A.C. No.
6738, August 12, 2015 fact that several officials and employees of the
GABRIELA CORONEL, Petitioner, v. ATTY.
NELSON A. CUNANAN, Respondent.
DECISION
A lawyer who proposes to his client a recourse or
remedy that is contrary to law, public policy,
public order and public morals, or that lessens the
public confidence in the legal system is guilty of
gross misconduct, and should be suspended from
the practice of law, or even disbarred.
Antecedents
On May 17, 2005, the complainant initiated this
disbarment case against Atty. Nelson A.
Cunanan, alleging that he had advised and
convinced her to engage him for the transfer of
Original Certificate of Title No. 9616 and
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-72074, which
were both registered in the name of their deceased
grandparents, to her name and to the names of her
co-heirs by direct registration with the Office of
the Register of Deeds in violation of the proper
legal procedure; that following the engagement,
he had received from her the amount of
P70,000.00 for the payment of the transfer and
other fees, and had misappropriated the same; and
that he had not returned the money and the
owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of
Title No. T-72074.1cralawrednad
Respondent admitted most of the allegations of
Complainant. However, he denied that there was
deceit on his part insisting that he clearly outlined
to Complainant the available procedures for the
transfer of title and afforded Complainant the
opportunity to think about the options. He
claimed that there was nothing illicit in
suggesting the direct registration scheme as the
same was advised to him by the officials and
employees of the Register of Deeds upon his
inquiry thereto. Respondent further argued that
he was in constant communication with
Complainant and that he processed the
transaction for the transfer of registration but that
the transfer could not be effected because the
documents were inadequate and due, also, to the
Register of Deeds with whom he was transacting
were transferred to other offices due to a revamp
in the said office. Respondent added that he
continued with the processing of the transfer and
that he submitted the matter anew for the
approval of the new officials of the Register of
Deeds. However, the new officers have not yet
approved the same.
The IBP found the respondent guilty of
malpractice and negligence; recommending his
suspension from the practice of law for six
months; and requiring his return of the
P70,000.00 to the complainant.12cralawrednad
Issue: WON the actions of the respondent
constituted malpractice, deceit or gross
misconduct.
Held: Yes, A lawyer shall uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.16 He
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct;17 or counsel or abet
activities aimed at a defiance of the law or at a
lessening of confidence in the legal system.18 He
should advise his client to uphold the law, not to
violate or disobey it. Conversely, he should not
recommend to his client any recourse or remedy
that is contrary to law, public policy, public order,
and public morals.
Although the respondent outlined to the
complainant the "ordinary procedure" of an
extrajudicial settlement of estate as a means of
transferring title, he also proposed the option of
"direct registration" despite being fully aware that
such option was actually a shortcut intended to
circumvent the law, and thus patently contrary to
law. The transfer under the latter option would
bypass the immediate heirs of their grandparents
(i.e., the complainant's parent and her co-heirs
parents), and consequently deprive the
Government of the corresponding estate taxes
and transfer fees aside from requiring the
falsification of the transfer documents.
The proposal of "direct registration" was
unquestionably unlawful, immoral and deceitful
all at once.
The respondent argues that his proposal did not
deceive the complainant because he had informed
her on all the "steps" to be taken on her behalf.
His argument misses the point, which is that he
made the proposal despite its patent illegality in
order to take advantage of the complainant's
limited legal knowledge of the regular procedures
for the transfer of title under circumstances of
intestacy. In other words, he made her agree to
the "direct registration" through deceitful
misrepresentation. He then ignored the written
demands from her, which forced her in the end to
finally charge him with disbarment. He thereby
abused his being a lawyer to the hilt in order to
cause not only his client but also the public in
general to doubt the sincerity of the members of
the Law Profession, and consequently diminish
the public's trust and confidence in lawyers in
general.
Suspended for 1 year
A.C. No. 4191 June 10, 2013
ANITA C. PENA, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. CHRISTINA C.
PATERNO, Respondent
Complainant Anita C. Peña, former head of the
Records Department of the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS), filed an Affidavit-
Complaint1 against respondent Atty. Christina C.
Paterno. Complainant alleged that she was the
owner of a parcel of land with an eight-door
apartment thereon. Respondent was her lawyer in
a legal separation case, which she filed against
her husband. Respondent suggested that she
(complainant) apply for a loan from a bank to
construct townhouses on her property for sale to
interested buyers, and that her property be offered
as collateral. Respondent assured complainant
that she would work out the speedy processing
and release of the loan. Complainant agreed, but
since she had a balance on her loan with the GSIS,
respondent lent her the sum of ₱27,000.00,
without any interest, to pay the said loan. When
her title was released by the GSIS, complainant
entrusted it to respondent who would handle the
preparation of documents for the loan. From time
to time, complainant inquired about the
application for the loan, but respondent always
assured her that she was still preparing the
documents required by the bank. Because of her
assurances, complainant did not bother to check
on her property, relying on respondent's words
that she would handle speedily the preparation of
her application. Complainant then discovered that
her apartment was already demolished, and in its
place, four residential houses were constructed on
her property, which she later learned was already
owned by one Ernesto D. Lampa. Respondent
stated that she was never entrusted with
complainant's certificate of title to her property.
IBP- gross violations of the law made respondent
liable for violation of her oath as a lawyer and
constituted transgressions of Section 20
(a),24 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Canon
125and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Issue: WON respondent violated the CPR
Held: Yes, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, a lawyer may be removed or suspended for
any deceit or dishonest act, thus:
Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by
Supreme Court on what grounds. – A member of
the bar may be removed or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before admission to
practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly
or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to
a case without authority to do so. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Respondent was in possession of complainant's
copy of the certificate of title to the property and
it was respondent who admittedly prepared the
Deed of Sale, which complainant denied having
executed or signed. Efforts were exerted to get
rid of the copies of the said Deed of Sale to
prevent complainant from getting hold of the
document for the purpose of handwriting
verification from an expert to prove that her
alleged signature on the Deed of Sale was forged.
The failure of respondent to submit to the proper
RTC Clerk of Court her Notarial Register/Report
for the month of November 1986 and a copy of
the Deed of Sale, which was notarized by her
within that month, has far-reaching implications
and grave consequences, as it in effect suppressed
evidence on the veracity of the said Deed of Sale
and showed the deceitful conduct of respondent
to withhold the truth about its authenticity. For
the aforementioned deceitful conduct, respondent
is disbarred from the practice of law. As a
member of the bar, respondent failed to live up to
the standards embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
A.C. No. 9834, August 26, 2015
SAMUEL B.
ARNADO, Complainant, v. ATTY.
HOMOBONO A. ADAZA, Respondent.
Atty. Samuel B. Arnado (complainant) called the
attention of this Court to the practice of
respondent of indicating "MCLE application for
exemption under process" in his pleadings filed
in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, and "MCLE
Application for Exemption for Reconsideration"
in a pleading filed in 2012. Complainant
informed the Court that he inquired from the
MCLE Office about the status of respondent's
compliance and found out that respondent has not
complied with the requirements for exemption
from the MCLE requirement. Respondent alleged
that he did not receive a formal denial of his
application for exemption by the MCLE
Governing Board. The Office of the Bar
Confidant reported that this Court requires
practicing members of the Bar to indicate in all
their pleadings filed with the courts the counsel's
MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate
of Exemption. OBC also reported that non-
compliance with the MCLE requirements shall
result to the dismissal of the case and the striking
out of the pleadings from the records and a
member of the Bar who failed to comply with the
MCLE requirements is given 60 days from
receipt of notification to explain his deficiency or
to show his compliance with the requirements
and a member who fails to comply within the
given period shall pay a non-compliance fee of
PI,000 and shall be listed as a delinquent member
of the IBP. The OBC recommended that
respondent be declared a delinquent member of
the Bar and guilty of non-compliance with the
MCLE requirements and suspension from the
practice of law for six months.
Issue: Whether respondent is administratively
liable for his failure to comply with the MCLE
requirements.
Held: Yes, Bar Matter No. 850 requires members
of the IBP to undergo continuing legal education
"to ensure that throughout their career, they keep
abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the
ethics of the profession and enhance the standards
of the practice of law. The records of the MCLE
Office showed that respondent failed to comply
with the four compliance periods. Respondent's
application for exemption covered the First and
Second Compliance Periods. The MCLE
Governing Board denied respondent's application
for exemption on the ground that the application
did not meet the requirements of expertise in law
under Section 3, Rule 7 of Bar Matter No. 850.
Clearly, respondent had been remiss in his
responsibilities by failing to comply with Bar
Matter No. 850. His application for exemption for
the First and Second Compliance Periods was
filed after the compliance periods had ended. He
did not follow-up the status of his application for
exemption.
SC- DECLARE Atty. Homobono A. Adaza as a
delinquent member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and SUSPEND him from the practice
of law for SIX MONTHS, or until he has fully
complied with the MCLE requirements.
Adm. Case No. 7332 June 18, 2013
EDUARDO A. ABELLA, Complainant,
vs.
RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR., Respondent.
Complainant filed an illegal dismissal case
against Philippine Telegraph and Telephone
Corporation (PT&T) before the Cebu City
Regional Arbitration Branch. The LA ordered
PT&T to pay complainant separation pay and
backwages. Complainant alleged that he filed a
Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution before
the Cebu City RAB and the case had already been
assigned to the new LA, herein respondent. After
the lapse of five (5) months, complainant’s
motion remained unacted, prompting him to file
a Second Motion for Execution. Eight months
thereafter, there was still no action on
complainant’s motion. Respondent told him that
the matter could be "easily fixed" and thereafter,
asked "how much is mine?" Respondent asked
him for some cash, compelling him to give the
latter ₱1,500.00. Respondent issued a writ of
execution. Complainant’s monetary awards were
reduced from ₱1,470,082.60 to ₱114,585.00,
inclusive of execution and deposit fees.
Complainant filed a Petition for Injuction in the
NLRC as respondent had no authority to modify
the CA Decision which was already final and
executory. An administrative complaint1 for
disbarment filed by Eduardo A. Abella
(complainant) against Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr.
(respondent) based on the latter's violation of
Rules 1.01 and 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.Q2,
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
IBP- respondent tried to twist the meaning of the
CA Decision out of all logical, reasonable and
grammatical context in order to favor PT&T and
respondent deliberately left complainant’s efforts
to execute the CA Decision unacted upon until
the latter agreed to give him a portion of the
monetary award thereof. Guilty of gross
immorality- Disbarred
Issue: Whether respondent is guilty of gross
immorality for his violation of Rules 1.01 and
1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the
Code.
Held: Yes,
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD
THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF
THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt
motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY
TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE
IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL
TASKS.
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service
shall not use his public position to promote or
advance his private interests, nor allow the latter
to interfere with his public duties.
Respondent was merely tasked to recompute the
monetary awards due to the complainant who
sought to execute the CA Decision which had
already been final and executory. When
complainant moved for execution, respondent
slept on the same for more than a year. It was only
when complainant paid respondent a personal
visit on November 4, 2005 that the latter speedily
issued a writ of execution. Thus, as respondent’s
violations clearly constitute gross immoral
conduct and gross misconduct, his disbarment
should come as a matter of
course.1âwphi1 However, the Court takes
judicial notice of the fact that he had already been
disbarred in a previous administrative case.
A.C. No. 9401 October 22, 2013
JOCELYN DE LEON, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. TYRONE PEDREÑA, Respondent.
Jocelyn de Leon filed with the IBP a complaint
for disbarment or suspension from the practice of
law against Atty. Tyrone Pedreña. Complainant
went to the Public Attorney’s Office to inquire
from respondent about the status of her case for
support of her two minor children against her
husband. They went to a restaurant to talk about
the case. After they had lunch, respondent told
complainant to ride with him and drop her off the
jeepney station. After they left the parking lot
respondent held complainant’s left hand and
continued rubbing her left leg. Respondent
grabbed complainant’s hand and and forced it to
put on his penis. Respondent also pressed his
fingers against the complainant’s private part.
Respondent denied allegations.
IBP- Atty. Pedreña had made sexual advances on
De Leon in violation of Rule 1.018 and Rule
7.039 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Issue: WON respondent violated CPR
Held: Yes, his acts were not merely offensive and
undesirable but repulsive, disgraceful and grossly
immoral. They constituted misconduct on the part
of any lawyer. In this regard, it bears stressing
that 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 community’s sense of decency. The
possession of good moral character is both a
condition precedent and a continuing requirement
to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain
membership in the Legal Profession. Any errant
behavior on the part of a lawyer that tends to
expose a deficiency in moral character, honesty,
probity or good demeanor, be it in the lawyer’s
public or private activities, is sufficient to warrant
the lawyer’s suspension or disbarment. He also
disregarded his oath as a public officer to serve
others and to be accountable at all times, because
he thereby took advantage of her vulnerability as
a client then in desperate need of his legal
assistance.
SC- Suspended for 2 years.
A.C. No. 5377 June 30, 2014
VICTOR C. LINGAN, Complainant,
vs.
ATTYS. ROMEO CALUBAQUIB and
JIMMY P. BALIGA, Respondents.
This court found Attys. Romeo I. Calubaquib and
Jimmy P. Baliga guilty of violating Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility as they
allowed their secretaries to notarize
documents in their stead, in violation of
Sections 2455 and 2466 of the Notarial
Law. This court suspended respondents
from the practice of law for one year,
revoked their notarial commissions, and
disqualified them from reappointment as
notaries public for two years.
Complainant Victor C. Lingan filed his
motion for reconsideration,7 praying that
respondents be disbarred, not merely
suspended from the practice of law. Such
was denied. Complainant Lingan wrote
the Commission on Human Rights.
Lingan requested the Commission to
investigate Atty. Baliga following the
latter's suspension from the practice of
law. Commission on Human Rights En
Banc suspended him from his position as
Director/Attorney VI of the. Commission
on Human Rights Regional Office for
Region II. Atty. Baliga · argued that he
cannot be suspended for acts not
 connected with his functions as
Commission on Human Rights Regional
Director. According to Atty. Baliga, his
suspension from the practice of law did
not include his suspension from public
office. A motion to lift one-year
suspension from the practice of law was
filed.The Commission on Human Rights
allowed Atty. Baliga to perform his
functions as Regional Director during the
period of suspension, the Office of the
Bar Confidant said that the Commission
"deliberate[ly] disregard[ed]"21 this
court's order of suspension. According to
the Office of the Bar Confidant, the
Commission on Human Rights had no
power to "[alter, modify, or set aside any
of this court's resolutions] which [have]
become final and executory.

Issue: whether Atty. Baliga's motion to lift order

of suspension should be granted.

Held: No. Practice of law is "any activity, in or

out of court, which requires the application of
law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience."57 It includes "[performing] acts
which are characteristics of the [legal]
profession"58 or "[rendering any kind of] service
[which] requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill."59

Work in government that requires the use of legal

knowledge is considered practice. of law. The
exercise of the powers and functions of a
Commission on Human Rights Regional Director
constitutes practice of law. Thus, the Regional
Director must be an attorney - a member of the
bar in good standing and authorized to practice
law.74 When the Regional Director loses this
authority, such as when he or she is disbarred or
suspended from the practice of law, the Regional
Director loses a necessary qualification to the
position he or she is holding. The disbarred or
suspended lawyer must desist from holding the
position of Regional Director.