Mauricio C. Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic, Inc.

B.M. No. 553. June 17, 1993

Facts:
Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays this Court "to order the respondent, The Legal Clinic,
Inc., to cease and desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of
Annexes `A' and `B' (of said petition) and to perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making
advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by
law. The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follows:
Facts: Petitioner prays that respondent cease and desist from issuing ads similar to
annexes A and B and to prohibit them from making ads pertaining to the exercise of the law
professions other than those allowed by law
- Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560 for a valid marriage
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Pls call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041
8:30am-6pm
7F Victoria Bldg, UN Ave, Mla
- Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An Atty in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce thru the
Leg Clinic beg Mon-Fri during office hours Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage.
Immigration Probs, Visa
ext. Quota/Non-quota Res and Special Retirees Visa.
Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees.
Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina
Sp/Shil. Call Marivic THE LEGAL CLINIC, etc
Petitioners Claim:
-Ads are unethical and demeaning of the law profession and destructive of the confidence
of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar.
-As a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the ads
Respondents Comment:
-They are not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of leg support services
thru paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines
- Even if they are leg services, the act of advertising them should be allowed under Bates
v. State bar of Arizona
Issues:
1. WON the services offered by The Legal Clinic constitutes practice of law?
2. WON their services can be advertised?

Held:
1. Yes. The Practice of law involves any activity, in or out of the court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and expertise
- To engage in the practice is to perform those acts which are characteristic of the
profession; to give advice or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge/skill
- Not limited to the conduct of cases in court; includes legal advice and counsel and
preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured regardless of
WON theyre pending in court
3 types of legal profession activity:
1. legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations
2. preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not
possessed by ordinary layman
3. appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power and authority to
determine rights of life, liberty and property according to law, in order to assist in proper inter
and enforcement of law
Respondents description of its services shows it falls within the practice of law:
Giving info by paralegals to laymen and lawyers thru the use of comps and modern info
tech
- computerized legal research, document search, evidence gathering, locating
parties/witnesses to a case, fact finding investigations, assistance to laymen in need of services
from agencies like birth, marriage, prop, bus registrations, etc.
*even if some of the services offered merely involve mechanical and technical know how
like installing computer system for law offices, this doesnt make it an exception to the general
rule
- gives out leg info to laymen and lawyersnot non-advisory and non-diagnostic
ex. foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption have to explain to client the
intricacies of the law and advise him on the proper course of action
- what its ads represent and what it will be paid for
- It doesnt matter that they dont represent clients in court since practice of law isnt
limited to ct appearances but also leg research, leg advice and drafting contracts Phil Star Art
Rx for Leg Probs, int by proprietor Atty Nogales:
- Takes care of probs as complicated as the Cuneta-Concepcion domestic sit
- lawyers, who like drs, are specialists in various fields and can take care of it (taxation,
crim law, medico-leg probs, labor, litigation, fam law)
- backed up by paralegals, counselors and attys
- caters to clients who cant afford big firms
- can prepare a simple deed of sale or affidavit of loss and also those w/ more extensive
treatment
-The fact that they employ paralegals to carry out its services doesnt matter; whats
important is that its engaged in the
practice of law cause of the nature of the services it renders, which brings it within the
statutory prohibitions against ads only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and whos
in good and regular standing is entitled to the practice of law
- public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly
qualified in education and character to protect the public, court, client and bar from

incompetence/dishonesty of those unlicensed to the practice and not subject to the discipline of
court

People vs Tuanda - A case digest

A.M. No. 3360 January 30, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, complainant vs.ATTY. FE T. TUANDA, respondent.
Facts;
Respondent was suspended for practicing his profession until further notice from the
Supreme Court finding her guilty of violating BP 22.
Atty. Tuanda is now appealing to the Supreme Court for her suspension to be lifted
arguing that her suspension was a penalty so harsh on top of the fines imposed to her in violation
of the aforementioned law. Arguing further that she intends no damage to the plaintiff-appellee
(Herminia A. Marquez)and she is not guilty of the offense charged.
Issue;
WON the suspension of Atty. Fe Tuanda be lifted.
Ruling;
The Supreme Court ruled to DENY the respondent of his Motion to Lift Order of
Suspension and affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals regarding the suspension. The court
found Atty. Fe Tuanda guilty of an offense involving moral turpitude citing Secs 27 and 28 of the
Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Cantimbuhan vs cruz
https://www.scribd.com/doc/296098190/Legal-Ethics-Case-Digests

MELENDRES v DECENA
Facts:
On Aug. 5, 1975: Complainants (spouses Erlinda Dalman & Narciso Melendrez) obtained
from Atty. Reynerio Decena(Decena) a loan of P4K. This loan was secured by a real estate
mortgage.
It was made to appear in the Real estate mortgage that the amount borrowed was P5K. Decena
assured the spouses that the REM was a mere formality, and due to this assurance the spouses

signed the REM.Despite the assurance, Decena collected from the spouses
P500/month as usurious interest. The spouses paid such usurious interest for 3 months.
Because of their failure to pay the amounts, Decena drafted a new REM including a New
contract of mortgage in the amount of P10K with interest at 19%/annum and A special power of
attorney authorizing Decena to sell the mortgaged property in public auction.Spouses never
knew the implications of the new REM. They failed to pay their obligation and so Decena
acquiredtheir property in pulic auction and later sold it to Trinidad Ylanan for P12K .Spouses
then went to Decena with P10K in the hopes of getting their property back. Decena
then informs them that their debt has soared to P20.4K.With shattered hopes and grief in their
hearts (andrama!), the spouses filed this case for disbarment.
Spouses filed a case for estafa against Reynaldo Pineda for recovery of P2K
Decena entered into a compromise agreement with Pineda. Pineda then paid P500 to
Decena. This settlementwas never brought to the attention of the spouses nor were they ever
consulted about such.Issue
Issue:
W/N Decenas acts show gross misconduct and should therefore be disbarred
Ruling:
Yes, Decena shall be disbarred
T h e a c t s o f D e c e n a constitute deception, dishonesty and conduct unbecoming
amember of the bar. Decena clearly failed to get the consent of the spouses before
entering into acompromise. Decena also failed to inform the spouses or turn over to
them the P500 given to him by Pineda as downpayment for the settlement of the case.
Decenas failure to turn over to the spouses the money underscores his lack of honesty and
candor in dealing withhis clients

CANTIMBUHAN VS CRUZ., JR.

Nasa notebook po bes <3

PEOPLE VS. SIM BEN,

FACTS:
Sim Ben appeals from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu finding him guilty of
violating paragraph 3, Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, for having exhibit cinematographic
films of indecent or immoral scenes inside his establishment, a restaurant which is a place open
to public view in the City of Cebu, on the sole ground that he entered a plea of guilty to the
information without the aid of counsel. the appellant was informed by the Court of his right to
have counsel and asked if he desired the aid of one. He replied that he did not. Then the Court
asked if he was agreeable to have the information read to him even without the assistance of
counsel. His answer was in the affirmative. The court interpreter translated the information to

him in the local dialect and after the translation he entered a plea of guilty. Appellant claims that
he entered the plea of guilty because the fiscal promised him that only a fine would be imposed.
ISSUE: W/0 SIM BEN IS guilty of the crime charged against him.
RULING : A promise to recommend a specific penalty such as fine does not render the sentence
void if the Court ignores the recommendation and metes out to the defendant a penalty which is
provided by law.The sentence appealed from is affirmed, with cost against the appellant.

Estoeta VS COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: Petitioner was charged with the crime of slight physical injuries committed against
Perla Y. Corpuz in an information filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Marikina, Metro
Manila. the trial court rendered a decision dated January 12, 1989 convicting the petitioner of
the crime charged.On September 20, 1989, petitioner, without the assistance of counsel, filed
with the Court of Appeals a motion for extension of time of thirty (30) days from September 30,
1989 or up to October 19, 1989 within which to file a petition for review on the ground that she
has to look for another lawyer to represent her and prepare the necessary petition. The motion
was granted by the appellate court in a resolution.
However, instead of filing the petition for review, petitioner in her own behalf filed a written
manifestation and motion to withdraw petition for review for the purpose of applying for
probation in the court of origin, "she being a first offender and possesses (sic) all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided for under the said probation law."
Issue:

W/0 ESTOESTA THE PETITION SHOULD BE ALLOWED

Ruling: The petition is devoid of merit..Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court . From the
foregoing provision of the rule, it is clear that a party in a case may conduct a litigation either
personally or by an attorney in the courts. He may also be assisted by an agent or friend for the
purpose in the inferior courts. And even if a party may have chosen to appear through counsel, he
may at any time dispense with the services of his/her lawyer and prosecute or defend his/her case
personally. The Court emphasizes the fact that it is always better for a party to be represented by
counsel in a litigation. Nevertheless, it is the right of such party to appear in his or her own
behalf to prosecute or defend a cause in court. If in the process petitioner suffered reverses, she
has only herself to blame. She is bound by the consequences of her own voluntary act.
1. Gonzales v. Alcaraz please refer to your notebook
2. Radjaie vs alovera
Facts:
FACTS: Atty. Alovera, former RTC Judge, faces disbarment for having penned a Decision long
after his retirement from the Judiciary, which ultimately divested complainant of her property.

The gist of the anomalies committed by the respondent judge are: (1) The case was not tried.
What transpired was a mock or simulated trial inside his chambers where only the lawyer of the
plaintiffs and a court stenographer from another court were present. No Judge or court personnel
were present as there was actual Court session in open court going on at that time; (2) The
records of the case were with Judge Alovera and remained with him even after his retirement. He
did not return the record to the Court Clerk in Charge of Civil Cases; (3) The record of the case
turned up on the table of the Court Clerk together with the Offer of Exhibits of the lawyer of
the plaintiffs and the Order, after the retirement of Judge Alovera. Both the Offer and the
Order admitting the exhibits were not properly filed and do not bear markings of having been
received by the court; (4) The decision of Judge Alovera was filed with the court by Judge
Alovera himself and because he was no longer a judge his submission was refused.
ISSUE: W/0 ATTY. Alovera should be disbarred
RULING:: Disbarred. Respondent has thus sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and
legally unfit to remain in the exclusive and honorable fraternity of the legal profession. The
evidence against respondent were all quite telling on how the latter acted in a grossly
reprehensible manner in having the questioned decision come to fore, leading ultimately to its
execution divesting the complainant of her property. Respondent gravely abused his relationship
with his former staff, pompously flaunting his erstwhile standing as a judge. He disregarded his
primary duty as an officer of the court, who is sworn to assist the courts and not to impede or
pervert the administration of justice to all and sundry. In so doing, he made a mockery of the
judiciary and eroded public confidence in courts and lawyers.
3. Cabarrus vs Bernas
JESUS CABARRUS, JR. vs. JOSE ANTONIO S. BERNAS
A.C. No. 4634 September 24, 1997
FACTS:On August 30, 1996, Mr. Jesus Cabarrus, Jr. filed an administrative complaint
fordisbarment against Atty. Jose Antonio Bernas for alleged violations of Article 172 of the
RevisedPenal Code and Code of Professional Responsibility. In his complaint-affidavit,
complainant alleged that respondent Atty. Bernas, the counsel on record of the respondents
inCivil Case No. 65646, is the same lawyer who instigated a criminal complaint at the NBI
forforgery and respondents themselves conspired and confabulated with each other in facilitating
and insuring the open, blatant and deliberate violation of Art. 172 of the Revised Penal Code.
Hefurther alleged that respondent should be disbarred for having instigated, abetted and
facilitatedthe perversion and subversion of truth in the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping which are contrary to Canon 1, Rule 1.01, 1.02, Canon 3, 3.01, Canon 10 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers.
ISSUE:Whether or not herein respondent should be disbarred for violation of Code
of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01, 1.02, Canon 3, 3.01, and Canon
10.

HELD:After a careful scrutiny of the records, the Court find the administrative complaint bereft
of merit and should be dismissed.
The core issue to be resolved here is whether respondent Atty.Bernas transgressed Circular No.
28-91, Revised Circular No. 28-91, and AdministrativeCircular No. 04 - 94 on forum shopping.
Wherefore, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED

4. In re Gutierrez
Facts: Attorney Diosdado Gutierrez was convicted for the murder of one Filemon Samaco in
1956. He was sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In 1958, after serving a portion
of the penalty, he was granted a conditional pardon by the President. He was released on the
condition that he shall not commit any crime. Subsequently, the widow of Samaco filed a
disbarment case against Gutierrez by reason of the latters conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude. Murder, is without a doubt, such a crime.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gutierrez may be disbarred considering the fact that he was granted
pardon.
HELD: Yes. The pardon granted to Gutierrez is not absolute but conditional. It merely
remitted his sentence. It does not reach the offense itself. Gutierrez must be judged upon the
fact of his conviction for murder without regard to the pardon (which he invoked in defense).
The crime was actually qualified by treachery and aggravated by its having been committed
in hand, by taking advantage of his official position (Gutierrez being municipal mayor at the
time) and with the use of motor vehicle. The degree of moral turpitude involved is such as to
justify his being purged from the profession.

5. Casals vs. cusi

FACTS:
December 8, 1972, Atty. Leonido C. Delante as counsel for respondents states that while he received
notice of the Court's resolution "no accompanying copy of the petition has been attached hence the
counsel would not be able to prepare the comments filed his first motion for a ten-day extension of
time to submit respondents' comment. The Court granted first motion for extension.
December 14, 1972, Atty. Primo O. Orellan on behalf of Delante, Orellan & Associates as counsel for
respondents filed a second motion for extension of ten days to submit respondents' comment on the
ground that Atty. L.C. Delante, counsel of record, got sick and that Atty. Delante has just recovered
from his ailment.

December 28, 1972, Atty. Leonido C. Delante filed a third motion for "a last extension of fifteen days to
submit the comment, stating the undersigned counsel already prepared the final draft but due to pressure
of work in his office and matters occasioned by the Christmas season, the same has not been
finalized and typed out in a clean copy for filing.
The Court granted the said extensions totalling twenty-five days. Having noted respondents' failure to
file their comment notwithstanding the numerous extensions, the Court resolved to require Atty.
Delante to explain and show cause why they failed to file the required comment.
Atty. Delante in his explanation claimed that in view of his pressing professional commitments, he
requested his clients to have the answer prepared by another lawyer Atty. Antonio Fernandez. It was only
upon receipt of the Court's resolution requiring his explanation that he learned that Atty. Fernandez
underwent a surgical operation.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Delantes explanation deserves credence?
HELD: NO. In his previous motions for extension, he never mentioned his belated allegation now
that another lawyer had been retained.
The Court has ever stressed that a lawyer must do his best to honor his oath, as there would be a great
detriment to, if not a failure of the administration of justice if courts could not rely on the
submissions and representations made by lawyers in the conduct of a case.
The Court hereby suspends Atty. Leonido C. Delante from the practice of law for a period of THREE
(3) MONTHS effective from his receipt of notice hereof, with the warning that repetition of the same or
similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

6. Saquing v. mora
[A.C. No. 6678]
Jocelyn A. Saquing v. Atty Noel A. Mora
Facts: Jocelyn Saquing filed a disbarment case in the office of the Bar Confidant against Atty.
Noel A.
Mora for grave misconduct for allegedly conspiring with sps. Paulino and Manuela Mora, who
refused to return the contact price; who induced her to buy an unregistered parcel of land. A twin
criminal case of estaffa was also filed against Atty. Mora, for the sale of 7.828 sqm. of allegedly
registered land in Jun. 2004. Atty. Mora performed a notarial act without a commission, as PAO
Lawyer; prepared the Deed of Sale of the unregistered lang. Once Saquing found out the land is
unregistered, she refused to sign the contract with representation of sps. Mora and Noel. Atty.
Mora denied all allegations. The IBP Board recommends that Atty. Mora is guilty of Rule 1.1
and punishes him with a reprimand.
Issue: Is Atty. Mora guilty of grave misconduct?

Held: Yes. Atty. Mora is guilty of violating 1.1 of Can.1, and punished with a reprimand. For a
lawyer tobe disbarred there must be clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence proving alleged
misconduct.Disbarment is reserved for the most severe form of disciplinary action. Respondent
notarized theAcknowledgement without receipt of a notarial admission, violating the rule on a
lawyers responsibilityto not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

7. Sps. Franklin and Lourdes olbes vs. victor v. deciembre

Spouses Franklin and Lourdes Olbes vs Victor Deciembre, A.C. No. 5365, 27 April, 2005
Facts: Complainants were government employees. Through respondent, Lourdes renewed a loan
application from Rodela Loans Inc. of 10,000.00. She issued and delivered five PNB blank
checks, which served as collateral for the approved loan as well as for the future loans. Lourdes
paid respondent 14,874.37 intended to the loan. Respondent filled up the blank checks entrusted
to him by writing on those checks amounts that had not been agreed upon at all and deposited the
same checks which were dishonored upon payment. Thereafter, he filed a criminal case against
complainants for estafa and for violation of BP 22. Thus, complainants filed a verified petition
for the disbarment of Atty. Deciembre.
Issue: Whether respondent lawyer is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of Rule 1.01 and
7.03 of the CPR.
Held: Yes. Respondent lawyer violated Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the CPR for he seriously
transgressed by his malevolent act of filling up the blank checks by indicating amounts that had
not been agreed upon at all and despite full knowledge that the loan supposed to be secured by
the checks had already been paid. Respondent is clearly guilty of serious dishonesty and
professional misconduct. He committed an act indicative of moral depravity not expected from,
and highly unbecoming a member of the bar. Hence, he was suspended from the practice of law.
8. Rural bank of silay vs. Pilla
FACTS: Respondent executed a REM in favour of the complainant over a parcel of land in
Sagay, Negros Occidental, as an attorney in fact of the registered owners, Pedro Torres and Oscar
Granada together with an SPA which was purportedly authorized by the owners to mortgag ethe
land in favour of the complainant .The complainant released a loan in the amount of 91,427 Php
in favour of the respondent. Later, the complainant found out that the respondent was not
authorized by Oscar Granada to mortgage the land when he was joined as defendant for removal
of cloud on title with preliminary injunction and damages.
Upon the instance of the Court, respondent filed his comment refuting the charges of deceitand
gross misconduct against him. Respondent denied employing any deceit or misrepresentation in
obtaining a loan from complainant rural bank. According to respondent,he did not know that the

signature of Oscar Granada on the special power of attorneyappointing him (respondent) as

attorney-in-fact was forged. The special power of attorney purportedly authorized respondent to
mortgaged the parcel of land in Sagay, Negros Occidentalin favor of complainant rural bank.
Respondent also claimed that if indeed said document wasforged, he was not a party to the
forgery. IBP recommended he be suspended for 5 years which was later reduced to 3.
Issue: WON the respondent is guilty of deceit and gross misconduct.
Held: SUSPENDED FOR 3 YEARS Since respondent actually benefited from the falsified
document, he is presumed to have a hand in the falsification of the same. Respondent miserably
failed to rebut this presumption with his barefaced denial that he had no knowledge of the
forgery. Respondents acts clearly fall short of the standards set by the Code of Professional
Responsibility, particularly Rule 1.01 thereof, which provides that [a] lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The fact that the conduct pertained to
respondents private dealings with complainant rural bank is of no moment.

9. Alitatag v. Gracia
FACTS: This is a petition for disbarment against respondent Atty. Virgilio R. Garcia for the
falsification of a deed of donation and notarizing the same.It appears that Atty. Garcia notarized
the Deed of Donation covering a parcel of land. When said document was examined by the PNP
Laboratory upon complaint of Violeta Flores Alitagtag, it certified that the questioned signature
in the Deed of Donation and the standard signatures of the deceased donor, Caesar B. Flores,
WERE NOT WRITTEN BY ONE ANDTHE SAME PERSON. Hence, the Deed of Donation
was declared falsified and thus, null and void by the lower court. As a result of such findings, the
IBP recommended the suspension of Atty. Garcia from the practice of law for two (2)years.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that Atty. Garcia be disbarred.
HELD:
YES. Article 2103, Sec.1(4) provides that a notary public 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 Deed of Donation is authentic. He assisted his father -inlaw, the donor, in executing the same. By notarizing the document, he likewise each knowledge
that the signature therein is the donors true signature. Where the notary public is a lawyer, a
graver responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws
and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. A notary who acknowledged a document
that was a forgery destroys the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. He does not deserve
to continue as member of the bar.
10. Rivera v. Corral

Facts: A decision in a case for ejectment was sent to Atty Corral. His secretary received the
decision on Feb 23, 1990.
On March 13, 1990 Atty Corral filed a notice of appeal. The next day, Corral went to the Office
of the Clerk of Court to change the date of receipt of the decision from Feb 23 to Feb 29 (which
was later changed to Feb 28when Corral realized that there was no Feb 29 that year). Para hindi
siya ma-disqualify ng 15-day appeal period.
Rivera filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty Corral for tampering the courts records
without such courtspermission or knowledge.
The IBP investigating committee affirmed the charges and recommended suspension. Later on,
the IBP Boardordered Corrals suspension.
Corral claims he was not afforded due process or hearing.
Issue: Can Atty Corral be suspended?
Held: Yes. Contrary to Corrals claim that he was not afforded due process, he was in fact given
the opportunity to present his evidence during the course of the proceedings. According to the
records, the hearings had to be rescheduled several times to accommodate his requests. But he
did not appear on the scheduled hearings. He cannot now claim that he was denied due process.
It should be remembered that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard
The Court finds that Atty Corral violated his oath by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or
deceitful conduct. By altering the material dates to make it appear that the notice of appeal was
timely filed, Corral committed an act of dishonesty. A suspension for 1 year is warranted.

11. Dorcas G. Petallar vs. Juanillo M. Pullos

JUDGES; UNDUE DELAY IN RENDERING JUDGMENT , A VIOLATION OF RULE 70
SECTION 11 OF THE RULES OF COURT
DORCAS PETALLAR VS. JUDGE JAUNILLO PULLOS
A.M. No. MTJ-03-1484. January 15, 2004

Facts: Complainant Dorcas Petallar averred that after the preliminary conference in a case for
forcible entry, he, as plaintiff and the defendants were ordered to submit their respective position
papers and evidence. Two months from the submission of their position papers, complainant

personally went to the Court to verify the judgment had been rendered. He caused his lawyer to
file a motion for rendition of judgment which was duly received by the court on August 6, 2001
but still no judgment was rendered on December 27, 2001 when the complaint was filed. Hence,
complainant Petallar charged Judge Juanillo Pullos, former presiding judge of the MCTC of
Surigao del Norte of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.02 & Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct as well as Rule 140, Section 4 & Rule 70, Section 10 & 11 of the Rules of the Court for
undue delay in rendering a decision in a case for forcibly entry.
Issue: Whether or not respondent be held liable for undue delay in rendering judgment.
Held: Respondent is guilty of undue delay in rendering judgment. The records show that the
parties had filed their respective position papers as early as February 2, 2000. thus, respondent
had until March 4, 2000. Had there been circumstances which presented him from handling
down his decision within the prescribed period, respondent should have at least requested from
the Court for an extension within which to render judgment. Failure to resolve cases submitted
for decisions within the period fixed by law constitutes serious violation of Article III, section 16
of the Constitution. Judges must perform their official duties with utmost diligence if public
confidence in the judiciary is to be preserved. A judge cannot by himself prolong the period for
deciding cases beyond that authorized by law. Without any order of extension granted by the
court, failure to decide a case within the prescribed period constitutes gross inefficiency that
merits administrative sanction.
12. In re: 1989 IBP Elections, Bar Matter No. 491
Facts: during the 1989 Ibp elections, Atty. Violeta Drilon and other candidates, used government
resources to win favors from the voters. Article I, Section 4 of the IBP By-Laws emphasizes the
"strictly non-political" character of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, thus: "SEC. 4. Nonpolitical Bar. The Integrated Bar is strictly non-political, and every activitytending to impair
this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. No lawyer holding an
elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political
subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for election or appointment to any
position in the Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof. A Delegate, Governor, officer or employee
of the Integrated Bar, or an officer or employee of any Chapter thereof shall be considered ipso
facto resigned from his position as of the moment he files his certificate of candidacy for any
elective public office or accepts appointment to any judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office
in the Government or anypolitical subdivision or instrumentality thereof. "'Section 14 of the
same By-Laws enumerates the prohibited acts relative to IBP elections:SEC. 14. Prohibited acts
and practices relative to elections. The following acts and practices relative to election are
prohibited, whether committed by a candidate for any elective office in the Integrated Bar or by
any other member, directly or indirectly, in any form or manner, by himself or through another
person: (a) Distribution, except on election day, of election campaign material;(b) Distribution,
on election day, of election campaign material other than a statement of the biodata of a
candidate on not more than one page of a legal-size sheet of paper; or causing distribution of

such statement to be done by persons other than those authorized by the officer presiding at the
elections; (c) Campaigning for or against any candidate, while holding an elective, judicial,
quasi-judicial or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof;(d) Formation of tickets, single slates, or combinations of candidates, as
well as the advertisement thereof; (e) For the purpose of inducing or influencing a member to
withhold his vote, or to vote for or against a candidate, (1) payment of the dues or other
indebtedness of any member;(2) giving of food, drink, entertainment, transportation or any
article of value, or any similar consideration to any person; or (3) making a promise or causing
an expenditure tobe made, offered or promised to any person."
Issue: whether or not Atty violeta drilon and other candidates violated the by laws of Ibp .
Held: The candidates and many of the participants in that election not only violated the ByLawsof the IBP but also the ethics of the legal profession which imposes on all lawyers, as a
corollaryof their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the laws, the duty to
"promote respectfor law and legal processes" and to abstain from 'activities aimed at defiance of
the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system" (Rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Professional
Responsibility). Respect for law is gravely eroded when lawyers themselves, who are supposed
to be millions of the law, engage in unlawful practices and cavalierly brush aside the very rules
that the IBP formulated for their observance
13. In re: Santiago, Adm. Case No. 923
Facts:
In this administrative case, the Solicitor General charged the respondent Atty. Roque Santiago with
malpractice and prayed that disciplinary action be taken against him.
The respondent gave legal advice to one Ernesto Baniquit who was living separately from his wife
for some nine consecutive years and seeking to contract a second marriage. The respondent
assured Baniquit that he could secure a separation from his wife and marry again. The lawyer
prepared a document (Exhibit A) stating that the contracting parties, husband and wife, were
authorized to marry again and at the same time giving the authorization to renounce or waive each
members right against the party marrying.
The notary let the husband and wife execute and acknowledge the document and declared that they
were again single and as such could contract another marriage. Relying on this document, Baniquit
contracted a second marriage.
The respondent, upon realizing his mistake, sent for the parties and let them sign the deed of
cancellation (Exhibit C) a month later but after the second marriage of Baniquit.
Issue:
1. Did the lawyer commit malpractice in his acts regarding the dispensation of such advice and
preparation of document?
2. Is the document regarding separation (Exhibit A) valid?
Held:
1. Yes. The advice given by the respondent and his preparation and acknowledgment by of the
contract constitute malpractice which justifies disbarment from the practice of law.

2. No. Marriage separation should have should be sanctioned in the proper court and before the
separation (see Selanova). Apart from this, the document subverts the vital foundation of the family,
marriage, and is contrary to law, morals and public policy.
Decision:
Respondent suspended from practice of law for one year.

14. In re: Terrel, G.R. No. 1203

Facts: Terrel was ordered to show cause why he should not be suspended as a member of the bar
of the city of Manila.He assisted in the organization Centro Bellas Artes Club, after he had
been notified that the organization was made for the purpose of evading the law .He acted as
attorney for said club during the time of and after its organization, which was known for the
purpose of evading the law.In US vs. Terrel, he was charged with estafa. The court reviewed his
testimony and decided that the charges were true and made an order suspending him from office
as lawyer in the Philippine Islands.
Issue: Whether or not the court was justified in suspending Terrel.

Held: Yes, suspended for one year

The promoting of organizations, with knowledge of their objects, for the purpose of violating or
evading the laws against crime constitutes such misconduct on the part of an attorney, an officer
of the court, as amounts to malpractice or gross misconduct in his office, and for which he may
be removed or suspended. The assisting of a client in a scheme which the attorney knows to be
dishonest, or the conniving at a violation of law, are acts which justify disbarment.
HOWEVER, Terrel was acquitted in US vs. Terrel on the charge of estafa. While unprofessional,
is not criminal in nature. Hence, Terrel is suspended for one year (as opposed to permanent
suspension).
15. Dimagiba vs. Montalvo
Facts:
This is a complaint filed by Ismaela Dimagiba against Atty. Jose Montalvo for
Malpractice, for stretching to almost a half a century a litigation arising from the
probate of a will of the late Benedicta de Los Reyes which instituted Ismaela
Dimagiba as the sole heir of all the properties.
In summary, the following are the litigations that ensue from the probate of the Will
of De Los Reyes as found by the Solicitor General involving the same parties and the
same cause of action:

1. On January 19, 1955, 1 filed a case for Probate of Will with the CFI Bulacan,
regarding the same property subject of the annulment of sale. Luckily, the said case
was terminated on June 20, 1958, probating the said will.
2. The oppositors (The clients of Atty. Montalvo, namely: Dionisio Fernandez, Eusebio
Reyes, Luisa Reyes, Mariano
Reyes, Cesar Reyes, Leonor Reyes) appealed this case to the SC on October 12,
1967, affirming the decision of the Lower Court
3. G.R. Nos. L23638 and L23662. This decision dated October 12, 1967, in the
Supreme Court, upheld the decision CA G.R. No. 31221R, in effect, affirming the due
execution the Will and the capacity of the Testator as well as the institution of the
complainant.
4. Oppositors thru counsel, Atty. Montalvo filed in the CFIof Bulacan on June 4, 1968,
a petition for the nullification of the Will. This was dismissed.
Issue/s: WON Atty. Montalvo is guilty of malpractice.
Held: YES.
A lawyer should never take advantage of the seemingly endless channels left
dangling by our legal system in order wangle the attention of the court. Atty.
Montalvo may have thought that lie could get away with his indiscriminate filing o
suits that were clearly intended to harass Ismaela Dimagiba When court dockets get
clogged and the administration of justice is delayed, our judicial system may not be
entirely blame less, yet the greater fault lies in the lawyers who had taken their
privilege so lightly, and in such mindless fashion.
WHEREFORE on the basis of the foregoing, and consisted with the urgent need to
maintain the high traditions an standards of the legal profession and to preserve
undiminished public faith in attorneys-at-law, the Court Resolved to DISBAR the
respondent Atty. Jose Montalvo, Jr. from the practice law. His name is hereby ordered
stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

16. Banogon vs zerna

17. De ysasi v. National Labor Relations Commission

18. Mun. of Pililia, Rizal vs. Court of Appeals
19. Mobil Oil Phil. Vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal
20. Ledesma vs. Climaco
21. Jayme vs. Bualan
22. In re: Tagorda

23. Khan v. Simbilio

24. Ong v. Unto
25. Director of Religious Affairs vs. Bayot
26. B.R. Sebastian Enterprises vs. Court Of Appeals
27. Dacanay vs. Baker & McKenzie
28. Ouano Arrastre Service vs. Aleonar
29. In re: Sycip
30. Dia-Anonuevo vs. Bercacio
31. Martelino vs. Alejandro
32. Bar Matter No.850
33. Santiago v. Rafanan
34. Sps. Williams v. Enriquez
35. Dulalia v. Cruz
36. Pimentel v. Fabros, et al
37. Pimentel vs. Fajardo
38. Artezuela v. Maderaza
39. Igoy v. Soriano
40. Trieste Sr.vs. Sandiganbayan
41. People vs. Dramayo
42. People vs. Esquivel
43. Suarez vs. Platon
44. United States vs. Barredo

45. Collantes v. Renomeron

46. Enriquez v. Gimenez
47. Gonzales-Austria v. Abaya
48. Macoco v. Diaz
49. Mun. of Bocaue v. MANOTOK
50. Sta. Rosa Mining Co. v. Zabala