32

VICTORIA BARRIENTOS V. TRANSFIGURACION DAAROL

January 29, 1993

FACTS:
This is a disbarment case filed by Barrientos against Atty Daarol, on grounds
of deceit and grossly immoral conduct.

Barrientos first knew Daarlo in 1969. She was a college student, single. Atty.
Daarol went to her house because he was a friend of her sister, hence they also
became friends. She knew Daarol to be a single and as a General Manager of
ZANECO (electic cooperative).

On June 1973, Daarol went to Barrientos house and asked her to be one of
the usherettes in the Masons convention so the latter said he should ask for the
permission of her parents. They consented and so she served as an usherette,
Daarol picking her up and taking her home everyday.

In July 1973, Daarol came to petitioners house and invited her for a joy ride,
with the permission of her mother (who was Daarols former classmate). They
went to the beach and Daarol proposed his love for Barrientos and told her that if
she would accept him, he would marry her within 6 months from her acceptance.
After a few days of courting, she accepted the offer of love. Visitations continued
and they agreed to get married in Dec 1973.

In Aug 1973, he took Barrientos to a party and when they left, he took her
for a joy ride to an airport in Sicayab where there were no houses around. There,
he pressured her into having sexual intercourse reiterating that he loved her, and
that he would marry her and that December was very near anyway they would
marry soon. She gave in after much hesitation because she loved him. She cried
after the deed.

This event happened frequently thereafter during August to October 1973,

where she consented because she loved him. Eventually, she became pregnant and
informed Daarol. He however suggested that she have the baby aborted. She
refused. He told her that she didnt have to worry because they were getting
married soon anyway.

In late October 1973, Daarol came to see Barrientos and her mother and told
them that he could not marry her because he was already married. He reassured
them though that he has been separated from his wife for 16 years and that he
would work for the annulment of his marriage and subsequently marry her. So
Barrientos waited and delivered the baby but eventually wasnt able to contact
Daarol anymore (he went MIA).

ISSUE:
 W/N Daarol should be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct.

HELD/RATIO:

YES. The fact of his previous marriage was disclosed by respondent only after
the complainant became pregnant. Even then, respondent misrepresented himself
as being eligible to re-marry for having been estranged from his wife for 16 years
and dangled a marriage proposal on the assurance that he would work for the
annulment of his first marriage. It was a deception after all as it turned out that
respondent never bothered to annul said marriage.

Respondent resorted to deceit in the satisfaction of his sexual desires at the

expense of the gullible complainant. He is perverted. He says that: "I see nothing
wrong with this relationship despite my being married." Worse, he even suggested
abortion.

Finally, respondent even had the temerity to allege that he is a Moslem

convert and as such, could enter into multiple marriages and has inquired into the
possibility of marrying complainant. As records indicate, however, his claim of
having embraced the Islam religion is not supported by any evidence save that of
his self-serving testimony.

By his acts of deceit and immoral tendencies to appease his sexual desires,
respondent Daarol has amply demonstrated his moral delinquency. Hence, his
removal for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar on the grounds of deceit and
grossly immoral conduct is in order.
33

CONSTANTINO V. SALUDARES
228 SCRA 233 (1993)

FACTS:

In an Affidavit-Complaint dated April 21, 1978, complainant Luis G. Constantino

charges respondent Atty. Prudencio S. Saludares with conduct unbecoming of a
lawyer for the non-payment of a loan which the latter obtained from complainant's
son Luis Constantino, Jr.

It appears that sometime in August 1977, respondent borrowed money in the

amount of P1,000.00 from complainant's son Luis, Jr.

Respondent procured the loan purportedly for an urgent personal obligation

promising to pay it back promptly the following day.

Respondent failed to comply with his promise. Subsequent demands for payment
were then made by Luis, Jr. but to no avail.

HELD:
It has been held that when a lawyer's integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not
enough that he denies the charges against him, he must meet the issues and
overcome the evidence for the relator and show proof that he still maintains the
highest degree of morality and integrity which is at all times expected of him
(Quingwa vs. Puno, 19 SCRA 439 [1967] ).

By his failure to present convincing evidence to justify his non-payment of the debt,
not to mention his seeming indifference to the complaint brought against him made
apparent by his unreasonable absence from the proceedings before the Solicitor
General, respondent failed to demonstrate that he still possessed the integrity and
morality demanded of a member of the Bar.

The foregoing factual antecedents compel Us to conclude that from the very
beginning, respondent had no intention to honor and/or pay his just debt. We
cannot simply close our eyes to the unwarranted obstinacy displayed by respondent
in evading payment of a debt validly incurred. Such a conduct, to say the least, is
unbecoming and does not speak well of a member of the Bar. A lawyer's
professional and personal conduct must at all times be kept beyond reproach and
above suspicion. He must perform his duties to the Bar, to the courts, to his clients,
and to society with honor and dignity

34
Villanueva vs Sta.Ana Case
245 SCRA 707 (19935)

TOPIC: Legal Ethics, Canon 16 CPR

FACTS:

Villanueva first met Atty. Sta. Ana for the purpose of notarizing documents.
Villanueva is to borrow some amount from a bank or lending institution. Atty.
Sta.Ana offered that she could facilitate the loan if Villanueva would put up a land
collateral and a guaranty deposit of P150,000. Villanueva then agreed and gave
Atty. Sta.Ana P144,000 plus the corresponding documents. After a while, Atty.
Sta.Ana asked for additional P109,000 for withholding and documentary stamp
taxes and surcharges. Villanueva decided to forego the loan and demanded her
money to be returned. Atty. Sta. Ana failed to do so and avoided Villanueva.
Villanueva then sought help from the Vice President who referred the same to the
NBI. NBI recommended charging of estafa and transmitted such information to the
IBP. Upon summon to IBPs hearings, Atty. Sta. Ana never appeared. She was
recommended to be disbarred.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Sta. Anas actions warrant disbarment

HELD:

The Supreme Court upheld IBPs recommendation. Good moral character is not only
a condition precedent to an admission to the legal profession but it must also
remain extant in order to maintain ones good standing. The Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates: CANON 1 Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. CANON 16 A lawyer shall hold
in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.
Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received
for or from the client.

Despite all the opportunities accorded to her, Atty. Sta.Ana failed to present her
defense and to refute the charges or, at the very least, to explain herself.

35
PRISCILLA CASTILLO VDA. DE MIJARES vs. JUSTICE ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ
(Retired)
274 SCRA 707 (1997)

Nature:
The subject of administrative recourse to this Court is the present case where
thecause celebre (an issue or incident arousing widespread controversy)
is a star-crossed marriage, and the unlikely protagonists are in incumbent
and a retiredmember of the Judiciary.

Facts:

Complainant Judge Priscilla Castillo Vda. De Mijares is the presiding judge in Pasay
City while respondent Onofre A. Villaluz, a retired Justice of the Court of Appeals, is
a consult at the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission.

Judge Mijares is actually widowed by the death of her first husband, Primitivo
Mijares. She obtained a decree declaring her husband presumptively dead, after an
absence of 16 years. Thus, she got married to respondent in a civil wedding on
January 7, 1994 before Judge Myrna Lim Verano.

They (complainant and respondent) knew each other when the latter, who was at
that time the Presiding Judge of the Criminal Circuit Court in Pasig, was trying a
murder case involving the death of the son of Mijares.

During their marriage, complainant judge discovered that respondent was having
an illicit affair with another woman. Respondent denied such rather he uttered
harsh words to the complainant judge. As a result, they lived separately and did not
get in touch with one another and the respondent did not bother to apologize for
what happened.

Through Judge Ramon Makasiar, complainant knew that respondent married Lydia
Geraldez. Complainant then filed a complaint against respondent for disbarment for
the latter immorally and bigamously entered into a second marriage while having a
subsisting marriage and distorted the truth by stating his civil status as single.

In his defense, he contended that his marriage to the complainant judge was a
sham marriage; that he voluntarily signed the marriage contract to help her in the
administrative case for immorality filed against her by her legal researcher.
Likewise, he maintained that when he contracted his marriage with complainant, he
had a subsisting marriage with his first wife because the decision declaring the
annulment of such marriage had not yet become final and executory or published.

Judge Purisima the found respondent guilty of deceit and grossly immoral conduct
and later on affirmed by the Court.
Issue:

a. Whether or not marriage of complainant and respondent valid

b. Whether or not the marriage of complainant and respondent was a sham

marriage

Ruling:

a. Yes. It was a valid marriage. All the essential and formal requisites of a valid
marriage under Articles 2 and 3 of the Family Code were satisfied and complied.
Given the circumstance that he was facing criminal case for bigamy and assuming
for the sake of argument that the judgment in civil case declaring the annulment of
marriage between respondent and the first wife had not attained complete finality,
the marriage between complainant and respondent is not void but only voidable.

b. As to the issue that it was a sham marriage is too incredible to deserve serious
consideration. Thus, former Justice Onofre Villaluz is found guilty of immoral
conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility; he is hereby
suspended from practice of law for two years with the specific warning.
36

Narag vs. Narag

291 SCRA 451 (1998)

FACTS:
Atty. Dominador Narag was alleged to have abandoned his family for his paramour
who was once his student in tertiary level. The administrative complaint of
disbarment was filed by her wife, Mrs. Julieta Narag. Respondent filed motion to
dismiss because allegedly the complainant fabricated the story as well as the love
letters while under extreme emotional confusion arising from jealousy. The case
took an unexpected turn when another complaint was filed, the wife as again the
complainant but now together with their seven children as co-signatories. After
several hearings, the facts became clear, that the respondent indeed abandoned his
family as against morals, based on testimonial evidences. In addition, the assailed
relationship bore two children.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality and for having violated and
the Code of Ethics for Lawyers culpable for disbarment.

HELD:

YES. Respondent disbarred.

RATIO:

The complainant was able to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the
respondent breached the high and exacting moral standards set for the members of
the law profession.

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

CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Undoubtedly, the canons of law practice were violated.

37
LESLIE UI vs. ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO
333 SCRA 38 (2000)

FACTS:
On January 24, 1971 complainant Leslie Ui married Carlos L. Ui and as a result of
their marital union, they had four (4) children.

Sometime in December 1987, however, complainant found out that her husband,
Carlos Ui, was carrying on an illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio
with whom he begot a daughter sometime in 1986.

Respondent who is a graduate of the College of Law of the University of the

Philippines was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1982. Carlos Ui admitted to
complainant his relationship with the respondent.

Whereupon, respondent admitted to her that she has a child with Carlos Ui and
alleged, however, that everything was over between her and Carlos Ui. However,
complainant again discovered that the illicit relationship between her husband and
respondent continued, and that sometime in December 1988, respondent and her
husband, Carlos Ui, had a second child. A complaint for disbarment as then filed on
August 11, 1989 by the complainant against respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio before
the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(hereinafter, Commission) on the ground of immorality, more particularly, for
carrying on an illicit relationship with the complainants husband, Carlos Ui.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent has conducted herself in an immoral manner for
which she deserves to be barred from the practice of law.

HELD:

No. The Court have held that "a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not
only required to refrain from adulterous relationships x x x but must also so behave
himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting
those moral standards." Respondents act of immediately distancing herself from
Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral
indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high
moral standard of the legal profession. Complainants bare assertions to the
contrary deserve no credit. After all, the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant, and the Court will exercise its disciplinary powers only if she
establishes her case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. This, herein
complainant miserably failed to do.

NOTES:
1. The requisites for admission to the practice of law are:
 a. he must be a citizen of the Philippines;
b. resident thereof;
c. at least twenty-one (21) years of age;
d. a person of good moral character
e. he must show that no charges against him involving moral turpitude, are
filed or pending in court;
f. possess the required educational qualifications; and
g. pass the bar examinations.

2. For immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of
society and the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.

3. It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest

standards of morality. The legal profession exacts from its members nothing
less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from
misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers
of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality.
38

Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. vs. Attys. Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P.

Salayon

399 SCRA 154 (2000)

Facts:

Attys. Antonio Llorente and Ligaya Salayon were election officers of the COMELEC
and held the position of Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively for the Pasig City
Board of Candidates. The respondents helped conduct and oversee the 1995
elections. Then Senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. alleged that the
respondents tampered with the votes received by them by either adding more votes
for particular candidates in their Statement of Votes (SoV) or reducing the number
of votes of particular candidates in their SoV. Pimentel filed an administrative
complaint for their disbarment. Respondents argued that the discrepancies were
due to honest mistake, oversight and fatigue. Respondents also argued that the IBP
Board of Governors had already exonerated them from any offense and that the
motion for reconsideration filed by Pimentel was not filed in time.

Held:

GUILTY. Respondents do not dispute the fact that massive irregularities attended
the canvassing of the Pasig City election returns. The only explanation they could
offer for such irregularities is that the same could be due to honest mistake, human
error, and/or fatigue on the part of the members of the canvassing committees who
prepared the SoVs. There is a limit, we believe, to what can be construed as an
honest mistake or oversight due to fatigue, in the performance of official duty. The
sheer magnitude of the error renders the defense of honest mistake or oversight
due to fatigue, as incredible and simply unacceptable. Indeed, what is involved here
is not just a case of mathematical error in the tabulation of votes per precinct as
reflected in the election returns and the subsequent entry of the erroneous figures
in one or two SoVs but a systematic scheme to pad the votes of certain senatorial
candidates at the expense of the petitioner in complete disregard of the tabulation
in the election returns. A lawyer who holds a government position may not be
disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as
a government official. However, if the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyers oath or is of such character as to
affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part, such
individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct. Here, by
certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, respondents committed a
breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code which stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. By express provision of Canon
6, this is made applicable to lawyers in the government service. In addition, they
likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to do no falsehood. The Court
found the respondents guilty of misconduct and fined them PhP 10,000 each and
issued a stern warning that similar conduct in the future will be severely punished.
39

Cordon vs Balicanta
A.C. No. 2797. October 4, 2002

Facts:
Complainant Rosauro Cordon, the widow of Felixberto Jaldon, inherited properties
which amounted to 21 parcels of land. The lawyer who helped her settle the estate
of her late husband was respondent Atty. Jesus Balicanta.
Respondent enticed complainant and her daughter to organize a corporation that
would develop the said real properties into a high-scale commercial complex with a
beautiful penthouse for complainant, which led to the establishment of Rosaura
Enterprises. Balicanta was simultaneously the President/General Manager/Treasurer.
He made them sign a document which turned out to be a voting trust agreement
plus an SPA to sell and mortgage some of the parcels of land which he transferred
the titles of to a certain Tion Suy Ong. Respondent never accounted for the
proceeds of said transfers. Using a spurious board resolution, he obtained a loan
from Land bank in the amount of 2.22M php secured by 9 of the parcels of land.
The respondent ostensibly intended to use the money to construct the Baliwasan
Commercial Center (BCC, for brevity). Complainant later on found out that the
structure was made of poor materials such as sawali, coco lumber and bamboo
which could not have cost the corporation anything close to the amount of the loan
secured. He failed to pay a single installment on the loan and therefore LBP
foreclosed. He did not attempt to redeem, and sold the rights to redeem said
property.
Complainants daughter discovered that their ancestral home had been demolished
and that her mother was detained in a small nipa hut. With the help of an attorney
Lim she found her mother. They terminated respondents services and threatened
him with legal action.
Issue:
Whether respondent should be disbarred
Held:
Yes. Respondent committed grave and serious misconduct that casts dishonor on
the legal profession. His misdemeanors reveal a deceitful scheme to use the
corporation as a means to convert for his own personal benefit properties left to
him in trust by complainant and her daughter.
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates upon each lawyer, as his duty
to society, the obligation to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law
and legal processes. Specifically, he is forbidden to engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. If the practice of law is to remain an honorable
profession and attain its basic ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not only
master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing
fidelity to them. Thus, the requirement of good moral character is of much greater
import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal
learning. Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon
admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain
ones good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity. Good moral character
is more than just the absence of bad character. Such character expresses itself in
the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right and the resolve not to do the
pleasant thing if it is wrong. This must be so because vast interests are committed
to his care; he is the recipient of unbounded trust and confidence; he deals with his
clients property, reputation, his life, his all.
Good moral standing is manifested in the duty of the lawyer to hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. He is bound
to account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.
The relation between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature. Thus,
lawyers are bound to promptly account for money or property received by them on
behalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct.
40

COSMOS FOUNDRY SHOP WORKERS UNION VS. LO BU

G.R. No. L-40136

FACTS:

After Cosmos Foundry Shop was burned , Ong Ting established Century
Foundry Shop where he and his family resided in the premises. After several
attempts to settle a pending unfair labor practice case proved unsuccessful, Ong
Ting sold all his business, including equipment and rights in the New Century
Foundry Shop to his compadre Lo Bu, for Php20,000.

On Jan 16, 1973, petitioner CFSWU obtained from the Court of Industrial Relations
the third alias writ of execution for the satisfaction and enforcement of the
judgment in its favor. Thereafter, writ was served January 17 and 18,
1973, levying on the personal properties of the Cosmos Foundry Shop or the New
Century Foundry Shop for the purpose of conducting the public auction sale.

Respondent Lo Bu filed an urgent motion to recall writ of execution, asserting lack

of 3 jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). The CIR, in its order
dated Feb 23, 1973, denied his motion. So likewise was the motion for
reconsideration. Lo Bu appealed by certiorari but the Court denied this petition in its
resolution dated July 17, 1993. In the meanwhile, there was a replevin suit by Lo
Bu in the Court of First Instance (CFI) Manila covering the same properties.

Upon receipt of order from the Court denying certiorari, petitioner Labor Union filed
a second motion to dismiss complaint. After the complaint was dismissed by the
lower court, decision was elevated to the Court of Appeals.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not petitioner Labor union has made out a case for certiorari and
prohibition.

(2) Whether or not counsel Atty Busmente performed his obligation as an officer of
the court while sustaining the dignity of the profession while acting as counsel for
Lo Bu.

HELD:
Writ of certiorari is granted and the order of Respondent CA reinstating appeal is
nullified and set aside.

The writ of prohibition is likewise granted, respondent CA being perpetually

restrainedfrom taking any further action in such appeal, except that of dismissing it.

Courts should dismiss a suit which has all the earmarks of a subterfuge that was
resorted to for the purpose of frustrating the execution of a judgment in an unfair
labor controversy. There was a replevin suit by the same vendee in bad faith, Lo
Bu, which was dismissed by the CFI Manila. What is worse, private respondent Lo
Bu certainly cannot plead ignorance , as he himself was the petitioner in the
certiorari proceedings before this Court. He was a prinicipal in the nefarious scheme
to frustrate the award in favor of the petitioner labor union.

Rule that certiorari will not be granted where petitioners have plain and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law will not be enforced
where it would result in further delay in satisfaction of judgment that ought to have
been enforced years ago. It is about time that a halt be called to the schemes
utilized by respondent Lo Bu in his far-from-commendable efforts to defeat labors
just claim.

A legal counsel is expected to defend a clients cause but not at the expense of
truth and in defiance of the clear purpose of labor laws. For even such case, Atty
Busmente had not exculpated himself. He ought to remember that his obligation as
an officer of the court, no less than the dignity of the profession, requires that
should not act like an errand-boy at the beck and call of his client, ready and eager
to do his every bidding. If he fails to keep that admonition in mind, then he puts
into serious question his good standing in the bar.