Admission to the Practice of Law Cordova v Cordova A.M. No.

3249 November 29, 1989 Facts: Herein respondent lawyer, while being married to complainant and with two children, left his family and his job and went to Surigao Del Sur and live with a certain Fely Holgado who was also married at that time. Respondent introduced Fely, using his surname Cordova, to the public and failing to support his legitimate family at the same time. Respondent had an apparent reconciliation with his wife and promised that he would leave his mistress. Complainant then found out that her husband was no longer living with her children and went to another mistress and took her younger daughter and hid it from her. Complainant went to the court asking for habeas corpus to take her daughter back and the same was granted. She filed a complaint for disbarment against her husband and hearing dates were sent but no hearing took place because neither party appeared. Complainant sent a message to the Commission on Bar Discipline stating that she and her husband reconciled and the Commission required them to file a motion to dismiss but nothing was heard from them again. The Commission submitted to the court its report reprimanding respondent for his acts. Issue: Whether or not Attorney Cordova is still admissible to the practice of law. Held: No. A member of the bar is required to show that he is possessed of good moral character. Such requirement does not dispensed with upon admission to the membership of the bar for it is a continuing condition for membership in the bar in good standing. Its loss requires suspension or disbarment. Respondent is suspended from the practice of law until father orders from the court.

Attorneys Oath Busios v Ricafort A.C. No. 4349 December 22, 1997 Facts: Respondent Atty. Ricafort was the counsel of records of herein complainant in a civil case wherein he was appointed to be the true and lawful attorney-in-fact of complainant to represent, testify and collect the sum of money from the court. Respondent received the amount from the court and Oas Standard High School which was entrusted to him by herein complainant to deposit the same to the bank account of complainants husband. However, instead of depositing the money, herein respondent used the same for his personal use and despite of several demands of complainant, he failed to return the money which forced complainant to file a criminal case, administrative case and disbarment case against him. Complainant further accused him for demanding and receiving Php 2,000.00 which he said will be used for the bond in civil case which was never really required in the said case. The court issued several resolutions against respondent but he did not comply. The court decided that he deemed to have waived his right to file his comment. On the third hearing of the estafa case against respondent, he came to the court with the money and paid complainant which made her not to pursue with the esafa case but did not withdraw the instant complaint. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Ricafort violated his lawyers oath. Held: Yes. A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay any man for money or malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients and is obligated to report promptly the money of his clients that has come into his possession. He should not commingle it with his private property or use it for his personal purposes without his client's consent. He should maintain a reputation for honesty and fidelity. Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust and must be immediately turned over to them. The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his client, his profession, the courts and the public. The Court then resolved to disbar Atty. Ricafort from the practice of law