Canon 7.

03 Case Digest Case Digest 1 ABANDONMENT OF LAWFUL WIFE AND MAINTAINING ILLICIT RELATIONSHIP AS GROUND FOR DISBARMENT JOVITA BUSTAMANTE-ALEJANDRO VS. ATTY. WARFREDO TOMAS ALEJANDRO and MARICRIS VILLARIN AC No. 4256. February 13, 2004 Facts: Complainant submitted a photocopy of the marriage contract between her and respondent Atty. Alejandro in support of her charge of bigamy and concubinage against the latter and Villarin. She also submitted a photocopy of the birth certificate of a child of the respondent and also stated that they were married in May 1, 1990 in Isabela, Province. The Supreme Court directed respondents to file their comment on the complaint within 10 days but they failed to comply. Copies of the resolution, complaint and its annexes were returned to both respondents unserved with notation moved, same as when served personally. Complainant was required anew to submit the correct, present address of respondents under pain of dismissal of her administrative complaint. She disclosed respondents address at 12403 Develop Drive Houston, Texas in a handwritten letter. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that both respondents be disbarred. The Supreme Court ordered Atty. Alejandro to be disbarred while the complaint against his co-respondent Atty. Villarin was returned to the IBP for further proceedings or it appears that a copy of the resolution requiring comment was never deemed served upon her as it was upon Atty. Alejandro. Issue: Whether or not abandonment of lawful wife and maintaining an illicit relationship with another woman are grounds for disbarment. Held: Sufficient evidence showed that respondent Atty. Alejandro, lawfully married to complainant, carried on an illicit relationship with co-respondent Atty. Villarin. Although the evidence was not sufficient to prove that he co0ntracted a subsequent bigamous marriage, that fact remains of his deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as member of the bar. A disbarment proceeding is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife and maintains an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne him a child. We can do no less in this case where Atty. Alejandro even fled to another country to escape the consequences of his misconduct. Therefore, Atty. Alejandro disbarred from the practice of law while the complaint against Atty. Villarin was referred back to the IBP. Case Digest 3 #18:Leslie Ui vs. Atty. Iris Bonifacio AC#3319 June 8, 2000 Facts: Leslie Ui and Carlos Ui were married on January 1971. On June 1988, Leslieconfronted the respondentAtty. Iris Bonifacio for the illicit affair . Respondentadmitted the relationship and said that she will cut off thesaid relationship. OnDecember 1988 Carlos and Iris had a second child. On March 1989 complainantpleaded torespondent to stop their illicit relationship.On Atty Iris side, she asserts that she had no knowledge of Carlospreviousmarriage. Carlos Ui was the

one who represented himself as single during theircourtship. Shesubmitted her Certificate of marriage dated Oct. 1985 to court. Uponthe courts investigation it was found outthat the marriage was in fact on Oct 1987.In the case at bar, it is the claim of respondent Atty. Bonifacio that when shemet Carlos Ui, she knew andbelieved him to be single. Respondent fell in love withhim and they got married and as a result of suchmarriage, she gave birth to two (2)children. Upon her knowledge of the true civil status of Carlos Ui, she lefthim ISSUE :Whether or not Atty Iris Bonifacio is guilty of gross immoral conduct as aground for disbarment RULING: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED,the Reportand Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the aboveentitled case, herein made part of thisResolution/Decision as Annex "A", and, finding the recommendation fully supportedby the evidenceon record and the applicable laws and rules, the complaint forGross Immorality against Respondent isDISMISSED for lack of merit. Atty. IrisBonifacio is REPRIMANDED for knowingly and willfullyattaching to herAnswer a falsified Certificate of Marriage with a stern warning thata repetition of the same will merit a moresevere penalty.

Case Digest 4 Romulo villa vs. Junel anthony ama, bar matter no. 674, 06/14/2005 Facts: on april 15, 2005,junel anthony d. Ama filed a petition for admission in the bar assuccessful passers of the 1992 bar exam.the said petitioner together with the other member of the aguila legis fraternity of ateneo de manila university was implicated andcriminally charged with the death of jose villa.an amended information for serious physical injury was filed in mtc caloocan city against the petitioner and another case of homicide in rtc caloocan city.on april 16, 1993,the father of the victim filed a petition praying that the petitioner be disallowed from taking lawyers oath and signing the roll of attorneys pending final judgment of the case filed against him.on february 8, 1996, themtc acquitted him while the rtc rendered a guilty decision through conspiracy.the rtcdecision was appealed in the ca and the latter set aside the lower courts decisionrendering a guilty decision on slight physical injury under art.266 of rpc.he was orderedto pay a 30 thousand pesos jointly with the other accused as indemnity.instead of serving the 20 day imprisonment,he apply for probation of rtc caloocan which granted him andterminating the case. Issue: is the offense considered as grave violation of the moral sentiment of thecommunity?or crime of moral turpitude? Ruling: no,the court grant the petition of junel anthony d. Ama.he is hereby allowed totake the lawyers oath and sign the roll of attorneys.the crime for which the petitoner wasconvicted was a light offense and cannot be considered as grave vioaltion of the moralsentiment of the people and certainly not a crime involving moral turpitude.

Case Digest 5 Adm. Case no. 1474, jan. 28, 2000 Cristino g. Calub, complainantVs.Atty. Abraham a. Suller, respondent Facts: in the morning of jan. 20, 1975 while the complainant was awa, atty. Suller went tocomplainants house in aringay la union to borrow a blade.the respondent was a neighbor and a family friend with the complainant.as he entered the house,the respondent startedtouching the private parts of the wife and threatened her and forced her to have sexualintercourse.as the complainant returned home to get money for the payment of the realestate taxes, he saw his wife with the respondent having a sexual intercourse.on jan. 23,1975,the complainant filed a case of rape in mtc of aringay, la union and later remandedto the cfi of agoo, la union.on june 3, 1975,the complainant filed a disbarment case against the respondent before the supreme court.the cfi rendered an acquittal of therespondent and on march 3, 1993 the board of governors, issued a resolution recommending a one(01) year suspension of the practice of law. Issue: is the one(01) year suspension sufficient penalty for a lawyers immoral act? Ruling: no,the court decided that the said suspension is not sufficient punishment for the immoral act of the respondent. the rape he commited though he was acquitted on thegrounds of not proven beyond reasonable doubt is not determinative of the administrative case at bar.the testimonies of the complainant show that the respondent acted in a grosslyreprehensible manner in having carnal knowledge of his neighbors wife without her consent in her very home.the court further states that the said offense constitute seriousmoral depravity and the respondent is not worthy to remain member of the bar.wherefore,respondent is disbarred from the practice of law. Case Digest 6 A.c.no. 5151, october 19, 2004Tolentino vs. Atty. Norberto m. Mendoza Facts: pedro g. Tolentino filed a complaint against atty. Mendoza for grossly immoralconduct and gross misconduct.the respondent was a former mtc judge who abandoned hiswife in favor of his paramour who was also a married one.the two was openly and publicly cohabitating with each other and has two children.the paramour declared at the birth certificate of their children that they got married with the respondent sometime in1986 to make it appear that their children are legitimate one.in addition to that,respondentalso stated in his certificate of candidacy his legal wife but declared it asseparated.respondent filed a comments stressing that said complaints was politicallymotivated and the evidence submitted were hearsay and violative of rule 24 of administrative oder no. 1 series of 1993 therefore cannot be admitted as evidence. Issue: is the act of the respondent an immoral one? Ruling: yes, the court finds the act of the respondent as violative to the code of professional responsibility that a lawyer shall not engage in an unlawful, deceitful and immoral act.the respondent has violated the said rule the respondents open and public cohabitation with his paramour is a mockery of the fundamental institution of marriage, therefore ,the respondent is guilty of immorality and be suspended indefinitely from practicing his profession until he submits satisfactory proof that he has abandoned his immoral course of conduct.

Case Digest 7 Barrios vs. Atty. Francisco martinezA.c.no.4585, november 12, 2004 Facts: atty. Martinez was convicted of the crime involving bp 22. He was also involved in another estafa case pertaining to his legal servicesrendered on the victim of dona paz tragedy the victim he represented filed a complaint because of the compensation that the victim had received from sulpicio lines which waslater deducted by atty. Martinez.on sept. 27, 2003 the ibp board of governors passed a resolution approving the report and the recommendation of its investigating commissioner.on dec. 3, 2003 respondent filed an mr and reinvestigation. Issue: is the crime of issuing worthless check constituting moral turpitude? is the act of the respondent considered to be a ground for disbarment? Ruling: yes, the court finds the respondent guilty of bp 22 which imports deceit and violation of his attorneys oath and code of professional responsibility.in this case, thecourt also finds disbarment as the appropriate penalty and ordered that the name of the respondent be stricken from the roll of attorneys. Case Digest 8 A.c.no. 7022, june 18, 2008Marjorie f. Samaniego complainantVs.Atty. Andrew v. Ferrer, respondent Facts: early in 1996, ms. Samaniego was referred to atty. Ferrer as a potential client andthe latter agreed to handle her case and soon their lawyer-client relationship becameintimate.subsequently,they cohabiatating with each other as husband and wife for about ayear from 1996 to 1997 and have their daughter born.the affair ended in 2000 and since then respondent failed to support his daughter.ms. Samaniegao,filed a complaint against the respondent before the ibp commission on bar discipline.A member of the bar? Issue: is the act of the respondent,constitute lacked of degree of morality required of themember of the bar? Ruling:yes,the court finds the respondents illicit affair as disgraceful and immoral conduct subject to disciplinary actions rule 101 of the code of professional conduct as well as the canon 7 explicitly prohibits acts which discredit of the legal profession, thus the court sustaining the recommendation of the bar confidant that the respondent be suspended for 6 months in the practice of law. Case Digest 9 A.c.no.6505, sept. 11, 2008 Jessica uy, complainantVs.atty. Emmanuel p. Sano,respondent Facts: respondent was the counsel for pablo burgos,an intevenor of the civil case for foreclosure of the real estate mortgage in the course of the proceeding respondent presented before the trial court a document of deed of absolute sale which he notarized on dec. 7, 2001.however,in a letter submitted by the clerk of court it appear that the respondent was not issued a notarial commission on that year.hence the instant administrative case.

Issue:is the act of notarizing after the expiration of respondents notarial commission, a malpractice? Ruling: Yes,the act of the respondents falls squarely within the prohibition of rule101,canon 1 of the code of professional responsibility as well as a violation of thelawyers oath,to obey the laws,more specifically,the notarial law.the court also finds therespondent guilty of the violation of canon 7 of the same code which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.the respondent issuspended for 6 months in the practice of law and a revocation of his notarial commissionand disqualified for a reappointment of his notarial commission for 2 years. Case Digest 10 A.c.no. 7781, sept. 12, 2008Dela cruz vs. Atty jose r. Dimaano Facts:the complainants filed a complaint for disbarment which stemmed from the notarial activity of the respondent in notarizing a document denominated as extra judicial settlement of the estate with waiver or rights purportedly executed by them and their sister zenaida v.l.navarro.the complainants also further alleged that the respondent hadmade untruthful statements in the acknowledgment portion of the notarizeddocument,when he made it appear among other things that complainants personally appear before him and that they affixed their signatures on the document in his presence.in the process,respondent effectively enabled their sister, navarro, assume full ownership of their deceased parents property and sell the same to dpwh.the respondent admitted having a hand indeed in notarized it and notarized it in good faith relying on the representation and assurance of zenaida navarro. Issue: whether or not the act of the respondent is a violation of notarial law?Ruling: the court finds the respondent guilty for breach of the notarial law. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest the court further ordered for the revocation of the notarial commission and disqualified him of practicing law for a period of two years. Case Digest 11 A.c.no. 6882, december 24, 2008Marissa williams vs. Atty. Rodrigo icao Facts:the complainnant,administratively charge the respondenta for braech of notarial lawand for unlawful,dishonest,immoral and decitful conduct unbecoming of an attorney this stemmed from notarization of the respondent of a declaration of heirship and partition document signed by the signatories in his presence when in truth did not.in addition tothat,there was also lacking of residence certificate as well as conspiracy with atty. Enriquez in the making false statement in the said documents.respondent on the other hand,admitted that the document was not executed in his presence,claims that before he notarized it the parties thereto appeared before him and he ascertained their identities as well as of those of their witnesses and they explained to them the contents of the documents which they acknowledge as true and correct.in defense of the administrative case respondent argued that the said offense has already prescribed given the rules of procedure of commission on bar discipline. Issue: is the act vioalative of the notarial law?

Ruling: yes, the court finds the respondent guilty for breach of the notarial law.it bears recalling that notarization is not an empty meaningless routinary act.it invested with substantive public interest such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notary public.as a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith credit upon its face notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties the petition is granted suspending the respondent from practicing law for a period of 1 year and his commission as notary public. Case Digest 12 A.c.no.6148, feb. 27, 2004Florence macarrubo vs. Atty. Edmundo macarrubo Facts: the complainant filed a disbarment case against the respondent alleging that respondent deceived her into marrying him despite his prior subsisting marriage with a certain helen esperanza.this was also followed by a third time marriage transaction with josephine constantino.the respondent anchored his defense on the annullment of the previous marriage he entered as well as the existing annulment process of the third one.hefurther proved his constant support of their children in terms of education and their leisure. Issue: is the act of the respondent in contracting several marriages constitute immoralitydespite the fact that those marriages was later declared annulled? Ruling: yes, the courts find the respondent guilty for gross misconduct reflectings unfavorably on the moral norms of the profession the annulment of his marriage with final judgment did not cleanse his conduct of every tinge of impropriety in sum respondent has breached the precepts of the code of professional responsibility particularly, rule 1.01,canon 7.01 rule 7.03 of the same code.t he penalty recommended by the ibp which is 3 months suspension did not commensurate to the gravity of his conduct, and the court modified it into disbarment. Case Digest 13 A.c.no. 7494, june 27, 2008Wilson cham vs. Atty. Eva paita-moya Facts: this is a case charged against the respondent due to the failure of the latter issettling her rental dues against the defendant for the contract of lease she had entered onthe realty and development corp. Represented by the complainant as president.the allegeddefault in rental payments was done in a deceitful manner as the respondent surreptitiously abandoned the rented apartment bringing along the door key and leaving an unpaid electric bills.this prompted the leasor to send demand to the leasee for the pament of said rentals.the respondent argued,that,she did not vacated the place surreptitiously but instead give way to the owners demand of vacating for the renovation of the building she further reasoned out that she was able to pay his rental dues and even allowed to extend its rentals even in the expiration of their contract. Issue: is the act of the respondent,a violation of her code of professionla responsibility? Ruling:yes,the court finds the conduct of the respondent violative of the code of professional responsibility,it also emphasized the moral duty and legal responsibility of the respondent to settle just debts when due.the court found the respondent guilty of grossmisconduct and hereby suspending her from practicing law for one month.

Case Digest 14 A.c.no.6792, jan. 25, 2006Roberto soriano vs. Atty. Manuel dizon Facts:this is a case of disbarment filed against the accused due to his conviction of frustrated homicide.the case stemmed from a traffic altercation by the respondent with the complainant. In the course of their trouble, respondent was able to hit the neck of the complainant by his revolver making the complainant physically paralyzed the manner which the respondent attacked the complainant and a credible corroboration of witnesses as to the crime lead the conviction of the respondent of the said crime but later the rtcsuspended the sentence by granting the respondent a probation. respondent banking his defense on a concocted story and alibi which later disregarded by the court due to existence of credible documentary and testimonial evidence. Issue: whether his crime of frustrated homicide involves moral turpitude? Whether hisconviction warrants disbarment?

Ruling: the court resolved the matter by declaring the actuation of the respondent in the crime of frustrated homicide involved moral turpitude the court also consider the rtcs findings of treachery as a further indications of skewed morals of respondent.it is also glaringly clear that respondent seriously transgressed canon 1 of the code of professional responsibility thru his possession of an unlicensed fire arm and his unjust refusal to satisfy civil liabilities the court remind him both the attorneys oath and code of professional responsibility the appalling vindictiveness and treachery, and brazen dishonesty of respondent clearly show his unworthiness to continue as member of the bar. thus the court,disbarred the respondent and ordered the name of the latter be stricken from the roll of attorneys. Case Digest 15 A.c.no.6408, august 31, 2004Barrientos vs. Atty. Elerizzalibiran-meteoro Facts: this is a case for disbarment on the grounds of deceit and non-payments of debts against atty. Meteoro.the case commenced when the latter engaged in availing credits with abbarientos of jewelries and as payments on this the respondent issued checks which eventually declared no sufficient funds to satisfy its obligation.the respondent defended his stance that the said check were already replaced and that the true complainant executed an affidavit of desistance which manifest that they are no longer interested in pursuing the case. Issue: Ruling:the court found the respondent with a manifestation of lawyers low regards to her commitment to lawyers oath. the issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against closed account indicates a lawyers unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on her. she must conduct herself in a manner that reflect the values and norms of legal profession as embodied in the code of professional responsibilty. the court found the respondent guilty of gross misconduct and suspended the latter for 6months in practicing law. Case Digest 16

A.c.no. 5161, april 14, 2004Isdra ting-dumali vs. Atty. Rolando s. Torres Facts: the complainant was among the heirs julita and vicente ting.the respondent was the brother in law of the complainant the case stemmed from the execution of the deed of extra judicial settlement and gross misrepresentation in court for the purpose of profiting from such forgery. the wife of the respondent as well as another sister executed an affidavit stating that they are the only heirs of the ting spouses and falsify the signature of the complainant. he defense of the respondent was anchored on a clear oversight of not inclusion the name of the complainant as heirs. Issue: whether the act of the respondent vioalative of his oath of profession as well as thecanons of professional ethics. Ruling;the court resolved the issue as violations of the lawyers oath and the code of professional responsibility.respondents acts or omissions reveal his moral flaws anddoubtless bring the intolerable dishonor to the legal profession.the found the respondentguilty of the provision of the lawyers oath and code of professional responsibilitythereby rendering the latter unworthy to remain member of the legal profession.he is thusordered isbarred from the practice of law and his name is ordered stricken off the roll of attorneys. Case Digest 17