GARRIDO vs.

GARRIDO

Facts:
The petitioner, the respondents legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a supplemental affidavit for
disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana P.Valencia before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Discipline, charging them with gross immorality,
in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint
arose after the petitioner caught wind through her daughter that her husband was having an affair
with a woman other than his wife and already had a child with her; and the same
information was confirmed when one of her daughters saw that her husband walking in a
Robinsons mall with the other respondent, Atty. Valencia, with their child in
tow. After a much further investigation into the matter, the time and effort given yielded resultstelling
her that Atty. Valencia and her legal husband had been married in Hong Kong. Moreover, on June
1993, her husband left their conjugal home and joined Atty. Ramona Paguida Valencia at their
residence, and has since failed to render much needed financial support. In their defense, they
postulated that they were not lawyers as of yet when they committed the supposed immorality, so
as such, they were not guilty of a violation of Canon1, Rule 1.01.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Garridos and Valencias actions constitute a violation of Canon 1,
Rule1.01 and thus a good enough cause for their disbarment, despite the offense being supposedly
committed when they were not lawyers.

Held: Yes. Membership in the Bar is a privilege, and as a privilege bestowed by law through
the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be withdrawn where circumstances show the
lawyers lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers, be they academic or moral. In the
present case, the Court had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty. Angel E.Garrido and Atty.
Rowena P. Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which commands that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Furthermore, The contention of respondent that they were
not yet lawyers when they got married shall not afford them exemption from sanctions; good
moral character was already required as a condition precedent to admission to the
Bar. As a lawyer, a person whom the community looked up to, Atty. Garrido and Valencia wereshould
ered with the expectation that they would set a good example in promoting obedience to the
Constitution and the laws. When they violated the law and distorted it to cater to his own personal
needs and selfish motives, not only did their actions discredit the legal profession. Such actions by
themselves, without even including the fact of Garridos abandonment of paternal responsibility, to
the detriment of his children by the petitioner; or the fact that Valencia married Garrido despite
knowing of his other marriages to two other women including the petitioner, are clear indications of a
lack of moral values not consistent with the proper conduct of practicing lawyers within the country.
As such, their disbarment is affirmed.

MARY MALECDAN vs. PEKAS and KOLLINA.C. No. 5830. January 26, 2004

Facts: Atty Pekas and Kollin substituted Atty. Bustamante as a counsels for the Fanged Spouses.
Petitioner Malecdan bought a parcel of land located in Baguio City from the Fanged spouses. The
money was received by Eliza Fanged and deposited in the account of Atty. Artemio Bustamante, then
counsel for the latter. The complainant later found out, however, that the said lot was the subject of a
controversy between the former owners and the Fanged Spouses. Then Kollin replaced Bustamante.
He filed for a petition for rescission over the contract of sale, without returning the amount of money
to Malecdan. While Malecdan was in the US, the Fanged spouses, Atty Bustamante and the PCIB
(bank) signed a compromised contract, and Malecdan was not made a signatory to such contract. They
caused the transfer of P30K from the account of Bustamante to a separate account for Kollin and
Pekas as attorneys fees. Now, Malecdan files a case for disbarment against Kollin and Pekas, because
not only was she prejudiced from such withdrawal of money, but they also committed acts against the
IBP in contravention/violation to the lawyers oath that they shall uphold the laws of the land.

Issue: WON Kollin and Pekas should be suspended?

Held: YES. It is a settled principle that the compensation of a lawyer should be but a mere incident of
the practice of law, the primary purpose of which is to render public service. The practice of law is a
profession and not a money-making trade. The process of imbibing ethical standards can begin with
the simple act of openness and candor in dealing with clients, which would progress thereafter
towards the ideal that a lawyers vocation is not synonymous with an ordinary business proposition
but a serious matter of public interest.

DECISION: Pekas suspended for 6 months, Kollin for 3 years.

Overgaard vsValdez A.C. 7902 03/31/2009

FACTS OF THE CASE

Key points:

*Refusal of Valdez to perform his obligations under his contract with Overgaard despite the legal fees
amounting to P900,000.00 he received which is stipulated in a Retainer Agreement
*Failure to answer the complaint filed against him or attend the hearing despite the due notice issued
to him
*Failure to Notify his client about the status of the cases entrusted to him and his failure to return the
money paid to him
*Failure to present a receipt for the two intelligence operatives whom he paid P300,000.00
and failure to present certification or receipts on how the money was spent to provide sufficient
accounting
In September 30, 2008 the court held that respondent Valdez committed multiple violations of the
Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility and he was disbarred. Hence, the filing of the
motion for reconsideration by the respondent

Issue: Whether or not Valdez committed multiple violations on the Code of Professional
Responsibility and thus his disbarment should be sustained

Ruling: The disbarment of Valdez should be upheld.

Canon 16: A lawyer shall hold in trust all money and properties of his client that may come into his
possession. It is a lawyer's duty to properly account for the money he received from his client. (Rule
16.01) The Court finds that Atty. Valdez has committed multiple violations on the canons of the Code
of Professional Responsibility because he did not observe the fundamental duties of honesty and good
faith. (Canon 1, Rule 1.01; Canon 15; Canon17; Canon 18 Rule 18.03;Canon 16 Rule 16.01) The
Court also emphasized that the PRACTICE OF LAW IS NOT A RIGHT, BUT A PRIVILEGE. It is
granted only to those of good moral character. The Bar must maintain a high standard of honesty and
fair dealing.
Ruling
Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their
clients or the public at large, and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession
justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.
Ruling
The motion For reconsideration filed by the respondent was denied and the court sustained its
decision on the A.C. 7902 dated September 30, 2008 because respondent has proven himself
unworthy of membership in this noble profession.

A.C. No. 10134 November 26, 2014

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COURT EMPLOYEES (PACE), represented by its President,

ATTY. VIRGINIA C. RAFAEL, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. EDNA M. ALIBUTDAN-DIAZ, Respondent.

FACTS:

This resolves the complaint for suspension or disbarment filed by the Philippine Association of
Court Employees (PACE) through its president, Atty. Virginia C. Rafael (Atty. Rafael), on July 17,
2008 against Atty. Edna M. Alibutdan-Diaz (Atty. Diaz), former National Treasurer of PACE,
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). 1

PACE, the umbrella association of 1st and 2nd level court employees in the Judiciary held its
11th National Convention/Seminar in Davao City from October 6 to 8, 2005. As then National
Treasurer of PACE, Atty. Diaz was entrusted with all the money matters of PACE.

The complainant alleged that the liquidation for the 11th PACE national convention was
submitted by Atty. Diaz only on March 29, 2007, during the 12th PACE national convention in
Iloilo City ; that during the 12th convention, an election of officers was conducted and Atty. Diaz
2

ran for the position of National Treasurer, but she was not elected; that on the last day of the
convention or on March 31, 2007,the outgoing Board of Directors, including Atty. Diaz, passed
and approved Resolution No. 1-2007 appropriating the amount of 30,000.00as term-end bonus
for each PACE official qualified thereto; that Atty. Diaz did not submit a liquidation report for the
12th convention; that there was no turn over of monies belonging to the association as a matter
of procedure despite a letter of demand, dated June 20, 2007 sent to Atty. Diaz; and that the
3

new set of PACE officers issued Board Resolution No. 00-07 directing past president, Rosita D.
Amizola; and past treasurer, Atty. Diaz, to explain why they failed to liquidate the finances of
PACE for the Davao and Iloilo conventions. 4

In his Report and Recommendation, IBP Commissioner Fernandez recommended the dismissal
of the case against Atty. Diaz for lack of merit. Atty. Diaz offered documentary evidence to show
that she was able to submit the liquidation reports for the two aforementioned conventions of
PACE. Also, Commissioner Fernandez did not consider the position of Atty. Diaz as national
treasurer of PACE to have any connection with her being as a lawyer. Thus, according to him,
she should be sanctioned in accordance with the by-laws of PACE instead of a disbarment
case. IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) passed a resolution adopting and approving the
11

report and recommendation of Commissioner Fernandez, and dismissed the complaint against
Atty. Diaz. 15

ISSUE: WON atty. Diaz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: Yes.

Everyone should keep in mind that the practice of law is only a privilege. It is definitely not a
right. Inorder to enjoy this privilege, one must show that he possesses, and continues to
possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.

One of those requirements is the observance of honesty and candor. Candor in all their dealings
is the very essence of a practitioner's honorable membership in the legal profession. Lawyers are
required to act with the highest standard of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the conduct of
litigation and in their relations with their clients, the opposing parties, the other counsels and the
courts. They are bound by their oath to speak the truth and to conduct themselves according to
the best of their knowledge and discretion, and with fidelity to the courts and their clients. Time
19

and again, the Court has held that the practice of law is granted only to those of good moral
character. The Bar maintains a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Thus, lawyers must
conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or
the public at large, and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the
imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment. 20

It bears stressing that Atty. Diaz is a servant of the law and belongs to that profession which
society entrusts with the administration of law and the dispensation of justice. For this, he or she
is an exemplar for others to emulate and should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. Necessarily, this Court has been exacting in its demand for integrity and good
moral character from members of the Bar. They are always expected to uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and to refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust
and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of this noble
profession.21

Atty. Diaz' delay in the liquidation of the finances of PACE; her running for re-election, including
her non-admission that she ran for said election as shown not by her certificate of candidacy but
by the affidavits of former PACE officers; and her involvement in the approval or passage of the
questioned term-end bonus of PACE officers, including herself even though she was no longer
working in the Judiciary, were definitely not the candor the Court speaks of. There was much to
be desired in Atty. Diaz' actions/ inactions.

DECISION: Atty. Edna M. Alibutdan-Diaz is found GUILTY of violating Chapter 1, Canon 1, Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of three (3) months.

Herminio Noriega vs Atty. Emmanuel Sison

FACTS: In 1981, Noriega filed a disbarment case against Sison. Noriega alleged that Sison as a
hearing officer of the Securities and Exchange Commission is not allowed to engage in the private
practice of law; yet Noriega alleged that Sison has created another identity under the name Manuel
Sison in order for him to engage in private practice and represent one Juan Sacquing before a trial
court in Manila.

Sison, in his defense, argued that he is in fact representing Juan Sacquing but the same is with the
permission of the SEC Commissioner; that he never held himself out to the public as a practicing
lawyer; that he provided legal services to Sacquing in view of close family friendship and for free;
that he never represented himself deliberately and intentionally as Atty. Manuel Sison in the Manila
JDRC where, in the early stages of his appearance, he always signed the minutes as Atty. Emmanuel
R. Sison, and in one instance, he even made the necessary correction when the court staff wrote his
name as Atty. Manuel Sison; that due to the inept and careless work of the clerical staff of the
JDRC, notices were sent to Atty. Manuel Sison,

ISSUE: Whether or not the disbarment case should prosper.

HELD: No. The arguments of presented by Sison is well merited and backed by evidence. The
allegations in the complaint do not warrant disbarment of the Sison. There is no evidence that Sison
has committed an act constituting deceit, immoral conduct, violation of his oath as a lawyer, willful
disobedience of any lawful order of the court, or corruptly and willfully appearing as an attorney to a
part to a case without attorney to do so. His isolated appearance for Sacquing does not constitute
private practice of law, more so since Sison did not derive any pecuniary gain for his appearance
because Sison and Sacquing were close family friends. Such act of Sison in going out of his way to
aid as counsel to a close family friend should not be allowed to be used as an instrument of
harassment against him.

A.C. No. L-1117 March 20, 1944

THE DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS, complainant,

vs.
ESTANISLAO R. BAYOT, respondent.

FACTS:

The respondent, who is an attorney-at-law, is charged with malpractice for having published an
advertisement in the Sunday Tribune of June 13, 1943, which reads as follows:

Marriage

license promptly secured thru our assistance & the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if
desired, and marriage arranged to wishes of parties. Consultation on any matter free for the poor.
Everything confidential.

Legal assistance service

12 Escolta, Manila, Room, 105
Tel. 2-41-60.

Appearing in his own behalf, respondent at first denied having published the said advertisement;
but subsequently, thru his attorney, he admitted having caused its publication and prayed for "the
indulgence and mercy" of the Court, promising "not to repeat such professional misconduct in the
future and to abide himself to the strict ethical rules of the law profession." In further mitigation he
alleged that the said advertisement was published only once in the Tribune and that he never
had any case at law by reason thereof.

ISSUE: WON the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the respondent of
the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solicitation of business from the public. 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." It
is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his
wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who
stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to
the public. As a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice with mercenary activities as
the money-changers of old defiled the temple of Jehovah. "The most worth and effective
advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, . . . 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." (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)

In In re Tagorda, 53 Phil., the respondent attorney was suspended from the practice of law for
the period of one month for advertising his services and soliciting work from the public by writing
circular letters. That case, however, was more serious than this because there the solicitations
were repeatedly made and were more elaborate and insistent.

Considering his plea for leniency and his promise not to repeat the misconduct, the Court is of
the opinion and so decided that the respondent should be, as he hereby is, reprimanded.

July 30, 1979

PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM NAME "SYCIP, SALAZAR,
FELICIANO, HERNANDEZ & CASTILLO."

FACTS:

Two separate Petitions were filed before this Court 1) by the surviving partners of Atty. Alexander
Sycip, who died on May 5, 1975, and 2) 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.

ISSUE: WON the surviving partners may use the name of their died firm partners.

HELD: No.

A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships formed by other
professionals or for business. For one thing, the law on accountancy specifically allows the use
of a trade name in connection with the practice of accountancy. 10 t.hqw

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." 11 Thus, it has been stated that "the use of a nom de plume,
assumed or trade name in law practice is improper. 12

The usual reason given for different standards of conduct being applicable to the practice of law from
those pertaining to business is that the law is a profession.

Dean Pound, in his recently published contribution to the Survey of the Legal Profession, (The
Lawyer from Antiquity to Modern Times, p. 5) defines a profession as "a group of men pursuing a
learned art as a common calling in the spirit of public service, no less a public service because
it may incidentally be a means of livelihood."

xxx xxx xxx

Primary characteristics which distinguish the legal profession from business are:
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a byproduct, and in which one may attain
the highest eminence without making much money.

2. A relation as an "officer of court" to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity,

integrity, and reliability.

3. A relation to clients in the highest degree fiduciary.

4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to

resort to current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing
directly with their clients. 13

"The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is in the nature of a privilege or
franchise. 14 It is limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly
ascertained and certified. 15 The right does not only presuppose in its possessor integrity, legal
standing and attainment, but also the exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and partaking of
the nature of a public trust." 16

It is true that Canon 33 (of the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar
Association) does not consider as unethical the continued use of the name of a deceased or
former partner in the firm name of a law partnership when such a practice is permissible by local
custom but the Canon warns that care should be taken that no imposition or deception is
practiced through this use.

It must be conceded that in the Philippines, no local custom permits or allows the continued use
of a deceased or former partner's name in the firm names of law partnerships. Firm names,
under our custom, Identify the more active and/or more senior members or partners of the law
firm. A glimpse at the history of the firms of petitioners and of other law firms in this country would
show how their firm names have evolved and changed from time to time as the composition of
the partnership changed. t.hqw

The continued use of a firm name after the death of one or more of the partners designated by it
is proper only where sustained by local custom and not where by custom this purports to Identify
the active members. ...

There would seem to be a question, under the working of the Canon, as to the propriety of
adding the name of a new partner and at the same time retaining that of a deceased partner who
was never a partner with the new one. (H.S. Drinker, op. cit., supra, at pp. 207208) (Emphasis
supplied).

The possibility of deception upon the public, real or consequential, where the name of a
deceased partner continues to be used cannot be ruled out. A person in search of legal counsel
might be guided by the familiar ring of a distinguished name appearing in a firm title.

When the Supreme Court in the Deen and Perkins cases issued its Resolutions directing lawyers to
desist from including the names of deceased partners in their firm designation, it laid down a legal rule
against which no custom or practice to the contrary, even if proven, can prevail. This is not to speak of
our civil law which clearly ordains that a partnership is dissolved by the death of any
partner. 23 Custom which are contrary to law, public order or public policy shall not be countenanced. 24

The practice of law is intimately and peculiarly related to the administration of justice and should
not be considered like an ordinary "money-making trade." t.hqw

... It is of the essence of a profession that it is practiced in a spirit of public service. A trade ...
aims primarily at personal gain; a profession at the exercise of powers beneficial to mankind. If,
as in the era of wide free opportunity, we think of free competitive self assertion as the highest
good, lawyer and grocer and farmer may seem to be freely competing with their fellows in their
calling in order each to acquire as much of the world's good as he may within the allowed him by
law. But the member of a profession does not regard himself as in competition with his
professional brethren. He is not bartering his services as is the artisan nor exchanging the
products of his skill and learning as the farmer sells wheat or corn. There should be no such
thing as a lawyers' or physicians' strike. The best service of the professional man is often
rendered for no equivalent or for a trifling equivalent and it is his pride to do what he does in a
way worthy of his profession even if done with no expectation of reward, This spirit of public
service in which the profession of law is and ought to be exercised is a prerequisite of sound
administration of justice according to law. The other two elements of a profession, namely,
organization and pursuit of a learned art have their justification in that they secure and maintain
that spirit. 25

In fine, petitioners' desire to preserve the Identity of their firms in the eyes of the public must bow
to legal and ethical impediment.

ACCORDINGLY, the petitions filed herein are denied and petitioners advised to drop the names
"SYCIP" and "OZAETA" from their respective firm names. Those names may, however, be
included in the listing of individuals who have been partners in their firms indicating the years
during which they served as such.