Case Acts committed Defense Year Expression Frequency Penalty

Promulgated of of Offense
Remorse
Vitriolo vs Respondent 2003 None. 4 Disbarment
Dasig a) Sometime in failed to Default
August 1998 and answer the
during the effectivity complaint,
of Respondents hence,
designation as declared in
Officer-in-Charge of default.
Legal Affairs Service,
CHED, she demanded
from Betty C.
Mangohon, a teacher
of Our Lady of
Mariazel Educational
Center in Novaliches,
Quezon City, the
amount of P20,000.00
and later reduced to
P5,000.00 for the
facilitation of her
application for
correction of name
then pending before
the Legal Affairs
Service, CHED...

b) Likewise,
sometime in July to
August 1998 and
during the effectivity
of Respondents
designation as
Officer-in-Charge of
Legal Affairs Service,
CHED, she demanded
from Rosalie B. Dela
Torre, a student, the
amount of P18,000.00
to P20,000.00 for
facilitation of her
application for
correction of name
then pending before
the Legal Affairs
Service, CHED

c) Likewise,
sometime in
September 1998 and
during the effectivity
of Respondents
designation as
Officer-in-Charge of
Legal Affairs Service,
CHED, she demanded
from Rocella G. Eje,
a student, the amount
of P5,000.00 for
facilitation of her
application for
correction of name
then pending before
the Legal Affairs
Service, CHED. . . In
addition, Respondent
even suggested to Ms.
Eje to register her
birth anew with full
knowledge of the
existence of a prior
registration

d) Likewise,
sometime in August
to September 1998
and during the
effectivity of
Respondents
designation as
Officer-in-Charge of
Legal Affairs Service,
CHED, she demanded
from Jacqueline N.
Ng, a student, a
considerable amount
which was
subsequently
confirmed to be
P15,000.00 and initial
fee of P5,000.00 more
or less for facilitation
of her application for
correction of name
then pending before
the Legal Affairs
Service, CHED... In
addition, the
Respondent even
suggested to Ms. Ng
to hire a lawyer who
shall be chosen by
Respondent Dasig to
facilitate the
application for
correction of name.

From the foregoing

evidence on record, it
can be concluded that
respondent in violation
of her oath as a
government official and
as a member of the Bar,
indeed made unlawful
demands or attempted
to extort money from
certain people who had
pending
applications/requests
before her office in
exchange for her
promise to act
favorably on said
applications/requests.
Clearly, respondent
unlawfully used her
public office in order to
secure financial spoils
to the detriment of the
dignity and reputation
of the Commission on
Higher Education.
Francia vs It later turned out that No SUSPENDEDfrom
abdon Vistan represented to substantial the practice of law
the complainant that evidence for a period of
he has the capacity to that he ONE (1) MONTH
facilitate the received effective upon
favorable resolution the amount. receipt of this
of cases and does this The Decision, with a
for a fee. This fact quantum of STERN
was made known to proof was n WARNING that a
him by Vistan himself repetition of the
duringa telephone same or similar act
conversation when in the future shall
the latter told him he be dealt with
was given severely
₱350,000.00 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
Vistan’s 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.
Fajardo vs
Alvarez This
administrative
case involves the
determination of
whether a lawyer
working in the
Legal Section of
the National
Center for
Mental Health
under the
Department of
Health is
authorized to
privately practice
law, and
consequently,
whether the
amount charged
by respondent
for attorney's
fees is
reasonable under
the principle
of quantum
meruit.
Likewise, we
find that
respondent
violated the
Lawyer's Oath
and the Code
of
Professional
Responsibility
when he
communicated
to or, at the
very least,
made it
appear to
complainant
that he knew
people from
the Office of
the
Ombudsman
who could
help them get
a favorable
decision in
complainant's
case.
Toelention Atty. Ancheta should Disbarment
vs SO have very well known
that a decision that has
attained finality is no
longer open for
reversal and should be
respected.49 A lawyer's
duty to assist in the
speedy administration
of justice50 demands
recognition that at a
definite time, issues
must be laid to rest and
litigation ended.51 As
such, Ancheta should
have advised
complainants to accept
the judgment of the
Court of Appeals and
accord respect to the
just claim of the
opposite party. He
should have tempered
his clients' propensity
to litigate and save
them from additional
expense in pursuing
their contemplated
action. Instead, he gave
them confident
assurances that the
case could still be
reopened and even
furnished them a copy
of his prepared "motion
to reopen case."
Despite his
representation that he
would file the motion,
however, he did not do
so.52
Atty. Ancheta's
repeated failure to
comply with several of
this Court's
Resolutions requiring
him to comment on the
complaint lends
credence to
complainants'
allegations. It
manifests his tacit
admission

It was established by
the evidence on record
that (1) Atty. Ancheta
received the
acceptance fee of
₱30,000.00 on
December 9,
2002;46 and (2)
complainants
deposited on January
17, 200347 the amount
of ₱200,000.00 to Atty.
Ancheta's bank
account. Atty. Ancheta
made false promises
to complainants that
something could still
be done with
complainant
Flordeliza's case
despite the Court of
Appeals Decision
having already
attained finality on
September 22,
2001.48 Worse, he
proposed bribing the
Justices of the Court of
Appeals in order to
solve their legal
dilemma