ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG VS. ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A.

CELERA
A.C. NO. 5581
January 14, 2014

Legal Ethics: Rule 1.01, Canon 7; Rule 7.03
FACTS:
Rose Bansig filed a complaint againts Atty. Juan Celera for Gross Immoral
Conduct.
On May 8, 1997, Atty. Celera and Grace Marie R. Bunagan (Bunagan) entered
into a contract of marriage, as evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the certificate
of marriage issued by the Civil Registry of Manila. Bansig is the sister of Grace
Marie, legal wife of respondent. However, Atty,. Celera contracted another marriage
on January 8, 1988 with a certain Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba, as evidenced by a
certified xerox copy of the certificate of marriage issued by the City Registration
Officer of San Juan, Manila.
Bansig stressed that the marriage between Atty. Celera and Bunagan was still
valid and in full existence when he contracted his second marriage with Alba, and
that the first marriage had never been annulled or rendered void by any lawful
authority.
Despite repeated summons and resolutions issued by the court, Atty. Celera
failed to properly answer the complaint. The complaint drags on for over a decade.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Celera is guilty of gross immoral conduct and wilful disobedience
of lawful orders.
HELD:
Yes. In the instant case, there is a preponderance of evidence that respondent
contracted a second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage.
The certified xerox copies of the marriage contracts, issued by a public officer
in custody thereof, are admissible as the best evidence of their contents, as
provided for under Section 7 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
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 member of the
Bar.
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 is grounds for
disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
This case cannot be fully resolved, however, without addressing rather
respondent’s defiant stance against the Court as demonstrated by his repetitive
disregard of its Resolution requiring him to file his comment on the complaint. This
case has dragged on since 2002. In the span of more than 10 years, the Court has
issued numerous directives for respondent's compliance, but respondent seemed to
have pre-selected only those he will take notice of and the rest he will just ignore.
The Court has issued several resolutions directing respondent to comment on the
complaint against him, yet, to this day, he has not submitted any answer thereto.
He claimed to have not received a copy of the complaint, thus, his failure to
comment on the complaint against him. Ironically, however, whenever it is a show
cause order, none of them have escaped respondent's attention. Even assuming
that indeed the copies of the complaint had not reached him, he cannot, however,

feign ignorance that there is a complaint against him that is pending before this
Court which he could have easily obtained a copy had he wanted to.
Clearly, respondent's acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful orders
of this Court, which under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is in itself alone
a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment. Respondent’s cavalier attitude in
repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to
the judicial institution. Respondent’s conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. We
have repeatedly held that a Court’s Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere
request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively."
Respondent’s obstinate refusal to comply with the Court’s orders "not only betrays a
recalcitrant flaw in his character; it also underscores his disrespect of the Court's
lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.”
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.

PENA VS. ATTY. PATERNO
A.C. No. 4191

Metro Manila. she stated that she was not denying that she was the one who notarized the Deed of Sale. she notarized the instrument in her direct examination. 150322 in TCT No. located in Bayanbayanan. complainant never took any step to verify the status of her loan application nor visited her property. Estrella Kraus' affidavit supported respondent's defense. appeared before her and signed the deed when in truth and in fact the said person did not participate in the execution thereof. Marikina. The complainant alleged that she gave respondent her owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. Respondent argued that it was unfathomable that after eight years. Parang. and (c) knowingly notarizing a falsified contract of sale. complainant discovered that a new building was erected on her property in January 1994. 2013 FACTS: This is an administrative case filed against respondent Atty. Anita Peña. respondent should be faulted for having failed to make the necessary entries pertaining to the deed of sale in her notarial register. Complainant . and recommended that the notarial commission of respondent. Later. the owner of a parcel of land known as Lot 7-C. and that the title was in the safekeeping of respondent for seven years. ISSUE: Whether or not there was clear and preponderant evidence showing that respondent violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility by(a) deceiving complainant Anita C. Psd-74200. Moreover. Commissioner Sordan stated that respondent enabled Estrella B. respondent would neither directly confirm nor deny if. However. if still existing. indeed. 61244 to enable respondent to use the same as collateral in constructing a townhouse. respondent refused to return it. if it is untrue that she sold the said property.17 This was evidenced by Entry No. N-61244. Commissioner Sordan declared that respondent failed to exercise the required diligence and fealty to her office by attesting that the alleged party. Peña. 61244 with respect to the sale of the property described therein to Kris built Traders Company. but on cross-examination.June 10. Complainant explained that respondent kept on assuring her that the bank required the submission of her title in order to process her loan application. respondent assured complainant that she was still the owner. Ltd. for P200. In the course of investigation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Despite repeated demands by complainant. Christina C. covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. HELD: . eight years after she gave the title to respondent. Yet.00. Ernesto Lampa to enable the latter to register the subject property in his name. Register of Deeds of Marikina. be revoked. Respondent alleged that complainant signed the Deed of Sale in her presence inside her office. effective immediately. Recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and her name stricken-off the Roll of Attorneys. Paterno for acts violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law. with an eightdoor apartment constructed thereon. Krausto sell complainant's land to Kris built Traders Company. Ltd.000. (b) conspiring with Estrella Kraus and Engr. and that respondent be perpetually disqualified from reappointment as a notary public.

as well as for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. respondent failed to live up to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. EMMANUEL F.A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. ELAYDA A. behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Christina C.C. Rule 1. Paterno. if still existing. is perpetually REVOKED. obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes. particularly the following Canons: CANON 1 . CANON 7 . immoral or deceitful conduct.02 . Rule 1.01 .As a member of the bar. No. and the notarial commission of Atty. Paterno is DISBARRED from the practice of law.A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. SPOUSES VIRGILIO and ANGELINA ARANDA vs. ATTY. pursuant to Section 27. 7907 . Christina C.A lawyer shall uphold the constitution. Respondent Atty. dishonest. whether in public or private life.03 . nor should he. and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Rule 7. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

it is elementary procedure for a lawyer and his clients to exchange contact details at the initial stages in order to have constant communication with each other. Again. skill and competence. Atty. 2010 . Moreover.December 15. Elayda failed to inform the spouses of the date of hearing as well as the order of judgment. He proved himself unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his helpless clients. He cannot simply wait for his clients to make an inquiry about the developments in their case. it deserves his full attention. No. No motion for reconsideration or appeal was interposed by the lawyer as well. 5736 June 18. 2010 FACTS: In the Complaint of the spouses Aranda. Elayda failed in all these.C. competent and diligent in handling his clients’ cases. Elayda even admitted that the spouses Aranda never knew of the scheduled hearings because said spouses never came to him and that he did not know the spouses’ whereabouts. Elayda is duty bound to uphold and safeguard the interests of his clients. Elayda owes fealty. Besides. it is clear that Atty. While it is true that communication is a shared responsibility between a counsel and his clients. Elayda is expected to monitor the progress of said spouses’ case and is obligated to exert all efforts to present every remedy or defense authorized by law to protect the cause espoused by the spouses Aranda. as shown by his failure to follow elementary norms of civil procedure and evidence. Close coordination between counsel and client is necessary for them to adequately prepare for the case. address is simply unacceptable. Atty. Atty. not only to his clients. Regrettably. as well as to effectively monitor the progress of the case. Atty. Elayda’s handling of their civil case was“sorely inadequate. Elayda was remiss in his duties and responsibilities as a member of the legal profession. Atty. (RBCI) BOHOL vs. Atty. Atty. they were surprised that an adverse judgment was rendered against them resulting to the loss of their Mitsubishi Pajero. On a final note. However. they alleged that Atty. and time to all the cases heis handling. Elayda should be sanctioned by the court. This was adopted by the court. The IBP Board of Governors recommended a 6 month suspension. INC. but also to the Court of which he is an officer. diligence. it must be stressed that whenever a lawyer accepts a case. RURAL BANK OF CALAPE. regardless of its importance and whether or not it is for a fee or free. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Elayda said that the spouses did not bother to keep in touch with him and they were the ones who neglected their case in court. JAMES BENEDICT FLORIDO A. it is the counsel’s primary duty to inform his clients of the status of their case and the orders which have been issued by the court. Evidently. Apparently. care. His conduct shows that he not only failed to exercise due diligence in handling his clients’ case but in fact abandoned his clients’ cause. He should be conscientious. Elayda should give adequate attention. HELD: From the foregoing.ATTY. Atty. In his reply. As the spouses Aran da’s counsel.

his client’s success is wholly subordinate. In his comment. WHEREFORE. through its Commissioner. For this reason. the lawfully and validly elected Board of Directors of RBCI. Rule 15. not honorable. and installed their own staff to run the bank. A lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. 6281 September 16. is condemnable and unethical. Moreover.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.07 of the Code requires a lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with the law and principles of fairness. Respondent added that the affidavits attached to the complaint were never identified. destroyed the bank’s vault. It is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics.02 and15. ATTY. They also forcibly evicted Cirilo A. A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. through force and intimidation. MIRANDA v.FACTS: According to RBCI. 2011 FACTS: . Florido violated Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. with the use of armed men. respondent denied RBCI’s allegations. Garay (Garay).C. James Benedict Florido GUILTY of violating Canon 19 and Rules 1. VALENTIN C. we find respondent Atty. affirmed. HELD: Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. said that respondent had no legal basis to implement the takeover of RBCI and that it was a “naked power grab without any semblance of legality whatsoever. MACARIO D. respondent claimed that RBCI failed to present any evidence to prove their allegations. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty.” Respondent appealed from the IBP’s decision. forcibly took over the management and the premises of RBCI. even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client’s cause. Respondent explained that he acted in accordance with the authority granted upon him by the NazarenoRelampagos group. Accordingly. fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer. or confirmed by the affiants and that none of the documentary exhibits were originals or certified true copies. we SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law for one year effective upon finality of this Decision. IBP. To that end. respondent and his clients(Nazareno-Relampagos group). the bank manager. Any means. CARPIO A.

granting the petition for registration.000. and he could not have agreed to the amount being demanded by respondent without the knowledge and approval of his co-heirs. A Decision was rendered. It is highly improper for a lawyer to impose additional professional fees upon his client which were never mentioned nor agreed upon at the time of the engagement of his services. respondent would deliver the owner's duplicate of the OCT. . The Land Registration Authority (LRA) sent complainant a copy of the letter addressed to the Register of Deeds (RD) of Las Piñas City. which he said would further strengthen complainant's position in the case. which he had claimed without complainant's knowledge. figured in a vehicular accident. which Decision was declared final and executory.000.00 and the 20% share in the property in exchange for which. Respondent insisted that complainant first pay him the PhP10. Once again. Metro Manila. which transmitted the decree of registration and the original and owner's duplicate of the title of the property. as evidenced by receipts duly signed by the latter. consent and authority. the latter became furious and their relationship became sore. respondent violated Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.000. Carpio violated Canon 20 HELD: Yes. for not having been agreed upon. Carpio as counsel in the said case when his original counsel. During the last hearing of the case. As a result of complainant's refusal to satisfy respondent's demands.Complainant Valentin C. complainant and respondent agreed that complainant was to pay P20. complainant co-owned the subject property with his siblings. At the outset. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Complainant paid respondent the amounts due him. complainant engaged the services of respondent Atty. Complainant talked to respondent on the phone and asked him to turn over the owner's duplicate of the OCT. which mandates that ―a lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.000. Samuel Marquez. In complainant's Affidavit.00 as appearance fee. Moreover. respondent should have informed the complainant of all the fees or possible fees that he would charge before handling the case and not towards the near conclusion of the case. Complainant did not accede to respondent's demand for it was contrary to their agreement.00 as acceptance fee and P2. This is essential in order for the complainant to determine if he has the financial capacity to pay respondent before engaging his services. Miranda is one of the owners of a parcel of land located at Barangay Lupang Uno. respondent demanded the additional P10.He was surprised to discover that the same had already been claimed by and released to respondent on. complainant refused the demand. Atty. Complainant initiated Land Registration Commission (LRC) Case for the registration of the property. In collecting from complainant exorbitant fees.00 for the preparation of a memorandum. During the course of the proceedings. Las Piñas. Complainant went to the RD to get the owner's duplicate of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT). thus. plus 20% of the total area of the subject property as additional fees for his services. Respondent's claim for his unpaid professional fees that would legally give him the right to retain the property of his client until he receives what is allegedly due him has been paid has no basis and. is invalid.

NO. Carpio is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. Respondent's inexcusable act of withholding the property belonging to his client and imposing unwarranted fees in exchange for the release of said title deserve the imposition of disciplinary sanction.Respondent's further submission that he is entitled to the payment of additional professional fees on the basis of the principle of quantum meruit has no merit. Macario D. RAMOS A. Atty. "Quantum meruit.C." The principle of quantum meruit applies if a lawyer is employed without a price agreed upon for his services. and thus. 2014 . QUIACHON V. effective upon receipt of this Decision. meaning `as much as he deserved' is used as a basis for determining the lawyer's professional fees in the absence of a contract but recoverable by him from his client. He is ordered to RETURN to the complainant the owner's duplicate of OCT No. as much as he has earned. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. ATTY. 9317 June 4. he would be entitled to receive what he merits for his services. the principle of quantum meruit does not fully find application because the respondent is already compensated by such agreement.[13] In the present case. the parties had already entered into an agreement as to the attorney's fees of the respondent. 0-94 immediately upon receipt of this decision. In such a case.

There was neglect in that regard. The withdrawal of a disbarment case against a lawyer does not terminate or abate the jurisdiction of the IBP and of this Court to continue an administrative proceeding against a lawyer-respondent as a member of the Philippine Bar. IBP conducted an investigation on the disbursement case filed by the complainant against her lawyer and the report found out that the respondent had been remiss in failing to update complainant in what had happened to the cases being handled by respondent in behalf of complainant. Ramos who represented her in a labor case before NLRC and a special proceeding case before the RTC. No. Thus. Atty. UY VS. MTJ-07-1666 September 5. 2012 FACTS: . However inspite of finding neglect on respondent’s part.M. but a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court. ISSUE: Whether the withdrawal of the disbarment case will terminate or abate the jurisdiction of the IBP and of this Court to continue an administrative proceeding against a lawyer-respondent as a member of the Philippine Bar. Ramos violated Canon Rules 18.FACTS: A disbarment case was filed by Quiachon against her lawyer Atty. HELD: No. withdrew the disbarment case. Complainant charges respondent with gross negligence and deceit in violation of Canon Rules 18. the complainant during the pendency of the proceedings.03 and 18. GERLIE M. There was a failure to inform complainant (the client) of the status of the cases that thereafter prevented the client from exercising her options. the appropriate penalty should be imposed despite the desistance of complainant or the withdrawal of the charges.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. JUDGE ERWIN B.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case. In this case. JAVELLANA A.

18 and 19(a) of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. which should had been a ground for dismissal of said case. gross incompetence.The Lupong Tagapamayapa was not a jurisdictional requirement and the Motion to Dismiss on said ground was a prohibited pleading under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Cornelio (Malicious Mischief) - Judge Javellana issued warrant of arrest after the filing of a certain criminal case despite Sec. . neglect of duty. conduct improper and unbecoming of a judge. . ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Javellana was grossly ignorant of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. La Castellana. HELD: ." filed by Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug of PAO against Presiding Judge Javellana of the Municipal Trial Court.This administrative case arose from a verified complaint for "gross ignorance of the law and procedures.Judge Javellana reiterated that a motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and he added that he could not dismiss the case outright since the prosecution has not yet fully presented its evidence. then set the case for arraignment and free trial. despite confirming that complainant and her witnesses had no personal knowledge of the material facts alleged in their affidavits. Negros Occidental. COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS In People vs.The necessity of holding the accused in detention became evident when it was revealed during trial that the same accused were wanted for Attempted Homicide in another case. In Trespass to Dwelling - Judge Javellana did not grant the motion to dismiss for noncompliance with the Lupon requirement under Sec. 16 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. grave misconduct and others. Lopez ( JAVELLANA’S DEFENSE . In People Mischief) - vs. Malicious Judge Javellana did not apply the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and instead conducted a preliminary examination and investigation in accordance with the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Lopez. 9872 January 28. were charged with the special cases of malicious mischief particularly described in Article 328 of the Revised Penal Code the appropriate penalty for the accused would be arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods which under Article 329(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Clearly. et al. SOLIDUM JR. Cornelio and People v. NATIVIDAD P. A. NAVARRO VS. 2014 FACTS: . Without any showing that the accused in People v. ATTY. these two cases should be governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.YES. would be imprisonment for two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) months. IVAN M.C.

Anent the loans. Later. or whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. Navarro later found out that the land was already registered to someone else. The MOA was prepared by Solidum. such act displayed by Solidum merited his disbarment. In Presbitero’s case. to finance the case. In the land registration case of Yulo financed by Navarro. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Jr. Solidum mortgaged his 263-hectare land for P1 million in favor of Presbitero.00 as acceptance fee. who financed the Yulo case.000. Jr. In the case of Navarro. probity. Yulo however asked the help of her sister. Solidum in May and June 2006. Solidum also violated Rule 16. Both Presbitero and Navarro allowed Splidum to draft the terms of the loan agreements. he assailed the validity of the same MOAs he prepared. Ma. In this case. Hilda Presbitero engaged the services of Atty. and good demeanor. Solidum drafted the MOAs knowing that the interest rates were exorbitant. Ivan Solidum. Natividad Navarro.000. The loan was covered by two Memorandum of Agreement (MOAs).00 for the registration expenses. Navarro claims that she should not have financed the case if only Solidum advised her of the status of the land. Solidum failed to pay them. In May 2006. daughter of Presbitero also engaged the services of Solidum for the registration of a parcel of land. should be disbarred. since Presbitero is his client. and in his private capacity with respect to Navarro. Nothing happened in the quieting of title case field by Presbitero since Solidum did nothing after receiving the acceptance fee. both in his professional capacity with respect to his client. he may still be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his private capacity. Hence. Instead. obtained a total of Php2 million from Navarro. This is notwithstanding the fact that Navarro is not actually his client in the Yulo case but was only the financier of the Yulo case. HELD: Yes. The MOA stated that the monthly interest shall be 10%. He again drafted a MOA containing the same terms and conditions as with Navarro. Meanwhile. Navarro gave Solidum Php200. As additional security for the loan. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character. Although Solidum acted in his private capacity when he obtained a total of Php3 million from Navarro and Presbitero. Presbitero paid Solidum P50. he questioned the terms of the loans as he claimed that the interest rate of said loans at 10% is unconscionable.In April 2006. Navarro and Presbitero later filed an administrative case against Solidum. Theresa Yulo. Solidum is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct. Solidum also violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. Presbitero. Ivan Solidum. to help her in the quieting of her title over a parcel of land. Solidum also borrowed Php 1 million from Presbitero during the same period.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall . honesty. using his knowledge of the law.

He claimed that his 263hectare land was worth P1 million but in fact Solidum sold it later for only P150.not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. NO. 2014 FACTS: . He took advantage of his knowledge of the law as well as the trust and confidence reposed in him by his client.C. JAIME AGTANG A. 10579 December 10. Even though Solidum secured the loan with a mortgage and a MOA. Solidum was disbarred by the Supreme Court.000. Presbitero’s interest was not fully protected because the property Solidum mortgaged was overvalued. Clearly.00. ERLINDA FOSTER VS. Presbitero was disadvantaged by Solidum’s ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his obligation.

asked for receipts for all funds she handed over to Agtang. being prudent. an act customarily related to depravity and dishonesty. The recommended penalty of 3 months suspension is too light. Agtang’s acceptance fee was P20. due to feigned reasons such as the high value of the land involved and the extra expenses to be incurred by court employees. Agtang borrowed money from Foster for his personal use.e.000. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. .” In this case. i. she filed an administrative complaint against Agtang. Foster learned that she lost the case due to Agtang’s negligence and incompetence in drafting the complaint.000. In other words.00) as well as the money he borrowed from Foster (P122.00 for incidental expenses. Agtang was disbarred by the Supreme Court. When asked to return the balance.00). It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.000.00 from Foster as filing fee.590. immoral or deceitful conduct.00 plus P5.410 (not P150k). Agtang collected P150. he resorted to overpricing. provides that “a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. She also found out that the filing fee therefor was only P22. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. he failed and refused to do so and even had the temerity that it was all the client’s idea. Further. IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) eventually ordered Agtang to return the balance of the filing fee (P127. HELD: No. Rule 1. various occasions. car repair. Although reluctant. It was also recommended that Agtang be suspended for three months only. ISSUE: Whether or not the recommendation by the IBP-BOG is proper. He also advised Foster to shell out a total of P50. Foster gave in to Agtang’s demands.000.000.00. it turned out that Agtang was once the lawyer of the opposing party. A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Later however. Such loan amounted to P122. When she asked Agtang to return her the balance. As a lawyer. Agtang is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct. Foster. .0.000.In 2009. the said lawyer failed to do so hence. Erlinda Foster engaged the services of Atty. he clearly misled Foster into believing that the filing fees for her case were worth more than the prescribed amount in the rules. Jaime Agtang in a realty dispute in Ilocos Norte. dishonest.00 for them to bribe the judge and get a favorable decision. both in his professional and private capacity.. For the case.

faithfully perform their duties to society. to the bar. The only concern of the Court is the determination of respondent’s administrative liability. Second. honesty. but also a high standard of morality. he could not deny the authenticity of the receipts presented by Foster. Rule 16. He received various amounts from Foster but he could not account for all of them. his client. To rule otherwise would in effect deprive respondent of his right to appeal since administrative cases are filed directly with the Court. the courts and their clients. The acts of the Agtang constitute malpractice and gross misconduct in his office as attorney. integrity and fair dealing so that the people’s faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. at all times. he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client. Its findings have no material bearing on other judicial actions which the parties may choose against each other. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “a lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. JIZ A. 9615 March 5. Deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes gross misconduct.” In the first place.C. which include prompt payment of financial obligations. In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. His incompetence and appalling indifference to his duty to his client. GLORIA P. ATTY. They must. NO. Worse. LEONARDO E. SIDE ISSUE: May the Court order Agtang to return the money he borrowed from Foster? No. the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. The Court held that it cannot order the lawyer to return money to complainant if he or she acted in a private capacity because its findings in administrative cases have no bearing on liabilities which have no intrinsic link to the lawyer’s professional engagement. They are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency. his refusal to pay reflects his baseness.04. JINON VS. 2013 FACTS: . Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except. when in the interest of justice.It is clear that Agtang failed to fulfill this duty. for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. the courts and society render him unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in him as a member of the Bar. Agtang should have never borrowed from Foster.

00 from Jinon which he said will be used as expenses in the transfer of title. Jiz had been collecting (amounting to Php12. Atty. At the same time. Atty. Jinon paid Atty.In 2003. After accepting the case. Jiz averred that Jinon agreed that his services will be worth Php75. But Atty. Jiz only returned Php5. Jiz was remiss in his duties as a lawyer in neglecting his client’s case and misappropriating her fund. Atty.00. he violated Canons 16 and 18.00 rent. the remaining Php7.000.000. The receipt was even signed by him.000. CONRADO GANDEZA. JR. Jinon decided to terminate the services of Atty.000. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. she demanded that Atty. And since the title was not transferred in her name. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose.000. Jinon then filed an administrative case against Atty. Jinon actually still owe Atty. as well as the Php17.000. Said amount is also sufficient to cover the actual legal services he rendered to Jinon. Gloria Jinon engaged the services of Atty.000. Jiz.00.00. Jiz Php13. MTJ-09-1736 July 25. Atty. As such. In his defense. The defense raised by Atty. should be immediately returned.000. Jiz was suspended for two years. Since he was not able to act on the transfer of title. and gave legal advice to Jinon. but not used for the purpose. and that his services will only cover the protection of the rights of Jinon against her sister in law and not for the recovery of title. deducting the Php45. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. Leonardo Jiz to help her recover a land title from her sister-in-law. he asked Php45.00 she earlier paid as well as the rents that Atty. A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed to him by his client. 2011 . ATTY. Jiz return the Php45. VS JUDGE MARIA CLARITA TABIN A.000. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Jiz never made a move to cause the title to be transferred in Jinon’s name. Leonardo Jiz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.00 and the acceptance fee of Php17. Jiz cannot be given credence because it appears that the receipt for the acceptance fee he received from Jinon showed that the Php17 k was the “full payment”. Jiz sent demand letters to Jinon’s sister-in-law. Jinon demanded that Atty. Eventually. Jiz Php17.00 as acceptance fee. Jiz return the Php45. collected rents from the tenant of the disputed property.M.000. Atty. such as for the processing of transfer of land title.00).000.00 acceptance fee.00 from the rent. No.000.00. he must return Jinon’s money. Jiz. HELD: Yes.

also a lawyer. Although . spawned the impression that she was using her office to unduly influence or pressure the concerned people to conduct the medical examination as well as the investigation in their favor. HELD: No. She may have the best intention devoid of any malicious motive but sadly her actions. Later at the scene of the collision. But she did admit that the investigating officer as well as the doctor knew her to be such. however. Conrado Gandeza. She also said that when she was at the mediation center. ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Tabin is guilty of Gross Misconduct or Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge. The case also went to mediation where Gandeza also learned that Judge Tabin went to the mediation center and inquired about the case. The wife of Atty. But Judge Tabin insisted that the doctor do a second test. Later at the hospital. the cars of Atty. the result was positive. blood alcohol test was conducted on the driver of Gandeza. and Paul Casuga collided with each other. Gandeza observed that the judge kept on reminding the investigating officer that the driver of Gandeza was drunk. later observed that a court employee was bringing the records of the case outside the premises of the court where the case was filed. Judge Tabin said that she never publicly made known that she was a judge when she was at the collision scene. Her being concern of her nephew is just but natural but as member of the judiciary. she should not have disregarded the rules on proper decorum at the expense of the integrity of the court. But she is guilty of impropriety in violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.FACTS: November 2007. a criminal case was filed against the driver of Gandeza. Gandeza. she should know that she should not interfere in the conduct of an investigation. She should always appear impartial – this did not happen when she interfered with the investigation and when she borrowed the records as well as when she was at the mediation center inquiring about the records of the case. Jr. while Judge Tabin’s concern over the safety of her nephew and the outcome of his criminal case is understandable. She was the aunt of Casuga. Judge Maria Clarita Tabin arrived. Atty. The court employee said that the records were requested by Judge Tabin. In her defense. she merely went there to assist her sister (Casuga’s mom) as the latter did not know where the mediation center was located. Indeed. About a week later. The initial result returned negative. All these acts of the judge led to Gandeza’s filing of an administrative case against Judge Tabin for Gross Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge. She also said that she merely borrowed the records of the case because she learned that her nephew still did not have a lawyer. This time.

ELMER SOLIDON VS. ATTY. RAMIL MACALALAD A. 8158 February 24. ATTY. being a judge. she. should bear in mind that she is also called upon to serve the higher interest of preserving the integrity of the entire Judiciary. NO.concern for family members is deeply ingrained in the Filipino culture. 2010 FACTS: .C.

Solidon alleged that Macalalad neglected his duties and even avoided talking to him despite efforts from Solidon to communicate with Macalalad. It turns out that Macalalad never filed any petition to register the land. Further.In 2005. Macalalad should be suspended. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. It appears he failed to return Solidon’s downpayment of P50k. BAÑEZ. This is a violation of Rule 18. A lawyer. without valid excuse. on top of the recommended 3 months suspension. 9091 December 11. to render the services. ATTY. Samar. NO. The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling Solidon’s case. V. HELD: Yes. Eventually. he also violated Canon 16 when he failed to account for Solidon’s money. They agreed for a fee of P80k. shall immediately account for and promptly return the money he received from his client. Macalald was suspended for an additional 3 months or for a total of 6 months.C. Solidon then filed an administrative case against Macalalad.ET AL. when he fails to render legal services. But for 6 months after the P50k was given. Solidon gave P50k as downpayment to Macalalad and the remaining P30k shall be paid after Solidon shall receive the title over the said property. Even if the client has been equally at fault for the lack of communication. and subsequently failing. Atty. Macalalad is guilty of negligence when he neglected his client’s cause. In his defense. Atty. Macalalad cannot shift the blame to his client for failing to follow up on his case because it was the lawyer’s duty to inform his client of the status of the case. the main responsibility remains with the lawyer to inquire and know the best means to acquire the required information. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Elmer Solidon engaged the services of Atty.03. Macalalad averred that he did not file the petition because Solidon failed to update him and that Solidon never gave the documents he was asking for. Even if assuming that Solidon was also negligent. JUAN B. Hence. A. A lawyer is negligent if he failed to do anything to protect his client’s interest after receiving his acceptance fee. there is also negligence when he failed to update his client about the status of the case. Ramil Macalalad for the latter to handle the judicial titling of a parcel of land owned by the Solidons in Borongan. CONCHITA BALTAZAR. 2013 FACTS: . The Supreme Court also found that not only did Macalalad violated Canon 18. JR. the Commission on Bar Discipline recommended Macalalad to be suspended for three months. is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Macalalad never gave an update to Solidon.

Thus. Jr. Baez.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Bañez. except when in the interest of justice. Jr. which states that lawyers shall not lend money to a client.Complainants engaged the legal services of Atty. Jr. Bañez. In this case. opposed the withdrawal of their complaint in court. Bañez Jr. Complainants signed a contract of legal services. Thus. affirmed the conviction of Atty. complainants filed a case against him alleging that the motion of Atty. in connection with the recovery of their properties from Fevidal. Rodolfo Pactolin for violation of .R. however. 161455 (Pactolin vs Sandiganbayan). HELD: Section 26. 2012 FACTS: In May 2008. they have to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter they are handling for the client. 7940 April 24. ISSUE: Whether the contract of legal services entered into between the complainants and Atty. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court allows an attorney to intervene in a case to protect his rights concerning the payment of his compensation. for the recording of his attorney’s charging lien was the “legal problem” preventing them from enjoying the fruits of their property. They are also contrary to Canon 16. No. but that the docket fees would instead be shared by the parties.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. complainants terminated his services and entered into an amicable settlement with Fevidal. in G. where they would not pay acceptance and appearance fees to Atty. According to the discretion of the court. the Supreme Court. Such contracts are contrary to public policy and are thus void or inexistent. however. is champertous. complainants would pay him 50% of whatever would be recovered of the properties. In Re: Rodolfo Pactolin A. No. Later. Bañez. the attorney shall have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money rendered in a case in which his services have been retained by the client.. violated Canon 16. Jr. Bañez. Under the contract. the contract for legal services is in the nature of a champertous contract – an agreement whereby an attorney undertakes to pay the expenses of the proceedings to enforce the client’s rights in exchange for some bargain to have a part of the thing in dispute. the Court held that Atty. Jr.C. Atty.

it is imposed only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. and is henceforth disbarred. or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellowmen. Pactolin’s situation is aggravated by the fact that although his conviction has been affirmed. or good morals.C. and presented said letter as evidence in a court of law. or conduct contrary to justice. Further. honesty. It involves an act of baseness. the Supreme Court exercises the power to disbar with great caution. Rodolfo Casuga A. involves moral turpitude. in order to make it appear that his fellow councilor acting as OIC-Mayor illegally caused the disbursement of public funds. No. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice. Pactolin considering his conviction? HELD: Rodolfo Pactolin should be. As a rule. honesty. the Supreme Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for appropriate administrative actions against Pactolin. honesty. In said decisions. therefore. ISSUE: What administrative sanctions can be imposed upon Atty. Being the most severe form of disciplinary sanction. It was duly proved that Pactolin falsified a letter. or good morals. contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman. But it has always been held that it is appropriate to disbar a lawyer if he is convicted by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude. filed a disbarment case against Atty. modesty. Nevada alleged the following: .Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (Falsification by a Private Individual). 2012 FACTS: In 2007. 7591 March 20. he has not served his sentence yet. Corazon Nevada. modesty. The crime of falsification of public document is contrary to justice. Corazon Nevada vs Atty. Rodolfo Casuga. vileness. and good morals and. or to society in general.

00. That he never received the P90. Casuga represented himself as the hotel administrator of the hotel (Mt. Casuga was able to enter into a contract of lease with one Jung Chul.000. 4. Casuga is in violation of the following: 1. In effect he was notarizing a document in which he is party in violation of the notarial rules (Secs. 3. Gross Misconduct: Casuga misrepresented himself as a duly authorized representative of Nevada when in fact he was not. that Casuga notarized said agreement. He was suspended for 4 years from the practice of law. HELD: No. 27.000. Further. On the contrary. Casuga. taking advantage of his close relationship with Nevada (they belong to the same religious sect). a notarized letter showed that Casuga did receive the money. In his defense. the jewelries include diamond earrings and diamond rings amounting P300. that he still has possession of said jewelries. That in 2006. Casuga never remitted any money nor did he return said jewelries. that he negotiated an office space with Chul in said Hotel for P90. His forgery made him an actual party to the contract. Casuga acquired several pieces of jewelry from her.000. He never presented receipts. and a Rolex gold watch worth $12. His misrepresentations constitute gross misconduct and his mere denial does not overcome the evidence presented against him. that he was authorized as an agent by Edwin Nevada to enter into said contract of lease. Atty. He never adduced evidence showing that he was duly authorized either by Edwin or Corazon. Casuga said: 3. that he never remitted the P90k to Nevada. He also dialed to adduce evidence proving that he never received the P90k from Chul. He failed to adduce evidence to prove his claim that Nevada pawned said jewelries. This is still applicable even though said property/money did not come to his possession by virtue of a lawyer-client relationship. . Casuga’s wife. that as such. Crest) that Nevada own.00. the Supreme Court deemed that disbarment is too severe a punishment against Casuga. Casuga is guilty of Malpractice and Misconduct. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Malpractice of Law: As a summation of all the above violations. Casuga was still duty bound to return said jewelries upon demand by Nevada. that she later advised Casuga’s wife to redeem said jewelries using Mrs. Violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: It is his duty as a lawyer to account for all moneys and property of his client that may come to his possession. even assuming that Nevada did pawn said items. 2. The Supreme Court emphasized: the penalty of disbarment shall be meted out only when the lawyer’s misconduct borders on the criminal and/or is committed under scandalous circumstance. His notarial commission was likewise revoked and he is disqualified to be a notary public while serving his suspension.00. That Nevada actually pawned said jewelries in a pawnshop.1. that Casuga assured her that he will sell them. that it was received by a certain Pastor Oh.00. 1 and 3. However. ISSUE: Whether or not there is merit in Atty. 4.000. but despite repeated demands. that he forged the signature of Edwin Nevada (husband). That Atty. Such act is punishable under Sec. Casuga’s defense. that Casuga can sell said jewelries and reimburse herself from the proceeds. Rule IV). 2. Violation of Notarial Rules: He signed a document (contract of lease) in behalf of another person without authorization.

Atty. George Florendo A. he was able to listen to a telephone conversation where he heard Atty. Florendo were having an affair. 2011 FACTS: Atty. George Florendo has been serving as the lawyer of spouses Elpidio and Ma.Elpidio Tiong vs Atty. he suspected that his wife and Atty. Florendo mention amorous words to Ma. Elena Tiong. Elpidio. For two years. 4428 December 12. Elena. No. Florendo confronted the two and both . a US citizen is often times away. Finally in 1995.C.

Elpidio forgave Florendo and Ma. as he claims. Elena amounts to a disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action. vs Atty. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that an attorney may be disbarred or suspended from his office for any deceit. Inc. (ISCI) sold a parcel of land to Urban Bank. Florendo and Ma. knowing that the land was already transferred to UBI. ISCI then communicated with UBI so that the latter may authorize Peña to negotiate with the tenants. that they are seeking the forgiveness of their respective spouse. Florendo is correct. Code of Professional Responsibility). Peña had to . that their relationship is merely a moment of indiscretion considering that their affair went on for more than two years. ISCI’s lawyer. It cannot be also said. He violated the trust reposed upon him by his client (Canon 17. A petition for suspension or disbarment of a lawyer is a sui generis case. Inc. malpractice. Urban Bank. As such. Florendo was suspended for 6 months. This class of cases is meant to protect the public and the courts of undesirable members of the legal profession. Isabel Sugar Company. among others. Magdaleno Peña G. 145817 October 19. or other gross misconduct in office. (UBI). refused to recognize Peña. Elena. Inc. Florendo said he can no longer be sanctioned because he was already pardoned. Magdaleno Peña had to negotiate with them for them to relocate. The land was sold for P240 million. But the said occupants. No. stating that they admit of their illicit relationship. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Atty. which was later notarized. As the land was occupied by unauthorized sub-tenants. HELD: No. Florendo’s act of having an affair with his client’s wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. But nevertheless. Section 27. grossly immoral conduct. Atty. pardon by the offended party of the act complained of does not operate to offset the ground for disbarment or suspension.eventually admitted to their illicit relationship. Elena then executed and signed an affidavit.R. His illicit relationship with Ma. It showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the ethics of his profession. 2011 FACTS: In 1994. Elpidio filed a disbarment case against Florendo.

the trial court awarded him P28 million. or as much as he has earned. plus his expenses for the relocation of the tenants and the hiring of security guards or an additional P3 million. In the first place. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty.5 million. where Peña explained to him the situation. to wit. (in short. But UBI refused to make payment hence Peña filed a complaint for recovery against UBI. The trial court ruled in favor of Peña as it found there indeed was a contract of agency created between and UBI and that Peña is entitled to the 10% fee plus the expenses he incurred including litigation expenses. Peña then had a phone conversation with Teodoro Borlongan. not money. that part was not written in the written authorization released by UBI). Peña asked authorization from Borlongan to negotiate with the tenants. P1. In sum. is the primary consideration. The Court of Appeals however reversed the order of the trial court. Peña also asked that he be paid 10% of the purchase price or (P24 million) for his efforts. Borlongan agreed over the phone on the condition that Peña should be able to settle with the tenants otherwise he forfeits said 10% fee.barricade himself inside the property to keep the tenants out who were forcing their way in especially so that the local cops are now sympathetic to them. Peña should only be paid P3 million. Peña didn’t have to perform any extraordinary acts or legal maneuvering. In this case. Absent any such agreement. the principle of quantum meruit should be applied.5 million for the security guards he had to hire and another P1. In said conversation. In dealing with the tenants. he is entitled to receive P1. Total of P4. The written authorization later issued merely confirms the power granted him to negotiate with the tenants. president of UBI. other than the self-serving testimony of Peña. It ruled that no agency was formed but for his legal services.5 million for his legal services. The Supreme Court ruled that said amount is unconscionable. there was no other evidence presented to support his claim that Borlongan agreed to pay him that 10% over the phone. Peña is entitled to payment but applying the principle of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. Peña is entitled to payment for compensation for services rendered as agent of Urban Bank. Magdaleno Peña is entitled to receive the P28 million. Peña also asked that said authorization be put into writing.5 million for settling and relocating the 23 tenants. HELD: No. but on the basis of the principles of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. The Supreme Court emphasized that lawyering is not a business. Peña began sending demands to UBI for the latter to pay him the P24 million fee agreed upon. it is a profession in which duty to public service. Peña was able to settle and relocate the tenants. Hence. He is also entitled to reimbursement for his expenses in securing the property. The authorization was put into writing but no mention was made as regards the 10% fee. After everything was settled and the property is now formally under the possession of UBI. Peña is entitled to receive what he merit for his services. The written authorization proved the existence of agency but not the existence of any agreement as to how much Peña should be paid. .

. Alfredo Bentulan A. In his defense. Ten years after said dismissal.C. This resulted to the dismissal of her appeal. Bentulan said that Capili’s action is already barred by laches. that she never actually paid Bentulan for the preparation and filing of said appeal. 2011 FACTS: Capili engaged the legal services of Atty. Alfredo Bentulan as her counsel in a civil case. Bentulan failed to file the said pleading. Atty. Capili knew that the appeal was unmeritorious. 5862 October 12. that in the first place. Capili filed a disbarment case against Bentulan.Dalisay Capili vs Atty. She wanted to appeal but despite her payment for the preparation and filing of an appeal brief. Capili lost in the trial court. No.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. They are not akin to the trials of actions or suits in which interests and rights are enforced by the plaintiffs against the defendants.03. This violates Rule 18.03: A lawyer shall not neglect a matter entrusted to him. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Canon 18 – A lawyer shall service his client with competence and diligence. and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. the question of whether or not Bentulan was paid his legal services is of no moment. HELD: Yes. Alfredo Bentulan should be disciplined. Ordinary statutes of limitation had no application to disbarment or suspension proceedings against members of the Bar. if he believed that Capili’s case was unmeritorious. he should have advised Capili accordingly. . As a lawyer. These proceedings are sui generis. Further. The failure to file a brief resulting in the dismissal of an appeal constitutes inexcusable negligence. but are rather investigations into the conduct of the members of the Bar made by the Supreme Court within the context of its plenary powers expressly granted by the Constitution to regulate the practice of law. The lapse of ten years from the alleged misconduct does not bar the filing of this case. he owes fidelity to both cause and client. Rule 18. In preparing and filing the appeal brief. even if he is not paid any fee for the attorney-client relationship.