Arciga vs Maniwang

In 1970, when Maniwang was still a law student, he had a relationship with Arciga, then a medical
technology student. Then Maniwang got her pregnant. In 1975, Maniwang, passed the bar. After which
he stop communicating with Arciga. Arciga found out that Maniwang married another woman. Arciga
then filed a disbarment case against Maniwang grounded on gross immoral conduct. Maniwang
admitted that he is the father of Arciga’s child; that he did promise to marry Arciga many times; that he
broke those promises because of Arciga’s shady past because apparently Arciga had an illegitimate child
even before her son with Maniwang was born.

Issue: Whether or not Maniwang should be disbarred

Held: No, he should not be disbarred. The Supreme Court found that respondent’s refusal to marry the
complainant was not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment. Thus the complaint for
disbarment is dismissed.

Immoral conduct- “that 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”.; But the Supreme
Court did say that it is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is
“grossly immoral conduct”

-conduct that goes beyond accepted standards of what is right and just in behavior

PAGCOR VS CARANDANG

PAGCOR and Bingo Royale executed a Grant of Authority to Operate Bingo Games. . It is said the Bingo
Royale is to remit 20% of its gross sales to PAGCOR w/c is divided into 15% to PAGCOR and the 5% as
franchise tax to the BIR. During the course of its operations, Bingo incurred arrears amounting to Php
6,064,833.14 M. And instead of demanding the payment, PAGCOR allowed Bingo Royale and respondent
Atty. Carandang to pay the said amount in monthly installment of Php 300,000 from July 2001 to June
2003. . Bingo Royale issued 24 BOC checks totalling hp 7.2 Million, signed by the respondent, but these
were all dishonoured by reason of closed account. Despite PAGCOR’s demand letters respondent failed
to pay the amounts of the checks. PAGCOR filed with the Office of the City Presecutor of Manila criminal
complaints for violations of BP Blg. 22 against respondent. PAGCOR contends that respondent is liable
for serious misconduct, violation for the Attorneys Oath and biolation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; and prays that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

Issue: Whether or not respondent Atty. Carandang is liable for serious misconduct and violated the
Attorney’s oath and code of professional responsibility

Ruling: Yes, Atty. Dante A. Carandang is declared GUILTY of serious misconduct and violations of the
Attorney’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for six (6) months. By issuing the bouncing checks in blatant violation of B.P. Blg. 22, respondent clearly
was irresponsible and displayed lack of concern for the rights of others nor for the canons of
professional responsibility.
He is the one liable because he is the one person who actually signed the check on behalf of the drawer,
Bingo Royale. BP Blg 22 provides that “ Where a check is drawn by a corporation or company, the person
who actually signed the check on behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this act. Clearly, even if the
check was drawn by Bingo Royale, still respondent is liable…

Arrears: Bingo is already behind in the discharge of its obligations

BP Blg 22: An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or
Credit and For Other Purposes
The thrust of law is to prohibit the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation, thus
creates injury to the public at large.

GUEVARRA VS. EALA

Irene Moje, wife of the petitioner, Joselano Guevarra was having an illicit affair with the respondent,
Atty Emmanuel Eala. Irene gave birth to a baby girl and wrote the name of the respondent as the father
in the certificate of live birth. Petitioner filed a petition for annulment of marriage to Irene and a
criminal complaint for adultery against respondent and Irene.
Petitioner also filed a complaint for disbarment before the IBP-CBD on the ground of gross immoral
conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath which was dismissed by the IBP Board of
Governors due to lack of merit.
Hence the petition of complaint before the Supreme Court..

Issue: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the reason for the disbarment of Atty. Jose
Emmanuel Eala.

Ruling:
Yes,the case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman. In carrying
on a extra marital affair with Irene and despite respondent himself being married, he showed disrespect
for an institution held sacred by law. Hence the court declared Atty. Jose Emmanul M. Eala DISBARRED
for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of canon 1, Rule 1.01 and
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

STEMMERIK VS LIWANAG AND ESGUERRA

Under the Constitution, private lands may be transferred or conveyed to the following:

(a) Filipino citizens;

(b) Corporations and associations at least 60% of the capital of which is owned by Filipino citizens,
since they have the capacity to hold lands of the public domain;
(c) Aliens but only in cases of hereditary succession; and

(d) Natural born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship subject to limitations provided by
law. (see 2 Philippine Constitutional Law, p. 917 [2004])

Facts:
Stemmerik is a citizen and resident of Denmark. In one of his trips in the Philippines, he met Atty. Mas.
he wanted to buy a real property and consulted Atty. Mas. The latter told Stemmerik that he could
legally acquire a real property in the Phils. and even suggested a 86K hectare land in Subic, Zambales.
Atty. Mas, as the atty.-in-fact of Stemmerik bought the property from a certain Bonifacio de Mesa. The
contract to sell provided that De Mesa sold the property to Ailyn Gonzales for 3.8M. Then, in another
notarized deed made by Atty. Mas, it was stated that Gonzales received the funds from Stemmerik. . In
preparing all these documents, Atty. Mas received 400K fee from Stemmerik. The latter also gave Atty.
Mas, the 3.8M purchase price to which the latter issued a receipt.
Suddenly, Atty. Mas no longer answer the calls of Stemmerik. When Stemmerik visited the Phils, he
engaged the service of Fernandez Law office and found out the subject property is inalienable, being
located in the former U.S. military reservation. Also, he was apprised that aliens cannot own real
properties in the Phils.
Meanwhile, Atty. Mas had already abandoned his office and his whereabouts is unknown. Stemmerik
filed an action for disbarment against Atty. Mas before the Commission on Bar Discipline but Atty. Mas
never appeared.

Issue: WON Atty. Mas should be disbarred?

Ruling:
Yes, Respondent committed a serious breach of his oath as a lawyer. He is also guilty of culpable
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the code of ethics of the legal profession.
By making it appear that de Mesa undertook to sell the property to complainant and that de Mesa
thereafter sold the property to Gonzales who made the purchase for and in behalf of complainant, he
falsified public documents and knowingly violated the Anti-Dummy Law.
As men and women entrusted with the law, they must ensure that the law functions to protect liberty
and not as an instrument of oppression or deception.

SORIANO VS DIZON
While driving on his way home, a taxi driver (herein complainant) overtook the car driven by herein
respondent. Incensed, respondent tailed the taxi driver until the latter stopped to make a turn. An
altercation resulted therefrom that got to the point that the respondent fired and shot complainant
hitting him on the neck. He fell on the thigh of the respondent so the latter pushed him out and sped
off.

Issue:
WON respondent’s guilt warrants disbarment.
Ruling:
Yes, The Supreme Court held that Dizon also violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, failed to obey the laws of the land through his illegal possession of an unlicensed
firearm. He failed to respect legal processes through his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil
liabilities, the condition for his probation. Dizon also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Dizon’s violation was exhibited when he tried to reach an out-of-
court settlement with the family of Soriano but when the negotiations failed, he made it appear
as if it was the family who approached him to get a referral to a neurosurgeon. In addition,
Dizon fabricated a story that it was Soriano and two other persons who mauled him. According
to the three doctors who examined Dizon, his injuries were so minor that his allegation was so
improbable.
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the CBD that the crime of frustrated homicide
committed by Atty. Dizon involved moral turpitude. .” Moral turpitude was shown when Atty. Dizon shot
a taxi driver for no justifiable reason.

DONTON VS TANSINGCO
Occupancy agreement: a short term right of possession for either the buyer or seller in a real estate
transaction.

FACTS:
In his Complaint dated 20 May 2003, Peter T. Donton stated that he filed a criminal complaint for estafa
thru falsification of a public document against Duane O. Stier, Emelyn A. Maggay and respondent, as the
notary public who notarized the Occupancy Agreement.
The disbarment complaint arose when respondent filed a counter-charge for perjury against
complainant.
Complainant averred that respondent's act of preparing the Occupancy Agreement, despite knowledge
that Stier, being a foreign national, is disqualified to own real property in his name, constitutes serious
misconduct and is a deliberate violation of the Code. Complainant prayed that respondent be disbarred
for advising Stier to do something in violation of law and assisting Stier in carrying out a dishonest
scheme.
In his Comment dated 19 August 2003, respondent claimed that complainant filed the disbarment case
against him upon the instigation of complainant's counsel, Atty. Bonifacio A. Alentajan, because
respondent refused to act as complainant's witness in the criminal case against Stier and Maggay.
Respondent admitted that he "prepared and notarized" the Occupancy Agreement and asserted its
genuineness and due execution. In a Resolution dated 1 October 2003, the Court referred the matter to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent is liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code.

RULING:

Yes. The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code.
A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will involve defiance of the
laws which he is bound to uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who
connives in violating the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer.
By his own admission, respondent admitted that Stier, a U.S. citizen, was disqualified from owning real
property. Yet, in his motion for reconsideration, respondent admitted that he caused the transfer of
ownership to the parcel of land to Stier. Respondent, however, aware of the prohibition, quickly
rectified his act and transferred the title in complainant's name. Respondent had sworn to uphold the
Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy
Agreement to evade the law against foreign ownership of lands. Respondent used his knowledge of the
law to achieve an unlawful end. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be
suspended.
The respondent is suspended from the practice of law for six months.

SANTIAGO VS LEDESMA

Good Moral: is the existence of virtues such as integrity, courage, honesty and loyalty. It means that you
are a good person, citizen, with sound moral compass.
Moral turpitude: contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals