CANON 1
Respondent sent text messages to complainants
CASE 11
Re: 2003 Bar Examinations
FACTS
On September 22, 2003, there was a rumored leakage in the bar
examination on the Mercantile Law subject. Investigation was lead
back to the office of Atty. Marcial O.T. Balgos, then Mercantile Law
Examiner, where the leakage started. Allegedly, Atty. Danilo de
Guzman (assistant lawyer in the firm of Balgos and Perez) stole a
copy of Atty. Balgos’ file on Mercantile Law with the proposed test
items, and the former sent it to some members of the Beta Sigma
Lambda Fraternity.
ISSUES
1. WON Atty. Balgos and Atty. de Guzman are guilty of gross
misconduct unbecoming a member of the Bar.
RULING
YES. De Guzman abetted cheating or dishonesty by his fraternity
brothers in the examination, which is violative of Rule 1.01 of Canon
1, as well as Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
members of the Bar. As for Atty. Balgos’ negligence, if he had taken
those simple precautions to protect the secrecy of his papers,
nobody could have stolen them and copied and circulated them. The
integrity of the bar examinations would not have been sullied by the
scandal.
CASE 12
Barrientos v. Libiran-Metereo
FACTS
Respondent Atty. Elerizza Libiran-Meteoro issued several checks in
favor of Isidra Barrientos and Olivia Mercado (complainants) for the
payment of a pre-existing debt. The checks bounced due to
insufficient funds thus charges for violation of B.P. 22 were filed by
Isidra and Olivia.
asking for the deferment of the criminal charges with the promise that
she will pay her debt. Respondent, however, failed to fulfill said
promise. Respondent even tried to give to complainants a title for a
parcel of land in exchange for the bounced checks, but it was later
discovered that the land belonged to someone else, who merely
entrusted said title to the respondent. Thus, a complaint for
disbarment was filed against Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro for
deceit and non-payment of debts.
IBP Board of Governors Ruling
Respondent violated not only her oath as a lawyer but also Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Elerizza A.
Libiran-Meteoro is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
six (6) months and Restitution of P84,000 to complainant.
ISSUES
1. WON Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro is guilty of gross misconduct.
RULING
YES. The Court held that deliberate failure to pay just debts and the
issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which
a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law.
Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice and
vanguards of our legal system. They are expected to maintain not only
legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity
and fair dealing so that the people’s faith and confidence in the judicial
system is ensured. They must at all times faithfully perform their duties
to society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include
prompt payment of financial obligations. They must conduct
themselves in a manner that reflects the values and norms of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 explicitly states that:
Page 1 of 19
CANON 1 -- A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 -- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.
The issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been
drawn
against a closed account indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust
and confidence reposed on her. It shows a lack of personal honesty
and good moral character as to render her unworthy of public
confidence. The issuance of a series of worthless checks also shows
the remorseless attitude of respondent, unmindful to the deleterious
effects of such act to the public interest and public order. It also
manifests a lawyer’s low regard to her commitment to the oath she
has taken when she joined her peers, seriously and irreparably
tarnishing the image of the profession she should hold in high esteem.
Mere issuance of worthless checks by a lawyer, regardless of whether
or not the same were issued in his professional capacity to a client,
calls for appropriate disciplinary measures.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro is found guilty of
gross misconduct and is hereby SUSPENDED for six months from the
practice of law, effective upon her receipt of this Decision, and is
ordered to pay complainant Isidra Barrientos the amount of
P84,000.00, as balance of her debt to the latter, plus 6% interest from
date of finality of herein decision.
CASE 13
BARRIOS VS. ATTY. FRANCISCO P. MARTINEZ (2004)
FACTS:
In the present case, respondent has been found guilty and convicted
by fi􏰕nal judgment for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for issuing a worthless
check in the amount of P8,000. In the said case, the Court issued a
resolution requiring respondent to comment on the petition within 10
days from notice. The Court fine􏰕ned respondent P2,000 and
required him to comply with the resolution requiring his comment
within ten days under pain of imprisonment and arrest for a period of
􏰕five (5) days or until his compliance. NBI reported that respondent
was arrested in Tacloban City but was subsequently released after
having shown proof of compliance with the resolution by remitting the
amount of P2,000 and submitting his long overdue Comment.
Later on, it was discovered that respondent was also involved in
another estafa case pertaining to his legal services rendered on the
victim of Dona Paz tragedy (Ferry that sank after colliding with an oil
tanker on Dec. 20, 1987). The victim he represented filed a complaint
because of the compensation that the victim had received from
Sulpicio Lines which was later deducted by Atty. Martinez.
The Court later on referred the present case to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
Investigation Commissioner recommended that respondent Atty.
Francisco P. Martinez be disbarred and his name stricken out from the
Roll of Attorneys immediately.
On Sept. 27, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution
approving the report and the recommendation of its investigating
commissioner.
ISSUE:
WON the crime of issuing worthless check constituting moral turpitude
and the act of the respondent considered to be a ground for
disbarment
RULING:
YES. The SC agrees to the IBP Board of Governors recommendation
that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law.
Page 2 of 19
The Court stressed that membership in the legal profession is a
privilege, demanding a high degree of good moral character, not only
as a condition precedent to admission, but also as a continuing
requirement for the practice of law. Sadly, herein respondent falls
short of the exacting standards expected of him as a vanguard of the
legal profession.
In the instant case, respondent has been found guilty and stands
convicted by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude.
Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals. It involves “an act of baseness,
vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow
men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary
rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary
to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals”.
In In The Matter of Disbarment Proceedings v. Narciso N. Jaramillo,
SC disbarred a lawyer convicted of estafa without discussing the
circumstances behind his conviction.
SC held that: There is no question that the crime of estafa
involves moral turpitude. The review of respondent's conviction
no longer rests upon us. The judgment not only has become final but
has been executed. No elaborate argument is necessary to hold the
respondent unworthy of the privilege bestowed on him as a member
of the bar. Suffice it to say that, by his conviction, the respondent has
proved himself unfit to protect the administration of justice.
The SC therefore, finds disbarment to be the appropriate
penalty.
"Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to
uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in
the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them
underfoot and to ignore the very bands of society, argues recreancy
to his position and office and sets a pernicious example to the
insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic."
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Francisco P. Martinez is hereby
DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of
Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the respondent's
record as a member of the Bar, and notice of the same be served on
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the O􏰕ce of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
CASE 14
A-1 FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. VS ATTY. LAARNI VALERIO
(2010)
FACTS:
A-1 Financial Services, Inc., granted respondent a loan amounting to
P50,000.00. Respondent issued a check to secure the payment of the
loan. However, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite
repeated demands, Atty. Valerio failed to pay the whole amount of her
obligation.Thus, complainant 􏰕filed a B.P. 22 case against
respondent. After repeated demands by the trial court respondent
failed to give any response. Complainant filed an administrative
complaint against respondent before the IBP. Respondent was
required to file an answer, but failed to do so. However, respondent’s
mother explained that her daughter had been diagnosed with
schizophrenia; thus, could not properly respond to the complaint
against her.
The IBP-CBD directed respondent to appear before the mandatory
conference. Respondent, again, failed to attend the conference.
Subsequently, the IBP ordered the parties to submit their position
papers. No position paper was submitted by respondent.
Page 3 of 19
Thus, the IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Valerio be suspended
from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, having found her
guilty of gross misconduct.
IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification of
the period of suspension to 1 year.
Nevertheless, to provide opportunity to explain herself, the Court
directed the respondent to submit a duly notarized medical certificate
to support the claim of schizophrenia, However, no said record was
submitted.
ISSUE:
Whether or Atty. Valerio is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
YES. The SC sustained the findings and recommendations of the IBP-
CBD.
The Court, finds unmeritorious Mrs. Valerio's justification that
respondent is suffering from a health condition - schizophrenia, which
has prevented her from properly answering the complaint against her.
Indeed, we cannot take the "medical certificate" on its face,
considering failure to prove the contents of the certificate or present
the physician who issued it. CIaDTE
Respondent’s conduct in the course of the IBP and court proceedings
is also a matter of serious concern. She failed to answer the complaint
against her. Despite due notice, she failed to attend the disciplinary
hearings set by the IBP. She also ignored the proceedings before the
court as she likewise failed to both answer the complaint against her
and appear during her arraignment, despite orders and notices from
the court. Clearly, this conduct runs counter to the precepts of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and violates the lawyer's oath
which imposes upon every member of the Bar the duty to delay no
man for money or malice. Respondent has failed to live up to the
values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
The SC deem it reasonable to affirm the sanction imposed by
the IBP-CBD. Atty. Valerio was ordered suspended from the
practice of law for two (2) years, because, aside from issuing
worthless checks and failing to pay her debts, she has also shown
wanton disregard of the IBP's and Court Orders in the course of the
proceedings.
SANCTIONS:
Atty. Laarni N. Valerio is guilty of gross misconduct and violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
VIOLATED CANONS / STATUTE:
BP. 22
Canon 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Page 4 of 19
 CASE 15
WILSON CHAM, complainant, v. ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA,
respondent.
Complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Wilson Cham
against respondent Atty. Eva Paita-Moya, who allegedly committed
deceit in occupying a leased apartment unit and, thereafter, vacating
the same without paying the rentals and other dues.
FACTS:
According to the Complaint, on 1 October 1998, Atty. Moya
entered into a Contract of Lease with Greenville Realty and
Development Corp. (GRDC), represented by Mr. Cham as its
President and General Manager, involving a residential apartment unit
owned by GRDC at P8,000.00 per month for a term of one year.
Moreover, upon the expiration of said lease contract, Atty. Moya
informed the complainant that she would no longer renew the same
but requested an extension of her stay at the apartment unit until June
30, 2000 and promised to pay the monthly rental during the extension
period which Mr. Cham approved only that he (Cham) increased the
rental rate to P8,650.00 per month for the period beginning October 1,
1999 until June 30, 2000.
However, Atty. Moya stayed at the leased apartment until
October 2000 without paying her rentals from July to October 2000
and also failed to settle her electric bills for the months of September
and October 2000. As of October 15, 2004, her total accountability
amounted to P71, 007.88.
Sometime in October 2000, a report reached GRDC that Atty.
Moya had secretly vacated the apartment unit, bringing along with her
the door keys. Also, she did not pay attention to complainant’s
repeated written demands for payment of her obligations despite due
receipt of the same. Thus, Mr. Wilson Cham was compelled to file a
compaint for disbarment against Atty. Moya.
In her answer, Atty. Moya alleged that she had religiously paid
her monthly rentals and had not vacated the apartment unit
surreptitiously. She also claimed that she transferred to another place
because she was given notice by the complainant to vacate the
premises to give way for its repair and renovation, but which never
happened until presently. She actually wanted to ask that complainant
to account for her deposit for the apartment unit, but she could not do
so since she did not know complainants address or contact number.
For the same reason, she could not turn over to the complainant the
door keys to the vacated apartment unit.
After the mandatory preliminary conference conducted by the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), the parties were given time to submit their respective Position
Papers per Order dated February 17, 2006.
On 29 March 2006, complainant filed his Position Paper.
However, Atty. Moya, despite the extension given, did not file hers.
Hence, the case was deemed submitted for resolution.
On September 8, 2006, Investigating Commissioner Acerey C.
Pacheco submitted his Report and Recommendation, recommending
the imposition of the penalty of three-month suspension on
respondent for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
However, The IBP Board of Governors, however, passed Resolution
No. XVII-2006- 585 dated December 15, 2006, amending the
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and approving the
dismissal of the Complaint for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
WON ATTY. EVA MOYA IS GUILTY OF GROSS MISCONDUCT.
Page 5 of 19
RULIING: backtracked on her duty to pay her debts, such act already constituted
a ground for administrative sanction.
YES, she is. SC contends that the case must not be dismissed
and respondent must face the consequences of her actions. Respondents abandonment of the leased premises to avoid her
obligations for the rent and electricity bills constitutes deceitful conduct
SC said:
violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon
A review of the records would reveal that respondent is, indeed, I and Rule 1.01 thereof, which explicitly state:
guilty of willful failure to pay just debt. Complainant is able to fully
CANON 1- A lawyer shall uphold the constitution,
substantiate that respondent has existing obligations that she failed to
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
settle.
legal processes.
Respondent did not expressly deny receipt of the letters of
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
demand in her Answer to the Complaint. Having failed to rebut the
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
foregoing allegations, she must be deemed to have admitted them.
Section 11, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, provides:

The Court stresses that membership in the legal profession is a

privilege. It demands a high degree of good moral character, not only
SECTION 11. Allegations not specifically denied
as a condition precedent to admission, but also as a continuing
deemed admitted. Material averment in the
requirement for the practice of law. In this case, respondent fell short
complaint, other than those as to the amount of
of the exacting standards expected of her as a guardian of law and
unliquidated damage, shall be deemed admitted
justice.
when not specifically denied.
Any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his or her professional or
Moreover, a settled rule of evidence is that the one who pleads
private capacity is a ground for the imposition of the penalty of
payment has the burden of proving it. The debtor has the burden of
suspension or disbarment because good character is an essential
showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by
qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for the
payment. In the instant case, the respondent failed to discharge the
continuance of such privilege. The Court has held that the deliberate
burden of proving payment, for she was unable to produce receipts or
failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks
any other proof of payment of the rentals due for the period of 1 July to
constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned
September 20, 2000.
with one years suspension from the practice of law, or a suspension
Having incurred just debts, respondent had the moral duty and of six months upon partial payment of the obligation.
legal responsibility to settle them when they became due. Respondent
The case at bar merely involves the respondents deliberate
should have complied with just contractual obligations, and acted fairly
failure to pay her just debts, without her issuing a worthless check,
and adhered to high ethical standards to preserve the courts integrity,
which would have been a more serious offense.
since she is an employee thereof. Indeed, when respondent

Page 6 of 19

The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP recommended that
she be suspended from the practice of law for three months, a penalty
which this Court finds sufficient.
JUDGMENT: Guilty of gross misconduct. SUSPENDED for 1
month from the practice of law with a WARNING:repetition of
the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.
CASE 16
ARCATOMY S. GUARIN, Complainant, v. ATTY. CHRISTINE A.C.
LIMPIN, Respondent.
Complaint for disbarment filed by Arcatomy S. Guarin against
Atty. Christine Antenor Cruz Limpin for allegedly filing a false General
Information Sheet (GIS) with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) thus violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
FACTS:
In 2004, the complainant, Guarin as Chief Operating Officer and
thereafter as President of One Card Company, Inc. (OCCI), a member
of the Legacy Group of Companies (LGC). However, he resigned from
his post effective August 11, 2008 and transferred to St. Luke's
Medical Center as the Vice President for Finance.
On November 27, 2008, Atty. Limpin, the Corporate Secretary of
Legacy Card, Inc. (LCI), another corporation under the Legacy Group
(LGC), filed with the SEC a GIS for LCI for "updating purposes". The
GIS identified Guarin as Chairman of the Board of Directors (BOD)
and President.
Mired with allegations of anomalous business transactions and
practices, on December 18, 2008, LCI applied for voluntary dissolution
with the SEC.
On July 22, 2009, Guarin filed this complaint with the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD)
claiming that Atty. Limpin violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR
by knowingly listing him as a stockholder, Chairman of the Board and
President of LCI when she knew that he had already resigned and had
never held any share nor was he elected as chairperson of the BOD
or been President of LCI. He also never received any notice of meeting
or agenda where his appointment as Chairman would be taken up. He
has never accepted any appointment as Chairman and President of
LCI.
On the other hand, Atty. Limpin admits that she filed the GIS with
the SEC listing Guarin as a stockholder, the Chairman of the BOD and
President of LCI. She argued that the GIS was provisional to comply
with SEC requirements. It would have been corrected in the future but
unfortunately LCI filed for voluntary dissolution shortly thereafter. She
averred that the GIS was made and submitted in good faith and that
her certification served to attest to the information from the last BOD
meeting held on March 3, 2008.
She asserted that Guarin knew that he was a stockholder. Atty.
Limpin said that on October 13, 2008, she sent Guarin a text message
and asked him to meet with her so he may sign a Deed of Assignment
concerning share holdings. Guarin responded in the affirmative and
said that he would meet with her. Guarin, however, neglected to show
up at the arranged time and place for reasons unknown to Atty. Limpin.
On the strength of Guarin’s positive reply, Atty. Limpin filed the GIS on
November 27, 2008. To belie the claim that LCI never held any board
meeting, Atty. Limpin presented Secretary’s Certificates dated May
Page 7 of 19
16, 2006, May 22, 2006, and June 13, 2007 bearing Guarin’s
signature.
Furthermore, Atty. Limpin contends that Guarin failed to present
sufficient evidence to warrant disbarment. She stated that merely
presenting the GIS does not constitute as proof of any unethical
conduct, harassment and malpractice.
IBP CBD found that Atty. Limpin violated Canon 1, Rules 1.01
and 1.02 of the CPR and recommended that she be suspended from
the practice of law for three months.
It was noted that only Mr. Celso de los Angeles had the authority
to appoint or designate directors or officers of Legacy. Atty. Limpin
was aware that this procedure was not legally permissible. Despite
knowing this to be irregular, she allowed herself to be dictated upon
and falsely certified that Guarin was a stockholder, chairman and
president of the company.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted in toto the CBD Report.
Atty. Limpin moved for reconsideration but was denied.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Limpin has violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and
Rule 1.02 of the CPR.
RULIING:
Yes. SC adopted the report and recommendation of the IBP. Atty.
Limpin has violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01and Rule 1.02 of the CPR.
SC’s discussion:
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.
Grounds for such administrative action against a lawyer may be
found in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Among these are
(1) the use of any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
such office and (2) any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before the admission to practice.
It is undisputed that Atty. Limpin filed and certified that Guarin
was a stockholder of LCI in the GIS. While she posits that she had
made the same in good faith, her certification also contained a
stipulation that she made a due verification of the statements
contained therein. That Atty. Limpin believed that Guarin would sign a
Deed of Assignment is inconsequential, he never signed the
instrument. We also note that there was no submission which would
support the allegation that Guarin was in fact a stockholder. In filing
a GIS that contained false information, Atty. Limpin committed an
infraction which did not conform to her oath as a lawyer in accord
with Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR.
In allowing herself to be swayed by the business practice of
having Mr. de los Angeles appoint the members of the BOD and
officers of the corporation despite the rules enunciated in the
Corporation Code with respect to the election of such officers, Atty.
Limpin has transgressed Rule 1.02 of the CPR.
JUDGMENT:
GUILTY of violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. SUSPENSION from the practice of law
for SIX (6) MONTHS (INCREASED due to the seriousness of Atty.
Limpin's action of submitting a false document). With WARNING:a
repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
Page 8 of 19
 CASE 17
GUEVERRA VS. EALA
FACTS:
 JANUARY 2000 Gueverra first met Eala in January 2000
when his (complainant's) then-fiancee Irene introduced Eala
to him as her friend who was married to Marianne with whom
he had three children.
 October 2000 After his marriage to Irene , Gueverra
noticed that from January to March 2001, Irene had been
receiving from Eala cellphone calls, as well as messages
some of which read "I love you," "I miss you," or "Meet you
at Megamall."
 Gueverra also noticed that Irene habitually went home very
late at night or early in the morning of the following day, and
sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked
about her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her
parents' house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with
her work.
 In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and
respondent together on two occasions. On the second
occasion, he confronted them following which Irene
abandoned the conjugal house.
 On April 22, 2001, complainant went uninvited to Irene's
birthday celebration at which he saw her and respondent
celebrating with her family and friends. Out of
embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue
immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the
conjugal house and hauled off all her personal belongings,
pieces of furniture, and her share of the household
appliances.
 Complainant later found, in the master's bedroom, a folded
social card bearing the words "I Love You" on its face, which
card when unfolded contained a handwritten letter dated
October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to Irene, reading:
My everdearest Irene,
By the time you open this, you'll be moments away from walking
down the aisle. I will say a prayer for you that you may find meaning
in what you're about to do. HCDAac
Sometimes I wonder why we ever met. Is it only for me to find
fleeting happiness but experience eternal pain? Is it only for us to nd
a true love but then lose it again? Or is it because there's a bigger
plan for the two of us?
I hope that you have experienced true happiness with me. I have
done everything humanly possible to love you. And today, as you
make your vows . . . I make my own vow to YOU!
I will love you for the rest of my life. I loved you from the rst time I laid
eyes on you, to the time we spent together, up to the nal moments of
your single life. But more importantly, I will love you until the life in
me is gone and until we are together again.
Do not worry about me! I will be happy for you. I have enough
memories of us to last me a lifetime. Always remember though that
in my heart, in my mind and in my soul, YOU WILL ALWAYS
. . . AND THE WONDERFUL THINGS YOU DO!
BE MINE . . . . AND MINE ALONE, and I WILL ALWAYS BE YOURS
AND YOURS ALONE!
I LOVE YOU FOREVER, I LOVE YOU FOR ALWAYS. AS LONG AS
I'M LIVING MY TWEETIE YOU'LL BE!"
Eternally yours, NOLI
Page 9 of 19
  Complainant soon saw respondent's car and that of Irene
constantly parked at No. 71-B 11th Street, New Manila
where, as he was to later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene
was already residing. He also learned still later that when his
friends saw Irene on or about January 18, 2002 together with
respondent during a concert, she was pregnant.
Guevarra’s Complaint: Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Jose
Eala for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the
lawyer's oath." CcHDSA
On paragraph 14 of the COMPLAINT : Respondent and Irene were
even FLAUNTING THEIR ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP
On paragraph 15 of the complaint: Respondent's adulterous conduct
with the complainant's wife and his apparent abandoning or
neglecting of his own family,
Par 19 :Respondent's grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the
Constitution and the laws he, as a lawyer, has been sworn to uphold
Eala’s Answer:
Par 14
1. denies having ever flaunted an adulterous relationship with Irene
2. Their relationship was low pro le and known only to the immediate
members of their respective families
par 15
1. Respondent's relationship with Irene was not under
scandalous circumstances
2. Respondent has maintained a civil, cordial and peaceful
relationship with [his wife] Mary Anne
3. Mary Anne is aware of Respondent's special friendship with
Irene.
4. his reference [in his above-quoted handwritten letter to Irene]
to the marriage between Complainant and Irene as a piece
of paper was merely with respect to the formality of the
marriage contract.
par 19
1. denies the allegations in paragraph 19 , her special
relationship with Irene is neither under scandalous
circumstances nor tantamount to grossly immoral conduct
Violated Rules:
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility =
which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct,"
Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code = which proscribes a lawyer
from engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law."
Ruling of IBP:
IBP Board of Governors : annulled and set aside the
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and accordingly
dismissed the case for lack of merit,
Issue: Whether or not Atty Eala be disbarred from the practice
of law
Ruling:
Yes. Without doubt, the adulterous relationship between respondent
Page 10 of 19
and Irene has been sufficiently proven by more than clearly
preponderant evidence — that evidence adduced by one party which
is more conclusive and credible than that of the other party and,
therefore, has greater weight than the other , which is the quantum of
evidence needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.
SC Decision:
Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral
conduct
CASE 18
Figueroa vs Barranco, Jr
Facts:
o Patricia and SImeon were townmates in Janiuay, Iloilo
o When they were both in their teens, they were steadies.
o Respondent even acted as escort to complainant when she
reigned as Queen at the 1953 town fiesta.
o Complainant first acceded to sexual congress with respondent
sometime in 1960.
o Their intimacy yielded a son. It was after the child was born,
complainant alleged, that respondent first promised he would
marry her after he passes the bar examinations.
o Their relationship continued and respondent allegedly made
more than twenty or thirty promises of marriage.
o He gave only P10.00 for the child on the latter's birthdays.
o Respondent had passed the 1970 bar examinations on the fourth
attempt, after unsuccessful attempts
o Before he could take his oath, complainant led the instant
petition that respondent did not fulfill his repeated promises to
marry her.
o Her trust in him and their relationship ended when she learned
that respondent married another woman
Patricia’s Complaint: petitioned that respondent Simeon Barranco,
Jr. be denied admission to the legal profession.
Simeon’s side: Respondent led a Manifestation and Motion to
Dismiss the case , but the Court denied respondent's motion to
dismiss. Simeon constantly repeated his motion to dismiss the
complaint and then by 1988 the Court resolved to dismiss the
complaint for failure of Patricia to prosecute the case for an
unreasonable period of time and to allow Simeon to take the lawyer's
oath upon payment of the required fees.
Patricia filed a complaint again, then the court canceled his
scheduled oath-taking.
IBP's report: recommended the dismissal of the case and that
respondent be allowed to take the lawyer's oath.
Issue: Whether or not Simeon be denied to take the lawyer’s
oath for his breach of promise to marry Patricia
Ruling:
No.
o The Supreme Court ruled that these facts do not constitute gross
immorality warranting the permanent exclusion of respondent
from the legal profession. His engaging in premarital sexual
relations with complainant and promises to marry suggests a
doubtful moral character on his part but the same does not
constitute grossly immoral conduct.
o The Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment the
act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral.
o "A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be
reprehensible to a high degree."
o Respondent and complainant were sweethearts whose sexual
relations were evidently consensual. All those years of amicable
and intimate relations refute her allegations that she was forced
Page 11 of 19
 to have sexual congress with him.
o The twenty-six years that respondent has been prevented from
being a lawyer constitute su cient punishment therefor. During
this time there appears to be no other indiscretion attributed to
him.
o Simeon, who is now sixty-two years of age, should thus be
allowed, albeit belatedly, to take the lawyer's oath.
CASE 19
Advincula v. Macabanta
STATUTE
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
CANON I – x x x
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.
xxxx
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.
FACTS
The case is a disbarment case against respondent on the ground of
gross immorality. It was alleged that sometime in December 2004,
complainant seek for legal advice from peitioner regarding her
collectibles from a travel company. Respondent sent Demand Letter
and sometime in February 2005, they met at Zensho Restaurant to
discuss the possibility of filing complaint against the travel company
because the latter failed to settle the accounts. That after that said
meeting, the respondent "held her arm and kissed her on the cheek
while embracing her very tightly."
The two met again to finalize the draft for the complaint and while on
their way home after the said meeting, the respondent suddenly
stopped the car and things went out of hand. Thus she decided to
refer the case to another lawyer.
ISSUES
1. WON the respondent committed acts are grossly immoral which
would warrant the disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
RULING
NO. The SC held that lawyers are expected to abide the tenets of
morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but all throughout their
legal career as lawyers belong to an exclusive and honored
fraternity. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the
legal profession and should adhere to the unwaveringly to the
highest standard of morality. The respondent admitted to the act of
kissing the complainant on the lips as evidenced as well of his asking
for apology from complainant in his text message. Regardless of the
fact that the respondent admitted that he kissed the complainant but
the Court held that this was not accompanied by malice because the
respondent immediately asked for forgiveness after sensing the
annoyance of the respondent after texting him. Thus the Court held
that this is not grossly immoral nor highly reprehensible which will
warrant disbarment or suspension. But the Court reprimanded
respondent to be more prudent and cautious.
CASE 20
Zaguirre v. Castillo
STATUTES
Page 12 of 19
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 of the
Philippines.
Rule 7.03
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice of law, nor should he, whether in public or private
life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
Immoral conduct
Conduct which is so willful, flagrant or shameless as to show
indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the
community. Furthermore, such conduct must not only be immoral, but
grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to 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.
FACTS
Zaguirre and Castillo were officemates at the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) in 1996. Castillo, who represented himself a
single man, courted Zaguirre and promised to marry her.
They had an intimate relationship from 1996 – 1997. At that time,
Castillo was preparing for the Bar exams which he passed.
Castillo was admitted to the Bar on May 10, 1997.
However, around the first week of May 1997, Zaguirre learned that
Castillo is a married man as Castillo’s wife went to her office,
confronted her about Zaguirre’s relationship with her husband,
Castillo. At that moment, Zaguirre was already pregnant.
On September 10, 1997, Atty. Castillo executed an affidavit, duly
acknowledged before a notary public, admitting his relationship with
Zaguirre, recognizing that the unborn child she was carrying was his,
and that he was willing to support the said child.
However, when the child was born on December 9, 1997, Castillo
started to refuse recognizing the child and giving her any form of
support.
Castillo’s Claim:
(1) What transpired between them was merely mutual lust and
desire, and that he never courted her.
(2) He never represented himself as a single man, and that it is
known in the office that he was married and had children.
(3) The child is not his because Zaguirre was seeing other men.
(4) He only signed the affidavit to save Zaguirre from
embarrassment. He did not know then that she was seeing other
men.
Nonetheless, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty.
Castillo guilty of gross immoral conduct with a penalty of indefinite
suspension from the practice of law.
ISSUES
1. WON Castillo is guilty of gross immoral conduct.
2. WON indefinite suspension from the practice of law is the correct
penalty.
RULING
1. YES. The court agrees with the findings and recommendations of
the IBP.
In this case, Castillo committed 3 acts that do not conform to the strict
standards demanded of members of the profession: (1) extra-marital
affair, (2) fathering a child with another woman, (3) reneging his
Page 13 of 19
notarized statement recognizing and undertaking to support his
child.
The Court previously held all these acts as unbecoming or below the
standards of morality required of every lawyer, demonstrating an
unscrupulousness that is highly censurable.
Court’s answer to Castillo’s defenses
(1) He did not deny his affair with Zaguirre. The Court was
appalled at his reprehensible and amoral attitude when he said, “men
are polygamous in nature.”
(2) Not using deception does not absolve him gross immorality
because the fitness to be a member of the legal profession is not
dependent on whether the other party knowingly engaged in an
immoral relationship with him.
(3) In pari delicto (i.e Zaguirre being in in equal fault for seeing other
men) is immaterial because the purpose of the proceeding was to
purge the law profession of unworthy members and not to grant
relief to complainant.
(4) Same with (3).
The Court also further held that since he was reviewing for the Bar at
the time he was having an affair with Zaguirre, he knew very well that
to be admitted to the Bar, he must possess a good moral character,
and that continuous possession of such character is essential in
maintaining good standing in the profession. Therefore, admission to
the Bar does not preclude subsequent judicial inquiry concerning his
mental or moral fitness to become a lawyer. Also, since the practice
of law is merely a privilege, one can be deprived of his license
when it has been ascertained by the court that he is guilty of
misconduct.
2. YES. The IBP was correct in giving Castillo a penalty of indefinite
suspension rather than disbarment because disbarment should not
be meted out if a lesser punishment could be given. It was shown
that after he took his oath in 1997, Castillo severed his ties with
Zaguirre and now lives with wife and children in Mindoro, which the
Court found as indication of his effort to mend his ways and
recognize the impact of his offense on the noble profession.
CASE 21
VENTURA VS ATTY. SAMSON
AC NO. 9608, Nov. 27,2012
PARTIES:
Complainant: Maria Victoria B. Ventura
Respondent: Atty. Danilo Samson
FACTS:
- Complainant Maria Victoria B. Ventura led on July 29, 2004 a
Complaint 2 2 for Disbarment or Suspension before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar
Discipline against respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson for
"grossly immoral conduct."
- In her complaint: (Maria Ventura)
2. Ventura executed a Sworn Statement dated Apr. 19,2002
and a Supplement-Complaint dated May 10, 2002, stating
herein that the crime of RAPE was committed against her
when she was 13 years by Atty. Samson who is married
to Teresita Samson.
a) Sworn Statement content:
Sometime in Dec. 2001 at around midnight she was
sleeping in the maid’s room at respondent’s house
when respondent entered and went on top of her, he
kissed her lips, sucked her breast and had sexual
intercourse. Another incident happened on Mar.
19,2002 at respondent’s farm in Agusan del sur.
Respondent asked her to go with him to the farm
where he sexually abused her, thereafter, respondent
Page 14 of 19
 gave her 500 pesos and warned not to tell her mother
or he would kill her mother
b) Supplement-Complaint content:
Respondent allowed her to sleep in his house after
her mother agreed to let her stay there while she
studied at the Agusan National Highschool. On March
19,2002 respondent forced her to ride a multi-cab.
When they arrived at his poultry, respondent dragged
her to dilapidated shack. She resisted his advances
but her efforts proved futile.
3. In her counter-affidavit, herein respondent admitted that
sexual intercourse indeed transpired between them
4. After the conduct of preliminary investigation, the Oce of
the Provincial Prosecutor of Agusan Del Sur, Philippines
issued a RESOLUTION dated 10 June 2002 dismissing
the charge of RAPE and nding the existence of probable
cause for the crime of QUALIFIED SEDUCTION and
issued the corresponding INFORMATION for QUALIFIED
SEDUCTION on 04 July 2002.
5. Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration which was
denied
6. The aforesaid resolution was elevated to the DOJ by way
of petition for review.
8. The act/s committed by the herein Respondent Atty. Danilo
S. Samson against the herein Complainant MARIA VICTORIA
B. VENTURA MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA as
hereinbefore stated clearly constitute . . . "grossly immoral
conduct grossly immoral conduct" under Section 27 of Rule
138 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines which provides for
a penalty of "DISBARMENT or SUSPENSION DISBARMENT
or SUSPENSION of an Attorney by the of an Attorney by the
SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT.
* RESPONDENT ALLEGED IN HIS ANSWER:
2. Respondent admits the allegation of par. 2 of the complaint
effect that Ventura filed a complaint against him for rape with
qualification that the said complainant for rape was dismissed.
Respondent however has no knowledge or information to the
truth of the allegation that she was 13 years old
5. Respondent denies par. 8 that acts of respondent having
sex with complainant constitute gross immoral conduct. He
alleged that it was done with mutual agreement after
respondent gave money to complainant for sex
6. The complaint is instigated by Corazon Ventura who was
an employee at the Law Oce of respondent herein. The said
Corazon Ventura entertained hatred and [had a grudge]
against the herein respondent who terminated her services
due to misunderstanding.
7. The ling of the Criminal Case against respondent as well as
this Administrative Case is a well-orchestrated and planned
act of Corazon Ventura as vengeance against respondent.
8. xxxxxxx
9. xxxxxxx
Respondent further alleged therein that complainant usually
stayed late at night with her male friends when her mother
was out of the house. He claimed that he heard rumors that
complainant had sexual affairs with different boys.
Respondent narrated that on March 19, 2002, he saw
complainant with some of her classmates near their rented
house.
Respondent narrated that on March 19, 2002, he saw
complainant with some of her classmates near their rented
house. Complainant told him that they wanted to go out to
Page 15 of 19
swim but they did not have money. When she asked if he
could spare some amount, he gave her money. He told her in
jest that he wanted to see her that afternoon and go to a place
where they could be alone, and he was surprised when she
agreed
Respondent insisted that what happened between them was
the first and the last incident. He claimed that he was able to
confirm that complainant is no longer a virgin.
Then, on December 14, 2006, complainant and her mother
appeared before the public prosecutor and executed their
respective Affidavits of Desistance. Complainant stated that
what happened between respondent and her in March 2002
was based on mutual understanding. Thus, she was
withdrawing the complaint she led against respondent before
the RTC as well as the one she led before the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline. Accordingly, the criminal case
against respondent was dismissed.
On November 10, 2007, the Board of Governors of the IBP
issued Resolution No. XVIII-2007-237, to wit:
…….. Atty. Danilo S. Samson is hereby SUSPENDED
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for (5) years with Stern
Warning.
Complainant now moves to reconsider the IBP Resolution.
She argues that the penalty imposed by the IBP is not
commensurate to the gravity and depravity of the offense
He further stresses that because of his admission and
remorse, and since this is the first time he has been found
administratively liable, he is entitled to a reduction of the
penalty to one year suspension from the practice of law.
ISSUE: WON the penalty for disbarment is proper.
RULING:
Yes. From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence
and the admissions of respondent himself, we nd that
respondent's act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the
daughter of his former employee, constitutes gross immoral
conduct that warrants sanction. Respondent not only admitted
he had sexual intercourse with complainant but also showed
no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he did nothing
wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her
money. Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a
woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect for the
laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of
fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by enticing
a very young woman with money showed his utmost moral
depravity and low regard for the dignity of the human person
and the ethics of his profession.
The Court is mindful of the dictum that the power to disbar
must be exercised with great caution, and only in a clear case
of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and
character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a
member of the bar. Thus, where a lesser penalty, such as
temporary suspension, could accomplish the end desired,
disbarment should never be decreed. 26 26 However, in the
present case, the seriousness of the offense compels the
Court to wield its power to disbar as it appears to be the most
appropriate penalty.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson is
hereby DISBARRED DISBARRED for Gross 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
Page 16 of 19
 The pertinent provisions in the Code of Professional Facts:
Responsibility provide:
Stemmerik visited the PH and was introduced to Mas. He expressed
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE his interest in wanting to acquire a property in the PH as he finds the
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PH beautiful. Mas told Stemmerik that he could legally acquire and
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL own real property in the Philippines. Respondent even
PROCESSES. suggested an 86,998 sq.m. property in Quarry, Agusuin, Cawag,
Subic, Zambales with the assurance that the property was
Rule 1.01. — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
alienable.
immoral or deceitful conduct.

xxx xxx xxx

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.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 7.03. — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reects on his tness to practice law, nor shall he,
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
CASE 22
Stemmerik v. Mas
Parties:
Stemmerik agreed to purchase said property with Mas as his
representative and attorney-in-fact. Stemmerik also tasked Mas to
prepare all the necessary documents as an attorney. Mas demanded
and received a fee of P400,000. Confident that respondent would
faithfully carry out his task, complainant returned to Denmark,
entrusting the processing of the necessary paperwork to
respondent.
Mas prepared a contract to sell for the property between Stemmerik,
represented by Mas, and the purported owner, Bonifacio de Mesa. A
Deed of Sale conveying the property from de Mesa to Ailyn
Gonzales for P3.8M was prepared and notarized. Respondent also
drafted and notarized an agreement between Stemmerik and
Gonzales stating that it was complainant who provided the
funds for the purchase of the property. Complainant then gave
respondent the full amount of the purchase price (P3.8 million)
for which respondent issued an acknowledgment receipt.

Complainant - Keld Stemmerik, citizen and resident of Denmark

Stemmerik tried to get in touch with Mas to inquire about when the
Respondent – Atty. Leonuel Mas
property could be registered in his name. Mas refused to answer
Stemmerik’s calls and emails.

Page 17 of 19

In 2005, Stemmerik visited the PH again. He engaged the services
of the Jimenez Gonzales Liwanag Bello Valdez Caluya &
Fernandez Law Office to ascertain the status of the property he
supposedly bought. He was devastated to learn that aliens
could not own land under Philippine laws. Also, Community
Environment & Natural Resources office (CENRO) of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources in Olongapo
City said that the said property was inalienable and thus cant be
disposed of or acquired.
Stemmerik with his new attorneys-in-fact, exerted efforts to find Mas
and charge him for his fraudulent acts. The IBP disclosed that Mas
hasn’t been paying his membership dues and has abandoned his
law office in Olangapo City.
Stemmerik filed disbarment case against Mas and prayed for Mas’s
expulsion. Mas didn’t file his answer despite notices sent to his
address. He also didn’t attend the conference’s with the CBD
(Commission on Bar Discipline).
CBD/IBP ruling:
Respondent used his position as a lawyer to mislead
complainant on the matter of land ownership by a foreigner.
The CBD found respondent to be "nothing more than an
embezzler" who misused his professional status as an attorney
as a tool for deceiving complainant and absconding with
complainant's money. He abused the trust and condence
reposed by complainant in him. The CBD recommended the
disbarment of respondent.
The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted the
findings and recommendation of the CBD with the modication
that respondent was further required to return the amount of
P4.2 million (3.8 m property value + 400k collected fees) to
respondent.
Issue:
WON respondent was properly given notice of the disbarment
proceedings against him? Yes. Court issued notice to Mas’s
registered address with IBP. Not court’s fault if he didn’t update.
WON Mas violated Canon 1 of Code of Responsibility? Yes. Did not
obey legal process of acquiring land.
SC Ruling:
The respondent did not le any answer or position paper, nor
did he appear during the scheduled mandatory conference.
Respondent in fact abandoned his last known address, his law
office in Olongapo City, after he committed the embezzlement.
Mas himself rendered the service of notice on him impossible,
the notice requirement cannot apply to him and he is thus
considered to have waived it. The law does not require that the
impossible be done.
In this connection, lawyers must update their records
with the IBP by informing the IBP National Oce or their
respective chapters 19 19 of any change in oce or residential
address and other contact details. 20 20 In case such change
is not duly updated, service of notice on the oce or residential
address appearing in the records of the IBP National Oce shall
constitute sucient notice to a lawyer for purposes of
administrative proceedings against him.
Respondent committed a serious breach of his oath as
a lawyer. He is also guilty of culpable violation of the Code of
Page 18 of 19
Professional Responsibility, the code of ethics of the legal
profession.
CANON 2
A lawyer who resorts to nefarious schemes to
CASE 23
circumvent the law and uses his legal knowledge to further his
selsh ends to the great prejudice of others, poses a clear and CASE 24
present danger to the rule of law and to the legal system.
CASE 25

CASE 26
Laws violated:

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. A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct

Rule 1.02. — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities

aimed at A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system.

Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution provides: SEC. 7. Save

in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be
transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public
domain.

Sanctions:

Disbarred. Respondent is hereby ORDERED ORDERED to return

to complainant Keld Stemmerik the total amount of P4.2 million
with interest at 12% per annum from the date of promulgation
of this resolution until full payment. Respondent is further
DIRECTED DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof of payment
of the amount within ten days from payment.

Page 19 of 19