VIOLETA R.

TAHAW,complainant,

vs.

ATTY. JEREMIAS P. VITAN,respondent

.A.C. No. 6441. October 21, 2004

Facts: Victoria Tahaw (Tahaw), the complainant, secured the services of respondent Atty. Jeremias
Vitan(Vitan) for filing appropriate action for a partition of a real property located in Makati City
delivering to respondent 4 checks amounting to P30,000.00. Upon verification to check if a case has been
filed for and in her behalf, she was issued a certification by the Clerk of Court in Makati that no such case
was filed prompting Tahaw to write the respondent informing him that she was terminating his services as
counsel and demanded the refund of the P30,000.00 to which Vitan failed to return prompting to file a
complaint of disbarment or suspension with IBP.

Issue: Whether or not the non-filing of a case constitute a remiss in the lawyers responsibilities which
can be penalized by disbarment or suspension with the IBP.

Held: The Court agreed with the recommendation of the IBP that respondent has been remiss in his
responsibilities. He is found guilty of violation of Canons 7 and 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for his failure to file the necessary pleading for his clients case and for the failure to return
and immediately deliver the funds of his client advanced for the purpose of filing the said case, upon
demand, and even after his commitment with the IBP to do so. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides: A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him. The trust and confidence of clients require in a lawyer a high
standard and appreciation of his duty to them. Nothing should be done by any member of the legal
fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty,
and integrity of the legal profession. The respondent was suspended for six months with a stern warning
that a repetition of the same and similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
SUSAN CUIZON VS. ATTY. RODOLFO MACALINO-- A. C. No. 4334 July 7, 2004

FACTS: The legal services of respondent ATTY. RODOLFO MACALINO was Sought by the
complainant in behalf of her husband Antolin Cuizon who was convicted for Violation of Dangerous
Drug Act of 1972.When the spouses had no sufficient means to pay the legal fees, the respondent
suggested that he begiven possession of complainants Mistubishi car, which was delivered to the
respondent. Later respondent offered to buy the car for P85, 000.00 for which he paid a down payment of
P24, 000.00. After the sale of the car, respondent failed to attend to the case of Antolin Cuizon, so
Antolins wife filed a case against him. The respondent failed to comply with the following orders of the
court, to wit: 1. the respondent was required to comment on the Complaint lodged against him as early as
December 5, 1994.2. The respondent was ordered to show because why he should not be meted with
disciplinary action or declared in contempt for failure to comply with the order of the court, to comment
oncomplaint.3. Respondent paid the Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) fine imposed on him for failure to
comply with the previous orders; however he failed to fully comply with the order of the court.4. The
Supreme Court issued a resolution increasing the imposed fine on respondent in the amount of P500.00 to
P1, 000.00 and again the order requiring the respondent to file his comment was reiterated. However, the
cashier of the Disbursement and Collection Division issued a certification that the imposed fine has not
been paid by the respondent.5. Respondent again committed another infraction of the law by issuing a
check against a closed account

In the Resolution dated July 27, 1998, the Court resolved to consider the Resolution of December 10,
1997 finding the respondent guilty of contempt of court and ordering his imprisonment until he complies
with the previous orders of the court. The Investigating Commissioner forthwith filed her Report and
Recommendation finding the respondent unfit to remain a member of the Bar and recommending that he
be disbarred. The Investigating Commissioner conducted further investigation and submitted her Report
and Recommendation dated November 16, 1999 stating that the respondent failed to appear during the
two scheduled hearings.

RULING: The fact that the respondent went into hiding in order to avoid service upon him of the warrant
of arrest issued by the Court exacerbates his offense.

HELD: His repeated failure to comply with the Courts Resolutions requiring him to file his Comment on
the Complaint should also be taken into account. By his repeated cavalier conduct, the respondent
exhibited an unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court. [16]The foregoing acts of the
respondent constitute gross misconduct which renders him unfit to discharge the duties of his office and
unworthy of the trust and confidence reposed on him as an officer of the court. His disbarment is
consequently warranted. WHEREFORE, respondent Rodolfo Macalino is hereby DISBARRED.
FERNANDO MARTIN PENA

vs.

ATTY. LOLITO G. APARICIOA.C. No. 7298 June 25, 2007Facts:

Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio appeared as legal counsel for Grace C. Hufana in an illegal dismissal case before
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against complainant Fernando Martin Pena. Hufana is
praying for claim for separation pay, but Pena rejected the claim as baseless. Thereafter, Aparicio sent
Pena a letter reiterating his client's claim for separation pay. Through his letter, he threatened complainant
that should Pena fail to pay the amounts they propose as settlement, he would file and claim bigger
amounts including moral damages, as well as multiple charges such as tax evasion, falsification of
documents, and cancellation of business license to operate due to violations of laws.

Issue: WON Aparicio violated Canon 19 (and 19.01) of the CPR, enjoining every lawyer to represent his
client withzeal within the bounds of the law?

Held: YES

NB: Rule 19.01. A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to
obtain animproper advantage in any case or proceeding."

WON it is proper to disbar Aparicio?

NO, reprimand only. Under Canon 19, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or
baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to secure leverage to compel
the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the lawyer's client. In the case at bar, the
threats are not only unethical for violating Canon 19, but they also amount to blackmail.

Blackmail is "the extortion of money from a person by threats of accusation or exposure or opposition in
the public prints,obtaining of value from a person as a condition of refraining from making an
accusation against him, or disclosing some secret calculated to operate to his prejudice."

The letter in this case contains more than just a simple demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file
retaliatory charges against complainant which have nothing to do with his client's claim for separation
pay. Indeed, letters of this nature are definitely proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility. It
was not respondent's intention to point out complainant's violations of the law as he so gallantly claims.
Far from it, the letter even contains an implied promise to" keep silent" about the said violations if
payment of the claim is made on the date indicated.

DECISION: While the writing of the letter went beyond ethical standards, we hold that disbarment is too
severe a penalty to be imposed on respondent, considering that he wrote the same out of his
overzealousness to protect his client's interests. Accordingly, the more appropriate penalty is Reprimand.
A.C. No. 3283 July 13, 1995
RODOLFO MILLARE, petitioner,
vs.
ATTY. EUSTAQUIO Z. MONTERO, respondent.

Complainant obtained a favorable judgment from the MTC which ordered respondents client to vacate
the premises subject of the ejectment case. respondent as counsel, appealed the decision. CA dismissed
Co's appeal from the decision of the RTC for failure to comply with the proper procedures. Respondent
thereafter resorted to devious and underhanded means to delay the execution of the judgment rendered by
the MTC adverse to his client.

Held: SUSPENDED for (1) year. Rule 12.02. A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the
same cause. Rule 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment
or misuse court processes.

Under Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is required to represent his client
"within the bounds of the law." The Code enjoins a lawyer to employ only fair and honest means to attain
the lawful objectives of his client (Rule 19.01) and warns him not to allow his client to dictate the
procedure in handling the case (Rule 19.03). InSHORT , a lawyer is not a gun for hire.

It is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial process, like the filing of dilatory
motions, repetitious litigation and frivolous appeals for the sole purpose of frustrating and delaying the
execution of a judgment.

A judgment can be annulled only on two grounds: (a) that the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction or
for lack of due process of law, or (b) that it has been obtained by fraud.

Judging from the number of actions filed by respondent to forestall the execution of the same judgment,
respondent is also guilty of forum shopping. Forum shopping exists when, by reason of an adverse
decision in one forum, defendant ventures to another for a more favorable resolution of his case.
Ong vs. Unto

FACTS: The complainant received a demand-letter from the respondent as legal counsel of one Nemesia
Garganian claiming for the support of the alleged child of the complainant with the latter. A few days
thereafter, the respondent wrote a letter addressed to Dr. Jose Bueno (Agaw), an emissary of the
complainant. In this letter, the respondent listed down the alleged additional financial demands of Ms.
Garganian against the complainant and discussed the courses of action that he would take against the
complainant should the latter fail to comply with his obligation to support Ms. Garganian and her son. It
was alleged that the real father of Ms. Garganians son was the complainants brother and that the
complainant merely assumed his brothers obligation to appease Ms. Garganian who was threatening to
sue them. The complainant then did not comply with the demands against him.

Consequently, the respondent filed a complaint with the Office of the City Fiscal (now Prosecutors
Office) of Dumaguete City against the complainant, his wife, Bella Lim, and one Albina Ong, for alleged
violation of the Retail Trade Nationalization Law and the Anti-Dummy Law. The next day, the
respondent filed another criminal complaint against the complainant, Lim, Ong and Adela Peralta for their
alleged violation of the Anti-Dummy Law. In addition, the respondent commenced administrative cases
against the complainant before the Bureau of Domestic Trade, the Commission on Immigration and
Deportation, and the Office of the Solicitor General. According to the complainant, these cases were
subsequently denied due course and dismissed by the aforesaid government agencies.

The foregoing prompted the complainant to file the present case for disbarment. The records show that
the respondent offered monetary rewards to anyone who could provide him any information against the
complainant just so he would have a leverage in his actions against the latter. The complainant branded
the respondents tactics as highly immoral, unprofessional and unethical, constitutingmalpractice of
law and conduct gravely unbecoming of a lawyer.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of malpractice of law and conduct unbecoming of lawyer.

HELD: YES. The relevant rule to the case at bar is Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
It mandates lawyers to represent their clients with zeal but within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01
further commands that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives
of his client and shall not present, participate or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain
an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. We find the respondents action to be malicious as the
cases he instituted against the complainant did not have any bearing or connection to the cause of his
client, Ms. Garganian. Clearly, the respondent has violated the proscription in Canon 19, Rule 19.01. His
behavior is inexcusable. His tactic is unethical and runs counter to the rules that a lawyer shall not, for
corrupt motive or interest, encourage any SUIT or proceeding and he shall not do any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business. The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin lawyers to act with the
highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course of his practice of law. A lawyer may
be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity. Public
confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of
the Bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and comport himself in such a manner that would promote public
confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent ATTY. ELPIDIO
D. UNTO is hereby declared guilty of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. He is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of five (5) months and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar
act will be dealt with more severely.

Suntay vs. Suntay GR No. 132524 December 29, 1998

Suntay vs. Suntay GR No. 132524

FACTS:
Petitioner Federico is the oppositor to respondent Isabels Petition for Letters of Administration over the
estate of Cristina A. Suntay who had died without leaving a will. The decedent is the wife of Federico and
the grandmother of Isabel. Isabels father Emilio, had predeceased his mother Cristina.
The marriage of Isabels parents had previously been decalred by the CFI as null and void. Federico
anchors his oppostion on this fact, alleging based on Art. 992 of the CC, that Isabel has no right to
succeed by right of representation as she is an illegitimate child. The trial court had denied Federicos
Motion to Dismiss, hence this petition for certiorari. Federico contends that, inter alia, that the dispositive
portion of the the decision declaring the marriage of Isabels parents null and void be upheld.

ISSUE:
In case of conflict between the body of the decision and the dispostive portion thereof, which should
prevail? Related thereto, was the marriage of Isabels parents a case of a void or voidable marriage?
Whether or not Isabel is an legitimate child?

HELD:
Petition dismissed
Art. 10 of the Civil Code states that in case of doubt in the interpretation and application of laws, it is
presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail. This is also applicable and
binding upon courts in relation to its judgment. While the dispositive portion of the CFI decision states
that the marriage be declared null and void, the body had shown that the legal basis was par. 3 Art. 85
of the Civil Code, which was in effect at the time. Art. 85 enumerates the causes for which a marriage
may be annulled. As such the conflict between the body and the dispositive portion of the decision may
be reconcilable as noted by the Supreme Court. The fundamental distinction between void and voidable
marriages is that void marriage is deemed never to have taken place at all. The effects of void marriages,
with respect to property relations of the spouses are provided for under Article 144 of the Civil Code.
Children born of such marriages who are called natural children by legal fiction have the same status,
rights and obligations as acknowledged natural children under Article 89 irrespective of whether or not
the parties to the void marriage are in good faith or in bad faith. On the other hand, a voidable marriage, is
considered valid and produces all its civil effects, until it is set aside by final judgment of a competent
court in an action for annulment. Juridically, the
annulment of a marriage dissolves the special contract as if it had never been entered into but the law
makes express provisions to prevent the effects of the marriage from being totally wiped out.
The status of children born in voidable marriages is governed by the second paragraph of Article 89
which provides that:
Children conceived of voidable marriages before the decree of annulment shall be considered legitimate;
and children conceived thereafter shall have the same status, rights and obligations as acknowledged
natural children, and are also called natural children by legal fiction. In view thereof, the status of Isabel
would be covered by the second paragraph of Article 89 of the Civil Code which provides that children
conceived of voidable marriages before the decree of annulment shall be considered legitimate.