Title of the Case
ALVIN S. FELICIANO vs. ATTY.
CARMELITA BAUTISTA-LOZADA,
A.C. No. 7593
FERNANDO W. CHU vs. ATTY JOSE
C. GUICO, JR., A.C. No 10573
Problem Areas Laws Violated Penalties
Practice of Law: Atty. Lozada appeared for and in behalf of her Section 27 Rule 138 of the Rules of Suspension for 6 months
husband and actively participated in the proceedings therein Court:
within the two (2)-year suspension, she, therefore, engaged in
the unauthorized practice of law. Attorneys removed or suspended by
Supreme Court on what grounds. — A
member of the bar may be removed
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 wilfull disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willful appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without
authority so to do. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose
of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer: Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Disbarment from
Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the law in appearing to Responsibility: membership in the Integrated
counsel Chu to raise the large sums of money in order to obtain a Bar of the Philippines. His
favorable decision in the labor case. He thus violated the law A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, name is ORDERED STRICKEN
against bribery and corruption. He compounded his violation by dishonest, immoral or deceitful from the Roll of Attorneys.
actually using said illegality as his means of obtaining a huge sum conduct.
from the client that he soon appropriated for his own personal
interest. His acts constituted gross dishonesty and deceit, and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional
were a flagrant breach of his ethical commitments under the Responsibility:

MARILEN G. SOLIMAN VS. ATTY.
DITAS LERIOS-AMBOY, A.C. NO.
10568
Lawyer's Oath not to delay any man for money or malice.
Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer: A lawyer's failure to
return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client
gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same
for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his
client.
A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal
system.
GUILTY of violating Rule 16.03: SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for a period of two (2)
A lawyer shall deliver the funds and years, effective upon receipt
property of his client when due or of this Resolution.
upon demand. However, he shall have
a lien over the funds and may apply so
much thereof as may be necessary to
satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice promptly
thereafter to his client. He shall also
have a lien to the same extent on all
judgments and executions he has
secured for his client as provided for
in the Rules of Court.

Canons 17:

A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE

CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL
BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

Canon 18, and Rules 18.03:

A lawyer shall not neglect a legal

matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.
 18.04:

A lawyer shall keep the client

DR. DOMICIANO F.
VILLAHERMOSA, SR. vs. ATTY.
ISIDRO L. CARACOL, A.C. No. 7325
informed of the status of his case and
shall respond within a reasonable time
to the client's request for information.
Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer: Atty. Caracol knew that Guilty in violation of Canons 8: Suspension for one year
Efren, his client, had already passed away at the time he filed the
Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution and A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF
Demolition. As an honest, prudent and conscientious lawyer, he WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND
should have informed the Court of his client’s passing and CANDOR TOWARDS HIS
presented authority that he was retained by the client’s PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND
successors-in-interest and thus the parties may have been SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS
substituted.The Court would like to highlight the important role AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
of an attorney in our judicial system. Because of the particular
nature of an attorney’s function it is essential that they should Canon10:
act with fairness, honesty and candor towards the courts and his
clients. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS
AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01:

A lawyer shall not do any falsehood,

AUGUSTO M. AQUINO vs. HON.
ISMAEL P. CASABAR, as Presiding
Judge Regional Trial Court-Guimba,
Nueva Ecija, Branch 33 and MA.
ALA F. DOMINGO and MARGARITA
IRENE F. DOMINGO, substituting
Heirs of the deceased ANGEL T.
DOMINGO, G.R. No. 191470
nor consent to the doing of any in
Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow
the Court to be misled by any artifice.
The practice of law is not a business and the attorney plays a vital Rule 20.01 of the Code of Professional
role in the administration of justice underscores the need to Responsibility:
secure him his honorarium lawfully earned as a means to
preserve the decorum and respectability of the legal profession. A lawyer shall be guided by the
A lawyer is as much entitled to judicial protection against following factors in determining his
injustice, imposition or fraud on the part of his client as the client fees:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
against abuse on the part of his counsel. The duty of the court is (a) the time spent and the extent of
not alone to see that a lawyer acts in a proper and lawful the service rendered or required;
Based on quantum meruit,
the amount of attorney's fees
is at the rate of fifteen
percent (15%) of the amount
of the increase in valuation of
just compensation awarded
to the private respondents.

JOSELITO F. TEJANO vs. ATTY.
BENJAMIN F. BATERINA, A.C. No.
8235
manner; it is also its duty to see that a lawyer is paid his just fees. (b) the novelty and difficulty of the
questions involved;
Here in the case, considering that a contract was made verbally (c) The importance of the subject
and that there was no evidence presented to justify the 30% matter;
contingent fees being claimed by Aquino, the only way to (d) The skill demanded;
determine his right to appropriate attorney’s fees is to apply the (e) The probability of losing other
principle of quantum meruit. employment as a result of acceptance
of the proffered case;
(f) The customary charges for similar
services and the schedule of fees of
the IBP chapter to which he belongs;
(g) The amount involved in the
controversy and the benefits resulting
to the client from the service;
(h) The contingency or certainty of
compensation;
(i) The character of the employment,
whether occasional or established;
and
(j) The professional standing of the
lawyer.
When a lawyer agrees to take up a client’s cause, he makes a GUILTY of gross negligence He is SUSPENDED from the
commitment to exercise due diligence in protecting the latter’s practice of law for five (5)
rights. Once a lawyer’s services are engaged, “he is duty bound to years. He is also STERNLY
serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client’s WARNED that a repetition of
cause with diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he the same or a similar offense
accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and will be dealt with more
must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on severely.
him.” A lawyer’s acceptance to take up a case “impliedly
stipulates that he will carry it to its termination, that is, until the
case becomes final and executory.” Atty. Baterina practically
abandoned this duty when he allowed the proceedings to run its
coursel without any effort to safeguard his clients’ welfare in the
meantime. His failure to file the required pleadings on his clients’

SPOUSES HENRY A. CONCEPCION
AND BLESILDA CONCEPTION vs
ATTY. ELMER DELA ROSA, A.C. No.
10681
REYNALDO G. RAMIREZ vs ATTY.
MERCEDES BUHAYANG-
MAGRAGLLO, A.C. No. 10537
behalf constitutes gross negligence in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and renders him subject to
disciplinary action.
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship Canon 7: Suspended from practice of
between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and law for a period of three
confidence. And as true as any natural tendency goes, this “trust A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES years.
and confidence” is prone to abuse. The rule against borrowing of UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY
money by a lawyer from his client is intended to prevent the OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND
lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over his client. The SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
rule presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s INTEGRATED BAR.
ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his
obligation. In Frias v. Atty. Lozada (Frias) the Court Rule 16 (16.04):
categorically declared that a lawyer’s act of asking a client for
a loan, as what herein respondent did, is unethical, to wit: A lawyer shall not borrow money from
Likewise, her act of borrowing money from a client was a his client unless the client's interest
violation of [Rule] 16.04 of the Code of Professional are fully protected by the nature of
Responsibility. A lawyer shall not borrow money from his the case or by independent advice.
client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a
nature of the case and by independent advice. A lawyer’s act client except, when in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary
of asking a client for a loan, as what respondent did, is very
expenses in a legal matter he is
unethical. It comes within those acts considered as abuse of
handling for the client.
client’s confidence. The canon presumes that the client is
disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all the legal
maneuverings to renege on her obligation.
This information assymetry is even more pronounced in an Breach of Canons 17: SUSPENDED from the practice
attorney-client relationship. Lawyers are expected not only to be of law for two (2) years, with
familiar with the minute facts of their cases but also to see their A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE a stern warning that a
relevance in relation to their causes of action or their defenses. CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL repetition of the same or
The salience of these facts is not usually patent to the client. It BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND similar act shall be dealt with
can only be seen through familiarity with the relevant legal CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. more severely.
provisions that are invoked with their jurisprudential
interpretations. More so with the intricacies of the legal Canon 18:
procedure. It is the lawyer that receives the notices and must
decide the mode of appeal to protect the interest of his or her A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT

MELVYN G. GARCIA vs. ATTY. RAUL
H. SESBRENO, A.C. No. 7973 and
A.C. No. 10457
client. Thus, the relationship between a lawyer and her client is WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
regarded as highly fiduciary. Between the lawyer and the client, it
is the lawyer that has the better knowledge of facts, events, and
remedies. While it is true that the client chooses which lawyer to
engage, he or she usually does so on the basis of reputation. It is
only upon actual engagement that the client discovers the level
of diligence, competence, and accountability of the counsel that
he or she chooses. In some cases, such as this one, the discovery
comes too late. Between the lawyer and the client, therefore, it is
the lawyer that should bear the full costs of indifference or
negligence.
Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of DISBARRED effective
the degree of the crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in every Court states that a member of the bar immediately
criminal act and is not shown by every known and intentional may be disbarred or suspended as
violation of statute, but whether any particular conviction attorney by this Court by reason of his
involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and conviction of a crime involving moral
frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances. turpitude.
While x x x generally but not always, crimes mala in se involve
moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita do not, it cannot
always be ascertained whether moral turpitude does or does not
exist by classifying a crime as malum in se or as malum
prohibitum, since there are crimes which are mala in se and yet
rarely involve moral turpitude and there are crimes which involve
moral turpitude and are mala prohibita only. It follows therefore,
that moral turpitude is somewhat a vague and indefinite term,
the meaning of which must be left to the process of judicial
inclusion or exclusion as the cases are reached.
The IBP-CBD correctly stated that Amparado and Yapchangco
were just at the wrong place and time. They did not do anything
that justified the indiscriminate firing done by Sesbreño that
eventually led to the death of Amparado. Thus, circumstances
show the presence of moral turpitude.
MELANIO S. SALITA vs. ATTY.
REYNALDO T. SALVE, A.C. No. 8101
ROBERTO BERNARDINO vs. ATTY.
VICTOR REY SANTOS, A.C. No.
10583
Verily, a notary public should not notarize a document unless Rules on Notarial Practice. His notarial commission, if
the persons who signed the same are the very same persons still existing, is hereby
who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to GUILTY of gross negligence in his REVOKED and he is
the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. To conduct as a notary public. DISQUALIFIED from being
recount, records reveal that Rodriguez used, among others, commissioned as a notary
the Deed of Absolute Sale notarized by Atty. Salve to file an public for a period of two (2)
ejectment complaint against Salita. However, it must be years.
remembered that Salita was merely made to sign such
document as collateral for his loan and that he had already
fully paid the same, as evidenced by the notarized Release of
Real Estate Mortgage executed by Rodriguez herself.
Considering the circumstances, it is simply unfathomable for
Salita to appear before Atty. Salve to have the said document
notarized, as it will be detrimental to his own interests. Hence,
the Court finds that Atty. Salve notarized the pre-formed Deed
of Absolute Sale without Salita’s presence before him.
The rule on conflict of interest is based on the fiduciary obligation Guilty of violating Canon 15: Suspension from the practice
in a lawyer-client relationship. Lawyers must treat all information of law for one (1) year is
received from their clients with utmost confidentiality in order to A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, imposed upon Atty. Victor
encourage clients to fully inform their counsels of the facts of FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS Rey Santos. He is warned
their case. Atty. Santos with full knowledge that Rufina Turla had DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH that a repetition of the same
another heir, he acceded to Mariano Turla’s request to prepare HIS CLIENTS. or similar act shall be dealt
the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication. with more severely.
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.
Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood,

MICHAEL RUBY vs. ATTY. ERLINDA
B. ESPEJO and ATTY. RUDOLPH
DILLA BAYOT, A.C. No. 10558
EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE vs. ATTY.
DELFIN R. AGCAOILI, JR., A.C. No.
10672
nor consent to the doing of any in
Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow
the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Ruby engaged the services of Atty. Espejo regarding a donation CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD Atty. Rudolph Dilla Bayot is
case. Allegedly, Atty. Espejo failed to account the payment of the IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND hereby ADMONISHED to
filing fees which Ruby extended. Atty. Espejo, then was assisted PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENTTHAT MAY exercise more prudence and
by Atty. Bayot who drafted several documents regarding the COME INTO HIS POSSESSION. judiciousness in dealing with
case. Ruby demanded the excess of the payment of the filing fees his clients. He is also ordered
he extended but Atty. Espejo did not return the money. Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for to return to Michael Ruby
Moreover, Atty. Espejo allegedly failed to notify Ruby of the all money or property collected or within fifteen (15) days from
status of the case. Hence, Ruby filed a disciplinary action received for or from the client. notice the amount of Four
complaint against both Atty. Espejo and Atty. Bayot. Both the Thousand Pesos (₱4,000.00)
IBP-CDB and the IBP Board of Governors sanctioned both Rule 16.02 – A lawyer shall keep the representing his appearance
lawyers. However, Atty. Espejo died. Hence, the complaint funds of each client separate and fee received from the latter
proceeded only against Atty. Bayot. Atty. Bayot alleged that there apart from his own and those of on October 23, 2009 with a
was no attorney-client relationship between Ruby and him since others kept by him. warning that failure on his
he merely assisted Atty. Espejo. In resolving this issue, the Court part to do so will result in the
ruled that “Documentary formalism is not an essential element in CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE imposition of stiffer
the employment of an attorney; the contract may be express or HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND disciplinary action.
implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice DILIGENCE. x x x x
and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any
matter pertinent to his profession.” Further, acceptance of Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect
money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship. a legal matter entrusted to him, and
Accordingly, as regards the case before the RTC, Ruby had two his negligence in connection therewith
counsels – Atty. Espejo and Atty. Bayot. shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the
client informed of the status of his
case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the client’s request
for information.
A rule violated by Atty. Delfin when he failed to file an action in Rule 16.01 provides that “A lawyer SUSPENDED from the practice
court despite receipt receipt of P48,000. Furthermore, shall account for all money or of law for a period of one (1)
respondent also violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the property collected or received for or year, effective upon his

ANTONINA S. SOSA VS. ATTY.
MANUEL V. MENDOZA, A.C. NO.
8776
ARCATOMY S. GUARIN vs. ATTY.
CHRISTINE A.C. LIMPIN, A.C. No.
10576
SPOUSES WILLIE AND AMELIA
UMAGUING vs. ATTY. WALLEN R.
DE VERA, A.C. No. 10451
CPR when he failed to refund said amount that complainant gave from the client.” Rule 16.03 states
him despite repeated demands. that “A lawyer shall deliver the funds
and property of his client when due or
upon demand.”
Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 provides that
“A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.”
Atty. Mendoza engaged in improper or wrong conduct, as found Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
unde Rule 1.01, as the failure to pay the loan was willful in Responsibility:
character and implied a wrongful intent and not a mere error in
judgment. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
A complaint for disbarment was filed by Arcatomy S. Guari GUILTY of violation of Canon 1, Rule
against Atty. Christine Antenor-Cruz Limpin for allegedly filing a 1.01:
false General Information Sheet (GIS) with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC). Members of the bar are reminded A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
that their first duty is to comply with the rules of procedure, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
rather than seek exceptions as loopholes. A lawyer who assists a conduct.
client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law
commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional
lawyer. Responsibility:
A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal
system.
The petitioners filed an administrative complaint against the GUILTY of violating the Lawyer’s Oath
respondent. It is the contention of the respondent that the and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code
Waiver and Quitclaim signed by the petitioners would bar his of Professional Responsibility:
administrative prosecution. The Supreme Court ruled that a case
receipt of this Decision, with
a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.
SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for a period of one (1)
year
Accordingly, we SUSPEND
respondent Atty. Christine
A.C. Limpin from the practice
of law for SIX (6) MONTHS
effective upon finality of this
Decision, with a warning that
a repetition of the same or
similar act in the future will
be dealt with more severely.
Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED
for six (6) months from the
practice of law, effective
upon receipt of this Decision,

DR. ELMAR O. PEREZ vs. ATTY.
TRISTAN A. CATINDIG AND ATTY.
KAREN E. BAYDO, A.C. No. 5816
of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, with a stern warning that any
or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, nor consent to the doing of any in repetition of the same or
on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow similar acts will be punished
deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been proven. This rule is the Court to be misled by any artifice. more severely.
premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding
for suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the
complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a
defendant.
The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of GUILTY of gross immorality and of DISBARRED from the practice
the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages the violating the Lawyer’s Oath of law.
generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct
for instance, which makes a mockery of the inviolable social Rule 1.01:
institution of marriage. Atty. Catindig’s subsequent marriage
during the subsistence of his previous one definitely manifests a A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital dishonest, immoral or deceitful
vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. He conduct.
exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of
him as a member of the bar. Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:

A lawyer shall not engage in conduct

PO1 JOSE B. CASPE vs. ATTY.
AQUILINO A. MEJICA, A.C. No.
10679
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.
A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, Violation of Rules 1.03
whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him
to be wanting in good moral character, honesty, probity, and 1.04: A lawyer shall not, for any
good demeanor as to render him unworthy to continue as an corrupt motive or interest, encourage
officer of the Court. In disciplinary proceedings against members any suit or proceeding or delay any
of the bar, only clear preponderance of evidence is required to man's cause.
establish liability. As long as the evidence presented by
complainant or that taken judicial notice of by the Court is more 10.01: A lawyer shall not do any
SUSPEND respondent Atty.
Aquilino A. Mejica from the
practice of law for TWO (2)
YEARS effective upon finality
of this Resolution, with a
warning that a repetition of
the same or similar act in the
future will be dealt with more

ATTY. JACINTO C. GONZALES vs.
MAILA CLEMEN F. SERRANO, G.R.
No. 175433
TERESITA B. ENRIQUEZ vs. ATTY.
TRINA DE VERA, A.C. No. 8330
convincing and worthy of belief than that which is offered in falsehood, nor consent to the doing of severely.
opposition thereto, the imposition of disciplinary sanction is any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or
justified. The Court has required that a complainant has the onus allow the Court to be misled by any
of proving the charges against respondent by clear, convincing artifice.
and satisfactory evidence. In the case at bar, there could be no
other reason for Atty. Mejica to file the cases against PO1 Caspe
other than to get back at him. Thus, we agree that the confluence
of circumstances points to Atty. Mejica’s corrupt motive in
helping Gaduena in filing cases against Caspe.
Atty. Gonzales was charged with grave misconduct for forcefully Canon 7, Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not Penalty of suspension of six
kissing Serrano. The court ruled that Misconduct is a engage in conduct that adversely (6) months without pay.
transgression of some established and definite rule of action, reflects on his fitness to practice law,
more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a nor shall he, whether in public or
public officer. The misconduct is considered as grave if it involves private life, behave in scandalous
additional elements such as corruption or willful intent to violate manner to the discredit of the legal
the law or to disregard established rules, which must be proven profession.
by substantial evidence; otherwise, the misconduct is only
simple. Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists
in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and
wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit
for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights
of others. In other words, in grave misconduct, the elements of
corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of
an established rule must be evident.
When a lawyer knowingly issues a check against insufficient Attorney’s Oath and Canon 1, Rule SUSPENDED from the practice
balance, he shall be liable for serious misconduct. 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in of law for one (1) year.
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:

RE: VIOLATION OF RULES ON
NOTARIAL PRACTICE, A.M. No. 09-
6-1-SC
JIMMY ANUDON AND JUANITA
ANUDON vs. ATTY. ARTURO B.
CEFRA, A.C. No. 5482
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
scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession.
Under the rule, only persons who are commissioned as notary Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon
public may perform notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction 1:
of the court which granted the commission. Clearly, a notary
could not perform notarial functions in the place where he was A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
not commissioned to perform such act. Furthermore, by CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF
performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT
the court, is a violation, not only his oath to obey the laws FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice, but also Canons 1 and
7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes all 7 of the Code of Professional
lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or Responsibility:
deceitful conduct and directs them to uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession, at all times. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES
UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY
OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR.
The petitioners accused the respondent of notarizing a document Rules on Notarial Practice
that is forged. The Supreme Court ruled that whoever acts as
Notary Public must ensure that the parties executing the
document be present. Otherwise, their participation with respect
to the document cannot be acknowledged. Notarization of a
document in the absence of the parties is a breach of duty.
Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. is
hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for two (2)
years and BARRED
PERMANENTLY from being
commissioned as Notary
Public, effective upon his
receipt of a copy of this
decision.
SUSPENDS him from the
practice of law for two (2)
years, REVOKES his
incumbent notarial
commission, if any, and
PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES
him from being
commissioned as a notary
public. Respondent is also
STERNLY WARNED that more
severe penalties will be
imposed for any further

CRESCENCIANO M. PITOGO vs.
ATTY. JOSELITO TROY SUELLO, A.C.
No. 10695
HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO
REPRESENTED BY DAVID ALILANO
VS. ATTY. ROBERTO EXAMEN, AC
NO. 10132
Notarial acts give private documents a badge of authenticity that GUILTY of violating Canon 1 and Rule
the public relies on when they encounter written documents and 1.01 of the Code of Professional
engage in written transactions. Hence, all notaries public are Responsibility:
duty-bound to protect the integrity of notarial acts by ensuring
that they perform their duties with utmost care. A notarial A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
register is prima facie evidence of the facts there stated. It has dishonest, immoral or deceitful
the presumption of regularity and to contradict the veracity of conduct.
the entry, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than
merely preponderant. 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
A notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity. Good Court:
faith cannot be a mitigating circumstance in situations since the
duty to function as a notary public is personal. The Court notes Attorneys removed or suspended by
that the error could have been prevented had Atty. Examen Supreme Court on what grounds. — A
diligently performed his fuctions: presonally checked the member of the bar may be removed
correctness of the documents. To say that it was his secretary's or suspended from his office as
fault reflects disregard and unfitness to discharge the functions attorney by the Supreme Court for any
of a notary public for it is he who personally acknowledges the deceit, malpractice, or other gross
document. 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 wilfull disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willful appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without
authority so to do. The practice of
breach of the Canons in the
Code of Professional
Responsibility.
SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for three (3) months
and is STERNLY WARNED that
any similar violation will be
dealt with more severely. His
notarial commission is
immediately revoked if
presently commissioned. He
is DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as notary
public for one (1) year.
SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for TWO (2) YEARS. In
addition, his present notarial
commission, if any, is hereby
REVOKED, and he is
DISQUALIFIED from
reappointment as a notary
public for a period of two (2)
years from finality of this
Decision. He is further
WARNED that any similar act
or infraction in the future
shall be dealt with more
severely.
soliciting cases at law for the purpose
of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.

Lawyer's Oath