Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 30

1. VIRGO vs.

FACTS:complainant filed a disbarment case against respondent for the latter's
fraudulent use of his legal knowledge in convincing complainant to part with her
property, the virgo mansion. complainant alleged the existence of an attorney- client
relationship, hence, respondent should be held liable for issuing postdated checks in
payment for the purchase price of said mansion. respondent denied the same, raising in
defense that it was complainant who defrauded him. the commissioner of the ibp
committee on bar discipline found respondent guilty of misconduct and recommended
his suspension from the practice of law for six months. the ibp board of governors
approved the recommendation, with modification, suspending respondent for 1 year
*whether or not an attorney-client relationship exists between complainant and
*whether or not respondent is guilty of misconduct
*no.an attorney-client relationship is said to exist when a lawyer acquiesces or
voluntarily permits the consultation of a person, who, in respect to a business of trouble
of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view of obtaining professional advise or assistance.
complainant's averment of the existence of lawyer-client relationship, presenting in
evidence four letters and a memorandum of agreement drafted and sent to her by
respondent, only strengthened the idea that the relationship between her and the
respondent was mainly personal or business in nature, and that whatever legal sevices
that may have been rendered by respondent for free were only incidental to said
*the court cannot ascertain whether respondent indeed committed acts in violation of his
oath as a lawyer concerning the sale and conveyance of the virgo mansion on account
of factual matters that are subject of pending civil cases involving the same property. as
a matter of prudence and so as not to preempt the conclusion that will be drawn by the
courts where the same cases are pending, the court deems it wise to dismiss the
present case without prejudice to the filing of another one, depending on the final
outcome of said civil cases.

FACTS: complainant filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent for alleged
commission of forum shopping and for improper conduct when respondent filed two
complaints for annulment of real estate mortgage on the property of which complainant
is the mortgagee. respondent contended that he disclosed in his second complaint the
esixtence of a pending suit involving the same property, and that his prompt withdrawal
of the second complaint was indicative of is good faith. the ibp board of governors, upon
recommendation of the investigating commissioner, dismissed the complaint for
disbarment for lack of showing that the second complaint in question was deliberately
and wilfully done to commit forum shopping. hence, this motion of reinvestigation filed
by complainant.
ISSUE: whether or not respondent in guilty of the charges against him.
HELD: no. complainant only charged respondent with forum shopping and improper
conduct. even assuming that he only learned on october 3, 2006 that the mortgagor had
been dead since 1968, still he failed to raise this issue at the mandatory conference
before the ibp where the issues were defined. thus, since respondent's act of allegedly
resurrecting the dead mortgagor from the dead and for allowing an impostor to
impersonate the former was never raised as an issue before the ibp, then complainant
could not raise the same as this stage of the proceedings.

FACTS:following the raid and confiscation of counterfeit gucci and louis vuitton items
involved in complaiant's business, the latter filed complaints against respondent for
alleged extortion and gross misconduct amounting to gross ignorance of the law when
respondent filed a complaint for damages before the DOJ and a motion for
reconsideration before the RTC, seeking the inclusion of complainant's name in the hold
departure list of the bureau of immigration and deportation. respondent denied all
material allegations, raising good faith in defense, but the committee on bar discipline
upheld, with modification, the findings of the investigating commissioner, thereby
suspending him from the practice of law for one year.
ISSUE: whether or not the imposition of suspension was proper
HELD: no.as regards the issue of extortion, viewed against complainant's bare and self-
serving allegations, evidence clearly proves that no such extortion took place. there is
also nothing on record to show that the filing of complaint before the DOJ was done for
the purpose of harassment. if at all, it was an error of judgment sans bad faith. it has
been held that not all mistakes of members of the bar justify the imposition of
disciplinary actions. an attorney-at-law is not expected to know all the law. the alleged
errors are not of such nature as to warrant the imposition of the penalty of suspension
for one year.

FACTS:the leakage of bar questions in mercantile law during the 2003 bar examinations
warranted the nullification of the results in that subject and the subsequent distribution
of the corresponding percentage thereof among the seven bar subjects. thorough
investigation revealed that a certain danilo de guzman, one of the assistant attorneys at
the balgos and perez law firm, was responsible for the leakage. atty. marcial balgos, a
senior partner in the firms, happened to have been commissioned by justice jose vitug
to prepare questions in mercantile law. atty. de guzman admitted to downloading the
questions from atty. balgos' computer and distributing the same to two of his brothers in
the beta sigma lambda fraternity. from the point, the leaked questions spread and an
unknown number of examinees were able to obtain copies thereof. atty. de guzman was
thus disbarred, while atty. balgos was reprimanded for his negligence and lack of due
care in safeguarding the proposed questions in mercantile law.
ISSUE: whether or not disbarment was proper
HELD: yes. atty. de guzman, by transmitting and distributing the stolen test questions to
some members of the beta sigma lambda fraternity, possibly for pecuniary profit and to
give them undue advantage over the other examinees in mercantile law, abetted
cheating and 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. de
guzman was guilty of misconduct unbecoming a member of the bar. he violated the law
instead of promoting respect for it and degraded the noble profession instead of
upholding its dignity and integrity.

FACTS: complainant filed an administative case against respondent for allegedly
preparing and notarizing contracts that are both invalid and illegal for being violative of
the limitations on aliens leasing private lands. respondent was found guilty,
necessitating the investigating commissioner of the ibp to suspend him from the practice
of law for two months. upon review, the ibp board of governors dismissed the complaint
on account of respondent's innocence, as his guilt may have been the result of
ignorance of the law or plain negligence.hence, this petition lodged by the complainant.
ISSUE: whether or not the dismissal of the complaint was proper
HELD: no. in preparing and notarizing the illegal lease contracts, respondent violated
the attorney's oath and several canons of the code of professional responsibility. one of
the foremost sworn duties of an attorney-at -law is to obey the laws of the philippines.
this duty is enshrined in the attorney's oath and in canon 1 of the CPR. aside from
constituting violation of the lawyer's oath, the acts of the respondent also amount to
gross misconduct under sec. 27, rule 138 of the rules of court which provides for the
grounds for disbarment.

FACTS: this is an appeal for reinstatement to the bar of respondent who was disbarred
on april 26, 1991 for falsifying a deed of sale and introducing the same as evidence for
his client. In a span of 15 years since his disbarment, respondent had been undeterred
in filing motions for reconsideration, appeals, petitions, and pleas for judicial clemency
and readmission to the bar, submitting in support thereof favorable indorsements,
letters, and recommendations from various civic and religious organizations. The IBP
recommended his readmission to the bar and the office of the bar confidant likewise
affirmed the same.
ISSUE: whether or not respondent should be readmitted to the practice of law
HELD: yes. Records show that the long period of respondents disbarment gave him the
chance to purge himself of his misconduct, to show his remorse and repentance, and to
demonstrate his willingness and capacity to live up once again of conduct demanded of
every member of the bar. It is well-settled that the objective of disciplinary proceedings
is restorative justice, not retribution. Guided by this doctrine and considering the
evidence submitted by respondent satisfactorily showing his contrition and his being
again worthy of membership in the legal profession, the court finds that it is now time to
lift respondents disbarment.

Complainant engaged respondents services as counsel in Civil Case No. 00-044,
entitled "Lucio De Guzman, etc., complainants, v. Dalisay U. Valeriana, respondent,"
pending before the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 1, Binangonan, Rizal. Notwithstanding
his receipt of documents and attorneys fees in the total amount of P56,000.00 from
complainant, respondent never rendered legal services for her. As a result, she
terminated the attorney-client relationship and demanded the return of her money and
documents, but respondent refused. On the other hand, respondent contended that the
complainant did not engage his services as counsel in that case. She hired him for the
purpose of filing two new petitions, a petition for declaration of nullity of title and a
petition for review of a decree and she refused to provide him with documents related to
the case, preventing him from doing his job. Further, he argued that complainant offered
tampered evidence in Civil Case No. 00-004, prompting him to file falsification cases
against her.
1. Whether or not respondent violated the principle of confidentiality between a
lawyer and his client when he filed falsification charges against her.
Yes, respondent violated the principle of confidentiality between a lawyer and his client
when he filed falsification charges against her. Canon 19 outlines the procedure in
dealing with clients who perpetrated fraud in the course of a legal proceeding.
Consistent with its mandate that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal and only
within the bounds of the law, Rule 19.02 of the same Canon specifically provides that a
lawyer who has received information that his clients has, in the course of the
representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon
the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the relationship
with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court.
As a lawyer, respondent is expected to know this Rule. Instead of inaction, he should
have confronted complainant and ask her to rectify her fraudulent representation. If
complainant refuses, then he should terminate his relationship with her.
Understandably, respondent failed to follow the above-cited Rule. This is because there
is no truth to his claim that he did not render legal service to complainant because she
falsified the documentary evidence in Civil Case No.00-044. The pleadings show that he
learned of the alleged falsification long after complainant had terminated their attorney-
client relationship. It was a result of his active search for a justification of his negligence
in Civil Case No. 00-044. As a matter of fact, he admitted that he verified the
authenticity of complainants title only after the "news of his suspension spread in the
legal community." Obviously, in filing falsification charges against complainant,
respondent was motivated by vindictiveness.

Evangelina Masmuds husband, the late Alexander J. Masmud engaged the services of
Atty. Rolando B. Go, Jr. in a case for non-payment of benefits and damages.
In consideration of Atty. Gos legal services, Alexander agreed to pay attorneys fees on
a contingent basis, as follows: twenty percent (20%) of total monetary claims as settled
or paid and an additional ten percent (10%) in case of appeal. It was likewise agreed
that any award of attorneys fees shall pertain to respondents law firm as
The monetary claims of Alexander were granted except his claim for medical expenses.
Several appeals were made by Alexanders employer to NLRC and CA, however both
were dismissed and the former decision was affirmed. Eventually, the decision of the
NLRC became final and executory, and consequently Evangelina received an amount
of P3,454,079.20. Out of said amount, Evangelina paid Atty. Go the sum of
Dissatisfied, Atty. Go filed a motion to record and enforce the attorneys lien alleging
that Evangelina reneged on their contingent fee agreement. Evangelina paid only the
amount of P680,000.00, equivalent to 20% of the award as attorneys fees, thus, leaving
a balance of 10%, plus the award pertaining to the counsel as attorneys fees.
Evangelina contended that Atty. Gos claim for attorneys fees of 40% of the total
monetary award was null and void based on Article 111 of the Labor Code.
Contrary to Evangelinas proposition, Article 111 of the Labor Code deals with the
extraordinary concept of attorneys fees. It regulates the amount recoverable as
attorney's fees in the nature of damages sustained by and awarded to the prevailing
party. It may not be used as the standard in fixing the amount payable to the lawyer by
his client for the legal services he rendered.

In this regard, Section 24, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court should be observed in determining Atty. Gos compensation.
The retainer contract between Atty. Go and Evangelina provides for a contingent fee.
The contract shall control in the determination of the amount to be paid, unless found by
the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.

The Court finds nothing illegal in the
contingent fee contract between Atty. Go and Evangelinas husband. The CA committed
no error of law when it awarded the attorneys fees of Atty. Go and allowed him to
receive an equivalent of 39% of the monetary award.
Complainant filed for disbarment against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia on the following
grounds: (a) serving on two separate occasions as counsel for contending parties; (b)
knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence; (c) initiating
numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees; and (d) having a reputation
of being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Valencia must be disbarred.
On serving as counsel for contending parties.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer
shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts. Further respondent is bound to comply with Canon 21
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that "a lawyer shall preserve the
confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is
It is evident that respondent's representation of Valdez and Alba against Bustamante
and her husband, in one case, and Valdez against Alba, in another case, is a clear case
of conflict of interests which merits a corresponding sanction from this Court.
Respondent may have withdrawn his representation in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK upon
being warned by the court, but the same will not exculpate him from the charge of
representing conflicting interests in his representation in Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK.
On knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence.
Respondent failed to comply with Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice. It matters
not that the trial court was not misled by respondent's submission of TCT No. 273020 in
the name of Valdez, as shown by its decision dated January 8, 2002 dismissing the
complaint for ejectment. What is decisive in this case is respondent's intent in trying to
mislead the court by presenting TCT No. 273020 despite the fact that said title was
already cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 275500, was already issued in the name of
On initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees.
We find the charge to be without sufficient basis. The act of respondent of filing the
aforecited cases to protect the interest of his client, on one hand, and his own interest,
on the other, cannot be made the basis of an administrative charge unless it can be
clearly shown that the same was being done to abuse judicial processes to commit
The filing of an administrative case against respondent for protecting the interest of his
client and his own right would be putting a burden on a practicing lawyer who is
obligated to defend and prosecute the right of his client.
On having a reputation for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
We find respondent liable for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be difficult to specify
the degree of moral delinquency that may qualify an act as immoral, yet, for purposes of
disciplining a lawyer, immoral conduct has been defined as that "conduct which is willful,
flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of
respectable members of the community.
10. Venterez vs. Atty. Cosme


A complaint filed by complainants against respondent Atty. Rodrigo R. Cosme,
charging the latter with Abandonment, Gross Negligence and Dereliction of Duty.

Complainants contracted the legal services of respondent in Civil Case No. 981.
They alleged that they directed the respondent to either file a Motion for
Reconsideration or a Notice of Appeal, but respondent failed or refused to do so.
Complainant Venterez was constrained to contract another lawyer to prepare the Motion
for Reconsideration which was filed on 19 March 2004. However said motion was
denied. On Zenaida C. de Vera, a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution was filed by
the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 981 but respondent never bothered to file an opposition to
or any comment on the said motion despite receipt thereof. The motion was eventually
Two months after respondent received a copy of the Decision, the respondent
filed his Notice of Retirement of Counsel with the MTC on 3 May 2004.wFeeling
aggrieved by respondents actuations, complainants filed the instant administrative
complaint against him.c
Whether the respondent committed culpable negligence in handling complainants case,
as would warrant disciplinary action.

Yes, respondent committed culpable negligence in handling complainants case,
as would warrant disciplinary action.
Assuming, nevertheless, that respondent was justified in withdrawing his services, he,
however, cannot just do so and leave complainants in the cold, unprotected. The lawyer
has no right to presume that his petition for withdrawal will be granted by the court. Until
his withdrawal shall have been approved, the lawyer remains counsel of record who is
expected by his clients, as well as by the court, to do what the interests of his clients
require. He must still appear before the court to protect the interest of his clients by
availing himself of the proper remedy, for the attorney-client relations are not terminated
formally until there is a withdrawal of record.
All told, we rule and so hold that on account of respondents failure to protect the interest
of complainants, respondent indeed violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Respondent is reminded that the practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only
upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally.
This disbarment case is about the need for a lawyer to account for funds entrusted to
him by his client.
Complainant Arellano University, Inc. engaged the services of respondent Leovigildo H.
Mijares III, for securing a certificate of title covering a dried up portion of the Estero de
San Miguel that the University had been occupying. The property was the subject of a
Deed of Exchange dated October 1, 1958 between the City of Manila and the
The University alleged that it gave him all the documents he needed to accomplish his
work. Later, Mijares asked the University for and was given P500,000.00 on top of his
attorneys fees, supposedly to cover the expenses for "facilitation and processing." He
in turn promised to give the money back in case he was unable to get the work done.
Mijares informed the University that he already completed Phase I of the titling of the
property. The University requested Mijares for copies of the MMDA approval but he
unjustifiably failed to comply despite his clients repeated demands. Then he made
himself scarce, prompting the University to withdraw all the cases it had entrusted to
him and demand the return of the P500,000.00 it gave him. The University wrote
Mijares by registered letter, formally terminating his services in the titling matter and
demanding the return of the P500,000.00. But the letter could not be served because he
changed office address without telling the University. Eventually, the University found
his new address and served him its letter on January 2, 2006. Mijares personally
received it yet he did not return the money asked of him.
Issue: whether or not respondent Mijares is guilty of misappropriating the P500,000.00
that his client, the University, entrusted to him for use in facilitating and processing the
titling of a property that it claimed.
Yes, respondent Mijares is guilty of misappropriating the P500,000.00 that his client, the
University, entrusted to him for use in facilitating and processing the titling of a property
that it claimed.
Every lawyer has the responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client
such that he must promptly account for whatever money or property his client may have
entrusted to him. As a mere trustee of said money or property, he must hold them
separate from that of his own and make sure that they are used for their intended
purpose. If not used, he must return the money or property immediately to his client
upon demand, otherwise the lawyer shall be presumed to have misappropriated the
same in violation of the trust reposed on him. A lawyers conversion of funds entrusted
to him is a gross violation of professional ethics.
The Court is not, therefore, inclined to let him off with the penalty of indefinite
suspension which is another way of saying he can resume his practice after a time if he
returns the money and makes a promise to shape up.
12. Angeles, et al. vs. Atty. Ibaez
Complainants alleged that respondent Atty. Amado Ibaez notarized an "Extrajudicial
Partition with Absolute Sale" without a notarial commission and in the absence of the
affiants. The complainants denied that they executed the said document or that they
ever appeared before respondent Atty. Ibaez for this purpose.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Ibaez may be disbarred on the ground of notarizing a
document without a notarial commission and in the absence of the affiants.
Yes, Atty. Ibaez may be disbarred on this ground. As a member of the Bar,
respondent should well know that notarization of a private document converts such
document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its
authenticity. Notarization engages public interest in a substantial degree and the
protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized
to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts and
administrative offices generally.
The court ruled that respondent should not be disbarred but he should be suspended as
well as his notarial commission.


Complainant Buehs instituted this disbarment when respondent represented Alvarez
and Malukuh, complainants in a labor case filed against herein complainant as
Executive Vice-President of Miramar Fish Company, Inc. (MFCI). Said labor case was
assigned to respondent as an accredited Voluntary Arbitrator of the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) of the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) to decide upon. Respondent rendered a decision in favor of Alvarez and
Malukuh and against complainant Buehs and MFCI. However, during the pendency of
the proceedings, he recommended that a criminal case be filed against the Buehs and
MFCI. In his Indorsement, respondent stated that he represents the Alvarez and
Malukuh. Along with this, respondent issued an Order directing the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation to place herein complainant in its Watchlist and to issue a
Hold Departure Order without notice and hearing. Complainant was not given a copy of
the said Hold Departure Order. Hence this administrative case against Atty. Bacatan,
complainant alleging that his (respondents) act of representing Alvarez and Malukuh,
while a labor case involving the same parties was still pending before him, gave rise to
a conflict of interests.

1.) respondent represented conflicting interests by acting as counsel for Alvarez and
Malukuh in the criminal case they filed against herein complainant while the labor
case filed by Alvarez and Malukuh against complainant was still pending before
2.) he usurped the judicial powers of the Regional Trial Court and the higher judicial
authorities by issuing a Hold Departure Order/Watchlist Order without any notice
or hearing
1. Respondent claimed that it was erroneous to say that the issue was still pending
with the arbitrator at the stage of execution because when he submitted the
Decision, he was already in functus oficio. Respondent is mistaken. Jurisdiction,
once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the
case is terminated, or until the writ of execution has been issued to enforce the
judgment. When respondent was appointed as Voluntary Arbitrator for the
parties in the illegal dismissal case he was expected to exhibit neutrality and
impartiality. However, what he displayed is the opposite. He even indorsed a
criminal complaint against herein complainant, and signed the said Indorsement
as counsel for complainants in the illegal dismissal case, an act which was
clearly reprehensible and violative of the principle of conflict of interests.
2. On the second issue, as a defense, respondent asserted that it was complainant
who resorted to legal maneuvers to delay, if not evade, his monetary obligations.
Thus, the former was compelled to ask for an Order to place petitioner in the
Watchlist to prevent him from absconding, completely contravening Supreme
Court Circular No. 39-97, which provides that said Orders shall be issued only in
criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts.
In doing so, responded showed gross ignorance of the law.
Based on the foregoing, the Court found respondent Atty. Inocencio T. Bacatan guilty of
gross misconduct for representing conflicting interests, gross ignorance of the law for
issuing an order without authority, and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two
(2) years.

13. A.C. No. 7815 July 23, 2009
DOLORES C. BELLEZA, Complainant,
ATTY. ALAN S. MACASA, Respondent.
Complainant availed respondents legal services in connection with the case of her son,
with an agreement that the respondent will handle the case for P30,000 as Attorneys
Fees. The complainant paid the amount after three installments but respondent did not
issue any receipt for any of the installments.
Aside from this, respondent also received P18,000 from complainant as a bond to
secure the provisional liberty of her (complainants) son. Again, respondent did not
issue any receipt. However, she later found out that respondent did not remit the
amount to the court.
Complainant then demanded the return of the P18,000 from respondent on several
occasions but the latter ignored her. Moreover, respondent failed to act on the case of
complainants son and complainant was forced to avail of the services of the Public
Attorneys Office for her sons defense. Hence, the disbarment case.
Whether or not the respondent should be disbarred


Respondent Atty. Alan S. Macasa was found GUILTY not only of dishonesty but also of
professional misconduct. He grossly neglected the cause of complainants son after
accepting the criminal case against latter and receiving his attorneys fees by doing
nothing that could be considered as effective and efficient legal assistance. Indeed, on
account of respondents continued inaction, it did not only prejudice complainants son,
it also deprived him of his constitutional right to counsel. Further, respondent also failed
to return the money of the complainant despite several demands. His failure to return
the money upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for
his own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him by
In view of the foregoing, the Court ordered that he be DISBARRED from the practice of
law and to return to complainant the amounts of P30,000 and P18,000 with interests.

14. A.C. No. 8010 June 16, 2009
ATTY. LEONUEL N. MAS, Respondent.
Complainant Stemmerik was interested in acquiring real property in the Philippines. He
consulted respondent who advised him that he could legally acquire and own real
property in the Philippines. Respondent even suggested a property in Subic, Zambales
with the assurance that the property was alienable.
Trusting respondent, complainant purchased the property through him as his attorney-
in-fact. Complainant also engaged his services for the preparation of the necessary
documents. For this purpose, respondent demanded and received a P400,000 fee.
Complainant left for Denmark and entrusted the processing of the necessary paperwork
to respondent.
However, instead of having the property registered in complainants name, it was
registered and conveyed in the name of a certain Alvin Gonzales. When he further
inquired as to the status of the property he supposedly bought, he was devastated to
learn that aliens could not own land under Philippine laws. Moreover, upon verification,
it was revealed that the property was inalienable as it was situated within the former US
Military Reservation.
Complainant filed a complaint for disbarment for gravely misrepresenting that a
foreigner could legally acquire land in the Philippines and for maliciously absconding
with complainants P3.8 million.
Whether or not atty. Mas name should be stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys and be
disbarred from the practice of law.

The Court found the respondent to be dishonest and deceitful and "nothing more than
an embezzler". He abused the trust and confidence reposed by complainant in him.
Respondent, in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional
policy, showed disrespect for the Constitution and gross ignorance of basic law. Worse,
he prepared spurious documents that he knew were void and illegal. He advised the
complainant that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire real estate in the
Philippines and assuring complainant that the property was alienable. In this,
respondent committed a serious breach of his oath as a lawyer and is also guilty of
culpable violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the code of ethics of the
legal profession.
Thus the Court ordered that Atty. Mas be disbarred from further practicing legal
profession and for him to return to complainant Keld Stemmerik the total amount of P4.2
million with interest.

15. A.C. No. 7433 December 23, 2009
[Formerly CBD Case No. 05-1554]
This case was initiated by petitioners with the filing of a Complaint
before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) alleging that they secured the services of Atty.
Agustin Paneda to help and defend them in a case for Quieting of Title filed against
them. They paid the attorneys fees respondent required from them in order that they
could avail of his services as counsel. However, much more to complainants surprise
and predicament, after filing their answer to the complaint, respondent never made any
appearance for and on their behalf. He also failed to submit pre-trial brief and to appear
despite Courts order and notice to him. As a result thereof, petitioners were declared
in default because of the failure of their counsel to file and submit pre-trial brief and lost
the case.
Atty. Paneda filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was dismissed. Atty.
Paneda told petitioners that he will appeal the case to the Court of Appeals. He filed a
notice of appeal, paid the required fees and even required petitioners to shell out more
money for the preparation of the Appeal brief. Petitioners waited for so long for the
decision of the Court of Appeals only to find out later that the appeal was dismissed due
to lack of an appeal brief.

Whether or not respondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in handling
petitioners case both on trial in the RTC and on appeal in the CA which led to its
dismissal without affording petitioners the opportunity to present their evidence.
Respondents documented acts evidence that his efforts fall extremely short of the
standard of professional duty that all lawyers are required to faithfully adhere to. There
is no doubt that respondent was remiss in his duty to display utmost diligence and
competence in protecting the interests of his clients. The petitioners lost to the civil case
as a result of their being declared in default in the said case as a consequence of
respondents failure to appear at the pre-trial conference.
It is beyond dispute that respondent is duty-bound by his oath as a lawyer to diligently
prosecute the case of his clients to the best of his ability within the bounds of law.
Regrettably, the facts of this case illustrate respondents dismal performance of that
responsibility, which in its totality could amount to a reprehensible abandonment of his
clients cause.
Hence, the Court found respondent Atty. Agustin F. Paneda guilty of violating Canons
17 and 18 as well as Rules 18.02 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, he was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year.

16. A.C. No. 8252 July 21, 2009
NATIVIDAD UY, Complainant,
Complainant engaged the services of respondent to defend him in an ejectment case
wherein he was the defendant. Respondent was able to file on time an Answer to the
complaint, however, when required to file a Position Paper, he failed to file one for and
on behalf of the complainant. Eventually, a decision was rendered by the MeTC against
the complainant. The case was elevated to the Regional Trial Court but the same was
dismissed solely because of the failure of respondent to file a memorandum on appeal.
Motion for reconsideration was likewise denied for having been filed out of time.
Realizing that she lost her case because of the negligence of her counsel, complainant
initiated the disbarment case against respondent, before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD). Complainant averred that she
gave her full trust and confidence to respondent, but the latter failed miserably in his
duty as a lawyer and advocate. She also claimed that respondents failure to file the
required position paper and memorandum on appeal constituted gross incompetence
and gross negligence, which caused grave injury to complainant.
Lastly, complainant
alleged that not only did respondent fail to file the required pleadings, he also was
remiss in informing her of the status of the case.
Whether or not the respondent failed to exert his best effort and ability in the
prosecution or defense of his clients cause.

Respondents failure to file the required pleadings and to inform his client about the
developments in her case fall below the standard exacted upon lawyers on dedication
and commitment to their clients cause. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full
attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its importance, and whether he
accepts it for a fee or for free. It must be recalled that the MeTC (in the ejectment case)
required the parties to submit their respective position papers. However, respondent did
not bother to do so, in total disregard of the court order. In addition, respondent failed to
file the memorandum on appeal this time with the RTC where complainants appeal was
then pending. Therefore, dismissing said case on that ground alone.
Further, respondents failure to file the required pleadings is per se a violation of Rule
18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent also lacked candor in
dealing with his client, as he omitted to apprise complainant of the status of her
ejectment case. It should be stressed that the lawyer-client relationship is one of trust
and confidence. Thus, there is a need for the client to be adequately and fully informed
about the developments in his case.
Atty. Tansinsin was suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months.

17. A.C. No. 7813 April 21, 2009
This is a complaint filed by Carlito P. Carandang against Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina. Atty.
Obmina was counsel for Carandang in an Ejectment case he filed. Carandang brought
suit for Atty. Obminas failure to inform Carandang of the adverse decision in said case
and for failure to appeal the decision. The Commission on Bar Discipline, issued an
Order directing respondent Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina to submit his Answer. However,
what the Commission received was a Manifestation by a certain Atty. Ma. Carmencita
C. Obmina-Muaa, allegedly daughter of respondent. She further alleged that her father
is already a permanent resident of the United States of America since March 2001 and
had already retired from the practice of law.
On the scheduled Mandatory Conference, Commission directed Atty. Muaa to produce
and present before the Court the alleged withdrawal of appearance filed by her father
and proof that her father is now really a permanent resident of the United States of
Whether or not Atty. Obmina is liable for failure serve his client with competence and
diligence as pursuant to Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Ethics and to inform his
client as to the stus of his case pursuant to Rule 18.03 of Canon 18.
There is nothing on record that will show that Atty. Obmina notified complainant in any
manner about the decision. Blame should not be attributed solely to the respondent
because it was observed that complainant is partly to blame for his loss for failure to
maintain contact with Atty. Obmina. The Supreme Court held that "clients should
maintain contact with their counsel from time to time and inform themselves of the
progress of their case, thereby exercising that standard of care which an ordinary
prudent man bestows upon his business (Leonardo vs. S.T. Best, Inc.,). Nonetheless,
the Court underscored the duty of respondent to notify his client as to what happened to
his case.
However, the respondent who has in his possession the complete files and address of
the complainant, should have exerted more efforts to notify Mr. Carandang as to what
happened to his case. Whether the decision is adverse to or in favor of his client,
respondent is duty bound to notify the clients pursuant to Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Ethics. That as a result of the respondents failure to notify the
complainant, the latter lost the case leading to his eviction.
The Court ordered that Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina be suspended from the practice of law
for a period of one (1) year. Although the said respondent is reportedly in the United
States of America and accordingly retired from the practice of law, the Commission
resolved not to close its eyes on the negligence that respondent has committed while in
the active practice.


This case stems out of a civil case for forcible entry filed by herein complainant to Eliseo
Panaguinip in MTCC Branch 8 in Cebu City.

Defendants were rendered to be in default and subsequently a Decision in favor of
complainant was made ordering defendants to vacate the leased premises and pay for
compensatory damages.MTCC thereafter granted the Motion for Execution of Judgment
filed by the complainant and issued a Writ of Execution on Feb. 18 2002.

Subsequently, respondent Atty. Goering G.C. Paderanga filed an Affidavit of Third-Party
Claim over Lot No. 3653-D-1 and FUSO vehicle, which he bought from the defendants
in 2001, both of which could be erroneously levied by the writ of execution.

Because of the delay in issuing the writ, herein complainant in June 3, 2002, filed with
the OBC a complaint against Paderanga for deliberately falsifying documents causing
delay and a possible denial of justice to be served in the Civil Case.

In respondent's comment on the administrative complaint, he argued that he did not
falsify the document and that the genuiness and the due execution of the DOS was not
affected by the fact that he failed to register them. He also alleged that the MTCC have
no jurisdiction over the case for being based on spurious claims.

ISSUE: is Atty. Paderanga guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct?

HELD: The Court ruled that Atty. Paderanga is guilty of engaging in dishonest and
deceitful conduct.
Article 1491 of the Civil Code. It specifically states that justices, prosecuting attorneys,
clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with
the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigations or levied upon
execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their
respective functions cannot acquire the property subject of litigation.
Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be
disbarred or suspended on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or
other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyers oath; (6) willful disobedience of
any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party
without authority. In the present case, the Court finds respondent administratively liable
for engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct.
Had respondent been the rightful owner of a parcel of land and motor vehicle that were
still registered in the name of defendants-spouses, he should have immediately
disclosed such fact immediately during the time when respondent and Panaguinip had
engaged in previous meetings and filed a third- party claim,
Respondent violated the Lawyers Oath, which mandates that he should support the
Constitution, obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein, and do no falsehood or not consent to the doing of any in court. Further, he has
also failed to live up to the standard set by law that he should refrain from counseling or
abetting activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal


A complaint for disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan against Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services.
According to the complainant, that respondent with the help of his paralegal Fe Labiano,
convinced his clients to transfer to Tolentino and promised them financial assistance
and expeditious collection on their claims. Tolentino persistently called and sent
Linsangans clients. A calling card of Tolentino visibly states that his law office rendered
financial assistance to his clients specializing in maritime cases for seafarers.

ISSUE: Did Atty. Tolentino encroached the professional practice of complainant?

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Tolentino had encroached complanants
professional practice and constituted violations of ethical rules. , lawyers are reminded
that the practice of law is a profession and not a business; lawyers should not advertise
their talents as merchants advertise their wares.To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent
or skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the publics
estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character of service to
which every member of the bar is called. Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer
shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain. Such
actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment
A lawyers best advertisement is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct.27 For this reason, lawyers are only
allowed to announce their services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple
professional cards.
This crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved no place in
the legal profession.


Spouses Williams are the defendants in a Civil Case where the plaintiff's counsel is
herein respondent. According to Marissa Williams bought the lot subject of the
controversy. in the Transfer Certificate of Title, it was stated that she is a Filipino
married to DAvid Williams. Respondent Enriquez then filed a criminal case for
falsification of public document. According to Enriquez, citing a stale law, Marisa
automatically lost her Filipino citizenship when she married an American, and thus is
prohibited to own a land in the Philippines, thereby making her guilty of falsification. he
quoted a more outdated law when he said that the "act of marrying" her husband is
equivalent to renouncing ehr citizenship.

Thus, herein complainants filed for disbarment of Atty. Enriquez

Issue: Is Atty. Enriquez guilty for unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful acts in
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional
Ethics, and with conduct unbecoming an attorney.?

HELD: Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that a lawyer be
updated in the latest laws and jurisprudence.10 Indeed, when the law is so elementary,
not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the
law.11 As a retired judge, respondent should have known that it is his duty to keep
himself well-informed of the latest rulings of the Court on the issues and legal problems
confronting a client.12 In this case, the law he apparently misconstrued is no less than
the Constitution,13 the most basic law of the land.14 Implicit in a lawyers mandate to
protect a clients interest to the best of his/her ability and with utmost diligence is the
duty to keep abreast of the law and legal developments, and participate in continuing
legal education programs.15 Thus, in championing the interest of clients and defending
cases, a lawyer must not only be guided by the strict standards imposed by the lawyers
oath, but should likewise espouse legally sound arguments for clients, lest the latters
cause be dismissed on a technical ground.16 Ignorance encompasses both substantive
and procedural laws.
For gross ignorance of the law, Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez is REPRIMANDED and
ADVISED to carefully study the opinions he may give to his clients. He is STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

Complainant, a postal employee, is a creditor of respondent in the amount of P 20,000
payable in 6 months at 20% interest, secured by 12 blank checks. Complainant
although not faithfully paying her obligation, ,but made remittances in the amount of
P12,910 in respondent's Metrobank account. Not satisfied with the remitted amount,
respondent filled up two postal checks she issued in blank, in the amount of P50,000
each in which respondent claimed was for the P100,000 cash that complainant received
in Nov. 15,1999. Complainant denied having borrowed the P100, 000 from respondent
and claimed that respondent victimized other employees of Postal Office by filling up
without authorization, blank checks issued to him as condition for loans.
The case was referred to the IBP where it was initially found out in the Report dated
Sept. 6, 2002, finding respondent guilty of dishonesty. The Supreme Court remanded
the case and a second Report was made by Commissioner Funa stating among others,
that respondent's allegations are mere fabrications for there were contradicting
allegations. The loan alleged by respondent to have happened on November 15, 1999
never took place as it was respondent's modus operandi to demand a certain amount as
"settlement" for the dropping of estafa complaints against his borrowers. The IBP in its
Resolution indefinitely suspended Diciembre from practice of law.

ISSUE: Is the indefinite suspension against Diciembre proper?

HELD: The Court ruled that Diciembre should not indefinitely suspended but instead be
disbarred from the practice of law and his name be stricken out from the Roll of
Respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
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
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.
Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
The fact that there is no attorney-client relationship in this case and the transactions
entered into by respondent were done in his private capacity cannot shield respondent,
as a lawyer, from liability. A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his
private capacity for acts which tend to bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure
it in the favorable opinion of the public.28 Indeed, there is no distinction as to whether
the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his professional capacity,
for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen
at another.29
In this case, evidence abounds that respondent has failed to live up to the standards
required of members of the legal profession.


FACTS: Complainant charged respondent with malpractice for grossly neglecting his
duties and responsibilities as counsel for complainant and for issuing a bouncing chec
for P85,000.

Complainant engaged the legal services of respondent as her counsel for an intestate
proceeding for her husband Eusebio Tan. She paid respondent P100,000 for
acceptance fee. Several months passed and the case had no progress. not satisfied
with respondent's services, she went to his office and demananded the return of the
professional fees for there was no professional service rendered. Respondent then
gave her a check amounting to P85,000. When she deposited the same, it was
dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Complaianant made several demands but was
unheeded by the respondent and said that he only issued the same to stop
complainant's "acerbic verbal abuse."

Respondent alleged that he had been personally following-up the case but it was
stagnant in the court for there was still no judge to preside. it was only later that
respondent found out that the judged was suspended and not retired. he even made
notes to record the dates of his visits in the court.

ISSUE: (1) whether respondent was negligent in handling complainants case; and
(2) whether respondent should be disciplined for issuing a bouncing check.

HELD: The Court affirmed the findings of the IBP, that respondent be suspended for
one month with strong warning that a commission of a similar offense would be dealt
with more severity in the future. He also recommended that respondent be ordered to
reimburse complainant the amount of <span>P</span>70,000.00,
<span>P</span>30,000.00 of which corresponds to the services rendered by him on a
quantum meruit. He did not find respondent to be grossly negligent in the performance
of his duties as there was nothing more respondent could do in accelerating the
resolution of the motions which were already submitted for resolution. The filing of
additional pleadings or papers with the court would not be necessary. During the time
the motion for reconsideration was pending the regular presiding judge of the court was
under suspension and the acting presiding judge who issued the resolution considering
the motion as submitted for resolution was not disposed to act on said motion but
instead opted to wait for the regular presiding judge to act on it.
However, the hearing officer recommended that respondent be made liable for issuing
the bouncing check. Whatever was respondents reason for issuing the check, the fact
remains that the same was dishonored by the bank for having been drawn against
insufficient funds. If respondents purpose was just to appease complainant to make her
leave his office and he firmly believed that he had no obligation to return the
<span>P</span>100,000.00, then he could have issued a stop-payment order to the
bank before the encashment of the check, the hearing officer added.


FACTS: a letter complaint was filed by Antero J. Pobre regarding the offensive speech
against the Supreme Court and its members made by Senator Miriam Defensor-
Santiago on the Senate floor.
Santiago does not deny making the offensive statements; however, she explained that
those statements were covered by the constitutional provision on parliamentary
immunity. The immunity Senator Santiago claims is rooted primarily on the provision of
Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution, which provides: "A Senator or Member of the
House of Representative shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No member
shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate
in the Congress or in any committee thereof.

ISSUE: Can Senator Santiago be suspended or disbarred for violating the Canons of
Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD: To the Court, the lady senator has undoubtedly crossed the limits of decency
and good professional conduct. It is at once apparent that her statements in question
were intemperate and highly improper in substance. The lady senator clearly violated
Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
A careful re-reading of her utterances would readily show that her statements were
expressions of personal anger and frustration at not being considered for the post of
Chief Justice. In a sense, therefore, her remarks were outside the pale of her official
parliamentary functions.
The Court is not hesitant to impose some form of disciplinary sanctions on Senator/Atty.
Santiago. The factual and legal circumstances of this case, however, deter the Court
from doing so, even without any sign of remorse from her. The Rules of the Senate
enjoins a Senator from using offensive or improper language against another Senator or
against any public institution. But as to Senator Santiagos unparliamentary remarks,
the Senate President had not apparently called her to order, let alone referred the
matter to the Senate Ethics Committee for appropriate disciplinary action. The lady
senator clearly violated the rules of her own chamber but it is unfortunate that her peers
bent backwards and avoided imposing their own rules on her.
G.R. No. 157384 June 5, 2009
Velasco Jr., J.:


In a case presided by Judge Antonio Reyes, Atty. Singson attempted to influence the
outcome of the case as can be inferred from his acts evidenced by the following
documents, to wit:
1. the transcript of the stenographic notes of the May 31, 2000 hearing in the sala
of Judge Reyes when the judge made it of record that respondent offered Atty.
Oscar Sevilla P500,000 to be given to Judge Reyes for a favorable decision;
2. the affidavit of Judge Reyes alleged that respondent, as soon as the case
started, visited him about three times in his office, and made more than a dozen
calls to his Manila and Baguio residences, some of which were even made late
3. the affidavit of Atty. Sevilla confirmed that he was approached by the respondent
to convince the judge, his close family friend, to rule in Atty. Singsons favor.


Whether or not Atty. Singson should be administratively discipline or disbarred from the
practice of law for the alleged misconduct in attempting to bribe Judge Antonio Reyes

Yes, Atty. Singson should be suspended from practice of law for one year. The fact that
he did talk on different occasions to Judge Reyes, initially through a mutual friend, Atty.
Sevilla, leads to the conclusion that Atty. Singson was indeed trying to influence the
judge to rule in his clients favor. This conduct is not acceptable in the legal profession.
Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins A lawyer shall rely upon
the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence or
gives the appearance of influencing the court.

26. Judge Laquindanum vs. Atty. Quintana
A.C. No. 7036, June 29, 2009
Puno, CJ.


Judge Laquindanum sent a letter to the Supreme Court requesting that proper
disciplinary action be imposed to Atty. Nestor Quintana for the following acts:
1. Notarizing documents outside of the area of his commission as notary public;
2. Allowing his wife to notarize documents in his absence;
3. Notarizing a document where one of the signatories therein was already dead at
that time.
1. Whether or not a lawyer of good standing has the right to practice his profession
including notarial acts in the entire Philippines, as so claimed by the respondent
2. Whether or not Atty. Quintana can transfer the blame to his wife for the latters
unauthorized practice of notarial acts
3. Whether or not a notary public can notarize documents where one of the
signatories therein was already dead at that time
1. No. While it is true that lawyers in good standing are allowed to engage in the
practice of law in the Philippines, however, not every lawyer even in good
standing can perform notarial functions without having been commissioned as
notary public. He must have submitted himself to the commissioning court by
filing his petition for issuance of his Notarial Practice.
2. No. A notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial
register. Respondent cannot take refuge claiming that it was his wifes act and
that he did not authorize his wife to notarize documents. He is personally
accountable for the activities in his office as well as the acts of his personnel
including his wife, who acts as his secretary.
3. No. Sec. 2, (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides A
person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the
instrument or document (1) is not in the notarys presence personally at the time
of the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

A.C. No. 7054, December 4, 2009
Per Curiam


The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline (IBP Committee on
Bar Discipline or CBD) recommended the 1 year suspension from practice of law of
Atty. Revilla after it found him guilty of the following violations:
1. Abuse of court procedures and processes
2. Filing of multiple actions and forum shopping
3. Willful, intentional and deliberate falsehood before the courts
4. Maligning the name of his fellow lawyers
5. Unauthorized appearances
Prior to these findings, he was previously suspended from practice of law for 6 months
for other ethical infractions.
Whether the respondent can be held liable for the imputed unethical infractions and
professional misconduct, and the penalty these transgressions should carry.
Given the respondents multiple violations, his past record as previously discussed, and
the nature of these violations which shows the readiness to disregard court rules and to
gloss over concerns for the orderly administration of justice, the Court orders to disbar
the respondent to keep him away from the law profession and from any significant role
in the administration of justice which he has disgraced. He is a continuing risk, too, to
the public that the legal profession serves. Not even his ardor and overzealousness in
defending the interests of his client can save him. Additionally, disbarment is merited
because this is not the respondents first ethical infraction of the same nature.

28. Rolando Pacana Jr. vs. Atty. Maricel Pascual-Lopez
A.C. No. 8243 July 24, 2009
Per Curiam:


Pacana, herein complainant, was the Operations Director for Multitel Communications
Corporation. Distraught of the corporations obligation to its creditors, complainant
sought the advice of respondent. From then on, the former disclosed all his involvement
and interests in Multitel. Respondent, in turn gave legal advice to complainant. Both of
them, however, did not forge a formal Retainer Agreement.

Later on, complainant knew that respondent was representing the creditors of Multitel.
Assuring the complainant that it was part of respondents strategy of settling all the legal
problems of the former, both parties continued to work together. Respondent also asked
money from complainant allegedly for safekeeping to be used only for his case
whenever necessary. Complainant agreed and gave her substantial amount of money.

Soon after, complainant dismayed with respondents arrogance and evasiveness filed a
disbarment case against respondent before the IBP.


1. Whether or not a lawyer-client relationship binds the herein complainant and
2. Whether or not respondent should be disciplined for representing conflicting


1. A lawyer-client relationship was present. The absence of a written contract will
not preclude the finding that there was a professional relationship between the
parties. Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the employment of
an attorney; the contract may be express or implied. To establish the relation, it is
sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in
any matter pertinent to his profession.
2. Yes, respondent should be disbarred. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer
represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. Indubitably,
respondent took advantage of complainants hapless situation, initially, by giving
him legal advice and, later on, by soliciting money and properties from him.
Simultaneously, she was also doing the same thing to impress upon her clients,
the party claimants against Multitel that she was doing everything to reclaim the
money they invested with Multitel.

G.R. No. 132826 September 3, 2009
Corona, J.:


Petitioner Rolanda Saa filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty.
Freddie A. Venida on December 27, 1991. In a resolution dated February 17, 1992,
Atty. Venida was required to comment on the complaint against him. He belatedly and
partially complied with the said order.
Consequently, the Court issued the June 14, 1995 resolution requiring Atty. Venida to
show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for failure
to comply with the February 17, 1992 resolution.
Finally, Atty. Venida filed his full comment on September 4, 1995 which, without doubt,
was a mere reiteration of his partial comment. Atty. Venida also added that he was
merely performing his duty as counsel of Saas adversaries

Whether or not Atty. Venida should be sanctioned for his unreasonable delay in
complying with the orders of the court.


Yes, he should be suspended from practice of law for one year. Public confidence in the
law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a
member of the bar. As a lawyer, he had the responsibility to follow legal orders and
processes. Yet, he disregarded this very important canon of legal ethics when he filed
only a partial comment on January 26, 1993 or 11 months after being directed to do so
in the February 17, 1992 resolution. Worse, he filed his complete comment only on June
14, 1995 or a little over three years after due date.

A.C. No. 6567 April 16, 2008
Carpio-Morales, J.

Complainant filed before the BSP a Petition against Surigaonon Rural Banking
Corporation and Alfredo Tan Bonpin, major stockholders of the bank, for cancellation of
the bank's registration and franchise.
Respondent, in-house counsel and acting corporate secretary of the bank, filed an
Answer with Affirmative Defenses to the Petition stating, inter alia,
5. That this is another in the series of blackmail suits filed by plaintiff and his wife
to coerce the Bank and Mr. Bonpin for financial gain.
1. Whether or not the respondent is guilty of Simple Misconduct for using the word
blackmail to describe the suit filed by the complainant
Yes. While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such
enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. In keeping with
the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language even in his pleadings must be
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates:
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the Courts.