PCGG vs Sandiganbayan, et al

G.R. Nos. 151809-12, April 12, 2005

Facts: On February 1991, Former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoz, who has currently resumed the
private practice of law, was sought to be disqualified by the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG) from representing the Lucio Tan group, in the 1987 case involving General Bank
and Trust Company (GENBANK). GENBANK was one of those properties subject to a writ of
sequestration by PCGG being allegedly one of the ill –gotten wealth acquired during the Marcos regime.
It was argued by the PCGG that there exists an adverse interest on Mendoza since he was the one who
filed a petition praying for assistance and supervision of the court in the liquidation of GENBANK, the
same bank that was subsequently owned by the Lucio Tan group after winning the bid, when he was still
the Solicitor General. PCGG invokes Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) which
prohibits former government lawyers from accepting “engagement or employment in connection with any
matter in which he had intervened while in said service.” The Sandiganbayan rejects the PCGG’s motion
by arguing that PCGG failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency between respondent Mendoza’s
former function as Solicitor General and his present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group and
that Mendoza’s appearance as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. was beyond the one-year prohibited
period under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 6713 since he ceased to be Solicitor General in the year
1986.

Issue: WON Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to respondent Mendoza

Ruling: No, The Supreme Court held that Rule 6.03 of the CPR is inapplicable in the case. The act of
Atty. Mendoza as Solicitor General in advising the Central Bank on how to proceed with the liquidation of
GENBANK is entirely different from the matter involved in the PCGG case against the lucio tan group.
Furthermore, the motion for disqualification should be dismissed since the intervention contemplated in
Rule 6.03 should be substantial and important whereas the role of Atty. Mendoza in the liquidation of
GENBANK is considered insubstantial and insignificant to warrant his disqualification. the petition filed
merely seeks the assistance of the court in the liquidation of GENBANK. The principal role of the court in
this type of proceedings is to assist the Central Bank in determining claims of creditors against the
GENBANK. It is worthy to note that in construing the words of such rule in this case, the Court balanced
the two policy considerations of having a chilling effect on government recruitment of able legal talent and
the use of former government employment as a litigation tactic to harass opposing counsel.
 Francia vs Abdon
A.C. No. 10031, July 23, 2014

Facts: Herein complainant, Raul M. Francia, filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Committee
on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) a verified complaint for the disbarment and imposition of other disciplinary
sanctions on Labor Arbiter Reynaldo V. Abdon, herein respondent, for violation of the lawyer’s oath and
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant alleged that he had a meeting with the respondent
to seek his assistance with respect to a pending case involving the labor union of Nueva Ecija III Electric
Cooperative (NEECO III). Respondent in this case, however, referred the complainant to his former client,
a certain Jaime “Jimmy” Vistan, who may be able to help him. Eventually, respondent called Vistan and
relayed to him the complainant’s predicament; after which, respondent handed the phone to the
complainant for further details. Thereafter, the complainant told respondent that he will be meeting Vistan
on the following day. Sometime thereafter, respondent received a call from Vistan who told him that he
was given Php 350,000 as facilitation fee. In January 2007, respondent was then informed by the
complainant of the agreement with Vistan wherein Vistan ensured a favorable decision for the union but
then failed to do his undertaking. Following this, complainant accused respondent of conspiring with
Vistan, which respondent denied. The complainant then asked for respondent’s help to recover the
money he gave to Vistan. However, when their efforts to locate Vistan failed, complainant began to
threaten respondent that he (complainant) would cause him (respondent) misery and pain should
respondent not return the money. On December 2007, respondent was surprised to receive a copy of the
complaint for disbarment filed by the complainant against him.

Issue: WON respondent Abdon should be disbarred for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

Ruling: No. The Supreme Court finds that complainant failed to adduce evidence to convincingly establish
that respondent engaged in unlawful and dishonest conduct, particularly in extortion and influence-
peddling. The respondent, however, is not entirely faultless. He has, nonetheless, engendered the
suspicion that he is engaged in an illegal deal when he introduced the complainant to Vistan. While
respondent did not receive any money from the complainant, the fact is that he has made himself
instrumental to Vistan’s illegal activity. In doing so, he has exposed the legal profession to undeserved
condemnation and invited suspicion on the integrity of the judiciary for which he must be imposed with a
disciplinary sanction. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that “a lawyers shall
at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.” Therefore, it is every lawyer’s duty to
maintain the high regard to the profession by staying true to his oath and keeping his actions beyond
reproach.
 Bunagan-Bansig vs Atty. Celera
A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014

Facts: This case involves a petition for disbarment by Complainant Bunagan-Bansig against Respondent
Atty. Celera for Gross Immoral Conduct. Complainant narrated that respondent and complainant’s sister,
Gracemarie R. Bunagan, entered into a contract of marriage. However, notwithstanding respondent’s
marriage with Bunagan, respondent contacted another marriage with a certain Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba.
Respondent Bansig stressed that the marriage between respondent and Bunagan was still valid and in
full legal existence when he contracted his second marriage with Alba, and that the first marriage had
never been annulled or rendered void by any lawful authority. Complainant alleged that respondent’s act
of contracting marriage with Alba, which his marriage is still subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral and
conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar, which renders him unfit to continue his membership in the
Bar.

Issue: WON respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer in the dispensation of justice

Ruling: No. The Supreme Court held in the instant case that there is a preponderance of evidence that
respondent contracted a second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage. Respondent
exhibited a shameful lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. The Code of
Professional Responsibility provides: Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. Canon 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Rule 7.03–A lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private
life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Respondent exhibited a
deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. He made a mockery of
marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage
while his first marriage is subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment
under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
 In re: Ramon Galang
66 SCRA 282, August 29, 1975

Facts: Ramon E. Galang passed the 1971 Bar Examination but his exam papers were subjected to
unauthorized re-correction and re-evaluation by five examiners. Furthermore, an investigation by the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) revealed that Ramon Galang was a student of the School of Law of
Manuel L. Quezon University and on September 8, 1959, he was charged with the crime of slight physical
injuries of another student of the same university. Subsequently, in a 1973 hearing, he was confronted
with this information but declared that he does not remember being charged with the same. The victim
was summoned and narrated the case and identified Galang as the very same person charged with Slight
Physical Injuries in that case. An administrative proceeding was then filed for his disbarment along with
Bar Confidant Lanuevo.

Issue: WON Ramon Galang must be stricken off in the roll of attorneys for concealing his case of slight
physical injuries

Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court held that under the circumstances in which respondent Ramon E.
Galang was allowed to take the Bar Examination and the highly irregular manner in which he passed the
Bar, there is no other alternative but to order the surrender of his attorney’s certificate and the striking out
of his name from the Roll of Attorney’s. It is stated under Rule 127, Sec. 2 that every applicant is duty
bound to lay before the Court all his involvement in any criminal case, pending or otherwise terminated, to
enable the Court to fully ascertain or determine the applicant’s moral character. Moreover, the
concealment of an attorney in his application to take the Bar Examinations of the fact that he had been
charged with, or indicted for, an alleged crime is a ground for revocation of his license to practice law is
well-settled.
 Re: 2003 Bar Examinations
B.M. No. 1222, February 4, 2004

Facts: On 22 September 2003, Justce Jose Vitug, chairman of the 2003 bar examinations committee
notified Chief Justce Hilario Davide, Jr. and the other members of the court of a rumored leakage on the
Bar examination on Mercantle Law further recommending that the bar exam be nullified and an
investigation be conducted. However after receiving numerous petitions and motions from the Philippine
Association of Law Schools agreeing to the nullification of the bar exams on Mercantile Law but voicing
strong reservations against holding another exam on the subject due to physical, emotional and financial
diffiulties that may be encountered by the examinees. In a resolution dated 29 September 2003, the court
resolved to cancel the scheduled examination in Mercantile Law and allocate the 15 percentage points
among the seven bar exam subjects. Further, they resolved to create a committee to conduct a thorough
investigation on the incident. The investigation yielded that Atty. Danilo de Guzman downloaded the test
questionnaires from Atty. Balgos’ computer and faxed a copy to his fraternity brother. Further
investigation showed that the copy that was leaked and the actual exam was 82% identical and such
were reproduced among the barristers for that year.

Issue: WON the parties involved in the leakage should be disbarred

Ruling: The Supreme Court held that Atty. Danilo de Guzman should be disbarred. On the other hand,
Atty. Balgos should only be reprimanded by the Court for his negligence in preparing and safeguarding
his proposed test questionnaires in Mercantile Law. Atty. Danilo de Guzman’s act of downloading Atty.
Balgos’ test questionnaires in Mercantile Law from Atty. Balgos’ computer without his knowledge and
permission was a criminal act of larceny, a theft of intellectual property. He likewise disobeyed the first
canon of the lawyers’ Code of Professional responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promise respect for law and legal processes. Further, the
Committee upheld that Atty. Balgos likewise committed negligence in the preparation and safekeeping of
his proposed test questions for the bar exam in Mercantile Law.
 Ang vs Gupana
A.C. No. 4545, February 5, 2014

FACTS: This case involves an affidavit-complaint filed by complainant Carlito Ang against respondent
Atty. James Gupana. Complainant Ang alleged that he and the other heirs of the late Candelaria
Magpayo, namely Purificacion Diamante and William Magpayo, executed an Extra-judicial Declaration of
Heirs and Partition involving a parcel of land. He was given his share of 2,003 square meters, together
with all the improvements thereon. However, when he tried to secure a TCT in his name, he found out
that said TCT number had already been cancelled. Ang alleged that there is reasonable ground to believe
that respondent had a direct participation in the commission of forgeries and falsifications because he
was the one who prepared and notarized the Affidavit of Loss and Deed of Absolute Sale that led to the
transfer and issuance of the new TCTs. Respondent denied any wrongdoing. According to the
respondent, in the pending civil case Ang anchored his claim on the Extra-judicial Declaration of Heirs
and Partition and sought to annul the deed of sale and prayed for reconveyance of the subject parcel of
land. Investigating Commissioner Navarro of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found that
respondent is administratively liable. The Investigating Commissioner additionally found that respondent
"delegated the notarial functions to the clerical staff of their office before being brought to him for his
signature." This, according to the commissioner, "must have been the reason for the forged signatures of
the parties in the questioned document…as well as the erroneous entry in his notarial register.
Respondent should not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may
only be performed by a member of the bar in accordance with Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Issue: WON the respondent is administratively liable for violating the notarial law and the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Ruling: The Court finds respondent administratively liable for violation of his notarial duties when he failed
to require the personal presence of Candelaria Magpayo. It is clear that the party acknowledging must
appear before the notary public or any other person authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments
or documents. As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated to subscribe to the
sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy impressed with public
interest. Respondent likewise violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9, of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides that "[a] lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing." in notarizing an affidavit
executed by a dead person, respondent is liable for misconduct.
 Plus Builders Inc. vs. Revilla, Jr.
A.C. No. 7056, September 13, 2006

Facts: The Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) rendered a decision in favor of Plus Builders, Inc.
and against the tenants/farmers Leopoldo de Guzman, et.al, who were the clients of respondent, Atty.
Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that respondent’s clients were mere tenants and not rightful
possessors/owners of the subject land. The case was elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court, with
this Court sustaining Plus Builders Inc.’s rights over the land. Respondent was found to have committed
intentional falsehood; and misused court processes with the intention to delay the execution of the
decision through the filing of several motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders, and the last, an
action to quiet title despite the finality of the decision. Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers to engage in
the unauthorized practice of law – holding themselves out as his partners/associates in the law firm.
Respondent maintains that he did not commit the acts complained of and that the courses of action he
took were not meant to unduly delay the execution of the DARAB Decision.

Issue: WON respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.

Held: Yes. The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Revilla, Jr. guilty of gross misconduct. Lawyers are
officers of the court, called upon to assist in the administration of justice. They act as vanguards of our legal
system, protecting and upholding truth and the rule of law. They are expected to act with honesty in all their
dealings, especially with the courts. Verily, the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins lawyers from
committing or consenting to any falsehood in court or from allowing the courts to be misled by any artifice.
Moreover, they are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide thus: "Canon 9 – A lawyer shall not
directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law. 'Rule 9.01 – A lawyer shall not delegate to any
unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in
good standing.'"

**However, the Court also knows how to show compassion and will not hesitate to refrain from imposing
the appropriate penalties in the presence of mitigating factors, such as the respondent’s length of service,
acknowledgment of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and
equitable considerations, and respondent’s advanced age, among other things, which have varying
significance in the Court’s determination of the imposable penalty.
 In re: Michael A. Medado
B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013

Facts: Petitioner Michael Medado, who obtained his law degree in the year 1979, took and passed the
same year’s bar examinations and took the Attorney’s Oath, failed to sign the Attorney’s Roll. After more
than 30 years of practicing the profession of law, he filed the instant Petition on February 2012, praying
that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. Medado said that he was not able to sign the Roll of
Attorneys because he misplaced the notice given to him and he believed that since he had already taken
the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys is not urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a lawyer. The
Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) after conducting clarificatory conference on the matter recommended
to the Supreme Court that the instant petition be denied for petitioner’s gross negligence, gross
misconduct and utter lack of merit.

Issu: WON the petitioner be allowed to sign in the roll of attorneys?

Ruling: Yes, the Supreme Court allowed the petitioner to sign the Roll of Attorneys subject to the payment
of a fine and the imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of law. The Court
cannot forbid the petitioner from signing the Roll of Attorneys because such action constitutes
disbarment. Such penalty is reserved to the most serious ethical transgressions of members of the Bar.
However, the Court cannot fully free Medado from all liability for his years of inaction. His justification of
his action, that it was “neither willful nor intentional but based on a mistaken belief and an honest error of
judgment” was opposed by the Court. His action of continuing the practice of law in spite of his knowledge
of the need to take the necessary steps to complete all requirements for the admission to the bar
constitutes unauthorized practice of law. Such action transgresses Canon 9 of 'the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides:

CANON 9 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of
law.