2. Bautista vs Gonzales [A.M. No. 1625.
5. February 12, 1990] contracts violates the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and his client, for which the
FACTS:
In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista, respondent Ramon A. Gonzales was charged
with malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation of lawyers oath. Required by this Court
to answer the charges against him, respondent filed a motion for a bill of particulars asking this
Court to order complainant to amend his complaint by making his charges more definite. In a
resolution, the Court granted respondents motion and required complainant to file an amended
complaint. Complainant submitted an amended complaint for disbarment, alleging that respondent
committed the following acts:
1. Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients, namely, Alfaro Fortunado, Nestor
Fortunado and Editha Fortunado [hereinafter referred to as the Fortunados] to pay all expenses,
including court fees, for a contingent fee of fifty percent (50%) of the value of the property in
litigation.
xxx
4. Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a contract with him on
August 30, 1971 for the development into a residential subdivision of the land involved in Civil
Case No. Q-15143, covered by TCT No. T-1929, claiming that he acquired fifty percent (50%)
interest thereof as attorneys fees from the Fortunados, while knowing fully well that the said
property was already sold at a public auction on June 30, 1971, by the Provincial Sheriff of Lanao
del Norte and registered with the Register of Deeds of Iligan City;
xxx
Pertinent to No. 4 above, the contract, in No. 1 above, reads:
We the [Fortunados] agree on the 50% contingent fee, provided, you [respondent Ramon
Gonzales] defray all expenses, for the suit, including court fees.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent committed serious misconduct involving a champertous contract.
HELD:
YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for six (6) months.
RATIO:
The Court finds that the agreement between the respondent and the Fortunados contrary to Canon
42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provides that a lawyer may not properly agree with
a client to pay or bear the expenses of litigation. [See also Rule 16.04, Code of Professional
Responsibility]. Although a lawyer may in good faith, advance the expenses of litigation, the same
should be subject to reimbursement. The agreement between respondent and the Fortunados,
however, does not provide for reimbursement to respondent of litigation expenses paid by him. An
agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the clients rights
is champertous [citation omitted]. Such agreements are against public policy especially where, as
in this case, the attorney has agreed to carry on the action at his own expense in consideration of
some bargain to have part of the thing in dispute [citation omitted]. The execution of these
former must incur administrative sanctions.
3. Priscilla Castillo Vda. De Mijares vs. Justice Onofre A. Villaluz , Adm. Case No.
4431 June 19, 1997
FACTS:
Complainant Judge Priscilla Castillo Vda. De Mijares is the presiding judge in Pasay City while
respondent Onofre A. Villaluz, a retired Justice of the Court of Appeals, is a consult at the
Presidential Anti-Crime Commission.
Judge Mijares is actually widowed by the death of her first husband, Primitivo Mijares. She
obtained a decree declaring her husband presumptively dead, after an absence of 16 years. Thus,
she got married to respondent in a civil wedding on January 7, 1994 before Judge Myrna Lim
Verano.
They (complainant and respondent) knew each other when the latter, who was at that time the
Presiding Judge of the Criminal Circuit Court in Pasig, was trying a murder case involving the
death of the son of Mijares.
During their marriage, complainant judge discovered that respondent was having an illicit affair
with another woman. Respondent denied such rather he uttered harsh words to the complainant
judge. As a result, they lived separately and did not get in touch with one another and the
respondent did not bother to apologize for what happened.
Through Judge Ramon Makasiar, complainant knew that respondent married Lydia Geraldez.
Complainant then filed a complaint against respondent for disbarment for the latter immorally and
bigamously entered into a second marriage while having a subsisting marriage and distorted the
truth by stating his civil status as single.
In his defense, he contended that his marriage to the complainant judge was a sham marriage;
that he voluntarily signed the marriage contract to help her in the administrative case for
immorality filed against her by her legal researcher. Likewise, he maintained that when he
contracted his marriage with complainant, he had a subsisting marriage with his first wife because
the decision declaring the annulment of such marriage had not yet become final and executory or
published.
Judge Purisima the found respondent guilty of deceit and grossly immoral conduct and later on
affirmed by the Court.
ISSUE:
a. Whether or not marriage of complainant and respondent valid
b. Whether or not the marriage of complainant and respondent was a sham marriage
RULING:
a. Yes. It was a valid marriage. All the essential and formal requisites of a valid marriage under
Articles 2 and 3 of the Family Code were satisfied and complied. Given the circumstance that he
was facing criminal case for bigamy and assuming for the sake of argument that the judgment in
civil case declaring the annulment of marriage between respondent and the first wife had not
attained complete finality, the marriage between complainant and respondent is not void but only
voidable.
b. As to the issue that it was a sham marriage is too incredible to deserve serious consideration.
Thus, former Justice Onofre Villaluz is found guilty of immoral conduct in violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility; he is hereby suspended from practice of law for two years
with the specific warning.
4. Carmelita I. Zaguirre vs. Atty. Alfredo Castillo
FACTS:
Atty. Alfredo Castillo was already married with three children when he had an affair with
Carmelita Zaguirre. This occurred sometime from 1996 to 1997, while Castillo was reviewing for
the bar and before the release of its results. Zaguirre then got pregnant allegedly with Castillos
daughter. The latter, who was already a lawyer, notarized an affidavit recognizing the child and
promising for her support which did not materialize after the birth of the child. The Court found
him guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct to which Castillo filed a motion for reconsideration.
The IBP commented that until Castillo admits the paternity of the child and agrees to support
her. In his defense, the latter presented different certificates appreciating his services as a lawyer
and proving his good moral character. His wife even submitted a handwritten letter stating his
amicability as a husband and father despite the affair. More than a year since the original decision
rendered by the Court, Castillo reiterated his willingness to support the child to the Court and
attached a photocopy of post-dated checks addressed to Zaguirre for the months of March to
December 2005 in the amount of Php2,000.00 each.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Castillo is guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct and should be punished
with the penalty of Indefinite Suspension.
HELD:
The Court found that Castillos show of repentance and active service to the community is a just
and reasonable ground to convert the original penalty of indefinite suspension to a definite
suspension of two years. Furthermore, the Court noted that Zaguirres further claim for the
support of her child should be addressed to the proper court in a proper case.
5. Salvacion Cordova vs Atty. Laurence Cordova, 179 SCRA 680 Legal Ethics
Moral Delinquency
FACTS:
In 1985, Atty. Laurence Cordova, while being married to Salvacion Delizo and with two children,
left his wife and children to cohabit with another married woman. In 1986, Salvacion and Cordova
had a reconciliation where Cordova promised to leave his mistress. But apparently, Cordova still
continued to cheat on her wife as apparently, Cordova again lived with another woman and worse,
he took one of his children with him and hid the child away from Salvacion.
In 1988, Salvacion filed a letter-complaint for disbarment against Cordova. Eventually, multiple
hearing dates were sent but no hearing took place because neither party appeared. In 1989,
Salvacion sent a telegraphic message to the Commission on Bar Discipline intimating that she and
her husband has reconciled. The Commission, since Salvacion failed to submit her evidence ex
parte, merely recommended the reprimand and admonishment of Cordova.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Cordova should be merely reprimanded.
HELD:
No. He should be suspended indefinitely until he presents evidence that he has been morally
reformed and that there was true reconciliation between him and his wife. Before a person can be
admitted to the bar, one requirement is that he possesses good moral character. That requirement is
not exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. On the contrary, that
requirement persists as a continuing condition for membership in the Bar in good standing. The
moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes
conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct for
instance, which makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution or marriage such was the
case in the case at bar.
6. In Re: Basa, 41 Phil 275 Legal Ethics Moral Turpitude
FACT:
Carlos Basa is a young lawyer convicted of the crime of abduction with consent. He was
sentenced to two years, eleven months, and eleven days of imprisonment. The Solicitor General
asked for Basas disbarment based on his commission of a crime involving moral turpitude.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime abduction with consent involves moral turpitude.
HELD:
Yes. Crimes of this character do involve moral turpitude. The inherent nature of the act is such that
it is against good morals and the accepted rule of right conduct. Moral turpitude includes
everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. Basa was declared
to be suspended for one year immediately after he finished serving his sentence.
7. People vs. Tuanda, A.M. No. 3360 January 30, 1990
FACTS:
Atty. Fe Tuanda was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Manila in violation of B.P. 22 with a
fine and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to indemnify the complainant
Herminia Marquez. Respondent appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of
the trial court and imposed upon Atty. Fe Tuanda, in addition, the suspension from the practice of
law until further orders from the Supreme Court. The respondent filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals noted respondents Notice of Appeal and advised her to
address her Notice of Appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court, the proper forum. In the said
motion, responded stated:
that suspension from the practice of law is indeed a harsh if not a not painful penalty aggravating
the lower courts penalty of fine considering that accused-appellants action on the case during
the trial on the merits at the lower court has always been motivated purely by sincere belief that
she is innocent of the offense charged nor of the intention to cause damage to the herein plaintiff-
appellee.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the imposed suspension for Atty. Tuanda may be lifted.
HELD:
NO. Motion to Lift Order of Suspension denied.
RATIO:
[T]he crimes of which respondent was convicted [also] import deceit and violation of her
attorneys oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility under both of which she was bound to
obey the laws of the land. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude might not (as in the
instant case, violation of B.P. Blg. 22 does not) relate to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer;
however, it certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person convicted of such
offense.
8. VACA VS. CA, GR 43596 31 OCTOBER 1936
FACTS:
Eduardo Vaca is the president and owner of Ervine International while Fernando Nieto, Vacas
son-in-law, is the firms purchasing manager. They issued a check for P10,000 to the General
Agency for Reconnaissance, Detection and Security (GARDS) and drawn against China Bank.
When deposited with PCIBank, the check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Gards sent a
demand letter but the drawers failed to pay within the time given (7 days from notice). A few days
later, however, Vaca issued a check to GARDS for P19,866.16, drawn against Associated Bank,
replacing the dishonored check. GARDS did not return the dishonored check. Later on, GARDS
Acting Operations Manager filed a criminal suit against Vaca and Nieto for violation of BP 22.
The trial court sentenced each to 1 year imprisonment and to pay a fine of P10,000 and costs.
ISSUE:
Whether the drawers had knowledge of insufficient funds in issuing the check.
HELD:
Section2 of BP 22 provides a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds if the drawer
fails to maintain sufficient funds within 90 days after the date of the check, or to make
arrangement for payment in full by the drawee of such check within 5 days after receiving notice
that such check has not been paid by the drawee. Herein, the second check supposedly replacing
the dishonored check is actually the payment of two separate bills, and was issued 15 days after
notice. Such replacement cannot negate the presumption that the drawers knew of the
insufficiency of funds.
9. In Re: Atty Tranquilino Rovero
FACTS:
October 24, 1952, the Court, upon a finding that the respondent Tranquilino Rovero had been
found guilty by a competent court of a violation of Section 2703 of the Revised Administrative
Code, as amended, smuggling and sentence to pay a fine of P2,500.00.
On July 7, 1956, the said respondent filed a petition for reinstatement, claiming that his
disbarment had caused him untold misery and mental anguish, and that he had been granted an
absolute and unconditional pardon for his crime and restored to full civil and political rights, and
pledged, on bended knees, not to commit the same or similar mistake in the future nor to
involve himself further in any transaction which might tend to drag down his name as lawyer and
as an ordinary dignified citizen. The court denied his petition. On march 10, 1958, the respondent
Tranquilino Rovero again implored the Court to be readmitted to the practice of law, but the court
turned a deaf ear to his plea. The respondent Tranquilino Rovero, now in his twilight years (71
yrs. old) asks humbly and earnestly of the Court to be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys before
crossing the bar to the great beyond.
To be reinstated to the practice of law, it is necessary that the respondent must, like any other
candidiate for admission to the bar, satisfy the court that he is a person of good moral character a
fit and proper person to practice law.
ISSUE:
WON he has been disciplined long enough to render his punishment lifted.
HELD:
It appears that since his disbarment in 1952, the respondent Tranquilino Rovero has honorably
dealt with his citizens. He had demonstrated his moral rehabilitation and reformation as to fit, once
more, to engage in the practice of law.
Mr. Rovero has also held high positions of trust in commercial establishments. He had been
elected the president of the Filipino Industrial Corpotation; the vice-president of the Meteor
Company, Inc., and the president of the Rural Bank of Hermosa (Bataan), a position which he
holds up to the present.
Testimonials have been presented regarding the high esteem accorded him in the community to
which he belongs. His good conduct is certified to by the President of the Aklan Bar Association
and the parish priest of Christ the King Church. His conduct has also merited the approval of the
late Pres. Ramon Magsaysay who granted him an absolute and unconditional pardon for his crime.
Under the circumstance, and considering that more than 28 years had slaready passed since he was
disbarred, the respondent Tranquilino Rovero has been sufficiently punished and disciplined.
Wherefore, the order of dibarment is lifted and Attorney Tranquilino Rovero is hereby reinstated
in the legal profession and restored to the practice of law.
10. In Re: Diosdado Gutierrez, 5 SCRA 661 Legal Ethics Conditional Pardon will
not bar disbarment
FACT:
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.
Whether or not IBP has jurisdiction to suspend Atty. Abalos.
HELD:
YES. 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. The recommendation to suspend respondent from the practice of law for six months to be
grossly disproportionate to the act complained of, i.e., her failure to appear before the Commission
on Bar Discipline of the IBP. IBP does not ignore the fact that by virtue of ones membership in
the IBP, a lawyer thus submits himself to the disciplinary authority of the organization. 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.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Erlinda Abalos is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period of ONE MONTH from the date of the finality of this Resolution.

ISSUE: 14. Donton vs. Atty. Tansingco, AC No. 6057, June 27, 2006
Whether or not Gutierrez may be disbarred considering the fact that he was granted pardon. Related Canons: Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD: FACTS:
Yes. The pardon granted to Gutierrez is not absolute but conditional. It merely remitted his Disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco for estafa thru
sentence. It does not reach the offense itself. Gutierrez must be judged upon the fact of his falsification of a public document against Duane O. Stier, a U.S. citizen and thereby disqualified to
conviction for murder without regard to the pardon (which he invoked in defense). The crime was own real property in his name, as the notary public who notarized the Occupancy Agreement,
actually qualified by treachery and aggravated by its having been committed in hand, by taking recognizing Mr. Stiers free and undisturbed use of the property for his residence and business
advantage of his official position (Gutierrez being municipal mayor at the time) and with the use operations.
of motor vehicle. The degree of moral turpitude involved is such as to justify his being purged
from the profession. ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco should be liable for violation of Canon 1
12. TOLEDO VS. ABALOS AC NO. 5141, SEPT. 29 1999 and Rule 1.02 of the Code.
HELD:
FACT: YES. GUILTY. SUSPEND for SIX MONTHS.
This is a case of a lawyer who borrowed money without paying it back. Atty. Erlinda Abalos Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code.
obtained a loan of P20,000.00 from Priscila Toledo, payable within six months from date, plus - A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will involve defiance
interest of 5% per month. Respondent executed a Promissory Note to guarantee the payment of of the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey.
said obligation. Respondent failed to pay her obligation despite repeated demands of the - A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law
complainant. Ms.Toledo sought the help of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer.10
referred the matter to the Commission on Bar Discipline. Although, the respondent received an - In effect, respondent advised and aided Stier in circumventing the constitutional prohibition
order from the Commission, she did not do anything about it. The Commission passed a resolution against foreign ownership of lands by preparing said documents.
recommending the suspension from the practice of law of respondent for a period of six months - Respondent had sworn(oath) to uphold the Constitution.
for her flouting resistance to lawful orders of the Court and illustrating her deficiency of her oath
of office as a lawyer. 15. Castaneda vs Ago

ISSUE: NATURE:
Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals
FACTS:
1955 Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against Ago in the CFI of Manila to recover
certain machineries.
1957 Judgment in favor of Castaneda and Henson
1961 SC affirmed the judgment; trial court issued writ of execution; Agos motion denied, levy
was made on Agos house and lots; sheriff advertised the sale. Ago moved to stop the auction; CA
dismissed the petition; SC affirmed dismissal
Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary injunction to restrain sheriff from enforcing the
writ of execution; his motions were denied
1963 sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda and Henson; Ago failed to redeem
1964 sheriff executed final deed of sale; CFI issued writ of possession to the properties
1964 Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered against him in the replevin suit saying it
was his personal obligation and that his wife share in their conjugal house could not legally be
reached by the levy made; CFI of QC issued writ of preliminary injunction restraining Castaneda
the Registry of Deeds and the sheriff from registering the final deed of sale; the battle on the
matter of lifting and restoring the restraining order continued
1966 Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin sheriff from enforcing writ of
possession; SC dismissed it; Agos filed a similar petition with the CA which also dismissed the
petition; Agos appealed to SC which dismissed the petition
Agos filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA which gave due course to the
petition and granted preliminary injunction.
ISSUE:
WON the Agos lawyer, encourage his clients to avoid controversy
HELD:
No. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the annulment of the sheriffs sale,
justice demands that the petitioners, long denied the fruits of their victory in the replevin suit, must
now enjoy them, for, the respondents Agos abetted by their lawyer Atty. Luison, have misused
legal remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of the judgment, to the
extended prejudice of the petitioners.
Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted position as an officer of the
court, Atty. Luison has allowed himself to become an instigator of controversy and a predator of
conflict instead of mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, a virtuoso of
technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and
moral justice.
1. Brion vs. Brillantes Jr. Admin Case No. 5305, March 17 2003
11. Lizaso vs. Amante AC No. 2019, June 8, 1981
13. Reyes vs. Gaa AM No. 1048, July 14, 1995