CASES:
On the other hand, respondent, who is now of age, averred that he is only
1. CAYETANO VS. MONSOD
PRACTICE OF LAW- any activity, in or out of court which requires application of law, legal procedures,
knowledge, training or experience.
Black defines "practice of law" as:
The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and
technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or
advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and
other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal
instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients
and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law. An attorney engages in the practice
of law by maintaining an office where he is held out to be-an attorney, using a letterhead describing
himself as an attorney, counseling clients in legal matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about
pending litigation, and fixing and collecting fees for services rendered by his associate. (Black's Law
Dictionary, 3rd ed.)
The provision on qualifications regarding members of the Bar does not necessarily refer or involve
actual practice of law outside the COA We have to interpret this to mean that as long as the lawyers
who are employed in the COA are using their legal knowledge or legal talent in their respective work
within COA, then they are qualified to be considered for appointment as members or commissioners,
even chairman, of the Commission on Audit.
2. LEE VS. TAMBAGO
3. DOCENA VS. ATTY. LIMON
HELD: Atty. limon committed a violation of notarial law and Ethics of legal profession for notarizing
a spurious last will and testament. SC said that he is guilty of professional misconduct as he violated
the Lawyers Oath, Rule 138 of the ROC, Canon 1 and rule 1.01 of the CPR, article 806 of the civil code
and provision of notarial law. Thus, atty. is suspended from the practice of law for 1 yr. and his
notarial commission revoked. In addition, because he has not lived up to the trustworthiness
expected of him as a notary public as an officer of the court he is perpetually disqualified from re
appointment as a Notary Public.
4. SANTOS VS. ATTY. LLAMAS
Facts: Complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues. It appears that
Atty. Llamas, who for a number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and
data in his pleadings. If at all, he only indicated IBP Rizal 259060 but he has been using this for at
least 3 years already.
engaged in a limited practice of law and under RA 7432, as a senior citizen, he is exempted from
payment of income taxes and included in this exemption is the payment of membership dues.
Held: GUILTY. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues
and default thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of membership and if nonpayment
covers a period of 1-year, default shall be a ground for removal of the delinquents name from the
Roll of Attorneys. It does not matter whether or not respondent is only engaged in limited practice
of law. Moreover, the exemption invoked by respondent does not include exemption from payment
of membership or association dues. In addition, by indicating IBP Rizal 259060 in his pleadings and
thereby misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal
Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule
1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is also a
violation of Rule 10.01 which provides that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in court; nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Lawyer was
suspended for 1 year or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.
5. PHIL. LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION VS. ANGARA
FACTS: Respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had scheduled an examination for
the purpose of determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines
Patent Office. According to the circular, members of the Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons
with sufficient scientific and technical training are qualified to take the said examination. The
petitioner contends that one who has passed the bar examinations and is licensed by the Supreme
Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good standing is duly qualified to practice
before the Philippines Patent Office and that the respondent Directors holding an examination for
the purpose is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the
prosecution of patent application, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law.
HELD: The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent
Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their
applications for patent, their opposition thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases.
Moreover, the practice before the patent Office involves the interpretation and application of other
laws and legal principles, as well as the existence of facts to be established in accordance with the
law of evidence and procedure. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation
in court but also embraces all other matters connected with the law and any work involving the
determination by the legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions. Furthermore, the law
provides that any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final order or decision of the
director. Thus, if the transactions of business in the Patent Office involved exclusively or mostly
technical and scientific knowledge and training, then logically, the appeal should be taken not to a
court or judicial body, but rather to a board of scientists, engineers or technical men, which is not the
case.
1
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes

6. CRUZ VS. ATTY. CABRERA
FACTS: AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT DATED FILED BY FERDINAND A. CRUZ CHARGES ATTY.
STANLEY CABRERA WITH MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY.
COMPLAINANT ALLEGES THAT HE IS A FOURTH YEAR LAW STUDENT SINCE 2001, DURING A
HEARING ON JANUARY 14, 2012 IN ONE CASE IN REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 112 PASAY CITY,
THE RESPONDENT ENGULFED WITH ANGER IN A RAISING VOICE TO THE COMPLAINANT SAYING
APPEAR KA NG APPEAR, PUMASA KA MUNA; WHEREIN THE MANNER, SUBSTANCE AND TONE OF
VOICE AND HOW THE WORDS WERE UTTERED WERE TOTALLY WITH THE INTENTION TO ANNOY, VEX
AND HUMILIATE, MALIGN, RIDICULE, INCRIMINATE AND DISCREDIT COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE
PUBLIC.
THE RESPONDENT PRAYS THAT THE COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM BE DISMISSED CITING THE CASE OF
THE COMPLAINANT AGAINST JUDGE PRISCILLA MIJARES.
MARCH 4, 2004 IBP COMMISSIONER LYDIA A NAVARO RECOMMENDED RESPONDENT'S
SUSPENSION FOR VIOLATING RULE 8.01 OF CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
APRIL 16, 2004, THE IBP BOARD, THE IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS PASSED A RESOLUTION TO
ANNUL AND SET ASIDE THE RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE FOR
LACK OF MERIT. THE COURT HELD THAT IBP GOVERNORS FAILED TO OBSERVE THE PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC.12 OF RULE 139.B OF THE RULES OF COURT. THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS
OPTED TO RESOLVE THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES.
COURT HELD THAT RESPONDENT'S OUTBURST OF APPEAR KA NG APPEAR, PUMASA KA MUNA;
DOES NOT AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF RULE 8.01 OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
WHEREFORE THE COMPLAINT AGAINST RESPONDENT ATTY. STANLEY FOR MISCONDUCT IN
VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT. HE
IS, HOWEVER IS ADMONISHED TO BE MORE CIRCUMSPECT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES AS
AN OFFICER IN COURT.
7. ULEP VS. LEGAL CLINIC
FACTS:In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales
was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law
firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latters
advertisements which contain the following:
SECRET MARRIAGE? P560.00 for a valid marriage. Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT.
VISA. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041 8:30am 6:00pm 7th Flr.
Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems in Star
Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists
that can take care of a clients problem no matter how complicated it is even if it is as complicated as
the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like
doctors, are specialists in various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in
taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are
backed up by a battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the US
which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the advertisement is
merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is allowed;
whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not allowed.
The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include various legal
problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple documentation to complex
litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of
paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Under
Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of
law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and
who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest,
fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession
condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of
his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his
goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage,
bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly
reprehensible.
8.ATTY MAGNO VS. ATTY VELASCO - JACOBA
Facts: Atty. Evelyn J. Magno, President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Nueva Ecija
Chapter had a disagreement with her uncle, Lorenzo Inos, over a landscaping contract they had
entered into. During the conciliation/confrontation proceeding, Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba appeared
on the strength of a Special Power of Attorney signed by Lorenzo Inos. Atty. Magno objected to Atty.
2
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Jacobas appeareance in the conciliation but the latter interpose that Lorenzo Inos is entitled to be
represented by a lawyer inasmuch as complainant is herself a lawyer.
Thus, this petition for willful violation of (a) Section 415 of the Local Government Code (LGC) of
1991 and (b) Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba violated the Local Government Code and the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held: Section 415 of the LGC of 1991, on the subject Katarungang Pambarangay, provides: Section
415. Appearance of Parties in Person. - In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties
must appear in person without the assistance of the counsel or representative, xxxx. There can be no
quibbling that laymen of goodwill can easily agree to conciliate and settle their disputes between
themselves without what sometimes is the unsettling assistance of lawyers whose presence could
sometimes obfuscate and confuse issues. Worse still, the participation of lawyers with their penchant
to use their analytical skills and legal knowledge tend to prolong instead of expedite settlement of
the case. Doubtless, respondents conduct tended to undermine the laudable purpose of the
katarungan pambarangay system. What compounded matters was when respondent repeatedly
ignored complainants protestation against her continued appearance in the barangay conciliation
proceedings.
Hence, Atty. Jacoba was ordered to fine P5,000 and warned that commission of similar acts of
impropriety on her part in the future will be dealt with more severely.
9. ZIGA VS. JUDGE AREJOLA
10. JAVELLANA VS. DILG
FACTS: Javellana is an incumbent member of the City Council or Sanggunian Panglungsod of Bago
City, and a lawyer by profession who has continuously engaged in the practice of law without
securing authority for that purpose from the Regional Director, Department of Local Government, as
required by DLG Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 in relation to DLG Memorandum Circular No. 74-
58. As to members of the bar the authority given for them to practice their profession shall always
be subject to the restrictions provided for in Section 6 of Republic Act 5185. In all cases, the practice
of any profession should be favorably recommended by the Sanggunian concerned as a body and by
the provincial governors, city or municipal mayors, as the case may be. c) That no conflict of
interests between the practice of profession or engagement in private employment and the official
duties of the concerned official shall arise thereby; Five months later or on October 10, 1991, the
Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) was signed into law, Section 90 of which provides: Sec. 90.
Practice of Profession. - (a) All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing
their profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief
executives. (b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or
teach in schools except during session hours: Provided, That sanggunian members who are members
of the Bar shall not: (1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local
government unit or any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party; (2)
Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or local
government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office; (3) Collect any fee for their
appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local government unit of which he is an
official; and (4) Use property and personnel of the Government except when the sanggunian
member concerned is defending the interest of the Government.
HELD: Petitioner's contention that Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG
Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 violate Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution is completely off
tangent. Neither the statute nor the circular trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and authority
to prescribe rules on the practice of law. The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular
No. 90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest between
the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of their profession, in those instances
where the law allows it.
11. IN RE: CUNAMAN
FACTS: Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The
title of the law was, An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and
including 1955.
Section 1 provided the following passing marks:
1946-195170%
1952 .71%
1953..72%
1954..73%
1955..74%
Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%. Section 2 of the Act
provided that A bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any subject shall be deemed to have
already passed that subject and the grade/grades shall be included in the computation of the general
average in subsequent bar examinations.
ISSUE: Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.
RULING: Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of not being embraced in
the title of the Act. As per its title, the Act should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar
examinations.
Section2 establishes a permanent system for an indefinite time. It was also struck down for
allowing partial passing, thus failing to take account of the fact that laws and jurisprudence are not
stationary.
As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to
1955 was declared in force and effect. The portion that was stricken down was based under the
following reasons: The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who flunked the bar from
1946 to 1952 had inadequate preparation due to the fact that this was very close to the end of World
3
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
War II; The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court on the petitions of the
said candidates; The law is an encroachment on the Courts primary prerogative to determine who
may be admitted to practice of law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to repeal, alter and
supplement the Rules of Court.
The rules laid down by Congress under this power are only minimum norms, not designed to
substitute the judgment of the court on who can practice law; and The pretended classification is
arbitrary and amounts to class legislation. As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court
could not muster enough votes to declare it void. Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to take
effect in 1953. Hence, it will not revoke existing Supreme Court resolutions denying admission to the
bar of an petitioner. The same may also rationally fall within the power to Congress to alter,
supplement or modify rules of admission to the practice of law.
12. IN RE: ALAMACEN
Facts: Atty. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. They lost in said civil
case but Almacen filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He notified the opposing party of said motion
but he failed to indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion. Hence, his motion was denied.
He then appealed but the Court of Appeals denied his appeal as it agreed with the trial court with
regard to the motion for reconsideration. Eventually, Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari before the
Supreme Court which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute resolution.
This earned the ire of Almacen who called such minute resolutions as unconstitutional. He then filed
before the Supreme Court a petition to surrender his lawyers certificate of title as he claimed that it
is useless to continue practicing his profession when members of the high court are men who are
calloused to please for justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and
commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. He further alleged that due to the
minute resolution, his client was made to pay P120k without knowing the reasons why and that he
became one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy. He also stated that justice as
administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and
dumb.
The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacens petition as the Court wanted to wait for
Almacen to ctually surrender his certificate. Almacen did not surrender his lawyers certificate though
as he now argues that he chose not to. Almacen then asked that he may be permitted to give
reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him . . . in an open and public
hearing. He said he preferred this considering that the Supreme Court is the complainant,
prosecutor and Judge. Almacen was however unapologetic.
ISSUE: Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are needed because the
Supreme Court cannot accept every case or write full opinion for every petition they reject otherwise
the High Court would be unable to effectively carry out its constitutional duties. The proper role of
the Supreme Court is to decide only those cases which present questions whose resolutions will
have immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved. It should be
remembered that a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right,
but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully explain the courts denial. For one
thing, the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals opinion.
On Almacens attack against the Supreme Court, the High Court regarded said criticisms as uncalled
for; that such is insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory. It is true that a lawyer,
both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, has the right to criticize in properly respectful terms
and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. His right as a citizen to criticize the
decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful manner, and the independence of the bar, as well as of
the judiciary, has always been encouraged by the courts. But it is the cardinal condition of all such
criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.
Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.
In the case at bar, Almacens criticism is misplaced. As a veteran lawyer, he should have known that a
motion for reconsideration which failed to notify the opposing party of the time and place of trial is a
mere scrap of paper and will not be entertained by the court. He has only himself to blame and he is
the reason why his client lost. Almacen was suspended indefinitely.
13. IN RE: LANUEVO
FACTS: Disbarment complaint was filed against Victorio Lanuevo. Lanuevo was the Bar Confidant
during the 1971 Bar Examination. He brought 5 examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang to the
respective examiners for re-checking. As a result, Galang passed the examination.
ISSUE: Whether or not should Lanuevo be disbarred?
HELD: YES. Lanuevo has no authority to request for re-evaluation of examination results. As a Bar
Confidant, his function is to serve as a custodian of the examination notebooks only. All requests
should be made by the examinee himself. Lanuevo breached the trust and confidence given by the
court.
14. APPLICATION FOR THE BAR ADMISSION, VICENTE CHING
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION OF THE BAR:
a) Citizen of the Philippines
b) at least 21 yrs old
c) of good moral character
d) resident of the Philippines
e) must produce before the SC satisfactory evidence of good moral character
f) no charges against him, involving moral turpitude have been filed or pending in any
court
g) must have complied with the academic requirements
h) pass the bar examinations
i) take the lawyers oath
j) sign the roll of atty. and receive from the clerk of court of the SC the certificate of
4
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
license of the practice of law seeking admission had practiced law without a license.

15. PETITION TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW, BENJAMIN DACANAY True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyers oath. However, it is
Loss of Phil. citizenship ipso jure terminates the privelege to the practice of law in the Phil. the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that
However, pursuant to RA 9225 a filipino lawyer who become a citizen of another country is respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to
deemed never to have lost his Phil. citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225. become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a
Nevertheless, his right to practice law does not automatically accrue. he must first secure authority lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyers oath to be administered by this Court and his
from the SC upon compliance with the following conditions: signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
1. Updating and payment in Full of annual membership dues in the IBP 20. TOLENTINO VS. ATTY. MENDOZA
2. payment of Prof. tax 21. LETTER OF ATTY AREVALO REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM IBP DUES PAYMET
3. Completion of at least 36 credit hours of MCLE 22. TING - DUMALI VS. ATTY TORRES
4. retaking of lawyer's oath
II. LEGAL ETHICS
16. PETITION TO REACQUIRE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW, EPIFANIO MUNESES
17. VILLA VS. AMA DEFINITIONS - it is a branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an attorney owes to
18. NARAG VS. NARAG the court, to his client, to his colleagues in the profession and to the public.
Facts: Atty. Narags spouse filed a petition for disbarment in the IBP alleging that her husband
courted one of his students, later maintaining her as a mistress and having children by her. Atty. SOURCES OF LEGAL ETHICS:
Narag claims that his wife was a possessive, jealous woman who abused him and filed the complaint 1. THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
out of spite. IBP disbarred him, hence, this petition. INCLUDES: Constitution
Held: Narag failed to prove his innocence because he failed to refute the testimony given against Canons of prof. ethics
him and it was proved that his actions were of public knowledge and brought disrepute and suffering Rules of Court
to his wife and children. Good moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member Statutes
of the bar. Thus, when a lawyer fails to meet the exacting standard of moral integrity, the Supreme Special Law
Court may withdraw his or her privilege to practice law. (Canons 1&7, Rule 7.03, Code of Ethics for Treaties
Lawyers) It is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing qualification for Decisions
all members. Hence when a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he may be suspended or 2. THE NEW CODER OF JUDICIAL FOR PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY
disbarred. Grossly immoral means it 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 CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. As a lawyer, one must not only
refrain from adulterous relationships but must not behave in a way that scandalizes the public by A. A LAWYERS DUTY TO THE PUBLIC
creating a belief that he is flouting those moral standards.
a) Canon 1: THE LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND OBEY THE LAWS OF
19. AGUIRRE VS. RANA THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESS.

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to RULE 1.01 - The lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The conduct.
exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational RULE 1.02 - The lawyer shall not counsel or or abet activities at defiance of the law or at
attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not lessening confidence in the legal system.
acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a RULE 1.03 - The lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest encourage suit or
privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person proceeding or delay any man's cause.
5
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
 RULE 1.04 - The lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle a controversy if
it will admit of a fair settlement.
PALE
Cases:
. Lawyers Duty to the Public
(a) Canon 1
23. Endaya vs Atty. Oca, AC# 3967, 9/3/2003
FACTS:
A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Artemio Endaya and his wife. An answer was
prepared by a Mr. Ramirez for the spouses. At the beginning of the preliminary conference, spouses
appeared without counsel. Endaya sought the services of the Public Attorneys Office. Atty. Oca was
assigned to handle the case. At the continuation of the prelim conference, Oca filed motion for
amendment of answer. Motion was denied. The judge then ordered all parties to submit their
affidavits and position papers. The court also said that 30 days after the submission of the last paper
or upon expiration of the period for filing, judgment shall be rendered on the case. Oca failed to
submit any affidavit or position paper. Nonetheless, the complaint for unlawful detainer was
dismissed because those who filed the case were not really parties-in-interest. The case was
appealed to RTC. Oca failed to submit anything again. RTC reversed the MTC decision. Spouses were
ordered to vacate the property and pay a certain amount for rentals. Endaya confronted Oca about
the decision. Oca feigned that he did not receive anything. Upon checking with the clerk of court,
Oca did indeed receive a copy of the decision. Hence this administrative complaint.
ISSUE:
W/N Oca committed professional misconduct
HELD:
Yes. Suspended for 2 months from practice of law.
In his comment, Oca put up the defense that he did not file any paper in the MCTC because it would
just be a repetition of the answer. Endaya filed his reply which just reiterated what he put in his
complaint. SC ordered Oca to file a rejoinder. Guess what, Oca once again failed to file anything. Oca
explained that he failed to file a rejoinder because he believed in good faith that it was no longer
necessary. In the IBP investigation, Oca once again failed to submit anything.
Oca only appeared once in the MCTC and practically abandoned the spouses thereafter. The facts
show that Oca failed to employ every legal and honorable means to advance the cause of his client.
For intentionally failing to submit the pleadings required by the court, respondent practically closed
the door to the possibility of putting up a fair fight for his client. Oca cannot just appear only once for
the spouses. A lawyer continues to be a counsel of record until the lawyer-client relationship is
terminated. Ocas story shows his appalling indifference to his clients cause, deplorable lack of
respect for the courts and a brazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer.
However Endaya misrepresented that the original answer was prepared by a non-lawyer when in fact
it was prepared by a lawyer. He also assured Oca that he had strong evidence to support their case.
Endaya never gave anything to Oca to support their claim.The PAO is burdened with a heavy
caseload. Given these circumstances the professional conduct of Oca does not warrant disbarment.
24. Barrientos vs Atty. Libran-Meteoro, AC# 6408, 8/31/2004
FACTS:
In September 2000, the lawyer issued several Equitable PCIBank Checks in favor of Barrientos and
Mercado for the payment of a pre-existing debt. The checks bounced due to insufficient funds, thus,
charges for violation of B.P. 22 were filed. The lawyer asked for deferment of the criminal charges and
promised to pay her debt several times, but failed to pay the full amount, even after a complaint for
disbarment was filed against her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
***The issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed
account indicates a lawyers unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on her. It shows a lack of
personal honesty and good moral character as to render her unworthy of public confidence. ***
Mere issuance of worthless checks by a lawyer, regardless of whether or not the same were issued in
his professional capacity to a client, calls for appropriate disciplinary measures.
25. Alejandro vs Atty. Alejandro, AC# 4256, 2/31/2004
FACTS:
Complainant submitted a photocopy of the marriage contract between her and respondent Atty.
Alejandro in support of her charge of bigamy and concubinage against the latter and Villarin. She also
submitted a photocopy of the birth certificate of a child of the respondent and also stated that they
were married in May 1, 1990 in Isabela, Province.
The Supreme Court directed respondents to file their comment on the complaint within 10 days but
they failed to comply. Copies of the resolution, complaint and its annexes were returned to both
respondents unserved with notation moved, same as when served personally. Complainant was
6
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
required anew to submit the correct, present address of respondents under pain of dismissal of her
administrative complaint. She disclosed respondents address at 12403 Develop Drive Houston, Texas
in a handwritten letter.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that both respondents be disbarred. The
Supreme Court ordered Atty. Alejandro to be disbarred while the complaint against his co-
respondent Atty. Villarin was returned to the IBP for further proceedings or it appears that a copy of
the resolution requiring comment was never deemed served upon her as it was upon Atty.
Alejandro.
ISSUE:
Whether or not abandonment of lawful wife and maintaining an illicit relationship with another
woman are grounds for disbarment.
HELD:
Sufficient evidence showed that respondent Atty. Alejandro, lawfully married to complainant, carried
on an illicit relationship with co-respondent Atty. Villarin. Although the evidence was not sufficient to
prove that he co0ntracted a subsequent bigamous marriage, that fact remains of his deplorable lack
of that degree of morality required of him as member of the bar. A disbarment proceeding is
warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife and maintains an illicit relationship with
another woman who had borne him a child. We can do no less in this case where Atty. Alejandro
even fled to another country to escape the consequences of his misconduct.
Therefore, Atty. Alejandro disbarred from the practice of law while the complaint against Atty. Villarin
was referred back to the IBP.
26. Vda. De Espino vs Atty. Prequito, AC# 4762, 6/28/2004
FACTS:
Complainants husband sold a piece of land to Respondent who issued 8 post-dated checks as
payment and which checks however subsequently bounced prompting Complainant and her husband
to make repeated demands but to no avail. Complainant alleged that Respondents unlawful refusal
and dilatory tactics partly triggered the death of her husband, who died disillusioned and
embittered. Respondent countered that, Complainant did not know the real story, and that the
non-payment of the checks was justified by the unresolved problem of right-of-way which
Complainants husband supposedly had guaranteed. He also alleged that he was entitled to set-off
what he owed for the land acquisition against advances made by Complainants husband and for cost
incurred when he defended Complainants son in a criminal case.
RULING:
***Respondent SUSPENDED. Respondent issued eight (8) worthless checks, seemingly without
regard to its deleterious effects to public interest and public order. The issuance of worthless checks
constitutes gross misconduct, and puts the erring lawyers moral character in serious doubt, though
it is not related to his professional duties as a member of the bar. He not only sets himself liable for a
serious criminal offense under B.P. Blg. 22, but also transgresses the CPR, specifically the mandate of
Canon 1 to obey the laws of the land and promote the respect for law.***
27. Guevarra vs Atty. Eala, AC# 7136, 8/1/2007
FACTS:
Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala (respondent)
for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath."
The complainant first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainant's) then-fiance Irene
Moje (Irene) introduced respondent Atty. Eala, a lawyer and a sports caster, to him as her friend who
was married to Mary Ann Tantoco with whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene, complainant noticed that Irene had been receiving from respondent
cellphone calls, as well as messages some of which read "I love you," "I miss you," or "Meet you at
Megamall." He also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the morning
of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked about her
whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parents' house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy
with her work. More so, complainant has seen Irene and respondent together on two occasions. On
the second occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house.
Moreover, Complainant later found, in the master's bedroom, a folded social card bearing the words
"I Love You" on its face, which card when unfolded contained a handwritten letter dated October 7,
2000, the day of his wedding to Irene. Also, it was revealed that Irene gave birth to a girl in 2002 and
Irene named respondent in the Certificate of Live Birth as the girl's father.
In his answer, Respondent specifically denies having ever flaunted an adulterous relationship with
Irene, the truth of the matter being that their relationship was low profile and known only to the
immediate members of their respective families. He also said that his special relationship with Irene
is neither under scandalous circumstances nor tantamount to grossly immoral conduct as would be a
ground for disbarment.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent be disbarred from the practice of Law.
HELD:
YES. The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is
not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly.
***While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between two
7
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not
so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-marital
relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful
and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows
protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.***
28. Bautista vs. Atty. Gonzales, 182 SCRA 151
FACTS:
In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista, respondent Ramon A. Gonzales was charged with
malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation of lawyers oath. Required by this Court to
answer the charges against him, respondent filed a motion for a bill of particulars asking this Court to
order complainant to amend his complaint by making his charges more definite. In a resolution the
Court granted respondents motion and required complainant to file an amended complaint.
Complainant submitted an amended complaint for disbarment, alleging that respondent committed
the following acts:
1. 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.
xxx
4. Inducing complainant, 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
attorneys 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;
xxx
Pertinent to No. 4 above, the contract, in No. 1 above, reads:
We the [Fortunados] agree on the 50% contingent fee, provided, you [respondent Ramon Gonzales]
defray all expenses, for the suit, including court fees.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent committed serious misconduct involving a champertous contract.
HELD:
YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for six (6) months.
RATIO:
The Court finds that the agreement between the respondent and the Fortunados contrary to Canon
42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provides that a lawyer may not properly agree with a
client to pay or bear the expenses of litigation. [See also Rule 16.04, Code of Professional
Responsibility]. Although a lawyer may in good faith, advance the expenses of litigation, the same
should be subject to reimbursement. The agreement between respondent and the Fortunados,
however, does not provide for reimbursement to respondent of litigation expenses paid by him. An
agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the clients rights
is champertous [citation omitted]. Such agreements are against public policy especially where, as in
this case, the attorney has agreed to carry on the action at his own expense in consideration of some
bargain to have part of the thing in dispute [citation omitted]. The execution of these contracts
violates the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and his client, for which the former must incur
administrative sanctions.
29. Mecaral vs Atty. Vasquez, AC# 8392, 6/29/2010
FACTS: Complainant was Respondents secretary (in 2002), later she became his lover and common-
law wife. Still later, Respondent brought her to a mountainous part in Biliran where he left her with
the Faith Healers Association of the Philippines, a religious group which Respondent headed.
Thereafter, and upon Respondents instruction, his followers tortured, brainwashed and injected
Complainant with drugs. She remained in captivity until her mother aided by the Provincial Welfare
Development and the police, rescued her. Complainant sought Respondents disbarment alleging as
well that Respondent contracted a bigamous marriage in marrying Leny Azur despite the subsistence
of a prior marriage to Ma. Shirley Yunzal.
RULING: Respondent DISBARRED for violating Canon 1 (A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes) and Rule 7 (A lawyer shall not
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession) of the CPR;
***his name ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Respondents acts of converting his
secretary into a mistress, contracting two marriages with Shirley and Leny are grossly immoral which
no civilized society in the world can countenance. Complainants subsequent detention and torture is
gross misconduct which only a beast may be able to do. Canon 1 of the CPR.***
30. Cham vs Atty. Paita-Maya, AC# 7494, 6/27/2008
FACTS: Respondent leased an apartment unit from Greenville Realty and Development Corp.
represented by Complainant as its president and general manager. Her total unpaid account reached
P71,1007.88. Despite repeated demands, Respondent failed to pay her account and even vacated the
leased premises without notifying Complainant.
RULING: Respondent SUSPENDED for 1 month; WARNED that repetition of same or similar act will be
dealt with more severely. ***Having incurred just debts, Respondent had the moral duty and legal
responsibility to settle them when they became due.***
8
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes

Respondent left the apartment unit without settling her unpaid obligations, and without the
complainants knowledge and consent. *** Respondents abandonment of the leased premises to
avoid her obligations for the rent and electricity bills constitutes deceitful conduct violative of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon I*** (a lawyer shall uphold the constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes) and Rule 1.01 (a lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct).
Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal system, they are
expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity
and fair dealing. In so doing, the peoples faith and confidence in the judicial and legal system is
ensured.
31. Roa vs Atty. Moreno, AC#8382, 4/21/10
FACTS: Complainant paid Respondent P70T for the purchase of a piece of land. Instead of a deed of
sale, Respondent issued a temporary receipt and a certificate of land occupancy assuring
Complainant that he could already use the lot. Complainant, upon learning that the certificate could
not be registered with the Register of Deeds, then confronted Respondent who admitted that the
real owner was a certain Rubio and that the lot was still pending litigation.
RULING: Respondent SUSPENDED from law practice for 2 years. Respondents credibility is highly
questionable he even issued a bogus certificate of land occupancy to Complainant whose only fault
was that he did not know better. To the unlettered, said certificate could have easily passed off as a
document evidencing title. In fact, Complainant actually tried, but failed, to register the Certificate of
Land Occupancy in the Register of Deeds. Complainant readily parted with P70T because of the false
assurance afforded by the sham certificate.
Respondent violated Rule 1.01 (not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct)
of the CPR. Conduct, as used in the Rule, is not confined to the performance of a lawyers
professional duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional
or private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character,
honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer
of the court.
Respondent acted in his private capacity, misrepresented that he owned the lot he sold to
Complainant, later refused to return his money. As a final blow, he denied having any transaction
with complainant. It is crystal-clear in the mind of the Court that he fell short of his duty under Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
PART 2 OF CANON 1
32. SAMANIEGO VS. ATTY FERRER 6/18/2008
Facts:
Early in 1996, ms. Samaniego was referred to atty. Ferrer as a potential client and the latter agreed to
handle her case and soon their lawyer-client relationship became intimate.subsequently, they
cohabiatating with each other as husband and wife for about a year from 1996 to 1997 and have
their daughter born. The affair ended in 2000 and since then,respondent failed to support his
daughter.ms. Samaniegao, filed a complaint against the respondent before the IBP commission on
bar discipline.A member of the bar?
Issue: is the act of the respondent a violation of the code of professional responsibility?
Ruling:
Yes, the court finds the respondents illicit affair as disgraceful and immoral conduct subject to
disciplinary actions. rule 101 of the code of professional conduct as well as the canon 7 explicitly
prohibits acts which discredit of the legal profession, thus the court sustaining the recommendation
of the bar confidant that the respondent be suspended for 6 months in the practice of law.
Principle:
-legal ethics; we have considered such illicit relation as a disgraceful and immoral conduct subj. to
disciplinary action---We have considered such illicit relation as a disgraceful and immoral conduct
subject to disciplinary action.[15] The penalty for such immoral conduct is disbarment,[16] or
indefinite[17] or definite[18] suspension, depending on the circumstances of the case. Recently, in
Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Jr.,[19] we ruled that suspension from the practice of law for two years was
an adequate penalty imposed on the lawyer who was found guilty of gross immorality. In said case,
we considered the absence of aggravating circumstances such as an adulterous relationship coupled
with refusal to support his family; or maintaining illicit relationships with at least two women during
the subsistence of his marriage; or abandoning his legal wife and cohabiting with other women.
- That one complicit in the affair complained of immorality against her co-principal does not make
this case less serious since it is immaterial whether Ms. Samaniego is in pari delicto.[21] We must
emphasize that this Courts investigation is not about Ms. Samaniegos acts but Atty. Ferrers conduct
as one of its officers and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.[ On another point, we may
agree with respondents contention that complainant was not entirely blameless. She knew about
his wife but blindly believed him to be unmarried. However, that one complicit in the affair
complained of immorality against her co-principal does not make this case less serious since it is
immaterial whether Ms. Samaniego is in pari delicto.[21] We must emphasize that this Courts
investigation is not about Ms. Samaniegos acts but Atty. Ferrers conduct as one of its officers and his
9
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.]
33. VENTURA VS. ATTY. SAMSON 11/27/2012
From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the admissions of respondent himself, we
find that respondents act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his former employee,
constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction. Respondent not only admitted he had
sexual intercourse with complainant but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that
he did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her money. Indeed, his act of
having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect for the laws on the
sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he procured the act
by enticing a very young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for
the dignity of the human person and the ethics of his profession.
Respondent has violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant, then a 13-year-
old minor, who for a time was under respondents care. Whether the sexual encounter between the
respondent and complainant was or was not with the latters consent is of no moment. Respondent
clearly committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and highly reprehensible act. Such conduct is a
transgression of the standards of morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined
accordingly.
Principles:
Legal ethics; As we explained in Zaguirre v. Castillo, 14 the possession of good moral character is
both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to
retain membership in the legal profession. It is the bounden duty of members of the bar to observe
the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar.15 Consequently, any
errant behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in the lawyers public or private activities, which tends
to show said lawyer deficient in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to
warrant suspension or disbarment.
Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral
indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community.16 Immoral
conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the communitys sense of decency.
*** We find that respondents act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his former
employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction. Respondent not only admitted
he had sexual intercourse with complainant but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he
asserted that he did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her money.
Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman other than his wife manifests his disrespect
for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. ***
34.Juanita manaois, complainantVs.Atty. Victor v. Deciembre,respondent
Facts: complainant,a government employee work as a mail sorter in manila central postoffice.she
applied for a loan thru the assistance of atty. Deciembre in the amount of 20thousand pesos from
rodella loans inc.as security of the loan,respondent required her toissue blank check that she would
fill out according to their agreed monthlyamortizations.notwithstanding upon full payment of the
loan respondent did not return the remaining blank checks.respondent also made falsification of the
amount of the check and made it appear complainant had exchanged them for cash.the respondent
filed severalcases against the complainant pertaining to the blank checks issuance as well as the loan
payments.the ibp board of go vernors investigate the matter.
Issue: is the act of the respondent a violation of the code of professional responsibility?
Ruling. Yes, the court finds the respondent guilty of the violation of canon 1, rule 101 of the code of
professional responsibility.his conduct is a serious dishonesty and and professionla
misconduct,rendering him to be suspended indefinitely in practicing law.
Principle:
Legal ethics; atty; disbarment; Code of professional responsibility; nothing should b 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 profession---CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESSES.Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.The Code of Professional Responsibility likewise mandates that "a lawyer shall at all times
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession."7 To this end, 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 profession.
Evidently, respondent failed to comply with the foregoing canons. As shown by the records and as
found by the Commissioner, complainant had supplied respondent with blank personal checks as
security for the P20,000 loan she had contracted and which respondent subsequently deceitfully
filled out with various amounts they had not agreed upon and with full knowledge that the loan had
already been paid. After the filled-out checks had been dishonored upon presentment, respondent
even imprudently filed multiple lawsuits against complainant. Verily, respondent is guilty of serious
dishonesty and professional misconduct. He committed an act indicative of moral depravity not
expected from and highly unbecoming of a member of the Bar.9 The fact that the conduct pertained
to respondents private dealings with complainant is of no moment. A lawyer may be suspended or
disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. Possession of good moral character
is not only a good condition precedent to the practice of law, but also a continuing qualification for all
members of the Bar.
35.RONQUILLO VS. ATTY. CEZAR, 2006
Facts: Complainants seek the disbarment or suspension of respondent from the practice of law for
unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. They allege that respondent sold them a piece
of property over which he has no right nor interest, and that he refuses to return to them the
amount they have paid him for it.
10
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
In May 1999, complainants and respondent entered into a Deed of Assignment, respondent
transferred, in favor of the complainants, his rights and interests over a townhouse unit and lot,
located at 75 Granwood Villas Subd., BF Homes, Quezon City.
Respondent received from complainants P750,000.00 upon execution of the Deed of Assignment.
The balance was to be paid by complainants in four equal quarterly installments of P187,500.00
each. Thus, complainants issued in favor of respondent four postdated checks in the amount of
P187,500.00 each. Respondent was able to encash the first check dated August 17, 1999.2
Complainants subsequently received information from Crown Asia that respondent has not paid in
full the price of the townhouse at the time he executed the Deed of Assignment.
On March 6, 2000, complainants, through their counsel, wrote respondent, informing him that they
were still willing to pay the balance of the purchase price of the townhouse on the condition that
respondent work on Crown Asias execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor.
Hence, this administrative complaint6 that respondent engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. Allegedly, respondent violated his oath under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and he ought to be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law..
Issue: WON respondent is guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct proscribed under Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held: Yes,
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or
suspended on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross misconduct in
office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation
of the lawyers oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party without authority. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct." "Conduct," as used in this rule, does not refer exclusively to the performance of a lawyers
professional duties. This Court has made clear in a long line of cases7 that a lawyer may be disbarred
or suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an
officer of the court.
In the instant case, respondent may have acted in his private capacity when he entered into a
contract with complainant Marili representing to have the rights to transfer title over the townhouse
unit and lot in question. When he failed in his undertaking, respondent fell short of his duty under
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It cannot be gainsaid that it was
unlawful for respondent to transfer property over which one has no legal right of ownership.
Respondent was likewise guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct when he concealed this lack of
right from complainants. He did not inform the complainants that he has not yet paid in full the price
of the subject townhouse unit and lot, and, therefore, he had no right to sell, transfer or assign said
property at the time of the execution of the Deed of Assignment. His acceptance of the bulk of the
purchase price amounting to Nine Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Pesos
(P937,500.00), despite knowing he was not entitled to it, made matters worse for him.
36. LEE VS. ABASTILLAS, 234 SCRA 28
The 3 meetings by the judge Abastillas with interested who had a stake on the outcome of the
criminal case and the record of telephone conversation where said cases were discussed manifested
judge abastillas willingness, nay, propensity to enter into deals with motivation incongruous to the
merits of the cases pending before him. Judge Abastillas committed serious misconduct no less. It is
peculiarity essential that the system for establishing and dispensing justice be developed to a high
degree to proficiency, to gain the absolute confidence of the public in the integrity and impartiality of
its administration, because appearance is as important as reality, so much so that a judge, like cesars
wif, must be pure but beyond suspicion.
Principles:
Code of judicial Conduct requires that a judge be embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence, he should administer justice impartially and without delay. He should behave at all
times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. The
actuations of the judge abastillas transgressed against the high standard of moral ethics required for
judges.
37.VITUG VS. ATTY. RONGCAL 9/7/2006
FACTS:
Catherine Joie P. Vitug sought the service of respondent Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal who was
introduced to her by her former classmate. Complainant asked Atty. Rongcal to represent her in the
support case she was going to file against her former lover, Arnulfo Aquino. Soon after, herein
complainant and respondent started having sexual relationship with each other. According to Vitug,
respondent also gave her sweet inducements such as the promise of a job, financial security for her
daughter, and his services as counsel for the prospective claim for support against Aquino.
On 9 February 2001, respondent allegedly convinced complainant to sign anAffidavit of Disclaimer
which the latter signed without reading the saidaffidavit. On 14 February 2001, respondent allegedly
advised complainant that Aquino gave him P150,000.00 cash and P58,000.00 in two (2) postdated
checks to answer for the medical expenses of her daughter. Instead ofturning them over to her,
respondent handed her his personal check in the amount of P150,000.00 and promised to give her
the balance of P58,000.00 soon thereafter. However, sometime in April or May 2001,
respondentinformed her that he could not give her the said amount because he used it for his
political campaign as he was then running for the position ofProvincial Board Member of the 2nd
District of Pampanga
Complainant argues that respondent's acts constitute a violation of his oath as a lawyer. She filed an
administrative case against Rongcal which was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. It
was then recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months
and that he be ordered to return to complainant the amount of P58,000.00 within two months. The
same was approved by the IBP Board of Governors.Respondent then filed a Motion for
Reconsideration with Motion to Set Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the IBP and a Motion to
Reopen/Remand Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the Supreme Court.
11
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes

ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not respondent be disbarred for immorality
(2) Whether or not respondents act of preparing and notarizing the Affidavit, a document
disadvantageous to his client, is a violation of the Code.
HELD:
(1) NO. One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good
moral character. Said requirement persists as a continuing condition for the enjoyment of the
privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege.
The Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not only be
immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal actor so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. On
sexual relation and on respondents subsequent marriage, by his own admission, respondent is
obviously guilty of immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code which states that a lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The Court find credence in
respondent's assertion that it was impossible for her not to have known of his subsisting marriage,
complainants allegations of deceit were not established by clear preponderant evidence required in
disbarment cases.
(2) NO. It was not unlawful for respondent to assist his client in entering intoa settlement with
Aquino after explaining all available options to her. The law encourages the amicable settlement not
only of pending cases but also of disputes which might otherwise be filed in court. Rule 1.04, Canon 1
of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that: A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid,
end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. As complainant voluntarily and
intelligently agreed to a settlement with Aquino, she cannot later blame her counsel when she
experiences a change of heart. Suspicion, no matter how strong, is not enough in the absence of
contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed
his duty in accordance with his oath.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal GUILTY of immorality
and impose on him a FINE of P15,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar
acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
The charge of misappropriation of funds of the client is REMANDED to the IBP for further
investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of this Decision.
38.ABELLA VS. BARRIOS 6/18/2013
Facts:
Complainant obtained a favorable judgment from the Court of Appeals involving a Labor Case.
Complainant then filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution before the Regional Arbitration
Branch which the respondent was the Labor Arbiter. After the lapse of five (5) months, complainants
motion remained unacted, prompting him to file a Second Motion for Execution. However, still, there
was no action until the complainant agreed to give respondent a portion of the monetary award
thereof after the latter asked from the former how much would be his share. Thereafter, respondent
issued a writ of execution but the employer of the complainant moved to quash the said writ.
Eventually, issued a new writ of execution wherein complainants monetary awards were reduced to
the effect that it modifies the DECISION of the CA. Complainant now filed the instant disbarment
complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), averring that respondent violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility for (a) soliciting money from complainant in exchange for a
favorable resolution; and (b) issuing a wrong decision to give benefit and advantage to PT&T,
complainants employer.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality for his violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.03,
Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code.
HELD:
YES. The above-cited rules, which are contained under Chapter 1 of the Code, delineate the
lawyers responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the overriding prohibition against lawyers from
engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct; Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers
from encouraging any suit or proceeding or delaying any mans cause for any corrupt motive or
interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to lawyers in government service, enjoining
them from using ones public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private interests;
or (3) allow private interests to interfere with public duties. It is well to note that a lawyer who holds
a government office may be disciplined as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also
constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer.
The infractions of the respondent constitute gross misconduct. Jurisprudence illumines that
immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral
indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community. It treads the
line of grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the communitys sense of decency. On the other hand, gross misconduct
constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and
not mere error of judgment."
In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that when a lawyer is found
guilty of gross immoral conduct or gross misconduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.However,
the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that he had already been disbarred in a previous
administrative case, entitled Sps. Rafols, Jr. v. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr., which therefore precludes the
Court from duplicitously decreeing the same. In view of the foregoing, the Court deems it proper to,
instead, impose a fine in the amount of P40,000.00 in order to penalize respondents transgressions
as discussed herein and to equally deter the commission of the same or similar acts in the future.
12
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Principles:
Legal Ethics; Disbarment; A lawyer who holds a government office may disciplined as a member of
the bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of the oath as a lawyer--chapter 1 of
the Code, delineate the lawyers responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the overriding
prohibition against lawyers from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct;
Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers from encouraging any suit or proceeding or delaying any mans cause for
any corrupt motive or interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to lawyers in
government service, enjoining them from using ones public position to: (1) promote private
interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interests to interfere with public duties.26
It is well to note that a lawyer who holds a government office may be disciplined as a member of the
Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer.27In this light, a
lawyers compliance with and observance of the above-mentioned rules should be taken into
consideration in determining his moral fitness to continue in the practice of law.
To note, "the possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing
requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the legal
profession."28This proceeds from the lawyers duty to observe the highest degree of morality in
order to safeguard the Bars integrity.29 Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer,
be it in the lawyers public or private activities, which tends to show deficiency in moral character,
honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment.
Jurisprudence illumines that immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless,
and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the
community.36 It treads the line of grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or
revolting circumstances as to shock the communitys sense of decency.37 On the other hand, gross
misconduct constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a
wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment."
RAMOS VS. ATTY. NGASEO 12/9/2004
FACTS: Raamos went to atty. Ngaseo to engage his services as counsel in a case involving a piece of
land. After the CA rendered a favorable decision ordering the land to be returned to Ramos and his
siblings (such decision having been final and executor). Atty. Ngaseo sent a demand letter to ramos
asking for the delivery of a pieceof alnd without the complainant allegedly promised as payment for
respondents appearancefee. As a result, ramos filed bfore the IBP a comlaint charging atty. Ngaseo of
vioalationof the CPR for demanding the delivery of a parcel of land whih was subj. of litigation. The
IBP found atty. Ngaseo guilty. Atty. Ngaseo argues that he did not violate 1491 cc because when he
demand the delivery of the piece of land, the case has been transmeitted, when the appellate
ordered the return of the land to the family of ramos.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Ngaseo violated 1491 of CC.
HELD:
NO, under art 1491 CC lawyrs are prohibited from acquiring either by purchase or assignment the
property or rights involved which are the object of the litigation in which they intervene by virtue of
their public/ judicial sles. However such prohibition applies only if the sale or assignment of the
property takes place during the pendency of the litigation involving the clients property.
Consequently, where the property is acquired after the termination of the case, as in the instant case,
no violation of art. 1491.
Principles:
- LEGAL ETHICS;Under Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, lawyers are prohibited from acquiring either
by purchase or assignment the property or rights involved which are the object of the litigation in
which they intervene by virtue of their professional applies only if the sale or assignment of the
property takes place during the pendency of the litigation involving the clients property----Under
Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, lawyers are prohibited from acquiring either by purchase or
assignment the property or rights involved which are the object of the litigation in which they
intervene by virtue of their profession.[7] The prohibition on purchase is all embracing to include not
only sales to private individuals but also public or judicial sales. The rationale advanced for the
prohibition is that public policy disallows the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship
involved, i.e., the relation of trust and confidence and the peculiar control exercised by these
persons.[8] It is founded on public policy because, by virtue of his office, an attorney may easily take
advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client and unduly enrich himself at the expense of his
client.[9] However, the said prohibition applies only if the sale or assignment of the property takes
place during the pendency of the litigation involving the clients property. Consequently, where the
property is acquired after the termination of the case, no violation of paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the
Civil Code attaches.
-The power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with a great cautiononly in clear casesof
misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court
and ember of the bar will disbarment or suspension be imposed as penalty---We note that the report
of the IBP Commissioner, as adopted by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XVI-2003-
47, does not clearly specify which acts of the respondent constitute gross misconduct or what
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility have been violated. We find the recommended
penalty of suspension for 6 months too harsh and not proportionate to the offense committed by the
respondent. The power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear
case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the
Court and member of the bar will disbarment or suspension be imposed as a penalty.[12] All
considered, a reprimand is deemed sufficient and reasonable.
BEL-AIR TRANSIT SERVICE CORP VS. ATTY MENDOZA 3/31 2005
Facts:
On September 19, 2001, the respondent rented a car from it and the respondent personally signed,
the latter was to be fetched at his residence. The respondent rented another Toyota Camry from the
complainant on September 28, 2001, this time with Plate No. WRT 557, and was, likewise, fetched at
13
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
his residence. This second contract was also personally signed by the respondent. The statements of
account[4] were, thereafter, sent to the respondent at his office and business address. Despite
repeated demands for payment, the respondent refused to pay his account. Hence this complaint
charging Atty. Esteban Y. Mendoza with grossly immoral and unethical conduct, praying for his
disbarment and that his name be stricken-off from the Roll of AttorneysAccording to the
complainant, the respondents refusal to pay for the complainants car rental services constitutes
deceit and grossly immoral and unethical conduct, which violates the Canons of Professional Ethics
and Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code on Human RelationsRespondent offers two reasons for
non-payment: First, that the obligation was incurred not by him but by his law office Martinez &
Mendoza. Second, that the respondent almost met an accident on the two occasions he used the
services of the complainant and therefore he should not be penalized for exercising its right to
contest complainants questionable billings.
...
Issue: WON Atty. Mendoza is guilty with with grossly immoral and unethical conduct.
Held:
As to the first reason, we reiterate that as decided by the Metropolitan Trial Court, respondent was
liable for the obligation to the complainant. Indeed, respondent cannot avoid the obligation and
pass it on to his law firm and just make a complete denial considering that he is a name partner in
the firm and law partnership of Martinez and Mendoza
As to the second reason, respondent admits that there was no written demand made for the
complainant to account and answer for the near accidents alleged by respondent, which near
accidents as we understand are his reasons for not immediately paying. We find the absence of a
written demand from the respondent quite odd especially in the case of a lawyer who is seeking to
exercise his right to contest complainants questionable billings or otherwise hold complainant
accountable for the said near accidents. It would perhaps be understandable if the omission was
made by a layman; but for a lawyer not to put his demand in writing, it would be uncharacteristic to
say the least.
The reason offered by respondent for not paying complainant particularly the alleged near accident
is, therefore, not justifiable. The said reason appears to us trite and contrived.
Principles:
Legal ethics; administrative complaints; a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing
any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the
fidelity and integrity in the legal profession--- It is settled that a lawyer may be disbarred or
suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to
be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an
officer of the court.[11] A lawyer must, at all times, uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession. Indeed, a lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties
to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, a member of the legal fraternity
should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed
by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity in the legal profession.[12] Thus, lawyers must
promptly pay their financial obligations.[13] Their conduct must always reflect the values and norms
of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.[14]
DE GUZMAN VS. ATTY. DE DIOS 1/26/2001
Facts:In 1995, complainant engaged the services of respondent as counsel in order to form a
corporation, which would engage in hotel and restaurant business in Olongapo City.On January 10,
1996, with the assistance of Atty. De Dios, complainant registered Suzuki Beach Hotel, Inc. (SBHI)
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.[2] Complainant paid on respondent a monthly
retainer fee of P5,000.00. On December 15, 1997, the corporation required complainant to pay her
unpaid subscribed shares of stock amounting to two million two hundred and thirty five thousand
pesos (P2,235,000.00) or 22,350 shares, on or before December 30, 1997. On January 29, 1998,[3]
complainant received notice of the public auction sale of her delinquent shares and a copy of a board
resolution dated January 6, 1998 authorizing such sale.[4] Complainant soon learned that her shares
had been acquired by Ramon del Rosario, one of the incorporators of SBHI. The sale ousted
complainant from the corporation completely. While respondent rose to be president of the
corporation, complainant lost all her lifes savings invested therein.
Issue:
WON Atty. De Dios in violation of canon 15 and Art 1491 of CC.
Held:
Yes, because she remised in her sworn duty to her client, and to the bar. Respondent claims that
there was no attorney-client relationship between her and complainant. The claim has no merit. It
was complainant who retained respondent to form a corporation. She appeared as counsel in behalf
of complainant.
There was evidence of collusion between the board of directors and respondent. Indeed, the board
of directors nowe included respondent as the president, Ramon del Rosario as secretary, Hikoi Suzuki
as chairman, Agnes Rodriguez as treasurer and Takayuki Sato as director.[7] The present situation
shows a clear case of conflict of interest of the respondent.
Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at
large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
Clearly, respondent violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests and engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Principles:
Legal ethics; conflict of interest; where a lawyer wa retained by a person to form a corporation and
appeared as counsl in behalfof said person but said lawyer wa subsequently shown to be in collusion
with the board of directors of the corporation against the said client, there is a clear conflict of
interest.
Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially intheir dealins with their clients and the public at
large with honesty aand integrity in a manner beyond reproach-- Lawyers must conduct themselves,
14
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a
manner beyond reproach.[8]We said:To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the
law is to state the obvious, but such statement can never be overemphasized. Considering that, of
all classes and professions, [lawyers are] most sacredly bound to uphold the law, it is imperative that
they live by the law. Accordingly, lawyers who violate their oath and engage in deceitful conduct
have no place in the legal profession.
The lawyers oath of obligations ad violation thereof is a ground for suspension , disbarment or
other disciplinary action.
sir: 12/ 3/ 19
(b) NOTARIAL LAW
section 2 rule 3. an atty. must apply as a notary public., because it is impressed with public interest
thats why there is a petition requirement and publication.
authority is valid in 2 yrs ending 31st day of dec. may be renewed by written application fro renewal,
within 45 days before the expiration an atty. may file their renewal, to renew submit a written
application. in case of renewal no hearing, unlike in applications, hearing is required. if your
certification is expired and you did not file application for renewal, then it os deemed original
application. the jurisdiction is limited only to the province where you filed your application. every
notary public entitled with 1 commission and 1 seal. kaning imo seal, buy it in accredited seller or
manufacturing and you cannot buy it just like over the counter drug.
what if the seal is destroyed? report to the notarial judge in order to buy new seal
RULE 4
SECTION 1. Powers. - (a) A notary public is empowered to perform the following notarial acts:
(1) acknowledgments;
(2) oaths and affirmations;
(3) jurats; chan robles virtual law library
(4) signature witnessings;
(5) copy certifications; and
(6) any other act authorized by these Rules.
(b) A notary public is authorized to certify the affixing of a signature by thumb or other mark on an
instrument or document presented for notarization if:
(1) the thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of the notary public and of two (2)
disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document;
(2) both witnesses sign their own names in addition to the thumb or other mark;
(3) the notary public writes below the thumb or other mark: "Thumb or Other Mark affixed by
(name of signatory by mark) in the presence of (names and addresses of witnesses) and undersigned
notary public"; and chan robles virtual law library
(4) the notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or other mark through an acknowledgment,
jurat, or signature witnessing.
(c) A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a person who is physically unable to sign or make
a mark on an instrument or document if:
(1) the notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or make a mark to sign on his behalf;
(2) the signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence of two disinterested and unaffected
witnesses to the instrument or document;
(3) both witnesses sign their own names ;
(4) the notary public writes below his signature: Signature affixed by notary in presence of (names
and addresses of person and two [2] witnesses); and
(5) the notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment or jurat.
RULE 4
SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - (a) A notary public shall not perform a notarial act outside his regular place of
work or business; provided, however, that on certain exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial
act may be performed at the request of the parties in the following sites located within his territorial
jurisdiction: chan robles virtual law library
(1) public offices, convention halls, and similar places where oaths of office may be administered;
(2) public function areas in hotels and similar places for the signing of instruments or documents
requiring notarization;
(3) hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to an instrument or document is confined
for treatment; and
(4) any place where a party to an instrument or document requiring notarization is under detention.
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or
document -
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules. chan robles virtual law library
when a a lawyer is one of the recipient? he cannot notarized.
a notary public cannot notarized family relative.
RULE 11
SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. - (a) The Executive Judge shall revoke a notarial
commission for any ground on which an application for a commission may be denied. chan robles
virtual law library
(b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose appropriate
administrative sanctions upon, any notary public who:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(1) fails to keep a notarial register;
(2) fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning his notarial acts;
(3) fails to send the copy of the entries to the Executive Judge within the first ten (10) days of the
month following;
(4) fails to affix to acknowledgments the date of expiration of his commission;
15
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
(5) fails to submit his notarial register, when filled, to the Executive Judge;
(6) fails to make his report, within a reasonable time, to the Executive Judge concerning the
performance of his duties, as may be required by the judge;
(7) fails to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial act;
(8) fails to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent evidence;
(9) executes a false or incomplete certificate under Section 5, Rule IV;
(10) knowingly performs or fails to perform any other act prohibited or mandated by these Rules;
and
(11) commits any other dereliction or act which in the judgment of the Executive Judge constitutes
good cause for revocation of commission or imposition of administrative sanction.
(c) Upon verified complaint by an interested, affected or aggrieved person, the notary public shall be
required to file a verified answer to the complaint. If the answer of the notary public is not
satisfactory, the Executive Judge shall conduct a summary hearing. If the allegations of the complaint
are not proven, the complaint shall be dismissed. If the charges are duly established, the Executive
Judge shall impose the appropriate administrative sanctions. In either case, the aggrieved party may
appeal the decision to the Supreme Court for review. Pending the appeal, an order imposing
disciplinary sanctions shall be immediately executory, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme
Court.
(d) The Executive Judge may motu proprio initiate administrative proceedings against a notary public,
subject to the procedures prescribed in paragraph (c) above and impose the appropriate
administrative sanctions on the grounds mentioned in the preceding paragraphs (a) and (b).
RULE 6
SEC. 5. Loss, Destruction or Damage of Notarial Register. - (a) In case the notarial register is stolen,
lost, destroyed, damaged, or otherwise rendered unusable or illegible as a record of notarial acts, the
notary public shall, within ten (10) days after informing the appropriate law enforcement agency in
the case of theft or vandalism, notify the Executive Judge by any means providing a proper receipt or
acknowledgment, including registered mail and also provide a copy or number of any pertinent
police report.
42. TAN TIONG BIO VS. ATTY. GONZALEZ
the lawyer notarized a document in pasig city, when in fact his commission s jurisdiction is quezon
city. SC said while seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident, respondents act of notarizing
documents in a place outside of or beyond the authority granted by his notarial commission,
partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. While perhaps not on all fours because of the slight
dissimilarity in the violation involved, what the Court said in Nunga v. Viray [13] is very much
apropos:
Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he
has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action.
For one, performing a notarial [act] without such commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to
obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly
commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate
falsehood, which the lawyers oath similarly proscribes.
These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
It cannot be over-emphasized that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. Far from
it. Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or
authorized may act as notaries public.[14] Hence, the requirements for the issuance of a commission
as notary public are treated with a formality definitely more than casual.[15]
43. DELA CRUZ VS. ATTY. DIMAANO
Facts: In their complaint for disbarment against respondent, complainants alleged that on July 16,
2004, respondent notarized a document denominated as Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate with
Waiver of Rights purportedly executed by them and their sister, Zenaida V.L. Navarro. According to
complainants, respondent had made untruthful statements in the acknowledgment portion of the
notarized document when he made it appear, among other things, that complainants "personally
came and appeared before him" and that they affixed their signatures on the document in his
presence.
In the process, complainants added, respondent effectively enabled their sister, Navarro, to assume
full ownership of their deceased parents' property in and sell the same to the Department of Public
Works and Highways.
The respondent however argued that "he notarized the document in good faith relying on the
representation and assurance of Zenaida Navarro that the signatures and the community tax
certificates appearing in the document were true and correct." Navarro would not, according to
respondent, lie to him having known, and being neighbors of, each other for 30 years.
Issue: Whether or not respondent should be penalized for committing violations of his duties as a
notary public.
Held: YES.
It bears reiterating that notaries public should refrain from affixing their signature and notarial seal
on a document unless the persons who signed it are the same individuals who executed and
personally appeared before the notaries public to attest to the truth of what are stated therein, for
under Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 or the Notarial Law, an instrument or document shall be
considered authentic if the acknowledgment is made in accordance with the following requirements:
(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of
16
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
the country to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act is
done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person
acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who
executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made
under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.[2]
Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question, notaries
public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to
ascertain that the document is the partys free act or deed.
Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their
offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. It must be
remembered that notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a private
document to a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of
preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution.
44. ATTY. LINCO VS. LACEBAL
Attorney; notarization. The fact that the affiant previously appeared in person and signed the Deed
of Donation before the respondent notary public does not justify the respondents act of notarizing
the Deed of Donation, considering the affiants absence on the very day the document was actually
notarized. In the notarial acknowledgment of the Deed of Donation, respondent attested that Atty.
Linco personally came and appeared before him on July 30, 2003. Yet obviously, Atty. Linco could not
have appeared before him on July 30, 2003, because the latter died on July 29, 2003 a day before
the Deed of Donation was notarized, and respondent was aware of that fact. Clearly, respondent
made a false statement and violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his
oath as a lawyer. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an
acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Respondent should not notarize a document unless the
persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared
before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. Atty. Florita S. Linco v. Atty.
Jimmy D. Lacebal. A.C. No. 7241. October 17, 2011.
Sir: SC said that atty lacebal is suspended because in notarizing a document the parties who executed
the document must appear personally before the notary public, even if they previously met and the
party informed him his intention for notarizing his document.
45. NEVADA VS. ATTY. CASUGA (Not discussed)
46. JANDOQUILE VS. ATTY REVILLA
Issue: Is whether the single act of notarizing the complaintaffidavit of relatives within the fourth civil
degree of affinity and, at the same time, not requiring them to present valid identification cards is a
ground for disbarment.
Ruled: SC agreed with him, however, that his violation is not a sufficient ground for disbarment.
we agree with Atty. Revilla, Jr. that he cannot be held liable. If the notary public knows the affiants
personally, he need not require them to show their valid identification cards. This rule is supported
by the definition of a jurat under Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice or . A
jurat refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the
notary public and presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally known to the notary public
identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity ; (c) signs the instrument or
document in the presence of the notary; and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public
as to such instrument or document.
Sir: a lawyer notarized a document which the parties to it is his relatives within 4th civil
consanguinity. SC said the notary public does not need competent proof of identity if he personally
known the parties because it it shown in the JURAT of the documents.
47. ESPINOSA VS. ATTY. OMANA
FACTS: On 17 November 1997, Rodolfo Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal sought Omanas legal
advice on whether they could dissolve their marriage and live separately. Omana prepared a
document entitled Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay. Espinosa and Marantal started implanting the
conditions of the said contract. However, Marantal took custody of all their children and took
possession of most of the conjugal property. Espinosa sought the advice of Glindo, his fellow
employee who is a law graduate, who informed him that the contract executed by Omana was not
valid. They hired the services of a lawyer to file a complaint against Omana before the IBP-CBD.
Omana denied that she prepared the contract. She admitted that Espinosa went to see her and
requested for the notarization of the contract but she told him that it was illegal. Omana alleged that
Espinosa returned the next day while she was out of the office and managed to persuade her part-
time office staff to notarize the document. Her office staff forged her signature and notarized the
contract.
ISSUE: W/N Omaa violated the CPR in notartizing the Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay.
HELD: YES.
We cannot accept Omaas allegation that it was her part-time office staff who notarized the
contract. We agree with the IBP-CBD that Omaa herself notarized the contract. Even if it were true
that it was her part-time staff who notarized the contract, it only showed Omaas negligence in
doing her notarial duties. We reiterate that a notary public is personally responsible for the entries in
his notarial register and he could not relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the blame on his
secretaries9 or any member of his staff.
Sir: SC said in preparing a void document, he violated the CPR for engaging unlawful conduct. In the
matter of notarizing a document, a lawyer is personally liable for entries in the notarial book.
17
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes

48. UY VS. ATTY. SANO
The lawyer was supended because he notarized a document even though his commission is already
expired.
49. BRENNISEN VS. ATTY CONTAWI (Not discussed)
50. WILLIAMS VS. ATTY ICAO (not discussed)
51. PENA VS. ATTY PATERNO (not discussed)
52. GOKIOCO VS. ATTY. MATEO
Sir: the defendants in civil case the compliant is subscribed and sworn to, but in fact her death
certificate says that she was dead at the time the complaint was said to be subcribed and sworn to. .
Before the complainant died before signed the document she died. SC suspended the lawyer
reasoning that he violated his lawyer oath. Notarial act should be Truthful carrying out its duty, for
the purpose of preserving the public integrity. Courts and public at large must relied the document
being notarized.
(c) Canon 2 & 3
CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND
CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVE-NESS OF
THE PROFESSION.
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the
oppressed.
Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render legal
advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latters rights.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business.
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed unless the
circumstances so warrant.
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR,
DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used. The
continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all
its communications that said partner is deceased.
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm and his name shall
be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law concurrently.
Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the mass media in
anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business.
53. Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378
We repeat, the canon of the profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a
well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the
outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community
has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of
effective service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus
to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product
of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda.
54. Atty. Khan vs. Atty. Simbillo, AC#5299, 8/19/2003
Facts:
Simbillo advertised himself as an Annulment of Marriage Specialist. These advertisements
appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, and further research showed that
similar advertisements were published in the Manila Bulletin in August 2 and 6, 2000 and in the
Philippine Star in August 5, 2000.
In September 1, 2000, Simbillo was charged for improper advertising and solicitation of legal services,
filed by Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of Public Information Office, Atty. Ismael G, Khan.
Simbillos advertisement undermined the stability and sanctity of marriage, and violated rules 2.03
and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Rule 138, Sec. 27 of the Rules of Court.
Simbillo professed repentance and beg for the Courts indulgence, this rings hollow as he again
advertised his services in an issue of Buy and Sell Free Ads Newspaper in August 14, 2001, and again
in October 5, 2001.
Rulings:
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business.[12] It is a profession in
which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily
meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields
profits.[13] The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration.[14] The duty to public
service and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who
18
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves.[15] The following
elements distinguish the legal profession from a business:
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one may attain
the highest eminence without making much money;
2. A relation as an officer of the court to the administration of justice involving thorough
sincerity, integrity and reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort
to current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly
with their clients.
Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation
to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a modest
and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.[20] Thus, the use of
simple signs stating the name or names of the lawyers, the office and residence address and fields of
practice, as well as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible.
Sir: a lawyer was also suspended due to unlawful solicitation. the practice is not a business but a
profession...gaining of a livelihood is a secondary considerations but the duty of the public
legal solicitation - in accordance with the dignity legal profession
55. Villatuya vs. Atty. Tabalingcos, AC#6622, 7/10/2012
Facts:
In his position paper submitted by the complainant on August 1, 2005, he averred that he was
employed by the respondent as financial consultant to assist the respondent in a number of
corporate rehabilitation cases. Complainant claimed that they had a verbal agreement whereby he
would be entitled to 50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the cases they would handle,
in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients.
Issue:
1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by nonpayment of fees to
complainant;
2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation; and
Held:
First charge: Dishonesty for non-payments of share in the fees.
Supreme Court affirmed the IBPs dismissal of the first charge against respondent, but did not concur
with the rationale behind it. The first charge, if proven to be true is based on an agreement that is
violative of Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. ***A lawyer is proscribed by the
Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for legal services rende-red with a person not licensed to
practice law. ***In the case of Tan Tek Beng v. David, Supreme Court held that an agreement
between a lawyer and a layperson to share the fees collected from clients secured by the layperson is
null and void, and that the lawyer involved may be disciplined for unethical conduct. Considering that
complainants allegations in this case had not been proven, the IBP correctly dismissed the charge
against respondent on this matter.
Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients.
In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these allegations and ruled that respondent had
violated the rule on the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point out the specific provision that was
breached. Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which prohibits lawyers
from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.
A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises,
though, when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent
with the lawyers duties as a member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the business is one
that can readily lend itself to the procurement of professional employment for the lawyer; or that
can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyers behalf; or is of a nature that, if handled
by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law.
Sir:can a lawyer engage other profession or business?
practice does not make us rich, Villatuya is an accountant. atty. Tabalingcos promise to give the
former 10% of the atty. fees for the service rendered to the client. However the latter did not pay the
obligations.
Atty. fees should not be shared with a non-lawyer. SC said he violated CPR the prohibition of
soliciting cases. (suspended)
(d)Canon 4 & 5 MCLE (BM#850, 10/2/2001)
CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY
INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING
LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS
AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING
INFORMATION REGARDING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
MCLE Purposes: Rule 1, Section 1 (36 UNITS)
19
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
 1.) Ensure that IBP members keep abreast with Law and Jurisprudence throughout their
career.
2.) Maintain ethics of profession
3.) Enhance the standard practice of law.
RULE 2
SECTION 1. Commencement of the MCLE. Within two (2) months from the approval of these
Rules by the Supreme Court En Banc, the MCLE Committee shall be constituted and shall commence
the implementation of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program in accordance
with these Rules.
RULE 15
SECTION 1. Composition. The MCLE Committee shall be composed of five (5) members, namely, a
retired Justice of the Supreme Court as Chair, and four (4) members respectively nominated by the
IBP, the Philippine Judicial Academy, a law center designated by the Supreme Court and associations
of law schools and/or law professors.
The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and integrity. They shall be appointed by
the Supreme Court for a term of three (3) years and shall receive such compensation as may be
determined by the Court.
-commission shall monitor the program, every IBP members is req. within 3 yrs.
to complete 36 units.
2 hours of international
RULE 3:
SECTION 1. Initial compliance period. -- The initial compliance period shall begin not later than three
(3) months from the adoption of these Rules. Except for the initial compliance period for members
admitted or readmitted after the establishment of the program, all compliance periods shall be for
thirty-six (36) months and shall begin the day after the end of the previous compliance period.
RULE 7
SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following members of the Bar are exempt from
the MCLE requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries
of Executive Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of
the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers
covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of
Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special
Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least
ten (10) years in accredited law schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and Professorial
Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
*any group maybe accredited to become an MLCE provider
RULE 9 (To issue accreditation)
SEC. 3. Requirements of all providers. -- All approved accredited providers shall agree to the
following:
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the activity shall be maintained by the provider for at
least four (4) years after the completion date. The provider shall include the member on the official
record of attendance only if the members signature was obtained at the time of attendance at the
activity. The official record of attendance shall contain the members name and number in the Roll of
Attorneys and shall identify the time, date, location, subject matter, and length of the education
activity. A copy of such record shall be furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(b) The provider shall certify that:
(1) This activity has been approved BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE in the amount of ________
hours of which ______ hours will apply in (legal ethics, etc.), as appropriate to the content of the
activity;
(2) The activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by
20
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
these Rules and such regulations as may be prescribed by the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all participants identifying the time, date,
location, subject matter and length of the activity.
(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all approved continuing legal education activity
by THE MCLE COMMITTEE, members of the IBP Board of Governors, or designees of the Committee
and IBP staff Board for purposes of monitoring compliance with these Rules.
(e) The provider shall indicate in promotional materials, the nature of the activity, the time devoted
to each topic and identity of the instructors. The provider shall make available to each participant a
copy of THE MCLE COMMITTEE-approved Education Activity Evaluation Form.
(f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education Activity Evaluation Forms for a period of not
less than one (1) year after the activity, copy furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized activity under this program or issues a
spurious certificate in violation of these Rules shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.
RULE 12-constitutes non- compliance
SECTION 1. What constitutes non-compliance. The following shall constitute non-compliance:
(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance period;
(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of exempt status)
within the prescribed period;
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such compliance within sixty
(60) days from receipt of non-compliance notice;
(e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period;
(f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade
compliance with the MCLE requirements.
(e) Canon 6
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE
OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to see
that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing
the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or
advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment
in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
56. Atty. Vitriolo vs. Atty. Dasig, AC#4984, 4/1/2003 (ND)
57. Lim vs. Atty. Barcelona, AC#5438, 3/10/2004
We had held previously that if a lawyers misconduct in the discharge of his official duties as
government official is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral
delinquency, he may be disciplined as a member of the Bar on such ground.[19] More significantly,
lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks have more restrictions than
lawyers in private practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer
who holds a responsible public office.
Time and again, we have declared that the practice of law is a noble profession. It is a special
privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally. A
lawyer must at all times conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients and the public at
large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. He must faithfully perform his duties
to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. A violation of the high standards of the legal
profession subjects the lawyer to administrative sanctions which includes suspension and
disbarment.[21] More importantly, possession of good moral character must be continuous as a
requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice; otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground
for the revocation of such privilege.
58. Collantes vs. Atty. Renomeron, AC#3056, 8/16/1991
Facts: This complaint for disbarment is relative to the administrative case filed by Atty. Collantes,
house counsel for V& G Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. (V&G), against Atty. Renomeron, Register of
Deeds of Tacloban City, for the latters irregular actuations with regard to the application of V&G for
registration of 163 pro forma Deed of Absolute Sale with Assignment (in favor of GSIS) of lots in its
subdivision.
Although V&G complied with the desired requirements, respondent suspended the registration of
the documents with certain special conditions between them, which was that V&G should provide
him with weekly round trip ticket from Tacloban to Manila plus P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip,
21
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
or, in lieu thereof, the sale of respondents Quezon City house and lot by V&G or GSIS
representatives.
Eventually, respondent formally denied the registration of the documents. He himself elevated the
question on the registrability of the said documents to Administrator Bonifacio (of the National Land
Titles and Deeds Registration Administration-NLTDRA). The Administrator then resolved in favor of
the registrability of the documents. Despite the resolution of the Administrator, the respondent still
refused the registration thereof but demanded from the parties interested the submission of
additional requirements not adverted in his previous denial.
Issues: (1) WON the respondent, as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by the Court for his malfeasance
as a public official, and (2) WON the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to government
service in the discharge of official tasks.
Held: (1) Yes, a lawyers misconduct as a public official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a
lawyer. The lawyers oath imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice.
The lawyers oath is a source of obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension,
disbarment or other disciplinary action.
(2) Yes, the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to government service in the discharge of
their official tasks (Canon 6). The Code forbids a lawyer to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility), or delay any mans cause for any
corrupt motive or interest (Rule 1.03).
59. Catu vs. Atty. Rellosa, AC#5738, 2/19/2008 (ND)
60. Sierra vs. Lopez, AC#7549, 8/29/2008 61. Abella vs. Barrios, Jr., AC#7332, 6/18/2013 (ND)
Canon 7
1. In re Edillon
FACTS: The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the Philippines. The
IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from
its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the provisions of the
Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining
to the organization of IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same.
Edillon contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the
sense that he is being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good
standing, to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a consequence
of this compelled financial support of the said organization to which he is admitted personally
antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and properly guaranteed to him by the
Constitution. Hence, the respondent concludes the above provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP
By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court may compel Atty. Edillion to pay his membership fee to the IBP.
HELD: The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which every lawyer must be a member of as
distinguished from bar associations in which membership is merely optional and voluntary. All
lawyers are subject to comply with the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar including
payment a reasonable annual fees as one of the requirements. The Rules of Court only compels him
to pay his annual dues and it is not in violation of his constitutional freedom to associate. Bar
integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not the
meeting of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its election as he chooses. The only
compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme Court in order to
further the States legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services, may
require thet the cost of the regulatory program the lawyers.
Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the State. The right to practice law
before the courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to regulation and inquiry. And if
the power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is recognize then a penalty designed to enforce
its payment is not void as unreasonable as arbitrary. Furthermore, the Court has jurisdiction over
matters of admission, suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation as
part of its inherent judicial functions and responsibilities thus the court may compel all members of
the Integrated Bar to pay their annual dues.
2. Francia vs Atty Abdon
He has, nonetheless, engendered the suspicion that he is engaged in an illegal deal when he
introduced the complainant to Vistan, who was the one who allegedly demanded P1,000,000.00 in
facilitation fee from the union members. The records bear out that the complainant, at the outset,
made clear his intention to seek the respondents assistance in following up the unions case in the
CA. The respondent, however, instead of promptly declining the favor sought in order to avoid any
appearance of impropriety, even volunteered to introduce the complainant to Vistan, a former client
who allegedly won a case in the CA in August 2006. It later turned out that Vistan represented to the
complainant that he has the capacity to facilitate the favorable resolution of cases and does this for a
fee. This fact was made known to him by Vistan himself during a telephone conversation when the
latter told him he was given P350,000.00 as facilitation fee. 34 His connection with Vistan was the
reason why the complainant had suspected that he was in connivance with him and that he got a
portion of the loot. His gesture of introducing the complainant to Vistan precipitated the idea that
what the latter asked of him was with his approval. It registered a mistaken impression on the
complainant that his case can be expeditiously resolved by resorting to extraneous means or
channels. Thus, while the respondent may not have received money from the complainant, the fact
is that he has made himself instrumental to Vistans illegal activity. In doing so, he has exposed the
legal profession to undeserved condemnation and invited suspicion on the integrity of the judiciary
for which he must be imposed with a disciplinary sanction.
22
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall at all times uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. For, the strength of the legal profession lies in the
dignity and integrity of its members. It is every lawyers duty to maintain the high regard to the
profession by staying true to his oath and keeping his actions beyond reproach.
Also, the respondent, as a member of the legal profession, has a further responsibility to safeguard
the dignity of the courts which the public perceives as the bastion of justice.
3. In re: Haron Meling
MELENDREZ filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling
(Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate disciplinary
penalty as a member of the Philippine Sharia Bar.
a. Alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar
Examinations that he has three (3) pending criminal cases both for Grave Oral Defamation
and for Less Serious Physical Injuries.
i. Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife in front of
media practitioners and other people.
ii. Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the face of Melendrez wife causing the
injuries to the latter.
b. Alleges that Meling has been using the title Attorney in his communications, as
Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the fact that he is not a member of the
Bar.
MELING explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases because retired Judge Corocoy Moson,
their former professor, advised him to settle misunderstanding.
a. Believing in good faith that the case would be settled because the said Judge has
moral ascendancy over them, considered the three cases that arose from a single incident
as closed and terminated.
i. Denies the charges and added that the acts do not involve moral turpitude.
b. Use of the title Attorney, Meling admits that some of his communications really
contained the word Attorney as they were typed by the office clerk.
Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the charge of non-disclosure against Meling:
a. Meling should have known that only the court of competent jurisdiction can
dismiss cases, not a retired judge nor a law professor. In fact, the cases filed against Meling
are still pending.
b. Even if these cases were already dismissed, he is still required to disclose the
same for the Court to ascertain his good moral character.
ISSUE: WON Melings act of concealing cases constitutes dishonesty. YES.
HELD: PETITION IS GRANTED. MEMBERSHIP IS SUSPENDED until further orders from the Court, the
suspension to take effect immediately. Insofar as the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from
taking the Lawyers Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the Philippine Bar, the
same is DISMISSED for having become moot and academic (Meling did not pass the bar).
1. Rule 7.01: A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or
suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.
a. He is aware that he is not a member of the Bar, there was no valid reason why he
signed as attorney whoever may have typed the letters.
i. Unauthorized use of the appellation attorney may render a person liable
for indirect contempt of court.
2. PRACTICE OF LAW IS A HIGH PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
a. Limited to citizens of good moral character, with special educational
qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.
b. Requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of greater importance so far as
the general public and the proper administration of justice are concerned, than
the possession of legal learning.
3. Application form of 2002 Bar Examinations requires the applicant that applicant to aver
that he or she has not been charged with any act or omission punishable by law, rule or
regulation before a fiscal, judge, officer or administrative body, or indicted for, or accused or
convicted by any court or tribunal of, any offense or crime involving moral turpitude; nor is
there any pending case or charge against him/her.
a. Meling did not reveal that he has three pending criminal cases. His deliberate
silence constitutes concealment, done under oath at that.
4. Arnobit vs Atty Arnobit
Facts:
Rebecca B. Arnobit, filed an affidavit-complaint, praying that the Court exercise its disciplinary power
over her husband, respondent Atty. Ponciano Arnobit, on the grounds of Immorality and
Abandonment.
Complainant and respondent were married with 12 children. Several years after passing the bar,
respondent left the conjugal dwelling and cohabited with Benita Buenafe, a married woman, who
bore him 4 more children. Rebecca filed a complaint for legal separation and support. A criminal case
of adultery against respondent and Benita later followed.
Respondent denied the allegation that he cohabited with Benita. Instead, he alleged that it was
Rebecca who was the cause of their separation due to her frequent travels around the country
without his consent and thereby neglecting her obligations toward her family.
Hearings were conducted before the Office of the Solicitor General and subsequently, before the IBP-
CBD. Complainant presented both oral and documentary evidence to support her allegations of
abandonment and immorality, 2 witnesses and affidavits from NBI agents to show the existence of
23
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
prima facie case for adultery. Respondent, however, failed to present evidence to support his claim
and failed to personally attend hearings.
The Commission found respondent liable for abandonment and recommended his suspension from
the practice of law to the IBP Board Governors for 3 months. It was accepted and adopted by the IBP
Board of Governors.
Issues:
Does leaving the conjugal home and cohabiting with a married woman a ground for disbarment?
Ruling:
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct: 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.
As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be
seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards
of the community. A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only required to refrain
from adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress but must also so behave himself as to avoid
scandalizing the public by creating the impression that he is flouting those moral standards.
The fact that respondents philandering ways are far removed from the exercise of his profession
would not save the day for him. For a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct
which, albeit unrelated to the actual practice of his profession, would show him to be unfit for the
office and unworthy of the privileges with which his license and the law invest him. To borrow from
Orbe v. Adaza, "[t]he grounds expressed in Section 27, Rule 138,9 of the Rules of Court are not
limitative and are broad enough to cover any misconduct x x x of a lawyer in his professional or
private capacity." To reiterate, possession of good
moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing qualification
for all members of the bar.
Undoubtedly, respondents act of leaving his wife and 12 children to cohabit and have children with
another woman constitutes grossly immoral conduct. And to add insult to injury, there seems to be
little attempt on the part of respondent to be discreet about his liaison with the other woman.As we
have already ruled, disbarment is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife to
maintain an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne him a child.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Ponciano P. Arnobit is hereby DISBARRED
5. Sps. Rafols vs Atty Barrios
FACTS: The complainants were the plaintiffs in CiviL case of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in General
SantosCity, wherein they sought the cancellation of a deed of sale. The case was assigned to Judge
Dizon, Jr.The complainants were represented by the respondent, paying to him P15,000.00 as
acceptance fee.On December 22, 1997, the respondent visited the complainants at their residence
and informedcomplainant Manuel that the judge handling their case wanted to talk to him. The
respondent andManuel thus went to the East Royal Hotel's coffee shop where Judge Dizon, Jr. was
already waiting. Therespondent introduced Manuel to the judge, who informed Manuel that their
case was pending in hissala. The judge likewise said that he would resolve the case in their favor,
assuring their success up tothe Court of Appeals, if they could deliver P150,000.00 to him.
ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of misconduct
HELD: YES Court approved and adopted the report and recommendations of the OBC (Office of the
Bar Confidant)but imposed the supreme penalty of disbarment.Respondent's act of introducing the
complainants to the judge strongly implied that the respondent wasaware of the illegal purpose of
the judge in wanting to talk with the respondent's clients. Thus, the courtunqualifiedly accepted the
aptness of the following evaluation made in the OBC's Report andRecommendation, viz.:. . . Being
the Officer of the Court, he must have known that meeting litigants outside the court issomething
beyond the bounds of the rule and that it can never be justified by any reason.By his overtact in
arranging the meeting between Judge Dizon and complainants-litigants in the Coffee Shop of theEast
Royal Hotel, it is crystal clear that he must have allowed himself and consented to Judge
Dizon'sdesire to ask money from the complainants-litigants for a favorable decision of their case
which waspending before the sala of Judge Dizon.The practice of law is a privilege heavily burdened
with conditions. The attorney is a vanguard of ourlegal system, and, as such, is expected to maintain
not only legal proficiency but also a very highstandard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing
in order that the people's faith and confidencein the legal system are ensured. Any violation of the
high moral standards of the legal profession justifiesthe imposition on the attorney of the
appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.Specifically, the Code of Professional
Responsibility enjoins an attorney from engaging in unlawful,dishonest, or deceitful conduct.
Corollary to this injunction is the rule that an attorney shall at all timesuphold the integrity and
dignity of the Legal Profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar
6. Garrido vs Atty Garrido
24
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Facts: The petitioner, the respondents legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a
supplementalaffidavit for disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty.
Romana P.Valencia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Discipline,
chargingthe m with gross imm oral ity, in violati on of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 , of the Code
of P rofessi onal Responsibility. The complaint arose after the petitioner caught wind through her
daughter that he r husband was hav ing an aff air with a woman other than his wi fe
and al re ady had achild with her; and the same informati on was confi rme d when
one r of he r daughte rs saw that her husband walking in a Robinsons mall with the other
respondent, Atty. Valencia, with their chil d in tow. After a much further investigation into the
matter, the time and effort given yielded resultstelling her that Atty. Valencia and her legal husband
had been married in Hong Kong.Moreover, on June 1993, her husband left their conjugal home and
joined Atty. RamonaPaguida Valencia at their residence, and has since failed to render much needed
financialsupport. In their defense, they postulated that they were not lawyers as of yet when
theycomm itt e d the suppose d i mmorali ty, so as such, they we re not gui lty of a
vi ol ati on of Canon1, R ule 1.01.
Issue:Whether or not Atty. Garridos and Valencias actions constitute a violation of Canon 1, Rule1.01
and thus a good enough cause for their disbarment, despite the offense beingsupposedly
com mi tt ed whe n they we re not lawye rs.
Held:Yes. M em be rshi p in the B ar is a pri vile ge , and as a pri vile ge be stowe d by l aw
through the Supre me Court, me mbership in the B ar can be wi thdrawn whe re
circumstances show the lawyers lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers, be they
academic or moral.In the present case, the Court had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty.
Angel E.Garrido and Atty. Rowena P. Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation of Canon 1,Rule
1.01 of the Code of P rof essi onal Re sponsi bi li ty, whi ch com mands that a lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Furthermore, Thecontention
of respondent that they were not yet lawyers when they got married shall notaff ord the m
exe mpti on from sancti ons; good moral characte r was already re qui re d as a condition
precedent to admission to the Bar. As a lawyer, a person whom the community looked up to, Atty.
Garrido and Valencia wereshouldered with the expectation that they would set a good example in
promoting obedienceto the Constitution and the laws. When they violated the law and distorted it to
cater to hisown personal needs and selfish motives, not only did their actions discredit the
legalprofession. Such actions by themselves, without even including the fact of
Garridosabandonment of paternal responsibility, to the detriment of his children by the petitioner;
or the fact that Valencia married Garrido despite knowing of his other marriages to two
other women including the petitioner, are clear indications of a lack of moral values not
consistentwith the proper conduct of practicing lawyers within the country. As such, their disbarment
isaffi rme d
7. Mendoza vs Atty Deciembre
FACTS:
Complainant Augenia Mendoza, a mail sorter at the Central Post Office Manila, borrowed from
Rodela Loans, Inc., through respondent Atty. Victor Deciembre, the amount of P20,000.00 payable in
six months at 20% interest, secured by 12 blank checks, with numbers 47253, 47256 to 47266, drawn
against the Postal Bank. Although she was unable to faithfully pay her obligations on their due dates,
she made remittances, however, to respondent's Metrobank account from November 11, 1998 to
March 15, 1999 in the total sum of P12,910.00. Claiming that the amounts remitted were not enough
to cover the penalties, interests and other charges, respondent warned complainant that he would
deposit Postal Check No. 47253 filled up by him on March 30, 1999 in the amount of P16,000.00.
Afraid that respondent might sue her in court, complainant made good said check and respondent
was able to encash the same on March 30, 1999. Thereafter, complainant made subsequent
payments to the Metrobank account of respondent from April 13, 1999 to October 15, 1999, thereby
paying respondent the total sum of P35,690.00.
Respondent filled up two of the postal checks she issued in blank, Check Nos. 47261 and 47262 with
the amount of P50,000.00 each and with the dates January 15, 2000 and January 20, 2000
respectively, which respondent claims was in exchange for the P100,000.00 cash that complainant
received on November 15, 1999. Complainant insisted however that she never borrowed
P100,000.00 from respondent and that it was unlikely that respondent would lend her such amount.
Complainant also claimed that respondent victimized other employees of the Postal Office by filling
up, without authorization, blank checks issued to him as condition for loans.
Respondent averred that his dealings with complainant were done in his private capacity and not as a
lawyer, and that when he filed a complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P. Blg.) 22 against
complainant, he was only vindicating his rights as a private citizen. He alleged further that: it was
complainant who deliberately deceived him by not honoring her commitment to their November 15,
1999 transaction involving P100,000.00 and covered by two checks which bounced for the reason
account closed; the October 13, 1999 transaction was a separate and distinct transaction;
complainant filed the disbarment case against him to get even with him for filing the estafa and B.P.
Blg. 22 case against the former; complainant's claim that respondent filled up the blank checks issued
by complainant is a complete lie; the truth was that the checks referred to were already filled up
when complainant affixed her signature thereto; it was unbelievable that complainant would issue
blank checks, and that she was a mere low-salaried employee, since she was able to maintain several
checking accounts; and if he really intended to defraud complainant, he would have written a higher
amount on the checks instead of only P50,000.00.
ISSUE: whether or not Atty. Victor Deciembre is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, and should therefore be disbarred from the practice of law.
25
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
HELD:
The practice of law is not a right but merely a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show
that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of
such privilege. A high sense of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of
members of the bar. They must conduct themselves with great propriety, and their behavior must be
beyond reproach anywhere and at all times.
The fact that there is no attorney-client relationship in this case and the transactions entered into by
respondent were done in his private capacity cannot shield respondent, as a lawyer, from liability.
A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for acts which tend to
bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. Indeed,
there is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his
professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a
mere citizen at another.
In this case, evidence abounds that respondent has failed to live up to the standards required of
members of the legal profession. Specifically, respondent has transgressed provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, to wit:
* CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
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.
As manifested [in the Olbes and Acosta] cases, respondent's offenses are manifold. First, he demands
excessive payments from his borrowers; then he fills up his borrowers' blank checks with fictitious
amounts, falsifying commercial documents for his material gain; and then he uses said checks as
bases for filing unfounded criminal suits against his borrowers in order to harass them. Such acts
manifest respondent's perversity of character, meriting his severance from the legal profession.
While the power to disbar is exercised with great caution and is withheld whenever a lesser penalty
could accomplish the end desired, the seriousness of respondent's offense compels the Court to
wield its supreme power of disbarment. Indeed, the Court will not hestitate to remove an erring
attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers where the evidence calls for it. This is because
in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account
for his actuations as an officer of the Court, with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal
profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members
who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties
and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.
As respondent's misconduct brings intolerable dishonor to the legal profession, the severance of his
privilege to practice law for life is in order.
8. Atty Embido vs Atty Pe
In light of the established circumstances, the respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for
having authored the falsification of the decision in a non-existent court proceeding. Canon 7 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that all lawyers should uphold at all times the
dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession. Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
states that "a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession." Lawyers are further required by Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.
Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or fraudulent transactions can
justify a lawyers disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. Specifically, the deliberate
falsification of the court decision by the respondent was an act that reflected a high degree of
moral turpitude on his part. Worse, the act made a mockery of the administration of justice in
this country, given the purpose of the falsification, which was to mislead a foreign tribunal on
the personal status of a person. He thereby became unworthy of continuing as a member of the
Bar.
It then becomes timely to remind all members of the Philippine Bar that they should do nothing
that may in any way or degree lessen the confidence of the public in their professional fidelity
and integrity.The Court will not hesitate to wield its heavy hand of discipline on those among
them who wittingly and willingly fail to meet the enduring demands of their Attorneys Oath for
them to:
x x x support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein; xxx do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; x
x x not wittingly or willingly promote or sue on groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid
nor consent to the same; x x x delay no man for money or malice, and x x x conduct themselves
as lawyers according to the best of their knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well
to the courts as to their clients x x x.
No lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that the practice of the legal profession is always a
privilege that the Court extends only to the deserving, and that the Court may withdraw or deny
the privilege to him who fails to observe and respect the Lawyers Oath and the canons of
ethical conduct in his professional and private capacities. He may be disbarred or suspended
from the practice of law not only for acts and omissions of malpractice and for dishonesty in his
professional dealings, but also for gross misconduct not directly connected with his professional
duties that reveal his unfitness for the office and his unworthiness of the principles that the
26
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
privilege to practice law confers upon him.27 Verily, no lawyer is immune from the disciplinary
authority of the Court whose duty and obligation are to investigate and punish lawyer
misconduct committed either in a professional or private capacity. 28 The test is whether the
conduct shows the lawyer to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good
demeanor, and whether the conduct renders the lawyer unworthy to continue as an officer of
the Court.29 WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS AND PRONOUNCES ASST. PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
SALVADOR N. PE, JR. guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and DISBARS him effective upon receipt of this decision.
The Court DIRECTS the Bar Confidant to remove the name of ASST. PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
SALVADOR N. PE, JR. from the Roll of Attorneys.
9. Zaguirre vs Atty Castillo
Facts:
Atty. Alfredo Castillo was already married with three children when he had an affair with
Carmelita Zaguirre. This occurred sometime from 1996 to 1997, while Castillo was reviewing for
the bar and before the release of its results. Zaguirre then got pregnant allegedly with Castillos
daughter. The latter, who was already a lawyer, notarized an affidavit recognizing the child and
promising for her support which did not materialize after the birth of the child. The Court found
him guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct to which Castillo filed a motion for reconsideration.
The IBP commented that until Castillo admits the paternity of the child and agrees to support
her. In his defense, the latter presented different certificates appreciating his services as a
lawyer and proving his good moral character. His wife even submitted a handwritten letter
stating his amicability as a husband and father despite the affair. More than a year since the
original decision rendered by the Court, Castillo reiterated his willingness to support the child to
the Court and attached a photocopy of post-dated checks addressed to Zaguirre for the months
of March to December 2005 in the amount of Php2,000.00 each.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Castillo is guilty of gross immoral conduct, making him punishable
of Indefinite Suspension.
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent, Atty. Alfredo Castillo, is guilty of gross
immoral conduct and should be punished with the penalty of Indefinite Suspension. The
attempt of respondent to renege on his notarized statement recognizing and undertaking to
support his child by Carmelita demonstrates a certain unscrupulousness on his part which is
highly censurable, unbecoming a member of a noble profession, tantamount to self-
stultification.
This Court has repeatedly held: "as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good
moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in
accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of
the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or
the keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards." While respondent does not deny
having an extra-marital affair with complainant he seeks understanding from the Court, pointing
out that "men by nature are polygamous," and that what happened between them was
"nothing but mutual lust and desire." The Court is not convinced. In fact, it is appalled at the
reprehensible, amoral attitude of the respondent.
The Court found that Castillos show of repentance and active service to the community is a just
and reasonable ground to convert the original penalty of indefinite suspension to a definite
suspension of two years. Furthermore, the Court noted that Zaguirres further claim for the
support of her child should be addressed to the proper court in a proper case.
Canon 8
1. Atty Reyes vs Atty Chiong
FACTS
Two Chinese-Taiwanese businessmen (Xu and Pan) entered into a business venture to set up a
factory for seafood products. Xu invested P300,000. Eventually, Xu discovered that Pan had not
established the factory and asked for his money back. Pan became hostile and ignored Xu. Xu
engaged the services of Atty. Reyes, who filed a complaint for estafa against Pan (represented by
Atty. Chiong). The complaint was assigned to Asst. Manila City Prosecutor Pedro Salanga, who
issued a subpoena for Pan to appear for preliminary investigation. For failure to appear and
submit a counter-affidavit, Salanga filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Pan in the RTC of
Manila. The RTC issued a warrant of arrest against Pan. In response, Atty. Chiong filed a motion
to quash the warrant of arrest. He also filed with the RTC of Zamboanga a civil complaint for the
collection of a sum of money, damages, and for the dissolution of the business venture against
Xu, Atty. Reyes and Salanga. Atty. Reyes then filed a disbarment case against Atty. Chiong for
filing a groundless suit, alleging that it was instituted to exact vengeance. Atty. Chiong alleges
that Atty. Reyes was impleaded for conniving with Xu in filing the estafa case. Salanga was
impleaded because of the supposed irregularities in conducting the investigation. The SC
referred the case to the IBP.
ISSUE
W/N the civil complaint was groundless
W/N is was proper to implead Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga in the civil complaint
HELD
27
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
 Yes, civil complaint was groundless and it was improper to implead Atty. Reyes and
Prosecutor Salanga in said civil complaint.
IBP: civil complaint was filed purposely to obtain leverage against the estafa case. There was no
need to implead Atty. Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga since they were not parties in the business
venture. Their inclusion in the complaint was improper and highly questionable and the suit was
filed to harass both of them. In filing the civil suit, Atty. Chiong violated his oath of office and
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. IBP recommended 2 years suspension
SC: affirmed IBPs recommendation. In addition, the Court mentioned some alternative
remedies Atty. Chiong could have taken if his allegations were indeed true. Chiong could have
filed a motion for reinvestigation or motion for reconsideration of Salangas decision to file the
information for estafa. Motion to Dismiss the estafa case was also available if it was indeed filed
without basis.
2. Alcantara vs Atty Pefianco
Facts:
Atty. Alcantara (incumbent District Pubic Attorney of PAO in Anitque) filed a complaint against
Atty. Pefianco for conduct unbecoming of the bar for using improper and offensive language and
threatening and attempting to assault complainant. This happened when Atty, Salvani was
conferring with his client in the PAO office when the wife of the murdered victim, in tears, came
and askef for a settlement. Moved by the plight of the woman, Pefianco, who was standing
nearby, scolded and shouted at Salvani to not settle the case and to have his client imprisoned
so that he would realize his mistake. As head of the office, Alcantara reproached Pefianco, but
this ended up with Pefianco saying that Alcantara was an idiot for sending him out of the PAO.
Also, Pefianco tried to attack Alcantara and even shouted at him, Gago ka!
The IBP Committee on Bar Discipline found that Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Issue:
W/N Pefianco is guilty of violating Canon 8
Held:
Yes. Canon 8 admonishes lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor
toward their fellow lawyers. Pefiancos meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so
caused the incident. And although Pefianco was moved by the womans plight, what he thought
was righteous did not give him the right to scold Salvani and insult and berate those who tried
to calm him down. Whatever moral righteousness he had was negated by the way he chose to
express his indignation.
3. Saberon vs Atty Larong
Facts:
Complainant saberon charged atty. larong respondent of grave misconduct for allegedly using
abusive and offensive language in pleadings filed before the BSP.In An anwer filed by respondent atty.
larong with affirmative defenses to the petition stating inter alia,that this is another in the series of
blackmail suits filed by plaintiff(complainant) and his wife to coerce the bank and mr.bonpin for
financial gain.
Finding the aformentioned statements to be "totally malicious,viscous and bereft of any factual or
legal basis" complainant filed the present complaint.
By res.,the court referred the case to IBP for investigation.IBP Investigating commissioner held that
the word "blackmail" connotes something sinister and criminal.Unless the person accused thereof is
criminally charged with extortion,he added,it would be imprudent,if not offensive,to characterize
that persons act as blackmail.In view thereof,he recommended that respondent be found culpable of
gross misconduct and suspended from the practice of law for 30days.IBP Board of Governor
disapproved the recommendation and instead dismissed the case for lack of merit
Issue:
Complainant appealed challenges hthev res. as illegal and void ab initio for violating the mandatory
requirements of sec12(a) of rule 139-b of the revised rules of court that the same be reduced to
writing,clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the reasons on which it is based.
Held:
This court finds respondent guilty of simple misconduct for using intemperate language in his
pleadings.
The code of professional responsibility mandates:
canon 8- a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,fairness and candor toward his professional
colleagues,and shall avoid harassing tactics against oppossing counsel.
canon 8.01-a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings,use language which is abusive,offensive or
otherwise improper.
canon11-a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the court and to judicial officer and
should insist on similar conduct.
rule11.03-a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,offensive,or menacing language or behavior before
the courts
4. Camacho vs Pagulayan
FACTS
AMA Computer College (AMACC) had a pending case in the RTC for expelling some students due
to having published objectionable features or articles in the school paper. Thereafter, Atty.
Camacho who is the counsel for the expelled students filed a complaint against Atty.
28
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Pangulayan, counsel for AMACC, for violation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics
which provides that "A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of
controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or
compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel. It is incumbent upon
the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not
represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law." The complaint
was based on the fact that Atty. Pangulayan procured and effected from the expelled students
and their parents compromise agreements in which the students waived all kinds of claims they
may have against AMACC and to terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed
against it. The compromise agreements were procured by Atty. Pangulayan without the consent
and knowledge of Atty. Camacho given that he was already the counsel for the students at that
time. It was averred that the acts of Atty. Pangulayan was unbecoming of any member of the
legal profession warranting either disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Pangulayan violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics
HELD
YES! Atty. Pangulayan is suspended for 3 months from the practice of law for having ciolated the
Code of Professional Ethics.
In this case, when the compromise agreements were formalized and effected by Atty.
Pangulayan, Atty. Camacho was already the retained counsel for the students in the pending
case filed by the students against AMACC and Atty. Pangulayan had full knowledge of such fact.
However, Atty. Pangulayan still proceeded to negotiate with the students and the parents
without at least communicating the matter with their lawyer even being aware that the students
were being represented by counsel.
Such failure of Atty. Pangulayan, whether by design or oversight, is an inexcusable violation of
the canons of professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Atty.
Pangulayan in this case fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member
of the Bar.
*In relation to our topic (not stated in case), such act of Atty. Pangulayan is also in violation of
Canon 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that "A lawyer shall not,
directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer, however, it
is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel."
5. Dallong-Galincinao vs Atty. Castro
Facts:
Atty. Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of RTC and Atty. Castro was a private practitioner
and VP of IBP-Nueva Vizcaya. Respondent went to complainants office to inquire whether the
records of Civil Case No. 784 had already been remanded to the MCTC. Respondent was not the
counsel of either party in that case.
Complainant replied that the record had not yet been transmitted since a certified true
copy of the CA decision should first be presented. To this respondent retorted, You mean to
say, I would have to go to Manila to get a copy? Complainant replied that respondent may
show instead the copy sent to the party he represents. Respondent then replied that
complainant shouldve notified him. Complainant explained that it is not her duty to notify the
respondent of such duty. Angered, respondent yelled stuff in Ilocano and left the office, banging
the door so loud. He then returned to the office and shouted, Ukinnam nga babai! (Vulva of
your mother, you woman!)
Later, complainant filed a manifestation that she wont appear in the hearing of the case in
view of the respondents public apology, and that the latter was forgiven already.
Held:
Respondent is fined the amount of 10k with a warning.
Respondent was not the counsel of record of Civil Case No. 784. His explanation that he will
enter his appearance in the case when its records were already transmitted to the MCTC is
unacceptable. Not being the counsel of record respondent had no right to impose his will on the
clerk of court. He violated Rule 8.02, because this was an act of encroachment. It matters not
that he did so in good faith.
His act of raising his voice and uttering vulgar invectives to the clerk of court was not only
ill-mannered but also unbecoming considering that he did these in front of the complainants
subordinates. For these, he violated Rules 7.03 and 8.01 and Canon 8.
The penalty was tempered because respondent apologized to the complainant and the
latter accepted it. This is not to say, however, that respondent should be absolved from his
actuations. People are accountable for the consequences of the things they say and do even if
they repent afterwards.
6. Garcia vs Atty Lopez
In a complaint dated September 24, 2002, complainant Atty. Wilfredo T. Garcia charged
respondent Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez with violation of his oath as a member of the bar and
officer of the court, and misrepresentation, amounting to perjury and prayed that respondent
be suspended or disbarred.
Complainant was the counsel of the late Angelina Sarmiento, applicant in LRC Case No. 05-M-96
which was pending in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 15. Sarmiento
sought the registration and confirmation of her title over a 376,397 sq. m. tract of land. This
was granted by the court. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and ultimately, the
RTC decision was upheld. The decision became final and executory and the RTC, in an order
dated February 21, 2002, directed the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to issue the decree of
registration and certificate of title. The LRA failed to comply, prompting the complainant to file
29
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
an urgent motion to cite the LRA administrator or his representative in contempt of court.
Hearings were scheduled.
On September 19, 2002, respondent, claiming to be the counsel of the heirs of Sarmiento, filed
his entry of appearance and motion for postponement.
Complainant alleged that he was surprised by this, considering that he had not withdrawn from
the case. He contended that respondent should be sanctioned for misrepresenting to the court
that he was the counsel of all the heirs of Sarmiento and omitting to mention that complainant
was the counsel of record. According to him, his attorney's fee was arranged on a contingent
basis and therefore, the attempt of respondent to enter his appearance at the final stage of the
proceedings was tantamount to unfair harvesting of the fruit of complainant's labors since
1996.
It appears that Sarmiento was succeeded by the following compulsory heirs: Gina Jarvia
(Angelina's daughter by her common-law husband Victor Jarvia), Alfredo, Zenaida, Wilson,
Jeanette and Geneva, all surnamed Ku (Angelina's children by her husband prior to her
relationship with Victor). Complainant presented an affidavit executed by Gina Jarvia and
Alfredo Ku wherein they stated that they did not engage the services of respondent and that
they recognized complainant as their only counsel of record.
In his defense, respondent claimed that he was merely representing Zenaida and Wilson Ku who
sought his help on September 19, 2002 and told him that they wanted to retain his services.
They allegedly did not have a lawyer to represent them in a hearing scheduled the next day.
Because of the scheduled hearing, he had to immediately file an entry of appearance with
motion for postponement. He asserted that it was an honest mistake not to have listed the
names of his clients. He claimed it was not deliberate and did not prejudice anyone. He insisted
that he had no intention of misrepresenting himself to the court.
The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP). The investigating commissioner, Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes, in his report and
recommendation dated January 8, 2004, found respondent guilty of misrepresentation and
violation of Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he failed to specify
in his entry of appearance the individuals he was representing. He recommended that
respondent be strongly reprimanded for his act with a reminder that a repetition of the same or
similar offense would be dealt with more severely. This was adopted and approved by the IBP
Board of Governors in its resolution passed on February 27, 2004.
We affirm the factual findings of the IBP but modify the penalty recommended.
Lawyers are officers of the court who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend the
causes of their clients. The law imposes on them peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities.
Membership in the bar imposes on them certain obligations. They are duty bound to uphold
the dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly and candidly towards each
other and otherwise conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times.
Complainant was the counsel of Sarmiento, the original applicant. Upon her death, the attorney-
client relationship was terminated. However, complainant was retained as counsel by Gina
Jarvia and Alfredo Ku. In filing an entry of appearance with motion of postponement in behalf
of the compulsory heirs of the late Angelita Sarmiento when in truth he was merely
representing some of the heirs but not all of them, respondent was guilty of misrepresentation
which could have deceived the court. He had no authorization to represent all the heirs. He
clearly violated his lawyer's oath that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in
court.
Likewise, the CPR states:
CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Moreover, Canon 8 of the CPR demands that lawyers conduct themselves with courtesy,
fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers:
CANON 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward
his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 8.02 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or
favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or
neglectful counsel.
Respondent failed to observe the foregoing rules. He made it appear that he was entering his
appearance as counsel for all the heirs of Sarmiento which was highly unfair to complainant who
had worked on the case from the very beginning (i.e. since 1996) and who had not been
discharged as such. It is true that without the formal withdrawal of complainant as counsel of
record, respondent would merely be considered as collaborating counsel. Nevertheless, by
being less than candid about whom he was representing, respondent undeniably encroached
upon the legal functions of complainant as the counsel of record.
30
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
 We cannot casually brush aside what respondent did. Even assuming that it was not a
calculated deception, he was still remiss in his duty to his fellow lawyer and the court. He
should have been more careful about his actuation since the court was relying on him in its task
of ascertaining the truth.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Beniamino A. Lopez is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for one (1) month for violating Canons 8 and 10, Rules 8.02 and 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is warned that the commission of the same or similar act in the
future will be dealt with more severely.
Let this resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant for appropriate annotation in the record of
respondent.
7. Atty Barandon jr vs Atty Ferrer
Canon 9
1. Cambaliza vs Stty Cristal-Tenorio
FACTS
Cabliza, a former employee of Cristal-Tenorio in her law office, filed a disbarment complaint on
the grounds of deceit, grossly immoral conduct and malpractice or other gross misconduct in
office.
Deceit: represented herself to be married to Felicisimo Tenorio Jr, who has a prior existing
marriage
Grossly immoral conduct: disseminated libellous affidavits against a Makati City counselor.
Malpractice: allowed her husband, a non-lawyer, to practice by making him a senior partner in
her law office. This is evidenced by 1) the law office letterhead which included the husband as a
senior partner, 2) an id wherein he signed as an atty, 3) appearance in court as counsel.
HELD
Guilty of malpractice. Violated Canon 9 and Rule 9.01
Canon 9: a lawyer shall not assist in unauthorized practice of law
Rule 9.01: a lawyer shall not delated to any unqualified person the performance of a task that
may only be performed by members of the bar in good standing
Even though Cabliza later on withdrew her complaint, IBP still pushed through with the
investigation because such is a disciplinary proceeding. There is no private interest affected such
that desistance of the complainant will terminate the proceedings. The purpose is to protect the
bar from those unfit to practice law.
2. Villatuya vs Atty Tabalingcos
FACTS:
Complainant, Manuel G. Villatuya filed a Complaint for Disbarment on December 06, 2004
against respondent, Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos. In a resolution, the court required the respondent
to file a comment, which the respondent did. The complaint was then referred to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines for investigation.
In a mandatory conference called for by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP,
complainant and his counsel, and the respondent appeared and submitted issues for resolution.
The commission ordered the parties to submit their verified position papers.
In the position paper submitted by the complainant on August 1, 2005, he averred that he was
employed by the respondent as financial consultant to assist the respondent in a number of
corporate rehabilitation cases. Complainant claimed that they had a verbal agreement whereby
he would be entitled to 50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the cases they would
handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients. Notwithstanding, 18
Stay Orders that was issued by the courts as a result of his work and the respondent being able
to rake in millions from the cases that they were working on together, the latter did not pay the
amount due to him. He also alleged that respondent engaged in unlawful solicitation of cases by
setting up two financial consultancy firms as fronts for his legal services. On the third charge of
gross immorality, complainant accused respondent of committing two counts of bigamy for
having married two other women while his first marriage was subsisting.
In his defense, respondent denied charges against him and asserted that the complainant was
not an employee of his law firm but rather an employee of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., one
of the financial consultancy firms. Respondent alleged that complainant was unprofessional and
incompetent in performing his job and that there was no verbal agreement between them
regarding the payment of fees and the sharing of professional fees paid by his clients. He
proffered documents showing that the salary of complainant had been paid. Respondent also
denied committing any unlawful solicitation. To support his contention, respondent attached a
Joint Venture Agreement and an affidavit executed by the Vice-President for operations of Jesi
and Jane Management, Inc. On the charge of gross immorality, respondent assailed the Affidavit
of a dismissed messenger of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., as having no probative value, since
it had been retracted by the affiant himself. Respondent did not specifically address the
allegations regarding his alleged bigamous marriages with two other women
On January 9, 2006, complainant filed a Motion to Admit Copies of 3 Marriage Contracts of
respondent wherein he attached the certified true copies of the Marriage Contracts referred to
in the Certification issued by the NSO.
On January 16, 2006, respondent submitted his Opposition to the Motion to Admit filed by
complainant, claiming that he was not given the opportunity to controvert them. He disclosed
that criminal cases for bigamy were filed against him by the complainant before the Office of the
31
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
City Prosecutor of Manila. He also informed the Commission that he filed Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of the first two marriage contracts. In both petitions, he claimed that he
had recently discovered that there were Marriage Contracts in the records of the NSO bearing
his name and allegedly executed with Rowena Pion and Pilar Lozano on different occasions.
The Commission scheduled a clarificatory hearing on 20 November 2007. Respondent moved for
the suspension of the resolution of the administrative case against him, pending outcome of
petition for nullification he filed with RTC, but was denied. The Commission resolved that the
administrative case against him be submitted for resolution.
On February 27, 2008, the Commission promulgated its Report and Recommendation
addressing the specific charges against respondent. The first charge, for dishonesty for the
nonpayment of certain shares in the fees, was dismissed for lack of merit. On the second charge,
the Commission found respondent to have violated the rule on the solicitation of client for
having advertised his legal services and unlawfully solicited cases. It recommended that he be
reprimanded for the violation. As for the third charge, the Commission found respondent to be
guilty of gross immorality for violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Due to the gravity of the acts of
respondent, the Commission recommended that he be disbarred, and that his name be stricken
off the roll of attorneys.
On April 15, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors, through its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-154,
adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
On August 1, 2008, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the
recommendation to disbar him was premature.
On June 26, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors denied the Motions for Reconsideration and
affirmed their Resolution dated April 15, 2008 recommending respondents disbarment.
ISSUES:
1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by nonpayment of fees
to complainant;
2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation; and
3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married thrice.
RULING:
First charge: Dishonesty for non-payments of share in the fees.
Supreme Court affirmed the IBPs dismissal of the first charge against respondent, but did not
concur with the rationale behind it. The first charge, if proven to be true is based on an
agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer is
proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for legal services rende-red with a
person not licensed to practice law. In the case of Tan Tek Beng v. David, Supreme Court held
that an agreement between a lawyer and a layperson to share the fees collected from clients
secured by the layperson is null and void, and that the lawyer involved may be disciplined for
unethical conduct. Considering that complainants allegations in this case had not been proven,
the IBP correctly dismissed the charge against respondent on this matter.
Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients.
In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these allegations and ruled that respondent had
violated the rule on the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point out the specific provision that
was breached. Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which prohibits
lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.
A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety
arises, though, when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be
inconsistent with the lawyers duties as a member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the
business is one that can readily lend itself to the procurement of professional employment for
the lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyers behalf; or is of
a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law.
It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by complainant that Jesi & Jane
Management, Inc., which purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was indeed a vehicle
used by respondent as a means to
procure professional employment; specifically for corporate rehabilitation cases.
Rule 15.08 of the Code mandates that the lawyer is mandated to inform the client whether the
former is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity. This duty is a must in those occupations
related to the practice of law. In this case, it is confusing for the client if it is not clear whether
respondent is offering consultancy or legal services.
Considering, however, that complainant has not proven the degree of prevalence of this practice
by respondent, the Supreme Court affirm the recommendation to reprimand the latter for
violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code.
Third charge: Bigamy.
32
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
The Supreme Court have consistently held that a disbarment case is sui generis. Its focus is on
the qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue membership in the bar and not the
procedural technicalities in filing the case. Thus, in Garrido v. Garrido:
Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure such as the verification of pleadings
and prejudicial questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the filing of affidavits of
desistance by the complainant do not apply in the determination of a lawyer's qualifications
and fitness for membership in the Bar. We have so ruled in the past and we see no reason to
depart from this ruling. First, admission to the practice of law is a component of the
administration of justice and is a matter of public interest because it involves service to the
public. The admission qualifications are also qualifications for the continued enjoyment of the
privilege to practice law. Second, lack of qualifications or the violation of the standards for the
practice of law, like criminal cases, is a matter of public concern that the State may inquire into
through this Court.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. In this case,
complainant submitted NSO-certified true copies to prove that respondent entered into two
marriages while the latters first marriage was still subsisting. While respondent denied entering
into the second and the third marriages, he resorted to vague assertions tantamount to a
negative pregnant.
What has been clearly established here is the fact that respondent entered into marriage twice
while his first marriage was still subsisting. In Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, 56 we held
thus:
[W]e have in a number of cases disciplined members of the Bar whom we found guilty of
misconduct which demonstrated a lack of that good moral character required of them not only
as a condition precedent for their admission to the Bar but, likewise, for their continued
membership therein. No distinction has been made as to whether the misconduct was
committed in the lawyers professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer
may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.
He is expected to be competent, honorable and reliable at all times since he who cannot apply
and abide by the laws in his private affairs, can hardly be expected to do so in his professional
dealings nor lead others in doing so. Professional honesty and honor are not to be expected as
the accompaniment of dishonesty and dishonor in other relations. The administration of justice,
in which the lawyer plays an important role being an officer of the court, demands a high degree
of intellectual and moral competency on his part so that the courts and clients may rightly
repose confidence in him.
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member
of the bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and
dignity.57 His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct and are
grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.58
The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the IBP to disbar respondent and ordered
that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
3. Tumbokon vs Atty Pefianco
FACTS: Complainant filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent for
grave dishonesty, gross misconduct constituting deceit and grossly immoral conduct.
Complainant narrated that respondent undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to
10%, of the attorney's fees the latter would receive in representing Sps. Yap, whom he referred,
in an action for partition of the estate of the late Benjamin Yap.
Respondent failed to pay notwithstanding the 17% attorneys fees of the total estate of 40M.
Respondent told complainant that the Sps. Yap assumed to pay the amount after respondent
agreed to reduced fees.
Complainant further alleged that respondent has not lived up to the high moral standards
required of his profession. Respondent abandoned his legal wife, Milagros Hilado, with whom he
has two children, and cohabited with Mae Flor Galido, with whom he has four children.
Complainant also accused respondent of engaging in money-lending business without
authorization from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
In his defense, respondent explained that he accepted the case in a 25% contingent fee basis
and the letter of Sps. Yap stating that they will pay the complainants commission is a forgery.
The court referred the case to IBP wherein the commissioner recommended that the
respondent be suspended for one (1) year from the practice of law for violation of the Lawyers
Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1; Rule 7.03, Canon 7 and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Respondent moved for reconsideration but was denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty.
HELD: YES. The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who
show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession.
Clearly, respondent has violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from
dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law.
Furthermore, respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned his legal family to
cohabit with his mistress with whom he begot four children. The settled rule is that betrayal of
the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and
immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows
33
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
 protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. However, SC finds the charge of
engaging in illegal money lending not to have been sufficiently established. The lending of
money to a single person without showing that such service is made available to other persons
on a consistent basis cannot be construed as indicia that respondent is engaged in the business
of lending. Thus, the SC deems it appropriate that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for a period of one (1) year as recommended.
4. Petition to Sign Attorneys Roll, Michael Medado
Petitioner Michael Medado, who obtained his law degree in the year 1979, took and passed the
same years bar examinations and took the Attorneys Oath, failed to sign the Attorneys Roll. After
more than 30 years of practicing the profession of law, he filed the instant Petition on February 2012,
praying that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. Medado said that he was not able to sign
the Roll of Attorneys because he misplaced the notice given to him and he believed that since he had
already taken the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys is not urgent, nor as crucial to his status as
a lawyer.
The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) after conducting clarificatory conference on the
matter recommended to the Supreme Court that the instant petition be denied for petitioners gross
negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit.
Issue:
WON the petitioner be allowed to sign in the roll of attorneys?
Ruling:
Yes, the Court allowed the petitioner to sign the Roll of Attorneys subject to the payment of
a fine and the imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of law.
The Court cannot forbid the petitioner from signing the Roll of Attorneys because such
action constitutes disbarment. Such penalty is reserved to the most serious ethical transgressions of
members of the Bar.
The Court cited three main points which demonstrate Medados worth to become a full-
fledged member of the Philippine Bar. First, Medado demonstrated good faith and good moral
character when he finally filed the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys. It was Medado
himself who admitted his own error and not any third person. Second, petitioner has not been
subject to any action for disqualification from the practice of law. He strove to adhere to the strict
requirements of the ethics of the profession and that he has prima facie shown that he possesses the
character required to be a member of the Philippine Bar. Third, Medado appears to have been a
competent and able legal practitioner, having held various positions at the Laurel Law Office, Petron,
Petrophil Corporation, the Philippine National Oil Company, and the Energy Development
Corporation.
However, the Court cannot fully free Medado from all liability for his years of inaction. His
justification of his action, that it was neither willful nor intentional but based on a mistaken belief
and an honest error of judgment was opposed by the Court.
A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed
to know the law and its consequences. Although an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a
person from the legal consequences of his acts he could no longer claim it as a valid justification by
the moment he realized that what he had signed was merely an attendance record. His action of
continuing the practice of law in spite of his knowledge of the need to take the necessary steps to
complete all requirements for the admission to the bar constitutes unauthorized practice of law. Such
action transgresses Canon 9 of 'the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
CANON 9 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized
practice of law.
With respect to the penalty, previous violations of Canon 9 have warranted the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law. However, in the instant case the Court could not warrant the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law to Medado because he is not yet a full-fledged lawyer.
Instead, the Court see it fit to impose upon him a penalty similar to suspension by allowing him to
sign in the Roll of Attorneys one ( 1) year after receipt of the Resolution and to fine him in the
amount of P32,000.
The instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys is Affirmed. Petitioner Michael A.
Medado is ALLOWED to sign in the Roll of Attorneys ONE (1) YEAR after receipt of the Resolution.
Petitioner is likewise ORDERED to pay a FINE of P32,000 for his unauthorized practice of law. During
the one year period, petitioner is NOT ALLOWED to practice law, and is STERNLY WARNED that doing
any act that constitutes practice of law before he has signed in the Roll of Attorneys will be dealt with
severely by the Court.
Canon 10
78. NATASHA HUEYSUWAN-FLORIDO, complainant, vs. ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT C. FLORIDO,
respondent.
Facts: This is an administrative complaint for the disbarment of respondent Atty. James Benedict C.
Florido and his eventual removal from the Roll of Attorneys for allegedly violating his oath as a
lawyer by manufacturing, flaunting and using a spurious and bogus Court of Appeals
Resolution/Order.
Natasha V. Heysuwan-Florido averred that she is the legitimate spouse of respondent Atty. James
Benedict C. Florido, but that they are estranged and living separately from each other. They have two
children. Complainant filed a case for the annulment of her marriage with respondent. there is
another case related to the complaint for annulment of marriage which is pending before the Court
of Appeals and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 54235 entitled, James Benedict C. Florido v. Hon. Pampio
Abarientos, et al. Respondent went to complainants residence in Tanjay City, Negros Oriental and
demanded that the custody of their two minor children be surrendered to him. He showed
complainant a photocopy of an alleged Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals which supposedly
granted his motion for temporary child custody. Complainant called up her lawyer but the latter
34
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
informed her that he had not received any motion for temporary child custody filed by respondent.
Complainant asked respondent for the original copy of the alleged resolution of the Court of Appeals,
but respondent failed to give it to her. Complainant then examined the resolution closely and noted
that it bore two dates: November 12, 2001 and November 29, 2001. Sensing something amiss, she
refused to give custody of their children to respondent. While complainant was with her children in
the ABC Learning Center in Tanjay City, respondent, accompanied by armed men, suddenly arrived
and demanded that she surrender to him the custody of their children. He threatened to forcefully
take them away with the help of his companions, whom he claimed to be agents of the National
Bureau of Investigation. complainant received information that a van arrived at the hotel where
respondent and the children were staying to take them to Bacolod City. Complainant rushed to the
hotel and took the children to another room, where they stayed until later in the morning.
respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 31, a verified petition for
the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus asserting his right to custody of the children on the basis of
the alleged Court of Appeals resolution. In the meantime, complainant verified the authenticity of
the Resolution and obtained a certification dated January 18, 2002 from the Court of Appeals stating
that no such resolution ordering complainant to surrender custody of their children to respondent
had been issued.
After respondent answered the complaint, the matter was referred to the IBP-Commission on Bar
Discipline for investigation, report and recommendation. The IBP-CBD recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years with a warning that
another offense of this nature will result in his disbarment. On June 23, 2003, the IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved the Report and recommendation of the Commission with the
modification that the penalty of suspension be increased to six years.
ISSUE: WON respondent can be held administratively liable for his reliance on and attempt to enforce
a spurious Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
RULING:
In his answer to the complaint, respondent claims that he acted in good faith in invoking the Court of
Appeals Resolution which he honestly believed to be authentic. This, however, is belied by the fact
that he used and presented the spurious resolution several times. As pointed out by the Investigating
Commissioner, the assailed Resolution was presented by respondent on at least two occasions: first,
in his Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus docketed as Special Proc. Case No. 3898, which
he filed with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City; and second, when he sought the assistance
of the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Tanjay City to recover custody of his minor children from
complainant. Since it was respondent who used the spurious Resolution, he is presumed to have
participated in its fabrication.
Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. The burden cast on the judiciary would be
intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be
devoted just to the task of verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined. Even with
due recognition then that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in the defense of a clients
cause, it must never be at the expense of the truth. Thus, the Code of professional Responsibility
states:
CANON 10. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood; nor consent to the doing of any in
court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of
a paper, the language or the argument of an opposing counsel, or the
text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as a law a provision
already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a
fact that which has not been proved.
Moreover, the records show that respondent used offensive language in his pleadings in describing
complainant and her relatives. A lawyers language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but
respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. The
lawyers arguments whether written or oral should be gracious to both court and opposing counsel
and should be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentlemen to another. By calling
complainant, a sly manipulator of truth as well as a vindictive congenital prevaricator, hardly
measures to the sobriety of speech demanded of a lawyer.
Respondents actions erode the public perception of the legal profession. They constitute gross
misconduct and the sanctions for such malfeasance is prescribed by Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court which states:
SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore.- A member of
the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of
his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney
for a party without authority to do so.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, Atty. James Benedict C. Florido is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of two (2) years.
79. De Zuzuarregui vs Atty Soguilon
FACTS: Before us is an administrative case for disbarment filed by complainant Antonio de
Zuzuarregui, Jr. against respondent Atty. Apolonia A.C. Soguilon. Complainant accuses respondent of
misconduct, concealment of the truth and misleading the court.
Respondent acted as counsel for the petitioner in a petition for reconstitution, respondent
introduced as evidence the certified copy of the technical description and the sketch plan of the land.
Exhibits F and G,- This is not an updated survey data; This plan is used for reference purposes
only. the trial court allowed reconstitution of the title. As such, complainant submitted that
respondent was remiss in not calling the attention of the trial court to the notations indicated in the
documents, emphasizing her duty to avoid concealment of the truth from the court.
In answer to these allegations, she refuted all the charges against her. Anent the
annotations on the documents, respondent stated that she could not be charged of concealing facts
35
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
from the court as she had submitted the documents without alteration for the evaluation of the trial
court.
The Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation. Decided - Clearly, what should have been fatal omissions
on the part of Respondent, as counsel of the petitioner in the Petition for
Reconstitution (LRC Case No. Q-7195 [95]) were allowed to pass without
challenge. A simple perusal of the Decision dated June 5, 1995 (In Re: Petition for
Reconstitution of TCT No. 17730, LRC Case No. Q-7195 [95]) x x x shows that
there was reversible error on the part of the presiding judge of RTC, Branch 93 of
Quezon City.
xxxx
x x x However, the disciplinary process does not punish errors, mistakes
or incompetence. Errors and mistakes are corrected by legal remedies such as
motions for reconsideration, appeals, and petitions for relief. The reversal of the
June 5, 1995 Decision of the trial court has remedied the error committed.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is submitted that respondent did not
commit any act for which she should be disciplined or administratively
sanctioned.
It is therefore recommended that this CASE BE DISMISSED for lack of
merit.
ISSUE: WON respondent employ deceit or misrepresentation in acting as counsel for the petitioner in
the petition for reconstitution of title.
RULING: NO- Respondents failure to point out the notations in the documents she had submitted, in
the Courts opinion, the Commissioner correctly observed that there was absence of proof that
respondent had intended to mislead or deceive the trial court. In fact, the said notations were laid
bare for the trial courts evaluation. There were no attempts on respondents part to manipulate or
hide them.
In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof required
is clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. In the present
case, the Court finds that complainant, who notably owns one of the properties subject of the title
sought to be reconstituted, and is consequently an adverse party, failed to present clear and
preponderant evidence to show respondents guilt of the charges he had leveled against her. In any
event, it is worth mentioning that the prejudice, if any, caused by respondents oversight against
complainant and other interested parties had been rectified later on by a different judge who set
aside the order of reconstitution.
All told, the lapses of respondent were committed without malice and devoid of any desire to dupe
or defraud the opposing party. They are innocuous blunders that were made without intent to harm.
As plain acts of inadvertence, they do not reach the level of professional incompetence. While
professional incompetence is not among the grounds of disbarment enumerated in Section 27, Rule
138 of the Revised Rules of Court yet there are instances where a lawyer may be disciplined for
inexcusable ignorance as the list is not exclusive. Indeed, the Court is convinced that respondent
should not be sanctioned.
The petition for review is DENIED. The Resolution of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines dated 25 June 2005 in Adm. Case No. 4495 is AFFIRMED.
80. Macias vs Atty Selda
FACTS: Petition for Administrative Discipline against Atty. Alanixon A. Selda for violation of the
lawyers oath.
Respondent Selda withdrew as counsel for one Norma T. Lim, private protestee in Election Case. He
basically submitted as ground for his withdrawal that he could not cope up with the pace of the
proceedings in view of his workload. He claimed that the hearings of the election protest case would
run from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and he still had to attend to his other cases including classes at
Philippine Advent College, which start at 5:30 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays. However,
respondent executed an affidavit disavowing his grounds for withdrawing as counsel for private
protestee. He swore that he only filed the Motion on account of the pre-judgment of the case by
complainant, who, on several occasions insinuated to him that his client would lose in the protest.
He stated that he was convinced that chaos would result if his client were unseated, and withdrawal
from the case was his best recourse. This Court set aside complainants inhibition after finding no
strong and valid reason therefor, and directed him to continue hearing the case and to resolve it with
reasonable dispatch.
Deploring the act of respondent as serious deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct as a lawyer and in
utter violation of the lawyers oath, complainant requested the IBP to investigate the matter and
recommend to the Court an appropriate penalty against respondent. He failed to file his answer and
personally appear before the IBP investigation, as a result decision was rendered based on the
pleading and was suspended from the practice of law for 2 years. - It reduced the suspension of
respondent to six (6) months.
Issue: WON respondent violated his lawyers aoth and the act would be a violation of the lawyers
duty of candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Ruling: We affirm the findings of the IBP on the culpability of respondent.
All members of the legal profession made a solemn oath to, inter alia, do no falsehood and
conduct [themselves] as [lawyers] according to the best of [their] knowledge and discretion with all
36
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
good fidelity as well to the courts as to [their] clients. These particular fundamental principles are
reflected in the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically:
Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court, nor shall
he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by an artifice.
When respondent executed his affidavit retracting his reason for withdrawing as counsel for Norma T.
Lim, he acknowledged, under oath, his misrepresentation.
Candor towards the courts is a cardinal requirement of the practicing lawyer. In fact, this obligation to
the bench for candor and honesty takes precedence. Thus, saying one thing in his Motion to
Withdraw as Counsel for Private Protestee and another in his subsequent affidavit is a transgression
of this imperative which necessitates appropriate punishment.
The circumstances in this case demand that respondent be imposed suspension from the practice of
law for one (1) year. This serves the purpose of protecting the interest of the court, the legal
profession and the public. For indeed, if respect for the courts and for judicial process is gone or
steadily weakened, no law can save us as a society.
81. Mariveles vs Atty Mallari
FACTS: Mario S. Mariveles filed an administrative complaint against his former counsel, Attorney
Odilon C. Mallari, whose legal services he had engaged in 1984 to handle his defense in Criminal Case
(BP Blg 22). After an adverse decision was rendered, Mariveles instructed Attorney Mallari to appeal
the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals, which the respondent did. However, in the Court of
Appeals, despite numerous extensions of time, totalling 245 days, which he obtained from the Court,
Attorney Mallari failed to file the appellant's brief, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
ISSUE: WON Atty Mallari is guilty of abandonment and dereliction of duty toward his client?
RULING: YES
The Court finds respondent Attorney Odilon C. Mallari guilty of abandonment and dereliction of duty
toward his client and hereby orders him DISBARRED from the legal profession and to immediately
cease and desist from the practice of law. The respondent demonstrated not only appalling
indifference and lack of responsibility to the courts and his client but also a shameless disregard for
his duties as a lawyer. He is unfit for membership in this noble profession.
In sum, what was committed by the respondent is a blatant violation of our Code of
Professional Responsibility.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
Suffice it to state that a lawyer has no business practicing his profession if in the course of that
practice, he will eventually wreck and destroy the future and reputation of his client and thus
disgrace the law profession. The last thing that his peers in the law profession and the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines would do is to disrobe a member of the profession, for he has
worked for the attainment of his career burning the midnight oil throughout school and
passing the bar. The undersigned, however, could not find any mitigating circumstances to
recommend a lighter penalty. Disbarment is the only recourse to remove a rotten apple if only
to instill and maintain the respect and confidence of all and sundry to the noble profession.
(pp. 249-250, Rollo)
82. Atty Alonso vs Atty Relamida
FACTS:
In March 2001, Jennifer Ebanen filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Servier Philippines,
Incorporated in the NLRC. On July 5, 2002, the labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier, stating that
Ebanen voluntarily resigned. Ebanen appealed at the NLRC which only affirmed the appealed
decision. Ebanen filed for reconsideration but was denied. The case eventually reached the Supreme
Court. On February 17, 2005, the Courts Resolution dated August 4, 2004 has already become final
and executory; thus, a corresponding Entry of Judgment has been issued dismissing the petition and
holding that there was no illegal dismissal since Ebanen voluntarily resigned.
However, despite the judgment, Ebanen through Atty. Relamida, Jr. filed a second complaint on
August 5, 2005 for illegal dismissal based on the same cause of action of constructive dismissal
against Servier. Thus, on October 13, 2005, Servier, thru counsel, filed a letter-complaint addressed to
the then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., praying that respondents be disciplinary sanctioned for
violation of the rules on forum shopping and res judicata.
Respondents admitted the filing of the second complaint against Servier. However, they opined that
the dismissal did not amount to res judicata, since the decision was null and void for lack of due
process since the motion for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum for the production of vital
documents filed by the complainant was ignored by the Labor Arbiter.
ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of forum shopping and res judicata thus violating Canon 12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility?
HELD:
During the IBP hearing, Atty. Relamida is ot a lawyer but the daughter of Atty. Aurelio the senior
partner of A.M. Sison Jr. and Partners Law Offices where he is employed as associate lawyer. Atty.
Relamida reasoned out that as a courtesy to Atty. Aurelio and Ebanen, he had no choice but to
represent the latter. Moreover, he stressed that his client was denied of her right to due process due
to the denial of her motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. He then argued that the
decision of the Labor Arbiter was null and void; thus, there was no res judicata. He maintained that
he did not violate the lawyers oath by serving the interest of his client. The IBP-CBD recommended
that Atty. Relamida, Jr. be suspended for 6 months for violating the rules on forum shopping and res
judicata.
The Supreme Court agrees to this finding. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at
the expense of truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple petitions constitutes
37
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
abuse of the courts processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the
administration of justice and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to state, the lawyer
who files such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a final and
executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any
better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts,
and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and
honor.
The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res
judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a
lawyer to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. By his actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the
Code, as well as a lawyers mandate "to delay no man for money or malice."
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-286, dated June 5, 2008, of the IBP, which found respondent
Atty. Ibaro B. Relamida, Jr. guilty of violating the Rules on Res Judicata and Forum Shopping, is
AFFIRMED. Atty. Relaminda is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of law,
effective upon the receipt of this Decision
83. maligaya vs Atty Doronilla
FACTS: Atty. Doronilla stood as counsel for several military officers. During a hearing, he said we
had an agreement that if we withdraw the case against him(Maligaya) he will also withdraw all the
cases. Do with that understanding, he even retired and he is now receiving pension. Atty. Doronilla
was then charge of misleading the court through misrepresentation of facts resulting in obstruction
of justice
.ISSUE: WON Atty. Doronilla guilt of purposely stating a falsehood in violation of canon 10 of the code
of professional responsibility.
RULING: by stating untruthfully in open court, Att. Doronilla breached peremptory tenets of ethical
conduct. Not only violated the lawyers oath to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of an in
court, but also his acts infringed on every lawyers duty to never seek to mislead the judge or any
judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. He was suspended from practice of law
for two months.
The suspension referred to in the foregoing provision means only suspension from the
practice of law. For this reason, we disagree with the IBPs recommendation for Atty. Doronillas
suspension from the government military service. After all, the only purpose of this administrative
case is to determine Atty. Doronillas liability as a member of the legal profession, not his liability as a
legal officer in the military service. Thus, it would be improper for us to order, as a penalty for his
breach of legal ethics and the lawyers oath, his suspension from employment in the Judge Advocate
Generals Service. Of course, suspension from employment as a military legal officer may well follow
as a consequence of his suspension from the practice of law but that should not be reason for us to
impose it as a penalty for his professional misconduct. We would be going beyond the purpose of
this proceeding were we to do so. Therefore, we shall treat the IBPs recommendation as one for
suspension from the practice of law.
84. Molina vs Atty Magat
Before the Court is the undated Resolutionof the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) finding Atty. Ceferino R. Magat (Atty. Magat) liable for unethical conduct and
recommending that he be reprimanded.
Attorney; False and untruthful statements in pleadings. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on
those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. Lawyers are
expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty,
integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the
courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied
in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Magats act clearly falls short of the standards set by the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly Rule 10.01, which provides:
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall
he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
The Court ruled that there was a deliberate intent on the part of Atty. Magat to mislead the court
when he filed the motion to dismiss the criminal charges on the basis of double jeopardy. Atty. Magat
should not make any false and untruthful statements in his pleadings. If it were true that there was a
similar case for slight physical injuries that was really filed in court, all he had to do was to secure a
certification from that court that, indeed, a case was filed.
85. Afurong vs Atty Aquino
FACTS:
P a r a l u m a n B . A f u r o n g fi l e d a c o m p l a i n t f o r e j e c t m e n t a g a i n s t Victorino
Flores for nonpayment of rentals and the court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner Paraluman
Afurong and the court issued a writ of execution. Facing evicti on, Flores sought help from
Citi zens Legal Assistance Office and they assigned Atty. Angel G Aquino to his case. He fi led
two peti ti ons. When the court set a pre-trial, he fi led an Urgent Moti on for
Postponement and signed his name as counsel for Flores and indicated the address
of Citi zens Legal Assistance Offi ce as his offi ce address notwithstanding the fact that he
was separated from Citizens Legal Assistance Office at that time. In the aforesaid motion, he stated
that he could not attend the pre-trial conference because he had to att end the hearing of
a Habeas Corpus Case before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court that same day and hour.
But the Clerk of Court of the JDR Court certified that a decision had been rendered on the
aforementioned special proceedings case and that there was no hearing. Thus, Afurong filed a
verified letter-complaint for disbarment against Aquino, for fi ling frivolous harassment cases
to delay the executi on of a fi nal d e c i s i o n , c o m m i tti n g f a l s e h o o d i n a n U r g e n t
M o ti o n f o r P o s t p o n e m e n t , a n d misrepresenting himself as an attorney for the Citizens
Legal Assistance Office. Atty. Aquino denied the charges against him and contended that such acts
38
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
had been done without malice.In a Reply, complainant asserted that Att y. Aquino was
declared guilty of contempt of court and correspondingly fined by this Court for making false
allegations in his Urgent Motion for Postponement. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline submitted
a Report finding that Aquino failed to perform his duties expected of an attorney as provided under
the existing Canons of Professional Ethics and Sec. 20 of Rule 138 of the ROC in force at the time of
the commission of the acts in question. They recommended that he be penalized with 6 months
suspension. Board of Gov. of the IBP resolved to adopt and approve the report and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
ISSUE:
WON Aquino failed to perform his duti es expected of an att orney as provided under
the existi ng Canons of Professional Ethics and Sec. 20 of Rule 138 of the ROC in force
at the time of the commission of the acts in question
RULING:
The Revised Rules of Court provides that it is the duty of an attorney to counsel or maintain such
actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be
honestly debatable under the law.
Respondent Atty. Aquino should not have filed a petition for certiorari considering that there was no
apparent purpose for it than to delay the execution of a valid judgment.
Aquino committed falsehood when he stated in his Urgent Motion for Postponement that he had to
attend the hearing of a special proceedings case the s a m e d a y a s t h e p r e - t r i a l o f t h e
C i v i l C a s e . S u c h a c t v i o l a t e s t h e C a n o n s o f Professional Ethics which obliges an
attorney to avoid the concealment of the truth from the court. A lawyer is mandated not to mislead
the court in any manner.
Lower court correctly declared respondent in contempt of court for c o n d u c t
t e n d i n g , d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y, t o i m p e d e , o b s t r u c t , o r d e g r a d e t h e
administration of justice, in violation of Section 3 (d), Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Atty. Aquino purposely allowed the court to believe that he was still employed with the Citizens
Legal Assistance Office when in fact he had been purged from said office.
The Court hereby fi nds respondent Att y. Angel G. Aquino guilty of m a l p r a c ti c e
a n d S U S P E N D S h i m f r o m t h e p r a c ti c e o f l a w f o r s i x ( 6 ) m o n t h s commencing
upon receipt of notice hereof.
86. Judge Cervantes vs Atty Sabio
Facts: Respondent filed motions for inhibition on complainant judge on the ground that EDC (a party
to the case handled by Atty. Sabio) gave complainant a house and lot putting into serious doubt his
impartiality, independence and integrity. The motions were denied. Later on in his affidavit of
complaint, Atty. Sabio submitted an affidavit stating certain instances pointing out irregularities with
the handling of his case under Judge Cervantes. The complaint was dismissed.
A complaint for disbarment was later filed by Judge Cervantes against Sabio alleging that (1) the
complaint for bribery filed by the latter against the former were unsubstantiated and motivated by
plain unfounded suspicion, and, (2) such complaints were filed after the effectivity of his optional
retirement.
The complaint by Judge Cervantes was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty under the Code of Professional Responsibility for filing
a malicious, false and untruthful complaint.
Held: YES. The IBP established that by filing the groundless bribery charge against complainant,
respondent violated the proscription of the Code of Professional Responsibility against "wittingly or
willingly promoting or suing any groundless suit" including baseless administrative complaints against
judges and other court officers and employees.
The Court found the action taken by the IBP Board of Governors well taken.
Respondent ought to be aware that if a court official or employee, or a lawyer, is to be disciplined,
the evidence against him should be substantial, competent and derived from direct knowledge, not
on mere allegations, conjectures, suppositions, or on the basis of hearsay.
No doubt, it is the Court's duty to investigate the truth behind charges against judges and lawyers.
But it is also its duty to shield them from unfounded suits which are intended to, among other things,
harass them.
Canon 11
87. Judge Madrid vs Atty Dealca
FACTS: Atty. Juan S. Dealca entered his appearance in Criminal Case pending in Branch 51 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Sorsogon City, presided by complainant Judge Jose L. Madrid. Atty.
Dealca sought to replace Atty. Vicente Judar who had filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for the
accused. But aside from entering his appearance as counsel for the accused, Atty. Dealca also moved
that Criminal Case be re-raffled to another Branch of the RTC. Judge Madrid denied Atty. Dealcas
motion to re-raffle. Judge Madrid filed a letter complaint 4 in the Office of the Bar Confidant citing
Atty. Dealcas unethical practice of entering his appearance and then moving for the inhibition of the
presiding judge on the pretext of previous adverse incidents between them.
Atty. Dealca asserted that Judge Madrids issuance of the order unconstitutionally and unlawfully
deprived the accused of the right to counsel, to due process, and to a fair and impartial trial; that
Judge Madrid exhibited bias in failing to act on the motion to lift and set aside the warrant of arrest
issued against the accused; and that it should be Judge Madrid himself who should be disbarred and
accordingly dismissed from the Judiciary for gross ignorance of the law.
39
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
The Court referred the matter to the IBP for appropriate investigation, report and recommendation.
the Court in Yap v. Judge Madrid dismissed for its lack of merit the administrative complaint against
Judge Madrid for allegedly falsifying the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing, but referred
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation the
propensity of Atty. Dealca to file administrative or criminal complaints against judges and court
personnel whenever decisions, orders or processes were issued adversely to him and his clients.
ISSUE: (1) Did Atty. Dealca file frivolous administrative and criminal complaints against judges and
court personnel in violation of the Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility?
(2) Was Atty. Dealca guilty of unethical practice in seeking the inhibition of Judge Madrid in Criminal
Case No. 2006-6795?
RULING: 1. Atty. Dealca must guard against his own impulse of initiating unfounded suits.
Although the Court always admires members of the Bar who are imbued with a high sense of
vigilance to weed out from the Judiciary the undesirable judges and inefficient or undeserving court
personnel, any acts taken in that direction should be unsullied by any taint of insincerity or self-
interest. The noble cause of cleansing the ranks of the Judiciary is not advanced otherwise. Atty.
Dealca exhibited his proclivity for vindictiveness and penchant for harassment, considering that, as
IBP Commissioner Hababag pointed outm his 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
his clients or his side. He well knew, therefore, that he was thereby crossing the line of propriety,
because neither vindictiveness nor harassment could be a substitute for resorting to the appropriate
legal remedies. He should now be reminded that the aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice
to the parties according to law, not to harass them.
Atty. Dealca must be mindful of his mission to assist the courts in the proper administration of justice.
He disregarded his mission because his filing of the unfounded complaints, including this one against
Judge Madrid, increased the workload of the Judiciary. Although no person should be penalized for
the exercise of the right to litigate, the right must nonetheless be exercised in good faith. Atty.
Dealcas bringing of the numerous administrative and criminal complaints against judges, court
personnel and his fellow lawyers did not evince any good faith on his part, considering that he made
allegations against them therein that he could not substantially prove, and are rightfully deemed
frivolous and unworthy of the Courts precious time and serious consideration.
2. Atty. Dealca violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts empowered to appear, prosecute and defend the legal
causes for their clients. As a consequence, peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved
upon them by law. Verily, their membership in the Bar imposes certain obligations upon them.
In this regard, Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility pertinently
state:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Canon 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
xxxx
Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.
In light of the foregoing canons, all lawyers are bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the
courts, and to promote confidence in the fair administration of justice. It is the respect for the courts
that guarantees the stability of the judicial institution; elsewise, the institution would be resting on a
very shaky foundation.
the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rule
1.03 and Canon 11, Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from
the practice of law for one year effective from notice of this decision, with a STERN WARNING that
any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.
88. Uy vs Atty Depasucat
FACTS: Before us is a verified complaint filed by Johnny K.H. Uy against respondents lawyers,
Reynaldo C. Depasucat, William O. Su and Celso delas Alas, for gross misconduct.
Complainant filed before the BSP a Petitionagainst Surigaonon Rural Banking Corporation (the bank)
and Alfredo Tan Bonpin (Bonpin), whose family comprises the majority stockholders of the bank, for
cancellation of the banks registration and franchise. The Petition, he said, arose from the banks
and/or Bonpins refusal to return various checks and land titles, which were given to secure a loan
obtained by his (complainants) wife, despite alleged full payment of the loan and interests.
89. Racines vs Judge Morallos
Facts: Complainant Jaime Racines (Racines) was required by the Court in its Resolution dated
November 22, 2007 to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for filing a
baseless and unfounded administrative case.
Racines filed a Complaint against Judge Jose P. Morallos and Sheriff Benjamin Cabusao for knowingly
rendering an unjust judgment, other deceits, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
violation of Article 32 of the New Civil Code, Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, and the
Code of Judicial Conduct.
Ruling: According to respondent sheriff, the filing of the ejectment complaint did not deprive
complainant of his property right. He argues that plaintiff therein was only asserting his right as a
lessor over the leased property subject of the above-entitled case. Respondent sheriff further argues
that due process of law was observed. Hence, the instant administrative proceeding is not the proper
remedy.
EVALUATION: The instant complaint should be dismissed for lack of merit.
As a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action.
He cannot be subjected to liability whether civil, criminal or administrative for any of his official acts,
no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud,
dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively
sanctioned. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to
try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his
judgment.
40
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Thus, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative complaint against the judge,
but to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction. An
administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such
as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari, unless the assailed order is
tainted with fraud, malice or dishonesty.
A perusal of the records failed to indicate any improper motive on the part of the respondent judge
when he rendered the assailed decision. A judge's failure to interpret the law or to properly
appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render him administratively liable.
90. Baculi vs Atty Battung
On July 24, 2008, during a hearing on the motion for reconsideration of a case, respondent
Atty. Mechor A. Battung acted disrespectfully by shouting while arguing his motion. Petitioner, Judge
Rene Baculi, had advised respondent to tone down his voice but the respondent consistently kept
shouting, even when he was warned that he would be cited for direct contempt. After eventually
being cited for direct contempt and was imposed a fine of P100.00, the respondent left. However,
while other cases were being heard, respondent re-entered the court and shouted Judge, I will file
gross ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you! He was escorted out of the courtroom and was
again cited for direct contempt for the second time. Respondent also uttered the same lines when he
saw petitioner at the hall of the courthouse afterwards and even challenged the latter to a fight. He
was then escorted out of the building.
Based on the tape of the incident and the transcript of stenographic notes, Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) Investigative Commissioner Jose de la Rama, Jr. found that the respondent
was the one who shouted first at the complainant, despite the latters claim that he was provoked by
the petitioner. The Commissioner further stated that the respondent failed to observe Rule 11.03,
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behaviour before the courts. The IBP Board of
Governors passed a Resolution adopting and approving the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Melchor A. Battung is guilty of violating Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility for insulting a judge in his courtroom
HELD:
Petition GRANTED.
The Supreme Court agrees with the finding of the IBP that the respondent did violate Rule
11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. By shouting at the petitioner, Atty.
Battung clearly disrespected the former in the presence of litigants and their counsels and court
personnel. Furthermore, the respondent even threatened the judge that he will file a case of gross
ignorance of the law against the latter. The respondents actions are found not only against the
person, the position and the stature of petitioner but also against the court whose proceedings were
disrupted.
As an officer of the court, it is the duty of Atty. Battung to uphold the dignity and authority
of the courts. A lawyer who insulted a judge inside a courtroom completely disregards the latters
role, stature and position in our justice system. Respects for the courts guarantee the stability of the
judicial institution and without such, the courts would be resting on very shaky foundations and will
thus, lose the confidence from the people. By threatening to a file a case against the judge, Atty.
Battung seems to erode public confidence in the petitioners competence. However, incompetence is
a matter that, even if true, should be handled with sensitivity in the manner that is provided under
the Rules of Court, and not how the respondent handled the situation. The respondents actions,
being scandalous and offensive to the integrity of the judicial system, clearly showed a violation of
the Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
91. Judge Lacurom vs Atty Lacoba
Facts: The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for plaintiff Alejandro R. Veneracion in a civil
case for unlawful detainer against defendant Federico Barrientos. The Municipal Trial Court of
Cabanatuan City rendered judgment in favor of Veneracion but Barrientos appealed to the Regional
Trial Court. The case was raffled to Branch 30 where Judge Lacurom was sitting as pairing judge.
Judge Lacurom issued a Resolution (Resolution) reversing the earlier judgments rendered
in favor of Veneracion. The plaintiff-appellee Alejandro Veneracion is ordered to CEASE and
DESIST from ejecting the defendant-appellant Federico Barrientos. Veneracions counsel
filed a Motion for Reconsideration (with Request for Inhibition) This RESOLUTION of
REVERSAL is an ABHORRENT NULLITY as it is entirely DEVOID of factual and legal basis. It is
a Legal MONSTROSITY in the sense that the Honorable REGIONAL TRIAL COURT acted as if
it were the DARAB (Dept. of Agrarian Reform ADJUDICATION BOARD)! x x x HOW HORRIBLE
and TERRIBLE! The mistakes are very patent and glaring! x x x
Judge Lacurom ordered Velasco-Jacoba to appear before his sala and explain why she
should not be held in contempt of court for the very disrespectful, insulting and
humiliating contents of the 30 July 2001 motion. Velasco-Jacoba claimed that His Honor
knows beforehand who actually prepared the subject Motion; records will show that the
undersigned counsel did not actually or actively participate in this case. Velasco-Jacoba
disavowed any conscious or deliberate intent to degrade the honor and integrity of the
Honorable Court or to detract in any form from the respect that is rightfully due all courts
of justice.
RULING: The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 11.03.A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
41
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes

Rule 11.04.A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not
supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.
No doubt, the language contained in the 30 July 2001 motion greatly exceeded the vigor
required of Jacoba to defend ably his clients cause. We recall his use of the following words and
phrases: abhorrent nullity, legal monstrosity, horrendous mistake, horrible error, boner, and an insult
to the judiciary and an anachronism in the judicial process. Even Velasco-Jacoba acknowledged that
the words created a cacophonic picture of total and utter disrespect. Well-recognized is the right of
a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and
through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. However, even the most hardened judge
would be scarred by the scurrilous attack made by the 30 July 2001 motion on Judge Lacuroms
Resolution. On its face, the Resolution presented the facts correctly and decided the case according
to supporting law and jurisprudence. Though a lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it
should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of
unnecessary language is proscribed if we are to promote high esteem in the courts and trust in
judicial administration.
WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Ellis F. Jacoba from the practice of law for two (2) years
effective upon finality of this Decision. We also SUSPEND Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba from
the practice of law for two (2) months effective upon finality of this Decision.
92. Provincial Prosecutor Visbal vs Judge Buban
FACTS: Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, Provincial Prosecutor Robert M. Visbal of Tacloban
City charged Judge Marino S. Buban, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Tacloban City,
with gross inefficiency and misconduct in Office. Presiding Judge Marino S. Buban, respondent,
resolved the motion only on March 20, 2000, or almost eight (8) months from the date it was filed.
He deliberately failed to resolve the motion within the prescribed period of ninety (90) days because
he begrudged complainant's filing of an administrative charge and several motions for his inhibition.
Respondents delay in resolving the motion violated the relevant provisions of the Constitution and
the Code of Judicial Conduct. Furthermore, respondent committed falsification by stating in his
Certificates of Service from October 1999 to February 2000 that he has no pending motions
submitted for resolution. respondent judge admitted he incurred delay in resolving the "Motion to
Correct and Re-mark Exhibits of the Prosecution." He attributed such delay to the frequent resetting
of the hearing of the cases. He also alleged that his clerk of court failed or forgot to submit the
records of the pertinent case to him and to call his attention to the unresolved motion attached to
the voluminous records. He blamed the complainant for failing to remind him earlier of the motion.
It was only during the hearing of March 20, 2000 that complainant called his attention to the pending
incident. Immediately, he granted the motion and ordered the remarking of exhibits. He stressed
that the delay in resolving the motion did not impede the flow of the proceedings. He surmised that
complainant filed the instant administrative case in order to force him (respondent) to inhibit himself
from hearing Criminal Case No. 98-11-18 for direct assault upon a person in authority. The accused
therein is complainants wife.
RULING: Delay in resolving motions is inexcusable and should not be condoned. Delay in resolving
motions and incidents pending before a judge within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days
fixed by the Constitution and the law is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. Further, such
delay constitutes a violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates
that a judge should dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases within the required
periods. It is undisputed that respondent failed to resolve complainants motion within the
reglementary period of ninety (90) days. He cannot escape liability by claiming that his clerk failed
or forgot to inform him of the unresolved motion. Though blame may conveniently be placed on
court personnels mismanagement of the records of cases, it must be kept in mind that they are not
the guardians of a judges responsibilities. Proper and efficient court management is as much the
judges responsibility for he is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of his official
functions. We find respondent judge administratively liable for undue delay in rendering an order, a
less serious charge under Section 9, Rule 140, as amended, of the Revised Rules of Court. Pursuant
to Section 11(b) of the same Rule, such offense is punishable by suspension from office without
salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or a fine of more
than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
WHEREFORE, for incurring undue delay in rendering an order, respondent Judge Marino S. Buban of
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Tacloban City, is ordered to pay a FINE of Eleven
Thousand (P11,000.00) Pesos, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt
with more severely.
93. Hon. Rodriguez-Manahan vs Atty Flores
Facts:
A complaint for Damages was filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Mateo,
Rizal. Respondent Atty. Flores appeared as counsel for the defendant. He filed his Pre-Trial
Brief without proof of MCLE compliance hence; it was expunged from the records without
prejudice to the filing of another Pre-Trial Brief containing the required MCLE compliance.
The preliminary conference was reset several times for failure of respondent to appear and
submit his Pre-Trial Brief indicating thereon his MCLE compliance. The court a quo gave
respondent last chance to submit his Pre-Trial Brief with stern warning that failure to do so
shall be considered a waiver on his part. Respondent later filed his Pre-Trial Brief bearing an
MCLE number which was merely superimposed without indicating the date and place of
compliance. During the preliminary conference, respondent manifested that he will submit
proof of compliance of his MCLE on the following day. The Investigating Judge found
Atty. Flores to have failed to give due respect to the court by failing to obey court orders, by
failing to submit proof of his compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) requirement, and for using intemperate language in his pleadings. The Investigating
Judge recommended that Atty. Flores be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Issue:
42
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Whether respondent should be suspended from practice of law for using intemperate
language in his pleadings
Held:
NO. There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial court's order to submit proof of his
MCLE compliance notwithstanding the several opportunities given him. Atty. Flores also employed
intemperate language in his pleadings. As an officer of the court, Atty. Flores is expected to be
circumspect in his language.
However, the court found the recommended penalty too harsh and not commensurate with the
infractions committed by the respondent. It appears that this is the first infraction committed by
respondent. Also, the court is not prepared to impose on the respondent the penalty of one-year
suspension for humanitarian reasons. Respondent manifested before this Court that he has been in
the practice of law for half a century. Thus, he is already in his twilight years. Considering the
foregoing, the court deem it proper to fine respondent and to remind him to be more circumspect in
his acts and to obey and respect court processes.
Canon 12
94. Atty Fabroa vs Atty Paguinto
Facts: Complainant, Atty. Iluminada M. Vaflor-Fabroa, who was Chairperson of the General Mariano
Alvarez Service Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), was removed as a member of the Board of Directors
(the Board) and thereafter, respondent, Oscar Paguinto and his group took over the GEMASCO office
and its premises, the pumphouses, water facilities, and operations. Complainant thus filed a
complaint for annulment of the proceedings of her removal as well as other members of the Board
and a complaint against respondent for disbarment alleging that respondent had violated the Code
of Professional Responsibility, particularly, among others, Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness
and good faith to the court, when having ordered to submit position papers and despite grant, on his
motion, of extension of time, did not file any position paper and further ignored the Courts
subsequent show cause order. Moreover, respondent caused the filing of baseless criminal
complaints against complainant.
Issue: Whether or not respondents acts constitute a violation of the provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly, Canon 10.
Held: Yes, lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and respondents deference is
underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to punishment
for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed upon a
lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to their processes.
The Court further noted that respondent had previously been suspended from the practice of law for
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, however, that respondent has not reformed his
ways. Hence, a more severe penalty is thus called for, respondent was subjected to suspension for
two years.
95. Foronda vs Atty Guerrero
Facts:
The complainant [attorney-in-fact] alleged that his principals, Ramona and Concepcion Alcaraz, filed
Civil Case for specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The
case involved a parcel of land which were sold to the Alcarazes. Thereafter, while the case was
pending, Catalina Balais-Mabanag, assisted by her husband Eleuterio Mabanag, and with the
respondent as their lawyer, intervened in the case. In their intervention, Spouses Mabanag
questioned the eligibility of the Alcarazes to won lands in the Philippines.
The RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the plaintiffs Alcarazes. Mabanag, through the assistance of
respondent Guerrero as her counsel appealed the decision to the CA. The CA affirmed the decision.
Unsatisfied with the decision of the CA, Mabanag and respondent as counsel appeal the decision to
the SC. The SC affirmed the decision of the court a qou.
However, the persistence of Mabang and respondent as counsel did not end there, since the filed
multifarious suits and motions based on the ground that Spouses Alcazares, being foreigners have no
eligibility to own lands in the Philippines. The ground which these various petitions and motions is
based is already decided by the Court with finality when it decided the civil case concerning the sale
of the property..
Respondent in trying to justify his acts contended that his action of questioning the eligibility of the
Spouses Alcazares is necessary in the validity of the decision and the determination of the validity of
the sale. If the Spouses Alcazares are ineligible to own lands in the Philippines then the sale is void.
Issue:
Whether or not the act of respondent constitutes forum shopping, thus warrant sanction.
Held:
Yes, explained the court- "it has, thus, been clearly established that in filing such numerous petitions
in behalf of his client, the respondent thereby engaged in forum shopping. The essence of forum
shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either
simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It exists when, as
a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another, or when he
institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause to increase the chances
of obtaining a favorable decision. An important factor in determining the existence of forum
shopping is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to
claim substantially the same reliefs.
Indeed, while a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it should not be at the expense of truth
and the administration of justice. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the
duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly
delaying a case by impeding execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes. Such filing of
43
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the Courts processes and improper conduct that tends to
impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be punished as contempt of
court. Needless to add, the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously
delays the execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for
incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act
with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and
are consistent with truth and honor.
We note that while lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the
defense of their clients right, they should not forget that they are, first and foremost, officers of the
court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
In filing multiple petitions before various courts concerning the same subject matter, the respondent
violated Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall exert
every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. He
also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyers mandate to delay no man
for money or malice.
Respondent is suspended for 1 year in the practice of law.
96. Que vs Atty Revilla
Conrado Que filed a disbarment case for Atty. Anastacio Revilla Jr. before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) of committing various violations on the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule
138 of the Rules of Court as stated in the following
ISSUE
The respondents abuse courts remedies and processes by filing petition for certiorari before the
Court of Appeals (CA), two petitions for annulment of title at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a petition
for annulment of judgment in the RTC and lastly, a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC
(collectively, subject cases)to assail and overturn the final judgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) and RTC in the unlawful detainer case rendered against the respondent clients.
Facts
The respondent also committed forum shopping by filing the subject cases in order to obstruct,
impede, and frustrate the efficient administration of justice for his own personal gain and to defeat
the right of the complainant and his siblings to execute the MeTC and RTC judgments in the unlawful
detainer case.
RULING
The respondents willful and revolting falsehood is also alleged by the complainant that unjustly
maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico (Atty.
Catolico) who is the previous counsel of the respondents clients.
Atty. Revilla fabricated an imaginary order issued by the presiding judge in open court which allegedly
denied the motion to dismiss filed by the respondents in the said case where the respondent
asserted the falsehood.
The complainant alleged that the respondent did this to cover up his lack of preparation. Thus, the
respondent also deceived his clients (who were all squatters) in supporting the above falsehood.
Under the circumstances of abuse of court and processes, the respondents repeated attempts go
beyond the legitimate means allowed by professional ethical rules in defending the interests of his
client. The respondent violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
makes it obligatory for a lawyer to observe the rules of procedure and. . . not [to] misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
The respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility as well as the rule against forum shopping, both of which are directed against the filing
of multiple actions to attain the same objective. Both violations constitute abuse of court processes;
they tend to degrade the administration of justice; wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure and
add to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.
The respondent continually argued and challenged the court for lack of jurisdiction by the MeTC and
RTC even knowing fully well that the competent courts have jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer
case.
Yes. The respondent committed violations in the code of Professional Responsility and the Rules of
Court
The respondents also deliberate, fraudulent and unauthorized appeared in court in the petition for
annulment of judgment for 15 litigants, three of whom are already deceased
Conrado Que vs Atty. Anastacio Revilla Jr
Likewise, the respondent violated his duty as an attorney and his oath as a lawyer never to mislead
the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.
In defending his clients interest, the respondent also failed to observe Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which reads:
CANON 19 A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF LAW
Rule 19.01 A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
clients x x x
Furthermore, the respondent also repeatedly attacked the complainants and his siblings titles over
the property subject of the unlawful detainer case.
The respondent willfully and fraudulently appeared in the second petition for annulment of title as
counsel for the Republic of the Philippines without being authorized to do so.
Atty. Revilla was accused of representing fifty-two (52) litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762 when no
such authority was ever given to him.
The respondent answered the complaint and mostly denied all the allegations.
Whether or not the respondent can be held liable for the imputed unethical infractions and
professional misconduct, and the penalty these transgressions should carry.
The respondent violated Sections 21 and 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court when he undertook the
unauthorized appearances. The settled rule is that a lawyer may not represent a litigant without
44
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
authority from the latter or from the latters representative or, in the absence thereof, without leave
of court.
Due to Atty. Revilla's multiple violations on the Conduct of Professional Responsibility, and is found
liable for professional misconduct for violations of the Lawyers Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and
10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; and Sections 20(d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. However, we modify
the penalty the IBP imposed, and hold that the respondent should beDISBARRED from the practice of
law.
CANON 13
97. Jimenez va Atty Verano
FACTS: Before this Court is the Resolution1 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) finding respondent Atty. Felisberto Verano liable for improper and inappropriate
conduct tending to influence and/or giving the appearance of influence upon a public official.
RULING:
98. FoodSphere, inc vs Atty Maurico
FACTS:
[A] certain Alberto Cordero (Cordero) purportedly bought from a grocery in Valenzuela City canned
goods including a can of CDO Liver spread. As Cordero and his relatives were eating bread with the
CDO Liver spread, they found the spread to be sour and soon discovered a colony of worms inside
the can. This was complained before the BFAD. After conciliation meetings between Cordero and the
petitioner, the Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN seeking the withdrawal of their complaint
before the BFAD. The BFAD thus dismissed the complaint. Respondent, Atty. Mauricio, Jr., who
affixed his signature to the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later wrote in one of his articles/columns in a
tabloid that he prepared the document.
Complainant filed criminal complaints against respondent and several others for Libel and
Threatening to Publish Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal Code before the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City. The complaints were pending at the time
of the filing of the present administrative complaint. Despite the pendency of the civil case against
him and the issuance of a status quo order restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising and
broadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO, respondent continued with his attacks
against complainant and its products.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
YES. Respondent suspended for three (3) years from the practice of law.
RATIO:
The above actuations of respondent are also in violation of Rule 13.03 of the Canon of Professional
Responsibility which reads: A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a
pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
The language employed by respondent undoubtedly casts aspersions on the integrity of the Office of
the City Prosecutor and all the Prosecutors connected with said Office. Respondent clearly assailed
the impartiality and fairness of the said Office in handling cases filed before it and did not even
design to submit any evidence to substantiate said wild allegations. The use by respondent of the
above-quoted language in his pleadings is manifestly violative of Canon 11 and the fundamental
Canon 1 also of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes. Respondent defied said status quo order, despite his (respondents) oath as a member of
the legal profession to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities.
Further, respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
mandate, and by failing to live up to his oath and to comply with the exacting standards of the legal
profession, respondent also violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs
a lawyer to at all times uphold the integrity and the dignity of the legal profession.
D. Lawyers Duty to his Client
CANON 14 &15
99. Baens vs Atty Sempio
FACTS:
This legal battle stemmed when the complainant engaged the services of the respondent to
represent him and file a case for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against his wife, Lourdes V.
Mendiola-Baens. In his complaint-affidavit dated March 15, 2010, the complainant alleged, among
others, that the respondent: (1) despite receiving the sum of 250,000.00 to cover for the expenses in
the said case,6 failed to file the corresponding petition, and it was the complainants wife who
successfully instituted Civil Case No. 2463-08,7 for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on December 8,
2008; (2) even with the complainant furnishing him a copy of the Summons dated December 15,
2008,8 belatedly filed an Answer9 and was able to file it only on March 13, 2009 which was after the
15-day period stated in the Summons; (3) failed to make an objection on the petition on the ground
of improper venue as neither the complainant nor his wife were and are residents of Dasmarias,
Cavite; (4) never bothered to check the status of the case and thus failed to discover and attend all
the hearings set for the case; and (5) as a result, Civil Case No. 2463-08 was decided 10 on October 27,
2009 without the complainant being able to present his evidence.
In his Answer,11 the respondent denied the allegations in the complaint, and explained that: (1) after
a meeting with the complainant, he drafted the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and
asked the complainant to go over said draft after which he proceeded to file the same with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon City; (2) the complainant was aware that said petition will be
filed in Malabon City as the latter had signed the verification and certification of the petition; (3) the
case became pending and was later on withdrawn because of the complainants refusal to testify; (4)
what contributed to the delay in filing the Answer was the fact that he still had to let the complainant
45
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
go over the same and sign the verification thereof; (5) he was not able to attend the hearings for the
case because he did not receive any notice from the trial court; and (6) it was only on December 2,
2009 when he found out that the trial court has already rendered its decision and that the
complainant had changed counsels.
Specifically, the Investigating Commissioner found that the respondent failed to diligently attend to
the case and was grossly negligent in discharging his responsibilities considering the fact that he has
already been fully compensated. The Investigating Commissioner said that the respondent should
have manifested or made known to the trial court that he was not receiving any notice at all since it
behoves upon him to make a follow-up on the developments of the cases he is handling.
ISSUE:
Held:
It is beyond dispute that the complainant engaged the services of the respondent to handle his case.
The records, however, definitively bear out that the respondent was completely remiss and negligent
in handling the complainants case, notwithstanding his receipt of the sum of P250,000.00 for the
total expenses to be incurred in the said case.
The excuse proffered by the respondent that he did not receive any orders or notices from the trial
court is highly intolerable.1wphi1 In the first place, securing a copy of such notices, orders and case
records was within the respondents control and is a task that a lawyer undertakes. Moreso, the
preparation and the filing of the answer is a matter of procedure that fully fell within the exclusive
control and responsibility of the respondent. It was incumbent upon him to execute all acts and
procedures necessary and incidental to the advancement of his clients cause of action.
Records further disclose that the respondent omitted to update himself of the progress of his clients
case with the trial court, and neither did he resort to available legal remedies that might have
protected his clients interest. Although a lawyer has complete discretion on what legal strategy to
employ in a case entrusted to him, he must present every remedy or defense within the authority of
law to support his clients interest. When a lawyer agrees to take up a clients cause, he covenants
that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latters rights. 18
Evidently, the acts of the respondent plainly demonstrated his lack of candor, fairness, and loyalty to
his client as embodied in Canon 15 of the Code. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and
candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to
the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession. 19
In this case, the respondents reckless and inexcusable negligence deprived his client of due process
and his actions were evidently prejudicial to his clients interests. A lawyers duty of competence and
diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to his care or giving sound legal advice,
but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled
hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases
with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination even without prodding from the client or the
court.
100. HocormaFoundation vs Stty. Funk
FACTS: Hocorma Foundation filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent. It alleged that
respondent used to work as corporate secretary, counsel, chief executive officer, and trustee of
the foundation from 1983 to 1985. He also served as its counsel in several criminal and civil cases.
Complainant alleged that respondent filed an action for quieting of title and damages against
Hocorma on behalf of Mabalacat institute using information he acquired while with the foundation.
As a defense, Atty. Funk contended that he was hired by Mabalacat Institute by Don Teodoro Santos
in 1982 to serve as director and legal counsel. He emphasized that, in all these, the attorney-client
relationship was always between Santos and him. He was more of Santos personal lawyer than the
lawyer of Hocorma Foundation.
Santos left for America to get medical treatment. The former and Atty. Funk agreed that the latter
would be paid for his legal services out of the properties that Santos donated or sold to the Hocorma
Foundation. Atty. Funk also claimed that he was authorized to advise Hocorma and follow up with it
Santos sale or donation of a 5-hectare land in Pampanga to Mabalacat Institute. Atty. Funk was to
collect all expenses for the property transfer from Hocorma Foundation out of funds that Santos
provided. It was Santos intention since 1950 to give the land to Mabalacat Institute free of rent and
expenses.
According to Atty. Funk, Santos suggested to the complainant his inclusion in that board, a suggestion
that the foundation followed. After Santos died, respondent was elected President of Mabalacat
Institute.
The foundation later refused to pay Atty. Funks fees, thus he severed his ties with Hocorma. Four
years later, he filed a suit against Hocorma. The trial court, CA and SC decided in favor of the
respondent.
After hearing, the Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Funk to have violated Canon 15,
Rule 15.03 of the (CPR) with the aggravating circumstance of a pattern of misconduct consisting of
four court appearances against his former client, the Hocorma Foundation. The CBD recommended
Atty. Funks suspension from the practice of law for one year. Respondent moved for reconsideration
but was denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Funk betrayed the trust and confidence of a former client in violation of
the CPR when he filed several actions against such client on behalf of a new one.
46
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes

HELD: Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR provides that a lawyer cannot represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Here, it is
undeniable that Atty. Funk was formerly the legal counsel of Hocorma Foundation. Years after
terminating his relationship with the foundation, he filed a complaint against it on behalf of another
client without the foundations written consent.
An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the highly fiduciary nature of their
relationship, sound public policy dictates that he be prohibited from representing conflicting interests
or discharging inconsistent duties. The reason for this is that a lawyer acquires knowledge of his
former clients doings, whether documented or not, that he would ordinarily not have acquired were
it not for the trust and confidence that his client placed on him in the light of their relationship.
Respondent collected attorneys fees from the foundation. Thus, he had an obligation not to use any
knowledge he acquired during that relationship, including the fact that the property under litigation
existed at all, when he sued the foundation.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the resolution of the Board of the IBP SUSPENDS Atty. Richard
Funk from the practice of law for one year effective immediately.
101. Seares vs Stty Gonzales-Alzate
Seares, Jr. alleges that Atty. Gonzales-Aizate was his legal counsel
when he ran for the position of Municipal Mayor of Dolores, Abra in the
May 2007 elections; that after he lost by a 50-vote margin to Albert Z.
Guzman, she filed in his behalf a "Petition Of Protest Ad Cautelam" in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Bangued, Abra;
The petition was dismissed because it is fatally defective, time-barred and violation of forum
shopping(false statements)
When he ran on may 2010, she was retained as counsel for the opponent party
When he was charged for abuse of authority, oppression and grave misconduct in the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Abra, she represented the complainant Torqueza
negligently handling his election protest, for prosecuting him, her former client, and for uttering false
and hurtful allegations against him
defenses: (a) she was engaged as an attorney
in the May 2010 elections only by Dominic Valera (a candidate for
Municipal Mayor of Bangued, Abra) and by President Aquino, neither of
whom was Seares, Jr.s political opponent;
(b) Carlito Turqueza used to be
a political ally of Seares, Jr.;
(c) she disclosed to Turqueza her having once
acted as a counsel of Seares, Jr.;
(d) Seares, Jr. did not object to her legal representation of Turqueza; and (e) the 2007 election
protest that she handled for Seares, Jr. was unrelated to the administrative complaint that Turqueza
brought against Seares, Jr. in 2010.
Issues:
(a) Was Atty. Gonzales-Alzate guilty of professional negligence and
incompetence in her handling of Seares, Jr.s electoral protest in the RTC?
(b) Did Atty. Gonzales-Alzate violate the prohibition against
representing conflicting interests when she assisted Turqueza in his
administrative case against Seares, Jr., her former client?
Ruling:
For administrative liability under Canon 18 to attach, the negligent act
of the attorney should be gross and inexcusable as to lead to a result that was highly prejudicial to
the clients interest. Accordingly, the Court has imposed administrative sanctions on a grossly
negligent attorney for unreasonable failure to file a required pleading, or for unreasonable failure to
file an appeal, especially when the failure occurred after the attorney moved for several extensions to
file the pleading and offered several excuses for his nonfeasance.The Court has found the attendance
of inexcusable negligence when an attorney resorts to a wrong remedy, or belatedly files an appeal,
or inordinately delays the filing of a complaint, or fails to attend scheduled court hearings. Gross
misconduct on the part of an attorney is determined from the circumstances of the case, the nature
of the act done and the motive that induced the attorney to commit the act.
the true cause of the dismissal of Seares, Jr.s Petition For Protest Ad Cautelam was its prematurity
in light of the pendency in the Commission on Elections of his Petition to Suspend Canvass and
Proclamation.
we cannot find Atty. Gonzales-Alzate professionally negligent in respect of the filing and eventual
dismissal of the subsequent Petition for Protest. The verification and certification against forum
shopping attached to the petition contained handwritten superimpositions by Atty. GonzalesAlzate,
but such superimpositions were apparently made only to reflect the corrections of the dates of
subscription and the notarial document number and docket number for the verification and
certification. If that was all there was to the superimpositions, then there was nothing to support the
trial judges observation that the cut and paste method in preparing the verification and
certification for non-forum shopping constituted professional negligence that proved fatal to her
clients protest.
The charge was immediately unworthy of serious consideration because it was clear from the start
that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate did not take advantage of her previous engagement by Seares, Jr. in her
legal representation of Turqueza in the latters administrative charge against Seares, Jr. There was no
indication whatsoever of her having gained any confidential information during her previous
engagement by Seares, Jr. that could be used against Seares, Jr. Her engagement by Seares, Jr. related
47
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
only to the election protest in 2007, but Turquezas complaint involved Seares, Jr.s supposedly
unlawful interference in ousting Turqueza as the president of the Liga ng mga Barangay of Dolores,
Abra in 2010. There is no question that both charges were entirely foreign to one another. Moreover,
the prohibition against representing conflicting interest further necessitated identity of the parties or
interests involved in the previous and present engagements. But such identity was not true here. The
adverse party in Seares, Jr.s election protest in 2007 was Albert Z. Guzman, the newly-elected
Municipal Mayor of Dolores, Abra, who was not involved in Turquezas administrative complaint
against Seares, Jr. In fact, Turqueza was not even a mayoral candidate in Dolores, Abra in the
elections held in 2007 and in 2010. The allegation by Seares, Jr. that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate
represented his political opponent was not even true because Turqueza was Seares, Jr.s political ally,
as Atty. Gonzales-Alzate stated.
102. Castro-Justo vs Atty Galing
Attorney; conflict of interest. Respondent attorney drafted a demand letter on behalf of complainant
in connection with the dishonored checks issued by Ms. Koa. In the ensuing criminal cases,
respondent filed a Motion for Consolidation on behalf of Ms. Koa and appeared at the preliminary
investigation hearing as Ms. Koas counsel. Respondent argued that no lawyer-client relationship
existed between him and complainant because there was no professional fee paid for the services he
rendered. Moreover, he argued that he drafted the demand letter only as a personal favor to
complainant who is a close friend. A lawyer-client relationship can exist notwithstanding the close
friendship between complainant and respondent. The relationship was established the moment
complainant sought legal advice from respondent regarding the dishonored checks. By drafting the
demand letter respondent further affirmed such relationship. The fact that the demand letter was
not utilized in the criminal complaint filed and that respondent was not eventually engaged by
complainant to represent her in the criminal cases is of no moment. Likewise, the non-payment of
professional fee will not exculpate respondent from liability. Absence of monetary consideration
does not exempt lawyers from complying with the prohibition against pursuing cases with conflicting
interests. The prohibition attaches from the moment the attorney-client relationship is established
and extends beyond the duration of the professional relationship. Lydia Castro-Justo v. Atty. Rodolfo
Galing.
103. Sibulo vs Atty. Cabrera
At bar is an administrative complaint against the respondent, Atty. Stanley Cabrera, for unethical
practice/conduct.
The facts that matter are as follows:
In a case, entitled "Brenda Sucaldito versus Reynaldo Marcelo, et al.", docketed as Civil Case No. 90-
55209 before Branch 53 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, defendant Reynaldo Marcelo retained
the services of the herein respondent as his lawyer. Subsequently, however, the respondent also
entered his appearance as counsel for plaintiff Brenda Sucaldito in the same case, without
withdrawing his appearance as counsel for defendant Reynaldo Marcelo. In view of such
development Atty. Reyes Geromo, former counsel of Brenda Sucaldito, filed with the Manila Regional
Trial Court a motion to disqualify the respondent on the ground of unethical conduct. Finding merit
in the said motion, the trial court ordered the disqualification of respondent in the case.
Complainant Romeo Sibulo, an intervenor in the aforementioned Civil Case No. 90-55209, brought
the present administrative complaint against respondent, praying for the latters removal from or
suspension in the practice of law, on the ground of unethical practice/conduct.
In his Answer] to the Complaint, respondent denied the wrongdoing alluded to him; theorizing that
"xxx I merely accepted a case from a plaintiff and at the same time I was the counsel as intervenor of
one of the defendants xxx."
Respondent has all but admitted the wrongdoing complained of, when he stated in his Answer that
he "merely accepted a case from a plaintiff and at the same time I [he] was the counsel as intervenor
of one of the defendants." Such a revelation is a categorical admission that he (respondent)
represented two conflicting interests, which representations or appearances are prohibited by Rule
15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
"CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.
xxx.....xxx.....xxx
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts."
Respondent was bound to faithfully represent his client in all aspects of subject civil case. When he
agreed to represent the defendant and later on, also the plaintiff in the same case, he could no
longer serve either of his said clients faithfully, as his duty to the plaintiff did necessarily conflict with
his duty to the defendant. The relation of attorney and client is based on trust, so that double dealing
which could sometimes lead to treachery, should be avoided.
WHEREFORE, respondent is found GUILTY of unethical conduct for representing two conflicting
interests and is hereby FINED in the amount of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) Pesos, with a warning
that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
104. Samala vs Atty Valencia
Facts:
Clarita J. Samala (complainant) filed a complaint against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia (respondent) for
Disbarment on the following grounds:
(a) serving on two separate occasions as counsel for contending parties;
(b) knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence;
(c) initiating numerous cases in exchange for non-payment of rental fees; and
(d) having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
After respondent filed his Comment, the Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report,
and recommendation.
After a series of hearings, the parties filed their respective memoranda and the case was deemed
submitted for resolution.
48
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
The Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommended the penalty of suspension for six months.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of Commissioner
Reyes but increased the penalty of suspension from six months to one year.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canons 15 and 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:
This Court adopts the report of the IBP Board of Governors except as to the issue on immorality and
as to the recommended penalty.
(a) On serving as counsel for contending parties.
Respondent, while being the counsel for defendant Valdez, also acted as counsel for the tenants
Lagmay, Valencia, Bustamante and Bayuga by filing an Explanation and Compliance before the RTC.
The Presiding Judge warned respondent to refrain from repeating the act of being counsel of record
of both parties in Civil Case No. 95-105-MK.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure
of the facts.
A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose
interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. He may not also undertake to discharge
conflicting duties any more than he may represent antagonistic interests. This stern rule is founded
on the principles of public policy and good taste. It springs from the relation of attorney and client
which is one of trust and confidence. Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client's
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can
litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in
the administration of justice.
One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would
prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty.
(b) On knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence.
Complainant alleges that in Civil Case No. 00-7137 filed before MTC, Branch 75 for ejectment,
respondent submitted TCT No. 273020 as evidence of Valdez's ownership despite the fact that a new
TCT No. 275500 was already issued in the name of Alba on February 2, 1995.
During the hearing before Commissioner Raval, respondent avers that when the Answer was filed in
the said case, that was the time that he came to know that the title was already in the name of Alba;
so that when the court dismissed the complaint, he did not do anything anymore. Respondent
further avers that Valdez did not tell him the truth and things were revealed to him only when the
case for rescission was filed in 2002.
Respondent failed to comply with Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides
that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice. It matters not that the trial court was not
misled by respondent's submission of TCT No. 273020 in the name of Valdez, as shown by its decision
dated January 8, 2002 dismissing the complaint for ejectment. What is decisive in this case is
respondent's intent in trying to mislead the court by presenting TCT No. 273020 despite the fact that
said title was already cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 275500, was already issued in the name of
Alba.
(c) On initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees.
Complainant alleged that respondent filed the following cases: (a) Civil Case No. 2000-657-MK at the
RTC, Branch 272; (b) Civil Case No. 00-7137 at the MTC, Branch 75; and (c) I.S. Nos. 00-4439 and 01-
036162 both entitled "Valencia v. Samala" for estafa and grave coercion, respectively, before the
Marikina City Prosecutor. Complainant claims that the two criminal cases were filed in retaliation for
the cases she filed against Lagmay docketed as I.S. No. 00-4306 for estafa and I.S. No. 00-4318
against Alvin Valencia (son of respondent) for trespass to dwelling.
As culled from the records, Valdez entered into a retainer agreement with respondent. As payment
for his services, he was allowed to occupy the property for free and utilize the same as his office
pursuant to their retainer agreement.
The Court finds the charge to be without sufficient basis. The act of respondent of filing the
aforecited cases to protect the interest of his client, on one hand, and his own interest, on the other,
cannot be made the basis of an administrative charge unless it can be clearly shown that the same
was being done to abuse judicial processes to commit injustice.
The filing of an administrative case against respondent for protecting the interest of his client and his
own right would be putting a burden on a practicing lawyer who is obligated to defend and prosecute
the right of his client.
(d) On having a reputation for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
The Court finds respondent liable for being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
During the hearing, respondent admitted that he sired three children by Teresita Lagmay who are all
over 20 years of age, while his first wife was still alive. He also admitted that he has eight children by
his first wife, the youngest of whom is over 20 years of age, and after his wife died in 1997, he
married Lagmay in 1998. Respondent further admitted that Lagmay was staying in one of the
apartments being claimed by complainant. However, he does not consider his affair with Lagmay as a
relationship and does not consider the latter as his second family. He reasoned that he was not
staying with Lagmay because he has two houses, one in Muntinlupa and another in Marikina.
Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be difficult to specify the degree of moral
delinquency that may qualify an act as immoral, yet, for purposes of disciplining a lawyer, immoral
conduct has been defined as that "conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a
moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia GUILTY of misconduct and
violation of Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for three (3) years, effective immediately upon receipt of herein Resolution.
105. Buted vs Atty Hernando
FACTS:
49
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Atty. Hernando was counsel for Luciana Abadilla and Angela Buted for a partition case of the late
Teofilo Buteds lot. He successfully defended the case. When Luciana died, Hernando withdrew
appearance. Luciana once sold the property to Benito Bolisay but it appears that the TCT was issued
to the Sy couple. Upon filing specific performance, Bolisay got Atty. Hernando to represent him (free
of charge). They succeeded in ejecting the couple. Atty. Hernando claims to have terminated
relationship with Bolisay. In February 1974, Atty. Hernando filed a petition, in behalf of Lucianas heirs
without their consent, to cancel TCT of Bolisay couple over the lot. The couple filed disapproval. The
case was dismissed for prescription. In August of 1974, Bolisay couple filed an administrative
complaint against Atty. Hernando for having abused personal secrets obtained by him as their
counsel
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Hernando had a conflict of interests
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Hernando had a conflict of interest. In the action for specific
performance, Atty Hernando defended the Bolisay couples right to ownership but assailed the very
same right in the cadastral proceeding in favor of Lucianas heirs. The Canons of Professional Ethics
prohibits conflicting interests for lawyers. It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests,
except by express consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the
meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his
duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose. The obligation to
represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his secrets or confidence forbids also
the subsequent acceptance of retainers or employment from others in matters adversely affecting
any interest of the client with respect to which confidence has been reposed.And despite Atty
Hernandos claim that he had never seen nor taken hold of the Transfer Certificate of Title or that he
divulged any confidential information belonging to the Bolisay couple, that the mere fact that
respondent had acted as counsel for Benito Bolisay in the action for specific performance should
have precluded him from appearing as counsel for the other side in in the cancellation of the Transfer
Certificate of Title of the spouses. There is no necessity for proving the actual transmission of
confidential information to an attorney in the course of his employment by his first client in order
that he may be precluded from accepting employment by the second or subsequent client where
there are conflicting interests between the first and the subsequent clients. The prohibition on
conflict of interest was designed not only to prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent
conduct, but as well to protect the honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional
practice. Although the relation of attorney and client has terminated, and the new employment is in
a different case; nor can the attorney use against his former client any knowledge or information
gained through their former connection.
SUSPENDED for 5 months.
106. Perez vs Atty Dela Torre
Perez as brgy. Captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines sur, that in Dec 2001, severalsuspects
for murder and kidnapping for ransom, among them Sonny Boy Ilo and Diego Avilawere apprehended
and jailed by the police authorities; that respondent went to the unicipal bldg.of Calabanga where the
accused were being detained and made representations that he couldsecure their freedom if they sign the
prepared extrajudicial confessions; that unknown to the two accused, respondent was representing
the heirs of the murder victim; The extrajudicialconfessions included herein the complainant as the mastermind in
the criminal activities for which they were being charged.
Respondent claimed that when Ilo sought his assistance in executing his extrajudicial confession,he
conferred with Ilo in the presence of his parents and only after he was convinced that Ilo wasnot under compulsion
did he assist the accused in executing the extrajudicial confession.
ISSUE:
WON the respondent violated Rule 15.03 of CPR
HELD:
Atty. De la Torre was guilty of violation of Rule 15.03 of CPR. He is suspended for three years from the
practice of law. The respondent admitted that his services as a lawyer wereretained by both Avila and Ilo. Perez was able to
show that at the time that atty. De la Torre wasrepresenting the said two accused, he was also representing the interest of the
victims family.Under Rule 15.03 of the CPR, a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
writtenconsent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Respondent is therefore
duty bound to refrain from representing two parties having conflicting interests in a controversy.
The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of public policy
andgood taste. In course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connectedwith the clients case,
including the weak and strong points of the case. It behooves lawyers notonly to keep inviolate the
clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of improprietyand double-dealing for only then
can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice. His representation of opposing clients in the murder case invites suspicion of double-
dealing and infidelity to hisclients. What is unsetting is that respondent assisted in the execution
by the two accused of their confessions whereby they admitted their participation in various serious
criminal offensesknowing fully well that he was retained previously by the heirs of one of the victims.Respondent, who
presumably knows the intricacies of the law, should have exercised his better judgment before conceding
to accuseds choice of counsel.
107. Rural Bank Calape vs Atty Florido
Attorney; representation within bounds of the law. Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall
represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. For this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code
requires a lawyer to impress upon his client compliance with the law and principles of fairness. A
lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. It is his
duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from
doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries. Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. (RBCI), Bohol vs. Atty.
James Benedict Florido
FACTS: Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent. RBCI alleged
that respondent violated his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
50
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
According to RBCI, respondent and his clients, Nazareno-Relampagos group, through force and
intimidation, forcibly took over the management and the premises of RBCI. They also forcibly evicted
Cirilo A. Garay, the bank manager, destroyed the banks vault, and installed their own staff to run the
bank.
Respondent added that the criminal complaint for malicious mischief filed against him by RBCI was
already dismissed; while the complaint for grave coercion was ordered suspended because of the
existence of a prejudicial question. Respondent said that the disbarment complaint was filed against
him in retaliation for the administrative cases he filed against RBCIs counsel and the trial court
judges of Bohol.
Moreover, respondent claimed that RBCI failed to present any evidence to prove their allegations.
Respondent added that the affidavits attached to the complaint were never identified, affirmed, or
confirmed by the affiants and that none of the documentary exhibits were originals or certified true
copies.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated his oath and the CPR Canon 19.
HELD: The Court held that respondent was guilty as charged and suspended for a year. The first and
foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the
Constitution and obey the laws of the land. It is the lawyers duty to promote respect for the law and
legal processes and to abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the law or lessening confidence in
the legal system.
Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of
the law. It is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and
refrain from doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries.
A lawyers duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that end, his clients success
is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law
and ethics.Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the
pursuit of his devotion to his clients cause, is condemnable and unethical.
108. Gonzales vs Atty Sabacajan
FACTS
An administrative case was filed by Nicanor Gonzales and Salud B. Pantanosas against Atty.
Miguel Sabacajan. In a verified complaint, it alleged that complainants were informed by the Register
of Deeds of Cagayan de Oro City that the complainants owners duplicate of title covering their
lands, Transfer Certificate of Titles were entrusted to the office secretary of the respondent who in
turn entrusted the same to respondent. However the latter admitted and confirmed to the
complainants that their titles are in his custody and has even shown the same the complainant Salud
but when demanded to deliver the said titles to the complainant in a formal demand letter, the
respondent refused without any justification to give their titles and when confronted, respondent
challenged the complainants to file any case in any court even in the Honorable Supreme Court. That
respondents dare or challenge is a manifestation of his arrogance taking undue advantage of his
legal profession over innocence and ignorance of the complainants, one of whom is his blood
relative, his aunt, for which complainants shudder with mental anguish. In spite of repeated
demands, the respondent still refused to surrender the said titles to the rightful owners, the
complainants which act is tantamount to willful and malicious defiance of legal and moral obligations
emanating from his professional capacity as a lawyer who had sworn to uphold law and justice, to
the prejudice and damage of the complainants. In an answer, the respondent admitted having met
Salud but claims that, to his recollection, Nicanor Gonzales/Serdan has never been to his office.
Respondent likewise denied that he challenged anyone to file a case in any court, much less the
Supreme Court. He also claims that he referred complainant Pantanosas to his client, Mr. Samto M.
Uy of Iponan, Cagayan de Oro City, for whom he worked out the segregation of the titles, two of
which are the subject of the instant case. Respondent likewise submitted xerox copies of certain
certificates of title in an effort to explain why he kept the certificates of title of complainants, that is,
supposedly for the purpose of subdividing the property. However, an examination of the same does
not show any connection thereof to respondents claim. In fact, the two sets of certificates of title
appear to be entirely different from each other.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Sabacajan has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for his
refusal without just cause to return/ give to complainants their certificates of titles?
HELD
YES. The Court accordingly finds that respondent has not exercised the good faith and
diligence required of lawyers in handling the legal affairs of their clients. If complainants did have the
alleged monetary obligations to his client, that does not warrant his summarily confiscating their
certificates of title since there is no showing in the records that the same were given as collaterals to
secure the payment of a debt. Neither is there any intimation that there is a court order authorizing
him to take and retain custody of said certificates of title. Apparently, respondent has disregarded
Canon 15, Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall
impress upon his client the need for compliance with the laws and principles of fairness. Instead, he
unjustly refused to give to complainants their certificates of titles supposedly to enforce payment of
their alleged financial obligations to his client and presumably to impress the latter of his power to do
so.
In addition, Canon 19, Rule 19.01 ordains that 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 charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
Respondent has closely skirted this proscription, if he has not in fact transgressed the same.
Atty. Miguel Sabacajan is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law until he can duly show to this
Court that the disputed certificates of title have been returned to and the receipt thereof duly
acknowledged by complainants, or can present a judicial order or appropriate legal authority
justifying the possession by him or his client of said certificates. He is further WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar or any other administrative misconduct will be punished more
severely.
109. Penilla vs Atty Alcid, Jr
51
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes
Attorney; Gross Misconduct. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated Canon 18 and Rules
18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated his oath under
Canon 18 to serve his client with competence and diligence when he filed a criminal case for estafa
when the facts of the case would have warranted the filing of a civil case for breach of contract. To be
sure, after the complaint for estafa was dismissed, Atty. Alcid, Jr. committed another similar blunder
by filing a civil case for specific performance and damages before the RTC, when he should have filed
it with the MTC due to the amount involved. Atty. Alcid, Jr. did not also apprise complainant of the
status of the cases. Atty. Alcid, Jr. is not only guilty of incompetence in handling the cases. His lack of
professionalism in dealing with complainant is gross and inexcusable. The legal profession dictates
that it is not a mere duty, but an obligation, of a lawyer to accord the highest degree of fidelity, zeal
and fervor in the protection of the clients interest. The most thorough groundwork and study must
be undertaken in order to safeguard the interest of the client. Atty. Alcid, Jr. has defied and failed to
perform such duty and his omission is tantamount to a desecration of the Lawyers Oath. Julian
Penilla v. Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr

52
2ND SEM 2015 PALE- ATTY. ROMEO REYES ( BASED ON COURSE OUTLINE)
Angeline Ygana & Roslyn Cortes