Florence Teves Macarubbo VS. Atty. Edmundo L.

Macarubbo
Re: Petition (For Extraordinary Mercy) Of Edmundo L. Macarubbo
AC No. 6148 , January 22, 2013
Perlas-Bernabe, J.:
FACTS:
In 2004, the Court disbarred respondent from the practice of law for having contracted a
bigamous marriage with complainant Florence Teves and a third marriage with one Josephine
Constantino while his first marriage to Helen Esparza was still subsisting, which acts constituted
gross immoral conduct in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Appeal for Compassion and Mercy which the
Court denied with finality. Eight years after, respondent filed the instant Petition (For
Extraordinary Mercy) seeking judicial clemency and reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys. The
Court initially treated the present suit as a second motion for reconsideration and accordingly,
denied it for lack of merit. Months after, the same petition was endorsed to this Court by the
Office of the Vice President7 for re-evaluation, prompting the Court Court to look into the
substantive merits of the case
ISSUE:
Is there merit on the respondents petition for reinstatement as a member of the bar?

RULING:
YES. The Court finds the petition meritorious.
In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37,
Appealing for Clemency, the Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving requests for
judicial clemency:
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period
of reform.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years
ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal
acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or
administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.
Moreover, to be reinstated to the practice of law, the applicant must, like any other candidate for
admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character.
Applying the foregoing standards to this case, the Court finds the instant petition meritorious.
Respondent has sufficiently shown his remorse and acknowledged his indiscretion in the legal
profession and in his personal life. He has asked forgiveness from his children by complainant

Teves and maintained a cordial relationship with them a. Records also show that after his
disbarment, respondent returned to his hometown in Enrile, Cagayan and devoted his time
tending an orchard and taking care of his ailing mother until her death in 2008. In 2009, he was
appointed as Private Secretary to the Mayor of Enrile, Cagayan and thereafter, assumed the
position of Local Assessment Operations Officer II/ Office-In-Charge in the Assessors Office,
which office he continues to serve to date. Moreover, he is a part-time instructor at the University
of Cagayan Valley and F.L. Vargas College during the School Year 2011-2012. Respondent
likewise took an active part in socio-civic activities by helping his neighbors and friends who are
in dire need. These were correspondingly supported by testimonies and affidavit by prominent
figures in his locality and the IBP
The Court notes the eight (8) long years that had elapsed from the time respondent was disbarred
and recognizes his achievement as the first lawyer product of Lemu National High School, and
his fourteen (14) years of dedicated government service from 1986 to July 2000 as Legal Officer
of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports; Supervising Civil Service Attorney of the
Civil Service Commission; Ombudsman Graft Investigation Officer; and State Prosecutor of the
Department of Justice. From the attestations and certifications presented, the Court finds that
respondent has sufficiently atoned for his transgressions. At 58 years of age, he still has
productive years ahead of him that could significantly contribute to the upliftment of the law
profession and the betterment of society. While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline
and even remove its errant officers, concomitant to it is its duty to show compassion to those
who have reformed their way.

Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered .reinstated to the practice of law. He is, however,
reminded that such privilege is burdened with conditions whereby adherence. to the rigid
standards of intellect, moral uprightness, and strict compliance with the rules and the law are
continuing requirements.

Rose Bunagan-Bansig, VS. Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera

AC. No. 5581, January14, 2014
Per Curiam.:

FACTS:
Bansig, respondents sister-in-law alleged that respondents act of contracting marriage a second
marriage while his marriage is still subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral and conduct
unbecoming of a member of the Bar, which renders him unfit to continue his membership in the
Bar.
Despite several notices sent out by the Court, respondent neither gave his answer to the
complaint nor attend to hearings.
ISSUE:
Did the complaint against Atty Celery and the evidence presented merit to the latters disbarment
for Gross Immoral Conduct.
RULING:
YES. In the instant case, there is a preponderance of evidence that respondent contracted a
second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage. Bansig submitted certified xerox
copies of the marriage certificates to prove that respondent entered into a second marriage while
the latters first marriage was still subsisting. We note that the second marriage apparently took
place barely a year from his first marriage to Bunagan which is indicative that indeed the first
marriage was still subsisting at the time respondent contracted the second marriage with Alba.
For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these Marriage Certificates bearing the name of

respondent are competent and convincing evidence to prove that he committed bigamy, which
renders him unfit to continue as a member of the Bar. Specifically, he was found to have violated
Canon 1, particularly Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03.
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member
of the Bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.
His act of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is subsisting constituted grossly
immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court. Respondents defiant stance against the Court as demonstrated by his repetitive
disregard of its Resolution requiring him to file his comment on the complaint despite numerous
directives in the course of the ten years in which the case dragged on.
Considering respondent's propensity to disregard not only the laws of the land but also the lawful
orders of the Court, it only shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and
good demeanor. He is, thus, unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
The Court found respondent guilty of grossly immoral conduct and willful disobedience of
lawful orders rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession. He was
thus ordered disbarred from the practice of law and his name stricken of the Roll of Attorneys.
Aida R. Campos Et Al VS. Atty Eliseo Camos
A.C. No. 8644, January 22, 2014
Reyes. J.:
FACTS:
The complainant, Aida Campos, together with children Alistair and Charmaine, filed the instant
complaint for disbarment7 against her husband, Judge Eliseo Campos. They alleged that Eliseo
committed acts of dishonesty, immorality and serious misconduct in :a) causing the issuance of
the original land title in Alistairs name; b) subsequently misrepresenting himself as the real
owner of the lot ; c) falsely declaring under oath in the Affidavit of Loss executed on that the

owners copy of the property was missing despite his knowledge that the said title is with
Alistair; d) stating in his petition for annulment of marriage that he is a homosexual despite his
admission of an intimate relation with another woman; and e) choking and boxing his children
during a conference in the judges chamber.
ISSUE:
Did the above mentioned acts constitute dishonesty, immorality and serious misconduct?
RULING:
Of the five issues raised, only the allegation of Eliseos engagement in the scuffle inside the
chamber of the judge shall be resolved. In the instant disbarment complaint, tirades and bare
accusations were exchanged. It bears stressing that not one of the parties had presented even one
independent witness to prove what transpired inside the chamber of Judge Casals That a scuffle
took place is a fact, but the question of who started what cannot be determined with much
certainty. While admitting his engagement in the scuffle, Eliseo vigorously attempts to justify his
conduct as self-defense on his part. While this Court finds credence and logic in Eliseos
narration of the incident, and understands that the successive acts of the parties during the tussle
were committed at a time when passions ran high, he shall not be excused for comporting
himself in such an undignified manner.
Sans any descriptive sophistry, what Eliseo did was to engage in a brawl with no less than his
own children inside the chamber of a judge. This Court shall not countenance crude social
behavior. Besides, the courtroom is looked upon by people with high respect and is regarded as a
sacred place where litigants are heard, rights and conflicts settled, and justice solemnly
dispensed. Misbehavior within or around the vicinity diminishes its sanctity and dignity.
Although Alistair and Charmaine were not entirely faultless, a higher level of decorum and
restraint was then expected from Eliseo, whose conduct failed to show due respect for the court
and lend credit to the nobility of the practitioners of the legal profession. Further, albeit not
raised as an issue, the Court views with disfavor Eliseos statement during the hearing conducted
by the Committee on Bar Discipline on March 18, 2011 that he doubts Alistair to be his
biological son. As a lawyer, Eliseo is presumably aware that ascribing illegitimacy to Alistair in a
proceeding not instituted for that specific purpose is nothing short of defamation.
All told, Eliseo violated Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he
conducted himself in a manner not befitting a member of the bar by engaging in the scuffle with
his own children in the chamber of Judge Casals and recklessly expressing his doubt anent the
legitimacy of his son Alistair during the hearing before the CBD.
Victoria C. Heenan VS. Atty Erlina Espejo
A.C. No. 10050, December 3, 2013
Velasco, Jr. J.:
FACTS:

Despite being new acquaintances, Victoria Heenan loaned Atty. Espejo P250,000 as the latter
was introduced to her as her godmothers lawyer. To secure the payment of the loan, Atty Espejo
turned over a check covering the loan and agreed interest amounting to P275,000. Heenan was
not able to encash said check on its due date upon request of the respondent. The respondent
issued a second check amounting to the agreed interest which was similarly dishonored by the
bank due to insufficiency of funds.
With the sustained failure to pay and disregard of notices and subpoenas issued by the court,
Heenan fied a criminal complaint against the respondent for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
and estafa. After the only preliminary investigation which respondent attended, she issued
another check amounting to P275,000, which was again dishonored due to insufficiency of
funds. After the case was submitted for resolution, complainant filed the instant administrative
case against Espejo before the Committee on Bar Discipline. The respondent did not submit any
answer to the case filed nor appeared for a mandatory conference.
ISSUE:
Was the case filed by Heenan against Espejo valid despite the fact that the acts complained were
not committed in her capacity as a lawyer?
RULING:
YES. The fact that Atty. Espejo obtained the loan and issued the worthless check in her private
capacity and not as an attorney of Victoria is of no moment. As we have held in several cases, a
lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice and dishonestly n his profession but also for
gross misconduct outside of his professional capacity. While the Court may not ordinarily
discipline a lawyer for misconduct committed in his non-professional or private capacity, the
Court may be justified in suspending or removing him as an attorney where his misconduct
outside of the lawyers professional dealings is so gross in character as to show him morally unfit
and unworthy of the privilege which his licenses and the law confer.
Atty. Espejos issuance of worthless checks and her blatant refusal to heed the directives of the
Quezon City Prosecutors Office and the IBP contravene Canon 1, Rule 1.01; Canon 7, Rule
7.03; and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.In line with this, the Supreme
Court upheld the recommendation of the CBP to penalize Espejo with suspension from the
practice of law for two (2) years. However, it did not sustain the IBPs recommendation to order
Atty. Espejo to return the money she borrowed from Victoria. The Court claimed that in
disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still
fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. Therefore, its concern is the determination
of respondents administrative liability. Its findings have no material bearing on other judicial
action which the parties may choose to file against each other.

In Re: Supreme Court Resolution dated 28 April 2003 in G.R. Nos. 145817 and 145822
A.C. No. 6332, April 17, 2012
Per Curiam:
FACTS:
Atty. Magdaleno M. Pena filed a complaint against Urban Bank and certain members of its
Board of Directors for recovery of agents compensation and attorneys fees for his services
rendered in evicting the occupants of a bank property in Pasay City. The RTC ruled in favour of
Pena but the bank appealed to the Court of Appeals and motioned to approve a Php 40-million
supersedeas bond for the stay of the execution of the RTC decision pending adjudication of its
appeal in the main case. The court granted the motion and with this, the Urban Banks successor
in interest requested not to cancel the banks shares which were previously sold at a public
auction. Because of the ensuing disputes, MSCI sought clarification from the court on whether
its resolution prohibitied MSCI from transferring Urban Banks shares to the winning bidders.
Urban Bank also filed an identical motion for clarification.
The court acting on the two motions stated that its approval of the supersedeas bond suspended
the running of the one year period for the Bank to redeem the properties sold at the auction and
prohibitied the transfer of Union Bank;s MSCI club shares to the winning bidders.
On December 2002, Pena filed an urgent motion to expunge the banks motion for clarification
and recall the Courts resolutioin on the ground that he was not furnished a copy of the motion
nor given opportunity to be heard on it.
Pena also filed a motion to inhibit and to resolve his urgent motion enclosing as Annexes B and
C purported photocopies of pages 61 and 62 of the Courts supplemental agenda, internal
documents that are engaged as highly confidential. Pena alleged that based on the handwritten
notes on the right hand margin of the supplemental agenda, the Court merely took note of the
filing of the motion for clarification and did not act further on it. However, the resolution which
granted the motion had been falsified.
Bothered by Penas allegations, the First Division of the Court conducted a hearing on where he
got the annexes and if they were authentic. After the hearing, it was believed that the document
was indeed a copy of the agenda but the handwritten notations did not belong to Justice Carpio.
Further, Atty. Pena when asked where ho obtained such documents could not provide the court a
proper and justified answer as he only said that the document was in a sealed envelope and was
anonymously mailed to him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Pena violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
RULING:
The court ruled that Atty. Pena has violated several canons namely that of Canon, 8, 10 and 11
for failing to give due respect to the Courts. His conduct, demeanor and language with respect to
his cause of action tend to undermine the integrity and reputation of the judiciary as well as
inflict unfounded accusations against colleagues. The most disconcerting for the Court is his
uncanny ability to obtain confidential and internal court orders and to use them shamelessly in
his pleadings to further his cause. With this, the Court hereby disbars from practicing law Atty.
Pena.

Felipe C. Dagala VS. Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. And Atty. Amado T. Adquilen
A.C. No. 5044, December 02, 2013
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
FACTS:
Complainant Dagala, assisted by Atty. Quesada filed before the National Labor Relations
Commission, Regional Arbitration Branch No. I, San Fernando City, La Union a Complaint for
illegal dismissal, overtime pay, separation pay, damages and attorneys fees against Capitol
Allied Trading & Transport on November 8, 1994. However, the case was dismissed for failure
of complainant and Atty. Quesada to appear during the two scheduled mandatory conference
hearings despite due notice. Thereafter, complainant engaged the services of Atty. Adquilen, a
former Labor Arbiter, who re-filed his labor case. Similarly, the case was dismissed due to the
parties failure to submit their respective position papers. Complainant and Atty. Adquilen refiled the case for a third time on August 27, 1996.During the pendency of the case, the
representative of Capitol allegedly offered the amount of P74,000.00 as settlement of
complainants claim, conditioned on the submission of the latters position paper. Atty. Adquilen,
however, failed to submit one, resulting in the dismissal of the complaint for lack of interest and
failure to prosecute. On July 11, 1997, complainant this time assisted by Atty. Imelda L. Picar
filed a motion for reconsideration from the February 27, 1997 Order, which was treated as an
appeal and transmitted to the NLRC-National Capital Region. However, the NLRC-NCR
dismissed the same in a Resolution for having been filed out of time, adding that the negligence
of counsel binds the client. Due to the foregoing, Atty. Picar sent separate letters dated November
18, 1998 to respondents, informing them that complainant is in the process of pursuing
administrative cases against them before the Court. The Court directed respondents to comment
on the Complaint within ten days from notice. However, despite notices and the extension
granted, Atty. Adquilen failed to comply with the directive and the subsequent show-cause
resolutions. He also claimed that when he was informed of the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, he advised complainant to re-file the case with the assistance of another lawyer as he
had to attend to his duties as Chairman of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino for the Second
District of La Union Province.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Quesada should be held administratively liable for gross negligence in handling
complainants labor case
RULING:
The Court emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with
utmost trust and confidence. In this regard, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be evermindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their
affairs. For his part, the lawyer is required to maintain at all times a high standard of legal
proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its
importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He is likewise expected to act with
honesty in all his dealings, especially with the courts. These principles are embodied in Rule 1.01
of Canon 1, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, Canon 17 and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code.

x x x CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE

COURT. Rule 10.01 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 misled by any artifice.
In the case at bar, the Court finds Atty. Quesada to have violated the foregoing Rules and
Canons. Atty. Quesada acted with less candor and good faith in the proceedings before the IBPCBD when he denied the existence of any lawyer- client relationship between him and
complainant, and claimed that the labor case was handled by another lawyer, despite his previous
admission before the Court of having accepted complainants case. To add, a perusal of the
complaint dated November 8, 1994 in NLRC Case No. RAB-I-11-1123-94 reveals that Atty.
Quesada signed the same as counsel for complainant. Respondent Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. is
found guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, Canon 17, and Rule
18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. On the other hand, the
administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Amado T. Adquilen is hereby dismissed in
view of his supervening death.

Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon VS. Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco

A.C. No. 6116, August 1, 2012
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
FACTS:
An administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon
against respondent Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco. Complainant contends that respondent undertook
to give him 20% commission, later reduced to 10%, of the attorney's fees the latter would receive
in representing Spouses Amable and Rosalinda Yap, whom he referred, in an action for partition
of the estate of the late Benjamin Yap. However, respondent failed to pay him the agreed
commission notwithstanding receipt of attorney's fees amounting to 17% of the total estate or
about P 40 million. Instead, he was informed through a letter dated July 16, 1997 that Spouses
Yap assumed to pay the same after respondent had agreed to reduce his attorney's fees from 25%
to 17%. He then demanded the payment of his commission which respondent ignored.
Complainant accused respondent of engaging in money-lending business5 without the required
authorization from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. In his defense, respondent explained that he
accepted spouses Yap's case on a 25% contingent fee basis, and advanced all the expenses. He
disputed the August 11, 1995 letter for being a forgery and claimed that spouses Yap assumed to
pay complainant's commission which he clarified in his July 16, 1997 letter. He, thus, prayed for
the dismissal of the complaint and for the corresponding sanction against complainant's counsel,
Atty. Florencio B. Gonzales, for filing a baseless complaint. On February 16, 2004, the Court
resolved to refer this administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation, report and recommendation that respondent be suspended for one (1) year from the
active practice of law, for violation of the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1; Rule 7.03, Canon

7 and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent moved for
reconsideration which was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether respondent should be held for grave dishonesty, gross misconduct constituting deceit
and grossly immoral conduct
RULING:
In the case at bar, respondent's defense that forgery had attended the execution of the August 11,
1995 letter was belied by his July 16, 1997 letter admitting to have undertaken the payment of
complainant's commission but passing on the responsibility to spouses Yap. Clearly, respondent
has violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or
stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in
certain cases which do not obtain in the case at bar. However, the court finds the charge of
engaging in illegal money lending not to have been sufficiently established. A "business"
requires some form of investment and a sufficient number of customers to whom its output can
be sold at profit on a consistent basis. The lending of money to a single person without showing
that such service is made available to other persons on a consistent basis cannot be construed that
respondent is engaged in the business of lending. Nonetheless, that respondent should be
sanctioned for his actions, that the power to disbar should be exercised with great caution and
only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as
an officer of the court and as member of the bar, or the misconduct borders on the criminal, or
committed under scandalous circumstance, which do not obtain here. Considering the
circumstances of the case, the court deems it appropriate that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year as recommended.

Raul M. Francia VS. Atty. Reynaldo V. Abdon

A.C. No. 10031, July 23, 2014
Reyes, J.
FACTS:
Raul M. Francia prayed for the disbarment and imposition of other disciplinary sanctions on
Labor Arbiter Reynaldo V. Abdon for violation of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
The complainant alleged that in November 2006, he had a meeting with the respondent at the
Makati Cinema Square to seek his assistance with respect to a pending case in the Court of
Appeals involving the labor union of Nueva Ecija III Electric Cooperative. The respondent told
the complainant that he can facilitate, expedite and ensure the release of a favorable decision,
particularly the award of assets and management of NEECO III to the union. To bolster his
representation, he told him that the same regional office where he was assigned had earlier
rendered a decision in favor of the labor union and against the National Electrification
Administration. With the respondents assurance, the complainant yielded. In December 2006,
the complainant met the respondent and told him that in order to facilitate the release of such
favorable decision, the union must produce the amount of P1,000,000.00. The complainant
handed him the amount of P350,000.00. The complainant made several follow-ups with the
respondent about the status of the decision. He promised favorable decision before the end of
that year was not issued by the CA, with no explanation from the respondent. The respondent
denied that he made any representation to the complainant; that he had the capacity to facilitate
the release of a favorable decision in the CA; and that he received money in exchange therefor.
He admitted that he had a chance meeting with the complainant at the Makati Cinema Square in
December 2006. He inquired if he knew anyone from the CA who can help the union members in
their case as he was assisting them in following up their case. The respondent answered in the

negative but told him that he can refer him to his former client, a certain Jaime "Jimmy" Vistan,
who may be able to help him. The complainant had a conversation with Vistan over the phone.
Sometime thereafter, he received a call from Vistan who told him that he was given P350,000.00
as facilitation fee. After their conversation, he never heard from Vistan again.
ISSUE:
Whether Respondent is guilty of violating of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility
RULING:
It is well to remember that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant. For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent
must be established by convincing and satisfactory proof. In the absence of preponderant
evidence, the presumption of innocence of the lawyer subsists and the complaint against him
must be dismissed. After a careful review of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court
finds that the evidence submitted by the complainant fell short of the required quantum of proof.
Aside from bare allegations, no evidence was presented to convincingly establish that the
respondent engaged in unlawful and dishonest conduct, particularly in extortion and influencepeddling. The respondent, however, is not entirely faultless. He has, nonetheless, engendered the
suspicion that he is engaged in an illegal deal when he introduced the complainant to Vistan, who
was the one who allegedly demanded P1,000,000.00 in facilitation fee from the union members.
The respondent, however, instead of promptly declining the favor sought in order to avoid any
appearance of impropriety, even volunteered to introduce the complainant to Vistan. His
connection with Vistan was the reason why the complainant had suspected that he was in
connivance with him and that he got a portion of the loot. In doing so, he has exposed the legal
profession to undeserved condemnation and invited suspicion on the integrity of the judiciary for

which he must be imposed with a disciplinary sanction. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates that a "lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession." For, the strength of the legal profession lies in the dignity and integrity of its
members. It is every lawyers duty to maintain the high regard to the profession by staying true
to his oath and keeping his actions beyond reproach.
Also, the respondent, as a member of the legal profession, has a further responsibility to
safeguard the dignity of the courts which the public perceives as the bastion of justice. He must
at all times keep its good name untarnished and not be instrumental to its disrepute. For having
committed an act which compromised the publics trust in the justice system, Atty. Reynaldo V.
Abdon is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with severely.

Tapay and Rustia VS. Bancolo and Jarder

A.C No. 9604 March 20, 2013
Carpio, J.
FACTS:
In October 2004, Tapay and Rustia, complainants, received a complaint from the Office of the
Ombudsman-Visayas for falsification of public document, and graft and corrupt practices filed
by Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr. Allegedlyy the complaint was signed on behalf of Divinagracia by
Atty. Charlie Bancolo of the Jarder Bancolo Law Office.
When Atty. Bancolo and Rustia met, the latter informed Atty. Bancolo of the case filed before the
Office of the Ombudsman. Atty. Bancolo denied that he represented Divinagracia and that the
signature in the complaint was not his. Rustia the convinced Atty. Bancolo to sign an affidavit to
attest such fact. Tapay and Rustia, using Atty. Bancolos affidavit and other evidence filed a
counter-affidavit accusuing Divinagracia of falsifying the signature of Atty. Bancolo. With this,
the Office of the Ombudsman provisionally dismissed the complaint against Tapay and Rustia
and ordered separate cases for Falsification of Public Documents and dishonesty against
Divinagracia.
Divinagracia, however, denied that he falsified the signature of Atty. Bancolo and presented
evidence that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted the Divinagracias case and that the
complaint filed before the Office of the Ombudsman was signed by the office secretary as
instructed by Atty. Bancolo.
On November 2005, Tapay and Rustia filed with the IBP a complaint to disbar Atty. Bancolo ad
Atty. Jarder. The complainants alleged that ther were subjected to a harassment complaint with
the forged signature of Atty. Bancolo. Furthermore, they presented a report which examined
three other complaints signed by Atty. Bancolo for other clients and the result was that the
signatures in the complaints were not written by one and the same person.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Bancolo and Atty. Jarder violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
RULING:
In the case of Atty. Bancolo, he violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility by allowing a non-lawyer to affix his signature to a pleading. It is a lawyers duty
to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law. This duty is
founded on public interest and policy that requires that practice of law be limited to those
individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The fact that a lawyer is busy cannot
serve as an excuse for him from signing personally any legal document. The practice of letting
his secretary affix his signature for him constitute negligence and is subject to disciplinary
action.

In the case of Atty. Jarder, the Court did not find any evidence that he was directly involved or
had knowledge of the wrongful practice of Atty. Bancolo. Therefore, he is not found
administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In Re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys

B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013
Sereno, CJ.:
FACTS:
Petitioner Michael A. Medado graduated with a degree in law from the University of the
Philippines and passes the bar examinations in 1979. He took the oath in 1980 but failed to sign
in the Roll of Attorneys alledgedly because he had misplaced the Notice to Sig the Roll given by
the Bar Office when he went home to his province for a vacation.
By the time he discovered that he had not signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he stated that he was
mainly doing corporate and taxation word and not involved in litigation practices. He operated
under the belief that since he had already t aken the oath, the signing was not as urgent nor as
crucial to his status as a lawyer and that the matter had lost its urgency.
In 2012, Madado filed a petition to be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys but the Office of
the Bar Confidant recommended that the petition be denied for gross negligence, gross
misconduct and utter lack of merit. The recommendation was based on Medados answers during
the clarificatory conference conducted by the OBC in which the office said Medado could not
offer any valid justification for his negligence.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Medado violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Whether or not Medado should be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys
RULING:
The court ruled that Medado violated Canon 9 which imposes the duty of lawyers to prevent the
unauthorized practice of law. The court said that when Medado chose to continue practicing law
without taking the necessary steps to complete all the requirements for admission to the Bar after
discovering his mistake, he wilfully engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Despite such,
the Court refrained from making any finding of liability for indirect contempt against Medado as
no formal charge was filed.
The court ruled that Medado should be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys as not allowing
him to do so would be akin to imposing upon him the ultimate penalty of disbarment. The court
said that the petitioner demonstrated good faith and good moral character when he filed for the
petition and that it was not a third party who called the Courts attention to his omission. He also
appears to be a competent and able legal practitioner. Overall, the court said that it will not
unwarrantly withhold the privilege of practicing law from individuals who have shown mental
fitness and moral fiber to withstand the rigors of the profession.
Given the circumstances and Medados violation of Canon 9, the Court imposes upon him a
penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign the Roll of Attorneys one year after the
resolution of the case.

Ang vs. Gupana

A.C. No. 4545, February 5, 2014
Villarama, JR., J.
FACTS:
Complainant Carlito Ang alleged that he and the other heirs of Candelaria Magpayo
executed an Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs and Partition involving Lot No. 2066-B-2-B
covered by TCT No. T-22409. He was given his share of 2,003 square meters but when he tried
to secure a TCT, he found that the original TCT was already cancelled. He said that Atty.
Gupana, respondent, had a direct participation in the commission of forgeries and falsifications
because he was the one who prepared and notarized the Affidavit of Loss and Deed of Absolute
Sale which led to the transfer and issuance of new TCTs. He said that the Absolute Sale was
antedated and the late Magpayos signature was forged and as for the Affidavit of Loss, Ang said
it could not have been executed by Magpayo as she died three years prior to the execution.
Further, Ang alleged that respondent made himself the attorney-in-fact of William Magpayo,
Antonio Diamente, Patricia Diamante, Lolita Canque, Gregorio Diamante, Jr. and Fe D. Montero
and pursuant to the Special Power of Attorney in his favor executed a Deed of Sale selling the lot
to Lim Kim so Mercantile Co.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Gupana is administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility
HELD:
The Court found Gupana administratively liable on violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibility when he delegated his notarial functions to the clerical staff of their office which
may have been the reason for the forged signatures of the parties in the questioned document in
the civil case. Gupana failed to require the personal presence of Magpayo when he notarized the
Affidavit of Loss which Magpayo allegedly executed. The respondents failure to perform his
duty as a notary public resulted in undermining the integrity of a notary public and in degrading
the function of notarization. With this, Gupana violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 when he relied on
his clerical staff to determine the completeness of documents brought to him for notarization,
limiting his participation in the notarization process to simply inquiring about the identities of the
persons appearing before him and in notarizing an affidavit executed by a dead person.

Re: Verified Complaint for Disbarment of AMA Land, Inc. (Represented by Joseph B.
Usita) Against Court of Appeals Associate Justices Hon. Danton Q. Bueser, Hon. Sesinando
E. Villon and Hon. Ricardo R. Rosario
OCA IPI No. 12-204-CA-J, March 11, 2014
Bersamin, J.:
FACTS:
AMALI is the owner and developer of a 37-storey condominium project in Mandaluyong City.
Due to its location, AMALI would have to use Fordham Street as an access road where thy set up
a field office which the Wack Wack Residents Association, Inc (WWRAI) demolished. This
prompted AMALI to file a petition of easement of right of way which included a TRO but the
Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favour of WWRAI and allegedly left the other motions
of AMALI unresolved. This led to the filing of an administrative complaint against CA Justices
Bueser, Villon and Rosario for rendering an unjust judgment and deciding in bad faith and with
deliberate intent to favour WWRAI.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Justices violated Canon 1 and 10
HELD:
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations by
substantial evidence. Failure to do so would dismiss the complaint for lack of merit for the
reason that any charge against any judicial officer must be supported by at least substantial
evidence. But when the charge equates to a criminal offense, the showing of culpability on the
part of the judicial officer should be nothing short of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
AMALI then must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Justices had intended to perpetrate
injustice when it rendered its decision in favour of WWRAI. There was also no evidence
presented that is indicative of bias and partiality. With this, the court ruled that the Justices did
not violate the Code of Professional Responsibility as AMALI was not able to establish that the
CA rendered an unjust judgement.

Sonic Steel Industries, Inc. vs. Atty. Nonnatus P. Chua

A. C. No. 6942 July 17, 2013
FACTS:
On September 5, 2005, STEELCORP applied for a search warrant directed against complainant
Sonic Steel Industries, Inc. which was later on granted by the RTC. Sonic Steel Industries, Inc.
was searched and its properties were seized. STEELCORP, thereafter, filed before the
Department of Justice a complaint against complainant and latter's officers. Complainant asserts
that respondent Atty. Chua, based on the three documents, deliberately misled the Court as well
as the DOJ in stating that STEELCORP is the exclusive licensee of the Philippine Patent No.
16269. The acts committed by respondent of storing, selling, retailing, distributing, importing,
dealing with or otherwise disposing of "SUPERLUME" metal sheet products which are similar
to "GALVALUME" metal sheet products constitute unfair competition because the entire process
of which has been lawfully and exclusively licensed to STEELCORP by BIEC International, Inc.
it also appears that respondent Atty. Chua deliberately misled and intentionally deceived the
Court when it refused to provide a copy of a Philippine Patent No. 16269 during the hearing for
the application for a search warrant.

ISSUE:
The issue in this case is whether Atty. Nonnatus P. Chua's acts violated Canon 10 of the Code on
Professional Responsibility.

RULING:
The Court suspended Atty. Nonnatus P. Chua from the practice of law for 6 months. In the
present case, respondent Atty. Chua claimed or made to appear that STEELCORP was the
licensee of the technical information and the patent on Hot Dip Coating of Ferrous Strands or
Philippine Patent No. 16269. Investigation made by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines'
Commission on Bar Discipline showed that STEELCORP has only rights as a licensee of the
technical information and not the rights as a licensee of the patent. Rule 10.01 of the Code of the
Professional Responsibility provides that, "A lawyer shall do no falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court, nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice."

William Co, a.k.a. XumQuing He vs. New Prosperity Plastic Products

G. R. No. 183994, June 30, 2014
FACTS:
Elizabeth Uy represented respondent New Prosperity Plastic Products in a Criminal Case Nos.
206655-59, 206661-77 and 209634 against petitioner William Co for violating B.P. Blg. 22. The
cases were provisionally dismissed in the absence of Uy and the private cause pursuant to
Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Uy filed a Motion to Revive the
Criminal Cases through counsel which was later on granted by the then Presiding Judge of
MeTC Branch 49. The cases were thereafter raffled to the MeTC Branch 50 of Caloocan City
after Judge Ortiz inhibited herself from handling the criminal cases. Co filed a petition
challenging the revival of the criminal cases. After subsequent dismissal of the Co's petition, it
was later on became final and executory.

ISSUE:
The issue in this case is whether William Co, acting through the guidance and advice of his
counsel, Atty. Oscar C. Maglaque, were intended to delay the Trial Court's proceedings.

RULING:
The Commission on Bar Discipline-Integrated Bar of the Philippines is directed to investigate
the acts of Atty. Oscar C. Maglaque that appear to have violated the Code on Professional
Responsibility, his Lawyer's Oath and the Rule on Forum Shopping. However, it appears that
Atty. Maglaque's conduct contravened the Code on Professional Responsibility which enjoins
lawyers to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice as
mandated by Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and also not
unduly delay a cause or misuse Court's processes using Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code on
Professional Responsibility as basis.

Verleen Trinidad, Florentina Lander, Wally Casubuan, Minerva Mendoza, Abdonio

Alojado, Rosendo Villamin and Aurea Tolentino vs. Atty. Angelito Villarin
A. C. No. 9310, February 27, 2013
FACTS:
Complainants herein filed this consolidated administrative complaint against herein respondent
Atty. Angrlito Villarin for allegedly harassing complainants through the demand letters he sent to
them. In a complaint for specific performance filed by the buyers of the lots in Don Jose Zavalla
Subdivision with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board against the subdivision's owner
and developer-Purence Realty Corporation and Roberto Bassig, the HLURB ordered the
respondents to accept the HLURB ordered the owner and the developer to deliver the Deeds of
Sale and the Transfer Certificates of Title to the winning litigants. On December 4, 2003,
respondent Atty. Angelito Villarin sent demand letters to herein complainants to immediately
vacate the property and to surrender it to Purence Realty within five days from receipt.

ISSUE:
The issue in this case is whether respondent Atty. Angelito Villarin should be administratively
sanctioned for sending demand letters despite a final and executory HLURB decision directing
the payment of the purchase price of the lots by the subdivision buyers.

RULING:
The Court reprimanded respondent Atty. Angelito Villarin with a warning that a repetition of the
same or a similar act shall be dealt with more severely. The Court adopted the recommendation
of the IBP board of governors that the issuance of the contested demand letters was not
malicious. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that lawyers shall perform their
duties to their client within the bounds of law. Respondent's act of issuing demand letters was
legally sanctional. Despite knowledge of the aforementioned falsity totally disregarded the
HLURB Decision, he advances the interests of his client through means that are inconsistent
with the requirements of fairness and honesty.

Euprocina I. Crisostomo, Marilyn L. Solis, Evelyn Marquizo, Rosemarie Balatucan,

Mildred Batang, Marilen Minerales, and Melinda D. Sioting vs. Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno
A. C. No. 6677, June 10, 2014
FACTS:
Complainants herein individually purchased housing units in Patricia South Villa Subdivision,
Anabu-II, Imus, Cavite, from Rudex Intenational Development Corporation. Complainants
sought for the rescission of their respective contracts before the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board. Rudez was represented by herein respondent Atty. Nazareno. Sometime in
August 2003, Rudex filed three petitions for review after judgment of default was rendered
against them. On February 21, 2005, complainants jointly filed the present administrative
complainant for disbarment against Atty. Nazareno. Complainants claimed that in the
certification against forum shopping, respondent Atty. Nazareno made false declarations therein
that no similar actions or proceedings have been commenced by Rudex.

ISSUE:
The issue in this case is whether or not Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively liable for
making false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping.

RULING:
The Court found respondent Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno guilty of making false declarations in
the certification against forum shopping. He is suspended from the practice of law for a period of
one year and permanently disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public. Canon 10 of
the Code on Professional Responsibility states that, "A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS
AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT."

Mercedita De Jesus vs. Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchezmalit

A. C. No. 6470, July 8, 2014
FACTS:
Complainant Mercedita De Jesus alleged that respondent Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit had
drafted and notarized a Real Estate Mortgage of a public market stall that falsely named herein
complainant as its absolute and registered owner. This resulted to a complaint for perjury and for
collection of a sum of money against herein complainant by the mortgagee. Prior thereto,
respondent had also notarized two contracts: (1) a lease agreement notarized by respondent
without the signature of the lessees sometime in September 1999, and (2) a sale agreement over a
property conveyed by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award which was entered into by
complainant with a certain Nicomedes Tala on February 17, 1998. The two notarized contracts
were according to complainant caused legal and financial problems to her. In a comment ma by
the herein respondent, she explained that the mortgage contract was prepared in the presence of
complainant and she read it before affixing her signature.

ISSUE:
The issue in this case is whether Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchezmalit was guilty of violating Canon 18
and Rule 18.03 of the Code on Professional Responsibility when he drafted and notarized the
real estate mortgage contract.

RULING:
The Court found respondent Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit guilty of violating Canons 1 and
Rules 1.01, 1.02 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as well as her oath as
notary public. The Court found that respondent committed misconduct and grievously violated
her oath as a notary public. Respondent herein fully knew that complainant was not the owner of
the mortgaged market stall. It is noteworthy, that a notary public should not notarize a document
unless verified by the very same ones executing it and must personally appear before a notary
public to attest the authenticity with regards to the contents and truth of its content.

Spouses George A. Warriner and Aurora R. Warriner vs. Atty. Reni M. Dublin
A.C. No. 5239, November 18, 2013
Facts:
Complainant spouses alleged that they secured the services respondent Atty. Reni M. Dublin for
claim of damages against E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co. Ltd. Respondent requested the RTC for a
period of 10 days within which to submit his Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence. However,
respondent did not send anything. This prompted the RTC to dismiss the Civil Case to the
prejudice of the complainants. On 26 June 2000, respondent was directed to file his comment to
the administrative complaint. He thereafter requested an extension of 30 days which the court
eventually granted. However respondent had not yet filed his comment as of August 5, 2002 or
after a lapse of almost two years. Respondent did not show any cause why he should not be
disciplinary dealt with or held in contempt. On March 10, 2008, the court resolved to order
respondent's arrest and detention. In his side, respondent Atty. Dublin claimed that complainant
Warriner's cause in filing the Civil Case No. 23, 396-95 is vitiated by fraud, thus, led him to
believe that his late comment in the instant case was with the contention of protecting the legal
profession and in accordance with his oath not to do any falsehood or promote unlawful causes.

Issue:
The issue in this case is whether Atty. Reni M. Dublin should be held guilty of violating Canon
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in representing the cause of herein complainant
spouses George A. Warriner and Aurora R. Warriner

Ruling:
The Court suspended respondent Atty. Reni M. Dublin from the practice of law for six months.
The court held that respondent is guilty of mishandling Civil Case No. 23, 396-95. Responded,
thus, violated Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states
that A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence" and "A lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection there with shall render
him liable ". Respondents admittedly claim that he deliberately failed to timely file a formal offer
of exhibits.

Mariano Agadan, Eden Mollejon, Arsenio Igme, Jose Numbas, Cecilia Langawan, Pablo
Palma, Joselito Claveria, Miguel Fores and Albert Gaydowen vs. Atty. Richard Baltazar
Kilaan
A.C. No 9385, November 11, 2013
Facts:
Complainants herein filed a complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Baguio
Benguet Chapter against respondent Atty. Richard Baltazar Kilaan for falsification of documents,
dishonesty and deceit. Complainants alleged that respondent introduced certain entries in the
application for issuance of Certificate of Public Convenience to before the Land Transportation
Franchising and Regulatory Board-Cordillera Administrative Region to operate public utility
jeepney. After the complaint was formally endorsed to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline,
Atty. Kilaan was directed to submit his answer. In his answer, respondent denied all the
allegations against him by the complainants. He disclaimed any participation in the preparation
of Decision with respect to the application of Joseph Batingued for CPC. Respondent further
claimed that the complainants instituted this case in retaliation after this application for CPC
were later on dismissed.

Issue:
The issue in this case is whether Atty. Richard Baltazar Kilaan committed falsehood in the
pleadings he submitted before the IBP.

Ruling:
Yes. The Court disqualified respondent Atty. Richard Baltazar Kilaan from being commissioned
as notary public for a period of one (1) year. He was also suspended from the practice of law for
3 months. The Court's ruling was anchored on Rule 10 of the CPR which expressly provides that
a lawyer shall do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead or
allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Clearly, Atty. Kilaan tried to deceive the authorities
by attempting to defend himself by pleasing allegations which were later found to be untrue.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. JUDGE CADER P. INDAR

FACTS:
The Local Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City reported to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) that they have received an alarming number of decisions, resolutions, and
orders on annulment of marriage cases allegedly issued by Judge Indar. That the latter issued
decisions on numerous annulment of marriage cases which do not exist in the records of RTCShariff Aguak, Branch 15 or the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court,
Cotabato City. There is nothing to show that (1) proceedings were had on the questioned cases;
(2) docket fees had been paid; (3) the parties were notified of a scheduled hearing as calendared;
(4) hearings had been conducted; or (5) the cases were submitted for decision. As found by the
Audit Team, the list of case titles submitted by the Local Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon
City are not found in the list of cases filed, pending or decided in RTC, Branch 15, Shariff
Aguak, nor in the records of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court,
Cotabato City. Judge Indar was repeatedly sent notices of hearings to his known addresses.
However, Judge Indar still failed to file his explanation and appear at the scheduled hearings.
Consequently, the investigation proceeded ex parte.

ISSUE:
Whether Judge Indar violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:
Judge Indar, who had sworn to faithfully uphold the law, issued decisions on the questioned
annulment of marriage cases, without any showing that such cases underwent trial and complied
with the statutory and jurisprudential requisites for voiding marriages. Such act undoubtedly
constitutes gross misconduct. The Court condemns Judge Indars reprehensible act of issuing
Decisions that voided marital unions, without conducting any judicial proceedings. Such
malfeasance not only makes a mockery of marriage and its life-changing consequences but
likewise grossly violates the basic norms of truth, justice, and due process. Not only that, Judge
Indars gross misconduct greatly undermines the peoples faith in the judiciary and betrays public
trust and confidence in the courts. Judge Indars utter lack of moral fitness has no place in the
Judiciary. Judge Indar deserves nothing less than dismissal from the service. Indisputably, Judge
Indars gross misconduct and dishonesty constitute a breach of Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

MILA VIRTUSIO vs. ATTY. GRENALYN V. VIRTUSIO

FACTS:
Mila alleged that sometime in 1999 Atty. Virtusio convinced her to buy a house and lot from the
developer, Stateland Investment Corporation (Stateland). Mila agreed for Atty. Virtusio to use her
personal checks in paying the seller with Mila reimbursing her. Mila deposited a total of
P441,000.00 each in Atty. Virtusios checking account with Equitable Bank. To her surprise,
however, Mila began receiving letters from Stateland, demanding that she make good the
dishonored checks that it got. When she confronted Atty. Virtusio regarding this, the latter
assured her that she would take care of the problem. But the demand letters persisted. For fear of
losing the property, Mila directly dealt with Stateland. In order not to lose the property, Mila and
her husband decided to settle their overdue obligation. In turn, Stateland turned over to her three
checks of Atty. Virtusio, each for P71,944.97, with the notation "DAIF. Mila further alleged that
Atty. Virtusio declined to return to her the money the latter misappropriated despite demand.
Only when Mila threatened to file a case against her did Atty. Virtusio agree to pay her on
February 20, 2001 by executing a deed of sale in her favor covering her Mazda car which the
latter sold to a third person. Hence, she filed a case of estafa and this disbarment case. Atty.
Virtusio admitted using Milas money rather than pay Stateland with it, she explained that,
having been busy attending to her sick son in Manila, she failed to monitor her check
disbursements, entrusting it to an office staff. Only in December 1999 was she able to audit the
same and discover the mismanagement of her funds and its co-mingling with office funds,
resulting in overlapping of accountabilities and non-funding of the checks for Stateland when
they fell due.
ISSUE:
Whether respondent violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
Lawyers are, as officers of the court and instruments for the administration of justice, expected to
maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, and fair
dealing. A lawyers gross misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, is ground
for suspension or disbarment under the principle that, since good moral character is an essential
qualification for the admission to the practice of law, maintaining such trait is a condition for
keeping the privilege. By her own account, Atty. Virtusio admitted misusing the money that Mila
entrusted to her for payment to Stateland. Her excuse is that she lost track of her finances and
mixed up her office funds with her personal funds. But this excuse is too thin. She admitted
misusing P165,000.00 of Milas money, which is not petty cash. Indeed she tried to borrow
money from a third person to cover it up rather than just offer her shallow excuse to Mila. Atty.
Virtusios use for personal purpose of money entrusted to her constitutes dishonest and deceitful
conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03.

BENJAMIN ONG vs WILLIAM DELOS SANTOS

FACTS:
Complainant Benjamin Ong was introduced to respondent Atty. William F. Delos Santos by
Sheriff Fernando Mercado. After several calls and personal interactions between them, Ong and
Atty. Delos Santos became friends. In time, according to Ong, Atty. Delos Santos asked him to
encash his postdated check inasmuch as he was in dire need of cash. To reassure Ong that the
check would be funded upon maturity, Atty. Delos Santos bragged about his lucrative practice
and his good paying clients. Convinced of Atty. Delos Santos financial stability, Ong handed to
Atty. Delos Santos the amount of P100,000.00 in exchange for the latters postdated check.
However, the check was dishonored upon presentment for the reason that the account was closed.
Ong relayed the matter of the dishonor to Atty. Delos Santos, and demanded immediate payment,
but the latter just ignored him. When efforts to collect remained futile, Ong brought this
disbarment complaint against Atty. Delos Santos.
ISSUE:
By issuing the worthless check, did Atty. Delos Santos violate Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7,
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
RULING:
Being a lawyer, Atty. Delos Santos was well aware of the objectives and coverage of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22. If he did not, he was nonetheless presumed to know them, for the law was
penal in character and application. His issuance of the unfunded check involved herein
knowingly violated Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and exhibited his indifference towards the
pernicious effect of his illegal act to public interest and public order. He thereby swept aside his
Lawyers Oath that enjoined him to support the Constitution and obey the laws. He also took for
granted the express commands of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 1,
Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03. Atty. Delos Santos should always be mindful of his duty to
uphold the law and to be circumspect in all his dealings with the public. Any transgression of this
duty on his part would not only diminish his reputation as a lawyer but would also erode the
publics faith in the Legal Profession as a whole. Accordingly, Atty. Delos Santos was guilty of
serious misconduct, warranting appropriate administrative sanction.

ANITA C. PENA VS. ATTY. CHRISTINA C. PATERNO

A.C. No. 4191, June 10, 2013
Per Curiam
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that she is the owner of a certain parcel of land in which an 8-stores
abetment is constructed. Atty. Christina C. Paterno was her lawyer in a legal separation case
which she filed against her husband in 1974, and the aforementioned property was her share in
their property settlement. Respondent suggested that sheapply for a loan from a bank to construct
townhouses on her property for sale to interested buyers, and that her property be offered as
collateral. Complainant entrusted the title of the property to respondent. When she visited her
property, she discovered that her apartment was already demolished, and in its place, four
residential houses were constructed on her property, which she later learned was already owned
by one Ernesto D. Lampa, who bought her property from Estrella D. Kraus. Respondent was the
Notary Public before whom the sale was acknowledged. Kraus was respondent's trusted
employee who did secretarial work for respondent.
She alleged that respondent manipulated the sale of her property using an employee, Kraus, as
the instrument in the sale, and she did not sign any deed selling her property to anyone.
Respondent claimed that Kraus never worked in any capacity in her law office, and that Estrella
and her husband, Karl Kraus, were her clients and it was complainant offered the property,
subject matter of this case, to the Spouses Kraus.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility by deceiving
complainant Anita C. Pea and conspiring with Estrella Kraus and Ernesto Lampa
RULING:
The court ruled in the affirmative stating that since respondent was in possession of
complainant's copy of the title to the property, and it was respondent who admittedly prepared
the Deed of Sale, which complainant denied having executed or signed, the important evidence
of the validity of the sale is the Deed of Sale itself. However, a copy of the Deed of Sale could
not be produced by the Register of Deeds, as it could not be located in the general files of the
registry, and a certification was issued stating that the Deed of Sale may be considered lost.
Moreover, respondent did not submit to the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Manila her Notarial
Report for the month of November 1986, including the said Deed of Sale, which was executed
on November 11, 1986. Hence, the investigative commissioner opined that it appears that efforts
were exerted to get rid of the copies of the said Deed of Sale to prevent complainant from getting
hold of the document. The failure of respondent to submit to the proper RTC Clerk of Court her
Notarial Register/Report for the month of November 1986 and a copy of the Deed of Sale in
effect suppressed evidence on the veracity of the said Deed of Sale and showed the deceitful
conduct of respondent to withhold the truth about its authenticity.
For the aforementioned deceitful conduct, respondent is disbarred from the practice of law. As a
member of the bar, respondent failed to live up to the standards embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly Canons 1, Rule 1.01 and 1.02, and 7, Rule 7.03.

ATTY. OSCAR L. EMBIDO VS. ATTY. SALVADOR N. PE

A.C. No. 6732, October 22, 2013
Bersamin, J.
FACTS:
Respondent is accused of having falsified a court decision. Atty. Ronel F. Sustituya, Clerk of
Court of the RTC, received a written communication from Mr. Ballam Delaney Hunt, a Solicitor
in the United Kingdom (UK). The letter requested a copy of the decision dated February 12,
1997 rendered by Judge Rafael O. Penuela in Special Proceedings Case No. 084 entitled In the
Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna, whose petitioner was one
Shirley Quioyo. It was discovered that the RTC had no record of Special Proceedings No. 084
wherein Shirley Quioyo was the petitioner. Instead, the court files revealed that Judge Penuela
had decided Special Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of
Presumptive Death of Rolando Austria, whose petitioner was one Serena Catin Austria. Informed
that the requested decision and case records did not exist, Mr. Hunt sent a letter dated October
12, 2004 attaching a machine copy of the purported decision in Special Proceedings No. 084
entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna that had been
presented by Shirley Quioyo in court proceedings in the UK. After comparing the two documents
and ascertaining that the document attached to the October 12, 2004 letter was a falsified court
document, Judge Penuela wrote Mr. Hunt to apprise him of the situation. The Dy Quioyo,
brother of Shirley Quioyo, stated that it was the respondent who had facilitated the issuance of
the falsified decision in Special Proceedings No. 084. Respondent denied any participation in the
falsification. He insisted that Dy Quioyo had sought his opinion on Shirleys petition for the
annulment of her marriage and Dy Quioyo had gone back to him to present a copy of what
appeared to be a court decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
The court ruled that respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for falsifying a court decision in
consideration of a sum of money. Respondents denial and his implication against Dy Quioyo in
the illicit generation of the falsified decision are not persuasive. Dy Quioyos categorical
declaration on the respondents personal responsibility for the falsified decision, which by nature
was positive evidence, was not overcome by the respondents blanket denial, which by nature
was negative evidence. Furthermore, the belatedness of his response exposed his blanket denial
as nothing more than an afterthought. The respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for having
authored the falsification of the decision in a non-existent court proceeding. Canon 7 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility demands that all lawyers should uphold at all times the dignity
and integrity of the Legal Profession. Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states
that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession. Lawyers are further required by Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.
Respondent is disbarred.

MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA VS. ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON

A.C. No. 9608, November 27, 2012
Per Curiam
FACTS:
Atty. Danilo S. Samson was charged by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for grossly
immoral conduct for the rape of complainant who was merely thirteen years of age.
Complainant narrated that sometime in December 2001, at around midnight, she was sleeping in
the maids room at respondents house when respondent entered and went on top of her. She
stated that another incident happened on March 19, 2002 at respondents poultry farm in Alegria,
San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. Respondent asked her to go with him to the farm. He brought her
to an old shanty where he sexually abused her. Thereafter, respondent gave her five hundred
pesos and warned her not to tell anyone what had happened or he would kill her and her mother.
Respondent countered that the intercourse was consensual and that complainant was a woman of
loose moral character. Respondent respectfully submits that his having sex with complainant
with just compensation once does not amount to immoral conduct.
ISSUE:
Whether or not complainant is guilty of grossly immoral conduct subjecting him to proper
sanctions.
RULING:
The court ruled in the affirmative stating that from the undisputed facts gathered from the
evidence and the admissions of respondent himself, we find that respondents act of engaging in
sex with a young lass, the daughter of his former employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct
that warrants sanction. Respondent not only admitted he had sexual intercourse with complainant
but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he did nothing wrong because she
allegedly agreed and he even gave her money. Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a
woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and
his own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by enticing a very
young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the dignity of
the human person and the ethics of his profession. Respondent has violated the trust and
confidence reposed on him by complainant, then a 13-year-old minor, who for a time was under
respondents care. Whether the sexual encounter between the respondent and complainant was or
was not with the latters consent is of no moment. Respondent clearly committed a disgraceful,
grossly immoral and highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is a transgression of the standards of
morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined accordingly. For violating
Canons 1, Rule 1.01, and 7, Rule 7.03, respondent is disbarred.