CASE # 1

Ui v. Bonifacio
[A.C. No. 3319. June 8,2000]

TOPIC: Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law
and legal processes.

DOCTRINE/S: GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT ; Immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral
norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. Moreover, for such
conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be “grossly immoral”, that is, it must be so corrupt and false
as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. It is difficult to state with
precision and to fix an inflexible standard as what is “grossly immoral conduct” or to specify the moral delinquency
and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar.

DE LEON,JR., J:

FACTS:

Complainant Leslie Ui married Carlos L. Ui in January 24,1971 and as a result of their marital union, they had four
children all surnamed Ui. Sometime in Decemer 1987, however, complainant found out that her husband,Carlos
Ui, was carrying on an illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he had a daughter
sometime in 1986 and they had been living together in Muntinlupa City. Respondent who is a graduate of the
College of Law of the University of the Philippines was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1982.

Carlos Ui admitted to complainant his relationship with the respondent. Complainant then visited respondent at
her office sometime in June 1988 and introduced herself as the legal wife of Carlos Ui. Respondent thereafter
admitted to her that she has a child with Carlos Ui but alleged that everything was over between her and Carlos Ui.
Complainant believed the respondent and thought things would turn out well from then on and that the illicit
relationship between her husband and respondent would stop.

However, complainant again discovered that the illicit relationship between her husband and respondent
continued, and that sometime in December 1988, respondent and her husband, Carlos Ui, had a second child.
Complainant then met again with respondent sometime in March 1989 and pleaded with respondent to
discontinue her illicit relationship with Carlos Ui but to no avail. The illicit relationship persisted and complainant
even came to know later on that respondent had been employed by her husband in his company.

With this, a complaint for disbarment was then filed on August 11,1989 by the complainant against respondent
Atty. Iris Bonifacio before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on the ground
of immorality, more particularly, for carrying on an illicit relationship with the complainant’s husband, Carlos Ui.

Respondent averred in her Answer that she met Carlos ui sometime in 1983 and had known him all along to be a
bachelor, with the knowledge, however, that Carlos Ui had children by a Chinese woman in China from whome he
had long been estranged. Respondent stated that during one of their trips abroad, Carlos Ui formalized his
intention to marry her and they in fact got married in Hawaii, USA in 1985. Upon their return to Manila,
respondent did not live with Carlos Ui. Respondent also contends that it was she who was the victim in this case
and not Leslie Ui because she did not know that Carlos Ui was already married, and that upon learning of this fact,
respondent immediately cut off all her ties with Carlos Ui.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not Atty. Iris Bonifacio should be disbarred for allegedly carrying on an immoral relationship
with Carlos L. Ui, husband of complainant, Leslie Ui

HELD/ RULING:

Complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio for alleged immorality is dismissed. However,
respondent is hereby reprimanded for attaching to her Answer a photocopy of her Marriage Certificate, with an
altered or intercalated date thereof, with a stern warning that a more severe sanction will be imposed on her for
any repetition of the same or similar offense in the future.

The Court ruled that “a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to regrain from adulterous
relationships.. but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is
flouting those moral standards.”

The Court has also emphasized that Respondent’s act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon
discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of
flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession.

The Court also held said that the practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy the
practice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject
to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. The requisites for
admission to the practice of law are: (a) he must be a citizen of the Philippines; (b) a resident thereof; (c) at least
twenty-one (21) years of age; (d) a person of good moral character; (e) he must show that no charges against him
involving moral turpitude are filed or pending in court; (f) possess the required educational qualifications; and (g)
pass the bar examinations.
 CASE #2
In re: Cunanan Et. Al.
[Resolution. March 18,1954.]
TOPIC: Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law
and legal processes.

DOCTRINE/S: ADMISSION; The public interest demands of the legal profession adequate preparation and
efficiency, precisely more so as legal problems evolved by the times become more difficult.

DIOKNO,J:

FACTS:
On June 21,1953, the President allowed without vetoing nor signing Republic Act No. 972 or An Act to Fix the
Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from Nineteen Hundred and Forty-Six up to and Including Nineteen Hundred
and Fifty-Five or popularly known as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953”.

Republic Act No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the Bar, those candidates who suffered
from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparation.

Upon its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its
provisions, while others motions for the revision of their examination papers were still pending also invoked the
aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. There are also others who have sought simply the
reconsideration of their grades without,however, invoking the law in question.
Of the 9,675 candidates who took the examinations from 1946 to 1952, 5,236 passed. And now it is claimed that in
addition 604 candidates be admitted (which in reality total 1,094), because they suffered from “insufficiency of
reading materials” and of “inadequacy of preparation.”

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Republic Act No. 972 of known as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953” is constitutional

HELD/RULING:
No. Republic Act No. 972 is unconstitutional and therefore, void, and without any force nor effect because its
declared purpose is to admit 810 candidates who failed in the bar examinations of 1946-1952, and who, it admits,
are certainly inadequately prepared to practice law, as was exactly found by this Court in the aforesaid years. It
decrees the admission to the Bar of these candidates, depriving this Tribunal of the opportunity to determine if
they are at present already prepared to become members of the Bar. The Court also said that the said law obliges
the Tribunal to perform something contrary to reason and in an arbitrary manner.

Furthermore, the Court said that to the legal profession is entrusted the protection of property, life, honor and civil
liberties. To approve officially of those inadequately prepared individuals to dedicate themselves to such a delicate
mission is to create a serious social danger. Moreover, the statement that there was an insufficiency of legal
reading materials is grossly exaggerated because there were actually abundant materials during those years.
 CASE #3
Zoreta v. Simpliciano
[A.C. No. 6492. November 18,2004.]
TOPIC: CANON 1- A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD

DOCTRINE/S:

CHICO-NAZARIO,J:

FACTS:
Complainant Melanio L. Zoreta alleged that on 2 August 2001, he filed before Branch 4 of the Regional Trial Court
of Antipolo City, a complaint for Breach of Contract and Damages against Security Pacific Assurance Corporation
(SPAC) dated June 22,2001 due to the latter’s failure to honor SPAC’s Commercial Vehicle Policy No. 94283, where
respondent Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano was the latter’s counsel. In said cases, respondent who was not a
duly commissioned Notary Public in 2002 per Certifications issued by the Clerk of Court of Quezon City Mercedes S.
Gatmaytan, performed acts of notarization evidenced by eight documents. On April 23,2003, The Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) of Pasig required respondent Atty. Simpliciano to submit his answer within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the Order. In response thereto, counsel of respondent filed an ex-parte motion for extension of
time to file answer. On June 30,2003, however, petitioner filed a motion to resolve the complaint after the
extension requested by respondent ended on 30 May 2003, and almost a month had lapsed from 30 May 2003,
with no comment of pleading filed by respondent. Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro, on July 17,2003, issued an
order, giving respondent a last chance to file his answer, otherwise the case shall be deemed submitted for
resolution. Respondent again, however, failed to do so. With this, Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro submitted her
report and recommendation emphasizing therein that a careful examination and evaluation of the evidence
submitted by the petitioner showed that respondent notarized documents and his commission expires December
31,2002. All the other documents that were entered in Book II of respondent’s alleged notarial book also reflected
that his commission expires on December 31,2002, as notary public. However, the Clerk of Court of Quezon City in
her certification showed that as per records on file with their office respondent was not duly commissioned notary
public for and in Quezon City for the year 2002. To sum it up, it is evident from the foregoing that when
respondent notarized the aforementioned documents, he was not commissioned as notary public, which was in
violation of the Notarial Law; for having notarized the 590 documents after the expiration of his commission as
notary public without having renewed said commission amounting to gross misconduct as a member of the legal
profession.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Atty. Simpliciano is a duly commissioned Notary Public for and in Quezon City for the year 2002

RULING/HELD:
No. Respondent Atty. Simpliciano is not a duly commissioned Notary Public for and in Quezon City for the year
2002. He is barred permanently from being commissioned as a notary public and suspended from the practice of
law for two years. This was proved by the aforementioned facts constituting 590 notarized documents which were
signed by the respondent despite the expiration of his commission as notary public.

The Court emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with
substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. The
protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented
from imposing upon the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general. It must be underscored that
the 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. For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties.

The Court further stressed that 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 therefore as “reprehensible,constituting as it does not only malpractice but also.. the crime
of falsification of public documents.” For such reprehensible conduct, the Court has sanctioned erring lawyers by
suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission and disqualification from acting as
such, and even disbarment.
 CASE #4
In re: Disbarment of Armando Puno
[A.C. No. 389. February 28,1967]
TOPIC: CANON 1, RULE 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
DOCTRINE/S: LAWYER MUST MEET EVIDENCE QUESTIONING HIS INTEGRITY- When the lawyer’s integrity is
challenged by evidence, it is not enough that he denies the charges against him; he must meet the issue and
overcome the evidence for the relator and show proofs that he still maintains the highest degree of morality and
integrity, which at all times is expected of him.

REGALA,J:

FACTS:
On April 16,1959, Flora Quingwa filed before this Court a verified complaint charging Armando Puno, a member of
the Bar, with gross immorality and misconduct. The case stemmed from the respondent forcing on having carnal
knowledge of the complainant. On June 1, 1958, at a time when complainant Flora Quingwa and respondent
Armando Puno were engaged to be married, the said respondent invited the complainant to attend a movie but on
their way the respondent told the complainant that they take refreshment before going to the Lyric Theater; that
they proceeded to the Silver Moon Hotel at R. Hidalgo, Manila; that while at the restaurant on the first floor of the
said hotel, respondent proposed to complainant that they go to one of the rooms upstairs assuring her that
‘anyway we are getting married;’ that with reluctance and a feeling of doubt engendered by love of respondent
and the respondent’s promise of marriage, complainant then agreed to respondent’s request, and before they
entered the hotel room, respondent registered and signed the registry book as ‘Mr. and Mrs. A. Puno’; that after
registering at the hotel, respondent forced complainant inside the room; that as soon as they were inside the
room, someone locked the door from outside and respondent proceeded to the bed and undressed himself; that
complainant begged respondent not to molest her but respondent still repeatedly insisted the condition that
anyway he has promised to marry her; that respondent pulled complainant to the bed, removed her panty and
then placed himself on top of her and held her hands to keep her flat on the bed; that when respondent was
already on top of complainant, the latter had no other choice but to submit to respondent’s demand and two
sexual intercourse took place from 3 o’clock until 7 o’clock that same evening; that respondent repeatedly
requested to have some more but complainant refused because she wanted to wait until they were married; that
after their said sexual intimacy on June 1,1958 and feeling that complainant was impregnated by the respondent,
complainant repeatedly appealed to respondent to comply with his promise of marriage but respondent refused to
comply; and that on February 20,1959, complainant gave birth. A copy of the complaint was then served on
respondent on May 3, 1962 but respondent thereupon answered the complaint a month after, denying that he
took complainant to the Silver Moon Hotel and that on the promise of marriage, succeeded twice in having sexual
intercourse with her. He, however, admitted that sometime in June 1955, he and the complainant became
sweethearts until November 1955 when they broke off, following a quarrel. Furthermore, respondent left for
Zamboanga City in July 1958 to practice law. Thereafter, without stating in his answer that he had the intention of
introducting additional evidence, respondent prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not respondent has committed a grossly immoral act by having carnal knowledge with the
complainant through a promise of marriage which he did not fulfill and has refused to fulfill up to the present

RULING/HELD:
Yes. The Court is convinced that the respondent has committed a grossly immoral act and has thus disregarded
and violated the fundamental ethics of his profession. Indeed, it is important that members of this ancient and
learned profession of law must conform themselves in accordance with the highest standards of morality.

The Court further stressed that when a lawyer’s integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not enough that he denies
the charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence for the relator and show proofs that
he still maintains the highest degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is expected of him. Respondent
denied that he took complainant to the Silver moon Hotel and had sexual intercourse with her but he did not
present evidence to show where he was on that date.
 CASE #5
Royong v. Oblena
[A.C. No. 376. April 30,1963]
TOPIC:
DOCTRINE/S: 1. STATUTORY ENUMERATION OF GROUNDS NOT EXCLUSIVE; INHERENT POWER OF COURT TO
EXCLUDE UNFIT MEMBERS OF THE PROFESSION- The enumeration in Section 25, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, of
the grounds upon which disbarment proceedings may be based, is not exclusive. The power of the courts to
exclude unfit and unworthy members of the legal profession is inherent; it is a necessary incident to the proper
administration of justice, and may be exercised without any special statutory authority, and in all proper cases
unless positively prohibited by statute. The power may be exercised in any manner that will give the party to be
disbarred a fair opportunity to be heard.
2. RULE ON DISBARMENT BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER ANY MISCONDUCT- The moral turpitude for which
an attorney may be disbarred may consist of misconduct in either his professional or non-professional
activities. The rule is so phrased as to be broad enough to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer.

BARRERA,J:

FACTS:

ISSUE/S: Whether the illicit relations with the complainant Josefina Royong and the open cohabitation with Briccia
Angeles, a married woman, are sufficient grounds to cause the respondent’s disbarment.
RULING/HELD:
 CASE #6
[Adm. Case No. 997. September 10,1979]
ABAIGAR v. PAZ
TOPIC:
DOCTRINE/S:

Ponente

FACTS:
ISSUE/S:
RULING/HELD:

CASE #7

[..]
TOPIC:
DOCTRINE/S:

Ponente

FACTS:
ISSUE/S:
RULING/HELD:

CASE #8

[..]
TOPIC:
DOCTRINE/S:

Ponente

FACTS:
ISSUE/S:
RULING/HELD:
CASE #9

[..]
TOPIC:
DOCTRINE/S:

Ponente

FACTS:
ISSUE/S:
RULING/HELD:
 CASE #10
Director of Religious Affairs v. Estanislao R. Bayot
[Adm. Case No. 1117. March 20,1944]

TOPIC: RULE 2.03- A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
DOCTRINE/S: SOLICITATION OF BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC. – It is undeniable that the advertisement in
question was a flagrant violation by the respondent of the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solicitation of
business from the public. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that “the practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.” It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents of skill as merchant advertises his wares.
Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the
practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the public. As a member of the bar, he
defiles the temple of justice with mercenary activities as the money-changers of old defiled the temple of Jehovah.
“The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer,… is the establishment of a well-
merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome
of character and conduct.”

OZAETA,J:

FACTS:
The respondent, who is an attorney-at-law, is charged with malpractice for having published an advertisement in
the Sunday Tribune of June 13,1943 which is about respondent advertising his legal service. Appearing in his own
behalf, respondent at first denied having published the said advertisement; but subsequently, thru his attorney, he
admitted having caused his publication and prayed for “the indulgence and mercy” of the Court, promising “not to
repeat such professional misconduct in the future and to abide himself to the strict ethical rules of the law
profession.” Respondent further alleged that the said advertisement was published only once in the Tribune and
that he never had any case at law by reason thereof.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the respondent of the ethics of
his profession

RULING/HELD:
Yes. The Court ruled that it is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the
respondent of the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solicitation of business from the public. Section 25 of
Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that “the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.” It is highly unethical for an attorney to
advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer
degrades himself and his profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his
services or offering them to the public.

Considering his plea for leniency and his promise not to repeat the misconduct, the Court is of the opinion and so
decides that the respondent should be, as hereby is, reprimanded.