Ui vs.

Bonifacio
Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000
Facts: Complainant Lesli Ui found out that her husband Carlos Ui was carrying out
an illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he begot two
children. Hence, a complaint for disbarment was filed by complainant against
respondent before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines on the ground of immorality, more particularly, for carrying on an illicit
relationship with the complainants husband. It is respondents contention that her
relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit because they were married abroad and that
after June 1988, when respondent discovered Carlos Uis true civil status, she cut of
all her ties with him. Respondent averred that Carlos Ui never lived with her.
Issue:
Whether or not she has conducted herself in an immoral manner for
which she deserves to be barred from the practice of law.
Held: No, The complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio,
for alleged immorality, was dismissed.
- The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy
the practice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is a
privilege that can be revoked, subject to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer
violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. One of the conditions prior to the
admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character. More
importantly, possession of good 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.- A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly
immoral conduct, which has been defined as the conduct which is willful, flagrant,
or shameless, and which shows a moral indiference to the opinion of the good and
respectable members of the community. Lawyers, as keepers of the public faith, are
burdened with a higher degree of social responsibility and thus must handle their
afairs with great caution. Atty. Bonifacio was imprudent in managing her personal
afairs. However, the fact remains that her relationship with Mr. Ui, clothed as it was
with what she believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral.
Immorality connotes conduct that shows indiference to the moral norms of society.
Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be
grossly immoral, that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.

FIGUEROA V BARRANCO, JR.

ROMERO; July 31, 1997
FACTS
- In 1971, Patricia Figueroa petitioned that respondent Simeon Barranco, Jr. be
denied admission to the legal profession. Respondent had passed the 1970 bar
examinations on the fourth attempt, after unsuccessful attempts in 1966, 1967 and
1968. Before he could take his oath, however, complainant filed the instant petition
averring that respondent and she had been sweethearts, that a child out of wedlock
was born to them and that respondent did not fulfill his repeated promises to marry
her.
-Their intimacy yielded a son, Rafael Barranco, born on December 11, 1964.It was
after the child was born, that respondent first promised he would marry her after he
passes the bar examinations. Their relationship continued and respondent allegedly
made more than twenty or thirty promises of marriage. He gave only P10.00 for the
child on the latters birthdays. Her trust in him and their relationship ended in 1971,
when she learned that respondent married another woman.
-On September 29, 1988, the Court resolved to dismiss the complaint for failure of
complainant to prosecute the case for an unreasonable period of time and to allow
Simeon Barranco, Jr. to take the lawyers oath upon payment of the required fees.
Respondents hopes were again dashed on November 17, 1988 when the Court, in
response to complainants opposition, resolved to cancel his scheduled oathtaking. On June 1, 1993, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
The IBPs report dated May 17, 1997 recommended the dismissal of the case and
that respondent be allowed to take the lawyers oath.
ISSUE: WON the facts constitute gross immorality warranting the permanent
exclusion of Barranco from the legal profession
HELD
No. 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 act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be
reprehensible to a high degree. It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless acts which
shows a moral indiference to the opinion of respectable members of the
community.

Barrancos engaging in premarital sexual relations with Figueroa and promises to

marry suggest a doubtful moral character on his part but it does not constitute
grossly immoral conduct.- Barranco and Figueroa were sweethearts whose sexual
relations were evidently consensual.

Barrios vs. Atty. Francisco Martinez

Facts: Atty. Martinez was convicted of the crime involving BP 22. He was also
involved in another estafa case where Atty. Martinez ofered his legal services to the
victims of the Doa Paz tragedy for free. However, when the plaintif in the said civil
case was issued a check for P90,000 by Sulpicio Lines representing compensation
for the deaths of his wife and two daughters, Atty. Martinez asked plaintif to
endorse said check, which was then deposited in the account of Dr. Martinez, Atty.
Martinezs wife. When plaintif asked for his money, he was only able to recover a
total of P30,000. Atty. Martinez claimed the remaining P60,000 as his attorneys
fees. Holding that it was absurd and totally ridiculous that for a simple legal service
he would collect 2/3 of the money claim, the trial court ordered Atty. Martinez to pay
the plaintif therein the amount of P60,000 with interest, P5,000 for moral and
exemplary damages, and the costs of the suit.
Issue: W/N the crime respondent was convicted of is one involving moral turpitude
Held: yes, the court finds the respondent guilty of bp 22 which imports deceit and
violation of his attorneys oath and code of professional responsibility.in this case,
the court also finds disbarment as the appropriate penalty and ordered that the
name of the respondent be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

TAPUCAR VS TAPUCAR
REMEDIOS RAMIREZ TAPUCAR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LAURO L.
TAPUCAR, RESPONDENT
Facts: In a letter-complaint dated November 22, 1993, complainant Remedios
Ramirez Tapucar sought the disbarment of her husband, Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar, on
the ground of continuing grossly immoral conduct for cohabiting with a certain
Elena (Helen) Pea under scandalous circumstances.
Prior to this complaint, respondent was already administratively charged four times
for conduct unbecoming an officer of the court. in Administrative Matter No. 1740,
resolved on April 11, 1980, respondent, at that time the Judge of Butuan City, was
meted the penalty of six months suspension without pay, while in Administrative
Matter Nos. 1720, 1911 and 2300-CFI, which were consolidated, this Court on
January 31, 1981 ordered the separation from service of respondent.
Issue: Whether or not respondent violated canon 1 of the code of professional
responsibility
Held: Yes.
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that:
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
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.
A lawyer is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and
to his clients. Exacted from him, as a member of the profession charged with the
responsibility to stand as a shield in the defense of what is right, are such positive
qualities of decency, truthfulness and responsibility that have been compendiously
described as moral character. To achieve such end, every lawyer needs to strive
at all times to honor and maintain the dignity of his profession, and thus improve
not only the public regard for the Bar but also the administration of justice.

ACEJAS III V PEOPLE

FACTS:
VLADIMIR S. HERNANDEZ and VICTOR CONANAN, who were both
Immigration officers of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation together with coaccused Atty. FRANCISCO SB. ACEJAS III extorted One Million (P1,000,000.00) PESOS
from the spouses BETHEL GRACE PELINGON and Japanese TAKAO AOYAGI and
FILOMENO PELINGON, JR., in exchange for the return of the passport of said
Japanese Takao Aoyagi confiscated earlier by co-accused Vladimir S. Hernandez and
out of said demand, the complainants Bethel Grace Pelingon, Takao Aoyagi and
Filomeno Pelingon, Jr. produced, gave and delivered the sum of Twenty Five
Thousand (P25,000.00) Pesos in marked money to the above-named accused at a
designated place at the Cofee Shop, Ground Floor, Diamond Hotel, Ermita, Manila,
causing damage to the said complainants in the aforesaid amount ofP25,000.00,
and to the prejudice of government service.
ISSUE: W/N the accused are guilty of Direct Bribery and conspiracy to commit the
same.
HELD:
The Sandiganbayan ruled that the elements of direct bribery, as well as
conspiracy in the commission of the crime, had been proven. Hernandez and
Conanan demanded money; Perlas negotiated and dealt with the complainants; and
Acejas accepted the payof and gave it to Perlas.
The Sandiganbayan did not give credence to the alleged belief of Acejas that the
money was the balance of the law firms legal fees. If he had indeed believed that
the money was payable to him, he should have kept and retained it. The court then
inferred that he had merely been pretending to protect his clients rights when he
threatened to file a suit against Hernandez.
For taking direct part in the execution of the crime, Hernandez and Acejas are liable
as principals. The evidence shows that the parties conspired to extort money from
Spouses Aoyagi.
WHEREFORE, the Petitions are DENIED, and the assailed Decision and
Resolutions AFFIRMED.