4. Not to Encourage Lawsuit or Proceedings Rule 1.

03
A. Saburdino v Madrono, AC No. 4497, 366 SCRA 1
FACTS:
Spouses Venustiano and Rosalia Saburdino filed an administrative complaint for disbarment of
respondent Atty. Florante Madrono. Complainants allege that respondent has been harassing
them by filing numerous complaints against them in addition to committing acts of dishonesty
because of retaliation, since they had earlier filed administrative cases against Atty. Madrono
that resulted in his dismissal from the judiciary.
Respondent contends that the grounds mentioned in the administrative cases in which he was
dismissed and his benefits forfeited did not constitute moral turpitude. Hence, he could not be
disbarred therefor.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Florante Madrono is guilty of gross misconduct and is disbarred in the practice of
law.
HELD:
The Supreme Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines that complainants submitted convincing proof that respondent indeed committed acts
constituting gross misconduct that warrant the imposition of administrative sanction.
Respondent's action erodes rather than enhances public perception of the legal profession. It
constitutes gross misconduct for which he may be suspended from the practice of law, which is
sufficient to discipline respondent.
Following Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
SECTION 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme
Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation
of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do.x x x
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Florante E. Madroo is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year with a WARNING that a repetition the same or
similar act will be dealt with more severely.
***********************
B. Linsangan v Atty. Tolentino, AC No. 6672
FACTS:
Atty. Pedro Linsangan filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino
alleging that Atty. Tolentino, through his paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, pirated a client of Atty.
Linsangan. Said client later executed an affidavit in support of Atty. Linsangans allegations.

In his defense, Atty. Tolentino denied knowing Labiano. He also denied authorizing the printing of
such calling cards.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino encroached upon the professional services of Atty.
Pedro Linsangan.
2. Whether or not Atty. Tolentino is liable for the improper calling card of Labiano.
HELD:
1. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer
should not steal another lawyers client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better
service, good result or reduced fees for his services. By recruiting Atty. Linsangans clients, Atty.
Tolentino committed an unethical, predatory overstep into anothers legal practice.
2. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, and 16.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Although Atty. Tolentino initially denied knowing Labiano, he admitted he actually
knew her later in the proceedings. It is thus clear that Labiano was connected to his law office.
Through Labianos actions, Atty. Tolentinos law practice was benefited. Hapless seamen were
enticed to transfer representation on the strength of Labianos word that Atty. Tolentino could
produce a more favorable result.
Labianos calling card is improper. The card made it appear that the law office will finance legal
actions for the clients. The rule is, a lawyer shall not lend money to a client except, when in the
interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the
client.
The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers independence of mind so that the free exercise of
his judgment may not be adversely affected. It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the
case he is handling as well as his entire devotion and fidelity to the clients cause. If the lawyer
lends money to the client in connection with the clients case, the lawyer in effect acquires an
interest in the subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome. Either of these
circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client, or
to accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in the verdict to the prejudice of the
client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the clients cause.
The phrase in the calling card which states w/ financial assistance, was clearly used to entice
clients (who already had representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance
their legal actions.
However, since there is no substantial evidence to prove that Atty. Tolentino had a personal and
direct hand in the printing of said calling cards, he cannot be punished with severity. At any rate,
for all the infractions Atty. Tolentino committed, he was SUSPENDED by the Supreme Court for
one year.
**********************
C. Atty. Vitriolo et al v Atty. Dasig, AC No. 4984

FACTS:
Respondents filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Felina S. Dasig, an official
of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). The charge involves gross misconduct of
respondent in violation of the Attorneys Oath for having used her public office to secure financial
spoils to the detriment of the dignity and reputation of the CHED.
Complainants allege that Atty. Dasig, while she was OIC of Legal Affairs Service, CHED,
committed acts that are grounds for disbarment such as:
1. She made unlawful demands or attempted to extort money from certain people who had
pending applications/requests before her office.
2. Transgressing subparagraph b (22), Section 36 of Presidential Decree No. 807, for her willful
failure to pay just debts owing to Borela Tire Supply and Novas Lining Brake & Clutch as
evidenced by the dishonored checks she issued, the complaint sheet, and the subpoena issued
to respondent.
3. Instigated the commission of a crime against complainant Celedonia R. Coronacion and
Rodrigo Coronacion, Jr., when she encouraged and ordered her son, Jonathan Dasig, a guard of
the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, to draw his gun and shoot the Coronacions. As a
result of this incident, a complaint for grave threats against the respondent and her son.
4. Authored and sent to then President Joseph Estrada a libelous and unfair report, which
maligned the good names and reputation of no less than eleven (11) CHED Directors calculated
to justify her ill motive of preventing their re-appointment and with the end view of securing an
appointment for herself.
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline directed respondent to submit her Answer to the Complaint,
failing which she would be considered in default and the case heard ex parte. Respondent failed
to heed said order twice. As a result, the Commission ruled that she had waived her right to file
her Comment or Answer to the Complaint and the case was mainly resolved on the basis of the
documents submitted and on record.
ISSUE:
Whether Dasig violated the Attorneys Oath as well as of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
We find that respondents misconduct as a lawyer of the CHED is of such a character as to affect
her qualification as a member of the Bar, for as a lawyer, she ought to have known that it was
patently unethical and illegal for her to demand sums of money as consideration for the approval
of applications and requests awaiting action by her office.
The Attorneys Oath is the source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer and any violation
thereof is a ground for disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary action. The Attorneys Oath
imposes upon every member of the bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice. Said duty
is further stressed in Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondents demands
for sums of money to facilitate the processing of pending applications or requests before her
office violates such duty, and runs afoul of the oath she took when admitted to the Bar. Such
actions likewise run contrary to Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
WHEREFORE, respondent Arty. Felina S. Dasig is found liable for gross misconduct and dishonesty
in violation of the Attorneys Oath as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is hereby
ordered DISBARRED.