PALE 12.3 Alcantara vs.

Pefianco, 393 SCRA 247 (2002)

FACTS: Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara is the incumbent District Public Attorney of the PAO in San
Jose, Antique. He alleged that while Atty. Ramon Salvani III was conferring with a client in the
PAO at the Hall of Justice, a woman approached them. Complainant saw the woman in tears,
whereupon he went to the group and suggested that Atty. Salvani talk with her amicably as a
hearing was taking place in another room. At this point, respondent Atty. Mariano Pefianco, who
was sitting nearby, stood up and shouted at Atty. Salvani and his client, saying, Nga-a gina-areglo
mo ina, ipapreso ang imo nga kliyente para mahibal-an na anang sala. (Why do you settle that
case? Have your client imprisoned so that he will realize his mistake.)
Respondent continued to fulminate at Atty. Salvani. Atty. Salvani tried to explain to
respondent that it was the woman who was asking if the civil aspect of the criminal case could be
settled because she was no longer interested in prosecuting the same. Respondent refused to listen
and instead continued to scold Atty. Salvani and the latters client.
As head of the Office, complainant approached respondent and asked him to take it easy
and leave Atty. Salvani to settle the matter. Respondent at first listened, but shortly after he again
started shouting at and scolding Atty. Salvani. To avoid any scene with respondent, complainant
went inside his office. He asked his clerk to put a notice outside prohibiting anyone from
interfering with any activity in the PAO.
Complainant said that he then went out to attend a hearing, but when he came back he
heard respondent Pefianco saying: Nagsiling si Atty. Alcantara nga pagwa-on na kuno ako dya sa
PAO, buyon nga klase ka tawo. (Atty. Alcantara said that he would send me out of the PAO, what
an idiot.) Then, upon seeing complainant, respondent pointed his finger at him and repeated his
statement for the other people in the office to hear. At this point, according to complainant, he
confronted respondent Pefianco and told him to observe civility or else to leave the office if he had
no business there. Complainant said respondent resented this and started hurling invectives at him.
According to complainant, respondent even took a menacing stance towards him.
This caused a commotion in the office. Two guards of the Hall of Justice came to take
respondent out of the office, but before they could do so, respondent tried to attack complainant
and even shouted at him, Gago ka! (Youre stupid!) Fortunately, the guards were able to fend off
respondents blow and complainant was not harmed.
The Committee on Bar Discipline of the IBP found that respondent committed the acts
alleged in the complaint and that he violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Committee noted that respondent failed not only to deny the accusations against him but also
to give any explanation for his actions. For this reason, it recommended that respondent be
reprimanded and warned that repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely in the
future.

ISSUE: Did Pefianco violate the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING: Yes. The Code of Professional Responsibility admonishes lawyers to conduct

themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers.

DISPOSITION: Atty. Mariano Pefianco is found GUILTY of violation of Canon 8 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and, considering this to be his first offense, is hereby FINED in the
amount of P1,000.00 and REPRIMANDED with a warning that similar action in the future will be
sanctioned more severely.
PALE 12.4 Ulep v. Legal Clinic, B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993

FACTS: Petitioner prays this Court to order the respondent making advertisements pertaining to
the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law.
The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follows:

Annex A

SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.

Please call: 521-0767 LEGAL 5217232, 5222041 CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am— 6:00
pm 7-Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Mla.

Annex B

GUAM DIVORCE.

DON PARKINSON

an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The

Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office hours.

Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext.

Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence.
Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign
Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.

THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave., LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US

Embassy CLINIC, INC.1 Tel. 521-7232; 521-7251; 522-2041; 521-0767

In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisement
at its instance, but claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal
support services" through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines.
Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised are legal services, the act of
advertising these services should be allowed supposedly in the light of the case of John R. Bates
and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona,2 reportedly decided by the United States Supreme Court
on June 7, 1977.

ISSUE: whether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised
by it constitutes practice of law and, in either case, whether the same can properly be the subject
of the advertisements herein complained of.
RULING: the activities of respondent, as advertised, constitute "practice of law." When a person
participates in the a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in the practice of law. One who
confers with clients, advises them as to their legal rights and then takes the business to an attorney
and asks the latter to look after the case in court, is also practicing law. Giving advice for
compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another and the conduct with respect thereto
constitutes a practice of law. One who renders an opinion as to the proper interpretation of a statute,
and receives pay for it, is, to that extent, practicing law.
That fact that the corporation employs paralegals to carry out its services is not controlling.
What is important is that it is engaged in the practice of law by virtue of the nature of the services
it renders which thereby brings it within the ambit of the statutory prohibitions against the
advertisements which it has caused to be published and are now assailed in this proceeding.
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. He is not supposed to 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. Nor shall he pay or give something
of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract
legal business. Prior to the adoption of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Canons of
Professional Ethics had also warned that lawyers should not resort to indirect advertisements for
professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his
photograph to be published in connection with causes in which the lawyer has been or is engaged
or concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance
of the lawyer’s position, and all other like self-laudation.
Of course, not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited. The canons of the
profession enumerate exceptions to the rule against advertising or solicitation and define the extent
to which they may be undertaken. The exceptions are of two broad categories, namely, those which
are expressly allowed and those which are necessarily implied from the restrictions.
The first of such exceptions is the publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent
with the standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data.
The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card may contain
only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he is connected with, address,
telephone number and special branch of law practiced. The publication of a simple announcement
of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office
address, being for the convenience of the profession, is not objectionable.

DISPOSITION: The Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN herein respondent, The Legal
Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any
form which is of the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of this petition,
and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, operation or transaction proscribed by
law or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein.
PALE 12.5 Stemmerik vs. Mas, 589 SCRA 114 (2009)

FACTS: Stemmerik is a citizen and resident of Denmark. In one of his trips in the Philippines, he
met Atty. Mas. Stemmerik wanted to buy a real property and consulted Atty. Mas. The latter told
Stemmerik that he could legally acquire a real property in the Phils. And even suggested an 86K
hectare land in Subic, Zambales.
Atty. Mas, as the atty.-in-fact of Stemmerik bought the property from a certain Bonifacio
de Mesa. The contract to sell provided that De Mesa sold the property to Ailyn Gonzales for 3.8M.
Then, in another notarized deed made by Atty. Mas, it was stated that Gonzales received the funds
from Stemmerik. In preparing all these documents, Atty. Mas received 400K fee from Stemmerik.
The latter also gave Atty. Mas, the 3.8M purchase price to which the latter issued a receipt.
Suddenly, Atty. Mas become scarce and no longer answer the calls of Stemmerik.
When Stemmerik visited the Phils, he engaged the service of the Fernandez Law Office
and found out the subject property is inalienable, being located in the former U.S. military
reservation. Also, he was apprised that aliens cannot own real properties in the Phils. Meanwhile,
Atty. Mas had already abandoned his office and his whereabouts is unknown. Stemmerik filed an
action for disbarment against Atty. Mas.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent should be expelled from the legal profession for gravely
misrepresenting that a foreigner could legally acquire land in the Philippines and for maliciously
absconding with complainants P3.8 million.

RULING: Lawyers are servants of the law and the law is their master. They should not simply
obey the laws, they should also inspire respect for and obedience thereto by serving as exemplars
worthy of emulation. Indeed, that is the first precept of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS

OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution provides:

SEC. 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or

conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold
lands of the public domain.

Respondent, in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional policy,

showed disrespect for the Constitution and gross ignorance of basic law. Worse, he prepared
spurious documents that he knew were void and illegal.
By making it appear that de Mesa undertook to sell the property to complainant and that
de Mesa thereafter sold the property to Gonzales who made the purchase for and in behalf of
complainant, he falsified public documents and knowingly violated the Anti-Dummy Law.

DISPOSITION: respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas is hereby DISBARRED. The Clerk of Court
is directed to immediately strike out the name of respondent from the Roll of Attorneys.
Respondent is hereby ORDERED to return to complainant Keld Stemmerik the total amount of
P4.2 million with interest at 12% per annum from the date of promulgation of this resolution until
full payment. Respondent is further DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof of payment of the
amount within ten days from payment.
PALE 12.6 Heirs of Alilano v. Examen, A.C. No. 10132, 24 March 2015

FACTS: Pedro Alilano and his wife, Florentina, were the holders of an OCT covering parcel of
land identified located in Sultan Kudarat. Pedro and Florentina died on March 6, 1985 and October
11, 1989, respectively.
It appears that on March 31, 1984 and September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale were
executed by the Spouses Alilano in favor of Ramon Examen and his wife, Edna. Both documents
were notarized by respondent Atty. Roberto Examen, brother of the vendee.
The heirs of Alilano filed a suit for recovery of possession before the RTC against Edna
Examen and Atty. Roberto Examen.
The heirs of Alilano filed this complaint alleging that Atty. Examen violated the notarial
law when he notarized the absolute deeds of sale since a notary public is prohibited from notarizing
a document when one of the parties is a relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree or
affinity within the second civil degree. It is also alleged that Atty. Examen notarized the
documents knowing that the cedula or residence certificate number used by Ramon Examen was
not actually his but the residence certificate number of Florentina. Atty. Examen also falsely
acknowledged that the two witnesses personally appeared before him when they did not. Lastly,
it is alleged that despite knowing the infirmities of these documents, Atty. Examen introduced
these documents into evidence violating his oath as a lawyer and the CPR.
In his defense, Atty. Examen pointed out that there was no longer any prohibition under
the Revised Administrative Code for a notary public to notarize a document where one of the
parties is related to him by consanguinity and affinity. With regard to the use of Florentina’s
residence certificate as Ramon’s, Atty. Examen said that he was in good faith and that it was office
practice that the secretary type details without him personally examining the output. In any event,
he reasoned that the use of another’s residence certificate is not a ground for disbarment and is
barred by prescription: within two years from the date of the act.
In its Report and Recommendation, the IBP CBD found Atty. Examen liable for breach of
the Notarial Law and introducing false Absolute Deeds of Sale before court proceedings. It stated
that there was ample evidence to support the complainants’ contention that the Spouses Alilano
did not voluntarily and knowingly convey their property, i.e. denials under oath by attesting
witnesses and NBI Report by Handwriting Expert Jennifer Dominguez stating that Pedro Alilano’s
signature in the Absolute Deed of Sale was significantly different from the specimen signatures.
It also noted that Ramon Examen’s residence certificate number, date and place of issue were also
falsified since the residence certificate actually belonged to Florentina Pueblo. It thus
recommended that the penalty of disbarment be imposed.
The IBP Board of Governors (BOG), in its Resolution, adopted the IBP CBD’s report but
modified the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years and a
suspension of Atty. Examen’s Notarial Commission for a period of two years.

ISSUE: Should Atty. Examen be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law and
suspension of Notarial Commission.

RULING: Yes. By his negligent act of not checking the work of his secretary and merely
perfunctorily notarizing documents, it cannot be said that he upheld legal processes thus violating
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
DISPOSITION: Atty. Roberto E. Examen is hereby 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.
PALE 12.7 Misamin vs. San Juan, 72 SCRA 491 (1976)

FACTS: Captain in the Metro Manila Police Force and a member of the bar, respondent Miguel
A. San Juan, to be charged with being the legal representative of certain establishments, such as
New Cesar's Bakery, allegedly owned by Filipinos of Chinese descent and, what is worse, with
coercing an employee, complainant Jose Misamin, to agree to drop the charges filed by him against
his employer Tan Hua, owner of New Cesar's Bakery, for the violation of the Minimum Wage
Law. There was a denial on the part of respondent. The matter was referred to the Office of the
Solicitor-General for investigation, report and recommendation. Thereafter, it would seem there
was a change of heart on the part of complainant. That could very well be the explanation for the
non- appearance of the lawyer employed by him at the scheduled hearings.
The conclusion arrived at by the Solicitor-General that the complaint cannot prosper.

ISSUE: Should Atty. San Juan be administratively liable.

RULING: No. While the charges have to be dismissed, still it would not be inappropriate for
respondent member of the bar to avoid all appearances of impropriety. Certainly, the fact that the
suspicion could be entertained that far from living true to the concept of a public office being a
public trust, he did make use, not so much of whatever legal knowledge he possessed, but the
influence that laymen could assume was inherent in the office held not only to frustrate the
beneficent statutory scheme that labor be justly compensated but also to be at the beck and call of
what the complainant called alien interest, is a matter that should not pass unnoticed. Respondent,
in his future actuations as a member of the bar, should refrain from laying himself open to such
doubts and misgivings as to his fitness not only for the position occupied by him but also for
membership in the bar. He is not worthy of membership in an honorable profession who does not
even take care that his honor remains unsullied.

DISPOSITION: this administrative complaint against respondent Miguel A. San Juan is

dismissed for not having been duly proved.