DOMINADOR P. BURBE VS. ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA AC NO. 99-634.

JUNE 10, 2002

Monday, February 23, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Legal Ethics
Facts: Petitioner engaged the services of the respondent to help him recover a claim of money against a creditor.
Respondent prepared demand letters for the petitioner, which were not successful and so the former intimated
that a case should already be filed. As a result, petitioner paid the lawyer his fees and included also amounts for
the filing of the case.
A couple of months passed but the petitioner has not yet received any feedback as to the status of his case.
Petitioner made several follow-ups in the lawyers office but to no avail. The lawyer, to prove that the case has
already been filed even invited petitioner to come with him to the Justice Hall to verify the status of the case.
Petitioner was made to wait for hours in the prosecutors office while the lawyer allegedly went to the Clerk of
Court to inquire about the case. The lawyer went back to the petitioner with the news that the Clerk of Court
was absent that day.
Suspicious of the acts of the lawyer, petitioner personally went to the office of the clerk of court to see for
himself the status of his case. Petitioner found out that no such case has been filed.
Petitioner confronted Atty. Magulta where he continued to lie to with the excuse that the delay was being
caused by the court personnel, and only when shown the certification did he admit that he has not at all filed the
complaint because he had spent the money for the filing fee for his own purpose; and to appease petitioners
feelings, he offered to reimburse him by issuing two (2) checks, postdated June 1 and June 5, 1999, in the
amounts of P12,000.00 and P8,000.00, respectively.
Issue: Whether or not the lawyer should be disbarred.
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP as follows:
It is evident that the P25,000 deposited by complainant with the Respicio Law Office was for the filing fees of
the Regwill complaint. With complainants deposit of the filing fees for the Regwill complaint, a corresponding
obligation on the part of respondent was created and that was to file the Regwill complaint within the time
frame contemplated by his client. The failure of respondent to fulfill this obligation due to his misuse of the
filing fees deposited by complainant, and his attempts to cover up this misuse of funds of the client, which
caused complainant additional damage and prejudice, constitutes highly dishonest conduct on his part,
unbecoming a member of the law profession. The subsequent reimbursement by the respondent of part of the
money deposited by complainant for filing fees, does not exculpate the respondent for his misappropriation of
said funds.

Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala A.C. No. 7136 August 1, 2007
Facts: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Committee on Bar Discipline against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for grossly immoral
conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyers oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first met the respondent in
January 2000 when his then fiance Irene Moje introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to
Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed that from January to March 2001, Irene
had been receiving from respondent Cellphone calls, as well as messages some which read I love you, I miss
you, or Meet you at Megamall. He also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in
the morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked her whereabouts,
she replied that she slept at her parents house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Respondent together on two occasions. On the second
occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001
complainant went uninvited to Irenes birthday celebration at which he saw her and the respondent celebrating
with her family and friends. Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately.
Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all her personal belongings.
Complainant later found a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2007, the day of his wedding to Irene,
Complainant soon saw respondents car and that of Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B11 Street, New Manila
where as he was later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was
already residing. He also learned still later that when his friends saw Irene on about January 18, 2002 together
with respondent during a concert, she was pregnant.
Issue: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the reason for the disbarment of Atty. Jose
Emmanuel Eala.
Held: Lawyers oath stated that a lawyer should support the Constitution and obey the laws, Meaning he shall
not make use of deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or be convicted in any
crime involving moral turpitude. In the case at bar Atty. Eala was accused of Concubinage, under ART. 334 of
the Revised Penal Code, Any husband who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual
intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any
other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium period. Section 2 of ART.
XV states that Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be
protected by the state. Respondents grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the constitution and the laws, that he
as a lawyer has sworn to uphold. Hence the court declared Atty. Jose Emmanul M. Eala DISBARRED for
grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and of canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
MARX ANDREI OSCAR V. YAUN
LEGAL RESEARCH

Mauricio Ulep vs The Legal Clinic

B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993
In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales was to move
toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms. Now, Atty.
Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latters advertisements which contain
the following:
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
8:30am 6:00pm
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday
to Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special
Retirees Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil.
US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems in Star Week of
Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can take care
of a clients problem no matter how complicated it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby
Concepcion situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are specialists in various
fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal
problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals, counselors
and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the US which now
allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the advertisement is merely making
known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE:
Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is allowed; whether or not its
advertisement may be allowed.
HELD:
Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic
is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include various legal problems wherein a client may
avail of legal services from simple

documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond
the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Under
Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law
cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and
regular standing, is entitled to practice law. Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only
true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession
condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his
profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the
advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other
circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best advertising possible for a
lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the
outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way
of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service
which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify
his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome
result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the following as allowed forms of advertisement:
1.Advertisement in a reputable law list
2.Use of ordinary simple professional card
3.Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization

LINSANGAN vs. TOLENTINO

Facts:
A complaint for disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of
clients and encroachment of professional services. Complaint alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal
Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them financial
assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called
them and sent them text messages. To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit of
James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with
complainant and utilize respondents services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50, 000.00. Complainant also
attached respondents calling card. Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the
printing and circulation of the said calling card.
Issue:
Whether or not Tolentinos actions warrant disbarment.
Held:
Yes. Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to
solicit legal business. Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment.
Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which provides that lawyer, shall not for any
corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any mans cause. This rule proscribes
ambulance chasing (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or through
an agent in order to gain employment) as a measure to protect the community from barratry and champerty. In
the case at bar, complainant presented substantial evidence (consisting of the sworn statements of the very same
persons coaxed by Labiano and referred to respondents office) to prove that respondent indeed solicited legal
business as well as profited from referrals suits. Through Labianos actions, respondents law practice was
benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer representation on the strength of Labianos word that
respondent could produce a more favorable result. Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited
employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR and section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court. Any act of solicitations constitutes malpractice which calls for the exercise of the Courts disciplinary
powers. Violation of anti-solicitation statues warrants serious sanctions for initiating contact with a prospective
client for the purpose of obtaining employment. Thus in this jurisdiction, the Court adheres to the rule to protect
the public from the Machiavellian machinations of unscrupulous lawyers and to uphold the nobility of the legal
profession. Canon 2: A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient and convenient manner
compatible with the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the profession. Rule 2.03: A lawyer shall
not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.

Melendres vs. Decena, 176 SCRA 663 (1989)

Nature: Administrative case in the SC. Malpractice and Breach of Trust
Acts constituted deception and dishonesty and conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar. Contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty and good morals.
1.making it appear on the real estate mortgage that the amount loaned was 5,000 instead of 4,000
2.exacting usurious interest
3.making it appear that amount had escalated to 10 thousand
4.failing to inform complainants of the import of the documents
5.failing to demand from complainants before effecting extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged property
6.failing to inform then that mortgage had been foreclosed and that they had right to redeem property within a
period of time.
In the estafa case against Reynaldo Pineda:
Lawyers cannot without special authority, compromise their clients litigation or receive anything in discharge
of a clients claim but the full amount in cash. Gross misconduct on the part of a lawyer, although not related
to the discharge of his professional duties as a member of the Bar, which puts his moral character in serious
doubt, renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.
DISBARRED.

Narag v. Narag, 291 SCRA 451, June 29, 1998

FACTS:
Mrs. Julieta Nunag filed several cases against his husband, Atty. Dominador Nunag, for his alleged affair with
Gina Espita who happens to be a former student of the respondent back when Ms. Espita was a first-year
college student. Finally, in the most recent case filed by Mrs. Nunag, the complainant had her seven children
sign the appeal for disbarment of Atty. Nunag. Mrs. Nunag presented as evidence the pictures of the respondent
and Ms. Espita together, love letters, testimony of Mr. Charlie Espita, the brother of Ms. Espita and the source
of the mentioned pictures and love letters, and the testimony of the children of Atty. And Mrs. Nunag. In the
proceedings, Atty. Nunag has been engaged in an affair with Ms. Espita, and being live-in partners, have had
two children with the latter. Atty. Nunag denied the allegations by presenting Argumentum ad Misericordia
.
ISSUE:
Should Atty. Nunag be disbarred even if he denied the allegations against him?
RULING:
Atty. Nunag was not able to invalidate the authenticity of the pieces of evidence presented against him, but
instead, presented an argument to pity. He is, by order of the honorable court, being disbarred by virtue of The
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:
Rule 1.01
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities
of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he,
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Ong vs unto
FACTS:
This is a disbarment case filed by Alex Ong against Atty. Elpidio D. Unto, for malpractice of law and
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. It is evident from the records that he tried to coerce the complainant to
comply with his letter-demand by threatening to file various charges against the latter. When the complainant
did not heed his warning, he made good his threat and filed a string of criminal and administrative cases against
the complainant. They, however, did not have any bearing or connection to the cause of his client. The records
show that the respondent offered monetary rewards to anyone who could provide him any information against
the complainant just so he would have leverage in his actions against the latter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Untos acts constitute malpractice.
HELD:
Yes. Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates lawyers to represent their clients with zeal
but within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 further commands that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest
means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate, or threaten to present
unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.

Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs. Cloribel, [G.R.

No. L-27072 July 31 1968]
FACTS:
Surigao Mineral Reservation Board issued an Invitation to Bid for the exploration and development of
mineral deposits in a certain portion in the Province of Surigao. It was joined by two (2) bidders. After
evaluation, both were disqualified and their subsequent motions denied. One of the (failed) bidder
filed a petition at the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking relief. After the petitioners here
(respondents in the said case) answered the petition, Judge Gaudencio Cloribel of CFI issued a
restraining order to petitioners here (respondent in the petition to Judge Cloribel) to avert from their
action in the bidding process. Petitioners here seek a writ of preliminary injunction to the Supreme
Court on the assailed action of Judge Cloribel due to his alleged grave abuse of discretion on the
subject matter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Cloribel had committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction.
HELD:
YES. Costs against the respondent.
RATIO:
There is no cause of action as a basis of the judge to issue the restraining order. Invitation to Bid is
not an offer from which deemed accepted by the other party in their submission of bids. In fact,
there is still no contract unless the bid is determined to be the most advantageous offer to the
government. What was accepted by the bidder was the condition, inter alia, that the government
reserves the right to reject any and all bids, waive any defect of form or accept such bid as may be
deemed advantageous to it. As a consequence, the bidder (one of respondent here) is in estoppel to
object or to assail the exercise of the said right by the petitioner as the Board.