Atty.

Kho
Facts: Atty. Kho is a former clerk of court of the RTC in Eastern Samar. He
was found guilty of gross misconduct for his failure to make a timely
remittance of judiciary funds in his custody. She was fined P10k. Since his
malfeasance prima facie contravened Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, the Supreme Court ordered him to show cause
why he should not be disciplined as a lawyer and as an officer of the court. In
his explanation, Atty. Kho admitted that his failure to make a timely
remittance of the cash deposited with him was inexcusable. He maintained,
however, that he kept the money in the courts safety vault and never once
used it for his own benefit.
Issue: Whether Atty. Kho is guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01.
Held: Atty. Khos apparent good faith and his ready admission of the
infraction, although certainly mitigating, cannot negate the fact that his failure
to remit P65,000 in judiciary funds for over a year was contrary to the
mandatory provisions of OCA Circular 8A-93. That omission is a breach of
his oath to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities and of his duties under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and for legal processes
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
conduct or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render a
lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies that
what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be
the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment. Immoral conduct has been
defined as that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which
shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable
members of the community.
Reyes vs. Wong
Reyes and Wong were classmates in the college of law at MLQ University in
1960. Wong and Reyes became sweethearts. Later on, Wong requested Reyes
to fill out an application for a marriage license which the latter did. Later on
still, Wong requested Reyes to sign a marriage contract, and the marriage
contract made it also appear that their solemnizing officer was a Supreme
Court justice. Apparently, Reyes believed that shes already married to Wong
by virtue of those papers she was made to sign. So she gave in to Wongs
request to have sexual intercourse in hotels. Reyes became pregnant twice
and she gave birth to two daughters.
Eventually, Wong became a lawyer while Reyes was still in the college of law.
Wongs engagements as a lawyer kept the couple apart. But later on, Reyes
found out that Wong got married somewhere. This also led to her discovery
that her marriage with Wong was not registered. She now comes before the
Supreme Court asking for Wongs disbarment on the ground of grave
immorality.
ISSUE: Whether or not Wong should be disbarred.

As servants of the law and officers of the court, lawyers are required to be at
the forefront of observing and maintaining the rule of law. They are expected
to make themselves exemplars worthy of emulation.
The least a lawyer can do in compliance with Canon 1 is to refrain from
engaging in unlawful conduct. By definition, any act or omission contrary to
law is unlawful. It does not necessarily imply the element of criminality
although it is broad enough to include it. Thus, the presence of evil intent on
the part of the lawyer is not essential in order to bring his act or omission
within the terms of Rule 1.01 which specifically prohibits lawyers from
engaging in unlawful conduct.
Atty. Khos conduct was not only far from exemplary, it was unlawful as well.
For this, he must be called to account. Atty. Kho is ordered to pay FINE of
P5,000.00.
Arciga vs. Maniwang
In 1970, when Maniwang was still a law student, he had a relationship with
Arciga, then a medical technology student. They started having a sexual
relationship in 1971. In 1973, Arciga got pregnant. The two then went to
Arcigas hometown to tell the latters parent about the pregnancy. They also
made Arcigas parents believe that they were already married but they would
have to have the church wedding in abeyance until Maniwang passes the bar
exams. Maniwang secured a copy of his birth certificate in preparation of
securing a marriage license.
In 1975, Maniwang passed the bar. But after his oath taking, he stopped
communicating with Arciga. Arciga located his whereabouts and there she
found out that Maniwang married another woman. Arciga confronted
Maniwangs wife and this irked Maniwang so he inflicted physical injuries
upon Arciga.
Arciga then filed a disbarment case against Maniwang grounded on gross
immoral conduct. Maniwang admitted that he is the father of Arcigas child;
that he did promise to marry Arciga many times; that he broke those promises
because of Arcigas shady past because apparently Arciga had an illegitimate
child even before her son with Maniwang was born.
ISSUE: Whether or not Maniwang should be disbarred.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled that Maniwangs case is different from
the cases of Mortel vs Aspiras and Almirez vs Lopez, and other cases therein
cited. Maniwangs refusal to marry Arciga was not so corrupt nor unprincipled
as to warrant disbarment (though not much discussion was provided by the
ponente as to why). But the Supreme Court did say that it is difficult to state
with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is grossly immoral
HELD: No. The acts imputed against him may constitute immorality for
surely, cohabitation is immoral for lack of marriage. But the same is not
sufficient to disbar him for in order for such result to take place, the act
complained of must not merely be immoral; it must be grossly immoral
it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. And the same must be
established by clear and convincing proof, disclosing a case that is free from
doubt as to compel the exercise by the Court of its disciplinary power. In the
case at bar, its highly impossible that Reyes actually believed that shes
married to Wong. Shes a law student and as early as the first year of law
studies, the essential requisites of marriage is discussed. She could have not
believed that there was a valid marriage considering that no celebration
actually took place plus other infirmities in the alleged marriage. Further,
the Supreme Court said:
Intimacy between a man and a woman who are not married, is neither so
corrupt as to constitute a criminal act nor so unprincipled as to warrant
disbarment or disciplinary action against the man as a member of the Bar.
Narag vs. Narag
FACTS: Atty. Dominador Narag was alleged to have abandoned his family for
his paramour who was once his student in tertiary level. The administrative
complaint of disbarment was filed by her wife, Mrs. Julieta Narag.
Respondent filed motion to dismiss because allegedly the complainant
fabricated the story as well as the love letters while under extreme emotional
confusion arising from jealousy. The case took an unexpected turn when
another complaint was filed, the wife as again the complainant but now
together with their seven children as co-signatories. After several hearings, the
facts became clear, that the respondent indeed abandoned his family as against
morals, based on testimonial evidences. In addition, the assailed relationship
bore two children.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality and for
having violated and the Code of Ethics for Lawyers culpable for disbarment.
HELD: YES. Respondent disbarred.
The complainant was able to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that
the respondent breached the high and exacting moral standards set for the
members of the law profession. Good moral character is not only a condition
precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing qualification for all members
of the bar.
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.
Undoubtedly, the canons of law practice were violated.
Advincula vs. Macabata
Facts: The case is a disbarment case against respondent on the ground of gross
immorality. It was alleged that sometime in December 2004, complainant seek
for legal advice from peitioner regarding her collectibles from a travel
company. Respondent sent Demand Letter and sometime in February 2005,
they met at Zensho Restaurant to discuss the possibility of filing complaint
against the travel company because the latter failed to settle the accounts. That
after that said meeting, the respondent "held her arm and kissed her on the
cheek while embracing her very tightly." The two met again to finalize the
draft for the complaint and while on their way home after the said meeting, the
respondent suddenly stopped the car and things went out of hand. Thus she
decided to refer the case to another lawyer.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent committed acts are grossly immoral
which would warrant the disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
Held: The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
CANON I - 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 shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in
a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
The SC held that lawyers are expected to abide the tenets of
morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but all throughtout their legal
career as lawyers belong to an exclusive and honored fraternity. Lawyers are
called upon to safeguard the integrity of the legal profession and should
adhere to the unwaveringly to the highest standard of morality. The respondent
admitted to the act of kissing the complainant on the lips as evidenced as well
of his asking for apology from complainant in his text message. Regardless of
the fact that the respondent admitted that he kissed the complainant but the
Court held that this was not accompanied by malice because the respondent
immediately asked for forgiveness after sensing the annoyance of the
respondent after texting him. Thus the Court held that this is not grossly
immoral nor highly reprehensible which will warrant disbarment or
suspension. But the Court reprimanded respondent to be more prudent and
cautious.
Toledo vs. Abalos
FACTS: Atty. Erlinda Abalos obtained a loan of P20,000.00 from Priscila
Toledo, payable within six months from date, plus interest of 5% per month.
To guarantee the payment of said obligation, respondent executed a
Promissory Note. After the lapse of six months, and despite repeated
demands, respondent failed to pay her obligation. Afraid that she will not
recover her money, Ms. Toledo sought the help of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), which referred the matter to the Commission on Bar
Discipline.
[T]he Commission issued an order directing Atty. Abalos to file her Answer to
the letter-complaint of Ms. Toledo. Despite receipt of said order, respondent
did not answer the complaint. Investigating Commissioner issued an order
setting the case for hearing Despite due notices, respondent failed to appear.
Accordingly, complainant was allowed to present her evidence ex-parte after
which, the case was considered submitted for resolution. Respondent received
this order as shown by the registry return. However, she again did not do
anything about it.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Abalos may be disciplined by the IB
HELD: YES. Respondent suspended for one (1) month.
According to the Supreme Court, the general rule is that a lawyer may not be
suspended or disbarred, and the court may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction
to discipline him, for misconduct in his non-professional or private capacity. It
was, however, still necessary for respondent to acknowledge the orders of the
Commission in deference to its authority over her as a member of the IBP. Her
wanton disregard of its lawful orders subjects her to disciplinary sanction.
Thus, her suspension from the practice of law is warranted.
Lao vs. Medel
The deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks
constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one-
year suspension from the practice of law.
The Case and the Facts
This administrative case stems from a Complaint-Affidavit[1] filed with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)
by Selwyn F. Lao. Atty. Robert W. Medel was charged therein with dishonesty,
grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming an attorney.
The material averments of the Complaint are summarized by the IBP-CBD in
this wise:
The Complaint arose from the [respondents] persistent refusal to make good
on four (4) RCBC checks totaling [t]wenty [t]wo [t]housand (P22,000.00)
[p]esos. These dishonored checks were issued by defendant in replacement for
previous checks issued to the complainant. Based on the exchange of letters
between the parties, it appears that [respondent], in a letter dated June 19,
2001, had committed to forthwith effect immediate settlement of my
outstanding obligation of P22,000.00 with Engr. Lao, at the earliest possible
time, preferably, on or before the end of June 2000. Again, in a letter dated
July 3, 2000, the [respondent] made a request for a final extension of only ten
(10) days from June 30, 2000 (or not later than July 10, 2000), within which to
effect payment of P22,000.00 to Engr. Lao. Needless to say, the initiation of
this present complaint proves that contrary to his written promises, Atty.
Medel never made good on his dishonored checks. Neither has he paid his
indebtedness.
In his Answer dated July 30, 2001, Atty. Medel reasons that because all of his
proposals to settle his obligation were rejected, he was unable to comply with
his promise to pay complainant. Respondent maintains that the Complaint did
not constitute a valid ground for disciplinary action because of the following:
(a). Under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules, 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 wil[l]ful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or wil[l]fully appearing as an attorney for a
party to case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law
for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice;
(a.1). Applying the afore-cited legal provision to the facts obtaining in the
present case, it is clear that the offense with which the respondent is being
charged by the complainant, is merely a violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang
22 (B.P. 22, for brevity), which is a special law, and is not punishable under
the Revised Penal Code (RPC, for brevity). It is self-evident therefore, that the
offense is not in the same category as a violation of Article 315, paragraph 2,
(d), RPC, which is issuing a post-dated check or a check in payment of an
obligation, with insufficient funds in the drawee bank, through false pretenses
or fraudulent acts, executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of
the fraud, which is a crime involving moral turpitude;
(b). If the respondent is to be disciplined by the Supreme Court, under Sec. 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules, for the issuance of a worthless check, in violation of
B.P. 22, for payment of a pre-existing obligation to the complainant, then,
verily, the said Rule 138, Sec. 27, would be a cruel and an unjust law, which
the Honorable Supreme Court would not countenance;
(c). A careful examination of the specific grounds enumerated, for disbarment
or suspension of a member of the Bar, under Sec. 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules,
clearly shows beyond a shadow of doubt that the alleged issuance of a
worthless check, in violation of B.P. 22, is NOT one of the grounds for
disciplinary action against a member of the Bar, to warrant his disbarment or
suspension from his office as attorney, by the Supreme Court; and
(d). The issuance of a worthless check by a member of the Bar, in violation of
B.P. 22, does NOT constitute dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, under
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This is
because, the door to the law profession swings on reluctant hinges. Stated
otherwise, unless there is a clear, palpable and unmitigated immoral or
deceitful conduct, of a member of the Bar, in violation of his oath as an
attorney, by the mere issuance of a worthless check, in violation of B.P. 22, the
Supreme Court is inclined to give the said attorney, the benefit of the doubt.[4]
On August 22, 2001, complainant submitted his Reply.[5] Thereafter, IBP-
CBD Commissioner Renato G. Cunanan, to whom the case was assigned by
the IBP for investigation and report, scheduled the case for hearing on October
4, 2001. After several cancellations, the parties finally met on May 29, 2002.
In that hearing, respondent acknowledged his obligation and committed
himself to pay a total of P42,000 (P22,000 for his principal debt and P20,000
for attorneys fees). Complainant agreed to give him until July 4, 2002 to settle
the principal debt and to discuss the plan of payment for attorneys fees in the
next hearing.
On July 4, 2002, both parties appeared before the IBP-CBD for their
scheduled hearing. But, while waiting for the case to be called, respondent
suddenly insisted on leaving, supposedly to attend to a family emergency.
Complainants counsel objected and Commissioner Cunanan, who was still
conducting a hearing in another case, ordered him to wait. He, however,
retorted in a loud voice, Its up to you, this is only disbarment, my family is
more important.[6] And, despite the objection and the warning, he arrogantly
left. He made no effort to comply with his undertaking to settle his
indebtedness before leaving.
The Courts Ruling
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of
Governors, but reduce the period of suspension to one year.
Administrative Liability of Respondent
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.[11] In so
doing, the peoples faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured.
In the present case, respondent has been brought to this Court for failure to
pay his debts and for issuing worthless checks as payment for his loan from
complainant. While acknowledging the fact that he issued several worthless
checks, he contends that such act constitutes neither a violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility; nor dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
The defense proffered by respondent is untenable. It is evident from the
records that he made several promises to pay his debt promptly. However, he
reneged on his obligation despite sufficient time afforded him. Worse, he
refused to recognize any wrongdoing and transferred the blame to
complainant, on the contorted reasoning that the latter had refused to accept
the formers plan of payment. It must be pointed out that complainant had no
obligation to accept it, considering respondents previous failure to comply
with earlier payment plans for the same debt.
Moreover, before the IBP-CBD, respondent had voluntarily committed
himself to the payment of his debts, yet failed again to fulfill his promise. That
he had no real intention to settle them is evident from his unremitting failed
commitments. His cavalier attitude in incurring debts without any intention of
paying for them puts his moral character in serious doubt.
Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to
the bar, to the courts and to their clients. As part of those duties, they must
promptly pay their financial obligations. Their conduct must always reflect the
values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. On these considerations, the Court may disbar or
suspend lawyers for any professional or private misconduct showing them to
be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor -- or to be
unworthy to continue as officers of the Court.[12]
It is equally disturbing that respondent remorselessly issued a series of
worthless checks, unmindful of the deleterious effects of such act to public
interest and public order.[13]
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all members of
the bar to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law. Rule 1.01 of
the Code specifically provides that [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. In Co v. Bernardino,[14] the Court
considered the issuance of worthless checks as a violation of this Rule and an
act constituting gross misconduct. It explained thus: The general rule is that a
lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and the court may not ordinarily
assume jurisdiction to discipline him for misconduct in his non-professional or
private capacity (In Re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 5569 [1923]). Where, however, the
misconduct outside of the lawyer's professional dealings is so gross a
character as to show him morally unfit for the office and unworthy of the
privilege which his licenses and the law confer on him, the court may be
justified in suspending or removing him from the office of attorney (In Re
Sotto, 38 Phil. 569 [1923]).
The evidence on record clearly shows respondent's propensity to issue bad
checks. This gross misconduct on his part, though not related to his
professional duties as a member of the bar, puts his moral character in serious
doubt. The Commission, however, does not find him a hopeless case in the
light of the fact that he eventually paid his obligation to the complainant,
albeit very much delayed.
While it is true that there was no attorney-client relationship between
complainant and respondent as the transaction between them did not require
the professional legal services of respondent, nevertheless respondent's abject
conduct merits condemnation from this Court.
As early as 1923, however, the Court laid down in In Re Vicente Pelaez [44
Phil.567 (1923)] the principle that it can exercise its power to discipline
lawyers for causes which do not involve the relationship of an attorney and
client x x x In disciplining the respondent, Mr. Justice Malcolm said: x x x As
a general rule, a court will not assume jurisdiction to discipline one of its
officers for misconduct alleged to have been committed in his private capacity.
But this is a general rule with many exceptions x x x. The nature of the office,
the trust relation which exists between attorney and client, as well as between
court and attorney, and the statutory rules prescribing the qualifications of
attorneys, uniformly require that an attorney shall be a person of good moral
character. If that qualification is a condition precedent to a license or privilege
to enter upon the practice of the law, it would seem to be equally essential
during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege. So it is
held that an attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty
in his profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his
professional duties, which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy
of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him xxx.
Ten years later, in Piatt v. Abordo where the erring lawyer was suspended for
one year from the practice of law for attempting to engage in an opium deal,
Justice Malcolm reiterated that an attorney may be removed not only for
malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross misconduct
not related to his professional duties which show him to be an unfit and
unworthy lawyer. The courts are not curators of the morals of the bar. At the
same time the profession is not compelled to harbor all persons whatever their
character, who are fortunate enough to keep out of prison. As good character is
an essential qualification for admission of an attorney to practice, when the
attorney's character is bad in such respects as to show that he is unsafe and
unfit to be entrusted with the powers of an attorney, the courts retain the
power to discipline him x x x Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is
most sacredly bound to uphold the law x x x and to that doctrine we give our
unqualified support."
We likewise take notice of the high-handed manner in which respondent dealt
with Commissioner Cunanan during the July 4, 2002 hearing, when the former
was expected to settle his obligation with complainant. We cannot
countenance the discourtesy of respondent. He should be reminded that the
IBP has disciplinary authority over him by virtue of his membership therein.
Thus, it was imperative for him to respect the authority of the officer assigned
to investigate his case. Assuming that he had a very important personal matter
to attend to, he could have politely explained his predicament to the
investigating commissioner and asked permission to leave immediately.
Unfortunately, the former showed dismal behavior by raising his voice and
leaving without the consent of complainant and the investigating
commissioner.
We stress that membership in the legal profession is a privilege.[16] It
demands a high degree of good moral character, not only as a condition
precedent to admission, but also as a continuing requirement for the practice
of law.[17] In this case, respondent fell short of the exacting standards
expected of him as a guardian of law and justice.
Accordingly, administrative sanction is warranted by his gross misconduct.
The IBP Board of Governors recommended that he be suspended from the
practice of law for two years. However, in line with Co v. Bernardino,[19]
Ducat Jr. v. Villalon Jr.[20] and Saburnido v. Madroo[21] -- which also
involved gross misconduct of lawyers -- we find the suspension of one year
sufficient in this case.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Robert W. Medel is found guilty of gross misconduct
and is hereby SUSPENDED for one year from the practice of law, effective
upon his receipt of this Decision. He is warned that a repetition of the same or
a similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Decision be entered in the record of respondent and served
on the IBP, as well as on the court administrator who shall circulate it to all
courts for their information and guidance. SO ORDERED.
Oronce vs. CA
Facts: During a dispute over land, Flaminiano illegally took possession of the
property in litigation using abusive methods. She was aided by her husband, a
lawyer. The illegal entry took place while the case was pending in the CA &
while a writ of preliminary injunction was in force.
Held: Atty. Flaminianos acts of entering the property without the consent of
its occupants & in contravention of the existing writ or preliminary injunction
& making utterances showing disrespect for the law & this Court, are
unbecoming of a member of the Bar. Although he says that they peacefully
took over the property, such peaceful take-over cannot justify defiance of
the writ of preliminary injunction that he knew was still in force. Through his
acts, he has flouted his duties as a member of the legal profession. Under the
Code of Professional Responsibility, he is prohibited from counseling or
abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in
the legal system.
In Re: Santiago
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.
A. As a response to Baniquits question, Santiago remarked that he would
tear the diploma off the wall if the document did not turn out to be valid.
B. Santiago was ignorant of the applicable provision of the law or
carelessly negligent in giving legal advice.
C. The admission to the practice of law dependent on a lawyers remaining
as a fit-and-safe person to society. Once he becomes unsafe or unfit to be
entrusted with obligations, his professional privilege should be terminated.
De Ysasi vs. NLRC
Jon De Ysasi and Jon De Ysasi III are father and sons respectively. The elder
Ysasi owns a hacienda in Negros Occidental. De Ysasi III is employed in the
hacienda as the farm administrator. In November 1982, De Ysasi III
underwent surgery and so he missed work. He was confined and while hes
nursing from his infections he was terminated, without due process, by his
father. De Ysasi III filed against his father for illegal dismissal before the
National Labor Relations Commission. His father invoked that his son
actually abandoned his work.
ISSUE: Whether or not De Ysasi III abandoned his work.
HELD: No. His absence from work does not constitute abandonment. To
constitute abandonment, there must be a.) failure to report for work or absence
without valid or justifiable reason, and b.) a clear intention to sever the
employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more
determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. No such intent
was proven in this case.
The Supreme Court, in making its decision, noted that the lawyers for both
camps failed to exert all reasonable efforts to smooth over legal conflicts,
preferably out of court and especially in consideration of the direct and
immediate consanguineous ties between their clients especially considering
that the parties involved are father and son. This case may have never reached
the courts had there been an earnest effort by the lawyers to have both parties
find an off court settlement but records show that no such effort was made.
The useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it
whenever possible by advising settlement or withholding suit. He is often
called upon less for dramatic forensic exploits than for wise counsel in every
phase of life. He should be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for
compromise, rather than a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation.
Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that
(a) lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if
it will admit of a fair settlement. Both counsel fell short of what was
expected of them, despite their avowed duties as officers of the court. In the
same manner, the labor arbiter who handled this regrettable case has been less
than faithful to the letter and spirit of the Labor Code mandating that a labor
arbiter shall exert all efforts towards the amicable settlement of a labor
dispute within his jurisdiction. If he ever did so, or at least entertained the
thought, the copious records of the proceedings in this controversy are barren
of any reflection of the same.
Melendrez vs. Decena
Facts: There was two charged filed against Atty. Decena. First was about a 4k
loan obtained by the spouses secured by a real estate mortgage. However, it
appeared on the real estate mortgage document that the amount loaned to
complainants was P5,000.00 instead of 4k. He said that the signing of the
documents was just for formality. so, they did. The spouses religiously paid
10% or 500 as interest for only 3months because of financial reverses.
Consequently, Atty. Decena made a second real estate mortgage document and
the loan extended to complainants had escalated to P10,000.00. Again, on the
assurance that it was only for formality, the spouses signed the new REM
document.
After 3 years, they learned that their lot was already sold to someone. So they
tried to raise the 10k and went to Atty. Decenas house but the latter did not
accept the money and instead gave them a sheet of paper indicating that the
total indebtedness had soared to 20,400.
The second charge against respondent relates to acts done in his professional
capacity, that is, done at a time when he was counsel for the complainants in a
criminal case for estafa against accused. It was alleged that Atty. Decena
effected a compromise agreement concerning the civil liability of accused
without the consent and approval of the complainants and that he received the
amount of P500.00 as an advance payment and he did not inform the spouses
about this. And even after he was confronted, he still did not turn over the
money.
Ruling: As to the first charge, the SC held that Atty. Decena indeed deceived
the spouses.From the facts obtaining in the case, it is clear that the
complainants were induced to sign the Real Estate Mortgage documents by
the false and fraudulent representations of respondent that each of the
successive documents was a are formality.
While it may be true that complainants are not at all illiterate, respondent,
being a lawyer, should have at least explained to complainants the legal
implications of the provisions of the real estate mortgage, particularly the
provision appointing him as the complainants attorney-in-fact in the event of
default in payments on the part of complainants.
As to the second charge, repondent is presumed to be aware of Section 23
Rule 138 that lawyers cannot without special authority, compromise their
clients litigation or receive anything in discharge of a clients claim, but the
full amount in cash. Respondents failure to turn over to spouses the partial
payment underscores his lack of honesty and candor in dealing with his
clients.
The SC reiterated that good moral character is not only a condition precedent
to admission to the practice of law but a continuing requirement. Atty. Decena
was disbarred.
DRA vs. Bayot
In June 1943, Bayot advertised in a newspaper that he helps people in
securing marriage licenses; that he does so avoiding delays and publicity; that
he also makes marriage arrangements; that legal consultations are free for the
poor; and that everything is confidential. The Director of Religious Affairs
took notice of the ad and so he sued Bayot for Malpractice.
Bayot initially denied having published the advertisement. But later, he
admitted the same and asked for the courts mercy as he promised to never
repeat the act again.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bayot is guilty of Malpractice.
HELD: Yes. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things
that the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. The
advertisement he caused to be published is a brazen solicitation of business
from the public. . It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents
or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. The Supreme Court again
emphasized that best advertisement for a lawyer is the establishment of a well-
merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. But because
of Bayots plea for leniency and his promise and the fact that he did not earn
any case by reason of the ad, the Supreme Court merely reprimanded him.
In Re: Sycip
Facts: Petitions were filed by the surviving partners of Atty. Alexander Sycip,
who died on May 5, 1975 and by the surviving partners of Atty. Herminio
Ozaeta, who died on February 14, 1976, praying that they be allowed to
continue using, in the names of their firms, the names of partners who had
passed away.
Petitioners contend that the continued use of the name of a deceased or former
partner when permissible by local custom, is not unethical but care should be
taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through this use. They also
contend that no local custom prohibits the continued use of a deceased
partners name in a professional firms name; there is no custom or usage in
the Philippines, or at least in the Greater Manila Area, which recognizes that
the name of a law firm necessarily identifies the individual members of the
firm.
Issue: WON the surviving partners may be allowed by the court to retain the
name of the partners who already passed away in the name of the firm? NO
Held: In the case of Register of Deeds of Manila vs. China Banking
Corporation, the SC said:
The Court believes that, in view of the personal and confidential nature of the
relations between attorney and client, and the high standards demanded in the
canons of professional ethics, no practice should be allowed which even in a
remote degree could give rise to the possibility of deception. Said attorneys
are accordingly advised to drop the names of the deceased partners from their
firm name.
The public relations value of the use of an old firm name can tend to create
undue advantages and disadvantages in the practice of the profession. An able
lawyer without connections will have to make a name for himself starting
from scratch. Another able lawyer, who can join an old firm, can initially ride
on that old firms reputation established by deceased partners.
The court also made the difference from the law firms and business
corporations:
A partnership for the practice of law is not a legal entity. It is a mere
relationship or association for a particular purpose. It is not a partnership
formed for the purpose of carrying on trade or business or of holding
property. Thus, it has been stated that the use of a nom de plume, assumed
or trade name in law practice is improper.
We find such proof of the existence of a local custom, and of the elements
requisite to constitute the same, wanting herein. Merely because something is
done as a matter of practice does not mean that Courts can rely on the same
for purposes of adjudication as a juridical custom. Petition suffers legal and
ethical impediment.
In Re: Tagorda
In 1928, Luis Tagorda was a provincial board member of Isabela. Before his
election, he campaigned that he is a lawyer and a notary public; that as a
notary public he can do notarial acts such as execution of deeds of sale, etc.;
that as a lawyer, he can help clients collect debts; that he offers free
consultation; that he is willing to serve the poor.
When he won, he wrote a letter to the barrio lieutenant of Echague, Isable
advising the latter that even though he was elected as a provincial board
member, he can still practice law; that he wants the lieutenant to tell the same
to his people; that he is willing to receive works regarding preparations of
sales contracts and affidavits etc.; that he is willing to receive land registration
cases for a charge of three pesos.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tagorda is guilty of malpractice.
HELD: Yes. Tagorda admitted doing the foregoing acts. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young
lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well-
merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot
be forced, but must be the outcome of character and conduct. Solicitation of
business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or
interviews not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional. It is equally
unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters of any kind,
whether allied real estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure the
drawing of deeds or wills or offering retainers in exchange for executorships
or trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer. Indirect advertisement for
business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the
manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interests involved, the
importance of the lawyers position, and all other like self-laudation, defy the
traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are intolerable. It is
unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in
rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it his duty to do so.
Tagordas liability is however mitigated by the fact that he is a young
inexperienced lawyer and that he was unaware of the impropriety of his acts.
So instead of being disbarred, he was suspended from the practice of law for a
month.

Ulep vs. Legal Clinic

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.

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
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.
Khan vs. Simbillo
FACTS:
An advertisement in Philippine Daily Inquirer came out which reads:
ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE SPECIALIST 532-4333/521-2667.
SC ordered its staff to call the number and ask some information.
Espeleta called the number and the wife of Atty. Rizalino Simbillo
answered who said that his husband was an expert in handling annulment
cases and guarantees a court decree within 4-6 month. The services of Atty.
Simbillo is for P48,000. half of which is payable at the filing of the case and
the balance after the decision has been rendered.
Similar advertisement also appeared in The Philippine Star and Manila
Bulletin.
Khan, Assist. Court Administrator, filed a case against Simbillo for
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 2.03 and 3.01.
Simbillo admitted that he caused the advertisement but he argued that
solicitation and advertisement is not prohibited per se and that it is about time
to change our views about the prohibition on advertising and solicitation. He
also said that the interest of the public is not served by the prohibition and
suggested that the ban be lifted.
IBP recommended that Simbillo be suspended for 1 year and that repetition
of similar act will be dealt with more severely.

The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. 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.
The Supreme Court also enumerated the following as allowed forms of
advertisement: 1.Advertisement in a reputable law list; 2.Use of ordinary
simple professional card; 3.Listing in a phone directory but without
designation as to his specialization
While the case was being investigated upon by the court, Simbillo again
advertised his legal services, for 2 times, in the Buy & Sell Free Ads
Magazine.
ISSUE: W/N Simbillo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD: YES. Rule 2.03 provides a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done
any act designed primarily to solicit legal business while Rule 3.01 states that
a lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding
his qualifications or legal services.
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business. It is a
profession in which the duty to public service, not money, is the primary
consideration. The gaining of livelihood should be a secondary consideration.

Aside from advertising himself as an Annulment of Marriage Specialist, his

assurance of his clients that an annulment may be obtained in 4-6 months from
the filing of the case encourages people, who might other have 2nd thought, to
dissolve their marriage.

Solicitation of legal business is not proscribed. However, solicitation must be

compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. The use of simple signs
stating the name/s of the lawyers, the office and residence address and the
fields of expertise, as well as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the
same brief data, are permissible.
The use of calling cards is now acceptable.
Pangan vs. Ramos
In 1979, a pending administrative case filed by Santa Pangan against Atty.
Dionisio Ramos was delayed because Atty. Ramos allegedly appeared before a
court in Manila. When the records of the said case was checked (one which
Atty. Ramos appeared in), it was found that he used the name Atty. Pedro
D.D. Ramos. In his defense, Atty. Ramos said he has the right to use such
name because in his birth certificate, his name listed was Pedro Dionisio
Ramos. D.D. stands for Dionisio Dayaw with Dayaw being his mothers
surname. However, in the roll of attorneys, his name listed was Dionisio D.
Ramos.
ISSUE: Whether or not what Atty. Ramos did was correct.
HELD: No. The attorneys roll or register is the official record containing the
names and signatures of those who are authorized to practice law. A lawyer is
not authorized to use a name other than the one inscribed in the Roll of
Attorneys in his practice of law. The official oath obliges the attorney
solemnly to swear that he will do no falsehood. As an officer in the temple of
justice, an attorney has irrefragable obligations of truthfulness, candor and
frankness. In representing himself to the court as Pedro D.D. Ramos instead
of Dionisio D. Ramos, respondent has violated his solemn oath and has
resorted to deception. The Supreme Court hence severely reprimanded Atty.
Ramos and warned that a similar infraction will warrant suspension or
disbarment.
Dacanay vs. Baker
In November 1979, Atty. Vicente Torres sent a letter to one Rosie Clurman,
represented by Atty. Adriano Dacanay, asking Clurman to release some shares
to Torres client. The letterhead contained the name Baker & McKenzie.
Dacanay denied Clurmans liability and at the same time he asked why is
Torres using the letterhead Baker & McKenzie, a foreign partnership
established in Chicago, Illinois. No reply was received so Dacanay filed an
administrative complaint enjoining Torres from using Baker & McKenzie.
Later, Torres said that he is an associate of the law firm Guerrero & Torres;
that their law firm is a member of Baker & McKenzie; that the said foreign
firm has members in 30 cities all over the world; that they associated with
them in order to make a representation that they can render legal services of
the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in
foreign trade and investment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the use of a foreign law office name is allowed.
HELD: No. Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law
in the Philippines. Such use of foreign law firm name is unethical therefore
Torres and his law firm are enjoined from using Baker & McKenzie in their
practice of law.
Dulalia vs. Cruz
The primary duty of lawyers is to be well-informed of the existing laws, o
keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments, and jurisprudence,
and be conversant with basic legal principles.
Susan Soriano Dulalia (Susan), wife of Juan, applied for a permit in the
Municipal Government to build a high rise building in Bulacan. The permit
was not released due to the opposition of Atty. Cruz who sent a letter to the
Municipal Engineers office, claiming that the building impedes the airspace of
their property which is adjacent to the Dulalias property. Juan Dulalia (Juan)
filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo Cruz (Cruz) for immoral
conduct.
Juan also claimed that Cruzs illicit relationship with a woman while still
married is in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Cruz
invokes good faith, claiming to have had the impression that the applicable
provision at the time was Article 83 of the Civil Code, for while Article 256 of
the Family Code provides that the Code shall have retroactive application,
there is a qualification.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cruz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD: Cruzs claim that he was not aware that the Family Code already took
effect on August 3, 1988 as he was in the United States from 1986 and stayed
there until he came back to the Philippines together with his second wife on
October 9, 1990 does not lie, as ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith.
Immoral conduct which is proscribed under Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, as opposed to grossly immoral conduct, connotes
conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the
opinion of good and respectable members of the community. Gross immoral
conduct on the other hand must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. This duty carries
with it the obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep
abreast with legal developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence. It is
imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles. Unless they
faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge
competently and diligently their obligations as members of the bar. Worse,
they may become susceptible to committing mistakes.
The Court therefore concludes that Atty. Pablo C. Cruz is guilty of violating
Rule 1.01 and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is
suspended from the practice of law for one year.