RE: FINANCIAL AUDIT OF ATTY. RAQUEL G.

KHO
(A.M. No. P-06-2177, June 26, 2006)

FACTS: Atty. Kho is a former clerk of court of the RTC in Eastern Samar. He was found guilty of gross misconduct
for his failure to make a timely remittance of judiciary funds in his custody. Since Atty. kho malfeasance prima facie
contravened Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful
conduct), the SC ordered ordered him to show cause why he should not be disciplined as a lawyer and as anofficer
of the court. Atty. Kho explained that his failure to make a timely remittance of the cash deposited with him was
inexcusable; he maintained his contention that he kept the money in the court’s safety vault and never once used it
for his own benefit.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Kho is guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01.

HELD: YES. Even though he was in good faith, his action was a breach of his oath to obey the laws as well as the
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities and of his duties under Canon1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Rule 1.01 states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
As servants of the law and officers of the court, lawyers are required to beat the forefront of observing and
maintaining the rule of law. They are expected to make themselves exemplars worthy of emulation. The least a
lawyer can do in compliance with Canon1 is to refrain from engaging in unlawful conduct. By definition, any act or
omission contrary to law is unlawful. The presence of evil intent on the part of the lawyer is not essential in order to
bring his act or omission within the terms of Rule 1.01 which specifically prohibits lawyers from engaging in
unlawful conduct. Atty. Kho’s conduct was not only far from exemplary, it was unlawful as well. For this, he must
be called to account. Atty. Kho is ordered to pay FINE.

Complainant further alleged that respondent has not lived up to the high moral standards required of his
profession for having abandoned his legal wife, Milagros Hilado, with whom he has two children, and cohabited
with Mae Flor Galido, with whom he has four children. He also accused respondent of engaging in money-lending
business without the required authorization from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Respondent did not deny the
accusation that he abandoned his legal family to cohabit with his mistress with whom he begot four children
notwithstanding that his moral character as well as his moral fitness to be retained in the Roll of Attorneys has
been assailed. The settled rule is that betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside marriage is
considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital
vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.13 Consequently, We find no reason disturb the IBP's
finding that respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code which proscribes a lawyer
from engaging in “unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”

Case Digest: Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon, Complainant, v. Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco, Respondent |
A.C. No. 6116, 1 August 2012
January 14, 2018
Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon, Complainant, v. Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco, Respondent
A.C. No. 6116, 1 August 2012
Facts:
According to the complainant, respondent undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to
10%, of the attorney’s fees, the latter would received in representing Spouses Yap whom he referred, in
an action for partition of the estate of the spouses’ relative. Their agreement was reflected in a letter
dated 11 August 1995. However, respondent failed to pay him the agreed commission notwithstanding
receipt of attorney’s fees amounting to 17% of the total estate or about PhP 40 million. Instead, the
complainant was informed through a letter dated 16 July 1997 that Spouses Yap assumed to pay the
same after the respondent had agreed to reduce his attorney’s fees from 25% to 17%. He then
demanded the payment of his commission which the respondent ignored.

Complainant further alleged that the respondent has not lived up to the high moral standards required
of his profession for having abandoned his legal wife with whom he has two children, and cohabited with
another with whom he has four children. He also accused the respondent of engaging in money-lending
business without the required authorization from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

In his defense, the respondent disputed the 11 August 1995 letter for being a forgery and claimed that
the Spouses Yap assumed to pay.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Pefianco is in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and
Lawyer’s Oath.

Held:

Furthermore, the respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned his legal family to cohabit
with his mistress with whom he begot four children. The Supreme Court found credence to IBP’s findings
that the respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR.

The respondent was found guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath; Rule 1.01, Canon 1; and Rule 9.02,
Canon 9 of the CPR. The respondent was suspended from active practice of law for one year.

Roberto Soriano vs. Atty. Manuel Dizon

FACTS:

Atty. Manuel Dizon was driving his car under the influence of liquor when along Abanao Street, Baguio
City, a taxi driver overtook him. Incensed, Dizon tailed the taxi, pulled it over, and berated Roberto Soriano,
the taxi driver, and held him by his shirt. To stop the aggression, Soriano forced open his door, causing
Dizon to fall to the ground. Soriano tried to help Dizon get up, but the latter was about to punch him so
Soriano punched Dizon first to fend off an impending attack. Soriano prevented another attempt by Dizon
to hit him. Dizon went back to his car and got his revolver with the handle wrapped in a handkerchief. As
Soriano was handing Dizon’s eyeglasses, which he just picked up from the pavement, Dizon fired and shot
him. Soriano fell on the thigh of the accused, and the latter merely pushed him out and sped off. The
bullet hit Soriano’s neck and lacerated his carotid artery. According to the doctors who treated him, he
would have died if not for the timely medical assistance. Soriano sustained spinal cord injury causing the
left side of his body to be paralyzed, disabling him for his job as a taxi driver.

Dizon was eventually convicted for frustrated homicide but was allowed probation, conditioned on payment
of civil liabilities. However, four years after judgment was rendered, Dizon has not yet fulfilled his civil
obligation.
Soriano filed complaint before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP for Dizon’s disbarment. The
Commissioner of the CBD recommended that respondent be disbarred for having been convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude and for violating Rule. 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The IBP adopted the recommendation of the CBD and sent their resolution to the Supreme Court for review.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the crime of frustrated homicide committed by Atty. Dizon involved moral turpitude.
2. Whether or not Atty. Dizon’s guilt warrants his disbarment.

HELD:

1. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the CBD that the crime of frustrated homicide
committed by Atty. Dizon involved moral turpitude. The court defined moral turpitude as
“everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness
or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in
general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.” Moral turpitude was shown when
Atty. Dizon shot a taxi driver for no justifiable reason. His act definitely did not constitute self-
defense. It was he who was the aggressor because he first tried to punch Soriano. The latter was
merely defending himself when he counterpunched Dizon. Moreover, Dizon’s act was aggravated
with treachery when he shot Soriano when the latter was not in a position to defend himself.
Soriano was handing Dizon’s eyeglasses, which he just picked up, when he was shot. Furthermore,
Dizon tried to escape punishment by wrapping the handle of his gun in handkerchief in order not
to leave fingerprints on the gun used. Dizon’s violent reaction to a simple traffic incident indicated
his skewed morals.

2. The Supreme Court held that Dizon also violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides that “A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal processes.” Dizon failed to obey the laws of the land
through his illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm. He failed to respect legal processes through
his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities, the condition for his probation.

Dizon also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that “A
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Dizon’s violation was
exhibited when he tried to reach an out-of-court settlement with the family of Soriano but when
the negotiations failed, he made it appear as if it was the family who approached him to get a
referral to a neurosurgeon. In addition, Dizon fabricated a story that it was Soriano and two other
persons who mauled him. According to the three doctors who examined Dizon, his injuries were
so minor that his allegation was so improbable.

The court ruled that the appalling treachery and brazen dishonesty of respondent clearly showed
his unfitness to continue as a member of the bar. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege
demanding a high degree of good moral character, which is not only a condition precedent to
admission, but also a continuing requirement for the practice of law. While the power to disbar
must be exercised with great caution, and that disbarment should never be decreed when any
lesser penalty would accomplish the end desired, the court held that meting out a lesser penalty
 would be irreconcilable with the lofty aspiration that every lawyer be a shining exemplar of truth
and justice. Atty. Dizon was disbarred.

A.C. No. 9401, October 22, 2013

JOCELYN DE LEON v. ATTY. TYRONE PEDRENA

Facts: Atty. Tyrone Pedreña, a Public Attorney of Parañaque City. Jocelyn De Leon is a single mother of two minor
children. Atty. Pedreña is the counsel of Jocelyn De Leon on the case for support for the two minor children.

Records show, as established by the IBP Investigating Commissioner, on January 30, 2006 after asking about the
status of the case, Atty. Pedreña told Jocelyn De Leon then to ride with him and he would just drop Jocelyn by the
jeepney station, she refused to ride with him but Atty. Pedreña persistently told her to get in the car, and so she
acceded to his request so as not to offend him. Inside the car Atty. Pedreña rubbed the Jocelyn’s right leg with his
hand; tried to insert his finger into her firmly closed hand; grabbed her hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch
area; and pressed his finger against her private part. Jocelyn thereafter tried at all cost to unlock the car’s door and
told him categorically that she was getting off the car. Instead he accelerated a bit more but sensing her insistence
to get off, he stopped the car, and allowed her to get off.

Jocelyn de Leon then filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a complaint for disbarment or suspension
from the practice of law against Atty. Tyrone Pedreña.

IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended for his disbarment, the IBP Board of Governors however modified
the penalty to three-month suspension from practice of law. Upon Motion for Reconsideration by Atty. Pedreña
which the Board denied, they increased the penalty to six months. Thereafter transmitted records and resolution to
the Court for approval.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Pedreña is guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Ruling: Yes, Atty. Pedreña is guilty. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and conclusions of the Investigating
Commissioner. Yet, the Court consider the recommended penalty of suspension for six months not commensurate
with the gravity of the offensive acts committed.

Given the circumstances in which Atty. Pedreña committed them, his acts were not merely offensive and undesirable
but repulsive, disgraceful and grossly immoral. In this regard, it bears stressing that immoral conduct is gross when
it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when
committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of decency.

Therefore, the Court took into consideration judicial precedents on gross immoral conduct bearing on sexual
matters. The Court consider the acts committed by Atty. Pedreña to be not of the same degree as the acts committed
by the respondent lawyer in Calub v. Suller, among other cases whereby the respondent lawyer was disbarred for
raping his neighbor’s wife. Unlike in Barrientos where there was deceit and in Delos Reyes where there were threats
and taking advantage of a lawyer’s position, Atty. Pedreña did not employ any scheme to satiate his lust, but,
instead, he desisted upon the first signs of the De Leon’s firm refusal to give in to his advances.

In view of these considerations, according to the Court penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years
is fitting and just.
Donton v. Atty. Tansingco, A.C. No. 6057, June 27, 2006Facts
:Peter Donton filed a complaint against Atty. Emmanuel Tansingco, as the notary publicwho notarized the Occupancy
Agreement, and against others (Duane Stier, and EmelynManggay) for estafa thru falsification of public
document.A disbarment complaint filed by petitioner on May 20, 2003 against respondent Atty.Emmanual O. Tansingco for
serious misconduct and deliberate violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility arose when
respondent Atty. Tansingcofiled a counter-charge of perjury against Donton.Atty. Tansingco in his complaint stated
that he prepared and notarized the OccupancyAgreement at the request of Mr. Stier, an owner and long-time
resident of a real propertylocated at Cubao, Quezon City. Since Mr. Stier is a U.S. Citizen and thereby disqualified to
ownreal property in his name, he agreed that the property be transferred in the name of Mr.Donton, a Filipino.
Donton averred that Atty. Tansingco’s act of preparing the Occupancy Agreement,
despite knowledge that Stier is a foreign national, constitutes serious misconduct and is adeliberate violation of the Code.
Donton prayed that Atty. Tansingco be disbarred.Atty. Tansingco claimed that complainant Donton filed disbarment case
against himupon the instigation of complainant
’
s counsel, Atty. Bonifacio A. Aletajan, because he refused toact witness in the criminal case against Stier and Manggay.In
Resolution dated October 1, 2003, the court referred the matter to the IBP forinvestigation, report and
recommendation and for which the latter, through CommissionerMilagros San Juan of the IBP Commission of
Discipline recommended suspension from thepractice of law for two years and cancellation of his commission as Notary
Public.The IBP Board of Governors adopted, with modification, the Report and recommendedrespondent
’
s suspension from the practice of law for six months.The report was then forwarded to SC as mandated under Section 12(b),
Rule 139-B ofthe Rules of Court.
Issue
: Whether or Not Atty. Tansingco is guilty of serious misconduct?
Ruling
: Yes. Atty. Tansingco is liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code. TheCourt ruled that a lawyer should not
render any service or give advice to any client which willinvolve defiance of the laws which he is bound to
uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists aclient in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating law commits an act which
justifiesdisciplinary action against the lawyer.Atty. Tansingco had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he
violated his oath and the Codewhen he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law against
foreignownership of lands. Atty. Tansingco used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end.Such an act amounts
to malpractice in his office, for which he may be suspended. As such,respondent is being suspended for six (6)
months.