Blanza vs.

Arcangel

Olegaria Blanza and Maria Pasion complain that way back in April, 1955,
respondent volunteered to help them in their respective pension claims in
connection with the deaths of their husbands, and handed over to him the
pertinent documents and also affixed their signatures on blank papers. But
respondents asked for the return of their papers six years later, respondent
refused to surrender them.
He admitted having received the documents from complainants but explained His
failure to immediately return them, he said, was due to complainants' refusal to
hand him the money to pay for the photostating costs which prevented him from
withdrawing said documents from the photostat service. He had advanced the
expenses himself and turned over, on December 13, 1961, the documents to the
fiscal.
A lawyer has a more dynamic and positive role in the community than merely
complying with the minimal technicalities of the statute. As a man of law, he is
necessarily a leader of the community, looked up to as a model citizen. His
conduct must, perforce, be par excellence, especially so when, as in this case,
he volunteers his professional services. Respondent here has not lived up to that
ideal standard. It was unnecessary to have complainants wait, and hope, for six
long years on their pension claims. Upon their refusal to co-operate, respondent
should have forthwith terminated their professional relationship instead of keeping
them hanging indefinitely.

Zorete vs. Simpliciano

A complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty. Heherson Alnor G. Simpliciano
for allegedly notarizing several documents during the year 2002 after his
commission as notary public had expired.
Respondent was not a duly commissioned Notary Public in 2002 per
Certifications 1 issued by the Clerk of Court of Quezon City
Against the evidence presented by complainant, respondent did not even attempt
to present any evidence. Respondent was unable to rebut complainant's
evidence that he was not so commissioned for the year in question. His lack of
interest and indifference in presenting his defense to the charge and the evidence
against him can only mean he has no strong and valid defense to offer.

Issue:
Whether or not the commission is significant in notarizing documents?

The Court had occasion to state that where the notarization of a document is
done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization
or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. For
one, performing a notarial without such commission is a violation of the lawyers
oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it
appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents
and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyers oath similarly
proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: A lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

A-1 Financial Services, Inc. vs. Valerio

On November 13, 2001, A-1 Financial Services, Inc., a financing corporation,

granted the loan application of Atty. Valerio amounting to P50,000.00. To secure
the payment of the loan obligation, Atty. Valerioissued a postdated check was
dishonored due to insufficient funds. After repeated demands to pay her
obligation, Atty. Valerio failed to pay the whole amount of her obligation.
Thus, An arraignment was scheduled for August 31, 2004; however, she failed to
appeat. 3 Subsequently, a Warrant of Arrest 4 was issued but Atty. Valerio posted
no bail. Several other arraignments were scheduled but respondent did not
appear.
On March 16, 2006, respondent's mother, explained that her daughter had been
diagnosed with schizophrenia; but no further proof was provided.
Atty. Valerio's conduct in the course of the IBP and court proceedings runs
counter to the precepts of the Code of Professional Responsibility and violates
the lawyer's oath which imposes upon every member of the Bar the duty to delay
no man for money or malice. Atty. Valerio has failed to live up to the values and
norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

In re: Petition to sign in the Roll of Attorneys,

Medado
Medado graduated

with the degree of Bachelor of Laws in 1979 1 and

passed the same year's bar examinations.

On 7 May 1980, he took the Attorney's Oath at the Philippine International
Convention Center (PICC) together with the successful bar examinees. 3 He was
scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980, 4 but he failed to do so
on

his

scheduled

date,

allegedly

because

he

had

misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys.

Several years later, he realized that he had not signed in the roll, and that what
he had signed at the entrance of the PICC was probably just an attendance
record. 7

TCAScE

The moment he realized that what he had signed was merely an attendance
record should have known that he was not a full-fledged member of the Philippine
Bar

because of his

was the act of signing

failure to sign in the Roll of Attorneys,

therein

that

would

have

as

it

made

him

so. 26 When, in spite of this knowledge, he chose to continue practicing law

without

taking the necessary

steps to complete

all the requirements

for

admission to the Bar, he willfully engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

Under the Rules of Court, the unauthorized

practice of law

by

one's

assuming to be an attorney or officer of the court, and acting as such without

authority, may constitute indirect contempt of court, 27 which is punishable by fine
or imprisonment or both.

In re: David

Respondent was suspended for bad practices in the exercise of his profession as a lawyer for a
period of five years from the November 9, 1949. The defendant admits this suspension in `his written
report filed on March 17, 1951, yet he continued to exercise the profession within the period of
suspension, November 9, 1949 to November 8, 1954.
On Feb 28 1950 the respondent file a claim in the case of Tan Tek vs Sy not as a lawyer but as an
agent. (For and in behalf of Tan Tek Sy) CFI decided in favor of Tan Tek, subsequently Atty Felix
David filed a motion for execution. In another civil case of the CFI called Malayan Saw Mill, Inc vs
Tolentino, defendant filed a brief for an order to demolish homes.
In order - says the appeal - to show That I did not Have the intention to disregard the suspension of
the Supreme Court, I did not With The Knowledge of Tan Tek Identified Sy Even myself as the
attorney for the Appelles But In Good Faith, I signed for and in Behalf of the appellee Without
Designating That I am Practicing as attorney-at-law.
ISSUE: Whether the acts of Atty Felix David is tantamount to practice of law.
HELD: Yes. Neither can he allow his name to appear in such pleading by itself or as part of firm
name under the signature of another qualified lawyer because the signature of an agent amounts to
signing of a non-qualified senator or congressman, the office of an attorney being originally an
agency, and because he will, by such act, be appearing in court or quasi-judicial or administrative
body in violation of the constitutional restriction. He cannot do indirectly what the Constitution
prohibits directly.

Cayetano v. Monsod

In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission on Elections.
His appointment was affirmed by the Commission on Appointments. Monsods appointment
was opposed by Renato Cayetano on the ground that he does not qualify for he failed to
meet the Constitutional requirement which provides that the chairman of the COMELEC
should have been engaged in the practice law for at least ten years.
Monsods track record as a lawyer:
1.

Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of 86.55%.

2.

Immediately after passing, worked in his fathers law firm for one year.

3.

Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where he had a degree in economics

and held various positions in various foreign corporations.

4.

In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs for various
local corporations until 1986.

5.

In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional Commission.

ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the COMELEC. What constitutes
practice of law?
HELD: Yes. Atty. Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyermanager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyerlegislator of both the rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional
requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to court appearances. The
members of the bench and bar and the informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in
most developed societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted in law offices
than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do both litigation and non-litigation
work also know that in most cases they find themselves spending more time doing what is
loosely described as business counseling than in trying cases. In the course of a working
day the average general practitioner wig engage in a number of legal tasks, each involving
different legal doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and other
interested parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in specialized practice wig
usually perform at least some legal services outside their specialty. By no means will most
of this work involve litigation, unless the lawyer is one of the relatively rare types a
litigator who specializes in this work to the exclusion of much else. Instead, the work will

require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of traditional lawyer skills of client
counseling, advice-giving, document drafting, and negotiation.

SORIANO V. DIZON
Facts:
A taxi driver (Soriano) filed an action for the disbarment of Atty. Dizon, on the grounds that Dizon was
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, and violated Canon 1 of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Soriano allegedly fell victim to Dizon, who was found to have:
a. Driven his car under the influence of liquor;
b. Reacted violently and attempted assault for over a simple traffic incident;
c. Shot at Soriano, who was unarmed and not in the position to defend himself (treachery);
d. Denied his acts despite positive evidence against him (dishonesty);
e. Guilty of dishonesty, claiming to be mauled by the victim (Kawawang driver, binaril na nga, may lakas pa
daw mag maul ng attorney na may baril. Hindi din tanga mag rason si Dizon diba?);
f. Despite neing granted probation, he did not satisfy his civil liabilities to the victim (Ano ba problema nito?!)
Issues:
(1) Is Dizons crime of Frustrated Homicide considered a crime involving moral turpitude
(2) Does his guilt to such crime warrant disbarment?
Held:
(1) Yes.
Moral Turpitude is everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals
Dizon was obviously the aggressor for having pursued and shot Soriano, not only because of his treachery,
but also his intent to escape, betrayed by his attempt to wipe off his prints from the gun. His inordinate reaction to a
simple traffic incident clearly indicates his non-fitness to be a lawyer.
(2) Yes.
His illegal possession of fire-arms, and his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities all justify disbarment.
The court reminds him that in oath and in the CPR, he is bound to obey the laws of the land. The liabilities in
question have been sitting for 4 years, unsatisfied, despite it being the condition for his probation (you ungrateful
person!)
Dizon displayed an utter lack of good moral character, which is an essential qualification for the privilege to
enter into the practice of law. Good moral character includes at least common honesty.
Manuel Dizon, hereby disbarred.