Legal Profession
20. People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-19450 May 27, 1965
Fact: Simplicio Villanueva is charged with the Crime of
Malicious Mischief and he was represented by Asst. City
Attorney Ariston D. Fule, after securing the permission of
the Secretary of Justice, because every time he would be
summoned by the court, he would be considered on
official leave of absence and that he would not receive any
payment for his services. Such appearance was questioned
by herein respondents counsel.
Issue: WON Asst. City Attorney Ariston D. Fule may appear
before the Justice of the Peace Court of Alaminos, Laguna
as private prosecutor in this criminal case as an agent or a
friend of the offended party.
Held: The court ruled in the affirmative. The court held
that in appearing as private prosecutor in the case, the
isolated appearance of City Attorney Fule did not
constitute private practice within the meaning and
contemplation of the Rules. Sec. 31, Rule 127 of the Rules
of Court provides that in the court of a justice of the peace
a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of
an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or
with the aid of an attorney. It does not appear that he was
being paid for his services or that his appearance was in a
professional capacity.
21. Barrios v. Martinez, A.C. No. 4585. November 12,
2004
Fact: Atty. Francisco P. Martinez, was subject for
disbarment for being found guilty of estafa or being in
violation of BP22 for issuing a check in the amount of p8,
000.00.
Issue: WON disbarment to be the appropriate penalty. "Of
all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly
bound to uphold the laws.
Held: Under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, 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 admission to
practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order
of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing
as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do
so. Atty. Francisco P. Martinez is hereby disbarred and his
name is ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
22. Ui v. Bonifacio, A.C. No. 3319. June 8, 2000
Fact: Leslie Ui filed a case against Atty. Iris Bonifacio, for
having a relationship with her husband Carlos Ui. When
respondent knew of the real status of Carlos Ui, she
stopped their relationship. Respondent further claims that
she and Carlos Ui never lived together as the latter lived
with his children to allow them to gradually accept the
situation. Petitioner however presented a misrepresented
copy of her marriage contract.
Issue: WON the respondent conduct herself in an immoral
manner for which she deserves to be barred from the
practice of law
Held: No. Membership in the bar may be terminated when
a lawyer ceases to have good moral character. A lawyer
may be disbarred for “grossly immoral conduct or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude”. A member of the bar should have moral
integrity in addition to professional probity. A bar
candidate does not have the right to enjoy the practice of
the legal profession simply by passing the bar
examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, subject
to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his
oath and the dictates of legal ethics. If good moral
character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then
the continued possession of good moral character is also
requisite for retaining membership in the legal profession.
23. Figueroa v. Barranco, SBC Case No. 519. July 31, 1997
Fact: Patricia Figueroa filed a petition to against Simeon
Barranco, Jr., because he did not fulfill his promise of
marriage to her after he has passed the BAR exam. The
petition stated that Barranco be denied admission to the
legal profession.
Issue: Whether or not Barranco should be allowed to take
his oath despite the accusations of Figueroa.
Held: Yes, Breach of Promise to Marry is not actionable
wrong. The complaint as an act of revenge of a woman
scorned, bitter and unforgiving to the end. It is also
intended to make respondent suffer severely and it seems,
perpetually, sacrificing the profession he worked very hard
to be admitted into. Even assuming that his past
indiscretions are ignoble, the twenty-six years that
respondent has been prevented from being a lawyer
constitute sufficient punishment therefor. Respondent,
who is now sixty-two years of age, should thus be allowed,
albeit belatedly, to take the lawyers oath.
24. Cordova v. Cordova, 179 SCRA 680 (1989)
Fact: Atty. Laurence D. Cordova was charged by his wife
Salvacion Delizo Cordova with immorality and acts
unbecoming a member of the Bar. Respondent left his
family and went to live in Mangagoy, Bislig, Surigao del Sur
with one Fely G. Holgado. Respondent Cordova and Fely G.
Holgado lived together in Bislig as husband and wife, with
respondent Cordova introducing Fely to the public as his
wife, and Fely Holgado using the name Fely Cordova. In
February 1987, complainant found, upon returning from a
trip to Manila necessitated by hospitalization of her
daughter Loraine, that respondent Cordova was no longer
living with her children in their conjugal home; that
respondent Cordova was living with another mistress, one
Luisita Magallanes, and had taken his younger daughter
Melanie along with him.
Issue: WON respondent flaunted his disregard of the
fundamental institution of marriage and its elementary
obligations before his own daughter and the community at
large subject to disbarrment.
Held: The respondent was declared unfit to continue as a
member of the bar by reason of his immoral conduct and
accordingly disbarred. He was found to have engaged in
sexual relations with the complainant who consequently
bore him a son; and to have maintained for a number of
years an adulterous relationship with another woman. The
Court Resolved to suspend respondent from the practice
of law indefinitely and until farther orders from this Court.
Legal Profession
25. Guevarra v. Eala, 529 SCRA 1 (2007)
Fact: Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala was charged by
Joselano Guevarra for "grossly immoral conduct and
unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath." The
complainant first met respondent in January 2000 when
his then-fiancee Irene Moje introduced respondent Atty.
Eala, a lawyer and a sportscaster, to him as her friend who
was married to Mary Ann Tantoco with whom he had
three children. 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 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 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. Respondent
violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in
"unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct," and
Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a
lawyer from engaging in any "conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law."
26. Soriano v. Dizon, A.C. No. 6792, January 25, 2006
Facts: A complaint-affidavit for the disbarment of Atty.
Manuel Dizon, filed by Roberto Soriano with the
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Intergrated Bar
of the Philippines. Complainant Soriano alleged that
respondent had violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and that the conviction of the
latter for frustrated homicide, which involved moral
turpitude, should result in his disbarment. According to
the unrefuted statements of complainant, Atty. Dizon,
who has yet to comply with this particular undertaking,
even appealed the civil liability to the Court of Appeals
Issue: Whether or not the atty. Dizon violates Canon 1 of
rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibilities
Held: Yes. It is also glaringly clear that respondent
seriously transgressed Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility through his illegal possession of an
unlicensed firearm his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil
liabilities. He obtained the benevolence of the trial court
when it suspended his sentence and granted him
probation. Still, Atty. Dizon begrudges complainant the
miserable amount that could never even fully restore what
the latter has lost.
27. Calub v. Suller, A.C. No. 1474, January 28, 2000
Fact: a complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty.
Abraham A. Suller premised on grossly immoral conduct
for having raped his neighbor's wife. When she protested,
respondent threatened her and forced her to have sexual
intercourse with him. When complainant returned home
he saw his wife and respondent having sexual intercourse
on the bed. She was kicking respondent with one foot
while the latter pressed on her arms and other leg,
preventing her from defending herself.
Issue: WON 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, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
Held: The rape of his neighbor's wife constituted serious
moral depravity even if his guilt was not proved beyond
reasonable doubt in the criminal prosecution for rape. He
is not worthy to remain a member of the bar. Abraham A.
Suller is disbarred from the practice of law. Let his name
be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
28. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 416 SCRA 465
Facts Petitioner calls for the Court to subject RA 7080 (An
Act defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder) to the
crucible of constitutionality for reasons that the act: is
vague dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in
criminal prosecutions abolishes the element of mens area
in crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code
Issue: WON Plunder as defined in RA 7080 is a malum
prohibitum (therefore does not require that the mind of
the offender be guilty to be penalized)
Held: The Plunder Law - Section 2 is sufficiently explicit in
its description of the acts, conduct and conditions required
or forbidden, and prescribes the elements of the crime
with reasonable certainty and particularity.
29. Saburnido v. Madrono, 366 SCRA 1 (2001)
Fact: Mr. and Mrs Saburnido filed an administrative
complaint for disbarment against Atty. Florante Mandoro,
for harassing them and filing numerous hollow complaints
against them.
Atty Mandoro was the former Judge of Municipal Circuit
Trail Court in Balingasag-Lagonglong, Misamis Oriental, but
he received 3 separate administrative complaints, which
led him to lose his Judiciary position, wherein he was also
found guilty and his retirement benefits were also
forfeited.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Madrono’s act of filling
multiple complaints constitute gross misconduct that will
warrant the imposition of administrative sanctions.
Held: YES
Atty. Madrono’s act of filing multiple complaints against
Saburnido reflects on his fitness to be a member of the
legal profession. We see in respondent’s tenacity in
pursuing several cases against complainants not the
persistence of one who has been grievously wronged but
the obstinacy of one who is trying to exact revenge.
Respondent’s action erodes rather than enhances public
perception of the legal profession. It constitutes gross
misconduct for which he may be suspended, following
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Atty. Florante E. Madroo is found guilty of gross
misconduct and is suspended from the practice of law for
Legal Profession
one year with a warning that a repetition of the same or
similar act will be dealt with more severely.
30. Castaneda v. Ago, 65 SCRA 505 (1975)
Facts: Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against
Ago in the CFI of Manila to recover certain machineries.
Judgment ruled in favor of Castaneda and Henson, and SC
affirmed the judgment; trial court issued writ of execution;
Ago filed a motion 3 times, but all were denied, levy was
made on Ago’s house and lots; sheriff advertised the sale,
Ago moved to stop the auction; CA dismissed the petition;
SC affirmed dismissal. Ago then filed a complaint upon the
judgment rendered against him in the replevin suit saying
it was his personal obligation and that his wife ½ share in
their conjugal house could not legally be reached by the
levy made.
Issue: WON the Ago’s lawyer, encourage his clients to
avoid controversy
Held: No. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the
complaint for the annulment of the sheriff’s sale, justice
demands that the petitioners, long denied the fruits of
their victory in the replevin suit, must now enjoy them,
for, the respondents Ago supported by their lawyer Atty.
Luison, have misused legal remedies and prostituted the
judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of the judgment,
to the extended prejudice of the petitioners.
Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant
and his exalted position as an officer of the court, Atty.
Luison has allowed himself to become an instigator of
controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a
mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, a
virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation instead
of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and moral
justice.
31. Ledesma v. Climaco, 57 SCRA 473 (1974)
Fact: Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an
accused in a case pending in the sala of the respondent
judge. However, on October 13, 1964, Ledesma was
appointed Election Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz,
Negros Occidental. He commenced discharging his duties,
and filed a motion to withdraw from his position as
counsel de parte, but his petition was denied repeatedly.
Issue: Whether or not a member of the bar may withdraw
as counsel de oficio due to appointment as Election
Registrar.
Held: Ledesma's withdrawal would be an act showing his
lack of fidelity to the duty required of the legal profession.
He ought to have known that membership in the bar is
burdened with conditions. The legal profession is
dedicated to the ideal of service, and is not a mere trade.
A lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio to aid
in the performance of the administration of justice. The
fact that such services are rendered without pay should
not diminish the lawyer's zeal.
Thus, Ledesma should exert himself sufficiently, if not with
zeal, if only to erase doubts as to his fitness to remain a
member of the profession in good standing. The
admonition is ever timely for those enrolled in the ranks of
legal practitioners that there are times, and this is one of
them, when duty to court and to client takes precedence
over the promptings of self-interest.
32. Algura v. The City of Naga (G.R. No.150135, October
30, 2006)
Fact: In 1999, the City of Naga demolished a portion of the
house owned by spouses Antonio and Lorencita Algura for
allegedly being a nuisance as the said portion of the house
was allegedly blocking the road right of way.
In September, the spouses then sued Naga for damages
arising from the said demolition (loss of income from
boarders), which to the spouses is an illegal demolition.
Simultaneous to their complaint was an ex-parte motion
for them to litigate as indigent litigants. The motion was
granted and the spouses were exempted from paying the
required filing fees.
Issue: Whether or not the spouses should be disqualified
as pauper-litigants.
Held: No, there was no hearing on the matter hence the
case was remanded back to the lower court. In this case,
the Supreme Court reconciled the provisions of Sec. 21,
Rule 3 and Sec. 18, Rule 141 (then Sec. 16, Rule 141).
33. Khan v. Simbillo, 409 SCRA 299 (2003)
Facts: The administrative complaint arose from the paid
advertisement that appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue
of Philippine Daily Inquirer a Marriage Annulment
Specialist. Ma. Theresa Espeleta, a staff member of the
Public Information Office of the Supreme Court, took
notice of the advertisement and inquired by pretending as
an interested party. After such inquiry, further research
was conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator.
The research revealed other similar advertisements
published in two other newspapers. Atty. Ismael Khan, Jr.,
afterwards, in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator
and Chief of the Public Information Office filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo for
improper advertising and solicitation in violation of Rule
2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules
of Court.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of
violating Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of CPR.
Held: Yes. By advertising himself as an “Annulment
Specialist,” he undermined the stability and sanctity of
marriage, encouraging people who might have otherwise
been disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving
their marriage bonds, to do so. The Court suspended the
petitioner from the practice of law for one year and sternly
warned him that a repetition of the same or similar
offense will be dealt with more severely.