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. In this case, complainant submitted
NSO-certified true copies to prove that respondent entered into two marriages while the latters first marriage
was still subsisting. While respondent denied entering into the second and the third marriages, he resorted to
vague
assertions
tantamount
to
a
negative
pregnant.
What has been clearly established here is the fact that respondent entered into marriage twice while his first
marriage was still subsisting. In Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, 56 we held thus:
[W]e have in a number of cases disciplined members of the Bar whom we found guilty of misconduct which
demonstrated a lack of that good moral character required of them not only as a condition precedent for their
admission to the Bar but, likewise, for their continued membership therein. No distinction has been made as to
whether the misconduct was committed in the lawyers professional capacity or in his private life. This is
because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
another. He is expected to be competent, honorable and reliable at all times since he who cannot apply and
abide by the laws in his private affairs, can hardly be expected to do so in his professional dealings nor lead
others in doing so. Professional honesty and honor are not to be expected as the accompaniment of dishonesty
and dishonor in other relations. The administration of justice, in which the lawyer plays an important role being
an officer of the court, demands a high degree of intellectual and moral competency on his part so that the
courts and clients may rightly repose confidence in him.
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the bar. He
made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.57 His acts of committing
bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138
of
the
Revised
Rules
of
Court.58
The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the IBP to disbar respondent and ordered that his name
be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
3.
Tumbokon vs Atty Pefianco
FACTS: Complainant filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against

dishonesty, gross misconduct constituting deceit and grossly immoral conduct.
respondent for
grave
Complainant narrated that respondent undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to 10%, of the
attorney's fees the latter would receive in representing Sps. Yap, whom he referred, in an action for partition of
the estate of the late Benjamin Yap.
Respondent failed to pay notwithstanding the 17% attorneys fees of the total estate of 40M. Respondent told
complainant that the Sps. Yap assumed to pay the amount after respondent agreed to reduced fees.
Complainant further alleged that respondent has not lived up to the high moral standards required of his
profession. Respondent abandoned his legal wife, Milagros Hilado, with whom he has two children, and
cohabited with Mae Flor Galido, with whom he has four children. Complainant also accused respondent of
engaging in money-lending business without authorization from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
In his defense, respondent explained that he accepted the case in a 25% contingent fee basis and the letter of
Sps. Yap stating that they will pay the complainants commission is a forgery.
The court referred the case to IBP wherein the commissioner recommended that the respondent be suspended
for one (1) year from the practice of law for violation of the Lawyers Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1; Rule 7.03,
Canon 7 and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent moved for
reconsideration but was denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty.
26
HELD: YES. The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they
possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession. Clearly, respondent has violated
Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal
services with persons not licensed to practice law. Furthermore, respondent did not deny the accusation that he
abandoned his legal family to cohabit with his mistress with whom he begot four children. The settled rule is
that betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and
immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the
Constitution and affirmed by our laws. However, SC finds the charge of engaging in illegal money lending not to
have been sufficiently established. The lending of money to a single person without showing that such service
is made available to other persons on a consistent basis cannot be construed as indicia that respondent is
engaged in the business of lending. Thus, the SC deems it appropriate that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year as recommended.
4.
Petition to Sign Attorneys Roll, Michael Medado
Petitioner Michael Medado, who obtained his law degree in the year 1979, took and passed the same years bar
examinations and took the Attorneys Oath, failed to sign the Attorneys Roll. After more than 30 years of practicing
the profession of law, he filed the instant Petition on February 2012, praying that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys. Medado said that he was not able to sign the Roll of Attorneys because he misplaced the notice given to
him and he believed that since he had already taken the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys is not urgent, nor
as crucial to his status as a lawyer.
The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) after conducting clarificatory conference on the matter
recommended to the Supreme Court that the instant petition be denied for petitioners gross negligence, gross
misconduct and utter lack of merit.
Issue:
WON the petitioner be allowed to sign in the roll of attorneys?
Ruling:
Yes, the Court allowed the petitioner to sign the Roll of Attorneys subject to the payment of a fine and the
imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of law.
The Court cannot forbid the petitioner from signing the Roll of Attorneys because such action constitutes
disbarment. Such penalty is reserved to the most serious ethical transgressions of members of the Bar.
The Court cited three main points which demonstrate Medados worth to become a full-fledged member of
the Philippine Bar. First, Medado demonstrated good faith and good moral character when he finally filed the instant
Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys. It was Medado himself who admitted his own error and not any third person.
Second, petitioner has not been subject to any action for disqualification from the practice of law. He strove to
adhere to the strict requirements of the ethics of the profession and that he has prima facie shown that he possesses
the character required to be a member of the Philippine Bar. Third, Medado appears to have been a competent and
able legal practitioner, having held various positions at the Laurel Law Office, Petron, Petrophil Corporation, the
Philippine National Oil Company, and the Energy Development Corporation.
However, the Court cannot fully free Medado from all liability for his years of inaction. His justification of his
action, that it was neither willful nor intentional but based on a mistaken belief and an honest error of judgment was
opposed by the Court.
A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed to know the
law and its consequences. Although an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal
consequences of his acts he could no longer claim it as a valid justification by the moment he realized that what he
had signed was merely an attendance record. His action of continuing the practice of law in spite of his knowledge of
the need to take the necessary steps to complete all requirements for the admission to the bar constitutes
unauthorized practice of law. Such action transgresses Canon 9 of 'the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provides:
CANON 9 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
With respect to the penalty, previous violations of Canon 9 have warranted the penalty of suspension from
the practice of law. However, in the instant case the Court could not warrant the penalty of suspension from the
practice of law to Medado because he is not yet a full-fledged lawyer. Instead, the Court see it fit to impose upon him
a penalty similar to suspension by allowing him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one ( 1) year after receipt of the
Resolution and to fine him in the amount of P32,000.
The instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys is Affirmed. Petitioner Michael A. Medado is ALLOWED
to sign in the Roll of Attorneys ONE (1) YEAR after receipt of the Resolution. Petitioner is likewise ORDERED to pay
a FINE of P32,000 for his unauthorized practice of law. During the one year period, petitioner is NOT ALLOWED to
practice law, and is STERNLY WARNED that doing any act that constitutes practice of law before he has signed in
the Roll of Attorneys will be dealt with severely by the Court.
Canon 10
78. NATASHA HUEYSUWAN-FLORIDO, complainant, vs. ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT C. FLORIDO, respondent.
Facts: This is an administrative complaint for the disbarment of respondent Atty. James Benedict C. Florido and his
eventual removal from the Roll of Attorneys for allegedly violating his oath as a lawyer by manufacturing,
flaunting and using a spurious and bogus Court of Appeals Resolution/Order.
Natasha V. Heysuwan-Florido averred that she is the legitimate spouse of respondent Atty. James Benedict C.
Florido, but that they are estranged and living separately from each other. They have two children. Complainant filed
a case for the annulment of her marriage with respondent. there is another case related to the complaint for
annulment of marriage which is pending before the Court of Appeals and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 54235
entitled, James Benedict C. Florido v. Hon. Pampio Abarientos, et al. Respondent went to complainants residence
in Tanjay City, Negros Oriental and demanded that the custody of their two minor children be surrendered to him. He
showed complainant a photocopy of an alleged Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals which supposedly granted
his motion for temporary child custody. Complainant called up her lawyer but the latter informed her that he had not
received any motion for temporary child custody filed by respondent. Complainant asked respondent for the original
copy of the alleged resolution of the Court of Appeals, but respondent failed to give it to her. Complainant then
examined the resolution closely and noted that it bore two dates: November 12, 2001 and November 29, 2001.
Sensing something amiss, she refused to give custody of their children to respondent. While complainant was with
her children in the ABC Learning Center in Tanjay City, respondent, accompanied by armed men, suddenly arrived
and demanded that she surrender to him the custody of their children. He threatened to forcefully take them away
with the help of his companions, whom he claimed to be agents of the National Bureau of Investigation. complainant
received information that a van arrived at the hotel where respondent and the children were staying to take them to
Bacolod City. Complainant rushed to the hotel and took the children to another room, where they stayed until later in
the morning. respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 31, a verified petition for the
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus asserting his right to custody of the children on the basis of the alleged Court of
Appeals resolution. In the meantime, complainant verified the authenticity of the Resolution and obtained a
certification dated January 18, 2002 from the Court of Appeals stating that no such resolution ordering complainant
to surrender custody of their children to respondent had been issued.
After respondent answered the complaint, the matter was referred to the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline for
investigation, report and recommendation. The IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of three years with a warning that another offense of this nature will result in his
27
disbarment. On June 23, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and recommendation
of the Commission with the modification that the penalty of suspension be increased to six years.
ISSUE: WON respondent can be held administratively liable for his reliance on and attempt to enforce a spurious
Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
RULING:
In his answer to the complaint, respondent claims that he acted in good faith in invoking the Court of Appeals
Resolution which he honestly believed to be authentic. This, however, is belied by the fact that he used and
presented the spurious resolution several times. As pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner, the assailed
Resolution was presented by respondent on at least two occasions: first, in his Petition for Issuance of Writ of
Habeas Corpus docketed as Special Proc. Case No. 3898, which he filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Dumaguete City; and second, when he sought the assistance of the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Tanjay City
to recover custody of his minor children from complainant. Since it was respondent who used the spurious
Resolution, he is presumed to have participated in its fabrication.
Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. The burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if it could
not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be devoted just to the task of
verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined. Even with due recognition then that counsel is
expected to display the utmost zeal in the defense of a clients cause, it must never be at the expense of the truth.
Thus, the Code of professional Responsibility states:
CANON 10.
A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood; nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall
he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02 A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the
language or the argument of an opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
authority, or knowingly cite as a law a provision already rendered inoperative by
repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
Moreover, the records show that respondent used offensive language in his pleadings in describing complainant and
her relatives. A lawyers language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as befitting an advocate
and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. The lawyers arguments whether written or oral should be
gracious to both court and opposing counsel and should be of such words as may be properly addressed by one
gentlemen to another. By calling complainant, a sly manipulator of truth as well as a vindictive congenital
prevaricator, hardly measures to the sobriety of speech demanded of a lawyer.
Respondents actions erode the public perception of the legal profession. They constitute gross misconduct and
the sanctions for such malfeasance is prescribed by Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which states:
SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore.- 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 the admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, Atty. James Benedict C. Florido is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period of two (2) years.
79. De Zuzuarregui vs Atty Soguilon
FACTS: Before us is an administrative case for disbarment filed by complainant Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Jr.
against respondent Atty. Apolonia A.C. Soguilon. Complainant accuses respondent of misconduct, concealment of
the truth and misleading the court.
Respondent acted as counsel for the petitioner in a petition for reconstitution, respondent introduced as evidence
the certified copy of the technical description and the sketch plan of the land. Exhibits F and G,- This is not an
updated survey data; This plan is used for reference purposes only. the trial court allowed reconstitution of the title.
As such, complainant submitted that respondent was remiss in not calling the attention of the trial court to the
notations indicated in the documents, emphasizing her duty to avoid concealment of the truth from the court.
In answer to these allegations, she refuted all the charges against her. Anent the annotations on the
documents, respondent stated that she could not be charged of concealing facts from the court as she had
submitted the documents without alteration for the evaluation of the trial court.
The Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation. Decided - Clearly, what should have been fatal omissions on the part of
Respondent, as counsel of the petitioner in the Petition for Reconstitution (LRC Case No. Q7195 [95]) were allowed to pass without challenge. A simple perusal of the Decision dated June
5, 1995 (In Re: Petition for Reconstitution of TCT No. 17730, LRC Case No. Q-7195 [95]) x x x
shows that there was reversible error on the part of the presiding judge of RTC, Branch 93 of
Quezon City.
xxxx
x x x However, the disciplinary process does not punish errors, mistakes or
incompetence. Errors and mistakes are corrected by legal remedies such as motions for
reconsideration, appeals, and petitions for relief. The reversal of the June 5, 1995 Decision of
the trial court has remedied the error committed.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is submitted that respondent did not commit any act for
which she should be disciplined or administratively sanctioned.
It is therefore recommended that this CASE BE DISMISSED for lack of merit.
ISSUE: WON respondent employ deceit or misrepresentation in acting as counsel for the petitioner in the petition for
reconstitution of title.
RULING: NO- Respondents failure to point out the notations in the documents she had submitted, in the Courts
opinion, the Commissioner correctly observed that there was absence of proof that respondent had intended to
mislead or deceive the trial court. In fact, the said notations were laid bare for the trial courts evaluation. There were
no attempts on respondents part to manipulate or hide them.
In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is clearly
preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. In the present case, the Court finds that
complainant, who notably owns one of the properties subject of the title sought to be reconstituted, and is
consequently an adverse party, failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to show respondents guilt of the
charges he had leveled against her. In any event, it is worth mentioning that the prejudice, if any, caused by
respondents oversight against complainant and other interested parties had been rectified later on by a different
judge who set aside the order of reconstitution.
All told, the lapses of respondent were committed without malice and devoid of any desire to dupe or defraud the
opposing party. They are innocuous blunders that were made without intent to harm. As plain acts of inadvertence,
they do not reach the level of professional incompetence. While professional incompetence is not among the
grounds of disbarment enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court yet there are instances
where a lawyer may be disciplined for inexcusable ignorance as the list is not exclusive. Indeed, the Court is
convinced that respondent should not be sanctioned.
The petition for review is DENIED. The Resolution of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
dated 25 June 2005 in Adm. Case No. 4495 is AFFIRMED.
28
80. Macias vs Atty Selda

FACTS: Petition for Administrative Discipline against Atty. Alanixon A. Selda for violation of the lawyers oath.
Respondent Selda withdrew as counsel for one Norma T. Lim, private protestee in Election Case. He basically
submitted as ground for his withdrawal that he could not cope up with the pace of the proceedings in view of his
workload. He claimed that the hearings of the election protest case would run from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and he
still had to attend to his other cases including classes at Philippine Advent College, which start at 5:30 p.m. on
Mondays and Wednesdays. However, respondent executed an affidavit disavowing his grounds for withdrawing as
counsel for private protestee. He swore that he only filed the Motion on account of the pre-judgment of the case by
complainant, who, on several occasions insinuated to him that his client would lose in the protest. He stated that he
was convinced that chaos would result if his client were unseated, and withdrawal from the case was his best
recourse. This Court set aside complainants inhibition after finding no strong and valid reason therefor, and directed
him to continue hearing the case and to resolve it with reasonable dispatch.
Deploring the act of respondent as serious deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct as a lawyer and in utter violation
of the lawyers oath, complainant requested the IBP to investigate the matter and recommend to the Court an
appropriate penalty against respondent. He failed to file his answer and personally appear before the IBP
investigation, as a result decision was rendered based on the pleading and was suspended from the practice of law
for 2 years. - It reduced the suspension of respondent to six (6) months.
Issue: WON respondent violated his lawyers aoth and the act would be a violation of the lawyers duty of candor,
fairness and good faith to the court.
Ruling: We affirm the findings of the IBP on the culpability of respondent.
All members of the legal profession made a solemn oath to, inter alia, do no falsehood and conduct
[themselves] as [lawyers] according to the best of [their] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to
the courts as to [their] clients. These particular fundamental principles are reflected in the Code of Professional
Responsibility, specifically:
Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court, nor shall he mislead, or
allow the Court to be misled by an artifice.
When respondent executed his affidavit retracting his reason for withdrawing as counsel for Norma T. Lim, he
acknowledged, under oath, his misrepresentation.
Candor towards the courts is a cardinal requirement of the practicing lawyer. In fact, this obligation to the bench for
candor and honesty takes precedence. Thus, saying one thing in his Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Private
Protestee and another in his subsequent affidavit is a transgression of this imperative which necessitates appropriate
punishment.
The circumstances in this case demand that respondent be imposed suspension from the practice of law for one (1)
year. This serves the purpose of protecting the interest of the court, the legal profession and the public. For indeed,
if respect for the courts and for judicial process is gone or steadily weakened, no law can save us as a society.
81. Mariveles vs Atty Mallari
FACTS: Mario S. Mariveles filed an administrative complaint against his former counsel, Attorney Odilon C. Mallari,
whose legal services he had engaged in 1984 to handle his defense in Criminal Case (BP Blg 22). After an adverse
decision was rendered, Mariveles instructed Attorney Mallari to appeal the trial court's decision to the Court of
Appeals, which the respondent did. However, in the Court of Appeals, despite numerous extensions of time, totalling
245 days, which he obtained from the Court, Attorney Mallari failed to file the appellant's brief, resulting in the
dismissal of the appeal.
ISSUE: WON Atty Mallari is guilty of abandonment and dereliction of duty toward his client?
RULING: YES
The Court finds respondent Attorney Odilon C. Mallari guilty of abandonment and dereliction of duty toward his client
and hereby orders him DISBARRED from the legal profession and to immediately cease and desist from the practice
of law. The respondent demonstrated not only appalling indifference and lack of responsibility to the courts and his
client but also a shameless disregard for his duties as a lawyer. He is unfit for membership in this noble profession.
In sum, what was committed by the respondent is a blatant violation of our Code of Professional
Responsibility.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let
the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
Suffice it to state that a lawyer has no business practicing his profession if in the course of that practice, he will
eventually wreck and destroy the future and reputation of his client and thus disgrace the law profession. The
last thing that his peers in the law profession and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines would do is to disrobe a
member of the profession, for he has worked for the attainment of his career burning the midnight oil
throughout school and passing the bar. The undersigned, however, could not find any mitigating
circumstances to recommend a lighter penalty. Disbarment is the only recourse to remove a rotten apple if
only to instill and maintain the respect and confidence of all and sundry to the noble profession. (pp. 249-250,
Rollo)
82. Atty Alonso vs Atty Relamida
FACTS:
In March 2001, Jennifer Ebanen filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Servier Philippines, Incorporated in the
NLRC. On July 5, 2002, the labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier, stating that Ebanen voluntarily resigned. Ebanen
appealed at the NLRC which only affirmed the appealed decision. Ebanen filed for reconsideration but was denied.
The case eventually reached the Supreme Court. On February 17, 2005, the Courts Resolution dated August 4,
2004 has already become final and executory; thus, a corresponding Entry of Judgment has been issued dismissing
the petition and holding that there was no illegal dismissal since Ebanen voluntarily resigned.
However, despite the judgment, Ebanen through Atty. Relamida, Jr. filed a second complaint on August 5, 2005 for
illegal dismissal based on the same cause of action of constructive dismissal against Servier. Thus, on October 13,
2005, Servier, thru counsel, filed a letter-complaint addressed to the then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., praying
that respondents be disciplinary sanctioned for violation of the rules on forum shopping and res judicata.
Respondents admitted the filing of the second complaint against Servier. However, they opined that the dismissal did
not amount to res judicata, since the decision was null and void for lack of due process since the motion for the
issuance of subpoena duces tecum for the production of vital documents filed by the complainant was ignored by the
Labor
Arbiter.
ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of forum shopping and res judicata thus violating Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional
Responsibility?
HELD:
During the IBP hearing, Atty. Relamida is ot a lawyer but the daughter of Atty. Aurelio the senior partner of A.M. Sison
Jr. and Partners Law Offices where he is employed as associate lawyer. Atty. Relamida reasoned out that as a
29
courtesy to Atty. Aurelio and Ebanen, he had no choice but to represent the latter. Moreover, he stressed that his
client was denied of her right to due process due to the denial of her motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces
tecum. He then argued that the decision of the Labor Arbiter was null and void; thus, there was no res judicata. He
maintained that he did not violate the lawyers oath by serving the interest of his client. The IBP-CBD recommended
that Atty. Relamida, Jr. be suspended for 6 months for violating the rules on forum shopping and res judicata.
The Supreme Court agrees to this finding. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at the expense of
truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the courts processes and
improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be punished as
contempt of court. Needless to state, the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously
delays the execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for
not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and
to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and honor.
The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs
contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to exert every effort and
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. By his actuations, respondent also
violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyers mandate "to delay no man for money or
malice."
DISPOSITIVE
PORTION:
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-286, dated June 5, 2008, of the IBP, which found respondent Atty. Ibaro
B. Relamida, Jr. guilty of violating the Rules on Res Judicata and Forum Shopping, is AFFIRMED. Atty. Relaminda is
hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of law, effective upon the receipt of this Decision
83. maligaya vs Atty Doronilla
FACTS: Atty. Doronilla stood as counsel for several military officers. During a hearing, he said we had an
agreement that if we withdraw the case against him(Maligaya) he will also withdraw all the cases. Do with that
understanding, he even retired and he is now receiving pension. Atty. Doronilla was then charge of misleading the
court through misrepresentation of facts resulting in obstruction of justice
.ISSUE: WON Atty. Doronilla guilt of purposely stating a falsehood in violation of canon 10 of the code of
professional responsibility.
RULING: by stating untruthfully in open court, Att. Doronilla breached peremptory tenets of ethical condu ct. Not only
violated the lawyers oath to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of an in court, but also his acts infringed on
every lawyers duty to never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact
or law. He was suspended from practice of law for two months.
The suspension referred to in the foregoing provision means only suspension from the practice of law. For
this reason, we disagree with the IBPs recommendation for Atty. Doronillas suspension from the government
military service. After all, the only purpose of this administrative case is to determine Atty. Doronillas liability as a
member of the legal profession, not his liability as a legal officer in the military service. Thus, it would be improper
for us to order, as a penalty for his breach of legal ethics and the lawyers oath, his suspension from employment
in the Judge Advocate Generals Service. Of course, suspension from employment as a military legal officer may
well follow as a consequence of his suspension from the practice of law but that should not be reason for us to
impose it as a penalty for his professional misconduct. We would be going beyond the purpose of this proceeding
were we to do so. Therefore, we shall treat the IBPs recommendation as one for suspension from the practice of
law.
84. Molina vs Atty Magat
Before the Court is the undated Resolutionof the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
finding Atty. Ceferino R. Magat (Atty. Magat) liable for unethical conduct and recommending that he be reprimanded.
Attorney; False and untruthful statements in pleadings. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those who
show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. Lawyers are expected to maintain at
all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They must
perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values
and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Magats act clearly falls short of the standards set by the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule
10.01, which provides:
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or
allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
The Court ruled that there was a deliberate intent on the part of Atty. Magat to mislead the court when he filed the
motion to dismiss the criminal charges on the basis of double jeopardy. Atty. Magat should not make any false and
untruthful statements in his pleadings. If it were true that there was a similar case for slight physical injuries that was
really filed in court, all he had to do was to secure a certification from that court that, indeed, a case was filed.
85. Afurong vs Atty Aquino
FACTS:
P a r a l u m a n B . A f u r o n g f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t f o r e j e c t m e n t a g a i n s t Victorino Flores for
nonpayment of rentals and the court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner Paraluman Afurong and the court
issued a writ of execution. Fa cing eviction, Flore s sought help from Citizen s Lega l Assi stan ce Office
and they assigned Atty. Angel G Aquino to his case. He filed two peti tion s. W hen the court set a pre-tr ial,
he filed an Urgent Motion for Postponemen t and si gned hi s name as coun sel for Flore s and
indi cated the address of Citizen s Lega l Assi stan ce Office as his office address notwithstanding the
fact that he was separated from Citizens Legal Assistance Office at that time. In the aforesaid motion, he stated that
he could not attend the pre-trial conferen ce becau se he had to attend the hearing of a Habeas
Corpu s Case before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court that same day and hour. But the Clerk of Court of
the JDR Court certified that a decision had been rendered on the aforementioned special proceedings case and that
there was no hearing. Thus, Afurong filed a verified letter-complaint for disbarment against Aqu ino, for filing
frivolous hara ssmen t ca ses to dela y the execution of a final d e c i s i o n , c o m m i t t i n g f a l s e h o o d
i n a n U r g e n t M o t i o n f o r P o s t p o n e m e n t , a n d misrepresenting himself as an attorney for the Citizens
Legal Assistance Office. Atty. Aquino denied the charges against him and contended that such acts had been done
without malice.In a Repl y, complainan t asserted tha t Atty. Aquino was declared guilty of contempt of
court and correspondingly fined by this Court for making false allegations in his Urgent Motion for Postponement.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline submitted a Report finding that Aquino failed to perform his duties expected
of an attorney as provided under the existing Canons of Professional Ethics and Sec. 20 of Rule 138 of the ROC in
force at the time of the commission of the acts in question. They recommended that he be penalized with 6 months
suspension. Board of Gov. of the IBP re solved to adopt and approve the repor t and recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner
ISSUE:
W ON Aquino failed to perform his du ties expected of an attorne y as provided under the existing
Canon s of Professional Eth ics and Sec. 20 of Rule 138 of the ROC in force at the time of the
commission of the acts in question
RULING:
30
The Revised Rules of Court provides that it is the duty of an attorney to counsel or maintain such actions or
proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under
the law.
Respondent Atty. Aquino should not have filed a petition for certiorari considering that there was no apparent
purpose for it than to delay the execution of a valid judgment.
Aquino committed falsehood when he stated in his Urgent Motion for Postponement that he had to attend the
hearing of a special proceedings case the s a m e d a y a s t h e p r e - t r i a l o f t h e C i v i l C a s e . S u c h a c t
v i o l a t e s t h e C a n o n s o f Professional Ethics which obliges an attorney to avoid the concealment of the truth
from the court. A lawyer is mandated not to mislead the court in any manner.
Lower cour t corre ctly declared re spondent in conte mpt of cour t for c o n d u c t t e n d i n g , d i r e c t l y
o r i n d i r e c t l y , t o i m p e d e , o b s t r u c t , o r d e g r a d e t h e administration of justice, in violation of Section
3 (d), Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Atty. Aquino purposely allowed the court to believe that he was still employed with the Citizens Legal Assistance
Office when in fact he had been purged from said office.
T he Court hereby finds respondent Atty. An ge l G. Aquino guil ty of m a l p r a c t i c e a n d
S U S P E N D S h i m f r o m t h e p r a c t i c e o f l a w f o r s i x ( 6 ) m o n t h s commencing upon receipt of
notice hereof.
86. Judge Cervantes vs Atty Sabio
Facts: Respondent filed motions for inhibition on complainant judge on the ground that EDC (a party to the case
handled by Atty. Sabio) gave complainant a house and lot putting into serious doubt his impartiality, independence
and integrity. The motions were denied. Later on in his affidavit of complaint, Atty. Sabio submitted an affidavit stating
certain instances pointing out irregularities with the handling of his case under Judge Cervantes. The complaint was
dismissed.
A complaint for disbarment was later filed by Judge Cervantes against Sabio alleging that (1) the complaint for
bribery filed by the latter against the former were unsubstantiated and motivated by plain unfounded suspicion, and,
(2) such complaints were filed after the effectivity of his optional retirement.
The complaint by Judge Cervantes was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report
and recommendation.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty under the Code of Professional Responsibility for filing a malicious,
false and untruthful complaint.
Held: YES. The IBP established that by filing the groundless bribery charge against complainant, respondent
violated the proscription of the Code of Professional Responsibility against "wittingly or willingly promoting or suing
any groundless suit" including baseless administrative complaints against judges and other court officers and
employees.
The Court found the action taken by the IBP Board of Governors well taken.
Respondent ought to be aware that if a court official or employee, or a lawyer, is to be disciplined, the evidence
against him should be substantial, competent and derived from direct knowledge, not on mere allegations,
conjectures, suppositions, or on the basis of hearsay.
No doubt, it is the Court's duty to investigate the truth behind charges against judges and lawyers. But it is also its
duty to shield them from unfounded suits which are intended to, among other things, harass them.
Canon 11
87. Judge Madrid vs Atty Dealca
FACTS: Atty. Juan S. Dealca entered his appearance in Criminal Case pending in Branch 51 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) in Sorsogon City, presided by complainant Judge Jose L. Madrid. Atty. Dealca sought to replace Atty.
Vicente Judar who had filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for the accused. But aside from entering his
appearance as counsel for the accused, Atty. Dealca also moved that Criminal Case be re-raffled to another Branch
of the RTC. Judge Madrid denied Atty. Dealcas motion to re-raffle. Judge Madrid filed a letter complaint 4 in the Office
of the Bar Confidant citing Atty. Dealcas unethical practice of entering his appearance and then moving for the
inhibition of the presiding judge on the pretext of previous adverse incidents between them.
Atty. Dealca asserted that Judge Madrids issuance of the order unconstitutionally and unlawfully deprived the
accused of the right to counsel, to due process, and to a fair and impartial trial; that Judge Madrid exhibited bias in
failing to act on the motion to lift and set aside the warrant of arrest issued against the accused; and that it should be
Judge Madrid himself who should be disbarred and accordingly dismissed from the Judiciary for gross ignorance of
the law.
The Court referred the matter to the IBP for appropriate investigation, report and recommendation. the Court in Yap
v. Judge Madrid dismissed for its lack of merit the administrative complaint against Judge Madrid for allegedly
falsifying the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing, but referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation the propensity of Atty. Dealca to file administrative or criminal
complaints against judges and court personnel whenever decisions, orders or processes were issued adversely to
him and his clients.
ISSUE: (1) Did Atty. Dealca file frivolous administrative and criminal complaints against judges and court personnel
in violation of the Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility?
(2) Was Atty. Dealca guilty of unethical practice in seeking the inhibition of Judge Madrid in Criminal Case No. 20066795?
RULING: 1. Atty. Dealca must guard against his own impulse of initiating unfounded suits.
Although the Court always admires members of the Bar who are imbued with a high sense of vigilance to weed out
from the Judiciary the undesirable judges and inefficient or undeserving court personnel, any acts taken in that
direction should be unsullied by any taint of insincerity or self-interest. The noble cause of cleansing the ranks of the
Judiciary is not advanced otherwise. Atty. Dealca exhibited his proclivity for vindictiveness and penchant for
harassment, considering that, as IBP Commissioner Hababag pointed outm his bringing of charges against judges,
court personnel and even his colleagues in the Law Profession had all stemmed from decisions or rulings being
adverse to his clients or his side. He well knew, therefore, that he was thereby crossing the line of propriety, because
neither vindictiveness nor harassment could be a substitute for resorting to the appropriate legal remedies. He
should now be reminded that the aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law, not
to harass them.
Atty. Dealca must be mindful of his mission to assist the courts in the proper administration of justice. He disregarded
his mission because his filing of the unfounded complaints, including this one against Judge Madrid, increased the
workload of the Judiciary. Although no person should be penalized for the exercise of the right to litigate, the right
must nonetheless be exercised in good faith. Atty. Dealcas bringing of the numerous administrative and criminal
complaints against judges, court personnel and his fellow lawyers did not evince any good faith on his part,
considering that he made allegations against them therein that he could not substantially prove, and are rightfully
deemed frivolous and unworthy of the Courts precious time and serious consideration.
2. Atty. Dealca violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
31
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts empowered to appear, prosecute and defend the legal causes for their
clients. As a consequence, peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved upon them by law. Verily, their
membership in the Bar imposes certain obligations upon them.
In this regard, Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility pertinently
state:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Canon 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the judicial officers and should
insist on similar conduct by others.
xxxx
Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to
the case.
In light of the foregoing canons, all lawyers are bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts, and to
promote confidence in the fair administration of justice. It is the respect for the courts that guarantees the stability of
the judicial institution; elsewise, the institution would be resting on a very shaky foundation.
the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.03
and Canon 11, Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law
for one year effective from notice of this decision, with a STERN WARNING that any similar infraction in the future
will be dealt with more severely.
88. Uy vs Atty Depasucat
FACTS: Before us is a verified complaint filed by Johnny K.H. Uy against respondents lawyers, Reynaldo C.
Depasucat, William O. Su and Celso delas Alas, for gross misconduct.
Complainant filed before the BSP a Petitionagainst Surigaonon Rural Banking Corporation (the bank) and Alfredo
Tan Bonpin (Bonpin), whose family comprises the majority stockholders of the bank, for cancellation of the banks
registration and franchise. The Petition, he said, arose from the banks and/or Bonpins refusal to return various
checks and land titles, which were given to secure a loan obtained by his (complainants) wife, despite alleged full
payment of the loan and interests.
89. Racines vs Judge Morallos
Facts:
Complainant Jaime Racines (Racines) was required by the Court in its Resolution dated November 22,
2007 to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for filing a baseless and unfounded
administrative case.
Racines filed a Complaint against Judge Jose P. Morallos and Sheriff Benjamin Cabusao for knowingly rendering an
unjust judgment, other deceits, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, violation of Article 32 of the New
Civil Code, Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, and the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Ruling: According to respondent sheriff, the filing of the ejectment complaint did not deprive complainant of his
property right. He argues that plaintiff therein was only asserting his right as a lessor over the leased property
subject of the above-entitled case. Respondent sheriff further argues that due process of law was observed. Hence,
the instant administrative proceeding is not the proper remedy.
EVALUATION: The instant complaint should be dismissed for lack of merit.
As a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. He cannot be
subjected to liability whether civil, criminal or administrative for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as
long as he acts in good faith. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or
deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial
office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can
be infallible in his judgment.
Thus, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative complaint against the judge, but to elevate the
assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction. An administrative complaint is not the
appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a
petition for certiorari, unless the assailed order is tainted with fraud, malice or dishonesty.
A perusal of the records failed to indicate any improper motive on the part of the respondent judge when he rendered
the assailed decision. A judge's failure to interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not
necessarily render him administratively liable.
90. Baculi vs Atty Battung
On July 24, 2008, during a hearing on the motion for reconsideration of a case, respondent Atty. Mechor A.
Battung acted disrespectfully by shouting while arguing his motion. Petitioner, Judge Rene Baculi, had advised
respondent to tone down his voice but the respondent consistently kept shouting, even when he was warned that he
would be cited for direct contempt. After eventually being cited for direct contempt and was imposed a fine of
P100.00, the respondent left. However, while other cases were being heard, respondent re-entered the court and
shouted Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you! He was escorted out of the courtroom
and was again cited for direct contempt for the second time. Respondent also uttered the same lines when he saw
petitioner at the hall of the courthouse afterwards and even challenged the latter to a fight. He was then escorted out
of the building.
Based on the tape of the incident and the transcript of stenographic notes, Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Investigative Commissioner Jose de la Rama, Jr. found that the respondent was the one who
shouted first at the complainant, despite the latters claim that he was provoked by the petitioner. The Commissioner
further stated that the respondent failed to observe Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behaviour before the
courts. The IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution adopting and approving the Report and Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Melchor A. Battung is guilty of violating Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for insulting a judge in his courtroom
HELD:
Petition GRANTED.
The Supreme Court agrees with the finding of the IBP that the respondent did violate Rule 11.03, Canon
11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. By shouting at the petitioner, Atty. Battung clearly disrespected the
former in the presence of litigants and their counsels and court personnel. Furthermore, the respondent even
threatened the judge that he will file a case of gross ignorance of the law against the latter. The respondents actions
are found not only against the person, the position and the stature of petitioner but also against the court whose
proceedings were disrupted.
As an officer of the court, it is the duty of Atty. Battung to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts. A
lawyer who insulted a judge inside a courtroom completely disregards the latters role, stature and position in our
justice system. Respects for the courts guarantee the stability of the judicial institution and without such, the courts
would be resting on very shaky foundations and will thus, lose the confidence from the people. By threatening to a
file a case against the judge, Atty. Battung seems to erode public confidence in the petitioners competence.
However, incompetence is a matter that, even if true, should be handled with sensitivity in the manner that is
provided under the Rules of Court, and not how the respondent handled the situation. The respondents actions,
32
being scandalous and offensive to the integrity of the judicial system, clearly showed a violation of the Rule 11.03,
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
91. Judge Lacurom vs Atty Lacoba
Facts: The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for plaintiff Alejandro R. Veneracion in a civil case for
unlawful detainer against defendant Federico Barrientos. The Municipal Trial Court of Cabanatuan City rendered
judgment in favor of Veneracion but Barrientos appealed to the Regional Trial Court. The case was raffled to Branch
30 where Judge Lacurom was sitting as pairing judge.
Judge Lacurom issued a Resolution (Resolution) reversing the earlier judgments rendered in favor of
Veneracion. The plaintiff-appellee Alejandro Veneracion is ordered to CEASE and DESIST from ejecting
the defendant-appellant Federico Barrientos. Veneracions counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration (with
Request for Inhibition) This RESOLUTION of REVERSAL is an ABHORRENT NULLITY as it is entirely
DEVOID of factual and legal basis. It is a Legal MONSTROSITY in the sense that the Honorable
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT acted as if it were the DARAB (Dept. of Agrarian Reform ADJUDICATION
BOARD)! x x x HOW HORRIBLE and TERRIBLE! The mistakes are very patent and glaring! x x x
Judge Lacurom ordered Velasco-Jacoba to appear before his sala and explain why she should not be held
in contempt of court for the very disrespectful, insulting and humiliating contents of the 30 July 2001
motion. Velasco-Jacoba claimed that His Honor knows beforehand who actually prepared the subject
Motion; records will show that the undersigned counsel did not actually or actively participate in this case.
Velasco-Jacoba disavowed any conscious or deliberate intent to degrade the honor and integrity of the
Honorable Court or to detract in any form from the respect that is rightfully due all courts of justice.
RULING: The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 11.03.A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language
or behavior before the Courts.
Rule 11.04.A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the
record or have no materiality to the case.
No doubt, the language contained in the 30 July 2001 motion greatly exceeded the vigor required of
Jacoba to defend ably his clients cause. We recall his use of the following words and phrases: abhorrent nullity,
legal monstrosity, horrendous mistake, horrible error, boner, and an insult to the judiciary and an anachronism in the
judicial process. Even Velasco-Jacoba acknowledged that the words created a cacophonic picture of total and utter
disrespect. Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize in
properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. However, even the most
hardened judge would be scarred by the scurrilous attack made by the 30 July 2001 motion on Judge Lacuroms
Resolution. On its face, the Resolution presented the facts correctly and decided the case according to supporting
law and jurisprudence. Though a lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and
respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of unnecessary language is proscribed if we are to
promote high esteem in the courts and trust in judicial administration.
WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba from the practice of law for two (2) years effective upon
finality of this Decision. We also SUSPEND Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba from the practice of law for two
(2) months effective upon finality of this Decision.
92. Provincial Prosecutor Visbal vs Judge Buban
FACTS: Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, Provincial Prosecutor Robert M. Visbal of Tacloban City charged
Judge Marino S. Buban, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Tacloban City, with gross inefficiency and
misconduct in Office. Presiding Judge Marino S. Buban, respondent, resolved the motion only on March 20, 2000, or
almost eight (8) months from the date it was filed. He deliberately failed to resolve the motion within the prescribed
period of ninety (90) days because he begrudged complainant's filing of an administrative charge and several
motions for his inhibition. Respondents delay in resolving the motion violated the relevant provisions of the
Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Furthermore, respondent committed falsification by stating in his
Certificates of Service from October 1999 to February 2000 that he has no pending motions submitted for resolution.
respondent judge admitted he incurred delay in resolving the "Motion to Correct and Re-mark Exhibits of the
Prosecution." He attributed such delay to the frequent resetting of the hearing of the cases. He also alleged that his
clerk of court failed or forgot to submit the records of the pertinent case to him and to call his attention to the
unresolved motion attached to the voluminous records. He blamed the complainant for failing to remind him earlier
of the motion. It was only during the hearing of March 20, 2000 that complainant called his attention to the pending
incident. Immediately, he granted the motion and ordered the remarking of exhibits. He stressed that the delay in
resolving the motion did not impede the flow of the proceedings. He surmised that complainant filed the instant
administrative case in order to force him (respondent) to inhibit himself from hearing Criminal Case No. 98-11-18 for
direct assault upon a person in authority. The accused therein is complainants wife.
RULING: Delay in resolving motions is inexcusable and should not be condoned. Delay in resolving motions and
incidents pending before a judge within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days fixed by the Constitution and the
law is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. Further, such delay constitutes a violation of Rule 3.05,
Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates that a judge should dispose of the courts business
promptly and decide cases within the required periods. It is undisputed that respondent failed to resolve
complainants motion within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days. He cannot escape liability by claiming that
his clerk failed or forgot to inform him of the unresolved motion. Though blame may conveniently be placed on
court personnels mismanagement of the records of cases, it must be kept in mind that they are not the guardians of
a judges responsibilities. Proper and efficient court management is as much the judges responsibility for he is the
one directly responsible for the proper discharge of his official functions. We find respondent judge administratively
liable for undue delay in rendering an order, a less serious charge under Section 9, Rule 140, as amended, of the
Revised Rules of Court. Pursuant to Section 11(b) of the same Rule, such offense is punishable by suspension from
office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or a fine of more
than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
WHEREFORE, for incurring undue delay in rendering an order, respondent Judge Marino S. Buban of the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Tacloban City, is ordered to pay a FINE of Eleven Thousand (P11,000.00)
Pesos, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely.
93. Hon. Rodriguez-Manahan vs Atty Flores
Facts:
A complaint for Damages was filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Mateo, Rizal.
Respondent Atty. Flores appeared as counsel for the defendant. He filed his Pre-Trial Brief without proof of
MCLE compliance hence; it was expunged from the records without prejudice to the filing of another PreTrial Brief containing the required MCLE compliance. The preliminary conference was reset several times
for failure of respondent to appear and submit his Pre-Trial Brief indicating thereon his MCLE compliance.
The court a quo gave respondent last chance to submit his Pre-Trial Brief with stern warning that failure to
do so shall be considered a waiver on his part. Respondent later filed his Pre-Trial Brief bearing an MCLE
number which was merely superimposed without indicating the date and place of compliance. During the
preliminary conference, respondent manifested that he will submit proof of compliance of his MCLE on the
following day. The Investigating Judge found Atty. Flores to have failed to give due respect to the court by
failing to obey court orders, by failing to submit proof of his compliance with the Mandatory Continuing
33
Legal Education (MCLE) requirement, and for using intemperate language in his pleadings. The
Investigating Judge recommended that Atty. Flores be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Issue:
Whether respondent should be suspended from practice of law for using intemperate language in his
pleadings
Held:
NO. There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial court's order to submit proof of his MCLE compliance
notwithstanding the several opportunities given him. Atty. Flores also employed intemperate language in his
pleadings. As an officer of the court, Atty. Flores is expected to be circumspect in his language.
However, the court found the recommended penalty too harsh and not commensurate with the infractions committed
by the respondent. It appears that this is the first infraction committed by respondent. Also, the court is not prepared
to impose on the respondent the penalty of one-year suspension for humanitarian reasons. Respondent manifested
before this Court that he has been in the practice of law for half a century. Thus, he is already in his twilight years.
Considering the foregoing, the court deem it proper to fine respondent and to remind him to be more circumspect in
his acts and to obey and respect court processes.
The RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the plaintiffs Alcarazes. Mabanag, through the assistance of respondent
Guerrero as her counsel appealed the decision to the CA. The CA affirmed the decision. Unsatisfied with the
decision of the CA, Mabanag and respondent as counsel appeal the decision to the SC. The SC affirmed the
decision of the court a qou.
However, the persistence of Mabang and respondent as counsel did not end there, since the filed multifarious suits
and motions based on the ground that Spouses Alcazares, being foreigners have no eligibility to own lands in the
Philippines. The ground which these various petitions and motions is based is already decided by the Court with
finality
when
it
decided
the
civil
case
concerning
the
sale
of
the
property..
Canon 12
94. Atty Fabroa vs Atty Paguinto
Facts: Complainant, Atty. Iluminada M. Vaflor-Fabroa, who was Chairperson of the General Mariano Alvarez Service
Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), was removed as a member of the Board of Directors (the Board) and thereafter,
respondent, Oscar Paguinto and his group took over the GEMASCO office and its premises, the pumphouses, water
facilities, and operations. Complainant thus filed a complaint for annulment of the proceedings of her removal as well
as other members of the Board and a complaint against respondent for disbarment alleging that respondent had
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly, among others, Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor,
fairness and good faith to the court, when having ordered to submit position papers and despite grant, on his motion,
of extension of time, did not file any position paper and further ignored the Courts subsequent show cause order.
Moreover, respondent caused the filing of baseless criminal complaints against complainant.
Held:
Yes, explained the court- "it has, thus, been clearly established that in filing such numerous petitions in behalf of his
client, the respondent thereby engaged in forum shopping. The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple
suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose
of obtaining a favorable judgment. It exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a
favorable opinion in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause
to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable decision. An important factor in determining the existence of forum
shopping is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim
substantially
the
same
reliefs.
Issue: Whether or not respondents acts constitute a violation of the provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, particularly, Canon 10.
Held: Yes, lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and respondents deference is underscored
by the fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to disciplinary
sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the
courts and to show respect to their processes. The Court further noted that respondent had previously been
suspended from the practice of law for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, however, that respondent
has not reformed his ways. Hence, a more severe penalty is thus called for, respondent was subjected to
suspension for two years.
95. Foronda vs Atty Guerrero
Facts:
The complainant [attorney-in-fact] alleged that his principals, Ramona and Concepcion Alcaraz, filed Civil Case for
specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The case involved a parcel of
land which were sold to the Alcarazes. Thereafter, while the case was pending, Catalina Balais-Mabanag, assisted
by her husband Eleuterio Mabanag, and with the respondent as their lawyer, intervened in the case. In their
intervention, Spouses Mabanag questioned the eligibility of the Alcarazes to won lands in the Philippines.
Respondent in trying to justify his acts contended that his action of questioning the eligibility of the Spouses
Alcazares is necessary in the validity of the decision and the determination of the validity of the sale. If the Spouses
Alcazares
are
ineligible
to
own
lands
in
the
Philippines
then
the
sale
is
void.
Issue:
Whether
or
not
the
act
of
respondent
constitutes
forum
shopping,
thus
warrant
sanction.
Indeed, while a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it should not be at the expense of truth and the
administration of justice. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impeding execution of
a judgment or by misusing court processes. Such filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the Courts
processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be
punished as contempt of court. Needless to add, the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious petitions (which
obviously delays the execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for
incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good
fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and
honor.
We note that while lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of their
clients right, they should not forget that they are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort
to
assist
in
the
speedy
and
efficient
administration
of
justice.
In filing multiple petitions before various courts concerning the same subject matter, the respondent violated Canon
12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his
duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. He also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the
Code,
as
well
as
a
lawyers
mandate
to
delay
no
man
for
money
or
malice.
Respondent is suspended for 1 year in the practice of law.
34
96. Que vs Atty Revilla

Conrado Que filed a disbarment case for Atty. Anastacio Revilla Jr. before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
of committing various violations on the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court as
stated in the following
ISSUE
The respondents abuse courts remedies and processes by filing petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals
(CA), two petitions for annulment of title at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a petition for annulment of judgment in the
RTC and lastly, a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC (collectively, subject cases)to assail and overturn the
final judgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and RTC in the unlawful detainer case rendered against the
respondent clients.
Facts
The respondent also committed forum shopping by filing the subject cases in order to obstruct, impede, and
frustrate the efficient administration of justice for his own personal gain and to defeat the right of the complainant and
his siblings to execute the MeTC and RTC judgments in the unlawful detainer case.
RULING
The respondents willful and revolting falsehood is also alleged by the complainant that unjustly maligned and
defamed the good name and reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico (Atty. Catolico) who is the previous counsel
of the respondents clients.
Atty. Revilla fabricated an imaginary order issued by the presiding judge in open court which allegedly denied the
motion to dismiss filed by the respondents in the said case where the respondent asserted the falsehood.
The complainant alleged that the respondent did this to cover up his lack of preparation. Thus, the respondent also
deceived his clients (who were all squatters) in supporting the above falsehood.
Under the circumstances of abuse of court and processes, the respondents repeated attempts go beyond the
legitimate means allowed by professional ethical rules in defending the interests of his client. The respondent
violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which makes it obligatory for a lawyer to
observe the rules of procedure and. . . not [to] misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
The respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as
well as the rule against forum shopping, both of which are directed against the filing of multiple actions to attain the
same objective. Both violations constitute abuse of court processes; they tend to degrade the administration of
justice; wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure and add to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the
courts.
The respondent continually argued and challenged the court for lack of jurisdiction by the MeTC and RTC even
knowing fully well that the competent courts have jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case.
Yes. The respondent committed violations in the code of Professional Responsility and the Rules of Court
The respondents also deliberate, fraudulent and unauthorized appeared in court in the petition for annulment of
judgment for 15 litigants, three of whom are already deceased
Conrado Que vs Atty. Anastacio Revilla Jr
Likewise, the respondent violated his duty as an attorney and his oath as a lawyer never to mislead the judge or any
judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.
In defending his clients interest, the respondent also failed to observe Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which reads:
CANON 19 A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF LAW
Rule 19.01 A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his clients x x x
Furthermore, the respondent also repeatedly attacked the complainants and his siblings titles over the property
subject of the unlawful detainer case.
The respondent willfully and fraudulently appeared in the second petition for annulment of title as counsel for the
Republic of the Philippines without being authorized to do so.
Atty. Revilla was accused of representing fifty-two (52) litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762 when no such authority
was ever given to him.
The respondent answered the complaint and mostly denied all the allegations.
Whether or not the respondent can be held liable for the imputed unethical infractions and professional misconduct,
and the penalty these transgressions should carry.
The respondent violated Sections 21 and 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court when he undertook the unauthorized
appearances. The settled rule is that a lawyer may not represent a litigant without authority from the latter or from
the latters representative or, in the absence thereof, without leave of court.
Due to Atty. Revilla's multiple violations on the Conduct of Professional Responsibility, and is found liable for
professional misconduct for violations of the Lawyers Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules
12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and Sections 20(d),
21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. However, we modify the penalty the IBP imposed, and hold that the
respondent should beDISBARRED from the practice of law.
CANON 13
97. Jimenez va Atty Verano
FACTS: Before this Court is the Resolution1 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
finding respondent Atty. Felisberto Verano liable for improper and inappropriate conduct tending to influence and/or
giving the appearance of influence upon a public official.
RULING:
98. FoodSphere, inc vs Atty Maurico

FACTS:
[A] certain Alberto Cordero (Cordero) purportedly bought from a grocery in Valenzuela City canned goods including a
can of CDO Liver spread. As Cordero and his relatives were eating bread with the CDO Liver spread, they found the
spread to be sour and soon discovered a colony of worms inside the can. This was complained before the BFAD.
After conciliation meetings between Cordero and the petitioner, the Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN
seeking the withdrawal of their complaint before the BFAD. The BFAD thus dismissed the complaint. Respondent,
Atty. Mauricio, Jr., who affixed his signature to the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later wrote in one of his
articles/columns in a tabloid that he prepared the document.
Complainant filed criminal complaints against respondent and several others for Libel and Threatening to Publish
Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal Code before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City
and Valenzuela City. The complaints were pending at the time of the filing of the present administrative complaint.
Despite the pendency of the civil case against him and the issuance of a status quo order restraining/enjoining
further publishing, televising and broadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO, respondent continued
with his attacks against complainant and its products.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
YES. Respondent suspended for three (3) years from the practice of law.
RATIO:
The above actuations of respondent are also in violation of Rule 13.03 of the Canon of Professional
Responsibility which reads: A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
35
The language employed by respondent undoubtedly casts aspersions on the integrity of the Office of the City
Prosecutor and all the Prosecutors connected with said Office. Respondent clearly assailed the impartiality and
fairness of the said Office in handling cases filed before it and did not even design to submit any evidence to
substantiate said wild allegations. The use by respondent of the above-quoted language in his pleadings is
manifestly violative of Canon 11 and the fundamental Canon 1 also of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
mandates lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes. Respondent defied said status quo order, despite his (respondents) oath as a member of the legal
profession to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities.
Further, respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandate, and
by failing to live up to his oath and to comply with the exacting standards of the legal profession, respondent
also violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs a lawyer to at all times uphold the
integrity and the dignity of the legal profession.
D. Lawyers Duty to his Client
CANON 14 &15
99. Baens vs Atty Sempio
FACTS:
This legal battle stemmed when the complainant engaged the services of the respondent to represent him and file a
case for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against his wife, Lourdes V. Mendiola-Baens. In his complaint-affidavit
dated March 15, 2010, the complainant alleged, among others, that the respondent: (1) despite receiving the sum of
250,000.00 to cover for the expenses in the said case,6 failed to file the corresponding petition, and it was the
complainants wife who successfully instituted Civil Case No. 2463-08,7 for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on
December 8, 2008; (2) even with the complainant furnishing him a copy of the Summons dated December 15,
2008,8 belatedly filed an Answer9 and was able to file it only on March 13, 2009 which was after the 15-day period
stated in the Summons; (3) failed to make an objection on the petition on the ground of improper venue as neither
the complainant nor his wife were and are residents of Dasmarias, Cavite; (4) never bothered to check the status of
the case and thus failed to discover and attend all the hearings set for the case; and (5) as a result, Civil Case No.
2463-08 was decided10 on October 27, 2009 without the complainant being able to present his evidence.
In his Answer,11 the respondent denied the allegations in the complaint, and explained that: (1) after a meeting with
the complainant, he drafted the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and asked the complainant to go over
said draft after which he proceeded to file the same with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon City; (2) the
complainant was aware that said petition will be filed in Malabon City as the latter had signed the verification and
certification of the petition; (3) the case became pending and was later on withdrawn because of the complainants
refusal to testify; (4) what contributed to the delay in filing the Answer was the fact that he still had to let the
complainant go over the same and sign the verification thereof; (5) he was not able to attend the hearings for the
case because he did not receive any notice from the trial court; and (6) it was only on December 2, 2009 when he
found out that the trial court has already rendered its decision and that the complainant had changed counsels.
Specifically, the Investigating Commissioner found that the respondent failed to diligently attend to the case and was
grossly negligent in discharging his responsibilities considering the fact that he has already been fully compensated.
The Investigating Commissioner said that the respondent should have manifested or made known to the trial court
that he was not receiving any notice at all since it behoves upon him to make a follow-up on the developments of the
cases he is handling.
ISSUE:
Held:
It is beyond dispute that the complainant engaged the services of the respondent to handle his case. The records,
however, definitively bear out that the respondent was completely remiss and negligent in handling the complainants
case, notwithstanding his receipt of the sum of P250,000.00 for the total expenses to be incurred in the said case.
The excuse proffered by the respondent that he did not receive any orders or notices from the trial court is highly
intolerable.1wphi1 In the first place, securing a copy of such notices, orders and case records was within the
respondents control and is a task that a lawyer undertakes. Moreso, the preparation and the filing of the answer is a
matter of procedure that fully fell within the exclusive control and responsibility of the respondent. It was incumbent
upon him to execute all acts and procedures necessary and incidental to the advancement of his clients cause of
action.
Records further disclose that the respondent omitted to update himself of the progress of his clients case with the
trial court, and neither did he resort to available legal remedies that might have protected his clients interest.
Although a lawyer has complete discretion on what legal strategy to employ in a case entrusted to him, he must
present every remedy or defense within the authority of law to support his clients interest. When a lawyer agrees to
take up a clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latters rights. 18
Evidently, the acts of the respondent plainly demonstrated his lack of candor, fairness, and loyalty to his client as
embodied in Canon 15 of the Code. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the
interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the
community to the legal profession.19
In this case, the respondents reckless and inexcusable negligence deprived his client of due process and his actions
were evidently prejudicial to his clients interests. A lawyers duty of competence and diligence includes not merely
reviewing the cases entrusted to his care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists of properly representing the
client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required
pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination even without
prodding from the client or the court.
100. HocormaFoundation vs Stty. Funk

FACTS: Hocorma Foundation filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent. It alleged that respondent used
to work as corporate secretary, counsel, chief executive officer, and trustee of the foundation from 1983 to
1985. He also served as its counsel in several criminal and civil cases.
Complainant alleged that respondent filed an action for quieting of title and damages against Hocorma on behalf of
Mabalacat institute using information he acquired while with the foundation.
As a defense, Atty. Funk contended that he was hired by Mabalacat Institute by Don Teodoro Santos in 1982 to
serve as director and legal counsel. He emphasized that, in all these, the attorney-client relationship was always
between Santos and him. He was more of Santos personal lawyer than the lawyer of Hocorma Foundation.
Santos left for America to get medical treatment. The former and Atty. Funk agreed that the latter would be paid for
his legal services out of the properties that Santos donated or sold to the Hocorma Foundation. Atty. Funk also
claimed that he was authorized to advise Hocorma and follow up with it Santos sale or donation of a 5-hectare land
in Pampanga to Mabalacat Institute. Atty. Funk was to collect all expenses for the property transfer from Hocorma
Foundation out of funds that Santos provided. It was Santos intention since 1950 to give the land to Mabalacat
Institute free of rent and expenses.
According to Atty. Funk, Santos suggested to the complainant his inclusion in that board, a suggestion that the
foundation followed. After Santos died, respondent was elected President of Mabalacat Institute.
36
The foundation later refused to pay Atty. Funks fees, thus he severed his ties with Hocorma. Four years later, he
filed a suit against Hocorma. The trial court, CA and SC decided in favor of the respondent.
After hearing, the Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Funk to have violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the
(CPR) with the aggravating circumstance of a pattern of misconduct consisting of four court appearances against his
former client, the Hocorma Foundation. The CBD recommended Atty. Funks suspension from the practice of law for
one year. Respondent moved for reconsideration but was denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Funk betrayed the trust and confidence of a former client in violation of the CPR when
he filed several actions against such client on behalf of a new one.
HELD: Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer cannot represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Here, it is undeniable that Atty. Funk was
formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma Foundation. Years after terminating his relationship with the foundation, he
filed a complaint against it on behalf of another client without the foundations written consent.
An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the highly fiduciary nature of their relationship, sound
public policy dictates that he be prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties.
The reason for this is that a lawyer acquires knowledge of his former clients doings, whether documented or not,
that he would ordinarily not have acquired were it not for the trust and confidence that his client placed on him in the
light of their relationship.
Respondent collected attorneys fees from the foundation. Thus, he had an obligation not to use any knowledge he
acquired during that relationship, including the fact that the property under litigation existed at all, when he sued the
foundation.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the resolution of the Board of the IBP SUSPENDS Atty. Richard Funk from
the practice of law for one year effective immediately.
101. Seares vs Stty Gonzales-Alzate

Seares, Jr. alleges that Atty. Gonzales-Aizate was his legal counsel
when he ran for the position of Municipal Mayor of Dolores, Abra in the
May 2007 elections; that after he lost by a 50-vote margin to Albert Z.
Guzman, she filed in his behalf a "Petition Of Protest Ad Cautelam" in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Bangued, Abra;
The petition was dismissed because it is fatally defective, time-barred and violation of forum shopping(false
statements)
When he ran on may 2010, she was retained as counsel for the opponent party
When he was charged for abuse of authority, oppression and grave misconduct in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Abra, she represented the complainant Torqueza
negligently handling his election protest, for prosecuting him, her former client, and for uttering false and hurtful
allegations against him
defenses: (a) she was engaged as an attorney
in the May 2010 elections only by Dominic Valera (a candidate for
Municipal Mayor of Bangued, Abra) and by President Aquino, neither of

whom was Seares, Jr.s political opponent;
(b) Carlito Turqueza used to be
a political ally of Seares, Jr.;
(c) she disclosed to Turqueza her having once
acted as a counsel of Seares, Jr.;
(d) Seares, Jr. did not object to her legal representation of Turqueza; and (e) the 2007 election protest that she
handled for Seares, Jr. was unrelated to the administrative complaint that Turqueza brought against Seares, Jr. in
2010.
Issues:
(a) Was Atty. Gonzales-Alzate guilty of professional negligence and
incompetence in her handling of Seares, Jr.s electoral protest in the RTC?
(b) Did Atty. Gonzales-Alzate violate the prohibition against
representing conflicting interests when she assisted Turqueza in his
administrative case against Seares, Jr., her former client?
Ruling:
For administrative liability under Canon 18 to attach, the negligent act
of the attorney should be gross and inexcusable as to lead to a result that was highly prejudicial to the clients
interest. Accordingly, the Court has imposed administrative sanctions on a grossly negligent attorney for
unreasonable failure to file a required pleading, or for unreasonable failure to file an appeal, especially when the
failure occurred after the attorney moved for several extensions to file the pleading and offered several excuses for
his nonfeasance.The Court has found the attendance of inexcusable negligence when an attorney resorts to a
wrong remedy, or belatedly files an appeal, or inordinately delays the filing of a complaint, or fails to attend
scheduled court hearings. Gross misconduct on the part of an attorney is determined from the circumstances of the
case, the nature of the act done and the motive that induced the attorney to commit the act.
the true cause of the dismissal of Seares, Jr.s Petition For Protest Ad Cautelam was its prematurity in light of the
pendency in the Commission on Elections of his Petition to Suspend Canvass and Proclamation.
we cannot find Atty. Gonzales-Alzate professionally negligent in respect of the filing and eventual dismissal of the
subsequent Petition for Protest. The verification and certification against forum shopping attached to the petition
contained handwritten superimpositions by Atty. GonzalesAlzate, but such superimpositions were apparently made
only to reflect the corrections of the dates of subscription and the notarial document number and docket number for
the verification and certification. If that was all there was to the superimpositions, then there was nothing to support
the trial judges observation that the cut and paste method in preparing the verification and certification for nonforum shopping constituted professional negligence that proved fatal to her clients protest.
The charge was immediately unworthy of serious consideration because it was clear from the start that Atty.
Gonzales-Alzate did not take advantage of her previous engagement by Seares, Jr. in her legal representation of
Turqueza in the latters administrative charge against Seares, Jr. There was no indication whatsoever of her having
gained any confidential information during her previous engagement by Seares, Jr. that could be used against
Seares, Jr. Her engagement by Seares, Jr. related only to the election protest in 2007, but Turquezas complaint
involved Seares, Jr.s supposedly unlawful interference in ousting Turqueza as the president of the Liga ng mga
Barangay of Dolores, Abra in 2010. There is no question that both charges were entirely foreign to one another.
Moreover, the prohibition against representing conflicting interest further necessitated identity of the parties or
interests involved in the previous and present engagements. But such identity was not true here. The adverse party
in Seares, Jr.s election protest in 2007 was Albert Z. Guzman, the newly-elected Municipal Mayor of Dolores, Abra,
who was not involved in Turquezas administrative complaint against Seares, Jr. In fact, Turqueza was not even a
37
mayoral candidate in Dolores, Abra in the elections held in 2007 and in 2010. The allegation by Seares, Jr. that Atty.
Gonzales-Alzate represented his political opponent was not even true because Turqueza was Seares, Jr.s political
ally, as Atty. Gonzales-Alzate stated.
102. Castro-Justo vs Atty Galing
Attorney; conflict of interest. Respondent attorney drafted a demand letter on behalf of complainant in connection
with the dishonored checks issued by Ms. Koa. In the ensuing criminal cases, respondent filed a Motion for
Consolidation on behalf of Ms. Koa and appeared at the preliminary investigation hearing as Ms. Koas counsel.
Respondent argued that no lawyer-client relationship existed between him and complainant because there was no
professional fee paid for the services he rendered. Moreover, he argued that he drafted the demand letter only as a
personal favor to complainant who is a close friend. A lawyer-client relationship can exist notwithstanding the close
friendship between complainant and respondent. The relationship was established the moment complainant sought
legal advice from respondent regarding the dishonored checks. By drafting the demand letter respondent further
affirmed such relationship. The fact that the demand letter was not utilized in the criminal complaint filed and that
respondent was not eventually engaged by complainant to represent her in the criminal cases is of no moment.
Likewise, the non-payment of professional fee will not exculpate respondent from liability. Absence of monetary
consideration does not exempt lawyers from complying with the prohibition against pursuing cases with conflicting
interests. The prohibition attaches from the moment the attorney-client relationship is established and extends
beyond the duration of the professional relationship. Lydia Castro-Justo v. Atty. Rodolfo Galing.
103. Sibulo vs Atty. Cabrera
At bar is an administrative complaint against the respondent, Atty. Stanley Cabrera, for unethical practice/conduct.
The facts that matter are as follows:
In a case, entitled "Brenda Sucaldito versus Reynaldo Marcelo, et al.", docketed as Civil Case No. 90-55209 before
Branch 53 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, defendant Reynaldo Marcelo retained the services of the herein
respondent as his lawyer. Subsequently, however, the respondent also entered his appearance as counsel for
plaintiff Brenda Sucaldito in the same case, without withdrawing his appearance as counsel for defendant Reynaldo
Marcelo. In view of such development Atty. Reyes Geromo, former counsel of Brenda Sucaldito, filed with the Manila
Regional Trial Court a motion to disqualify the respondent on the ground of unethical conduct. Finding merit in the
said motion, the trial court ordered the disqualification of respondent in the case.
Complainant Romeo Sibulo, an intervenor in the aforementioned Civil Case No. 90-55209, brought the present
administrative complaint against respondent, praying for the latters removal from or suspension in the practice of
law, on the ground of unethical practice/conduct.
In his Answer] to the Complaint, respondent denied the wrongdoing alluded to him; theorizing that "xxx I merely
accepted a case from a plaintiff and at the same time I was the counsel as intervenor of one of the defendants xxx."
Respondent has all but admitted the wrongdoing complained of, when he stated in his Answer that he "merely
accepted a case from a plaintiff and at the same time I [he] was the counsel as intervenor of one of the defendants."
Such a revelation is a categorical admission that he (respondent) represented two conflicting interests, which
representations or appearances are prohibited by Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides:
"CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.
xxx.....xxx.....xxx
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a
full disclosure of the facts."
Respondent was bound to faithfully represent his client in all aspects of subject civil case. When he agreed to
represent the defendant and later on, also the plaintiff in the same case, he could no longer serve either of his said
clients faithfully, as his duty to the plaintiff did necessarily conflict with his duty to the defendant. The relation of
attorney and client is based on trust, so that double dealing which could sometimes lead to treachery, should be
avoided.
WHEREFORE, respondent is found GUILTY of unethical conduct for representing two conflicting interests and is
hereby FINED in the amount of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) Pesos, with a warning that a repetition of the same
or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
104. Samala vs Atty Valencia
Facts:
Clarita J. Samala (complainant) filed a complaint against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia (respondent) for Disbarment on
the following grounds:
(a) serving on two separate occasions as counsel for contending parties;
(b) knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence;
(c) initiating numerous cases in exchange for non-payment of rental fees; and
(d) having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
After respondent filed his Comment, the Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report, and
recommendation.
After a series of hearings, the parties filed their respective memoranda and the case was deemed submitted for
resolution.
The Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and recommended the penalty of suspension for six months.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of Commissioner Reyes but
increased the penalty of suspension from six months to one year.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canons 15 and 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:
This Court adopts the report of the IBP Board of Governors except as to the issue on immorality and as to the
recommended penalty.
(a) On serving as counsel for contending parties.
Respondent, while being the counsel for defendant Valdez, also acted as counsel for the tenants Lagmay, Valencia,
Bustamante and Bayuga by filing an Explanation and Compliance before the RTC.
The Presiding Judge warned respondent to refrain from repeating the act of being counsel of record of both parties
in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK.
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. He may not also undertake to discharge conflicting duties any more
than he may represent antagonistic interests. This stern rule is founded on the principles of public policy and good
taste. It springs from the relation of attorney and client which is one of trust and confidence. Lawyers are expected
not only to keep inviolate the client's confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing
for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance
in the administration of justice.
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.
(b) On knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence.
38
Complainant alleges that in Civil Case No. 00-7137 filed before MTC, Branch 75 for ejectment, respondent
submitted TCT No. 273020 as evidence of Valdez's ownership despite the fact that a new TCT No. 275500 was
already issued in the name of Alba on February 2, 1995.
During the hearing before Commissioner Raval, respondent avers that when the Answer was filed in the said case,
that was the time that he came to know that the title was already in the name of Alba; so that when the court
dismissed the complaint, he did not do anything anymore. Respondent further avers that Valdez did not tell him the
truth and things were revealed to him only when the case for rescission was filed in 2002.
Respondent failed to comply with Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer
shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be
mislead by any artifice. It matters not that the trial court was not misled by respondent's submission of TCT No.
273020 in the name of Valdez, as shown by its decision dated January 8, 2002 dismissing the complaint for
ejectment. 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.
(c) On initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees.
Complainant alleged that respondent filed the following cases: (a) Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK at the RTC, Branch
272; (b) Civil Case No. 00-7137 at the MTC, Branch 75; and (c) I.S. Nos. 00-4439 and 01-036162 both entitled
"Valencia v. Samala" for estafa and grave coercion, respectively, before the Marikina City Prosecutor. Complainant
claims that the two criminal cases were filed in retaliation for the cases she filed against Lagmay docketed as I.S.
No. 00-4306 for estafa and I.S. No. 00-4318 against Alvin Valencia (son of respondent) for trespass to dwelling.
As culled from the records, Valdez entered into a retainer agreement with respondent. As payment for his services,
he was allowed to occupy the property for free and utilize the same as his office pursuant to their retainer
agreement.
The Court finds the charge to be without sufficient basis. 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.
The filing of an administrative case against respondent for protecting the interest of his client and his own right would
be putting a burden on a practicing lawyer who is obligated to defend and prosecute the right of his client.
(d) On having a reputation for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
The Court finds respondent liable for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
During the hearing, 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. Respondent further
admitted that Lagmay was staying in one of the apartments being claimed by complainant. However, he does not
consider his affair with Lagmay as a relationship and does not consider the latter as his second family. He reasoned
that he was not staying with Lagmay because he has two houses, one in Muntinlupa and another in Marikina.
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.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia GUILTY of misconduct and violation of
Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
three (3) years, effective immediately upon receipt of herein Resolution.
105. Buted vs Atty Hernando
FACTS:
Atty. Hernando was counsel for Luciana Abadilla and Angela Buted for a partition case of the late Teofilo Buteds lot.
He successfully defended the case. When Luciana died, Hernando withdrew appearance. Luciana once sold the
property to Benito Bolisay but it appears that the TCT was issued to the Sy couple. Upon filing specific performance,
Bolisay got Atty. Hernando to represent him (free of charge). They succeeded in ejecting the couple. Atty. Hernando
claims to have terminated relationship with Bolisay. In February 1974, Atty. Hernando filed a petition, in behalf of
Lucianas heirs without their consent, to cancel TCT of Bolisay couple over the lot. The couple filed disapproval. The
case was dismissed for prescription. In August of 1974, Bolisay couple filed an administrative complaint against Atty.
Hernando for having abused personal secrets obtained by him as their counsel
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Hernando had a conflict of interests
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Hernando had a conflict of interest. In the action for specific performance,
Atty Hernando defended the Bolisay couples right to ownership but assailed the very same right in the cadastral
proceeding in favor of Lucianas heirs. The Canons of Professional Ethics prohibits conflicting interests for lawyers.
It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of
one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose. The obligation to
represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his secrets or confidence forbids also the subsequent
acceptance of retainers or employment from others in matters adversely affecting any interest of the client with
respect to which confidence has been reposed.And despite Atty Hernandos claim that he had never seen nor taken
hold of the Transfer Certificate of Title or that he divulged any confidential information belonging to the Bolisay
couple, that the mere fact that respondent had acted as counsel for Benito Bolisay in the action for specific
performance should have precluded him from appearing as counsel for the other side in in the cancellation of the
Transfer Certificate of Title of the spouses. There is no necessity for proving the actual transmission of confidential
information to an attorney in the course of his employment by his first client in order that he may be precluded from
accepting employment by the second or subsequent client where there are conflicting interests between the first and
the subsequent clients. The prohibition on conflict of interest was designed not only to prevent the dishonest
practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but as well to protect the honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of
unprofessional practice. Although the relation of attorney and client has terminated, and the new employment is in a
different case; nor can the attorney use against his former client any knowledge or information gained through their
former connection.
SUSPENDED for 5 months.
106. Perez vs Atty Dela Torre
Perez as brgy. Captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines sur, that in Dec 2001, severalsuspects for murder
and kidnapping for ransom, among them Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avilawere apprehended and jailed by the police
authorities; that respondent went to the unicipal bldg.of Calabanga where the accused were being detained and made
representations that he couldsecure their freedom if they sign the prepared extrajudicial confessions; that unknown to the
two accused, respondent was representing the heirs of the murder victim; The extrajudicialconfessions included herein the
complainant as the mastermind in the criminal activities for which they were being charged.
Respondent claimed that when Ilo sought his assistance in executing his extrajudicial confession,he conferred with Ilo in
the presence of his parents and only after he was convinced that Ilo wasnot under compulsion did he assist the accused in
executing the extrajudicial confession.
ISSUE:
WON the respondent violated Rule 15.03 of CPR
39
HELD:
Atty. De la Torre was guilty of violation of Rule 15.03 of CPR. He is suspended for three years from the practice of law. The
respondent admitted that his services as a lawyer wereretained by both Avila and Ilo. Perez was able to show that at the time that atty. De la Torre
wasrepresenting the said two accused, he was also representing the interest of the victims family.Under Rule 15.03 of the CPR, a
lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by writtenconsent of all concerned given after a full disclosure
of the facts. Respondent is therefore duty bound to refrain from representing two parties having conflicting interests
in a controversy. The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of public policy
andgood taste. In course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connectedwith the clients case, including the
weak and strong points of the case. It behooves lawyers notonly to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also
to avoid the appearance of improprietyand double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their
secrets to their lawyers which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice. His representation of opposing clients in
the murder case invites suspicion of double-dealing and infidelity to hisclients. What is unsetting is that respondent
assisted in the execution by the two accused of their confessions whereby they admitted their participation in various
serious criminal offensesknowing fully well that he was retained previously by the heirs of one of the victims.Respondent, who presumably
knows the intricacies of the law, should have exercised his better judgment before conceding to accuseds choice of counsel.
107. Rural Bank Calape vs Atty Florido
Attorney; representation within bounds of the law. Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his
client with zeal within the bounds of the law. For this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code requires a lawyer to impress
upon his client compliance with the law and principles of fairness. A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means
to attain the lawful objectives of his client. It is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in
seeking justice and refrain from doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries. Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. (RBCI),
Bohol vs. Atty. James Benedict Florido
FACTS: Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent. RBCI alleged that
respondent violated his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
According to RBCI, respondent and his clients, Nazareno-Relampagos group, through force and intimidation, forcibly
took over the management and the premises of RBCI. They also forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay, the bank manager,
destroyed the banks vault, and installed their own staff to run the bank.
Respondent added that the criminal complaint for malicious mischief filed against him by RBCI was already
dismissed; while the complaint for grave coercion was ordered suspended because of the existence of a prejudicial
question. Respondent said that the disbarment complaint was filed against him in retaliation for the administrative
cases he filed against RBCIs counsel and the trial court judges of Bohol.
Moreover, respondent claimed that RBCI failed to present any evidence to prove their allegations. Respondent
added that the affidavits attached to the complaint were never identified, affirmed, or confirmed by the affiants and
that none of the documentary exhibits were originals or certified true copies.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated his oath and the CPR Canon 19.
HELD: The Court held that respondent was guilty as charged and suspended for a year. The first and foremost duty
of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of
the land. It is the lawyers duty to promote respect for the law and legal processes and to abstain from activities
aimed at defiance of the law or lessening confidence in the legal system.
Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. It is his
duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from doing an intentional
wrong to their adversaries.
A lawyers duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that end, his clients success is wholly
subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics.Any means, not
honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his clients cause,
is condemnable and unethical.
108. Gonzales vs Atty Sabacajan

FACTS
An administrative case was filed by Nicanor Gonzales and Salud B. Pantanosas against Atty. Miguel
Sabacajan. In a verified complaint, it alleged that complainants were informed by the Register of Deeds of Cagayan
de Oro City that the complainants owners duplicate of title covering their lands, Transfer Certificate of Titles were
entrusted to the office secretary of the respondent who in turn entrusted the same to respondent. However the latter
admitted and confirmed to the complainants that their titles are in his custody and has even shown the same the
complainant Salud but when demanded to deliver the said titles to the complainant in a formal demand letter, the
respondent refused without any justification to give their titles and when confronted, respondent challenged the
complainants to file any case in any court even in the Honorable Supreme Court. That respondents dare or
challenge is a manifestation of his arrogance taking undue advantage of his legal profession over innocence and
ignorance of the complainants, one of whom is his blood relative, his aunt, for which complainants shudder with
mental anguish. In spite of repeated demands, the respondent still refused to surrender the said titles to the rightful
owners, the complainants which act is tantamount to willful and malicious defiance of legal and moral obligations
emanating from his professional capacity as a lawyer who had sworn to uphold law and justice, to the prejudice and
damage of the complainants. In an answer, the respondent admitted having met Salud but claims that, to his
recollection, Nicanor Gonzales/Serdan has never been to his office. Respondent likewise denied that he
challenged anyone to file a case in any court, much less the Supreme Court. He also claims that he referred
complainant Pantanosas to his client, Mr. Samto M. Uy of Iponan, Cagayan de Oro City, for whom he worked out the
segregation of the titles, two of which are the subject of the instant case. Respondent likewise submitted xerox
copies of certain certificates of title in an effort to explain why he kept the certificates of title of complainants, that is,
supposedly for the purpose of subdividing the property. However, an examination of the same does not show any
connection thereof to respondents claim. In fact, the two sets of certificates of title appear to be entirely different
from each other.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Sabacajan has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for his refusal without
just cause to return/ give to complainants their certificates of titles?
HELD
YES. The Court accordingly finds that respondent has not exercised the good faith and diligence required
of lawyers in handling the legal affairs of their clients. If complainants did have the alleged monetary obligations to
his client, that does not warrant his summarily confiscating their certificates of title since there is no showing in the
records that the same were given as collaterals to secure the payment of a debt. Neither is there any intimation that
there is a court order authorizing him to take and retain custody of said certificates of title. Apparently, respondent
has disregarded Canon 15, Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall
impress upon his client the need for compliance with the laws and principles of fairness. Instead, he unjustly refused
to give to complainants their certificates of titles supposedly to enforce payment of their alleged financial obligations
to his client and presumably to impress the latter of his power to do so.
In addition, Canon 19, Rule 19.01 ordains that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present unfounded charges to
obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. Respondent has closely skirted this proscription, if he has
not in fact transgressed the same.
Atty. Miguel Sabacajan is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law until he can duly show to this Court that the
disputed certificates of title have been returned to and the receipt thereof duly acknowledged by complainants, or
can present a judicial order or appropriate legal authority justifying the possession by him or his client of said
40
certificates. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar or any other administrative misconduct will
be punished more severely.
109. Penilla vs Atty Alcid, Jr
Attorney; Gross Misconduct. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated Canon 18 and Rules 18.03 and
18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated his oath under Canon 18 to serve his client
with competence and diligence when he filed a criminal case for estafa when the facts of the case would have
warranted the filing of a civil case for breach of contract. To be sure, after the complaint for estafa was dismissed,
Atty. Alcid, Jr. committed another similar blunder by filing a civil case for specific performance and damages before
the RTC, when he should have filed it with the MTC due to the amount involved. Atty. Alcid, Jr. did not also apprise
complainant of the status of the cases. Atty. Alcid, Jr. is not only guilty of incompetence in handling the cases. His
lack of professionalism in dealing with complainant is gross and inexcusable. The legal profession dictates that it is
not a mere duty, but an obligation, of a lawyer to accord the highest degree of fidelity, zeal and fervor in the
protection of the clients interest. The most thorough groundwork and study must be undertaken in order to
safeguard the interest of the client. Atty. Alcid, Jr. has defied and failed to perform such duty and his omission is
tantamount to a desecration of the Lawyers Oath. Julian Penilla v. Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr
41

Pale Mid Term Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pale Mid Term Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASES:

1. CAYETANO VS. MONSOD

Black defines "practice of law" as:

3. DOCENA VS. ATTY. LIMON

7. ULEP VS. LEGAL CLINIC

8.ATTY MAGNO VS. ATTY VELASCO - JACOBA

12. IN RE: ALAMACEN

14. APPLICATION FOR THE BAR ADMISSION, VICENTE CHING

19. AGUIRRE VS. RANA

Lawyers Duty to the Public

34.Juanita manaois, complainantVs.Atty. Victor v. Deciembre,respondent

not justifiable. The said reason appears to us trite and contrived.

of person and two [2] witnesses); and

mentioned in the preceding paragraphs (a) and (b).

53. Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378

2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation; and

A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;

throughout their career.

2.) Maintain ethics of profession

(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;

(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;

(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;

SECTION 1. What constitutes non-compliance. The following shall constitute non-compliance:

In re: Haron Meling

4. Arnobit vs Atty Arnobit

Garrido vs Atty Garrido

Atty Embido vs Atty Pe

Alcantara vs Atty Pefianco

3. Saberon vs Atty Larong

5. Dallong-Galincinao vs Atty. Castro

7. Atty Barandon jr vs Atty Ferrer

2. Villatuya vs Atty Tabalingcos

Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients.

Tumbokon vs Atty Pefianco

FACTS: Complainant filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against

Petition to Sign Attorneys Roll, Michael Medado

80. Macias vs Atty Selda

96. Que vs Atty Revilla

98. FoodSphere, inc vs Atty Maurico

100. HocormaFoundation vs Stty. Funk

101. Seares vs Stty Gonzales-Alzate

Municipal Mayor of Bangued, Abra) and by President Aquino, neither of

108. Gonzales vs Atty Sabacajan

You might also like