LAWYERSOATH

INRE:ARGOSINO,270SCRA26
FACTS:
AlCaparrosArgosinohadpassedthebarexaminationsbutwasdeniedoftaking
theLawyersOathandtosigntheRollsofAttorneysduetohisconvictionofreckless
imprudenceresultinginhomicidefromahazingincident.Laterinhissentence,hewas
grantedprobationbythecourt.HefiledapetitiontotheSupremeCourtprayingthathe
beallowedtotaketheLawyersOathandsigntheRollsofAttorneys.Asaproofofthe
requiredgoodmoralcharacterhenowpossess,hepresentednolessthanfifteen(15)
certificationsamongothersfrom:two(2)senators,five(5)trialcourtjudges,andsix(6)
membersofreligiousorder.Inaddition,he,togetherwiththeotherswhowereconvicted,
organizedascholarshipfoundationinhonoroftheirhazingvictim.
ISSUE:
WhetherornotMr.ArgosinoshouldbeallowedtotaketheLawyersOath,sign
theRollsofAttorneys,andpracticelaw.
HELD:
YES.Petitiongranted.
RATIO:
GiventhefactthatMr.Argosinohadexhibitedcompetentproofthathepossessed
therequiredgoodmoralcharacterasrequiredbeforetakingtheLawyersOathandto
signtheRollsofAttorneys,theSupremeCourtconsideredthepremisesthatheisnot
inherentlyinbadmoralfiber.Ingivingthebenefitofthedoubt,Mr.Argosinowasfinally
remindedthattheLawyersOathisnotmerelyaceremonyorformalitybeforethe
practiceoflaw,andthatthecommunityassistancehehadstartedisexpectedtocontinue
inservingthemoreunfortunatemembersofthesociety.
SPOUSESOLBESVS.ATTY.VICTORV.DECIEMBRE
AC5365.APRIL27,2005
FACTS:
Atty.VictorV.DeciembrewasgivenfiveblankchecksbySpousesOlbesfor
securityofaloan.Aftertheloanwaspaidandareceiptissued,Atty.Deciembrefilledup
fourofthefivechecksforP50,000withdifferentmaturitydate.Allcheckswere
dishonored.Thus,Atty.DeciembrefledacaseforestafaagainstthespousesOlbes.This
promptedthespousesOlbestofileadisbarmentcaseagainstAtty.Deciembrewiththe
OfficeoftheBarConfidantofthisCourt.Inthereport,CommissionerDulay
recommendedthatrespondentbesuspendedfromthepracticeoflawfortwoyearsfor
violatingRule1.01oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
ISSUE:
WhetherornotthesuspensionofAtty.Deciembrewasinaccordwithhisfault.

HELD:
Membershipinthelegalprofessionisaspecialprivilegeburdenedwith
conditions.Itisbestoweduponindividualswhoarenotonlylearnedinthelaw,butalso
knowntopossessgoodmoralcharacter.Alawyerisanoathboundservantofsociety
whoseconductisclearlycircumscribedbyinflexiblenormsoflawandethics,andwhose
primarydutyistheadvancementofthequestfortruthandjustice,forwhichhehassworn
tobeafearlesscrusader.Bytakingthelawyersoath,anattorneybecomesaguardianof
truthandtheruleoflaw,andanindispensableinstrumentinthefairandimpartial
administrationofjustice.Lawyersshouldactandcomportthemselveswithhonestyand
integrityinamannerbeyondreproach,inordertopromotethepublicsfaithinthelegal
profession.ItisalsoglaringlyclearthattheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitywas
seriouslytransgressedbyhismalevolentactoffillinguptheblankchecksbyindicating
amountsthathadnotbeenagreeduponatallanddespiterespondentsfullknowledge
thattheloansupposedtobesecuredbythecheckshadalreadybeenpaid.Hiswasa
brazenactoffalsificationofacommercialdocument,resortedtoforhismaterialgain.
Deceptionandotherfraudulentactsarenotmerelyunacceptablepracticesthatare
disgracefulanddishonorable;theyrevealabasicmoralflaw.Thestandardsofthelegal
professionarenotsatisfiedbyconductthatmerelyenablesonetoescapethepenaltiesof
criminallaws.Consideringthedepravityoftheoffensecommittedbyrespondent,wefind
thepenaltyrecommendedbytheIBPofsuspensionfortwoyearsfromthepracticeoflaw
tobetoomild.Hispropensityforemployingdeceitandmisrepresentationis
reprehensible.Hismisuseofthefilledupchecksthatledtothedetentionofone
petitionerisloathsome.Thus,heissentencedsuspendedindefinitelyfromthepracticeof
laweffectiveimmediately.
DEGUZMANVS.DEDIOS
350SCRA320[2001]
FACTS:
DianaDeGuzmanfiledadisbarmentcomplaintagainstAtty.DeDiosfor
representingconflictinginterests.Complainantaverredthatsheengagedtheservicesof
respondentin1995ascounselinordertoformahotelandrestaurantcorporation.With
theassistanceofrespondent,saidcorporationwasregisteredwiththeSEC.Respondent
alsorepresentedcomplainantinonecaseinvolvingapropertyofthecorporation.
Respondenthoweveraverredthatsincetheactioninvolvedapropertyofthecorporation,
sherepresentedcomplainanttoprotecttheinterestsofthecorporation,shebeingitslegal
counsel.Complainantalsoaverredthatwhilerespondentrosetobecomepresidentofthe
corporation,shelostallherinvestmentswhenherdelinquentsharesweresoldbythe
corporationinapublicauctionupontheadviseofrespondent.TheIBPdismissedthe
complaintonthegroundthattherewasnoattorneyclientrelationship.
ISSUE:
Whethertherewasattorneyclientrelationshipwhichmayjustifyholding
respondentguiltyofrepresentingconflictinginterests.
HELD:

Yes.Itwascomplainantwhoretainedrespondenttoformacorporation.She
appearedascounselinbehalfofthecomplainant.Therewasalsoevidenceofcollusion
betweentheboardofdirectorsandrespondent.Indeed,theboardofdirectorsnow
includedrespondentasthepresident.Itwasalsouponheradvicethatthedelinquent
sharesofcomplainantweresoldatpublicauction.Thepresentsituationshowsaclear
caseofconflictofinterestsoftherespondent.
CANON1
HeirsoftheLateSpousesLucasvs.Atty.Beradio,ACNo.6270,Jan.22,2007
CARPIO,J.
FACTS:
Duringtheirlifetime,thespousesVillanuevaacquiredseveralparcelsoflandin
Pangasinan.Their5children,Simeona,Susana,Maria,Alfonso,andFlorencia,survived
them.
AlfonsoexecutedanAffidavitofAdjudicationstatingthatas"theonlysurviving
sonandsoleheirsofthespousesVillanueva.AlfonsothenexecutedaDeedofAbsolute
Sale,conveyingthepropertytoAdrianoVillanueva.Respondentappearedasnotary
publiconboththeaffidavitofadjudicationandthedeedofsale.
ContrarytothemisrepresentationsofAlfonso,hissisterFlorenciawasstillalive
atthetimeheexecutedtheaffidavitofadjudicationandthedeedofsale,aswere
descendantsoftheotherchildrenofthespousesVillanueva.Complainantsclaimedthat
respondentwasawareofthisfact,asrespondenthadbeentheirneighborinBalungao,
Pangasinan,fromthetimeoftheirbirth,andrespondentconstantlymingledwiththeir
family.Complainantsaccusedrespondentofknowingthe"truefactsandsurrounding
circumstances"regardingthepropertiesofthespousesVillanueva,yetconspiringwith
Alfonsotodeprivehiscoheirsoftheirrightfulsharesintheproperty.
CommissionerVilladolidfoundthatrespondentviolatedtheprovisionsofthe
CodeofProfessionalResponsibilityandthespiritandintentofthenotariallawwhenshe
notarizedtheaffidavitknowingthatAlfonsowasnotthesolecompulsoryheirofthe
spousesVillanueva.Itwasrecommendedthatrespondentbereprimandedorsuspended
fromthepracticeoflawforupto6months.
ISSUE:
W/Nrespondentshouldbesuspendedforhisactions.
HELD:
REVOKEthecommissionasNotaryPublic,ifstillexisting,andDISQUALIFY
frombeingcommissionedanotarypublicfor1year.SUSPENDfromthepracticeoflaw
for6months.
YES.
Notarypublicisempoweredtoperformavarietyofnotarialacts,mostcommon
ofwhicharetheacknowledgmentandaffirmationofadocumentorinstrument.Inthe
performanceofsuchnotarialacts,thenotarypublicmustbemindfulofthesignificance

ofthenotarialsealasaffixedonadocument.Thenotarialsealconvertsthedocument
fromprivatetopublic,afterwhichitmaybepresentedasevidencewithoutneedforproof
ofitsgenuinenessanddueexecution.
Bythisinstrument,Alfonsoclaimedaportionofhisparentsestatealltohimself,
totheexclusionofhiscoheirs.Shortlyafterwards,respondentnotarizedthedeedofsale,
knowingthatthedeedtookbasisfromtheunlawfulaffidavitofadjudication.
Respondentneverdisputedcomplainantsallegationofhercloserelationshipwith
theVillanuevafamilyspanningseveraldecades.Respondentevenunderscoredthis
closenessbyclaimingthatLucashimselfrequestedhertocometohishousetheday
LucashandedtoAlfonsoacopyofOCTNo.2522,allegedlysoshecouldhearthe
conversationbetweenthem.
Whereadmittedlythenotarypublichaspersonalknowledgeofafalsestatement
orinformationcontainedintheinstrumenttobenotarized,yetproceedstoaffixhisorher
notarialsealonit,theCourtmustnothesitatetodisciplinethenotarypublicaccordingly
asthecircumstancesofthecasemaydictate.Otherwise,theintegrityandsanctityofthe
notarizationprocessmaybeunderminedandpublicconfidenceonnotarialdocuments
diminished.
Inthiscase,respondentsconductamountedtoabreachofCanon1oftheCode
ofProfessionalResponsibility,whichrequireslawyerstoobeythelawsofthelandand
promoterespectforthelawandlegalprocesses.RespondentalsoviolatedRule1.01of
theCodewhichproscribeslawyersfromengaginginunlawful,dishonest,immoral,or
deceitfulconduct.
WealsoviewwithdisfavorrespondentslackofcandorbeforetheIBP
proceedings.Thetranscriptofhearingsshowsthatrespondentdeniedpreparingor
notarizingthedeedofsale,whenshealreadyadmittedhavingdonesoinherComment.
SAMALAVS.ATTY.VALENCIA,AC5439,JAN.22,2007
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.
FACTS:

ComplainantClaritaJ.SamalafiledagainstAtty.LucianoD.Valenciafor
Disbarmentonthefollowinggrounds:servingon2separateoccasionsascounselfor
contendingpartiesknowinglymisleadingthecourtbysubmittingfalsedocumentary
evidenceinitiatingnumerouscasesinexchangefornonpaymentofrentalfeeshavinga
reputationofbeingimmoralbysiringillegitimatechildren.
CommissionerfoundrespondentguiltyofviolatingCanons15and21oftheCode
ofProfessionalResponsibilityandrecommendedthepenaltyofsuspensionfor6months.
IBPBoardofGovernorsadoptedandapprovedthereportandrecommendationof
CommissionerReyesbutincreasedthepenaltyofsuspensionfrom6monthsto1year.
ISSUE:
W/Nrespondentshouldbesuspended.
HELD:
RespondentAtty.LucianoD.ValenciaGUILTYofmisconductandviolationof

Canons21,10and1oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.SUSPENDEDfor3
years.
YES.
InCivilCaseNo.986804filedintheMetropolitanTrialCourtentitled"Editha
S.ValdezandJosephJ.Alba,Jr.v.SalveBustamanteandherhusband"forejectment,
respondentrepresentedValdezagainstBustamante,1ofthetenantsintheproperty
subjectofthecontroversy.PresidingJudgewarnedrespondenttorefrainfromrepeating
theactofbeingcounselofrecordofbothpartiesinCivilCaseNo.95105MK.
Rule15.03,Canon15oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityprovidesthata
lawyershallnotrepresentconflictinginterestsexceptbywrittenconsentofallconcerned
givenafterafulldisclosureofthefacts.Alawyermaynot,withoutbeingguiltyof
professionalmisconduct,actascounselforapersonwhoseinterestconflictswiththatof
hispresentorformerclient.Thissternruleisfoundedontheprinciplesofpublicpolicy
andgoodtaste.Oneofthetestsofinconsistencyofinterestsiswhethertheacceptanceof
anewrelationwouldpreventthefulldischargeofthelawyer'sdutyofundividedfidelity
andloyaltytotheclientorinvitesuspicionofunfaithfulnessordoubledealinginthe
performanceofthatduty.
Canon21oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility"alawyershallpreservethe
confidencesandsecretsofhisclientevenaftertheattorneyclientrelationisterminated."
Respondent'srepresentationof:
ValdezandAlbaagainstBustamanteandherhusband
ValdezagainstAlbaisaclearcaseofconflictofinterestswhichmeritsa
correspondingsanctionfromthisCourt.
RespondentmayhavewithdrawnhisrepresentationinCivilCaseNo.95105
MKuponbeingwarnedbythecourt,butthesamewillnotexculpatehimfromthecharge
ofrepresentingconflictinginterestsinhisrepresentationinCivilCaseNo.2000657
MK.
Respondentisremindedtobemorecautiousinacceptingprofessional
employments,torefrainfromallappearancesandactsofimproprietyincluding
circumstancesindicatingconflictofinterests,andtobehaveatalltimeswith
circumspectionanddedicationbefittingamemberoftheBar,especiallyobserving
candor,fairnessandloyaltyinalltransactionswithhisclients.
Respondentcannotfeignignoranceofthefactthatthetitlehesubmittedwas
alreadycancelledinlieuofanewtitleissuedinthenameofAlbain1995yet,asproofof
thelatter'sownership.
Whatisdecisiveinthiscaseisrespondent'sintentintryingtomisleadthecourt
bypresentingTCTNo.273020despitethefactthatsaidtitlewasalreadycancelledanda
newone,TCTNo.275500,wasalreadyissuedinthenameofAlba.
Theactofrespondentoffilingtheaforecitedcasestoprotecttheinterestofhis
client,ononehand,andhisowninterest,ontheother,cannotbemadethebasisofan
administrativechargeunlessitcanbeclearlyshownthatthesamewasbeingdoneto
abusejudicialprocessestocommitinjustice.
Respondentliableforbeingimmoralbysiringillegitimatechildren.
RespondentadmittedthathesiredthreechildrenbyTeresitaLagmaywhoareall
over20yearsofage,whilehisfirstwifewasstillalive.Healsoadmittedthathehaseight

childrenbyhisfirstwife,theyoungestofwhomisover20yearsofage,andafterhiswife
diedin1997,hemarriedLagmayin1998.
Inthiscase,theadmissionsmadebyrespondentaremorethanenoughtohold
himliableonthechargeofimmorality.Heevenjustifiedhistransgressionbysayingthat
hedoesnothaveanyrelationshipwithLagmayanddespitethefactthathesired3
childrenbythelatter,hedoesnotconsiderthemashissecondfamily
UnderCanon1,Rule1.01oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,alawyer
shallnotengageinunlawful,dishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduct.Itmaybedifficult
tospecifythedegreeofmoraldelinquencythatmayqualifyanactasimmoral,yet,for
purposesofdiscipliningalawyer,immoralconducthasbeendefinedasthat"conduct
whichiswillful,flagrant,orshameless,andwhichshowsamoralindifferencetothe
opinionofrespectablemembersofthecommunity.
ADVINCULAVS.ATTY.MACABATA,ACNO.7204,MARCH7,2007
CHICONAZARIO,J.
FACTS:
Thecomplainant,CynthiaAdvincula,soughtthelegaladviceoftherespondent
Atty.Macabata,regardinghercollectiblesfromQueenswayTravelandTours.Aftertheir
dinner,respondentsentcomplainanthomeandwhilesheisabouttostepoutofthecar,
respondentholdherarmandkissedheronthecheekandembracedherverytightly.
AfterthemeetingatStarbuckscoffeeshopinWestAvenue,QuezonCity,
respondentofferedagainaride,whichheusuallydideverytimetheymet.Whenshewas
almostrestlessrespondentstoppedhiscarandforcefullyholdherfaceandkissedherlips
whiletheotherhandwasholdingherbreast.Complainanteveninastateofshocked
succeededinresistinghiscriminalattemptandimmediatelymanagetogooutofthecar.
Inthelateafternoon,complainantsentatextmessagetorespondentinforming
himthatshedecidedtoreferthecasewithanotherlawyerandneedstogetbackthecase
folderfromhim.
Respondentreplied"talktomylawyerinduetime."Thenanothermessagewas
receivedbyherat4:06:33pmsaying"Anokba.Imreallysri.Pls.Nxtimebhavenme."
(Anokaba.Imreallysorry.Pleasenexttimebehavenako),whichisaclear
manifestationofadmissionofguilt.
Bywayofdefense,respondentfurtherelucidatedthat:
therewasacriminalcaseforActsofLasciviousnessfiledbycomplainantagainst
respondentpendinglegalnameofcomplainantisCynthiaAdvinculaTorianasinceshe
remainsmarriedtoacertainJinkyToriana.Complainantwaslivingwithamannother
husband.Complainantneverbotheredtodiscussrespondentsfeesanditwasrespondent
whoalwayspaidfortheirbillseverytimetheymetandateatarestaurant.
Commissionerrecommendedtheimpositionofthepenaltyof1monthsuspension
onrespondentforviolationoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.IBPpassed
ResolutionNo.XVII2006117,approvingandadopting,withmodificationthatAtty.
ErnestoA.MacabataisSUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawfor3months
ISSUE:

Whetherrespondentcommittedactsthataregrosslyimmoralorwhichconstitute
seriousmoraldepravitythatwouldwarranthisdisbarmentorsuspensionfromthe
practiceoflaw.
HELD:
Atty.ErnestoMacabata,forallegedimmorality,isDISMISSED.However,
REPRIMANDEDwithaSTERNWARNING.
NO.
Moralcharacterisnotasubjectivetermbutonewhichcorrespondstoobjective
reality.Requirementofgoodmoralcharacterhas4ostensiblepurposes:
toprotectthepublic
toprotectthepublicimageoflawyers
toprotectprospectiveclients
toprotecterrantlawyersfromthemselves.
Itisdifficulttostatewithprecisionandtofixaninflexiblestandardastowhatis
"grosslyimmoralconduct"ortospecifythemoraldelinquencyandobliquitywhich
renderalawyerunworthyofcontinuingasamemberofthebar.Theruleimpliesthat
whatappearstobeunconventionalbehaviortothestraightlacedmaynotbetheimmoral
conductthatwarrantsdisbarment.
ROGERPOSADAS,ROSARIOTORRESYU,andMARICHULAMBINO,
petitioners,vs.THEHON.OMBUDSMAN,THESPECIALPROSECUTOR,and
ORLANDOV.DIZON,respondents.,G.R.No.131492,2000September29,2nd
Division
FACTS:
DennisVenturina,amemberofSigmaRhoattheUniversityofthePhilippines,
waskilledinarumblebetweenhisfraternityandanotherfraternityonDecember8,1994.
InaletterdatedDecember11,1994,petitionerRogerPosadas,thenChancellorofU.P.
DilimaninQuezonCity,askedtheDirectoroftheNationalBureauofInvestigationfor
assistanceindeterminingthepersonsresponsibleforthecrime.Inresponsetothe
request,respondentOrlandoV.Dizon,ChiefoftheSpecialOperationsGroupoftheNBI,
andhismenwenttoU.P.onDecember12and,onthebasisofthesupposedpositive
identificationoftwoallegedeyewitnesses,LeandroLachicaandCesarMangrobang,Jr.,
attemptedtoarrestFrancisCarloTaparanandRaymundoNarag,officers/membersofthe
ScintillaJurisFraternity,assuspectsinthekillingofVenturina.Itappearsthatthetwo
suspectshadcomethatdaytotheU.P.PoliceStationforapeacetalkbetweentheir
fraternityandtheSigmaRhoFraternity.
PetitionersPosadas,MarichuLambino,andRosarioTorresYu,alsoofU.P.,and
acertainAtty.Villamor,counselforthesuspects,objectedonthegroundthattheNBIdid
nothavewarrantsofarrestwiththem.PosadasandAtty.Villamorpromisedtotakethe
suspectstotheNBIOfficethenextday.Asaresultoftheirintervention,theNBIagents
didnotarrestTaparanandNaragonthatday.However,criminalchargeswerefiledlater
againstthetwostudentsuspects.

Later,onmotionofpetitioners,theSpecialProsecutor'sOfficerecommendedthe
dismissalofthecase.Buttherecommendationwasdisapproved.Inamemorandum,
datedSeptember8,1997,theOfficeoftheOmbudsmandirectedtheSpecialProsecutor
toproceedwiththeprosecutionofpetitionersintheSandiganbayan.
ISSUE:
Whetherornotthehonorableombudsmancommittedgraveabuseofdiscretion
whenheruledthat:1)studentscouldbearrestedwithoutwarrantonmeresuspicion;2)
pd1829includesarrestswithoutwarrantsonmeresuspicion.
HELD:
1. Theruleisthatnoarrestmaybemadeexceptbyvirtueofawarrantissuedby
ajudgeafterexaminingthecomplainantandthewitnesseshemayproduce
andafterfindingprobablecausetobelievethatthepersontobearrestedhas
committedthecrime.TheNBIagentsinthecaseatbartriedtoarrestNarag
andTaparanfourdaysafterthecommissionofthecrime.Theyhadno
personalknowledgeofanyfactwhichmightindicatethatthetwostudents
wereprobablyguiltyofthecrime.Whattheyhadwerethesupposedpositive
identificationoftwoallegedeyewitnesses,whichisinsufficienttojustifythe
arrestwithoutawarrantbytheNBI.AtthetimeDennisVenturinawaskilled,
theseagentswerenowherenearthesceneofthecrime.Whenrespondent
DizonandhismenattemptedtoarrestTaparanandNarag,thelatterwerenot
committingacrimenorweretheydoinganythingthatwouldcreatethe
suspicionthattheyweredoinganythingillegal.
2. ThereisnoprobablecausetochargePosadas,TorresYu,Lambino,Bentain
andAtty.VillamorofviolatingSection1(c)ofP.D.1829.Theabsenceofan
arrestwarrant,theabsenceofknowledgeorreasonablegroundonthepartof
theaccusedtobelievethatthestudentshadcommittedacrime,theabsenceof
anylawpunishingrefusaltoattendaninvestigationattheNBI,allshowthat
thereisnosufficientgroundtochargetheaccusedwithObstructionofJustice.
PetitionershadarighttopreventthearrestofTaparanandNaragatthetime
becausetheirattemptedarrestwasillegal.
ThepetitionisGRANTEDandtheOmbudsmanandhisagentsarehereby
prohibitedfromprosecutingpetitionersforviolationofP.D.No.18291(c)asaresultof
theincidentcomplainedofinCriminalCaseNo.22801andtheSandiganbayanis
ORDEREDtodismisstheinformationinCriminalCaseNo.22801againstpetitioners.
PAGCORVS.ATTY.DANTEA.CARANDANG
FACTS:
Atty.Carandang,respondent,isthepresidentofBingoRoyale,Incorporated
(BingoRoyale),aprivatecorporationorganizedunderthelawsofthePhilippines.On
February2,1999,PAGCORandBingo
RoyaleexecutedaGrantofAuthorityto
OperateBingoGames.ArticleVofthisdocumentmandatesBingoRoyaletoremit

20%ofitsgrosssalestoPAGCOR.This20%isdividedinto15%toPAGCORand5%
franchisetaxtotheBureauofInternalRevenue.
Inthecourseofitsoperations,BingoRoyaleincurredarrearsamountingto
P6,064,833.14asofNovember15,2001.Insteadofdemandingthepaymenttherefor,
PAGCORallowedBingoRoyaleandrespondentAtty.Carandangtopaythesaid
amountinmonthlyinstallmentofP300,000.00fromJuly
2001toJune2003.BingoRoyalethenissuedtoPAGCORtwentyfour(24)Bankof
CommercechecksinthesumofP7,200,000.00signedbyrespondent.However,whenthe
checksweredepositedaftertheendofeachmonthattheLandBank,U.N.Avenue
Branch,Manila,theywerealldishonoredbyreasonofBingoRoyalesClosed
Account.
DespitePAGCORsdemandlettersdatedNovember12andDecember12,
2001,andFebruary12,2002,respondentfailedtopaytheamountsofthechecks.Thus,
PAGCORfiledwiththeOfficeoftheCityProsecutorofManilacriminalcomplaintsfor
violationsofBatasPambansa(B.P.)Blg.22againstrespondent.
PAGCORcontendsthatinissuingthosebouncingchecks,respondentisliablefor
seriousmisconduct,violationoftheAttorneysOathandviolationoftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibility;andpraysthathisnamebestrickenfromtheRollof
AttorneysInhisOppositiontothecomplaint,respondentaverredthatheisnot
liableforissuingbouncingchecksbecausetheyweredrawnbyBingoRoyale.Hisactof
doingsoisnotrelatedtotheofficeofalawyer.
ISSUE:
WhetherornotrespondentAtty.Carandangisliableforseriousmisconductand
violatedtheAttorneysoathandcodeofprofessionalresponsibility.
HELD:
Whethertoissueornotchecksinfavorofapayeeisavoluntaryact.Itisclearlya
choiceforanindividual(especiallyonelearnedinthelaw),whetherinapersonal
capacityorofficerofacorporation,todosoafterassessingandweighingthe
consequencesandrisksfordoingso.AsPresidentofBRI,hecannotbesaidtobe
unawareoftheprobabilitythatBRI,thecompanyheruns,couldnotraisefunds,totally
orpartially,tocoverthechecksastheyfelldue.Thedesiretocontinuetheoperations
ofhiscompanydoesnotexcuserespondentsactofviolatingthelawbyissuing
worthlesschecks.Moreover,inabilitytopayisnotaground,undertheCivilCode,to
suspendnorextinguishanobligation.Specifically,respondentcontendsthatbecauseof
businessreversesorinabilitytogeneratefunds,BRIshouldbeexcusedfrommaking
goodthepaymentofthechecks.Ifthistheory
issustained,debtorswillmerelystatethattheynolongerhavethecapacitytopayand,
consequently,notobligedtopayontime,norfullyorpartially,theirdebttocreditors.
Surely,undersignedcannotagreewiththiscontention.

Ascorrectlypointedoutbycomplainant,violationofB.P.Blg.22isanoffensethat
involvespublicinterest.AttyCarandangissuspendedfrompracticeoflawfor6months.
Re:ReportontheFinancialAuditConductedontheBooksofAccountsofAtty.

RaquelG.Kho,ClerkofCourtIV,RegionalTrialCourt,Oras,EasternSamar,521
SCRA25(2007)
Aclerkofcourtsfailuretoremitjudiciaryfundsforoverayear,anomissioncontraryto
themandatoryprovisionsofOCACircular8A93,isabreachofhisoathtoobeythelaws
aswellasthelegalordersofthedulyconstitutedauthorities,andofhisdutiesunder
Canon1,Rule1.01oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
ItisnoaccidentthatCanon1andRule1.01arethefirstedictslaiddownintheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibilityforthesearealawyersforemostduties.Lawyersshould
alwayskeepinmindthat,althoughupholdingtheConstitutionandobeyingthelawisan
obligationimposedoneverycitizen,alawyersresponsibilitiesunderCanon1mean
morethanjuststayingoutoftroublewiththelaw.Asservantsofthelawandofficersof
thecourt,lawyersarerequiredtobeattheforefrontofobservingandmaintainingtherule
oflaw,makingthemselvesexemplarsworthyofemulation.This,infact,iswhata
lawyersobligationtopromoterespectforlawandlegalprocessesentails.
TheleastalawyercandoincompliancewithCanon1istorefrainfromengagingin
unlawfulconduct.Bydefinition,anyactoromissioncontrarytolawisunlawful.Itdoes
notnecessarilyimplytheelementofcriminalityalthoughitisbroadenoughtoincludeit.
Thepresenceofevilintentonthepartofthelawyerisnotessentialinordertobringhis
actoromissionwithinthetermsofRule1.01.
Guevaravs.Atty.Eala,ACNo.7136,Aug1,2007
PUNO,C.J.
FACTS:
AfterhismarriagetoIrene,complainantnoticedthatIrenehadbeenreceiving
fromrespondentcellphonecalls,aswellasmessagessomeofwhichreadIloveyou,I
missyou,orMeetyouatMegamall.ComplainantalsonoticedthatIrenehabitually
wenthomeverylateatnightorearlyinthemorningofthefollowingday,andsometimes
didnotgohomefromwork.Whenheaskedaboutherwhereabouts,sherepliedthatshe
sleptatherparentshouseinBinangonan,Rizalorshewasbusywithherwork.
ComplainantsawIreneandrespondenttogetherontwooccasions.Onthesecond
occasion,heconfrontedthemfollowingwhichIreneabandonedtheconjugalhouse.Irene
wasalreadyresidingandshewaspregnant
TheCommissionerrecommendedthatrespondentbedisbarredforviolatingRule
1.01ofCanon1oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.TheIBPBoardofGovernors
annulledandsetasidetheRecommendationbyResolutionXVII200606CBDCaseNo.
02936
ISSUE:
W/NRespondentisshouldbedisbarred.
HELD:

Respondent,Atty.JoseEmmanuelM.Eala,isDISBARREDforgrosslyimmoral
conduct,violationofhisoathofoffice,andviolationofCanon1,Rule1.01andCanon7,
Rule7.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
YES.
Administrativecasesagainstlawyersbelongtoaclassoftheirown.Theyare
distinctfromandtheymayproceedindependentlyofcivilandcriminalcases.Ina
criminalcase,proofbeyondreasonabledoubtisnecessary;inanadministrativecasefor
disbarmentorsuspension,clearlypreponderantevidenceisallthatisrequired.
Asalawyer,respondentshouldbeawarethatamanandawomandeporting
themselvesashusbandandwifearepresumed,unlessprovenotherwise,tohaveentered
intoalawfulcontractofmarriage.IncarryingonanextramaritalaffairwithIreneprior
tothejudicialdeclarationthathermarriagewithcomplainantwasnullandvoid,and
despiterespondenthimselfbeingmarried,heshoweddisrespectforaninstitutionheld
sacredbythelaw.Theirillicitaffairthatwascarriedoutthereborefruitafewmonths
laterwhenMojegavebirthtoagirl.Itbearsemphasisthatadulteryisaprivateoffense
whichcannotbeprosecuteddeofficioandthusleavestheDOJnochoicebuttogrant
complainantsmotiontowithdrawhispetitionforreview.Butevenifrespondentand
Ireneweretobeacquittedofadulteryaftertrial,iftheInformationforadulterywerefiled
incourt,thesamewouldnothavebeenabartothepresentadministrativecomplaint.
GARRIDOVS.GARRIDO

FACTS:

Thepetitioner,therespondentslegalwife,filedacomplaintaffidavitanda
supplementalaffidavitfordisbarmentagainsttherespondentsAtty.AngelE.Garridoand
Atty.RomanaP.ValenciabeforetheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesCommitteeon
Discipline,chargingthemwithgrossimmorality,inviolationofCanon1,Rule1.01,of
theCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.Thecomplaintaroseafterthepetitionercaught
windthroughherdaughterthatherhusbandwashavinganaffairwithawomanother
thanhiswifeandalreadyhadachildwithher;andthesameinformationwasconfirmed
whenoneofherdaughterssawthatherhusbandwalkinginaRobinsonsmallwiththe
otherrespondent,Atty.Valencia,withtheirchildintow.Afteramuchfurther
investigationintothematter,thetimeandeffortgivenyieldedresultstellingherthat
Atty.ValenciaandherlegalhusbandhadbeenmarriedinHongKong.Moreover,on
June1993,herhusbandlefttheirconjugalhomeandjoinedAtty.RamonaPaguida
Valenciaattheirresidence,andhassincefailedtorendermuchneededfinancialsupport.
Intheirdefense,theypostulatedthattheywerenotlawyersasofyetwhenthey
committedthesupposedimmorality,soassuch,theywerenotguiltyofaviolationof
Canon1,Rule1.01.
ISSUE:
WhetherornotAtty.GarridosandValenciasactionsconstituteaviolationof
Canon1,Rule1.01andthusagoodenoughcausefortheirdisbarment,despitethe
offensebeingsupposedlycommittedwhentheywerenotlawyers.
HELD:

Yes.MembershipintheBarisaprivilege,andasaprivilegebestowedbylaw
throughtheSupremeCourt,membershipintheBarcanbewithdrawnwhere
circumstancesshowthelawyerslackoftheessentialqualificationsrequiredoflawyers,
betheyacademicormoral.
Inthepresentcase,theCourthadresolvedtowithdrawthisprivilegefromAtty.
AngelE.GarridoandAtty.RowenaP.Valenciaforthereasonoftheirblatantviolation
ofCanon1,Rule1.01oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,whichcommandsthat
alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,dishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduct.
Furthermore,Thecontentionofrespondentthattheywerenotyetlawyerswhentheygot
marriedshallnotaffordthemexemptionfromsanctions;goodmoralcharacterwas
alreadyrequiredasaconditionprecedenttoadmissiontotheBar.Asalawyer,aperson
whomthecommunitylookedupto,Atty.GarridoandValenciawereshoulderedwiththe
expectationthattheywouldsetagoodexampleinpromotingobediencetothe
Constitutionandthelaws.Whentheyviolatedthelawanddistortedittocatertohisown
personalneedsandselfishmotives,notonlydidtheiractionsdiscreditthelegal
profession.Suchactionsbythemselves,withoutevenincludingthefactofGarridos
abandonmentofpaternalresponsibility,tothedetrimentofhischildrenbythepetitioner;
orthefactthatValenciamarriedGarridodespiteknowingofhisothermarriagestotwo
otherwomenincludingthepetitioner,areclearindicationsofalackofmoralvaluesnot
consistentwiththeproperconductofpracticinglawyerswithinthecountry.Assuch,
theirdisbarmentisaffirmed.
ATTYFLORITAS.LINCOVSJIMMYD.LACEBAL
ThefactthattheaffiantpreviouslyappearedinpersonandsignedtheDeedof
Donationbeforetherespondentnotarypublicdoesnotjustifytherespondentsactof
notarizingtheDeedofDonation,consideringtheaffiantsabsenceontheverydaythe
documentwasactuallynotarized.InthenotarialacknowledgmentoftheDeedof
Donation,respondentattestedthatAtty.Lincopersonallycameandappearedbeforehim
onJuly30,2003.Yetobviously,Atty.LincocouldnothaveappearedbeforehimonJuly
30,2003,becausethelatterdiedonJuly29,2003adaybeforetheDeedofDonation
wasnotarized,andrespondentwasawareofthatfact.Clearly,respondentmadeafalse
statementandviolatedRule10.01oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityandhisoath
asalawyer.Faithfulobservanceandutmostrespectofthelegalsolemnityoftheoathin
anacknowledgmentorjuratissacrosanct.Respondentshouldnotnotarizeadocument
unlessthepersonswhosignedthesamearetheverysamepersonswhoexecutedand
personallyappearedbeforehimtoattesttothecontentsandtruthofwhatarestated
therein.
MARITESFREEMANVS.ATTY.ZENAIDAP.REYESACNO.6246,NOV.15,
2011
BeforethisCourtisanAdministrativeComplaint,filedbycomplainantMaritesE.
Freeman,seekingthedisbarmentofAtty.ZenaidaP.Reyes,forgrossdishonestyin
obtainingmoneyfromher,withoutrenderingproperlegalservices,andappropriatingthe
proceedsoftheinsurancepoliciesofherdeceasedhusband.Complainantalsoseeks
recoveryofalltheamountsshehadgiventorespondentandtheinsuranceproceeds,

whichwasremittedtothelatter,withprayerforpaymentofmoralandexemplary
damages.
InthereportandrecommendationdatedAugust28,2003,Investigating
CommissionerMilagrosV.SanJuanoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesfound
respondenttohavebetrayedthetrustofcomplainantasherclientforbeingdishonestin
herdealingsandappropriatingherselftheinsuranceproceedsintendedforcomplainant.
OnSeptember27,2003,theIBPBoardofGovernorsadoptedandapprovedthe
recommendation.TheCourtagreeswiththeobservationoftheInvestigating
CommissionerAtty.ZenaidaP.Reyesshouldbedisbarred.Theobjectofthedisbarment
proceedingisnotsomuchtopunishtheindividualattorneyhimself,astosafeguardthe
administrationofjusticebyprotectingthecourtandthepublicfromthemisconductof
officersofthecourt,andtoremovefromtheprofessionoflawpersonswhosedisregard
fortheiroathofofficehaveprovedthemunfittocontinuedischargingthetrustreposedin
themasmembersofthebar.
Beasitmay,assumingthatrespondentactedwithinthescopeofherauthorityto
representthecomplainantinpursuingtheinsuranceclaims,sheshouldneverdeviate
fromthebenchmarkssetbyCanon16oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
WHEREFORE,respondentAtty.ZenaidaP.Reyesisfoundguiltyofgross
misconductandDISBARREDfromthepracticeoflaw.Lethernamebestrickenoffthe
RollofAttorneys.ThisDecisionisimmediatelyexecutory.
Letallthecourts,throughtheOfficeoftheCourtAdministrator,IntegratedBarof
thePhilippines,andtheOfficeoftheBarConfidant,benotifiedofthisDecisionandbeit
dulyrecordedinthepersonalfileoftherespondent.
RespondentisORDEREDtoturnovertocomplainantMaritesE.Freemanthe
proceedsoftheinsurancepoliciesremittedtoherbyLincolnFinancialGroup,inthe
amountof10,489.57,andEagleStarLifeAssuranceCompanyLimited,471.06,orin
thetotalamountof10,960.63,whichisapproximatelyequivalenttoP700,000.00,
pursuanttotheprevailingexchangerateatthetimeofthesubjecttransaction.
SOORDERED.
Re:SCDecisiondateMay20,2008inG.R.No.161455underRule139Bofthe
RulesofCourtvs.Atty.RodolfoD.Pactolin
UnderSection27,Rule138oftheRulesofCourt,alawyermayberemovedor
suspendedonthefollowinggrounds:(1)deceit;(2)malpractice;(3)grossmisconductin
office;(4)grosslyimmoralconduct;(5)convictionofacrimeinvolvingmoralturpitude;
(6)violationofthelawyersoath;(7)willfuldisobedienceofanylawfulorderofa
superiorcourt;and(8)corruptlyorwillfullyappearingasalawyerforapartytoacase
withoutauthoritysotodo.
Thecrimeoffalsificationofpublicdocumentiscontrarytojustice,honesty,and
goodmoralsand,therefore,involvesmoralturpitude.Moralturpitudeincludes
everythingwhichisdonecontrarytojustice,honesty,modesty,orgoodmorals.It

involvesanactofbaseness,vileness,ordepravityintheprivatedutieswhichamanowes
hisfellowmen,ortosocietyingeneral,contrarytotheacceptedandcustomaryruleof
rightanddutybetweenmanandwoman,orconductcontrarytojustice,honesty,
modesty,orgoodmorals.
Disbarmentistheappropriatepenaltyforconvictionbyfinaljudgmentforacrime
involvingmoralturpitude.
ManuelC.Yuhicovs.Atty.FredL.Gutierrez
Deliberatefailuretopayjustdebtsconstitutegrossmisconduct,forwhicha
lawyermaybesanctionedwithsuspensionfromthepracticeoflaw.Lawyersare
instrumentsfortheadministrationofjusticeandvanguardsofourlegalsystem.They
must,atalltimes,faithfullyperformtheirdutiestosociety,tothebar,thecourtsandto
theirclients,whichincludepromptpaymentoffinancialobligations.
MARIAVICTORIAB.VENTURAVSATTY.DANILOS.SAMSON

CANON5
SPOUSESDAVIDANDWILLIAMSVS.ENRIQUEZ[A.C.NO.6353FEBRUARY
27,2006]
FACTS:
Therespondentisthecounselofrecordoftheplaintiffsinthecasependingbefore
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Dumaguete City where complainants are the
defendants. According to the complainantspouses, Marisa Williams bought the lot
subjectofthecontroversy.
Inthecaseatbar,complainantarguedthatthecounselofthespousesactedin
maliciousviolationoftherulesgoverningthepracticeoflaw,thecounselcitedoutdated
materialinhiscomplaintaffidavitandinhiscomments tocounteraffidavit.Hethen
knowingly applied this stale law in a perverse fashion to argue that Marisa Batacan
WilliamsautomaticallylostherFilipinocitizenshipwhenshemarriedanAmerican,and
was thus prohibited to own land in the Philippines, thereby making her guilty of
falsificationintheDeedsheexecutedtobuypropertyinNegrosOriental.Assuch,Atty.
RudyT.Enriquezwaschargedwith"unlawful,dishonest,immoralanddeceitfulactsin
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional
Ethics,andwithconductunbecominganattorney."
On December 1, 2004, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. Forthwith, the IBP
Commissionon Bar Discipline scheduled the case formandatory conference/hearing.
However,onlytherespondentappeared.Thepartieswerethendirectedto submit their
verifiedpositionpapers.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent is guilt of violation of Canon 5 of the code of

professionalresponsibility
HELD:
Canon5oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityrequires thatalawyerbe
updatedinthelatestlawsandjurisprudence.Indeed,whenthelawissoelementary,not
toknowitortoactasifonedoesnotknowitconstitutesgrossignoranceofthelaw.Asa
retiredjudge,respondentshouldhaveknownthatitishisdutytokeephimselfwell
informedofthelatestrulingsoftheCourtontheissuesandlegalproblemsconfrontinga
client.
Inthiscase,thelawheapparentlymisconstruedisnolessthantheConstitution,
themostbasiclawoftheland.Implicitinalawyersmandatetoprotectaclientsinterest
tothebestofhis/herabilityandwithutmostdiligenceisthedutytokeepabreastofthe
law and legal developments, and participate in continuing legal education programs.
Thus,inchampioningtheinterestofclientsanddefendingcases,alawyermustnotonly
be guided by the strict standards imposed by the lawyers oath, but should likewise
espouselegallysoundargumentsforclients,lestthelatterscausebedismissedona
technicalground.Assuch,forgrossignoranceofthelaw,Atty.RudyT.Enriquezis
REPRIMANDED andADVISED tocarefully study the opinions hemay give tohis
clients.HeisSTERNLYWARNEDthatarepetitionofasimilaractshallbedealtwith
moreseverely.
JUANDULALIAVS.ATTY.PABLOC.CRUZ
FACTS:

Atty.PabloC.Cruz,MunicipalLegalOfficerofMeycauayan,Bulacan,
respondent,ischargedbyJuanDulalia,Jr.,complainant,ofviolationoftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibility.ComplainantswifeSusanSorianoDulaliafiledan
applicationforbuildingpermitfortheconstructionofawarehouse.Despitecompliance
withalltherequirementsforthepurpose,shefailedtosecureapermit,sheattributingthe
sametotheoppositionofrespondentswhowrotealettertoCarlosJ.Abacan,Municipal
EngineerandconcurrentBuildingOfficialofMeycauayansayingthatunbearable
nuisancesthattheconstructioncreatesanditsadverseeffectsparticularlytheimminent
dangeranddamagetotheirproperties,healthandsafetyoftheneighboursadjoiningthe
site.Bycomplainantsclaim,respondentopposedtheapplicationforbuildingpermit
becauseofapersonalgrudgeagainsthiswifeSusanwhoobjectedtorespondents
marryingherfirstcousinImeldaSorianowhilerespondentsmarriagewithCarolina
Agatonisstillsubsisting.
RespondentmarriedImeldaSorianoattheClarkCounty,Nevada,USA,whenthe
FamilyCodeofthePhilippineshadalreadytakeneffect.Heinvokesgoodfaith,however,
heclaimingtohavehadtheimpressionthattheapplicableprovisionatthetimewas
Article83oftheCivilCode.ForwhileArticle256oftheFamilyCodeprovidesthatthe
Codeshallhaveretroactiveapplication,thereisaqualificationthereunderthatitshould
notprejudiceorimpairvestedoracquiredrightsinaccordancewiththeCivilCodeor
otherlaws.Inrespondentscase,hebeingoutofthecountrysince1986,hecanbegiven
thebenefitofthedoubtonhisclaimthatArticle83oftheCivilCodewastheapplicable
provisionwhenhecontractedthesecondmarriageabroad.From1985whenallegedlyhis

firstwifeabandonedhim,anallegationwhichwasnotrefuted,untilhismarriagein1989
withImeldaSoriano,thereisnoshowingthathewasromanticallyinvolvedwithany
woman.And,itisundisputedthathisfirstwifehasremainedanabsenteeevenduringthe
pendencyofthiscase.RespondentsmisimpressionthatitwastheCivilCodeprovisions
whichappliedatthetimehecontractedhissecondmarriageandtheseeminglyunmindful
attitudeofhisresidentialcommunitytowardshissecondmarriagenotwithstanding,
respondentmaynotgoscotfree.
ISSUE:
WhetherornotRespondentviolatedCanon5oftheCodeofResponsibility?
HELD:
Yes.RespondentsclaimthathewasnotawarethattheFamilyCodebecausehe
wasintheUnitedStateddoesnotlie,as"ignoranceofthelawexcusesnoonefrom
compliancetherewith."Itmustbeemphasizedthattheprimarydutyoflawyersistoobey
thelawsofthelandandpromoterespectforthelawandlegalprocesses.Theyare
expectedtobeintheforefrontintheobservanceandmaintenanceoftheruleoflaw.This
dutycarrieswithittheobligationtobewellinformedoftheexistinglawsandtokeep
abreastwithlegaldevelopments,recentenactmentsandjurisprudence.Itisimperative
thattheybeconversantwithbasiclegalprinciples.Unlesstheyfaithfullycomplywith
suchduty,theymaynotbeabletodischargecompetentlyanddiligentlytheirobligations
asmembersofthebar.Worse,theymaybecomesusceptibletocommittingmistakes.
CANON6
GISELLAHUYSSENVSATTY.FREDL.GUTIERREZ
TheSupremeCourtorderedWednesdaythedisbarmentofaformerlawyerofthe
BureauofImmigrationandDeportation(BID)whowasfoundtohavecollected$20,000
fromanAmericanmissionarysupposedlytofacilitatetheissuanceofPhilippinevisas.
Ina16pagedecision,thehighcourtalsoorderedLawyerFredL.Gutierrezto
returnthe$20,000toWorldMissionofJesusmemberGiselaHuyssen,alongwithlegal
interestfromhisreceiptofthemoneyuntilpayment.
Courtrecordsshowedthatin1995,Huyssenandherthreesons,whoareall
Americancitizens,appliedforPhilippinevisas,forwhichGutierrezaskedforpayoff.
ThehighcourtalsoreferredGutierrezscasetotheOmbudsmanforcriminal
prosecutionforviolationoftheantigraftandcorruptpracticesactandtotheDepartment
ofJusticeforappropriateadministrativeaction.
"Respondents(Gutierrez)actsconstitutegrossmisconduct.Consistentwiththe
needtomaintainthehighstandardsoftheBarandthuspreservethefaithofthepublicin
thelegalprofession,respondentdeservestheultimatepenaltyofexpulsionfromthe
esteemedbrotherhoodoflawyers"thehighcourtsaid.
TheHighCourtsaidGutierrezviolatedRule1.011oftheCodeofProfessional
ResponsibilitywhichprohibitsmembersoftheBar"fromengagingorparticipatingin
anyunlawful,dishonestordeceitfulactsandRule6.02oftheCodeofprofessional
responsibilitywhichbarslawyersingovernmentservicefrompromotingtheirprivate
interest."
GutierreztoldHuyssenthatinorderfortheirvisastobefavorablyacteduponby

theBIDtheyneededtodepositacertainsumofmoneyforaperiodofoneyear,which
couldbewithdrawnafteroneyear.
Believingthatthedepositwasindeedrequiredbylaw,Huyssendepositedwith
GutierrezonsixdifferentoccasionsfromApril1995toApril1996atotalamountof
$20,000.
Gutierrezthenpreparedreceiptsandvouchersasproofsthathereceivedthe
amountsdepositedbythecomplainant,butrefusedtogivehercopiesofofficialreceipts.
Ayearlater,HuyssendemandedthatGutierrezreturnthe$20,000.
AfterGutierrezrepeatedlyfailedtoreturnthemoneytotheWorldMissionfor
member,theformerimmigrationlawyerwaschargedincourt.
InNovember2004,investigatingcommissionerMilagrosV.SanJuansubmitted
herreportrecommendingGutierrezsdisbarment,citingthat"thereisnoquestionthat
respondentreceivedtheamountof$20,000fromcomplainant,asrespondenthimself
admittedthathesignedthevouchersshowinghisreceiptofsaidamountfrom
complainant."
TheSupremeCourtsaidGutierrezwasgiventheopportunitytoanswerthe
chargesandcontroverttheevidenceagainsthiminaformalinvestigation,butfailedtodo
sowithoutanyplausiblereasontoappearseveraltimeswheneverthecasewassetfor
receptionofhisevidencedespiteduenotice.
PCGGVSSANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS
In1976theGeneralBankandTrustCompany(GENBANK)encountered
financialdifficulties.GENBANKhadextendedconsiderablefinancialsupportto
FilcapitalDevelopmentCorporationcausingittoincurdailyoverdrawingsonitscurrent
accountwithCentralBank.DespitethemegaloansGENBANKfailedtorecoverfromits
financialwoes.TheCentralBankissuedaresolutiondeclaringGENBANKinsolventand
unabletoresumebusinesswithsafetytoitsdepositors,creditorsandthegeneralpublic,
andorderingitsliquidation.ApublicbiddingofGENBANKsassetswasheldwhere
LucioTangroupsubmittedthewinningbid.SolicitorGeneralEstelitoMendozafileda
petitionwiththeCFIprayingfortheassistanceandsupervisionofthecourtin
GENBANKsliquidationasmandatedbyRA265.
AfterEDSARevolutionIPresAquinoestablishedthePCGGtorecoverthe
allegedillgottenwealthofformerPresMarcos,hisfamilyandcronies.Pursuanttothis
mandate,thePCGGfiledwiththeSandiganbayanacomplaintforreversion,
reconveyance,restitutionagainstrespondentsLucioTan,at.al.PCGGissuedseveralwrits
ofsequestrationonpropertiesallegedlyacquiredbythembytakingadvantageoftheir
closerelationshipandinfluencewithformerPres.Marcos.Theabovementioned
respondentsTan,et.alarerepresentedastheircounsel,formerSolicitorGeneral
Mendoza.PCGGfiledmotionstodisqualifyrespondentMendozaascounselfor
respondentsTanet.al.withSandiganbayan.
ItwasallegedthatMendozaasthenSolGenandcounseltoCentralBankactively
intervenedintheliquidationofGENBANKwhichwassubsequentlyacquiredby
respondentsTanet.al.,whichsubsequentlybecameAlliedBankingCorporation.The
motionstodisqualifyinvokedRule6.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility

whichprohibitsformergovernmentlawyersfromacceptingengagementor
employmentinconnectionwithanymatterinwhichhehadintervenedwhileinthesaid
service.TheSandiganbayanissuedaresolutiondenytingPCGGsmotiontodisqualify
respondentMendoza.Itfailedtoprovetheexistenceofaninconsistencybetween
respondentMendozasformerfunctionasSolGenandhispresentemploymentascounsel
oftheLucioTangroup.PCGGsrecoursetothiscourtassailingtheResolutionsofthe
Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE
WhetherRule6.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityappliesto
respondentMendoza.Theprohibitionstates:Alawyershallnot,afterleaving
governmentservice,acceptengagementoremploymentinconnectionwithanymatterin
whichhehadintervenedwhileinthesaidservice.
HELD
ThecaseatbardoesnotinvolvetheadverseinterestaspectofRule6.03.
RespondentMendoza,itisconceded,hasnoadverseinterestproblemwhenheactedas
SOlGenandlaterascounselofrespondentset.al.beforetheSandiganbayan.However
thereisstilltheissueofwhetherthereexistsacongruentinterestconflictsufficientto
disqualifyrespondentMendozafromrepresentingrespondentset.al.Thekeyis
unlockingthemeaningofmatterandthemetesandboundsofinterventionthathe
madeonthematter.BeyonddoubtthatthematterortheactofrespondentMendozaas
SolGeninvolvedinthecaseatbarisadvisingtheCentralBank,onhowtoproceedwith
thesaidbanksliquidationandevenfilingthepetitionforitsliquidationinCFIof
Manila.
TheCourtheldthattheadvicegivenbyrespondentMendozaontheprocedureto
liquidateGENBANKisnotthemattercontemplatedbyRule6.03oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibility.ABAFormalOpinionNo.342isclearinstressingthat
drafting,enforcingorinterpretinggovernmentoragencyprocedures,regulationsand
laws,orbriefingabstractprinciplesoflawareactswhichdonotfallwithinthescopeof
thetermmatterandcannotdisqualify.RespondentMendozahadnothingtodowiththe
decisionoftheCentralBanktoliquidateGENBANK.Healsodidnotparticipateinthe
saleofGENBANKtoAlliedBank.ThelegalityoftheliquidationofGENBANKisnot
anissueinthesequestrationcases.Indeed,thejurisdictionofthePCGGdoesnotinclude
thedissolutionandliquidationofbanks.Thus,theCode6.03oftheCodeofProfessional
ResponsibilitycannotapplytorespondentMendozabecausehisallegedintervention
whileSolGenisaninterventiononamatterdifferentfromthematterinvolvedinthe
Civilcaseofsequestration.
Inthemetesandboundsoftheintervention.Theapplicablemeaningastheterm
isusedintheCodeofProfessionalEthicsisthatitisanactofapersonwhohasthe
powertoinfluencethesubjectproceedings.TheevilsoughttoberemediedbytheCode
donotexistwherethegovernmentlawyerdoesnotactwhichcanbeconsideredas
innocuoussuchasdrafting,enforcing,orinterpretinggovernmentoragency
procedures,regulationsorlawsorbriefingabstractprinciplesoflaw.Thecourtrules
thattheinterventionofMendozaisnotsignificantandsubstantial.Hemerelypetitions

thatthecourtgivesassistanceintheliquidationofGENBANK.Theroleofcourtisnot
strictlyasacourtofjusticebutasanagenttoassisttheCentralBankindeterminingthe
claimsofcreditors.InsuchaproceedingtheroleoftheSolGenisnotthatoftheusual
courtlitigatorprotectingtheinterestofgovernment.
PetitionassailingtheResolutionoftheSandiganbayanisdenied.
RelevantDissentingOpinionofJusticeCallejo:
Rule6.03isarestatementofCanon36oftheCanonsofProfessionalEthics:A
lawyer,havingonceheldpublicofficeorhavingbeeninthepublicemploy,shouldnot
afterhisretirementacceptemploymentinconnectionwithanymatterwhichhehas
investigatedorpasseduponwhileinsuchofficeoremploy.
Indeed,therestrictionagainstapublicofficialfromusinghispublicpositionasavehicle
topromoteoradvancehisprivateinterestsextendsbeyondhistenureoncertainmatters
inwhichheintervenedasapublicofficial.Rule6.03makesthisrestrictionspecifically
applicabletolawyerswhoonceheldpublicoffice.Aplainreadingshowsthatthe
interdiction1.appliestoalawyerwhoonceservedinthegovernmentand2.relatestohis
acceptingengagementoremploymentinconnectionwithanymatterinwhichhehad
intervenedwhileintheservice.
RUTHIELIMSANTIAGOvsATTY.CARLOSSAGUCIO
FACTS:
Atty.SaguciowastheformerPersonnelManagerandRetainedCounselofTaggat
industries,Inc.untilhisappointmentasAsst.ProvincialProsecutorofTuguegarao,
Cagayanin1992.EmployeesofTaggatfiledacriminalcomplaint,theyallegedthat
complainant,whotookoverthemanagementandcontrolofTaggatafterthedeathofher
father,withheldpaymentoftheirsalariesandwageswithoutvalidcause.Complainant
nowchargesrespondentwiththeviolationsRule15.03ofCPRandengaginginthe
privatepracticeoflawwhileworkingasagovtprosecutor.
ISSUE:
WONrespondentviolatedRule15.03ofCPR.WONbeingaformerlawyerof
TaggatconflictswithhisroleasAsst.ProvincialProsecutor
HELD:

TheSupremeCourtfindsnoconflictofinterestswhenrespondenthandled
preliminaryinvestigationofcriminalcomplaintfiledbyTaggatemployeesin1997.The
issueinthecriminalcomplaintpertainstononpaymentofwagesthatoccurredfrom
April11996toJuly15,1997.Clearly,respondentwasnolongerconnectedwithTaggat
duringthatperiodsinceheresignedsometimein1992.Inordertochangerespondentfor
representingconflictinginterests,evidencemustbepresentedtoprovethatrespondent
usedagainstTaggat,hisformerclient,anyconfidentialinformationacquiredthruhis
previousemployment.Itdoesnotnecessarilyfollowthatrespondentusedany
confidentialinformationfromhispreviousemploymentwithcomplainantorTaggatin
resolvingthecriminalcomplaint.
AstheformerPersonnelManagerandRetainedCounselofTaggatandthecase

heresolvedasGovtprosecutorwaslaborrelatedisnotasufficientbasistocharge
respondentforrepresentingconflictinginterests.Alawyersimmutabledutytoaformer
clientdoesnotcovertransactions
thatoccurredbeyondthelawyersemploymentwiththeclient.Theintentofthelawisto
imposeuponthelawyerthedutytoprotecttheclientsinterestsonlyonmattersthathe
previouslyhandledfortheformerclientandnotformattersthataroseafterthelawyer
clientrelationshiphasterminated.
Thus,respondentisNOTguiltyofviolatingRule15.03oftheCode.
Astothesecondissue,respondentclearlyviolatedtheprohibitioninRa6718which
constitutesaviolationofRule1.01ofCanon1,whichmandatesthatalawyershallnot
engageinunlawful,dishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduct..Therespondenthere
performedactsthatareusuallyrenderedbylawyerswiththeuseoftheirlegal
knowledge,thesamefallswithintheambitofthetermpracticeoflaw.Respondents
admissionthathereceivedfromTaggatfeesforlegalserviceswhileservingasagovt
prosecutorisunlawfulconduct,whichconstitutesaviolationofRule1.01.
MARTINLAHNIIIANDJAMESP.CONCEPCIONVSLABORARBITER

CANON7
JosephSamalavs.Atty.Palaa,ACNo.6395,April15,2005
ADM.CASENo.6595.April15,2005.AZCUNA,J.
FACTS:
Thecomplainantwaslookingforacompanywherehecouldinvesthisdollar
savings.HemetRaymondTaino,atraderemployeeofFirstImperialResources,Inc.
(FIRI),acompanylocatedatLegaspiVillage,MakatiCity.Tainointroducedhimto
FIRIManagerJunAgustin,ChiefTraderDiosdadoBernal,andLegalOfficerAntonuitti
K.Palaa,therespondentherein.TheRespondentassuredhimthatthroughFIRIhe
wouldbedirectlyputtinghisinvestmentwithEasternVanguardForexLimited,a
reputablecompanybasedintheVirginIslandswhichhasbeenintheforeignexchange
businessfor13years.Subsequently,complainantdecidedtopullouthisinvestment.He
sentFIRIaletterrequestingthewithdrawalofhisinvestmentamountingtoUS$10,000
andgivingFIRI10daystopreparethemoney.
OnApril15,2001,complainantaskedAgustinwhenhismoneywouldbe
returned.AgustintoldhimthattherequestwassenttoThomasYiuofEasternVanguard
atOrtigasCenter.Yiuwassurprisedwhenhesawthedocumentsinvolving
complainantsinvestment.Onthesameday,inthepresenceofrespondent,Agustin
deliveredtocomplainantacheckintheamountofP574,045.09,asthepesoequivalentof
complainantsinvestmentwithFIRI.Thesaidcheckwasdishonoredbecauseitwas
drawnagainstinsufficientfunds.
OnJune1,2001,respondent,aslegalofficerofFIRI,gavecomplainantP250,000
incashandacheckintheamountofP329,045.09.Thecheckwasdishonoredbecauseit
wasdrawnagainstinsufficientfunds.
ComplainantchargedPaulDesiderioofEstafaandViolationofBatasPambansa
Bilang22attheProsecutorsOfficeofMakati.Awarrantofarrestwasissuedagainst
PaulDesiderio.Complainantallegedthatrespondentsactofrepresentinghimselftobe

thelegalofficerofFIRIandhisassurancethatthecheckhepersonallydeliveredtohim
wassignedinhispresencebyFIRIOfficerPaulDesiderio,whennosuchpersonappears
toexist,isclearlyfraudulentandviolativeoftheCanonsofProfessionalEthics.
ComplainantrequestedtheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesforathorough
investigationofrespondentasamemberofthebar.CommissionerNavarrothus
recommendedthatrespondentbesuspendedfromthepracticeoflawfor6months.Board
ofGovernorsoftheIBPadoptedandapprovedtheReportandRecommendationofthe
InvestigatingCommissionerwiththemodificationthatrespondentshouldbesuspended
fromthepracticeoflawfor3years.
ISSUE:
W/NtherespondentshouldbepenalizedaccordingtotheCodeofProfessional
Responsibility.
HELD:
Atty.AntonuittiK.PalaaisfoundGUILTYofviolatingRule7.03oftheCode
ofProfessionalResponsibilityandherebysuspendedfromthepracticeoflawforaperiod
ofthree(3)yearseffectivefromreceiptofthisResolution,withawarningthata
repetitionofthesameorsimilaractswillbedealtwithmoreseverely.
YES.
RespondentwasfoundtohaveviolatedRule7.03ofCanon7oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibility,whichstates:
Rule7.03Alawyershallnotengageinconductthatadverselyreflectsonhisfitnessto
practicelaw,norshallhe,whetherinpublicorprivatelife,behaveinascandalous
mannertothediscreditofthelegalprofession.
FIRIprohibiteditfromengagingininvestmentorforeignexchangebusinessand
itsprimarypurposeistoactasconsultantinprovidingprofessionalexpertiseand
reliabledataanalysisrelatedtopartnershipandsoon.
Hence,itisclearthattherepresentationsofrespondentaslegalofficerofFIRI
causedmaterialdamagetocomplainant.Insodoing,respondentfailedtoupholdthe
integrityanddignityofthelegalprofessionandlessenedtheconfidenceofthepublicin
thehonestyandintegrityofthesame.