Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

BM No.

1678
RULING: NO. The fact remains that despite the opportunity given her, Judge
BENJAMIN M. DACANAY ROSALIE PARAGUAS has failed to submit any positive proof or documentation
of her ever been duly admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar, and without
FACTS: Atty. Dacanay migrated to Canada to seek medical attention and such qualification, which is an essential requirement for appointment as a judge
eventually became a naturalized Canadian citizen to avail of free medical aid under the Constitution and the law she cannot be permitted to stay one day
program. Pursuant to RA 9225, he reacquired his Filipino citizenship and now longer in the Office of Municipal Judge. In the light of the certification of the Bar
intends to resume his law practice in the Philippines. Division of this Court, that she is not a member of the Philippine Bar.
ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer who has lost his Filipino citizenship still practice
law in the Philippines?

RULING: YES. As a general rule, the Constitution provides that the practice of AM No. 1161
all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens and the loss IN RE: VICTORIO D. LANUEVO
of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the
Philippines. The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of FACTS: An administrative proceeding for disbarment against Victorio D.
naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired Lanuevo after the admission of having requested on his own initiative to re-
pursuant to RA 9225. All Philippine citizens who become citizens of another evaluate the five notebooks of Ramon E. Galang who failed the five major
country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the subjects and in two minor subjects in 1971 Bar Exam, that eventually resulted in
conditions of RA 9225, provided that a full payment of IBP membership dues is the increase of Galang's average to the passing grade.
made, payment of professional tax, completion of MCLE, and retaking of the
lawyers oath. Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing He maintains that he acted in good faith and that the same merited re-evaluation
as a member of the Philippine bar. and it was not his intention to forsake or betray the trust reposed in him as Bar
Confidant but on the contrary to do justice to the examinee concerned.

ISSUE: Whether or not Lanuevo be disbarred as a member of the Bar?


IN RE: REMOVAL FROM OFFICE OF
RULING: YES. After the corrected notebooks are submitted to him by the
ROSALIE L. PARAGUAS Examiners, Lanuevos only function is to tally the individual grades of every
examinee and compute the general average. The Bar Confidant has no
FACTS: Rosalie Llorente was appointed as Municipal Judge. Record shows that business evaluating the answers of the examinees and cannot assume the
she was not among those who were admitted for the Bar Examination, took the functions of passing upon the appraisal made by the Examiners concerned. Any
Bar, failed or passed the Bar Examination whether under her maiden name of request for re-evaluation should be done by the examinee and the same should
Rosalie Llorente or her married name of Rosalie Llorente Paraguas. Acting be addressed to the Court, which alone can validly act thereon. A Bar Confidant
Judicial Consultant required her in writing to prove her qualifications as a who takes such initiative, exposes himself to suspicion and thereby
member of the Philippine Bar, she submitted an affidavit asserting that she took compromises his position as well as the image of the Court.
the Bar Examination in 1956 under the name of ROSA C. BACULO which was
the name registered in school and also the name she used when she took the Lanuevo is therefore guilty of serious misconduct of having betrayed the trust
oath. and confidence reposed in him as Bar Confidant, impairing the integrity of the
Bar examinations and undermining public faith in the Supreme Court. He is
It is a fact, that there exists a person by the name of ROSA C. BACULO who hereby disbarred and his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
passed the Bar Examination in 1956 and was admitted to the Philippine Bar in
1957. According to the Acting Judicial Consultant's Report, Judge Paraguas
admitted that it was indeed Rosa Baculo who advised her to use that name and
to lay claim to her Bar record.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Rosalie Paraguas is a bona fide member of the
Bar?

1
BM No. 2540
RULING: YES. Good moral character is what a person really is, as distinguished
IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEY from good reputation or from the opinion generally entertained of him, the
MICHEAL A. MEDADO estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is known. Good
moral character includes at least common honesty. The requirement of good
FACTS: Medado passed the Bar, took the oath but failed to sign the Roll of moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of
Attorneys because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. He law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of
was mainly doing corporate and taxation work under the mistaken belief that law.
since he had already taken the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys was not
as urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a lawyer. Medado attended MCLE but The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to determine whether there
unable to provide his roll number. After 30 years, filed a petition that he be is satisfactory evidence of good moral character of the applicant. The nature of
allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. whatever cases are pending against the applicant would aid the Court in
determining whether he is endowed with the moral fitness demanded of a
lawyer. But since Meling did not pass the Bar, the controversy is already moot
ISSUE: Whether or not Medado be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys? and academic.

RULING: YES. The moment he realized that what he had signed was merely an
attendance record, he could no longer claim an honest mistake of fact as a valid
justification. Medado should have known that he was not a full-fledged member
of the Philippine Bar because of his failure to sign in the Roll of Attorneys but he BM No. 712
chose to continue practicing law without taking the necessary steps to complete IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMISSION TO THE BAR AND OATH
all the requirements for admission to the Bar, he willfully engaged in the TAKING OF SUCCESSFUL BAR APPLICANT AL C. ARGOSINO
unauthorized practice of law.
FACTS: Criminal information was filed charging Argosino with the crime of
The unauthorized practice of law by ones assuming to be an attorney or officer homicide on account of the death of a neophyte in the course of hazing.
of the court, and acting as such without authority, may constitute indirect Argosino pleaded guilty and applied for probation, which was granted. Months
contempt of court, which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. The later, Argosino filed a Petition for Admission to Take the 1993 Bar Exam, he
petitioner committed indirect contempt of court by knowingly engaging in disclosed the fact of his criminal conviction and his probation status. He was
unauthorized practice of law, we refrain from making any finding of liability for allowed to take the Bar Exam, passed it but was not allowed to take the oath.
indirect contempt, as no formal charge pertaining thereto has been filed against Argosino filed a Petition to allow him to take the attorney's oath of office and to
him. Medado is allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys after one year and not admit him to the practice of law.
allowed to practice law during that one-year period.
ISSUE: Whether or not Argosino is qualified to be admitted as a member of the
Bar?

BM No. 1154 RULING: We have to qualify. The practice of law is not a natural, absolute or
IN THE MATTER OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR constitutional right to be granted to everyone who demands it. It is a high
personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral character, with special
EXAMINEE HARON S. MELING educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified. Argosino's participation
in the deplorable "hazing" activities certainly fell far short of the required
FACTS: Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Exam that he standard of good moral character which is a continuing requirement before and
has three pending criminal cases before the MTCC and has been using the title after admission to the Bar.
Attorney in his communications despite the fact that he is not a member of the
Bar. Argosino must submit to this Court evidence that he may be now regarded as
complying with the requirement of good moral character which may consist of
ISSUE: Whether or not the act of concealing would be in contrary of having a sworn certifications from responsible members of the community who have a
good moral character as a requirement in the membership of the Bar? good reputation who have actually known him for a significant period of time,

2
particularly from the judgment of conviction. Also, show to the Court how he has filed and was granted. Then, Ladrera filed a petition declaring his first wife as
tried to make up for the senseless killing of a helpless student to the family of the presumptively dead. After Ladrera married his third wife, his first wife showed up
deceased and to the community. Argosino must submit relevant evidence to and filed a bigamy case against him. The case for immorality filed by his second
show that he is a different person now, that he has become morally fit for wife was already withdrawn. His third marriage was done after the annulment of
admission to the ancient and learned profession of the law. the second marriage and the declaration of presumptive death of his first wife.
Ladrera is now praying to be allowed to take his oath.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ladrera be allowed to take his oath?


BM No. 712 RULING: YES. More than thirty-one years after he passed the bar exam,
RE: PETITION OF AL ARGISONO TO TAKE THE LAWYERS OATH Ladrera has not been allowed to take the oath, filed motions to allow him to take
the oath every year without fail. The records show various endorsements of
FACTS: Argosino passed the 1993 Bar exam, however, deferred his oath-taking good character from lawyers, a law professor, a congressman, and a priest
due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Homicide, attested that Ladrera "is a man of high moral character, humble and possessed
for the death of a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites. He pleaded guilty and with an innate religious quality. A Senator endorsed Ladrera's petition stating
applied for probation, which was granted. Petitioner filed a petition to be allowed that he was "honest, dependable, and trustworthy, and even his first wife
to take the lawyer's oath based on the order of his discharge from probation and observed that Ladrera was "behaving well and leading an exemplary life."
submitted to the Court evidences that he may now be regarded as complying
with the requirement of good moral character imposed upon those seeking There was moral delinquency in Ladrera's younger days but he has made up for
admission to the Bar. it by observing a respectable, useful, and religious life. Thirty-two years of
rejecting his petitions are enough for chastisement and retribution. The
ISSUE: Whether or not the evidences summited sufficed for Argosinos respondent has realized the wrongfulness of his past conduct and demonstrated
admission to the Bar? a sincere willingness to make up for that moral lapse, the Court decided to admit
him to membership in the Philippine bar.
RULING: YES. Petitioner submitted no less than fifteen certifications executed
by among others two senators, five judges, and six members of religious orders.
Petitioner likewise submitted evidence that a scholarship foundation had been
established in honor of the hazing victim, through joint efforts of the latter's
family. In allowing Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, the Court recognizes that AC No. 439
Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber. On the contrary, the various DE JESUS-PARAS vs VAILOCES
certifications show that he is a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for civic
duties and public service. FACTS: Atty. Quinciano Vailoces in his capacity as a Notary Public
acknowledged the execution of a document purporting to be the last will and
The Court is persuaded that Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone for the testament, which was impugned by the relatives. Probate court found that the
death of the victim. We are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, taking will was a forgery denying the probate. A criminal action for falsification of public
judicial notice of the general tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious and document was filed against Vailoces wherein he was found guilty, and as a
uncalculating. Argosino is hereby allowed to take the lawyer's oath, sign the Roll consequence, the offended party instituted the disbarment proceedings.
of Attorneys and to practice the legal profession.
ISSUE: Whether or not Vailoces be disbarred as a member of the Bar?

RULING: YES. Under Section 25, Rule 127, of the Rules of Court, a member of
BM No. 135 the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney if it appears
PETITION OF SOCORRO LADRERA TO TAKE THE LAWYERS that he has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Moral turpitude
OATH includes any act deemed contrary to justice, honesty or good morals. The crime
of which respondent was convicted is falsification of public document, which is
FACTS: Ladrera passed the 1954 bar exam but before he could take his oath, indeed of this nature, for the act is clearly contrary to justice, honesty and good
an administrative complaint for immorality was filed against him by his second morals. It is well-settled rule that "embezzlement, forgery, robbery, and swindling
wife, alleging that Ladrera represented himself as single. Annulment case was are crimes which denote moral turpitude and, as a general rule, all crimes of

3
which fraud is an element are looked on as involving moral turpitude" AC No. 5377
No elaborate argument is necessary to hold the respondent unworthy of the LINGAN vs ATTYs. CALUBAQUIB and BALIGA
privilege bestowed on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it to say that, by his
conviction, the respondent has proved himself unfit to protect the administration FACTS: Attys. Calubaquib and Baliga guilty were found guilty of allowing their
of justice. secretaries to notarize documents in their stead. As a consequence, revoked
their notarial commissions, and disqualified them from reappointment as notaries
public for two years. Meantime, CHR issued a resolution suspending Atty. Baliga
from his position as Regional Director of the CHR, stating that Atty. Baliga's
CAYETANO vs MONSOD suspension from the practice of law "prevented him from assuming his post as
Regional Director for want of eligibility in the meantime that his authority to
FACTS: Christian Monsod was nominated to the position of Chairman of the practice law is suspended."
COMELEC. COA confirmed the nomination of Monsod, he took oath and
assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Baligas suspension from the practice of law made
nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required him illegible as a Regional Director of CHR?
qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years
as required by the Constitution, filed the instant petition for certiorari and RULING: YES. Practice of law is "any activity, in or out of court, which requires
Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience." It
Monsod be declared null and void. includes "performing acts which are characteristics of the legal profession" or
"rendering any kind of service which requires the use in any degree of legal
ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod possesses the qualification as Chairman of knowledge or skill." Work in government that requires the use of legal knowledge
COMELEC? is considered practice of law.

RULING: YES. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. The exercise of the powers and functions of a CHR Regional Director constitutes
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term Practice of law" practice of law. Thus, the Regional Director must be an attorney - a member of
particularly the modern concept of law practice, and taking into consideration the the bar in good standing and authorized to practice law. When the Regional
liberal construction intended by the framers of the Constitution, Atty. Monsod's Director loses this authority, such as when he or she is disbarred or suspended
past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer- from the practice of law, the Regional Director loses a necessary qualification to
entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator the position he or she is holding. The disbarred or suspended lawyer must desist
of both the rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional from holding the position of Regional Director.
requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.

Practice of law covers almost all situations, most individuals, in making use of
the law, or in advising others on what the law means, are actually practicing law. AC No. 99-634
In that sense, perhaps, but we should not lose sight of the fact that Mr. Monsod BURBE vs ATTY. MAGULTA
is a lawyer, a member of the Philippine Bar, who has been practicing law for
over ten years.

FACTS: Complaint for the disbarment or suspension against Atty. Magulta for
non-filing of the complaint on behalf of his client and his appropriation for himself
of the money given for the filing fee, such acts constitutes highly dishonest
conduct on his part, unbecoming a member of the law profession. IBP
recommended that Magulta be suspended from the practice of law for a period
of one year. Magulta raised the defense that the money delivered to him was for
attorney's fees and not for the filing fee and that no lawyer-client relationship
existed between him and complainant, because the latter never paid him for

4
services rendered. courts. They function independently and are guided by their own rules on
procedures. Petitioner by appearing voluntarily before US military courts submits
ISSUE: Whether or not Magulta be suspended from the practice of law? to their jurisdiction but her status as a member of the Philippine bar and the
exercise of her profession in Philippine Courts remain unaffected.
RULING: YES. Lawyers who convert the funds entrusted to them are in gross
violation of professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public confidence in
the legal profession and Magulta fell short of this legal standard when he
converted into his legal fees the filing fee entrusted to him by his client and thus AM No. 1928
failed to file the complaint promptly.
IN THE MATTER OF THE IBP MEMBERHSHIP DUES
A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first moment DELIQUENCY OF ATTY. MARCIAL A. EDILION
complainant asked respondent for legal advice regarding the former's business.
Likewise, a lawyer-client relationship exists notwithstanding the close personal
relationship between the lawyer and the complainant or the nonpayment of the FACTS: Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney. IBP recommended the
former's fees. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a moneymaking venture, removal of his name from the Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his
and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a membership dues. Edilion stated that such constitute an invasion of his
livelihood is not a professional but a secondary consideration. Duty to public constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled, as a pre-condition
service and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration to maintaining his status as a lawyer. To be a member of IBP and to pay the
of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to corresponding dues to said organization to which he is admittedly personally
themselves. Thus, Magulta is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and property guaranteed
period of one year. to him by the Constitution.

ISSUE: Whether or not Edilion be disbarred for non-payment of membership


dues?
VARGAS vs KILCLINE
RULING: YES. An "Integrated Bar" is a State-organized Bar, to which every
lawyer must belong, as distinguished from bar associations organized by
FACTS: Petitioner is a member of the Philippine Bar filed a petition for individual lawyers in which membership is voluntary. Lawyers are subject to all
prohibition with preliminary injunction that seeks to enjoin the US Naval Base the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar, including the requirement of
Commander and the members of the Board of Investigation from investigating payment of a reasonable annual fee for the effective discharge of the purposes
her for alleged court misconduct and incompetence to practice law before the of the Bar, breach of which constitutes sufficient reason for investigation by the
United States Navy Courts Martial. Petitioner had been appearing as a defense Bar and, upon proper cause appearing, a recommendation for discipline or
counsel for US Navy servicemen accused of violating the United States Uniform disbarment of the offending member.
Code of Military Justice before the United States Navy Courts
To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of his
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition of Vargas will prosper? constitutional freedom to associate. He is free to attend or not the meetings of
his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he
RULING: NO. The right to practice the law profession proceeds not from the chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual
territorial boundaries of the licensing authority but within the jurisdiction of the dues for improving the profession in this fashion is shared by the subjects and
licensing authority. beneficiaries of the regulatory program the lawyers. Such compulsion is
justified as an exercise of the police power of the State. Edillon is hereby
Petitioner has confused her license to practice law in the Philippines to include disbarred, and his name is hereby ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
the courts of other jurisdiction located within the Philippine territory. The United
States Navy Courts Martial are courts duly constituted and under the jurisdiction
of the United States Government. They are not extensions of the Philippine

5
AC No. 8010 ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Kho violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
STEMMERICK vs ATTY. MAS
RULING: YES. Atty. Khos apparent good faith and his ready admission of the
FACTS: Stemmerik a Danish citizen expressed an interest in acquiring real infraction, although certainly mitigating, cannot negate the fact that his failure to
property in the Philippines consulted Atty. Mas, who advised him that he could remit judiciary funds for over a year was contrary to the mandatory provisions of
legally acquire and own real property. Stemmerik agreed to purchase the OCA Circular 8A-93. That omission was a breach of his oath to obey the laws as
property and engaged the services of the respondent for the preparation of the well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities and of his duties under
necessary documents. Respondent prepared a contract to sell between the Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Lawyers
complainant and the purported owner of the property and at the same time responsibilities under Canon 1 mean more than just staying out of trouble with
notarized a deed of sale in which the purported owner conveyed the property to the law. As servants of the law and officers of the court, lawyers are required to
a third person but also drafted and notarized an agreement between be at the forefront of observing and maintaining the rule of law. They are
complainant and that third person stating that it was the complainant who expected to make themselves exemplars worthy of emulation. This, in fact, is
provided the funds for the purchase of the property. However, complainant was what a lawyers obligation to promote respect for law and legal processes
devastated to learn that aliens could not own land under Philippine laws and the entails.
subject property was inalienable. Thus, the filing of the disbarment complaint.
The least a lawyer can do in compliance with Canon 1 is to refrain from
ISSUE: Whether or not such act of the respondent sufficed his disbarment? engaging in unlawful conduct. By definition, any act or omission contrary to law
is unlawful. It does not necessarily imply the element of criminality although it is
RULING: YES. Respondent committed a serious breach of his oath as a lawyer. broad enough to include it. Thus, the presence of evil intent on the part of the
He is also guilty of culpable violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. lawyer is not essential in order to bring his act or omission within the terms of
Respondent, in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental Rule 1.01 which specifically prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful conduct.
constitutional policy, showed disrespect for the Constitution and gross ignorance He is ordered to pay a FINE within ten days from receipt of this resolution.
of basic law. He prepared spurious documents; falsified public documents that
he knew were void and illegal and knowingly violated the Anti-Dummy Law.

By advising complainant that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire real
estate in the Philippines and by assuring complainant that the property was
alienable, respondent deliberately foisted a falsehood on his client. He did not AC No. 10179
give due regard to the trust and confidence reposed in him by the complainant. ONG vs ATTY. DELOS SANTOS
He committed unethical act after unethical act, wantonly violating laws and
professional standards. Wherefore, Atty. Mas is hereby disbarred. FACTS: Atty. Delos Santos asked Ong to encash his postdated check as he was
in dire need of cash. To reassure Ong that the check would be funded upon
maturity, Atty. Delos Santos bragged about his lucrative practice and his good
paying clients. However, the check was dishonored for the reason that account
was closed. Ong demanded immediate payment, but the latter just ignored him.
AM No. P-06-2177 Hence, Ong brought a criminal complaint for estafa and for violation of B.P. 22
against Atty. Delos Santos, and also brought this disbarment complaint in the
RE: REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IBP.
ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ATTY. RAQUEL G.
KHO ISSUE: Whether or not by issuing the worthless check, did Atty. Delos Santos
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility?
FACTS: Atty. Kho, former clerk of court, was found guilty of gross misconduct for
his failure to make a timely remittance of judiciary funds in his custody. Atty. Kho RULING: YES. A lawyer must conduct himself with great propriety, his behavior
admitted that his failure to make a timely remittance of the cash deposited with should be beyond reproach anywhere at all times and conduct himself as a
him was inexcusable, however, that he kept the money in the courts safety vault person of the highest moral and professional integrity and probity in his dealings
and never once used it for his own benefit. with others. There is no question that a lawyer could be disciplined not only for a
malpractice in his profession, but also for any misconduct committed outside of

6
his professional capacity. long as the quantum of proof --- clear preponderance of evidence --- in
disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar is met, then liability
In issuing the dishonored check, Atty. Delos Santos put into serious question not attaches.
only his personal integrity but also the integrity of the entire Integrated Bar. It
cannot be denied that Ong acceded to Atty. Delos Santos request for Palma is found GUILTY of grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a
encashment of the check because of his complete reliance on the nobility of the lawyer, and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.
Legal Profession. His assuring Ong that he was in good financial standing
because of his lucrative law practice when the contrary was true manifested his
intent to mislead the latter into giving a substantial amount in exchange for his
worthless postdated check. Such actuation did not speak well of him as a AC No. 6655
member of the Bar. Atty. Delos Santos was guilty of serious misconduct,
warranting appropriate administrative sanction, a suspension to the practice of CAALIM-VERZONILLA vs ATTY. PASCUA
law for six months.
FACTS: Disbarment proceeding against Atty. Pascua for allegedly falsifying a
public document and evading the payment of correct taxes through the use of
falsified documents. Respondent prepared and notarized two Deeds of Extra-
Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Deceased with different considerations.
AC No. 2474 Complainant avers that both deeds are spurious because all the heirs
COJUANGCO vs ATTY. PALMA signatures were falsified. Respondent claimed to have been moved by his
humane and compassionate disposition when he acceded to the parties plea
FACTS: Complainant hired the respondent as his personal counsel. Eventually, that he prepare and notarize the second deed with a lower consideration in order
relationship with complainants family became intimate but without knowledge of to reduce the corresponding tax liability.
the complainants family, respondent married the complainants daughter in
Hongkong. Complainant was shocked, knowing fully well that respondent is a ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of the respondent constitute a violation of Code
married man, thus, a complaint for disbarment was filed. of Professional Responsibility?

ISSUE: Whether or not the act of respondent constitutes gross immoral conduct RULING: YES. With his admission that he drafted and notarized another
instrument that did not state the true consideration of the sale so as to reduce
RULING: YES. Immoral conduct is a conduct which is willful, flagrant, or the capital gains and other taxes due on the transaction, respondent cannot
shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and escape liability for making an untruthful statement in a public document for an
respectable members of the community. Respondents act is manifestly immoral. unlawful purpose. As the second deed indicated an amount much lower than the
First, he abandoned his lawful wife and three children. Second, he lured an actual price paid for the property sold, respondent abetted in depriving the
innocent young woman into marrying him. And third, he misrepresented himself Government of the right to collect the correct taxes due. His act clearly violated
as a bachelor so he could contract marriage in a foreign land. Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The circumstances here speak of a clear case of betrayal of trust and abuse of Not only did respondent assist the contracting parties in an activity aimed at
confidence. It was respondents closeness to the complainants family as well as defiance of the law, he likewise displayed lack of respect for and made a
the latters complete trust in him that made possible his intimate relationship with mockery of the solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment. His purported
complainants daughter. Afterwards, he even had the temerity to assure desire to accommodate the request of his client will not absolve respondent who,
complainant that everything is legal. Clearly, respondent had crossed the limits as a member of the legal profession, should have stood his ground and not
of propriety and decency. yielded to the importunings of his clients. Atty. Pascua is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of two years and his notarial commission is
A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal hereby REVOKED.
but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. Thus, if
the acquittal of a lawyer in a criminal action is not determinative of an
administrative case against him, or if an affidavit of withdrawal of a disbarment
case does not affect its course, then the judgment of annulment of respondents
marriage does not also exonerate him from a wrongdoing actually committed. So

7
AC No. 10573 AC No. 6681
CHU vs ATTY. GUICO DELOS SANTOS vs ATTY. BARBOSA
FACTS: Chu retained Atty. Guico as counsel to handle the labor disputes FACTS: Respondent as counsel objected to the Prosecutions offer in evidence
involving his company, which includes handling a complaint for illegal dismissal of the photocopy of the birth record resulted to the resetting the preliminary
wherein Atty. Guico asked Chu to prepare a substantial amount of money to be conference in order to give the prosecution time to file a certified true copy of the
given to the NLRC Commissioner handling the appeal to insure a favorable birth certificate. But the respondent sent letters to the Office of the Civil Registrar,
decision. However, NLRC promulgated a decision adverse to Chus company, NSO and to the hospital not to issue any certified true copy without his clients
thereby, Chu terminated Atty. Guico as legal counsel and filed a disbarment written authority. A complaint was filed charging the respondent with multiple
complaint against the respondent. gross violations of his oath as a lawyer and Canons of Professional Ethics for
unlawfully obstructing and delaying the proceedings.
ISSUE: Whether or not Guico violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
for demanding and receiving from Chu a sum of money to guarantee a favorable ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional
decision from NLRC? Responsibility?

RULING: YES. Every lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any RULING: YES. Rule 1.03 also provides that "a lawyer shall not, for any corrupt
client that would involve defiance of the very laws that he was bound to uphold motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any mans cause."
and obey, he or she must act and comport himself or herself in such a manner
that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the Legal Profession. Any As an officer of the court, a lawyer is part of the machinery in the administration
lawyer found to violate this obligation forfeits his or her privilege to continue such of justice. A lawyer should not only help attain the speedy, efficient, impartial,
membership in the legal profession. correct, and inexpensive adjudication of cases and prompt satisfaction of final
judgments, but should likewise avoid any unethical or improper practices that
Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the law in appearing to counsel Chu to may impede, obstruct, or prevent the realization of a speedy and efficient
raise the large sums of money in order to obtain a favorable decision in the labor administration of justice.
case. He thus violated the law against bribery and corruption. He compounded
his violation by actually using said illegality as his means of obtaining a huge
sum from the client that he soon appropriated for his own personal interest. His In the present case, the disregard of the courts intent to expedite the
acts constituted gross dishonesty and deceit, and were a flagrant breach of his proceedings, the respondent sent letters to the Office of the Civil Registrar, the
ethical commitments under the Lawyers Oath not to delay any man for money NSO, and St. Lukes Hospital to prevent the prosecution from obtaining a
or malice. Atty. Guico committed grave misconduct and disgraced the Legal certified true copy of the subject birth certificate. The preliminary conference was
Profession. Grave misconduct is improper or wrong conduct, the transgression precisely postponed to allow the prosecution to secure the certified true copy.
of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of Thus, the respondent committed willful disobedience to a lawful order of the
duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of court intended to avoid any further delay of the proceedings in the criminal case.
judgment.
Atty. Barbosa is GUILTY of violating 1.03 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Any resort to falsehood or deception, including adopting artifices to cover up Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the practice of
ones misdeeds committed against clients and the rest of the trusting public, law
evinces an unworthiness to continue enjoying the privilege to practice law and
highlights the unfitness to remain a member of the Law Profession. It deserves
for the guilty lawyer stern disciplinary sanctions. Atty. Guico is hereby
DISBARRED him from membership in the BAR and his name is ORDERED AC No. 7474
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. JUDGE MADRID vs ATTY. DEALCA
FACTS: Atty. Dealca who had engaged in the unethical practice of filing frivolous
administrative cases against judges and personnel of the courts filed
administrative as well as criminal cases against the complainant Judge on the
pretext of previous adverse incidents between them. Thus, Judge Madrid filed a

8
letter complaint citing Atty. Dealcas unethical practice, thereby, praying for the
disbarment of respondent on the ground of gross misconduct and gross violation FACTS: Petitioner was employed by his father, herein the private respondent, as
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. a farm administrator. But due to petitioners illness, he failed to report to work,
and without notice, private respondent ceased to pay the latter's salary. Hence,
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Dealcas filing of frivolous administrative and the filing of illegal dismissal with NLRC. Private respondent raised the defense of
criminal complaints against judges and court personnel in violation of the Code abandonment of work.
of Professional Responsibility?
ISSUE: Whether or not the counsel for both parties acted in accordance with the
RULING: YES. Although the Court always admires members of the Bar who are Code of Professional Responsibility?
imbued with a high sense of vigilance to weed out from the Judiciary the
undesirable judges and inefficient or undeserving court personnel, any acts RULING: NO. For abandonment may justly be made there must be a
taken in that direction should be unsullied by any taint of insincerity or self concurrence of two elements: (1) the failure to report for work or absence
interest. It is for that reason that Atty. Dealcas complaint against Judge Madrid without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to severe the
has failed our judicious scrutiny, for the Court cannot find any trace of idealism employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more
or altruism in the motivations for initiating it. Instead, Atty. Dealca exhibited his determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. Such intent we
proclivity for vindictiveness and penchant for harassment, considering that his find dismally wanting in this case.
bringing of charges against judges, court personnel and even his colleagues in
the Law Profession had all stemmed from decisions or rulings being adverse to The conduct of the respective counsel of the parties, as revealed by the records,
his clients or his side. He well knew, therefore, that he was thereby crossing the sorely disappoints the Court and invites reproof. Both counsels may well be
line of propriety, because neither vindictiveness nor harassment could be a reminded that their ethical duty as lawyers to represent their clients with zeal
substitute for resorting to the appropriate legal remedies. He should now be goes beyond merely presenting their clients' respective causes in court. It is just
reminded that the aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties as much their responsibility, if not more importantly, to exert all reasonable
according to law, not to harass them. efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of court and especially in
consideration of the direct and immediate consanguineous ties between their
The oath exhorts upon the members of the Bar not to "wittingly or willingly clients. Once again, we reiterate that the useful function of a lawyer is not only to
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit." These are not mere facile conduct litigation but to avoid it whenever possible by advising settlement or
words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep withholding suit. He is often called upon less for dramatic forensic exploits than
inviolable. for wise counsel in every phase of life. He should be a mediator for concord and
Moreover, Atty. Dealca must be mindful of his mission to assist the courts in the a conciliator for compromise, rather than a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct
proper administration of justice. He disregarded his mission because his filing of of litigation.
the unfounded complaints, including this one against Judge Madrid, increased
the workload of the Judiciary. Although no person should be penalized for the Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that "(a)
exercise of the right to litigate, the right must nonetheless be exercised in good lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will
faith. Atty. Dealcas bringing of the numerous administrative and criminal admit of a fair settlement." On this point, we find that both counsels herein fell
complaints against judges, court personnel and his fellow lawyers did not evince short of what was expected of them, despite their avowed duties as officers of
any good faith on his part, considering that he made allegations against them the court. The records do not show that they took pains to initiate steps geared
therein that he could not substantially prove, and are rightfully deemed frivolous toward effecting a rapprochement between their clients. On the contrary, their
and unworthy of the Courts precious time and serious consideration. acerbic and protracted exchanges could not but have exacerbated the situation
even as they may have found favor in the equally hostile eyes of their respective
Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA GUILTY of clients.
violating Canon 1, Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one year. The labor arbiter who handled this case has been less than faithful to the letter
and spirit of the Labor Code mandating that a labor arbiter shall exert all efforts
towards the amicable settlement of a labor dispute within his jurisdiction. If he
ever did so, or at least entertained the thought, the copious records of the
proceedings in this controversy are barren of any reflection of the same.
DE YSASI III vs NLRC

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi