GUEVARRA v EALA

Complainant: Joselano Guevarra

Respondent: Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala
Citation: A. C 7136
Date of Promulgation: August 1, 2007
Ponente: Per Curiam [literal meaning: by the court]
FYI: Per curiam decision is a ruling issued by an appellate court of multiple judges acting collectively and
unanimously. In contrast to regular opinions, a per curiam does not list the individual judge responsible for
authoring the decision, but minority dissenting and concurring are signed

FACTS:
March 4, 2000: Joselano filed for a Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Eala (aka Nolie Eala) for
grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyers oath
January 2000: First meeting Joselanos fiance, IRENE MOJE, introduced Atty. Eala to him as her
friend who was married to MARIANNE TANTOCO, with whom he had 3 children
October 7, 2000: Marriage between Joselano and Irene
Jan March 2001: Joselano noticed that Irena has been receiving text msgs and phone calls from Atty.
Eala Content of some messages: I love you, I miss you, See you at Megamall
Joselano noticed that Irene always went home late at night or early in the morning of the following day
sometimes, she does not go home from work Irenes Alibi: she slept at her parents house in
Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work
Feb March 2001: Joselano saw Irene and Atty. Eala on 2 occasions. On the second occasion, he
already confronted Irene, who in turn, abandoned their conjugal dwelling
April 22, 2000: Joselano went to Irenes bday celebration although he was uninvited He saw Irene
celebrating with Atty. Eala and friends He then left the venue early due to humiliation, anger and
embarrassment
Irene thereafter went to their conjugal house to get all her personal belongings, pieces of furniture and
her share of household appliances
Joselano found in their bedroom a folder social card bearing the words, I LOVE YOU on its face
handwritten card dated Oct. 7, 2000 [day of their wedding]
Letter:
My everdearest Irene,

By the time you open this, you'll be moments away from walking down the aisle. I will say a
prayer for you that you may find meaning in what you're about to do.
Sometimes I wonder why we ever met. Is it only for me to find fleeting happiness but experience
eternal pain? Is it only for us to find a true love but then lose it again? Or is it because there's a
bigger plan for the two of us?
I hope that you have experienced true happiness with me. I have done everything humanly
possible to love you. And today, as you make your vows . . . I make my own vow to YOU!

I will love you for the rest of my life. I loved you from the first time I laid eyes on you, to the time
we spent together, up to the final moments of your single life. But more importantly, I will love
you until the life in me is gone and until we are together again.

Do not worry about me! I will be happy for you. I have enough memories of us to last me a
lifetime. Always remember though that in my heart, in my mind and in my soul, YOU WILL
ALWAYS

. . . AND THE WONDERFUL THINGS YOU DO!

BE MINE . . . . AND MINE ALONE, and I WILL ALWAYS BE YOURS AND YOURS ALONE!
I LOVE YOU FOREVER, I LOVE YOU FOR ALWAYS. AS LONG AS I'M LIVING MY TWEETIE
YOU'LL BE!"2

Eternally yours,
NOLI

Joselano saw Atty. Ealas car and that of Irene parked at New Manila (Irenes new residence) He also
learned that when their friends saw Irene during a concert, she was already pregnant
Atty. Ealas Answer: admitted the letter

COMPLAINT ANSWER
 14. Respondent and Irene were
even FLAUNTING THEIR
ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP as
they attended social functions
together. For instance, in or about
the third week of September 2001,
the couple attended the launch of
the "Wine All You Can" promotion
of French wines, held at the Mega
Strip of SM Megamall B at
Mandaluyong City. Their
attendance was reported in Section
B of the Manila Standard issue of
24 September 2001, on page 21.
Respondent and Irene were
photographed together; their
picture was captioned: "Irene with
Sportscaster Noli Eala." A
photocopy of the report is attached
as Annex C.4 (Italics and emphasis
in the original; CAPITALIZATION of
the phrase "flaunting their
adulterous relationship" supplied),
15. Respondent's adulterous
conduct with the complainant's
wife and his apparent abandoning
or neglecting of his own family,
demonstrate his gross moral
depravity, making him morally unfit
to keep his membership in the bar.
He flaunted his aversion to the
institution of marriage, calling it a
"piece of paper." Morally
reprehensible was his writing the
love letter to complainant's bride on
the very day of her wedding,
vowing to continue his love for her
"until we are together again," as
now they are.6 (Underscoring
supplied),
19. Respondent's grossly immoral
conduct runs afoul of the
Constitution and the laws he, as
a lawyer, has been sworn to
uphold. In pursuing obsessively
his illicit love for the complainant's
wife, he mocked the institution of
marriage, betrayed his own family,
broke up the complainant's
marriage, commits adultery with his
wife, and degrades the legal
profession.10 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied),
REPLY: Irene gave birth to a girl named SAMANTHA IRENE LOUISE MOJE Birth Certificate indicated
Atty. Eala as the father
4.Respondent
specifically denies having ever
flaunted an adulterous
relationship with Irene as alleged in
paragraph 14 of the Complaint, the
truth of the matter being that their
relationship was low profile and
known only to the immediate
members of their respective
families, and that Respondent, as
far as the general public was
concerned, was still known to be
legally married to Mary Anne
Tantoco.5 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
5. Respondent specifically denies
the allegations in paragraph 15 of
the Complaint regarding
his adulterousrelationship and that
his acts demonstrate gross moral
depravity thereby making him unfit
to keep his membership in the bar,
the reason being that Respondent's
relationship with Irene was not
under scandalous
circumstances and that as far as
his relationship with his own family:
5.1 Respondent has maintained a
civil, cordial and peaceful
relationship with [his wife] Mary
Anne as in fact they still
occasionally meet in public, even if
Mary Anne is aware
of Respondent's special friendship
with Irene.
xxxx
5.5 Respondent also denies that he
has flaunted his aversion to the
institution of marriage by calling the
institution of marriage a mere piece
of paper because his reference [in
his above-quoted handwritten letter
to Irene] to the marriage between
Complainant and Irene as a piece
of paper was merely with respect to
the formality of the marriage
contract.7 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
7. Respondent specifically denies
the allegations in paragraph 19 of
the Complaint, the reason being
thatunder the circumstances the
acts of Respondent with respect to
his purely personal and low
profile special relationship with
Irene is neither under
scandalous circumstances nor
tantamount to grossly immoral
conduct as would be a ground for
disbarment pursuant to Rule 138,
Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
11 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
 MOTION TO DISMISS: Denied having personal knowledge of said BC Reason for MTD: pendency of
an annulment case between the complainant and Irene, and criminal complaint for adultery against Irene
and Atty. Eala
IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juans Report and Recommendation:
Disbarred for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
IBP Board of Governors: annulled and set aside the Recommendation dismissed the case for lack of
merit
Complainant then filed this instant petition under Sec. 12c of Rule 139
HELD:
There is sufficient evidence. Disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath and
violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
- The statements of Atty. Eala in his ANSWER are admission that there is indeed a special
relationship between him and Irene
- BC of Samantha sufficiently proved that they have an illicit relationship. In the BC, Irene supplied
that Atty. Eala is the father of the child
- Atty. Eala neither denied that he is the father of the child, nor that he is having an adulterous
relationship with Irene
- What the respondent denies is having flaunted such relationship, he is maintaining such as low
profile and such is known only to the immediate members of their families. Denial of personal
knowledge on the BC. (NEGATIVE PREGNANT)
- Preponderance of Evidence
- He also violated the lawyers oath as to the I will support the Constitution and obey the laws
- Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct," and Rule 7.03 of Canon7 of the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from
engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law."
- The subsequent declaration of nullity of marriage between the complainant and Irene is
immaterial because such acts took place before the marriage
- Complainants withdrawal of the adultery case has no bearing to this administrative complaint
- He betrayed his unfitness to become a lawyer

FERNANDEZ v GRECIA

Complainant: Alberto Fernandez, Isabelo Ongtengco, Archilles Bartolome and St. Lukes Medical Center
Respondent: Atty. Benjamin Grecia
Citation: A. C 3694
Date of Promulgation: June 17, 1993
Ponente: Per Curiam

FACTS:
Aug. 20, 1991: Disbarment case against Atty. Grecia; For: dishonesty and grave misconduct in
connection with the theft of some pages from a medical chart, wjhich was material evidence in a
damages suit filed by his clients against the complainants
Disciplinary proceedings = class by themselves, neither civil nor criminal
Nov. 12, 1987: Atty. Grecia was disbarred for his immoral complicity or unholy alliance with a judge in
QC to rip off banks and Chinese business firms which had the misfortune to be sued in the latters court
3 years after (Dec. 18, 1990): He was reinstated after the court heeded for his pleas of compassion
and promises to mend his ways
Complaint of St. Lukes:
- Late Fe Linda Aves was 7 months pregnant when she was admitted to said hospital due to
dizziness, hypertension and abdominal pains with vaginal bleeding
- Dr. Fernandez and Dr. Bartolome examined her and diagnosed her problem as mild pre-
eclampsia. 5 days later, she was discharged from the hospital
- The next day, she was rushed again to the hospital, but died with her unborn child
 - Atty. Damaso Aves (wife) filed an action for damages against the complainants
- The medical records of Fe Aves was produced in court by St. Lukes, as requested by Atty.
Grecia, and such were entrusted to the Acting Branch Clerk of Court, Avelina Robles
- When Atty. Grecia borrowed the case folder containing said medical records, he surreptitiously
tore off 2 pages of the medical records. His acts were notified by Mrs. Robles and Maria Anet
Sandico who saw him crumpled the paper and place them in his coats pocket
- Mrs. Robles found out the pages 72-73 were missing. Atty. Grecia was followed by Sandico who
saw the former gave the crumpled papers to his driver
- Sandico reported what he saw reported such to Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong
- The man was asked by Judge Capulong to go to her chamber. She confronted the man with the
presence of the Atty. Aves, Mrs. Robles, Sandico and Atty. Melanie Limson (St. Lukes counsel)
- The man denied but when Sandico told him what she saw, the man gave the papers to Judge
Capulong
- Due to their excitement and confusion over the stolen exhibits, no one thought of identifying the
man. When Judge Capulong realized this, she went to the police station to find out who he was
- Police Investigator Arnorld Alabastro: ascertained Grecias drives only as Sid went to Grecias
house and was able to talk to his made who said that Sid was sent to the province by Grecia
- Grecia himself denied
- Neighbors of Grecia: confirmed that Sid was Grecias driver
- Judge Capulong later inhibited herself to this case
August 20, 1991: Complaint for disbarment
Grecia: denied - He alleged that the person who was caught in possession of the detached pages was
actually planted by his adversaries to destroy his reputation; denied having a driver; Alabastros
investigation was a mere fabrication for he had never seen him before
Testimonies of Atty. Aves: It was Atty. Bu Castro who tore the pages
HELD:
The charge against Atty. Grecia is true
- By stealing 2 pages from Linda Aves medical report and passing them to his driver, Grecia
violated Rule 1. 01, Canon 1 [A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and
deceitful conduct] of the Rules of Professional Responsibility as well as 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] thereof:
- A lawyer is an officer of the courts, he is like the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance
the needs of people. An incorrigible practitioner of dirty tricks like Grecia would be ill-suited to
discharge the role of an instrument to advance the ends of justice
- By descending to the level of a common thief, Grecia has demeaned and disgraced the legal
profession. He has demonstrated moral unfitness to continue as member of the Honorable
fraternity of lawyers.
- He has forfeited his membership to the bar
- Grecia is guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty and grossly unethical behavior as a lawyer
- Considering that it is his 2nd offense against the canons of the profession, the Court resolved to
impose upon him once more the supreme penalty of DISBARMENT
- License is cancelled. Striking out of his name in the RoA

C. F YUSECO and DCA Bernad

Complainant: Atty. Joaquin Yuseco and Benjamin Grecia

Respondent: Deputy Court Administrator Joaquin Bernad
Citation: A. M 94-1-061-SC
Date of Promulgation: March 29, 1995
Ponente: Mendoza, J

FACTS:
This Complaint was filed by Atty. Yuseco and Grecia against DCA Bernad, charging him with
suppressing facts and making false statements in his report to the Court in the disbarment case against
Grecia for purposes of causing injury to the latter
Doctors Alberto Fernandez, Isabelo Ongtengco and Archilles Bartolome and St. Lukes Medical
Center: filed for a Disbarment Case against Atty. Grecia [related sa previous case yung facts]
Said case was assigned to Bernad for investigation, report and recommendation
Dec. 18, 1992: Bernad submitted a report stating that Grecia is guilty of charges. He refrained form
recommending the penalty, but instead left the matter to the discretion of the court, observing that
whether the penalty should be disbarment or suspension, the two are severe forms of disciplinary action
which should be resorted to only in cass where a lawyer demonstrates an attribute or course of conduct
wholly inconsistent in the approved professional standard
June 17, 1993: The Court adopted the findings of Bernad, and ordered Grecias disbarment
 Grecia: Motion for New Investigation and Recommendation = denied. Filed for MR = denied
In view of such , Grecia and his counsel, Atty. Yuseco filed this Complaint for Falsification by Public
Officer as defined in Art. 171 of RPC and for viol of 3e of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act with
the Office of the Ombudsman
Bernad was required to Comment
Said case was dismissed
Complainants charge respondent with (1) submitting a report and recommendation to this Court in the
disbarment case without furnishing complainant Benjamin Grecia with a copy thereof; (2) falsifying his
written report by narrating facts which are absolutely false; (3) deliberately not revealing his relationship
with former Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan, whose brother-in-law, Atty. Pompeyo Nolasco of the Quasha
law firm, is the counsel for complainant-doctors in the disbarment case as well as in Civil Case No. 3548-
V-91 which Grecia had filed against the doctors and the hospital.
Held:
Case was dismissed.
The truth is that even a cursory examination of the grounds alleged in the present complaint will show
the utter baselessness of the charges. Complainants' allege
[1] Respondent did not include or mention in the slightest degree the contents and handwritten entries in the
stolen pages which show beyond doubt that they were favorable to Grecia's clients.
This allegation is made in an effort to show that Grecia had no motive in stealing the pages. This defense
might be considered if there was no evidence that Grecia had been seen removing the pages. But the
fact is that two witnesses, who are personnel of the RTC in which the case was being heard, pointed to
Grecia as the person who had removed two pages of the medical chart.
[2] Respondent suppressed the testimony of Judge Capulong that Grecia was not present when the incident
happened.
Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong, before whom the case was pending at the time of the incident, did not
testify that complainant was not present at the time of the incident. What she said was that she "could
not see Atty. Grecia" during the confrontation with the unidentified person found in possession of the
stolen pages. Judge Capulong's testimony did not exculpate Grecia. To the contrary, according to Judge
Capulong, it was either Mrs. Avelina Robles, from whom Grecia allegedly got the medical chart, or Ms.
Sandico, another court personnel who saw Grecia tear off the pages, who reported to her that Grecia
had pulled pages of the medical record.
[3] Respondent suppressed the fact that it was the lawyers of complainants in the disbarment case who had
secured a falsified document and passed it off as the missing pages which were recovered from an
unidentified person.
There was no credible evidence presented in the disbarment proceedings to prove this allegation. The
alleged discrepancy with respect to appearance and numbering of the stolen pages between the original
copies and the photocopies was more apparent than real. It was mentioned in respondent's report but
given no weight in view of the satisfactory explanation given by the personnel of St. Luke's who prepared
the original copy and caused the numbering of the pages to be made in accordance with standard
procedure. 12
[4] Respondent suppressed the material contradictions in the testimony of the two court personnel and the
inherent impossibility of their testimony due to the arrangement of the chairs, tables, desk, etc., that
completely obstructed their view and sight. Respondent also wrongfully withheld pictures which show their
relative positions.
Contrary to complainants' claim, there were no material contradictions in the testimonies of the court
personnel. Their testimonies were spontaneous and direct to the point, which make them credible and
truthful. 13 On the other hand, the pictures submitted by Grecia do not show that the witnesses could not
have seen him in the act of detaching the pages. The arrangement of the chairs, tables and desks did
not obstruct the view of the inside of the court. Anyone sitting on any of the chairs could easily be seen
from any part of the court.
[5] Respondent suppressed the admission of Mrs. Robles on cross-examination that she did not see Grecia
removing the pages from the medical record.
The records contain no such admission by Mrs. Robles. Nowhere in the report of the hearings
conducted, particularly the hearing of August 4, 1992 when Mrs. Robles testified, does it appear that
Mrs. Robles contradicted her earlier testimony that she had seen Grecia removing two pages of the
medical chart. To the contrary, together with Ms. Sandico, Mrs. Robles stoutly maintained that it was
Grecia who had detached the pages.
[6] Respondent suppressed and withheld from the court the admission of complainants' lawyer, Atty. Bu
Castro, that he was the one who borrowed the medical chart and not Atty. Grecia.
 It was unnecessary to mention this considering that according to Mrs. Robles, the official custodian of
the report, both Atty. Castro and Grecia had separately borrowed the report. What was important was
that there was direct testimony as to who was responsible for tearing off the pages.
[7] Respondent suppressed the fact that there was no confusion and that the man from whom Judge
Capulong allegedly got the pages of the medical record stayed in the courtroom for sometime but neither the
clerk, the judge nor the lawyers of the complainants caused his arrest, filed a motion for contempt, or got his
name and full identity.
This is not true. The removal of pages of the medical report created a commotion in the court as a result
of which Mrs. Robles fainted and she had to be taken to the hospital. The records show this happened
after the stolen pages had been recovered and the incident was reported to the police at the instance of
Judge Capulong. Mrs. Robles, Ms. Sandico and Judge Capulong gave testimonies about the incident to
respondent Bernad at the hearing of the disbarment case.
[8] Respondent criminally suppressed and withheld the fact that no complaint and no affidavit was filed in the
case and that the records of Civil Case No. 3548-V-91 do not contain any report, affidavit or complaint or
information on the alleged untoward incident.
There was no evidence in the record of the disbarment case to show the supposed lack of complaint
against Grecia or the unidentified person as a result of the incident. Accordingly no such "fact" could
have been mentioned in the report. Nor was it material that there was allegedly no complaint made of the
attempt to destroy evidence by the removal of certain pages of the medical record. Judge Capulong
explained that she and the court personnel were so unnerved by the incident that they failed to get the
name of the person from whom they recovered the missing pages and charge him in court. The Judge
testified, however, that she instructed Ms. Sandico to report the matter to the police.
Nor is there truth to the claim of the complainants that no report or information regarding the incident was
mentioned in the damage suit, Civil Case No. 3548-V-91. In her orders dated July 16, 1991 and July 23,
1991, Judge Capulong specifically mentioned the "untoward incident" which she explained in her
testimony to be the incident involving the tearing off of pages of the medical chart.
[9] Respondent suppressed the fact that long after the alleged incident, the Quasha Law Office got back the
medical chart without any protest or reservation that any page or pages thereof were lost, detached, torn or
crumpled.
Whether the medical record was intact and received by the law office without protest that it was not
complete is immaterial to the charge against complainant Grecia. The issue against him was the
removal, not the recovery, of the pages in question.
[10] Respondent did not exert effort to have the mystery man produced before him so he can be confronted.
He alone can prove what paper or papers were given to him and who gave it to him. He did not seek the help
of the National Bureau of Investigation to find the unidentified person.
Respondent did not have a duty to bring the unidentified man before him. That was the duty of the
parties to the case. His job was to make findings on the basis of evidence submitted to him. On the basis
of such evidence Grecia was found to have torn off the pages and later given them to the unknown
person.
[11] Respondent withheld evidence of similar act of planting evidence by the Quasha Law Office.
This is not true. On page 15 of his report respondent stated:
These statements of Atty. Yuseco were controverted by the lawyers from the Quasha Law Office who
asserted that in the Tan Ping Hok case, there was no eyewitness to sustain the charge of evidence
planting, while in the instant case, there are two eyewitnesses who are judicial personnel and whose
integrity as witnesses was never doubted nor put in issue by both parties.
[12] Respondent suppressed and did not include in his findings the following facts which are decidedly
destructive of his absolutely false findings of facts:
a. No one identified the stolen pages as the ones which had been detached.
This allegation is false. At the hearing held on August 4, 1992, the pages were identified by Mrs. Robles
as those which had been filched by Grecia and later recovered from the unidentified person. They were
marked as Exhibits A and B. 14
b. The testimony of Damaso Aves that he saw Atty. Castro holding the medical record and later hand a piece
of paper to the unidentified person.
The testimony of Aves was accounted for in respondent's report, although respondent did not give it
much weight for the following reason stated in his report:
Assuming arguendo that the unidentified man accosted and confronted by Judge Capulong was the man
actually seen by Atty. Aves receiving the questioned papers from Atty. Castro, it is rather surprising why
Atty. Aves did not mention such incident to Judge Capulong during the meeting in her chambers. And
 instead of simply insisting that nobody, but nobody, took interest in detaining the unidentified man and
establishing his identity, why did not Atty. Aves take such initiative considering that he has as much
interest in establishing the identity of that person? Moreover, from among those concerned, he alone had
the opportunity to observe that the unidentified man was still present in the courtroom even after the
confrontation in the chamber of Judge Capulong.
[13] Respondent failed to reveal the evil motive behind the complaint against Grecia. This motive originated
from Grecia's successful cross-examination of the doctors who were the defendants in the case for damages
from whom damaging admissions were elicited.
This was mentioned although again it was not believed by respondent. On page 15 of his report,
respondent Bernad stated:
On the purported scheme to destroy respondent Atty. Grecia, this has something to do with the hearing
on June 24, 1991 where the latter succeeded in calling Dr. Alberto Fernandez to the witness stand as his
hostile witness and allegedly elicited from him damaging admissions over the vigorous objections of Atty.
Bu Castro. A perusal of the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the hearing (Exhibits "E to
E-42", pp. 219 to 261, ibid) do not, however, show such fiasco.
Fourth. Complainants allege that respondent Bernad is a close personal friend of Atty. Pompeyo Nolasco,
counsel of the complainants in the disbarment case against Grecia, and that because of this Bernad's
objectivity and impartiality were in "grave doubt and in serious question."
Atty. Nolasco is a brother-in-law of former Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan. While acknowledging his
gratitude to the former Chief Justice for appointing him to his present position, respondent denies that he
is beholden to the former Chief Justice or that he maintains "fellowship" with him and Atty. Nolasco. As
respondent points out, the fact was that the disbarment case was assigned to him three months after
Chief Justice Fernan had retired from the Court. Indeed, aside from this allegation, there is no evidence
in the record to support the charge of complainants.

In conclusion, we find no basis for the charge that respondent suppressed material facts in his
report which this Court adopted in its decision disbarring complainant Grecia. What
complainants charge as suppressions in the report are in reality omissions of facts which in the
exercise of sound judgment were found to be immaterial. Complainants confuse appreciation of
evidence with suppression of facts. The so-called omissions are the inevitable result of the
evaluation of the evidence the sifting of the grain from the chaff rather that the suppression
of truth.

BARRIENTOS V DAAROL - Jan 29, 1993

Victoria Barrientos single, 1st year college when she came to know respondent Transfiguracion Daarol
in 1969 thru her sis Norma. She was 20 y/o during her relationship w Daarol, who was the General
Manager of Zamboanga Del Norte Electric Cooperative (ZANECO), 41 y/o.
Transfiguracion Daarol married to Romualda A. Sumaylo, w whom he has a son. Separated for 16
years during his relationship w Victoria.
o Former student of Victorias father, and former classmate of Victorias mother. Also friends w
Victorias siblings, Norma, Baby, Delia, and Boy
o Became acquainted with Victoria, when sometime, he invited her to be one of the usherettes in
the Masons Convention in June 28-30, 1973, where he used to fetch her at her residence in the
morning and took her home from the convention site after each days activities
Aug 30, 1973 Daarol invited Victoria at the Lopez Skyroom in Dipolog City for a certain event, but at
10PM they left the place and went to Sicayab Airport. There happened their first sexual intercourse.
Thereafter, they usually go on joyrides which end up at the airport where they used to make love at least
twice or thrice a week.
 September 1973 Victoria noticed her menstruation delay and so she submitted herself to a pregnancy
test which provided a positive result. At first, Daarol told her to get the fetus aborted but she refused, and
so Daarol promised to marry her in December of the same year.
It was agreed that Victoria would deliver the child in Manila. Victoria and her mother went there first at
her bro-in-laws house in October 22, 1973
Daarol followed suit on October 26, 1973 in Singalong, Manila, and there he said he couldnt marry
Victoria as he was still married w his 1st wife. He assured Victoria though that he was already separated
w his wife for 16 years and will work on the annulment of their marriage immediately, and subsequently
Victoria. He also assured her of a monthly support of P250.
June 14, 1974 Victoria delievered a baby girl named Dureza Barrientos at the Good Shepherd
Convent at Banawe Hill, Cebu City. Later on she tried to contact Daarol by phone but to no avail. She
then decided to file an admin case against Daarol w the Natl Electrification Administration, which was
referred to ZANECO, but was later on dismissed. Hence, this case.
ISSUE: Should Daarol be disbarred as a lawyer?
HELD: There was deception on the part of Daarol when:
o He never informed Victoria of his civil status. Only did when Victoria got preggers
o He misrepresented himself to be eligible to re-marry because he was already separated w his
wife for 16 years
Perverted sense of his moral values when he said: I see nothing wrong w this relationship despite my
being married.
o Pangan v Ramos: Even his act in making love to another woman while his first wife is still alive
and their marriage still valid and existing is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality.
Respondent made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and
dignity.
Daarol even claimed he was a Moslem convert, and as such he is entitled to 4 marriages. However, this
claim is not supported by any evidence, OSG:
o If he were a moslem convert entitled to 4 wives, as he is now claiming, why did he not marry
complainant?
o Daarol said even though he was a moslem convert, he could not validly enter into another civil
ceremony w/o committing bigamy since Victoria is a Christian.
o If respondent knew, that notwithstanding his being a moslem convert, he cannot marry
complainant, then it was grossly immoral for him to have sexual intercourse with complainant
because he knew the existence of a legal impediment.
Hence, his removal for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar on the grounds of deceit and grossly
immoral conduct (Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court) is in order. Good moral character is a condition
which precedes admission to the Bar (Sec. 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court) and is not dispensed with upon
admission thereto.
Transfiguracion Daarol guilty of grossly immoral conduct unworthy of being a member of the Bar and is
hereby ordered DISBARRED and his name stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.

BALAOING V CALDERON Apr 27, 1993

Several administrative complaints filed by Balaoing against different judges.
V. Judge Jaime Dojillo (MTC Olongapo City)
o Balaoing was required to show why he should not be disciplinarily dealt for suppressing certain
material facts of which he was charged with knowledge and for having engaged in forum-
shopping.
o Balaoings motion for reconsideration was denied, his explanation was declared unsatisfactory
and he was severely censured for having instituted a patently unfounded and frivolous admin
action and warned that the commission of same conduct will be dealt more severely.
o Dismissed for lack of merit.
V. Judge Santiago Maliwanag (RTC Iba, Zambales)
o Charged w Grave misconduct for failure and refusal to issue corresponding writ of action
(pending appeal) prayed for by complainant in his motion in civil case, ZABALA vs. BUENO.
o Court was disturbed by Balaoings use of unsavory, defamatory and offensive language against
Judge: It is well to advise Judge Maliwanag not to be wearing his brief (short) while in his
chamber during office hours; it is downright undignified, especially so when his body has traces
of fungus, which was have been afflicted during his 26 years as Assistant City Fiscal of
Olongapo City, a dirty city.
o Complaint was dismissed. Balaoing was suspended for 1 year. And was imposed upon a fine of
P1K for Violation of the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with a stern warning
that subsequent similar infractions shall be dealt with more severely.
V. Leopoldo T. Calderon
o Filed complaint against CALDERON for grave abuse of authority and malicious delay in
administration of justice.
o CALDERON does not follow the Circular and merely treats it as directory; practice of Judge to
automatically grant postponements and deferment of hearing of cases to a later hour whenever
 his OIC makes a manifestation in open court that a certain lawyer or party called up requesting
that his case be postponed.
o Judge drinks a lot and fraternizes openly.
o Causes the delay of cases because:
He allowed defendants to keep postponing hearings more than 1 year.
He cahoots with deputy sheriff, unlawfully prevented implementation of writ of
Possession.
o Charged both CALDERON AND OIC LEONOR MANIAGO with misconduct, grave abuse of
authority and malicious delay in admin of justice.
o OIC MANIAGO alleges BALAOING calling her notorious, swindler, insane.
Judge Calderons comment:
o Balaoing won a foreclosure case and became the highest bidder in the public auction, Certificate
of Sale was issued and registered.
o He prevented the writ of Possession due to prejudice: Eliseo Gavilans widow (former owner),
Alice and children were residing in the properties; period to redeem the properties had not yet
expired.
o When redemption period elapsed, he issued writ of possession but up to present time, Balaoing
has not yet taken possession and showed his disinterest.
Judge Maliwanags comment re: charges with gross ignorance of the law for allegedly issuing a patently
unjust order:
o His order was issued based on jurisprudence, equity and justice, in order to prevent an unjust
and inequitable execution of the judgment and an injustice perpetrated by a lawyer on the
unlearned and poor couple from the barrio.
o Same complaint was dismissed by the Office of the Court Administrator on the ground that the
same failed to specifically show and prove the facts constituting the charge of gross ignorance
of the law. The allegation of the complainant are not only laconic and general but they are also
based on mere and personal, interpretations of the complainant on the law instead of material
allegations of facts.
ISSUE: WON Balaoing is guilty of gross misconduct
HELD: YES.
o CANON 11: Lawyer shall observe and maintain respect due to the courts and to judicial officers
and should insist on similar conduct by others.

Rule 11.03: Lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before Courts.

Rule 11.04: Lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by record or
have no materiality to the case.
o Complaints are based on his personal interpretation of the law and not on material allegations of
fact, substantiated by solid evidence.
o Balaoings wanton disregard of Our stern warning not to again file baseless and frivolous
complaints which only clog the already full dockets of this Court instead of serve the ends of
justice, and his adamant refusal to abide by the above-quoted provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which serve to regulate a lawyers conduct in this jurisdiction, have
shown complainant Balaoing's unfitness to hold the license to practice law.
o Administrative complaints dismissed. Balaoing is disbarred.

BAUTISTA V GONZALES Feb 12, 1990

Angel L. Bautista submitted an amended complaint for disbarment, alleging that Atty. Ramon A.
Gonzales committed the following acts:
o Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients, namely, Alfaro Fortunado, Nestor
Fortunado and Editha Fortunado [hereinafter referred to as the Fortunados] to pay all expenses,
including court fees, for a contingent fee of fifty percent (50%) of the value of the property in
litigation.
o Acting as counsel for the Fortunados in Civil Case No. Q-15143, wherein Eusebio Lopez, Jr. is
one of the defendants and, without said case being terminated, acting as counsel for Eusebio
Lopez, Jr. in Civil Case No. Q-15490
o Transferring to himself one-half of the properties of the Fortunados, which properties are the
subject of the litigation in Civil Case No. Q-15143, while the case was still pending
o Inducing complainant (Angel), who was his former client, to enter into a contract with him on
August 30, 1971 for the development into a residential subdivision of the land involved in Civil
Case No. Q-15143, covered by TCT No. T-1929, claiming that he acquired fifty percent (50%)
interest thereof as attorney's fees from the Fortunados, while knowing fully well that the said
 property was already sold at a public auction on June 30, 1971, by the Provincial Sheriff of
Lanao del Norte and registered with the Register of Deeds of Iligan City.
o Submitting to the Court of First Instance of Quezon City falsified documents purporting to be true
copies of Addendum to the Land Development Agreement dated August 30, 1971 and
submitting the same document to the Fiscal's Office of Quezon City, in connection with the
complaint for estafa filed by respondent against complainant designated as I.S. No. 7512936
o Committing acts of treachery and disloyalty to complainant who was his client
o Harassing the complainant by filing several complaints without legal basis before the Court of
First Instance and the Fiscal's Office of Quezon City
o Deliberately misleading the Court of First Instance and the Fiscals Office by making false
assertion of facts in his pleadings
o Filing petitions cleverly prepared (so) that while he does not intentionally tell a he, he does not
tell the truth either.
Apr 11, 1989 SolGen submitted report with the recommendation that Atty. Ramon A. Gonzales be
suspended for six (6) months. The Solicitor General found that respondent committed the following acts
of misconduct:
o transferring to himself one-half of the properties of his clients during the pendency of the case
where the properties were involved
o concealing from complainant the fact that the property subject of their land development
agreement had already been sold at a public auction prior to the execution of said agreement
o misleading the court by submitting alleged true copies of a document where two signatories who
had not signed the original (or even the xerox copy) were made to appear as having fixed their
signatures
Apr 14, 1989 Gonzales filed a motion to refer the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation and disposition pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court
ISSUE # 1: WON the Solicitor General was limited to the determination of whether or not there is
sufficient ground to proceed with the case and that under Rule 139 the Solicitor General still has to file
an administrative complaint against him.
o Under Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 139-B, the Supreme Court may conduct disciplinary
proceedings without the intervention of the IBP by referring cases for investigation to the Solicitor
General or to any officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court. In such a case, the
report and recommendation of the investigating official shall be reviewed directly by the Supreme
Court.
o Secondly, there is no need to refer the case to the IBP since at the time of the effectivity of Rule
139-B [June 1, 1988] the investigation conducted by the Office of the Solicitor General had been
substantially completed. Section 20 of Rule 139-B provides that only pending cases, the
investigation of which has not been substantially completed by the Office of the Solicitor
General, shall be transferred to the IBP.
o Thirdly, there is no need for further investigation since the Office of the Solicitor General already
made a thorough and comprehensive investigation of the case.
ISSUE # 2: WON respondent committed the acts of misconduct alleged by complainant Bautista.
o The record shows that respondent prepared a document entitled Transfer of Rights which was
signed by the Fortunados on August 31, 1971. The document assigned to respondent one-half
(1/2) of the properties of the Fortunados covered by TCT No. T-1929, with an area of 239.650
sq. mm., and TCT No. T-3041, with an area of 72.907 sq. m., for and in consideration of his legal
services to the latter. At the time the document was executed, respondent knew that the
abovementioned properties were the subject of a civil case [Civil Case No. Q-15143] pending
before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City since he was acting as counsel for the
Fortunados in said case.
o It should be noted that the persons mentioned in Art. 1491 of the Civil Code are prohibited from
purchasing the property mentioned therein because of their existing trust relationship with the
latter. A lawyer is disqualified from acquiring by purchase the property and rights in litigation
because of his fiduciary relationship with such property and rights, as well as with the client. And
it cannot be claimed that the new Code of Professional Responsibility has failed to emphasize
the nature and consequences of such relationship. Canon 17 states that a lawyer owes fidelity
to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him." On
the other hand, Canon 16 provides that "a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of
his client that may come into his possession.
o Respondents next contention that the transfer of the properties was not really implemented,
because the land development agreement on which the transfer depended was later rescinded,
is untenable. Nowhere is it provided in the Transfer of Rights that the assignment of the
properties of the Fortunados to respondent was subject to the implementation of the land
development agreement.
o Another misconduct committed by respondent was his failure to disclose to complainant, at the
time the land development agreement was entered into, that the land covered by TCT No.
 T-1929 had already been sold at a public auction. The land development agreement was
executed on August 31, 1977 while the public auction was held on June 30, 1971.
The Court finds clearly established in this case that on four counts the respondent violated the law and
the rules governing the conduct of a member of the legal profession. Sworn to assist in the
administration of justice and to uphold the rule of law, he has miserably failed to live up to the standards
expected of a member of the Bar.
WHEREFORE, finding that respondent Attorney Ramon A. Gonzales committed serious misconduct, the
Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law for SIX (6) months effective from the
date of his receipt of this Resolution.

Enrique Zaldivar vs Sandiganbayan and Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez

[Background: April 27, 1988

Zaldivar, governor of Antique, was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violations of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.
- Gonzales was the Tanodbayan who was investigating the case

Zaldivar filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to restraun the Sandiganbayan from
proceeding with the prosecution.

Supreme Court issued a Cease and Desist Order against Gonzalez directing him to temporarily restrain from
investigating and filing information against Zaldivar.

Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and filed criminal information against Zaldivar.
- he had an interview where he claimed he scored one on the Supreme Court; and that the Supreme
Court's issuance of the TRO is a manifestation that rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the
Supreme Court

Zaldivar filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez.

The Supreme Court ordered Gonzalez to explain his side.

- he was just exercising his freedom of speech; entitled to criticize the Supreme Court's rulings
- he was approached by not less than 6 justices and asked to go slow on Zaldivar and not embarrass
the Supreme Court

Gonzalez was found guilty of contempt and was penalized by suspension from practice indefinitely.]

Feb 1, 1989
Gonzalez claimed it was an error for the Court to charge him with indirect contempt and convict him of direct
contempt.
- In the per curiam, the Court concluded that respondent is guilty of both contempt and gross
misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the bar
- misconduct of Gonzalez as serious acts flaunted in the face of the Court, constituting a frontal
assault upon the integrity of the Court, and through the Court, the entire Justice System

The Court required Gonzalez to explain why he should not be punished for contempt of court and/or be
subject to administrative sanctions
- he was given ample opportunity to present all defenses, arguments and evidence
- the Court did not summarily impose punishment which it could have done through Sec. 1 of Rule
71 of the Revised Rules of Court

Gonzalez filed a motion for referral of the case either to the Solicitor general or to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines under Rule 139 (b)
- Under the old rule, Rule 139, proceedings for the removal or suspension of attorneys may be taken
by the Supreme Court on its own motion or upon the complaint under oath of another in writing

- There was no need to further investigate the facts of the case for it was not substantially disputed
by Gonzales that he uttered or wrote certain statements against the Supreme Court
- He was given ample opportunity to explain his side, but did not deny his statements, rather he
raised that he should not be liable for such commentary
- The issue in the case at bar are issues of law and of basic policy; the Court, not any other agency
is compelled to resolve such issue
 - The judge who funds himself compelled to exercise the power to punish for contempt does not so
to avenge a wrong inflicted upon his own person, but he merely upholds the authority, dignity and integrity of
the judicial institution and its claim to respectful behavior

Gonzalez urged that the Court erred in applying the "visible tendency" rule rather than the "clear and present
danger" rule in disciplinary and contempt charges.
- Visible tendency doctrine is Sec. 3, Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court paraphrased; penalizes
contumacious conduct including: obstruct or degrade of the administration of justice
- Balancing-of-interests test is another criterion for permissible limitation (on freedom of expression);
it required the court to take conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a
given situation or type of situation
- Freedom of expression is not absolute.
- Under the clear and present danger test or the balancing of interest test, the Court found Gonzalez'
statements to transcend the permissible limits of speech

Gonzalez claimed that intent is irrelevant in charges of misconduct

- Gonzalez' disclaimer of an intent to attack and denigrate the Court cannot prevail over the plain
import of what he said

Gonzalez' argued that it is the Court's error to punish respondent for contempt of court for our of court
publications (Gonzalez cited foreign references -UK and US cases)
- Not binding in our jurisdiction

Gonzalez' plead that indefinite suspension from practice of law constituted cruel, degrading and inhuman
punishment
- Sanction has the effect of giving respondent the chance to purge himself in his own good time of
his contempt and misconduct by acknowledging such misconduct

Gonzalez motion for reconsideration denied for lack of merit.

Julieta Narag vs Atty. Dominador Narag

November 13, 1989, Mrs. Narag filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against her husband for
violating Canons 1 and 6, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Ethics for Lawyers.
- Atty. Narag courted one of her students, Ms. Gina Espita, using his influence as her teacher and as
a prominent member of the legal profession.
- Atty. Narag left his family and decided to live with Ms. Espita. Atty. Narag used his power and
influence as a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan to cause the employment of Espita at
the DTI, Makati Office, and out of gratitude, she agreed to live with him.

June 26, 1990, the Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation and recommendation.

The office of Chief Justice Fernan received another letter from Mrs. Narag seeking the dismissal of the
administrative complaint. She alleged:
a. that she fabricated the allegations to humiliate her husband
b. the love letters between Atty. Narag and Espita were forged
c. she was suffering from extreme jealousy and emotional confusion
d. her husband remained a faithful and responsible family man

She filed with the IBP an affidavit of desistance and a motion to dismiss, which made the IBP dismiss the
complaint.

November 25, 1991, the Court received another letter from Mrs. Narag and her 7 children (as co-signatories)
appealing for the disbarment of Atty. Narag. She explained that she earlier dropped the charges because of
his threats against her.

Atty. Narag filed his comment and prayed that the earlier decision (dismissal of complaint) be affirmed.
- He denied having threatened, harassed or intimidated his wife.
- He professed his love for his wife and children
- He denied abandoning his family for his paramour
- He claimed that his wife is incurably jealous and possessive

In the hearing before the IBP Commissioner Plaridel Jose, Atty. Narag alleged:
- that he came from a poor family, and that his wife came from what she claims to be very rich
parents, and abhors the poor
 - that he has a loving upbringing and nurtured better than his wife, whose value system is the very
opposite
- that he was family-oriented, having done all he could in 38 years of marriage to protect and
preserve his family

July 18, 1997, investigating officer submitted his report and recommended for the indefinite suspension of
Atty. Narag.
- the witnesses of the respondent depicted Mrs. Narag as an incurably jealous wife
- respondent did not present himself to testify
- Espita was not presented to testify in disproving the adulterous relationship
- denial that he fathered 2 children with Espita is a ground for disciplinary action

August 23, 1997, the IBP adopted the investigating commissioner's recommendation.

Mrs. Narag filed a Manifestation/Comment seeking the disbarment of Atty. Narag, and the IBP granted this
stiffer penalty.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Narag is guilty of misconduct, in his alleged affair with Espita.

Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing qualification
for all members of the bar.

Immoral conduct must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible

to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common
sense of decency,

A lawyer may be disbarred for any misconduct whether in his professional or private capacity.

Erlinda I. Bildner and Maximo K. Ilusorio vs Erlinda, Ramon, Marietta, Shereen Ilusorio, Cecilia Bisua,
and Atty. Manuel Singson

Potenciano Ilusorio - lawyer and husband of Erlinda K. Ilusorio

Erlinda K. Ilusorio - wife of Potenciano Ilusorio
Children:
Erlinda I. Bildner
Maximo Ilusorio
Sylvia K. Ilusorio
Atty. Manuel Singson - lawyer of Ramon Ilusorio

[Background:
Atty. Potenciano Ilusorio and Erlinda K. Ilusorio separated from bed and board in 1972.
- Potenciano lived in Makati
- Erlinda lived in Antipolo

December 1997, upon Atty. Potenciano's arrival from the US, he stayed with Erlinda for 5 months in Antipolo.
- Sylvia and Erlinda I. Bildner alleged that during this time, their mother overdosed their father with
Zoloft, an antidepressant prescribed by the latter's doctor in the US.

Erlinda K. Ilusorio, in February 1998, filed with the RTC of Antipolo a petition for guardianship over the
person and property of Atty. Potenciano.

May 1998, after a corporate meeting in Baguio, Atty. Potenciano did not return to Antipolo, and instead lived
at Cleveland Condominium, Makati.

Erlinda K. Ilusorio filed with the CA a petition for habeas corpus to have the custody of Atty. Potenciano.
- She alleged that Sylvia and Erlinda I. Bildner refused her demands to see and visit her husband
and prohibited Potenciano from returning to Antipolo City.

CA denied the petition for Habeas Corpus filed by Erlinda K. Ilusorio to have custody of her husband.
- Potenciano is of sound mind and not unlawfully restrained of his liberty
- Allowed Erlinda K. Ilusorio and her childrenvisitation rights

Erlinda K. Ilusorio petitioned to reverse CA's decision.

Potenciano Ilusorio petitioned to annul the portion of the CA's decision giving Erlinda K. Ilusorio visitation
rights.

May 12, 2000, the Supreme Court dismissed Erlinda K. Ilusorio's petition for lack of merit, and grants the
petition of Atty. Potenciano.

Erlinda moved for the reconsideration of the case and followed it with a Motion to Set Case for Preliminary
Conference, requesting that she and Potenciano be allowed to be by themselves together in front of the
Court. She reiterated this request in an Urgent Manifestation and Motion dated Aug. 25, 2000.

The Court set the case for preliminary conference on October 2000, but without requiring the mandatory
presence of the parties.

January 2001, the Court in a resolution denied Erlinda K. Ilusorio's manifestation and motion.
- She again sought for reconsideration.

March 2001, the Court denied with finality Erlinda K. Ilusorio's motion for reconsideration of the January 2001
resolution.
- She filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion for Clarification of the Court's January 2001
resolution, that which the Court merely noted.

July 2001, the Court denied Erlinda K. Ilusorio's motion for reconsideration of the May 2000 decision.

July 2002, the Court resolved to expunge from the records Erlinda K. Ilusorio's repetitive motions, with the
caveat that no further pleadings shall be entertained.
- this time represented by Dela Cruz Albano & Associates, she sought leave to file an urgent motion
for reconsideration of the July 2002 resolution.
---
Erlinda K. Ilusorio
- published a book On the Edge of Heaven, containing commentaries on the habeas corpus case,
which questioned the Courts administration of justice.
- addressed 3 letters to then Chief Justice Davide
1. Seeking assistance to see Potenciano.
2. Chafed at what she considered the Courts bent to adhere to forms and procedure; urged the
Court to personally see Potenciano
3. Regarding Ramon K. Ilusorio vs Baguio Country Club, where Atty. Singson was counsel, she
tagged the decision of the Court as appalling; she made reference to the Court giving special treatment to
particular litigants
---
Atty. Singson's disbarment case stemmed from his alleged attempt to exert influence on presiding RTC
Judge Antonio Reyes to rule in favor of his client (Ramon) in a civil case.
- came in the form of a bribe offer
- Atty. Singson called Judge Reyes for 20-50 times; asked his classmate, Atty. Sevilla, at ADMU Law
Schoo, to give Judge Reyes P500,000 for the purpose of ruling in Ramon's favor.
---
Petitioners filed a complaint against respondents for indirect contempt for alleged contemptuous remarks
and acts directed against the Court.

A complaint for disbarrment or disciplinary action against respondent was filed for alleged gross misconduct.

The Court directed respondents to submit their comment.

Erlinda K. Ilusorio
- the motions and manifestations can hardly be considered contemptuous as they were in the
exercise of the litigant's right to avail herself of all legal remedies
- letters were far from being contemptuous and sought only to improve the administration of justice
and encourage the courts to decide cases purely on the merits
- published book is no more than a reasonable reaction of someone aggrieved by what she
considers an unjust Court decision

Atty. Singson
- the phone calls were numerous because often times Judge Reyes was not in the places where the
calls were made
- the phone calls were made to request for postponement or to inquire of the status of the incident
- Judge Reyes furnished the phone numbers and answered most of them
 - if there was an attempt to bribe Judge Reyes, Atty. Singson would have made the offer himself
having personally known the judge.

Issue:
Whether or not Erlinda K. Ilusorio is guilty of indirect contempt of court.

Held:
Yes. The Court found the letters and the numerous motions and manifestations not contumacious in
character. The book, however, was found to be beyond the permissible bounds of fair criticism.
- (People vs Godoy) Criticism of Court rulings is not improper, and may not be restricted after a case
has been finally disposed of. So long as critics confine their criticisms to facts and base them on the
decisions of the court, they commit no contempt. But when they pass beyond that line and charge that
judicial conduct was influenced by improper, corrupt, or selfish motives, the tendency is to create distrust and
destroy the confidence of the people in their courts.
- Criticism should be distinguished from insult.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Singson should be administratively disciplined or disbarred from the practice of law for
alleged gross misconduct in attempting to bribe Judge Reyes.

Held:
Yes. The interplay of the following documentary served as evidence:
1. Judge Reyes made it of record about the attempt to bribe, seen in the stenographic notes of the
hearing
2. Judge Reyes' affidavit
3. Atty. Sevilla's affidavit
- Atty. Singson admitted to making the phone calls but offered the lame excuse that he merely
following up on the status of the case

A lawyer approaching a judge or a judge evincing a willingness to discuss, in private, a matter related to a
case pending holds a highly immoral implication.

Erlinda K. Ilusorio is adjuged guilty of indirect contempt.

Atty. Singson is suspended for 1 year from the practice of law.