B.

To the legal profession

1.) Integrated Bar of the Philippines

SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR., complainant

Vs.
ATTY. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, respondent

Misrepresentation and Non-payment of Bar Membership

Dues
FACTS:
This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar
membership dues filed against respondent Atty. Francisco R.
Llamas. In a letter-complaint to this Court dated February 8, 1997,
complainant Soliman M. Santos, Jr., himself a member of the bar,
alleged that Atty. Llamas, who for a number of years now, has not
indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in his pleadings.
If at all, he only indicated IBP Rizal 259060 but he has been using
this for at least 3 years already. On the other hand, respondent,
who is now of age, averred that he is only engaged in a limited
practice of law and under RA 7432, as a senior citizen, he is
exempted from payment of income taxes and included in this
exemption, is the payment of membership dues.

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.

CANON 10: A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
court.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the respondent has misled the court about his
standing in the IBP by using the same IBP O.R. number in his
pleadings of at least 6 years and therefore liable for his actions.
Whether or not the respondent is exempt from paying his
membership dues owing to limited practice of law and for being a
senior citizen.
HELD:
Guilty. Respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas is suspended from
the practice of law for one (1) year, or until he has paid his IBP
dues, whichever is later. Rule 139-A requires that every member
of the Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues and default thereof for
six months shall warrant suspension of membership and if
nonpayment covers a period of 1-year, default shall be a ground
for removal of the delinquent’ s name from the Roll of Attorneys.
It does not matter whether or not respondent is only engaged in
limited practice of law. Moreover, the exemption invoked by
respondent does not include exemption from payment of
membership or association dues.
In addition, by indicating in his pleadings and thereby
misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his
IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility that provides: Rule 1.01 A
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. His act is also a violation of Rule 10.01 which
provides that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in court; nor mislead or allow the court to be
misled by any artifice.

2. Upholding the dignity and integrity of the profession

SAMANIEGO V. FERRERA.C. No. 7022

FACTS
•1996, Ms. Samaniego and Atty. Ferrer initially had a lawyer-client
relationship which later became intimate.
 Ms. Samaniego said Atty. Ferrer courted her and she fell in love
with him.
 He said she flirted with him and he succumbed to her
temptations.
• They lived together as "husband and wife" from 1996 to 1997,
and on March 12, 1997, their daughter was born.
 The affair ended in 2000and since then he failed to give support to
their daughter.
• Ms. Samaniego thus filed with the IBP a complaint for immorality,
abandonment and willful refusal to give support to their daughter.
She presented their daughter's birth and baptismal certificates,
and the photographs taken during the baptism. She testified that
she knew that Atty. Ferrer was in a relationship but did not think
he was already married.
 She also testified that she was willing to compromise, but he
failed to pay for their daughter's education as agreed upon.
 Atty. Ferrer refused to appear during the hearing since he did not
want to see Ms. Samaniego.
• In his position paper, Atty. Ferrer manifested his willingness to
support their daughter.
He admitted his indiscretion; however, he prayed that the IBP
consider Ms. Samaniego's complicity as she was acquainted with
his wife and children. He further reasoned that he found it
unconscionable to abandon his wife and 10 children to cohabit with
Ms. Samaniego.
• In a Resolution, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the report
and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and
imposed upon Atty. Ferrer the penalty of 6 months suspension
from the practice of law for his refusal to support his daughter with
Ms. Samaniego. The IBP also admonished him to be a more
responsible member of the bar and to keep in mind his duties as a
father.
• Atty. Ferrer filed this MR for reduced penalty.

ISSUE
• W/N a reduced penalty is warranted? NO

HELD
• We agree with the IBP on Atty. Ferrer's failure to give support to
his daughter with Ms. Samaniego, and that his affair with Ms.
Samaniego showed his lack of good moral character as a member
of the bar.
Atty. Ferrer admitted his extra-marital affair. We have considered
such illicit relation as a disgraceful and immoral conduct subject to
disciplinary action.

The penalty for such immoral conduct is disbarment, or indefinite

or definite suspension, depending on the circumstances of the
case.

O Recently, in Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Jr., we ruled that

suspension from the practice of law for two years was an adequate
penalty imposed on the lawyer who was found guilty of gross
immorality. In said case, we considered the presence of
aggravating circumstances such as an adulterous relationship
coupled with refusal to support his family; or maintaining illicit
relationships with at least two women during the subsistence of his
marriage; or abandoning his legal wife and cohabiting with other
women.
O In this case, we find no similar aggravating circumstances.
Thus we find the penalty recommended by the IBP and Office of
the Bar Confidant as adequate sanction for the grossly immoral
conduct of respondent.
•We dismiss, however, Ms. Samaniego's charge of abandonment
since Atty. Ferrer did not abandon them. He returned to his family.
•We may agree with respondent's contention that complainant was
not entirely blameless, as she knew about his wife but blindly
believed him to be unmarried. However, that one complicit in the
affair complained of immorality against her co-principal does not
make this case less serious since it is immaterial whether Ms.
Samaniego is in pari delicto.
We must emphasize that this Court's investigation is not about Ms.
Samaniego's acts but Atty. Ferrer's conduct as one of its officers
and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.
• Atty. Ferrer and all members of the bar of the following norms
under the Code of Professional Responsibility:
O “Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. x x x
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.
x x x Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he,
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to
the discredit of the legal profession.”

St. Louis University High School Faculty and Staff vs. Atty. dela
Cruz, AC No. 6010, Aug. 28,2006

FACTS:

Disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and Staff of the

Saint Louis University-Laboratory High School against Atty.
Rolando C. Dela Cruz, principal of SLU-LHS on the grounds that:
1. Gross Misconduct:
a. pending criminal case for child abuse allegedly committed
by him against a high school student

b. a pending administrative case filed by the Teachers, Staff,

Students and Parents before an Investigating Board created
by SLU for his alleged unprofessional and unethical acts of
misappropriating money supposedly for the teachers

c. pending labor case filed by SLU-LHS Faculty before the

NLRC, Cordillera Administrative Region, on alleged illegal
deduction of salary by respondent.

2. Grossly Immoral Conduct: second marriage despite the

existence of his first marriage o respondent was legally married to
Teresita Rivera before Honorable Judge Tomas W. Macaranas.

He subsequently married with Mary Jane Pascua before the

Honorable Judge Guillermo Purganan which was subsequently
annulled for being bigamous.
3. Malpractice: notarizing documents despite the expiration of his
commission.

On the charge of malpractice, complainant alleged that respondent

deliberately subscribed and notarized certain legal documents on
different dates from 1988 to 1997, despite expiration of
respondent’s notarial commission on 31 December 1987.

A Certification dated 25 May 1999 was issued by the Clerk of Court

of Regional Trial Court to the effect that respondent had not applied
for commission as Notary Public for the period 1988 to 1997.

Commissioner Pacheco submitted his report and recommended

that:

1. For contracting a second marriage without taking the

appropriate legal steps to have the first marriage annulled first, he
be suspended from the practice of law for 1 year

2. For notarizing certain legal documents despite full knowledge of

the expiration of his notarial commission, he be suspended from
the practice of law for another 1 year.

IBP Board of Governors approved and adopted the

recommendation of the Commissioner.

ISSUE:
W/N respondent should be penalized for a suspension of 2 years in
total.

HELD:

Atty. Rolando Dela Cruz guilty of immoral conduct, in disregard of

the Code of Professional Responsibility, SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of 2 years, and another 2 years for
notarizing documents despite the expiration of his commission.
A member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act
which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed
by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal
profession. Towards this end, an attorney may be disbarred or
suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an
attorney and counselor, which include statutory grounds
enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, all of
these being broad enough to cover practically any misconduct of a
lawyer in his professional or private capacity.
Equally worthy of remark is that the law profession does not
prescribe a dichotomy of standards among its members. There is
no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the
Lawyer’s professional capacity or in his private life.

One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an

applicant must possess good moral character. Possession of such
moral character as requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege
of law practice must be continuous. Otherwise, “membership in the
bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good moral
conduct.”

Respondent was already a member of the Bar when he contracted

the bigamous second marriage. As such, he cannot feign
ignorance. The acquittal of a lawyer in a criminal action is not
determinative of an administrative case against him. So long as
the quantum of proof - clear preponderance of evidence - in
disciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar is met, then
liability attaches.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court cites grossly immoral
conduct as a ground for disbarment. o Immoral conduct-conduct
which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members
of the community o grossly immoral- must be so corrupt and false
as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree. In particular, he made a mockery
of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and
dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage while the first
marriage was still in place, is contrary to honesty, justice, decency
and morality. However, measured against the definition, we are
not prepared to consider respondent’s act as grossly immoral.

This finds support in the following recommendation and

observation of the IBP Investigator and IBP Board of Governors,
thus:

1. After his first failed marriage and prior to his second marriage
or for a period of almost 7 years, he has not been romantically
involved with any woman.

2. His second marriage was a show of his noble intentions and total
love for his wife, whom he described to be very intelligent person.

3. He never absconded from his obligations to support his wife and

child.

4. He never disclaimed paternity over the child and husbandry with

relation to his wife.

5. After the annulment of his 2nd marriage, they have parted ways
when the mother and child went to Australia.

6. Since then up to now, respondent remained celibate.

The respondent himself acknowledged and declared his abject

apology for his misstep. He was humble enough to offer no defense
save for his love and declaration of his commitment to his wife and
child. Imposition of disbarment upon him to be unduly harsh. The
power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and may be
imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects
the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court.
Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty
could accomplish the end desired. A penalty of 2 years suspension
is more appropriate.
Respondent humbly admitted having notarized certain documents
despite his knowledge that he no longer had authority to do so. He
alleged that he received no payment in notarizing said documents.

Notarization of a private document converts the document into a

public one making it admissible in court without further proof of its
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 the 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.

The requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public

must not be treated as a mere casual formality.

The Court has characterized a lawyer’s act of notarizing documents

without the requisite commission to do so as “reprehensible,
constituting as it does not only malpractice but also x x x the crime
of falsification of public documents.”

The Court had occasion to state that where the notarization of a

document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when
he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may
be subjected to disciplinary action or one, performing a notarial act
without such commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey
the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making
it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for
all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood,
which the lawyer’s oath similarly proscribes.

These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides: “A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
By acting as a notary public without the proper commission to do
so, the lawyer likewise violates Canon 7 of the same Code, which
directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity
of the legal profession.
Other charges constituting respondent’s misconduct such as the
pending criminal case for child abuse allegedly committed by him
against a high school student filed before the Prosecutor’s Office
of Baguio City; the pending administrative case filed by the
Teachers, Staff, Students and Parents before an Investigating
Board created by SLU; and the pending labor case filed by SLU-
LHS Faculty before the NLRC, Cordillera Administrative Region, on
alleged illegal deduction of salary by respondent, need not be
discussed, as they are still pending before the proper forums. At
such stages, the presumption of innocence still prevails in favor of
the respondent.

REBECCA B. ARNOBIT, Complainant, v

ATTY. PONCIANO P. ARNOBIT, Respondent
Date Promulgated: October 17, 2008

FACTS:
May 11, 1975, Rebecca B. Arnobit, prays that the Court exercise
its disciplinary power over her husband, respondent Atty. Ponciano
Arnobit, on the grounds of Immorality and Abandonment. Rebecca
and respondent were married on August 20, 1942 and have 12
children. In 1968, respondent left the conjugal home and started
cohabiting with one Benita Buenafe Navarro who later bore him
four more children. Respondent’s infidelity, Rebecca filed a
complaint for legal separation and support. A criminal case for
adultery.

Respondent denied, having cohabited with Benita. And he pointed

to his complaining wife as the cause of their separation, stating the
observation that she was always traveling all over the country,
ostensibly for business purposes, without his knowledge and
consent, thereby neglecting her obligations toward her family.

According to the investigating commissioner, respondent, despite

due notice, repeatedly absented himself when it was his turn to
present evidence, adding that scheduled hearings had to be
postponed just to afford respondent ample opportunity to present
his side of the controversy.

In its Report dated June 21, 1995, the Commission found

respondent liable for abandonment and recommended his
suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months

ISSUE:

(1) Whether or not respondent violated the code of professional

responsibility.
(2) Whether or not the IBP recommendation is proper.

RULING:

While the Court concurs with the inculpatory findings of the IBP on
the charge of abandonment, it cannot bring itself to agree that
respondent is liable only for that offense. As it were, the charge for
gross immoral conduct has sufficiently been proven. Following
established jurisprudence, respondent deserves to be disbarred.

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.

As this Court often reminds members of the bar, the requirement

of good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the
general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning.
Good moral character is not only a condition precedent for
admission to the legal profession, but it must also remain intact in
order to maintain ones good standing in that exclusive and honored
fraternity. Good moral character is more than just the absence of
bad character. Such character expresses itself in the will to do the
unpleasant thing if it is right and the resolve not to do the pleasant
thing if it is wrong. This must be so because vast interests are
committed to his care; he is the recipient of unbounded trust and
confidence; he deals with his clients property, reputation, his life,
his all.

Immoral conduct has been described as that conduct which is so

willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion
of good and respectable members of the community. To be the
basis of disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be immoral,
but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to virtually
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible
to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. 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.

The fact that respondents philandering ways are far removed from
the exercise of his profession would not save the day for him. For
a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct which,
albeit unrelated to the actual practice of his profession, would show
him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges with
which his license and the law invest him. To borrow from Orbe v.
Adaza, [t]he grounds expressed in Section 27, Rule 138, of the
Rules of Court are not limitative and are broad enough to cover
any misconduct x x x of a lawyer in his professional or private
capacity. To reiterate, possession of good moral character is not
only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing
qualification for all members of the bar.

Undoubtedly, respondent’s act of leaving his wife and 12 children

to cohabit and have children with another woman constitutes
grossly immoral conduct. And to add insult to injury, there seems
to be little attempt on the part of respondent to be discreet about
his liaison with the other woman.

As we have already ruled, disbarment is warranted against a

lawyer who abandons his lawful wife to maintain an illicit
relationship with another woman who had borne him a child. In the
instant case, respondent’s grossly immoral conduct compels the
Court to wield its power to disbar. The penalty is most appropriate
under the premises.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Ponciano P. Arnobit is hereby DISBARRED. Let

a copy of this Decision be entered into the records of respondent
in the Office of the Bar Confidant and his name stricken from the
Roll of Attorneys. Likewise, copies of this Decision shall be
furnished the IBP and circulated by the Court Administrator to all
appellate and trial courts.

3. Courtesy, fairness and candor towards professional colleagues

ATTY. DALLONG- GALICINAO V. ATTY. CASTRO

FACTS:

Atty. Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of RTC and Atty. Castro

was a private practitioner and VP of IBP-Nueva Vizcaya.
Respondent went to complainant’s office to inquire whether the
records of Civil Case No. 784 had already been remanded to the
MCTC. Respondent was not the counsel of either party in that case.
 Complainant replied that the record had not yet been
transmitted since a certified true copy of the CA decision should
first be presented. To this respondent retorted, “You mean to say,
I would have to go to Manila to get a copy?” Complainant replied
that respondent may show instead the copy sent to the party he
represents. Respondent then replied that complainant should’ve
notified him. Complainant explained that it is not her duty to notify
the respondent of such duty. Angered, respondent yelled stuff in
Ilocano and left the office, banging the door so loud. He then
returned to the office and shouted, “Ukinnam nga babai!” (“Vulva
of your mother, you woman!”)

Later, complainant filed a manifestation that she won’t appear

in the hearing of the case in view of the respondent’s public
apology, and that the latter was forgiven already.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility?

RULING:

Respondent is fined the amount of 10,000 with a warning.

Respondent was not the counsel of record of Civil Case No. 784.
His explanation that he will enter his appearance in the case when
its records were already transmitted to the MCTC is unacceptable.
Not being the counsel of record respondent had no right to impose
his will on the clerk of court. He violated Rule 8.02, because this
was an act of encroachment. It matters not that he did so in good
faith.

His act of raising his voice and uttering vulgar invectives to

the clerk of court was not only ill-mannered but also unbecoming
considering that he did these in front of the complainant’s
subordinates. For these, he violated Rules 7.03 and 8.01 and
Canon 8. The penalty was tempered because respondent
apologized to the complainant and the latter accepted it.
This is not to say, however, that respondent should be absolved
from his actuations. People are accountable for the consequences
of the things they say and do even if they repent afterwards.

ALCANTARA VS. PEFIANCO (A.C. NO. 5398 12/03/2002)

FACTS:

This is a complaint against Atty. Mariano Pefianco for conduct

unbecoming a member of the bar for using improper and offensive
language and threatening and attempting to assault complainant.

The complainant, Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara, is the incumbent

District Public Attorney of the Public Attorney’s Office in San Jose,
Antique. He alleged that while Atty. Ramon Salvani III was
conferring with a client in the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) at the
Hall of Justice in San Jose, Antique, a woman approached them.
Complainant suggested Atty. Salvani to talk with her when
respondent Atty. Mariano Pefianco, who was sitting nearby, stood
up and shouted at Atty. Salvani and his client. Atty Pefianco was
asked to calm down but he did not refrain from his outburst. This
caused a commotion in the office wherein respondent tried to
attack complainant and even shouted at him, "You’re stupid!"
Complainant also submitted the affidavits of Atty. Ramon Salvani
III, Felizardo Del Rosario, Atty. Pepin Joey Marfil, Robert Minguez,
Herbert Ysulat and Ramon Quintayo to corroborate his allegations.
In his Comment and Counter-Complaint, respondent Pefianco said
that the sight of the crying woman, whose husband had been
murdered, moved him and prompted him to take up her defense.
He also averred that it was Alcantara who punched him and called
him stupid.
ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent’s act violate the Code of Professional

Responsibility.

HELD:

YES. Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility: CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF
WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING
TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal

profession. They must act honorably, fairly and candidly toward
each other and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at
all times. In this case, respondent’s meddling in a matter in which
he had no right to do so caused the untoward incident. Though he
thought that this is righteous, his public behavior can only bring
down the legal profession in the eyes of the public and erode
respect for it. An injustice cannot be righted by another injustice.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Mariano Pefianco is found GUILTY of violation

of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and,
considering this to be his first offense, is hereby FINED in the
amount of P1,000.00 and REPRIMANDED with a warning that
similar action in the future will be sanctioned more severely.

Foodsphere, Inc. vs. Atty. Mauricio, Jr.

[AC No. 7199. July 22, 2009]

FACTS:

[A] certain Alberto Cordero (Cordero) purportedly bought from a

grocery in Valenzuela City canned goods including a can of CDO
Liver spread. As Cordero and his relatives were eating bread with
the CDO Liver spread, they found the spread to be sour and soon
discovered a colony of worms inside the can. This was complained
before the BFAD. After conciliation meetings between Cordero and
the petitioner, the Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN
seeking the withdrawal of their complaint before the BFAD. The
BFAD thus dismissed the complaint. Respondent, Atty. Mauricio,
Jr., who affixed his signature to the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later
wrote in one of his articles/columns in a tabloid that he prepared
the document.

Complainant filed criminal complaints against respondent and

several others for Libel and Threatening to Publish Libel under
Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal Code before the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City. The
complaints were pending at the time of the filing of the present
administrative complaint. Despite the pendency of the civil case
against him and the issuance of a status quo order
restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising and
broadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO,
respondent continued with his attacks against complainant and its
products.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional

Responsibility.

HELD:

YES. Respondent suspended for three (3) years from the practice
of law.

RATIO:
The above actuations of respondent are also in violation of Rule
13.03 of the Canon of Professional Responsibility which reads: “A
lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a
pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party.”

The language employed by respondent undoubtedly casts

aspersions on the integrity of the Office of the City Prosecutor and
all the Prosecutors connected with said Office. Respondent clearly
assailed the impartiality and fairness of the said Office in handling
cases filed before it and did not even design to submit any evidence
to substantiate said wild allegations. The use by respondent of the
above-quoted language in his pleadings is manifestly violative of
Canon 11 and the fundamental Canon 1 also of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to “uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law
and legal processes.” Respondent defied said status quo order,
despite his (respondent’s) oath as a member of the legal profession
to “obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities.”

Further, respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility which mandate, and by failing to live up
to his oath and to comply with the exacting standards of the legal
profession, respondent also violated Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which directs a lawyer to “at all times
uphold the integrity and the dignity of the legal profession.”

4. No assistance in unauthorized practice of law

Cambaliza vs. Cristal-Tenorio

[A.C. 6290. July 14, 2004]

FACTS:

[C]omplainant Ana Marie Cambaliza, a former employee of

respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio in her law office,
charged the latter with deceit, grossly immoral conduct, and
malpractice or other gross misconduct in office. Case on deceit and
grossly immoral conduct did not pursue lacking clear and
convincing evidence. On malpractice or other gross misconduct in
office, the complainant alleged that the respondent cooperated in
the illegal practice of law by her husband, who is not a member of
the Philippine Bar and two other allegations. The respondent
averred that this disbarment complaint was filed by the
complainant just to get even with her. The complainant later filed
a Motion to Withdraw Complaint as she is no longer interested in
pursuing the case. This motion was not acted upon by the IBP and
the case was pursued. The IBP found the respondent guilty of
assisting in unauthorized practice of law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Cristal-Tenorio violated the Code of

Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

YES. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for six
(6) months.

RATIO:

A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to misrepresent

himself as a lawyer and to practice law is guilty of violating Canon
9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
read as follows:

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.
The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in,
the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and
policy. Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to
those individuals found duly qualified in education and character.