GROUP 5- DISBARMENT AND READMISSION CASES
In the Matter of the Petition for Disbarment of
Telesforo A. Diao vs. Severino G. Martinez
FACTS:
Telesforo A. Diao took the law examinations in 1953
and was admitted to the Bar. Two years later, Severino
Martinez charged Diao of falsifying the information in
his application for such Bar Examination. Upon further
investigation, it was found that Diao did not finish his
high school training, and neither did he obtain
his Associate in Arts (AA) degree from Quisumbing
College in 1941. Diao practically admits first charge,
but claims that he served the US army, and took the
General Classification Test which, according to Diao, is
equivalent to a High School Diploma, although he
failed to submit certification for such claim from
any proper school officials. The claim was doubtlful,
however, the second charge was clearly meritorious, as
Diao did not obtain his AA degree from Quisumbing
College. Diao claims that he was erroneously certified,
and asserts that he obtained his AA from Arellano
University in 1949.
This claim was still unacceptable, as records would
have shown that Diao graduated from the University in
April 1949, but he started his Law studies in October
1948 (second semester, AY 1948-1949) and he would
not have been permitted to take the Bar, as it is
provided in the Rules, applicants under oath that “
Previous to the study of law, he had successfully and
satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal
education (AA) as required by the Department
of Private Education”
ISSUE:
Whether Telesforo A Diao should be Disbarred.
HELD:
Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the Bar
Exams, but did by falsifying information. Admission
under false pretenses thus give grounds for revoking
his admission in the Bar, as passing the Bar Exam
is not the only requirement to become an attorney at
law. Thus, the name Telesforo A. Diao is deleted from
the roll of attorneys and he is required to return his law
diploma within thirty days.
PATRICK A. CARONAN VS. RICHARD A.
CARONAN a.k.a "Atty. Patrick Caronan"
FACTS:
Richard Caronan who was admitted to the bar as "Atty.
Patrick A. Caronan",was disbarred by the Supreme
Court for stealing his brother's name and identity.
The real Patrick Caronan is the younger brother of
Richard Caronan. In 2013,the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP received a complaint from Patrick
Caronan against his brother after he resigned from his
work because of the consequences of his brother's
doing.
The real Patrick Caronan was a degree holder of
Business Administration from the University of
Makati(UM) while his brother Richard studied at the
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) and was
later transferred to the Philippine Military Academy
(PMA). Richard Caronan was discharged from PMA
after a year to help in their car rental business. He
never went back to school and moved to Nueva Vizcaya
with his wife and three children in 1997.
Richard Caronan informed his brother two years after
that he was enrolled at a law school in Nueva Vizcaya.
In 2004,Patrick was informed by his mother that his
brother passed the Bar examination. He was further
informed that Patrick used his name and college
records to enroll at St. Mary's University College of
Law.
When the National Bureau of Investigation(NBI) asked
Patrick's office for his participation in an investigation
against "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan for committing
qualified theft and estafa,Patrick was forced to resign
which drove him to file a complaint against his own
brother.
ISSUE
Whether or not "Atty. Patrick Caronan" should be
disbarred and be removed in the Roll of Attorneys.
HELD
The Supreme Court pointed out that Richard exhibited
dishonesty and moral unfitness to be a member of the
Bar by assuming his brother's name and for bringing
adversities to his brother's life.
The Supreme Court ordered that the name "Patrick A.
Caronan" with Roll of Attorneys No. 49069 be removed
in the Roll of Attorneys,through a per curiam decision
in Administrative Case No. 11316 which was
promulgated last July 12,2016a after Richard A.
Caronan stole the identity of his sibling to practice the
law.
The high court further barred Ricard A. Caronan, who
has been admitted as a member of the Bar as "Atty.
Patrick A. Caronan". Further ,all identification cards
and certificates issued by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines(IBP) and the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education(MCLE) to Richard Caronan under the name
"Atty. Patrick A. Caronan" are nullified by high court.
Moreover,the office of the court administrator was
ordered to publicize Richard Caronan's photograph to
warn all the courts in the Philippines of his fake
identity as "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan".
The high court stated, "Respondent made a mockery of
the legal profession by pretending to have the
necessary qualifications to be a lawyer. He also
tarnished the image of lawyers with his alleged
GROUP 5- DISBARMENT AND READMISSION CASES
unscrupulous activities,which resulted in the filing of
several criminal cases against him.
Certainly,respondent and his acts do not have a place
in the legal profession where one of the primary duties
of its members is to uphold its integrity and dignity.
It was further pointed out by the IBP that Richard dose
not have a pre-law degree because of his non-
completion of his undergraduate bachelor's degree.
JOVITA BUSTAMANTE-ALEJANDRO VS.
ATTY. WARFREDO TOMAS ALEJANDRO and
MARICRIS VILLARIN AC No. 4256. February
13, 2004
Complainant submitted a photocopy of the marriage
contract between her and respondent Atty. Alejandro
in support of her charge of bigamy and concubinage
against the latter and Villarin. She also submitted a
photocopy of the birth certificate of a child of the
respondent and also stated that they were married in
May 1, 1990 in Isabela, Province. The Supreme Court
directed respondents to file their comment on the
complaint within 10 days but they failed to comply.
Copies of the resolution, complaint and its annexes
were returned to both respondents unserved with
notation “moved”, same as when served personally.
Complainant was required anew to submit the correct,
present address of respondents under pain of dismissal
of her administrative complaint. She disclosed
respondent’s address at 12403 Develop Drive Houston,
Texas in a handwritten letter. The Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) recommended that both respondents
be disbarred. The Supreme Court ordered Atty.
Alejandro to be disbarred while the complaint against
his co-respondent Atty. Villarin was returned to the
IBP for further proceedings or it appears that a copy of
the resolution requiring comment was never “deemed
served” upon her as it was upon Atty. Alejandro.
ISSUE:
Whether or not abandonment of lawful wife and
maintaining an illicit relationship with another woman
are grounds for disbarment.
HELD:
Sufficient evidence showed that respondent Atty.
Alejandro, lawfully married to complainant, carried on
an illicit relationship with co-respondent Atty. Villarin.
Although the evidence was not sufficient to prove that
he co0ntracted a subsequent bigamous marriage, that
fact remains of his deplorable lack of that degree of
morality required of him as member of the bar. A
disbarment proceeding is warranted against a lawyer
who abandons his lawful wife and maintains an illicit
relationship with another woman who had borne him
a child. We can do no less in this case where Atty.
Alejandro even fled to another country to escape the
consequences of his misconduct. Therefore, Atty.
Alejandro disbarred from the practice of law while the
complaint against Atty. Villarin was referred back to
the IBP.
MARIA ELENA MORENO VS. ATTY. ERNESTO
ARANETA
A.C. No. 1109. April 27, 2005
FACTS:
Ernesto Araneta issued two checks to Elena Moreno
for his indebtedness which amounts to P11, 000.00,
the checks were dishonored. It was dishonored because
the account against which is drawn is closed.
Thereafter the case was forwarded to the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline pursuant to Rule 139-B
of the Rules of Court. The Commission recommended
the suspension from the practice of law for three (3)
months. On 15 October 2002, IBP Director for Bar
Discipline Victor C. Fernandez, transmitted the
records of this case back to this Court pursuant to Rule
139-B, Sec. 12(b) of the Rules of Court.
Thereafter, the Office of the Bar Confidant filed a
Report regarding various aspects of the case. The
Report further made mention of a Resolution from this
Court indefinitely suspending the respondent for
having been convicted by final judgment of estafa
through falsification of a commercial document.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Araneta should be disbarred due to the
issuance of checks drawn against a closed account.
HELD:
The Court held that the act of a person in issuing a
check knowing at the time of the issuance that he or she
does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the
drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon
its presentment, is a manifestation of moral turpitude.
In Co v. Bernardino and Lao v. Medel, we held that for
issuing worthless checks, a lawyer may be sanctioned
with one year’s suspension from the practice of law, or
a suspension of six months upon partial payment of the
obligation. In the instant case, however, herein
respondent has, apparently been found guilty by final
judgment of estafa thru falsification of a commercial
document, a crime involving moral turpitude, for
which he has been indefinitely suspended.
Considering that he had previously committed a
similarly fraudulent act, and that this case likewise
involves moral turpitude, we are constrained to impose
a more severe penalty. In fact, we have long held that
disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by
final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude. As
we said in In The Matter of Disbarment Proceedings v.
Narciso N. Jaramillo, “the review of respondent's
conviction no longer rests upon us. The judgment not
only has become final but has been executed. No
elaborate argument is necessary to hold the respondent
unworthy of the privilege bestowed on him as a
member of the bar. Suffice it to say that, by his
conviction, the respondent has proved himself unfit to
protect the administration of justice.”
GROUP 5- DISBARMENT AND READMISSION CASES
KELD STEMMERIK, represented by ATTYS.
HERMINIO A. LIWANAG and WINSTON
P.L.ESGUERRA,
Complainant,vs.
ATTY. LEONUEL N. MAS,
Respondent.
FACTS:
Complainant Stemmerik was interested in acquiring
real property in the Philippines. Heconsulted
respondent who advised him that he could legally
acquire and own real property inthe Philippines.
Respondent even suggested a property in Subic,
Zambales with the assurancethat the property was
alienable. Trusting respondent, complainant
purchased the property through him as his attorney-
in-fact.Complainant also engaged his services for the
preparation of the necessary documents. Forthis
purpose, respondent demanded and received a
P400,000 fee. Complainant left forDenmark and
entrusted the processing of the necessary paperwork to
respondent.
However, instead of having the property registered in
complainant’s name, it was registeredand conveyed in
the name of a certain Alvin Gonzales. When he further
inquired as to thestatus of the property he supposedly
bought, he was devastated to learn that aliens could not
own land under Philippine laws. Moreover, upon
verification, it was revealed that the propertywas
inalienable as it was situated within the former US
Military Reservation.Complainant filed a complaint for
disbarment for gravely misrepresenting that a
foreignercould legally acquire land in the Philippines
and for maliciously absconding with
complainant’sP3.8 million.
ISSUE:
Whether or not atty. Mas’ name should be stricken out
from the Roll of Attorneys and bedisbarred from the
practice of law.
HELD:
The Court found the respondent to be dishonest and
deceitful and "nothing more than anembezzler". He
abused the trust and confidence reposed by
complainant in him. Respondent,in giving advice that
directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional
policy, showeddisrespect for the Constitution and
gross ignorance of basic law. Worse, he prepared
spuriousdocuments that he knew were void and illegal.
He advised the complainant that a foreignercould
legally and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines
and assuring complainant thatthe property was
alienable.
In this, respondent committed a serious breach of his
oath as alawyer and is also guilty of culpable violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, thecode of
ethics of the legal profession. Thus the Court ordered
that Atty. Mas be disbarred from further practicing
legal professionand for him to return to complainant
Keld Stemmerik the total amount of P4.2 million with
interest.
TANU REDDI vs. ATTY. DIOSDADO C.
SEBRIO, JR., A.C. No. 7027, 2009 Jan 30
FACTS:
Respondent was introduced to Complainant (an
American citizen) whom he enticed toacquire certain
real estate to further her philanthropic desire of
establishing a hospital for thepoor. Respondent
advised Complainant (being a foreigner), to use
corporate vehicles (thus,the formation of three
corporations) for the purchases of lands in Tagaytay
City (which turnedout to be have been acquired by
another person via foreclosure sale), Las Piñas City,
MakatiCity(which she later discovered was not actually
owned by the buyer), Quezon City (which lotis
occupied by SM North Mall but claimed by Respondent
to be owned by his client), and
PasayCity (supposedly vacant lots which were actually
owned by certain banks). Complainantalleged that
Respondent duped her into giving him a total of $3M
for these purchases.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be stricken out from
the Roll of Attorneys and bedisbarred from the practice
of law.
HELD:
Respondent DISBARRED for violating Canon 1 (to
uphold the Constitution, obeylaws of the land and
promote respect for the law and legal processes), Rule
1.01 (not toengage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct), Canon 16 (to hold in trust
all moneys and properties of his client that may come
into his possession), Rule 16.01 (not tostate or imply
that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal
or legislative body); hisname ORDERED STRICKEN
from the Roll of Attorneys;ORDERED TO RETURN
toComplainant US$544,828.
CHUA vs. MESINA, Jr
FACTS:
Atty Simeon Mesina is the legal counsel of spouses
Anna Chua and Chua An. The spousesleased a building
ownedby Mesina’s family. The property, however, was
actually mortgaged infavor of a bank for a loan
obtained byMesina’s mother—Felicisima Melencio
(who was theregistered owner as well).When
Felicisima failed to meet her obligations to the bank,
the spouses were convinced by Mesina to help
hismother in consideration for the purchase of the
same lot at a certain price. Adeed of sale was made
conveyingthe property to the spouses.But when the
spouses were appraised for capital gains tax, Atty
Mesina suggested to executeanother deed of sale—this
time, the date of the transaction is 1979, which is before
theeffectivity of the law imposing capital gains tax.
Not long after the title was handed over to the
spouses, another lessee of the building— Tecson—
questioned thetransaction as he was, himself,
GROUP 5- DISBARMENT AND READMISSION CASES
interested in buying the
property. Tecson filed charges for falsification
of documents. To avoid
the falsification charge, Mesina proposed to simulate a
deed of sale wherein thespouses would appearto resell
the property to Felicisima. A new title was issued to
Felicisimaby virtue of said deed but this wasentrusted
in the hands of the spouses.Later on, Tecson desisted
from pursuing the charges. Meanwhile, Mesina
borrowed the title of the property fromthe spouses and
promised to transfer, yet again, title in the name of
thespouses.But Mesina failed to effect such transfer
and the spouses learned that the property is
beingoffered to a publicsale. Hence the action. The case
was investigated by the IBP andrecommended that
Mesina be suspended for gross misconduct.
ISSUE:
Was Atty. Mesina guilty of gross misconduct?
HELD:
Yes. When Atty Mesina advised Chua to execute a deed
of sale antedatedto 1979 to evade payment of capital
gains tax, he violated his duty to promote respect for
lawand legal processes. When he convinced Chua to
executeanother deed to make it appear thatthe
property was conveyed back to Felicisima, Mesina
committed dishonesty. Andwhen heobtained the title
upon the misrepresentation that he will return the
same after 4 months, hecommitteddishonesty again.
There were also badges of fraud that can be attributed
to Mesina as there were marked differences inthe
signatures of Felicisima.Clearly, Mesina violated
hisoath of office and Canons 1, 7, 15, and 17 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.Hisdisbarment is
warranted.
Angeles, et al. vs. Atty. Ibañez
FACTS:
Complainants alleged that respondent Atty. Amado
Ibañez notarized an "Extrajudicial Partition with
Absolute Sale" without a notarial commission and in
the absence of the affiants. The complainants denied
that they executed the said document or that they ever
appeared before respondent Atty. Ibañez for this
purpose.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Ibañez may be disbarred on the
ground of notarizing a document without a notarial
commission and in the absence of the affiants.
HELD:
Yes,Atty. Ibañez may be disbarred on this ground. As a
member of the Bar, respondentshould well know that
notarization of a private document converts such
document into apublic one, and renders it admissible
in court without further proof of its
authenticity.Notarization engages public interest in a
substantial degree and the protection of that
interestrequires preventing those who are not qualified
or authorized to act as notaries public fromimposing
upon the public and the courts and administrative
offices generally. The court ruled that respondent
should not be disbarred but he should be suspended as
wellas his notarial commission.
VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY; FAILURE
OF COUNSEL TO FILE BRIEF BIOMIE
SARENAS-OCHAGABIA VS. ATTY. BALMES
OCAMPOS AM No. 4401. January 29, 2004
FACTS:
Complainant Biomie Sarenas-Ochagabia and her aunts
engaged the services of respondent Atty. Balmes
Ocampos in a civil case for recovery of possession and
ownership of a parcel of land. An adverse decision was
rendered against complainants. Atty. Ocampos filed a
Notice of Appeal at their behest. The Court of Appeals
gave them 45 days from notice to file their brief but
Atty. Ocampos was granted a 90-day extension. The
extended period lapsed without an appellant’s brief
being filed, hence their appeal was dismissed. The
dismissal was not challenged, but complainants filed a
complaint contending that respondent violated his
duty to inform them of his failure to file appellant’s
brief and of the dismissal of the appeal.
Issue: Whether or not respondent has exercised due
diligence for the protection of the client’s interests.
Held: A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case
bears the responsibility of protecting the latter’s
interest with utmost diligence. By failing to file
appellant’s brief, respondent was remiss in the
discharge of such responsibility. He thus violated the
Code of Professional which states: Rule 12.03 A lawyer
shall not, after attaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse
without submitting the same or offering an explanation
for his failure to do so. Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.
That respondent accepted to represent complainants
gratis et amore does not justify his failure to exercise
due diligence in the performance of his duty. Every
case deserves full attention, diligence, and competence
regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it
for a fee or free. Until his final release from the
professional relation with a client, a counsel of record
is under obligation to protect the client’s interest. If a
party has a counsel of record, a court does not
recognize any other representation in behalf thereof
unless in collaboration with such counsel of record or
until a formal substitution of counsel is effected. Since
respondent had not then withdrawn as counsel as he in
fact filed a motion for extension of time to file brief, he
was under obligation to discharge his professional
GROUP 5- DISBARMENT AND READMISSION CASES

responsibility.

SC Reinstates Remorseful Lawyer Dismissed for

Immorality

The Supreme Court recently granted the petition (for

extraordinary mercy) of a lawyer dismissed for
immorality in 2004 to be reinstated in the Roll of
Attorneys after the same “has sufficiently atoned for his
transgressions.”In a six-page resolution penned by
Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, the Court En
Banc ordered the reinstatement in the Roll of
Edmundo L. Macarubbo who, at 58 years of age, “still
has productive years ahead of him that could
significantly contribute to the upliftment of the law
profession and the betterment of society.” It added that
while the Court was mindful of its duty to discipline
and even remove its errant officers, it also has a duty to
show compassion to those who have reformed their
ways as in Macarubbo’s case.

In 2004, Macarubbo was disbarred for having

contracted a bigamous marriage with complainant
Florence Teves and a third marriage with one
Josephine Constantino while his first marriage to
Helen Esparza was still subsisting, which acts
constituted gross immoral conduct in violation of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Maccarubo be reinstated?

HELD:
The Court held that Macarubbo “has sufficiently shown
his remorse and acknowledged his indiscretion in the
legal profession and in his personal life” and has since
asked forgiveness from his children by complainant
Teves and maintained a cordial relationship with them
as proved by his photo evidence. It noted that following
his disbarment, Macarubbo has returned to his
hometown in Enrile, Cagayan and devoted his time
tending an orchard and taking care of his ailing mother
until her death in 2008. He also worked for the local
government of Enrile, Cagayan, as well as taught part-
time instructor at the University of Cagayan Valley and
F.L. Vargas College and took an active part in socio-
civic activities.
Macarubbo’s plea for reinstatement, the Court noted,
was also duly supported by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, Cagayan Chapter and his parish priest
Rev. Fr. Camilo Castillejos, Jr., among others.
Furthermore, records reveal that he has already settled
his previous marital squabbles and sends regular
support to his children. (Macarubbo v. Macarubbo, AC
No. 6148, January 22, 2013)