ONG vs.

DELOS SANTOS
AC 10179 March 14, 2014

FACTS:
Benjamin Ong was introduced to Atty. William Delos Santos by Sheriff Fernando Mercado. After several
calls and personal interactions between them, Ong and Atty. Delos Santos became friends. In time,
according to Ong, Atty. Delos Santos asked him to encash his postdated check inasmuch as he was in dire
need of cash. To reassure Ong that the check would be funded upon maturity, Atty. Delos Santos bragged
about his lucrative practice and his good paying clients. Convinced of Atty. Delos Santos financial stability,
Ong handed to Atty. Delos Santos the amount of P100,000.00 in exchange for the latters Metrobank
check postdated February 29, 2008. However, the check was dishonored upon presentment for the reason
that the account was closed. Ong relayed the matter of the dishonor to Atty. Delos Santos, and demanded
immediate payment, but the latter just ignored him. When efforts to collect remained futile, Ong brought
a criminal complaint for estafa and for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Atty. Delos Santos. Ong
also brought this disbarment complaint against Atty. Delos Santos in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

The IBP Commissioner recommended that Atty. Delos Santos be held liable for violating Canon 1, Rule
1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Delos Santos violated the aforementioned Canons.

HELD:
YES. Every lawyer is an officer of the Court. He has the duty and responsibility to maintain his good moral
character. In this regard, good moral character is not only a condition precedent relating to his admission
into the practice of law, but is a continuing imposition in order for him to maintain his membership in the
Philippine Bar.

Being a lawyer, Atty. Delos Santos was well aware of the objectives and coverage of Batas Pambansa Blg.
22. If he did not, he was nonetheless presumed to know them, for the law was penal in character and
application. His issuance of the unfunded check involved herein knowingly violated Batas Pambansa Blg.
22, and exhibited his indifference towards the pernicious effect of his illegal act to public interest and
public order. He thereby swept aside his Lawyers Oath that enjoined him to support the Constitution and
obey the laws. He also took for granted the express commands of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03.

Atty. Delos Santos should always be mindful of his duty to uphold the law and to be circumspect in all his
dealings with the public. Any transgression of this duty on his part would not only diminish his reputation
as a lawyer but would also erode the publics faith in the Legal Profession as a whole. His assuring Ong
that he was in good financial standing because of his lucrative law practice when the contrary was true
manifested his intent to mislead the latter into giving a substantial amount in exchange for his worthless
postdated check. Such actuation did not speak well of him as a member of the Bar.
 MADRID vs. DEALCA
AC 7474 September 9, 2014

FACTS:
On February 7, 2007, Atty. Juan S. Dealca entered his appearance in a Criminal Case, entitled "People of
the Philippines v. Philip William Arsenault" then pending in Branch 51 of the RTC in Sorsogon City, presided
by complainant Judge Jose L. Madrid. Atty. Dealca sought to replace Atty. Vicente Judar who had filed a
motion to withdraw as counsel for the accused. But aside from entering his appearance as counsel for the
accused, Atty. Dealca also moved that the Criminal Case be re-raffled to another Branch of the RTC
"considering the adverse incidents between the incumbent Presiding Judge and the undersigned," where"
he does not appear before the incumbent Presiding Judge, and the latter does not also hear cases handled
by the undersigned."

Judge Madrid denied Atty. Dealcas motion to re-raffle through an order stating that the Court will not
allow that a case be removed from it just because of the personal sentiments of counsel who was not
even the original counsel of the litigant.

Consequently, Judge Madrid filed a letter complaint in the Office of the Bar Confidant citing Atty. Dealcas
unethical practice of entering his appearance and then moving for the inhibition of the presiding judge on
the pretext of previous adverse incidents between them.

There were 4 cases precipitated by the adverse ruling rendered by the court against the clients of the
respondent that instead of resorting to the remedies available under the Rules of Procedure, respondent
assisted his clients in filing administrative and criminal case against the judges and personnel of the court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Dealca violated the Lawyers Oath.

HELD:
YES. Although the Court always admires members of the Bar who are imbued with a high sense of vigilance
to weed out from the Judiciary the undesirable judges and inefficient or undeserving court personnel, any
acts taken in that direction should be unsullied by any taint of insincerity or self interest. The noble cause
of cleansing the ranks of the Judiciary is not advanced otherwise. It is for that reason that Atty. Dealcas
complaint against Judge Madrid has failed our judicious scrutiny, for the Court cannot find any trace of
idealism or altruism in the motivations for initiating it. Instead, Atty. Dealca exhibited his proclivity for
vindictiveness and penchant for harassment, considering that, as IBP Commissioner Hababag pointed out,
his bringing of charges against judges, court personnel and even his colleagues in the Law Profession had
all stemmed from decisions or rulings being adverse to his clients or his side. He well knew, therefore,
that he was thereby crossing the line of propriety, because neither vindictiveness nor harassment could
be a substitute for resorting tothe appropriate legal remedies. He should now be reminded that the aim
of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass them.

The Lawyers Oath is a source of obligations and duties for every lawyer, and any violation thereof by an
attorney constitutes a ground for disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary action. The oath exhorts
upon the members of the Bar not to "wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit." These are not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld
and keep inviolable.
 SALABAO vs. VILLARUEL, JR.
AC 8084 August 24, 2015

FACTS:
In 2002, the RTC Branch 162 issued a resolution in favor of Patrocinia Salabao. In order to delay the case,
Respondent brought the case on appeal to the CA. The CA decided in her favor on January 13, 2004 but
Respondent again filed an appeal before the SC. Lumberio lost and the case became final and executory.

Undeterred, respondent tried to defer the execution of the decision of the RTC, Branch 162, by bringing
to the CA a Petition for Annulment of Judgment. When rebuffed, he again appealed to the SC sans a clear
or new arguments other than what he had presented before the Court of Appeals.

Still, Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari seeking to annul the Order of the RTC before the CA which
was however dismissed. Once again he filed a new complaint before the RTC of Mauban, Quezon, Branch
64. Apart from this, Respondent filed several Motion, Inhibition and Contempt cases that were meant to
delay the resolution of the case. He likewise filed an administrative case against Judge Briccio Ygaa of
RTC Branch 153, Taguig City. Complainant then complained that Respondent had done more than enough
to suppress her rights as a winning litigant and filed this case for abuse of processes.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Villaruel abused court processes.

HELD:
YES. While it is true that lawyers owe "entire devotion" to the cause of their clients, it cannot be
emphasized enough that their first and primary duty is "not to the client but to the administration of
justice." Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "A lawyer shall exert every effort
and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice." Thus, in the use of
Court processes, the lawyer's zeal to win must be tempered by the paramount consideration that justice
be done to all parties involved, and the a lawyer for the losing party should not stand in the way of the
execution of a valid judgment. This is a fundamental principle in legal ethics and professional responsibility
that has iterations in various forms:

The Lawyer's Oath:

x x x I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor
consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my
clients x x x

Rule 138, Section 20, Rules of Court:

Duties of attorneys. - It is the duty of an attorney: xxxx

(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses
only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law;

(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay
any man's cause, from any corrupt motive or interest.
 VIZCONDE vs. VERANO, JR.
AC 8108 July 15, 2014

FACTS:
Because of the failure of Prosecutor John R. Resado to ask clarificatory questions during the evaluation of
the case of Brodett and Tecson involving drugs (Alabang Boys), several media outlets reported on
incidents of bribery and "cover-up" allegedly prevalent in investigations of the drug trade. This prompted
the House Committee on Illegal Drugs to conduct its own congressional hearings. It was revealed during
one such hearing that respondent had prepared the release order for his three clients using the letterhead
of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the stationery of then Secretary Raul Gonzales.

Jimenez and Vizconde, in their capacity as founders of Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC),
sent a letter of complaint to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. They stated that respondent had admitted to
drafting the release order, and had thereby committed a highly irregular and unethical act. They argued
that respondent had no authority to use the DOJ letterhead and should be penalized for acts unbecoming
a member of the bar.

Respondent admits that perhaps he was overzealous; yet, "if the Secretary of Justice approves it, then
everything may be expedited." In any case, respondent continues, the drafted release order was not
signed by the Secretary and therefore remained "a mere scrap of paper with no effect at all."

ISSUE:
Whether or not Verano is administratively liable.

HELD:
YES. Canon 13, the provision applied by the Investigating Commissioner, states that "a lawyer shall rely
upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the
appearance of influencing the court." We believe that other provisions in the Code of Professional
Responsibility likewise prohibit acts of influence-peddling not limited to the regular courts, but even in all
other venues in the justice sector, where respect for the rule of law is at all times demanded from a
member of the bar.

The way respondent conducted himself manifested a clear intent to gain special treatment and
consideration from a government agency. This is precisely the type of improper behavior sought to be
regulated by the codified norms for the bar. Respondent is duty-bound to actively avoid any act that tends
to influence, or may be seen to influence, the outcome of an ongoing case, lest the peoples faith in the
judicial process is diluted.

The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration of justice. To that end, their
clients success is wholly subordinate. The conduct of a member of the bar ought to and must always be
scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted
to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his clients cause, is condemnable and unethical.
 FOSTER vs. AGTANG
AC 10579 December 10, 2014

FACTS:
In 2009, Erlinda Foster engaged the services of Atty. Jaime Agtang in a realty dispute in Ilocos Norte.
Agtangs acceptance fee was P20,000.00 plus P5,000.00 for incidental expenses.

For the case, Agtang collected P150,000.00 from Foster as filing fee. He also advised Foster to shell out a
total of P50,000.00 for them to bribe the judge and get a favorable decision. Although reluctant, Foster
gave in to Agtangs demands.

On various occasions, Agtang borrowed money from Foster for his personal use, i.e., car repair. Such loan
amounted to P122,000.00. Foster, being prudent, asked for receipts for all funds she handed over to
Agtang.

Later however, Foster learned that she lost the case due to Agtangs negligence and incompetence in
drafting the complaint. She also found out that the filing fee therefor was only P22,410 (not P150k).
Further, it turned out that Agtang was once the lawyer of the opposing party. When she asked Agtang to
return her the balance, the said lawyer failed to do so hence, she filed an administrative complaint.

The IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) eventually ordered Agtang to return the balance of the filing fee
(P127,590.00) as well as the money he borrowed from Foster (P122,000.00). It was also recommended
that Agtang be suspended for three months only.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Agtang violated the CPR.

HELD:
YES. The recommended penalty of 3 months suspension is too light. Agtang was disbarred by the Supreme
Court.

Rule 1.0, Canon 1 of the CPR, provides that [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct. It is well-established that a lawyers conduct is not confined to the performance
of his professional duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional
or private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.

In this case, respondent is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct, both in his professional
and private capacity. As a lawyer, he clearly misled complainant into believing that the filing fees for her
case were worth more than the prescribed amount in the rules, due to feigned reasons such as the high
value of the land involved and the extra expenses to be incurred by court employees.

The act of demanding a sum of money from his client, purportedly to be used as a bribe to ensure a
positive outcome of a case, is not only an abuse of his clients trust but an overt act of undermining the
trust and faith of the public in the legal profession and the entire Judiciary. This is the height of indecency.
As officers of the court, lawyers owe their utmost fidelity to public service and the administration of
justice. In no way should a lawyer indulge in any act that would damage the image of judges, lest the
publics perception of the dispensation of justice be overshadowed by iniquitous doubts.
 AGOT vs. RIVERA
AC 8000 August 5, 2014

FACTS:
Complainant alleged that she was invited as maid of honor in her best friends wedding at the United
States of America. To facilitate the issuance of her US visa, complainant sought the services of respondent
who represented himself as an immigration lawyer. Thus, they entered into a Contract of Legal Services
(Contract), whereby respondent undertook to facilitate and secure the release of a US immigrant visa in
complainants favor prior to the scheduled wedding. In consideration therefor, complainant paid
respondent the amount of P350,000.00 as downpayment and undertook to pay the balance of
P350,000.00 after the issuance of the US visa.

The parties likewise stipulated that should complainants visa application be denied for any reason other
than her absence on the day of the interview and/or for records of criminal conviction and/or any court-
issued hold departure order, respondent is obligated to return the said downpayment. However,
respondent failed to perform his undertaking within the agreed period. Worse, complainant was not even
scheduled for interview in the US Embassy. As the demand for refund of the downpayment was not
heeded, complainant filed a criminal complaint for estafa and the instant administrative complaint.

Respondent claimed that his failure to comply with his obligation under the Contract was due to the false
pretenses of a certain Rico Pineda (Pineda), who he had believed to be a consul for the US Embassy and
to whom he delivered the amount given by the complainant. Respondent claimed that Pineda reneged on
his commitments and could no longer be located but, nonetheless, assumed the responsibility to return
the said amount to complainant.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Rivera violated the CPR.

Ruling:
YES. Respondent misrepresented himself as an immigration lawyer, which resulted to complainant
seeking his assistance to facilitate the issuance of her US visa and paying him the amount of P350,000.00
as downpayment for his legal services. In truth, however, respondent has no specialization in immigration
law but merely had a contact allegedly with Pineda, a purported US consul, who supposedly processes US
visa applications for him.

Under Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound
to serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such clients cause with diligence, care, and devotion
whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed upon him. Therefore, a lawyers neglect of a legal matter entrusted to
him by his client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable, as
in this case.

Verily, the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer a
great fidelity and good faith. The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the
duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client. Thus, a lawyers
failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client, as in this case, gives rise to
the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in
him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics.
 RE: VIOLATION OF RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE
A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015

FACTS:
Complainants alleged that Atty. Siapno was performing notarial acts and practices in Lingayen, Natividad
and Dagupan City without the requisite notarial commission. They asserted that Atty. Siapno was never
commissioned as Notary Public for and within the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City.
Instead, he applied and was commissioned to perform notarial functions in San Carlos City, Pangasinan
from March 22, 2007 to December 31, 2008. His notarial commission, however, was never renewed upon
expiration. Complainants also averred that Atty. Siapno had delegated his notarial authority to his
secretaries, Mina Bautista (Bautista) and Mary Ann Arenas (Arenas), who wrote legal instruments and
signed the documents on his behalf.

The second letter-complaint was filed by Audy B. Espelita (Espelita) against Atty. Pedro L. Santos (Atty.
Santos). It alleged that in 2008, Espelita lost his drivers license and he executed an affidavit of loss which
was notarized by Atty. Santos. The said affidavit, however, was denied for authentication when presented
before the Notarial Section in Manila because Atty. Santos was not commissioned to perform notarial
commission within the City of Manila.

The third letter-complaint came from a concerned citizen reporting that a certain Atty. Evelyn had been
notarizing and signing documents for and on behalf of several lawyers.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there were violations of the Notarial Law.

HELD:
YES. Under the rule, only persons who are commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts within
the territorial jurisdiction of the court which granted the commission. Clearly, Atty. Siapno could not
perform notarial functions in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City of the Province of Pangasinan since
he was not commissioned in the said places to perform such act.

Time and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routine act. It
is invested with substantive public interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as
notaries public. It must be emphasized that the act of notarization by a notary public converts a private
document into a public document making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of
authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this
reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their
duties.

By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court, Atty. Siapno violated not
only his oath to obey the laws particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice but also Canons 1 and 7 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes all lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession,
at all times.

With respect to the complaints against Atty. Santos and a certain Atty. Evelyn, the Clerk of Court is ordered
to RE-DOCKET the same as separate administrative cases.
 CHU vs. GUICO, JR.
AC 10573 January 13, 2015

FACTS:
Chu retained Atty. Guico as counsel to handle the labor disputes involving his company, CVC San Lorenzo
Ruiz Corporation (CVC).

According to Chu, during a Christmas party held at Atty. Guicos residence, the lawyer asked him to
prepare P300,000 to be given to the NLRC Commissioner handling the appeal to insure a favorable
decision.

Atty. Guico told him to proceed to his office and to give the money to his assistant, Reynaldo (Nardo)
Manahan. Chu complied, and later on called Atty. Guico to confirm that he had delivered the money to
Nardo. Subsequently, Atty. Guico handed Chu a copy of an alleged draft decision of the NLRC in favor of
CVC. The draft decision was printed on the dorsal portion of used paper apparently emanating from the
office of Atty. Guico. On that occasion, the latter told Chu to raise another P300,000.00 to encourage the
NLRC Commissioner to issue the decision. Chu followed up on the status of the case several times but he
was just told to wait.

On January 19, 2009, the NLRC promulgated a decision adverse to CVC. Chu confronted Atty. Guico, who
in turn referred Chu to Nardo for the filing of a motion for reconsideration. After the denial of the motion
for reconsideration, Atty. Guico caused the preparation and filing of an appeal in the Court of Appeals.
Finally, Chu terminated Atty. Guico as legal counsel.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Guico violated the CPR.

HELD:
YES. Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the law in appearing to counsel Chu to raise the large sums
of money in order to obtain a favorable decision in the labor case. He thus violated the law against bribery
and corruption. He compounded his violation by actually using said illegality as his means of obtaining a
huge sum from the client that he soon appropriated for his own personal interest. His acts constituted
gross dishonesty and deceit, and were a flagrant breach of his ethical commitments under the Lawyers
Oath not to delay any man for money or malice; and under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility that forbade him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His
deviant conduct eroded the faith of the people in him as an individual lawyer as well as in the Legal
Profession as a whole. In doing so, he ceased to be a servant of the law.

Atty. Guico committed grave misconduct and disgraced the Legal Profession. Grave misconduct is
improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a
forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error
of judgment. There is no question that any gross misconduct by an attorney in his professional or private
capacity renders him unfit to manage the affairs of others, and is a ground for the imposition of the penalty
of suspension or disbarment, because good moral character is an essential qualification for the admission
of an attorney and for the continuance of such privilege.
 SOSA vs. MENDOZA
AC 8776 March 22, 2015

FACTS:
Ms. Sosa alleged that on July 28, 2006, she extended a loan of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00)
to Atty. Mendoza at an interest of twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) to be paid not later than
September 25, 2006. They agreed that a penalty or collection charge of ten percent (10%) per month shall
accrue in case of default. To ensure the payment of the obligation, Atty. Mendoza signed a promissory
note and issued a postdated check for P500,000.00.

Atty. Mendoza failed to comply with his obligation on due date. Upon demand to pay, he requested Ms.
Sosa not to deposit the postdated check. She acceded and deferred the deposit of the check based on
Atty. Mendozas promise that he would later pay. The check was subsequently returned/dishonored after
Ms. Sosa finally deposited it sometime in October 2006; it was Drawn Against Insufficient Funds.

In view of the repeated failure of Atty. Mendoza to pay, Ms. Sosa filed the complaint for disbarment or
suspension, charging Atty. Mendoza for violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Mendoza admitted in his Brief Comment the existence of the loan and that it is a valid obligation.
However, he alleged that he only received One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) from one Elenita
Cruz (Elenita), a friend of the complainant.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Mendoza is civilly liable.

HELD:
NO. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff
and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford
no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare.

The purpose of disbarment is mainly to determine the fitness of a lawyer to continue acting as an officer
of the court and as participant in the dispensation of justice. The purpose of disbarment is to protect the
courts and the public from the misconduct of the officers of the court and to ensure the administration of
justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and
trustworthy men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence.

In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to
be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. Our only concern is the determination of respondents
administrative liability. Our findings have no material bearing on other judicial action which the parties
may choose to file against each other. Furthermore, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers do not
involve a trial of an action, but rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers.
The only question for determination in these proceedings is whether or not the attorney is still fit to be
allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. Thus, this Court cannot rule on the issue of the amount of
money that should be returned to the complainant.
 PEREZ vs. CATINDIG
AC 5816 March 10, 2015

FACTS:
Dr. Perez and Atty. Catindig were schoolmates in UP in the mid-1960s. They met again in 1983 when
Catindig started to court Perez. Atty. Catindig admitted to Dr. Perez that he was already wed to Lily
Corazon Gomez (Gomez). Atty. Catindig however claimed that he only married Gomez because he got her
pregnant.

Sometime in 1984, Atty. Catindig and Gomez obtained a divorce decree from the Dominican Republic. Dr.
Perez claimed that Atty. Catindig assured her that the said divorce decree was lawful and valid and that
there was no longer any impediment to their marriage. Thus, on July 14, 1984, Atty. Catindig married Dr.
Perez in the State of Virginia in the USA. Their union was blessed with a child whom they named Tristan
Jegar Josef Frederic.

When Dr. Perez came to know that her marriage to Atty. Catindig is a nullity, she confronted Atty. Catindig
about it, the latter allegedly assured Dr. Perez that he would legalize their union once he obtains a
declaration of nullity of his marriage to Gomez under Philippine laws.

Sometime in 2001, Dr. Perez alleged that she received an anonymous letter in the mail informing her of
Atty. Catindigs scandalous affair with Atty. Baydo. In the same year, Atty. Catindig abandoned them.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Catindig committed gross immorality, which would warrant disbarment.

HELD:
YES. A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct showing any fault or deficiency in his
moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful,
flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable
members of the community. Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act,
or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or
revolting circumstances as to shock the communitys sense of decency. The Court makes these
distinctions, as the supreme penalty of disbarment arising from conduct requires grossly immoral, not
simply immoral, conduct.

Contracting a marriage during the subsistence of a previous one amounts to a grossly immoral conduct.
The facts gathered from the evidence adduced by the parties and, ironically, from Atty. Catindigs own
admission, indeed establish a pattern of conduct that is grossly immoral; it is not only corrupt and
unprincipled, but reprehensible to a high degree.

He knew that he was still validly married to Gomez; that he cannot marry anew unless his previous
marriage be properly declared a nullity. Otherwise, his subsequent marriage would be void. This
notwithstanding, he still married Dr. Perez. The foregoing circumstances seriously taint Atty. Catindigs
sense of social propriety and moral values. It is a blatant and purposeful disregard of our laws on marriage.
 ECRAELA vs. PANGALANGAN
AC 10676 September 8, 2015

FACTS:
Complainant and respondent were best friends and both graduated from the UP College of Law in 1990.
After passing the bar examinations and being admitted as members of the Bar in 1991, they were both
registered with the IBP Quezon City.

Respondent was formerly married to Sheila P. Jardiolin (Jardiolin) with whom he has three (3) children.
Complainant avers that while married to Jardiolin, respondent had a series (6) of adulterous and illicit
relations with married and unmarried women between the years 1990 to 2007.

Aside from these illicit affairs, complainant avers that sometime during the period of 1998 to 2000,
respondent sabotaged MIAA's case, and, in effect, that of the Philippine Government; that he attempted
to bribe then Solicitor Rolando Martin of the OSG in exchange for the latter's cooperation in the dismissal
of the cancellation proceedings in favor of KDC; that during the pendency of the Senate Inquiry concerning
rampant faking of land titles, respondent attempted to conceal the evidence; and that he abused his
authority as an educator, where respondent induced his male students to engage in "nocturnal
preoccupations" and entertained the romantic gestures of his female students in exchange for passing
grades.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Pangalangan should be disbarred.

HELD:
YES. The practice of law is a privilege given to those who possess and continue to possess the legal
qualifications for the profession. Good moral character is not only required for admission to the Bar, but
must also be retained in order to maintain one's good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity.

This Court has, in numerous occasions, revoked the licenses of lawyers who were proven to have not only
failed to retain good moral character in their professional and personal lives, but have also made a
mockery of the institution of marriage by maintaining illicit affairs.

As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen
to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the
community. A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous
relationships or keeping a mistress but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
creating the impression that he is flouting those moral standards.

In all, Atty. Pangalangan displayed deplorable arrogance by making a mockery out of the institution of
marriage, and taking advantage of his legal skills by attacking the Petition through technicalities and
refusing to participate in the proceedings. His actions showed that he lacked the degree of morality
required of him as a member of the bar, thus warranting the penalty of disbarment.
 ANGELES, JR. vs. BAGAY
AC 8103 December 3, 2014

FACTS:
This case stemmed from the letter, dated June 11, 2008, submitted by Atty. Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr., to Hon.
Remigio M. Escalada, Jr., (Executive Judge of the RTC of Bataan against Atty. Renato C. Bagay for his
alleged notarization of 18 documents at the time he was out of the country from March 13, 2008 to April
8, 2008.

These documents were endorsed to the Provincial Legal Office by the Provincial Treasurer who had
information that they were notarized while respondent was in Mexico. The letter contained the affidavits
of the persons who caused the documents to be notarized which showed a common statement that they
did not see respondent sign the documents himself and it was either the secretary who signed them or
the documents came out of the office already signed.

In his comment, respondent claimed that he was not aware that those were documents notarized using
his name while he was out of the country. Upon his own inquiry, he found out that the notarizations were
done by his secretary and without his knowledge and authority.

Atty. Abelita III, however, observed that respondents signature on his comment appeared to be strikingly
similar to the signatures in most of the attached documents which he admitted were notarized in his
absence by his office secretary. He admitted the fact that there were documents that were notarized
while he was abroad and his signature was affixed by his office secretary who was not aware of the import
of the act. Thus, by his own admission, it was established that by his negligence in employing an office
secretary who had access to his office, his notarial seal and records especially pertaining to his notarial
documents without the proper training.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the notarization of documents by the secretary of respondent while he was out of the
country constituted violations of the CPR.

HELD:
YES. Respondent violated Canon 9 of the CPR which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in
the unauthorized practice of law. Due to his negligence that allowed his secretary to sign on his behalf as
notary public, he allowed an unauthorized person to practice law. By leaving his office open despite his
absence in the country and with his secretary in charge, he virtually allowed his secretary to notarize
documents without any restraint.

Respondent also violated his obligation under Canon 7 of the CPR, which directs every lawyer to uphold
at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The people who came into his office while he
was away, were clueless as to the illegality of the activity being conducted therein. They expected that
their documents would be converted into public documents. Instead, they later found out that the
notarization of their documents was a mere sham and without any force and effect. By prejudicing the
persons whose documents were notarized by an unauthorized person, their faith in the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession was eroded.
 PITOGO vs. SUELLO
AC 10695 March 18, 2015

FACTS:
Crescenciano M. Pitogo (Pitogo) purchased a motorcycle from Emcor, Inc. However, Emcor, Inc. allegedly
failed to cause the registration of the motorcycle under his name. Pitogo, thus, filed a Civil Complaint
before the RTC against EMCOR, Inc.

The motorcycle was eventually registered in Pitogos name based on three (3) documents notarized by
respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello (Suello).

Pitogo obtained a copy of the 3 documents from LTO Cebu. On August 3, 2009, he went to Suellos office
to have them certified. Pitogo claims that when he called Suello the next day, the latter disowned the
documents. Suello instead ordered his secretary to give Pitogo a copy of his notarial register.

On September 10, 2009, Pitogo filed his Affidavit-Complaint against Suello. Pitogo alleges that there were
discrepancies between the 3 documents notarized by Suello and Suellos entries in his notarial register.

In his Position Paper, Suello explains that it was his secretary who certified Pitogos documents on August
3, 2009. Pitogo called Suello the next day to ask for a certification. When he advised Pitogo that he can
get it at his office after verifying the documents, Pitogo informed him that his secretary already certified
them as true copies. Suello told Pitogo that his secretary was not given such authority.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Suelo must be held administratively liable.

HELD:
YES. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with such substantial public
interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts
a private document into a public document, making that document admissible in evidence without further
proof of its authenticity. For this reason, notaries must observe with utmost care the basic requirements
in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of
conveyance would be undermined.

Hence, when respondent negligently failed to enter the details of the three (3) documents on his notarial
register, he cast doubt on the authenticity of complainants documents. He also cast doubt on the
credibility of the notarial register and the notarial process. He violated not only the Notarial Rules but
also the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to promote respect for law and legal
processes.

Respondent also appears to have committed a falsehood in the pleadings he submitted. In his Answer to
complainants Affidavit-Complaint, respondent claimed that he certified complainants documents as true
copies. Later, in his Position Paper, he passed the blame to his secretary. This violates the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in dishonest and unlawful conduct.
 UY vs. MAGHARI III
AC 10525 September 1, 2015

FACTS:
This Complaint charges respondent Atty. Pacifico M. Maghari, III (Maghari) with engaging in deceitful
conduct and violating the Lawyer's Oath. Specifically, Maghari is charged with the use of information that
is false and/or appropriated from other lawyers in signing certain pleadings.

There appears to have been conflicts between Wilson Uy and the other heirs of Jose Uy. In the course of
the proceedings, Wilson Uy prayed that a subpoena ad testificandum be issued to Magdalena Uy as she
was alleged to have been the treasurer of several businesses owned by Jose Uy. In its Order dated April
20, 2010, the Regional Trial Court granted Wilson Uy's Motion that a Subpoena ad Testificandum be issued
to Magdalena Uy.

Thereafter, Magdalena Uy, through Maghari, her counsel, filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena ad
Testificandum with Alternative Motion to Cite the Appearance of Johnny K.H. Uy.

Later on,, Wilson Uy's counsel noticed that based on the details indicated in the March 8, 2012 Motion,
Maghari appeared to have only recently passed the bar examinations. This prompted Wilson Uy to check
the records of Spec. Proc No. 97-241. Upon doing so, he learned that since 2010, Maghari had been
changing the professional details indicated in the pleadings he has signed and has been copying the
professional details of Atty. Natu-El.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Maghari III should be administratively liable.

HELD:
YES. Respondent did not merely commit errors in good faith. The truth is far from it. First, respondent
violated clear legal requirements, and indicated patently false information. Second, the way he did so
demonstrates that he did so knowingly. Third, he did so repeatedly. Before our eyes is a pattern of deceit.
Fourth, the information he used was shown to have been appropriated from another lawyer. Not only
was he deceitful; he was also larcenous. Fifth, his act not only of usurping another lawyer's details but
also of his repeatedly changing information from one pleading to another demonstrates the intent to
mock and ridicule courts and legal processes. Respondent toyed with the standards of legal practice.

Seven times, respondent took for himself professional details that belonged to another. In these seven
instances, he used the same swiped details in his own pleadings. So too, in these seven instances he
personally benefited. In these instances, respondent succeeded in making it appear that he filed valid
pleadings and avoided the fatal consequences of a deficiently signed pleading. He was able to pursue
reliefs in court and carry on litigation that could have been terminated as soon as his deficient pleadings
were recognized.

All these instances of falsity, dishonesty, and professional larceny are similarly acts of deceit. In using false
information taken from another, respondent misled courts, parties, and colleagues into believing that he
was faithfully, truthfully, and decently discharging his functions.
 AREOLA vs. MENDOZA
AC 10135 January 15, 2014

FACTS:
Petitioner alleged that on October 23, 2006, during Prisoners Week, Atty. Mendoza, visited the Antipolo
City Jail and called all detainees with pending cases before the RTC Branch 73, Antipolo City where she
was assigned, to attend her speech/lecture. Areola claimed that Atty. Mendoza stated the following
during her speech:
"O kayong may mga kasong drugs na may pangpiyansa o pang- areglo ay maging praktikal sana kayo kung
gusto ninyong makalaya agad. Upang makatiyak kayo na hindi masasayang ang pera ninyo ay sa akin ninyo
ibigay o ng kamag-anak ninyo ang pera at ako na ang bahalang maglagay kay Judge Martin at Fiscal banqui;
at kayong mga detenidong mga babae na no bail ang kaso sa drugs, iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin
at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon."

Atty. Mendoza asseverated that the filing of the administrative complaint against her is a harassment
tactic by Areola as the latter had also filed several administrative cases against judges in the courts of
Antipolo City including the jail warden of Taytay, Rizal where Areola was previously detained. These
actuations show that Areola has a penchant for filing various charges against anybody who does not
accede to his demand. Atty. Mendoza contended that Areola is not a lawyer but represented himself to
his co-detainees as one.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Mendoza shall be held administratively liable for violation of the CPR.

HELD:
YES. Atty. Mendoza made irresponsible advices to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. It is the mandate of Rule 1.02 that "a lawyer shall not counsel or
abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system." Rule 15.07
states that "a lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness."

Atty. Mendozas improper advice only lessens the confidence of the public in our legal system. Judges
must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or factors according to the
merits of a case. Atty. Mendozas careless remark is uncalled for.

It must be remembered that a lawyers duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To
that end, his clients success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously
observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the
lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his clients cause, is condemnable and unethical.
 HECK vs. GAMOTIN, JR.
AC 5329

FACTS:
Heck claimed that on September 11, 2000, the respondent scheduled a meeting at his office to be
attended by Heck, his lawyer, his wife and Atty. Adaza. However, Atty. Adaza did not attend the meeting.
Heck alleged, however, that Atty. Adaza and the respondent held their own separate "private meeting,"
for which reason Heck questioned the propriety of the private meeting and the possibility of connivance
between the respondent and Atty. Adaza, and that the latter was suspended and should not have been
entertained. He also contended that Gamotin, Jr. acted arrogantly by kicking a chair, slamming the door
and screaming at him.

In his response to the charge of Heck, the respondent averred, among others, that: he had no personal
knowledge of Atty. Adazas suspension, because such information had not been properly disseminated to
the public offices; the September 11, 2000 meeting had not been arranged by him, but by Hecks counsel
in order to discuss the possibility of settlement; hence, he did not take part in the meeting; he did not
display any act of violence; that the September 14, 2000 meeting was between the parties counsels to
discuss ways to settle their cases, and Heck was the one who did not agree to the suggestion of
withdrawing the cases; it was Heck who acted arrogantly when he challenged the respondents authority
in allowing Atty. Adaza to appear in court despite his suspension; and that when Heck uttered the words:
I will not believe the authorities of the Philippines, he slightly raised his voice to respond: If you will not
believe the authorities of the Philippines, you have no place in this country, you can go home.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Gamotin Jr., should be suspended.

HELD:
NO. A lawyer like the respondent is not to be sanctioned for every perceived misconduct or wrong
actuation. He is still to be presumed innocent of wrongdoing until the proof arrayed against him
establishes otherwise. It is the burden of the complainant to properly show that the assailed conduct or
actuation constituted a breach of the norms of professional conduct and legal ethics.

To begin with, the holding of the meeting between Atty. Babarin, Hecks counsel, and Atty. Adaza in the
respondents office was not suspicious or irregular, contrary to the insinuation of Heck. We are not
unmindful of the practice of some legal practitioners to arrange to meet with their opposing counsels and
their clients in the premises of the offices of the public prosecutors or in the courthouses primarily
because such premises are either a convenient or a neutral ground for both sides.

Secondly, we cannot sanction the respondent for having angrily reacted to Hecks unexpected tirade in
his presence. The respondent was not then reacting to an attack on his person, but to Hecks disrespectful
remark against Philippine authorities in general. Any self-respecting government official like the
respondent should feel justly affronted by any expression or show of disrespect in his presence, including
harsh words like those uttered by Heck.

Lastly, Heck complains that the respondent still entertained Atty. Adaza despite the latter having been
already suspended from the practice of law. The respondent explains, however, that he "had no personal
knowledge of Atty. Adazas suspension and that such information was not properly disseminated to the
proper offices."
 SISON, JR. vs. CAMACHO
AC 10910 January 19, 2016

FACTS:
On March 4, 2011, Atty. Camacho met with Atty. Enrique Dimaano, corporate secretary of MDAHI, and
proposed to increase their claim to P64,412,534.18 by taking into account the interests imposed. Atty.
Camacho, however, clarified that the increase in the claim would require additional docket fees in the
amount of P1,288,260.00. MDAHI agreed and granted the said amount to Atty. Dimaano.

Atty. Sison later discovered that on May 26, 2011, the RTC had already rendered a decision in favor of
MDAHI granting its insurance claim plus interests in the amount of approximately P65,000,000.00. On
August 11, 2011, Atty. Camacho sent a letter to MDAHI recommending a settlement with Paramount
Insurance in the civil case in the amount of PI5,000,000.00 allegedly to prevent a protracted appeal with
the appellate court. MDAHI refused the offer of compromise but, even without the written conformity of
MDAHI, Atty. Camacho filed the Satisfaction of Judgment before the RTC stating that the parties had
entered into a compromise agreement. Thus a case was filed against him.

In his verified answer, dated October 30, 2012, Atty. Camacho denied all the allegations against him. He
stressed that he had the authority to enter into the compromise agreement. Moreover, the alleged docket
fees given to him by MDAHI formed part of his attorney's fees.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Camacho violated the CPR.

HELD:
YES. Those in the legal profession must always conduct themselves with honesty and integrity in all their
dealings. Members of the Bar took their oath to conduct themselves according to the best of their
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients and to delay no man
for money or malice. These mandates apply especially to dealings of lawyers with their clients considering
the highly fiduciary nature of their relationship.

For entering into a compromise agreement without the written authority of his client, Atty. Camacho
violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR, which states that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct." Members of the Bar must always conduct themselves in a way that
promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.

Atty. Camacho indeed violated Rule 16.01 of the CPR. When Atty. Camacho personally requested MDAHI
for additional docket fees, the latter obediently granted the amount of P1,288,260.00 to the former.
Certainly, it was understood that such amount was necessary for the payment of supposed additional
docket fees in Civil Case No. 05-655. Yet, when Atty. Sison confronted Atty. Camacho regarding the said
amount, the latter replied that he simply gave it to the clerk of court as the payment period had lapsed.
Whether the said amount was pocketed by him or improperly given to the clerk of court as a form of
bribery, it was unmistakably clear that Atty. Camacho did not apply the amount given to him by his client
for its intended legal purpose.