Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Carmelita Zaguirre v. Atty.

Alfredo Castillo The rule is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any
FACTS: misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it
Atty. Alfredo Castillo was already married with three children when he shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good
had an affair with Carmelita Zaguirre. This occurred sometime from demeanor.
1996 to 1997, while Castillo was reviewing for the bar and before the
release of its results. Zaguirre then got pregnant allegedly with Castillo’s (2005)
daughter. The latter, who was already a lawyer, notarized an affidavit The Court found that Castillo’s show of repentance and active service to
recognizing the child and promising for her support which did not the community is a just and reasonable ground to convert the original
materialize after the birth of the child. The Court found him guilty of penalty of indefinite suspension to a definite suspension of two
Gross Immoral Conduct to which Castillo filed a motion for years. Furthermore, the Court noted that Zaguirre’s further claim for the
reconsideration. support of her child should be addressed to the proper court in a proper
case.
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 Rosario de los Reyes v. Atty. Jose Aznar
moral character. His wife even submitted a handwritten letter stating his FACTS:
amicability as a husband and father despite the affair. More than a year Complainant is a second year medical student of the Southwestern
since the original decision rendered by the Court, Castillo reiterated his University in which respondent Atty. Aznar is the then Chairman of the
willingness to support the child to the Court and attached a photocopy of College of Medicine. Complainant was compelled to go to Manila with
post-dated checks addressed to Zaguirre for the months of March to respondent for three days where he repeatedly had carnal knowledge of
December 2005 in the amount of Php2,000.00 each. her upon the threat of respondent that if she would not give in to his
lustful desires, she would flunk in all her subjects and she would never
ISSUE: become a medical intern. After due investigation, the Solicitor General
Whether or not the penalty of indefinite suspension is proper. found the respondent guilty of gross immoral conduct and recommends
that since the complainant is partly to blame for having gone with
HELD: respondent to Manila knowing fully well that respondent is a married
(2003) man ,with children, a rich man and is not practicing his profession before
YES. Respondent violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional the court, he should merely be suspended from the practice of law for
Responsibility; Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the same Code. not less than three (3) years.

The conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it ISSUE:
must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to Whether or not the imposition of the penalty is proper.
be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous
or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. HELD:
NO. The fact that he is a rich man and does not practice his profession
Siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a conduct way below as a lawyer, does not render respondent a person of good moral
the standards of morality required of every lawyer. Moreover, the character. Evidence of good moral character precedes admission to bar
attempt of respondent to renege on his notarized statement recognizing (Sec.2, Rule 138, Rules of Court) and such requirement is not
and undertaking to support his child by Carmelita demonstrates a certain dispensed with upon admission thereto. Good moral character is a
unscrupulousness on his part which is highly censurable, unbecoming a continuing qualification necessary to entitle one to continue in the
member of a noble profession, tantamount to self-stultification. practice of law.

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court enumerates the
grounds for disbarment or suspension from his office as attorney, among As to whether the extra-marital relations between Soberano and
others, by grossly immoral conduct. Immoral conduct has been defined Villanueva warrants disciplinary action, SC held that in light of the
as that which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral circumstances in this case, these acts are neither so corrupt as to
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the constitute a criminal act, nor so unprincipled as to warrant a disbarment
community. of disciplinary action.

In the present case, it was highly immoral of respondent to have taken Also, distinguished members of the bar had attested to Villanueva’s
advantage of his position in asking complainant to go with him under the good moral character. One is no less than the Executive Judge of the
threat that she would flunk in all her subjects in case she refused. CFI of Negros Occidental, where Villanueva is practices his profession.
The other is the Dean Montemayor of the Ateneo College of Law. The
Respondent Jose B. Aznar is disbarred. last one is Hon. Guillermo Santos, former Chairman of Agricultural
Tenancy Commission, then Judge of CFI and Court of Agrarian
Relations.
Mercedes Soberano v. Atty. Eugenio Villanueva
FACTS:
Soberano filed a petition for disbarment alleging that after Atty. Salvacion Marcayda v. Justiniano Naz (full case, no digest found)
Villanueva had induced her to take part in a fake wedding, the latter FACTS:
cohabited with her and later lived with her as husband and wife. As a This is a revival of the immorality charge against respondent Justiniano
consequence of this, she bore him two children, and subsequently, P. Naz. Salvacion E. Marcayda in a handwritten letter filed in this Court
Villanueva abandoned them. on April 19, 1977 asked that Naz's oath-taking as a member of the bar
(after having flunked twice) be withheld pending negotiations for the
Soon thereafter, Soberano sent a letter to the court asking that no action support of his alleged child begotten with Salvacion.
be taken on her petition until her mother has arrived and decided
whether it should push through. Soberano sent another letter saying that Naz in his answer of April 27, 1977 denied the paternity of the child. He
her mother has arrived and that the case must case. Soberano again alleged that the complaint was pure harassment and blackmail. He said
wrote a letter saying that the filing of the petition was not sincerely her that Salvacion could have filed an administrative complaint with the
own wish, and that she was finally withdrawing her complaint the last Department of Education and Culture since he was employed in the
letter written by Soberano to the court however, prayed that her motion Legaspi branch of that Office but she never filed any such complaint.
to withdraw the petition he denied since Villanueva had procured the
motion “by means of threats and intimidation”. Accompanying his answer was an affidavit wherein Naz requested that,
because clearance could not be given him to take the oath on April 29,
ISSUE: 1977 due to Salvacion's complaint, he be allowed to take the oath but
Whether or not Villanueva should be disbarred. his signing of the Roll of attorneys be deferred pending resolution of
Salvacion's complaint.
HELD:
NO. The letters of Soberano to Villanueva clearly indicated that intimate On the following day, April 28, 1977, Naz and Salvacion, both 47,
relations had existed between them prior to the date when the alleged natives of Camalig Albay, executed in Manila a notarized agreement
fake wedding occurred. These indicate that there was no need for before lawyer Braulio R. G. Tansinsin wherein Naz admitted that he had
Villanueva to stage a fake wedding to induce Soberano to cohabit with an affair with Salvacion in 1964 as a result of which a boy named Rey E.
him. Some of the letters showed that Soberano reminded him of his Marcayda was born on January 8, 1965, (should be March 8, 1965, as
promise to marry her after he passed the bar. shown in Exhibit 2). Naz was a married man. Salvacion was married to
Primo Marcayda who died of tuberculosis on July 5, 1965 (Exh. 1).
Naz in that agreement bound himself to pay Salvacion for Rey's support (Arciga vs. Maniwang, Adm. Case No. 1608, August 14,1981, 106
(1) back support of P2,000 on or before December 25, 1977 and another SCRA 591).
P2,000 on or before December 25, 1978 and (2) P100 or its dollar
equivalent in advance within the first five days of every month, starting The agreement of support was the basis of the withdrawal of the 1917
May, 1977 until Rey reached the age of twenty-one. complaint against him. The eleventh-hour withdrawal paved the way for
Because of that public instrument admitting paternity and the promise to his oath-taking. He cannot be allowed to repudiate that public document
support the adulterous child, Salvacion on that same date, April 28, of the ground of supposed coercion.
1977, withdrew her complaint filed in this Court to withhold the oath-
taking of Naz on the ground of immorality. Respondent Naz's stand of not giving any value to that public document
shows a certain unscrupulousness unbecoming a member of a noble
The withdrawal document was also executed before Notary Tansinsin. It profession. It is tantamount to self stultification. His attitude is highly
is document No. 628 of his notarial book while the document of censurable. He wants to make a mockery of the proceedings in this
acknowledgment and support is No. 629. Court by making it appear that he lied brazenly about the filiation of Rey
Marcayda just to facilitate his admission to the bar. In his oath, he swore
The result of these last minute maneuvers was this Court's resolution of to do no falsehood.
April 28, 1977 allowing Naz to take his oath by reason of Salvacion's
withdrawal of her complaint (SBC-582). He took his oath on April 29, The remedy of complainant Marcayda is a civil action for support on the
1977 But Naz did not live up to his promise to give support. basis of the agreement of support which is irrevocably binding on Naz.
She could also file an administrative complaint against him with the
In a verified complaint dated December 23, 1977 Salvacion asked for Ministry of Education and Culture which could require him to give
the reopening of the administrative case. She alleged that she withdrew support to the child, Rey (See Sec. 36, Civil Service Decree, P.D. No.
the complaint so that Naz would have a higher salary and would be in a 807).
better position to support Rey. He is now an incumbent legal officer of
Region V of the Ministry of Education and Culture in Legaspi City, with WHEREFORE, respondent Naz is severely reprimanded for his attempt
an annual salary of P17,724. to nullify the notarial agreement to support a child whose filiation he had
admitted. A copy of this resolution should be attached to his record in
She testified that after Rey's birth Naz gave her forty pesos a month for the Bar Confidant's office.
six months. After she withdrew her complaint, Naz gave her one SO ORDERED.
hundred pesos for May, 1977. As already stated, he did not comply with
his commitment in the notarial agreement of support which was the
basis of the withdrawal of the immorality complaint against him. In re Charges of Lilian Villasanta for immorality v. Hilarion Peralta
FACTS:
Naz in his comment on the complaint and in his testimony in the Solicitor On April 16, 1939, Hilarion M. Peralta, the respondent, was married to
General's office declared that Rey was not his son. Rey's 1965 birth Rizalina E. Valdez in Rizal, Nueva Ecija. On or before March 8, 1951, he
certificate shows that he was born in wedlock to Salvacion and her courted Lilian F. Villasanta, the complainant, who fell in love with him. To
husband, Primo (Exh. 21). He alleged that he was "coerced" to sign the have carnal knowledge of her, the respondent procured the preparation
agreement of support. The complaint was like "an Armalite trained on of a fake marriage contract which was then a blank document. He made
the head of the respondent". her sign it on March 8, 1951. A week after, the document was brought
back by the respondent to the complainant, signed by the Justice of the
We hold that, as noted by the Solicitor General, Naz is not guilty of gross Peace and the Civil Registrar of San Manuel, Tarlac, and by two
immorality. He should not be disbarred because he had admitted the witnesses. Since then the complainant and the respondent lived
paternity of Rey in a public document and agreed to support him. This together as husband and wife. Sometime later, the complainant insisted
circumstance rendered his immorality not so gross and scandalous. on a religious ratification of their marriage and on July 7, 1951, the
corresponding ceremony was performed in Aparri by the parish priest of Respondent Balajadia is a businessman, he was erroneously referred to
said municipality. The priest no longer required the production of a as a practicing lawyer.
marriage license because of the civil marriage contract shown to him.
After the ceremony in Aparri, the couple returned to Manila as husband ISSUE:
and wife and lived with some friends. The complainant then discovered Whether not the respondent is liable for direct contempt.
that the respondent was previously married to someone else;
whereupon, she filed the criminal action for a violation of Article 350 of HELD:
the Revised Penal Code in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan and The affidavit of Liza Laconsay attesting to the mistake in drafting the
the present complaint for immorality in this court. complaint-affidavit conforms to the documentary evidence on record and
the allegation was indeed a result of inadvertence and doesn’t establish
ISSUE: intent to make him liable for indirect contempt.
Whether or not the respondent’s grossly immoral conduct makes him
disqualified to take the bar examination.
Luzviminda Lijauco v. Atty. Rogelio Terrado
HELD: FACTS:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that committed a grossly immoral The present complaint was prompted by the alleged inability of the
conduct, thus, he is disqualified to take the bar examinations. Hilarion M. respondent lawyer to “meet his end of the bargain” after collecting
Peralta, the respondent, made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred excessive lawyer’s fees. He was the counsel of the petitioner who gave
institution demanding respect and dignity and his conviction of violation him P 70,000 for the recovery of P180,000 from the Planter’s Bank and
of Art. 350 of the Revised Penal Code involves moral turpitude. His act the release of the petitioner’s foreclosed lot in Laguna as well. It was
in contracting the second marriage even his act in making love to also alleged that he only appeared as counsel for the petitioner for the
another woman while his first wife is still alive and their marriage still recovery of the bank deposit and did not appear in the hearing of the
valid and existing is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality. Writ of Possession of the lot in Laguna. In his denial, the respondent
Thus lacking the good moral character required by the Rules of Court, claims that the amount he collected was only for the recovery of
the respondent is disqualified from being admitted to the bar.
deposit and not for the recovery of the foreclosed lot. He claimed
further that the amount was not excessive for it was the referral fees for
Rogelio Tan, Norma Tan and Maliyawao Pagayokan v. Benedicto two other individuals who were non-lawyers. Upon investigation, it was
Balajadia found that he was involved in the release of the foreclosed Laguna lot
FACTS: because he was the one who made the Compromise Agreement in favor
Respondent Balajadia was charged for contempt by the petititioners, of the client. The IBP-Commission on Discipline found his acts
Tan, et al. Before that, the respondent filed a criminal case against the violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
petitioners with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City. In his
complaint-affidavit, the respondent asserted that he is a “practicing ISSUE:
lawyer” based in Baguio City. However, certifications issued by the OBC Whether or not he indeed violated the Code of Professional
and the IBP showed that the respondent was admitted to the Bar. Responsibility.

Respondent asserted that the allegation that he was a practicing lawyer HELD:
is an honest mistake. He claims that the secretary of Atty. Paterno The Supreme Court approved the decision of the Commission on
Aquino prepared the complaint-affidavit patterned after Atty. Aquino’s discipline that he violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
affidavit. Liza Laconsay, Atty. Aquino’s secretary, admitted the mistake specifically Canon 9.2. By openly admitting he divided the P70,000 to
of copying Atty. Aquino’s complaint-affidavit and instead of stating that
other individuals as commission/referral fees respondent violated Rule
9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides
that a lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal
services with persons not licensed to practice law. The practice of law is
a privilege bestowed on those who show that they possessed and
continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. Indeed, lawyers are
expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency
and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. Respondent’s
claim that the attorney’s fee pertains only to the recovery of
complainant’s savings deposit from Planter’s Development Bank cannot
be sustained. Records show that he acted as complainant’s counsel in
the drafting of the compromise agreement between the latter and the
bank relative to LRC Case No. B-2610. Acceptance of money from a
client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the
duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. The canons of the legal profession
require that once an attorney agrees to handle a case, he should
undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.

Asia Banking Corporation v. Herridge


FACTS:
This case is one of the several cases filed against Umberto de Poli. De
Poli was a businessman engaged in the sale of hemp and was also a
licensed warehouseman. Due to depression, weakness and sickness,
among others, he was not able to manage his business well and he was
later declared insolvent and his assets were assigned to Herridge. Asia
Banking questioned Herridge’s authority to represent the creditors of de
Poli. The bank contends that Herridge as an assignee is only there to
represent the interest of de Poli alone. The case reached the Supreme
Court where their respective counsels submitted their briefs and some
oral arguments were also held. Said arguments and briefs however
contained criticisms against each other’s counsel.

ISSUE:
Whether or not such criticism against a counsel by another counsel
should be well taken.

HELD:
No. The Supreme Court noted that such criticisms are wholly immaterial
and of no value to the court. The Supreme Court stated that no attorney
ought to be criticized for the making of an honest legal effort to protect
the interest of his client.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi