PROBLEM AREAS AND LEGAL ETHICS

CASE DIGESTS

1. Erlinda Abragan vs Atty. Maximo Rodriguez

AC No. 4346 – April 02, 2002
Facts:
 Petitioners hired the services of the respondent and the latter, represented the former in the
case for Forcible Entry with Petition for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Damages. After
the case was finally won, and a Writ of Execution was issued by the Honorable, the same
respondent lawyer represented the petitioners herein.
 When respondent counsel disturbed the association (Cagayan de Oro Landless Residents
Association, Inc.), to which all the complainants belong, by surreptitiously selling some
rights to other persons without the consent of the petitioners herein, they decided to sever
their client-lawyer relationship.
 Petitioners herein later filed an indirect contempt against Sheriff Fernando Loncion et al.,
engaging the services of Atty. Loreto O. Salva, Sr., an alleged former student of law of Atty.
Maximo Rodriguez. Atty. Maximo Rodriguez, in the Indirect Contempt Case, represented
and actively took up the defense of Fernando Loncion et al.
 Petitioners counsel, Atty. SALVA SR., later on withdrew the case of Indirect Contempt upon
the suggestion of Atty. Maximo Rodriguez; and instead, filed the Motion for the Issuance of
an Alias Writ of Execution.
 Later, herein respondent, without consulting the herein Petitioners who are all poor and
ignorant of court procedures and the law, filed in behalf of the plaintiffs a Motion to
Withdraw Plaintiffs' Exhibits in the Civil case.
Issue:
 Whether or not the attorney has adhered to proper professional standard.
Held:
 No. Respondent clearly violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except
by written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts.
 A lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to
contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose.
 The obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his secrets or
confidence forbids also the subsequent acceptance of retainers or employment from others
in matters adversely affecting any interest of the client with respect to which confidence has
been reposed.
 Because of his divided allegiance, respondent has eroded, rather than enhanced, the public
perception of the legal profession. His divided loyalty constitutes malpractice for which he
may be suspended, following Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of Attorneys by Supreme Court,
grounds therefor. – Any 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 wilful disobedience appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do.
 2. Potenciano Malvar vs Atty. Freddie Feir
AC No. 11871 – March 05, 2018
Facts:
 A complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Freddie B. Feir alleging that he
received threatening letters from Atty. Feir stating that should he fail to pay the sum of
P18,000,000.00 to his client, Rogelio M. Amurao, a criminal complaint for Falsification of
Public Documents and Estafa, a civil complaint for Annulment of Transfer Certificate of
Title, and an administrative complaint for the revocation of his license as a physician would
be filed against him.
 For his part, Feir countered that the said letters merely demanded Malvar to explain how
certain parcels of land Malvar was purchasing from his client, Amurao, were already
registered in Mal var' s name when Amurao had never executed a Deed of Absolute Sale
transferring the same.
Issue:
 Whether or not Complainant Malvar’s allegation against Atty. Feir constitutes a violation of
the professional standard by the latter.
Held:
 An Attorney may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as
an attorney and counselor, which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court.
 The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall represent his client
with zeal within the bounds of the law." Moreover, Rule 19.01 thereof states that "a lawyer
shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall
not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to
obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. Under this Rule, a lawyer should
not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the
adversaries of his client designed to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or
withdraw their own cases against the lawyer's client.
 The Court, however, does not find merit in Malvar's contention. Blackmail is defined as the
extortion of money from a person by threats of accusation or exposure or opposition in the
public prints, obtaining of value from a person as a condition of refraining from making an
accusation against him, or disclosing some secret calculated to operate to his prejudice.
 In the instant case, it is undisputed that Malvar is the buyer of the properties subject herein
and that Amurao, F eir' s client, is one of the owners of the same. It is also undisputed that
said subject properties are already registered under Malvar's name. But according to
Amurao, he has yet to receive the remaining balance of its purchase price. To the Court,
this fact alone is enough reason for Amurao to seek the legal advice of Feir and for Feir to
send the demand letters to Malvar. As the IBP held, these demand letters were based on a
legitimate cause or issue, which is the alleged failure of Mal var to pay the full amount of the
consideration in the sale transaction as well as the alleged falsified Deed of Sale used to
transfer ownership over the lots subject of the instant case.

3. Romeo Zarcilla vs Atty. Jose Quesada

AC No. 7186 – March 13, 2018
Facts:
 Complainant Zarcilla executed an Affidavit-Complaint against respondent Atty. Quesada
and complainant Marita Bumanglag, among others, for falsification of public documents
alleging that Bumanglag conspired with certain spouses Maximo Quezada and Gloria
Quezada (Spouses Quezada) and Atty. Quesada to falsify a Deed of Sale by making it
 appear that his parents sold a parcel of land in favor of the Spouses Quezada despite
knowledge that his parents were already deceased at that time.
 All the respondents in the said falsification case, except for Atty. Quesada, also filed their
respective counter-affidavits where they reiterated Bumanglag's admission that she was the
one who sold the subject lot to the Spouses Quezada.
 In a Resolution, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor held Bumanglag only to undergo
trial. All other respondents, including Atty. Quesada who did not even file his counter-
affidavit, were exonerated for insufficiency of evidence.
 Zarcilla and Bumanglag filed their respective motions for reconsideration, but both were
denied. Consequently, Bumanglag was indicted for four counts of falsification of public
documents before. Zarcilla later on withdrew said cases when he learned that Bumanglag
was not aware of the contents of her counter-affidavit when she signed·the same. He also
found out that Bumanglag was deceived by her co-accused, including Atty. Quesada. Thus,
upon the motion of Zarcilla, the Court dismissed all falsification cases against Bumanglag.
 It appearing that Atty. Quesada failed to comply with the numerous Resolutions of the Court
to pay the fine imposed upon him and submit comment on the complaint against him, the
Court ordered for his arrest and detention. Later, the Court referred the matter to the IBP for
investigation, report and recommendation.
 During the mandatory conference, Defendant, again, continuously failed to appear before
the proceeding. Hence the IBP-CBD recommended that Respondent be disbarred from
practice of law.
Issue:
 Whether or not the falsification case justifies the disbarment of herein Respondent.
Held:
 A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal, but is rather
an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. The issue to be determined is
whether respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation of
justice. Hence, an administrative proceeding for disbarment continues despite the
desistance of a complainant, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same, or in this
case, the failure of respondent to answer the charges against him despite numerous
notices. However, in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of
proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint.
 A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is
the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the
contents and the truth of what are stated therein. Without the appearance of the person
who actually executed the document in question, the notary public would be unable to verify
the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the
document is the party's free act or deed. Here, Atty. Quesada's act of notarizing the deed of
sale appeared to have been done to perpetuate a fraud. This is more evident when he
certified in the acknowledgment thereof that he knew the vendors and knew them to be the
same persons who executed the document. When he then solemnly declared that such
appeared before him and acknowledged to him that the document was the vendor's free act
and deed · despite the fact that the vendors cannot do so as they were already deceased,
Atty. Quesada deliberately made false representations, and was not merely negligent.

4. Eugenio Cortez vs Atty. Hernando Cortes

AC No. 9119 – March 12, 2018
Facts:
 Complainant alleged that he engaged the services of Atty. Cortes as his counsel in an
illegal dismissal case against Philippine Explosives Corporation (PEC). He further alleged
 that he and Atty. Cortes had a handshake agreement on a 12% contingency fee as and by
way of attorney's fees.
 Atty. Cortes prosecuted his claim for illegal dismissal which was decided in favour of
complainant. The CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC ordering PEC to pay Complainant.
To which the former issued three checks.
 Upon maturity of the checks Complainant, together with Atty. Cortes, went to the Bank to
deposit the checks. Later, when complainant was about to withdraw some cash, Atty.
Cortes ordered the bank teller to hold off the transaction because allegedly, 50% of said
payment was his, since they had agreed that they shall split the reward with a 50-50 basis.
Issue:
 Whether or not the acts complained of constitute misconduct on the part of Atty. Cortes,
which would subject him to disciplinary action.
Held:
 A contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction. It is generally recognized as valid
and binding, but must be laid down in, an express contract. The amount of contingent fee
agreed upon by the parties is subject to the stipulation that counsel will be paid for his legal
services only if the suit or litigation prospers. A much higher compensation is allowed as
contingent fee in consideration of the risk that the lawyer may get nothing if the suit fails.
Contracts of this nature are pennitted because they redound to the benefit of the poor client
and the lawyer especially in cases where the client has meritorious cause of action, but no
means with which to pay for legal services unless he can, with the sanction of law, make a
contract for a contingent fee to be paid out of the proceeds of the litigation.
 In this case, We note that the parties did not have an express contract as regards the
payment of fees. Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer
shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. In no case, however, must a lawyer be allowed
to recover more than what is reasonable, pursuant to Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court.

5. Romeo Almario vs Atty. Dominica Llera-Agno

AC No. 10689 – January 08, 2018
Facts:
 Complainant filed a case for Judicial Partition with Delivery of Certificate of Title against
therein Defendants Angelita Barrameda and several other persons. It alleged that
complainant is the sole surviving registered owner of a parcel of land and that the
defendants therein are co-owners of that parcel of land by virtue of intestate succession.
 It is complainant’s contention, among others, that in the process of notarizing the SPA,
respondent lawyer also accepted a Community Tax Certificate (CTC), which is no longer
considered a competent evidence of identity pursuant to the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice; and that, therefore, respondent lawyer violated Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Issue:
 Whether or not complainant’s contention is correct.
Held:
 Yes. According to the Investigating Commissioner, it was evident that respondent lawyer
notarized the SPA despite knowing that Mallari, one of the affiants therein, did not
personally appear before her.
 The importance of the affiant's personal appearance when a document is notarized is
underscored by Section 1, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The provisions of
the Rules of Notarial Practices mandate the notary public to require the physical or personal
presence of the person/s who executed a document, before notarizing the same, In other
 words, a document should not be notarized unless the person/s who is/are executing it
is/are personally or physically present before the notary public. The personal and physical
presence of the parties to the deed is necessary to enable the notary public to verify the
genuineness of the signature/s of the affiant/s therein and the due execution of the
document.

6. Isidra Ting-Dumali vs Atty. Rolando Torres

AC No. 5161 – April 14, 2004
Facts:
 Complainant is one of the six children of the late spouses Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting.
Her siblings are Marcelina T. Rivera; Miriam T. Saria; Felicisima T. Torres, who is married
to herein respondent; Vicente Ting, Jr.; and Eliseo Ting. Their parents died intestate and
left several parcels of land.
 According to the complainant, respondent took advantage of his relationship with her and
her brothers and used his profession to deprive them of what was lawfully due them even if
it involved the commission of an illegal, unlawful, or immoral act. Accordingly, respondent
participated in, consented to, and failed to advise against, the perjury committed by his wife
Felicisima and his sister-in-law Miriam when they executed a Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate, wherein the two made it appear that they were the sole heirs of the
late spouses knowing fully well that the same was false.
 Respondent also participated in, consented to, and failed to advise against, the forgery of
complainant’s signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement involving a Lot
when he knew that she was in Italy at that time working as an overseas contract worker.
Issue:
 Whether or not Respondent is morally and legally unfit to remain in the legal profession.
Held:
 This oath to which all lawyers have subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate
themselves to the pursuit of justice is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law to
be forgotten afterwards; nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that
lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times. By swearing the lawyer’s oath, they
become guardians of truth and the rule of law, as well as instruments in the fair and
impartial dispensation of justice. This oath is firmly echoed and reflected in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
 Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer owes candor, fairness, and
good faith to the court. He shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. This Rule was
clearly and openly violated by the respondent when he permitted Marcelina to falsely testify
that she had no siblings aside from Felicisima and when he offered such testimony in the
petition for reconstitution of the title involving Lot 1605.
 The respondent has sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and legally unfit to remain
in the exclusive and honorable fraternity of the legal profession. In his long years as a
lawyer, he must have forgotten his sworn pledge as a lawyer. This oath to which all lawyers
have subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of justice is not
a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law to be forgotten afterwards; nor is it mere
words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at
all times. By swearing the lawyer’s oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law,
as well as instruments in the fair and impartial dispensation of justice.

6.A. Re: in the matter of the petition for reinstatement of Rolando S. Torres
A.C. No. 5161 – July 11, 2017
Facts:
 More than ten (10) years from his disbarment, Torres filed a seeking judicial clemency from
the Court to reinstate him in the Roll of Attorneys. In a Resolution, the Court denied the
petition, holding that Torres had failed to provide substantial proof that he had reformed
himself, especially considering the absence of showing that he had reconciled or attempted
to reconcile with his sister-in-law, the original complainant in the disbarment case against
him; nor was it demonstrated that he was remorseful over the fraudulent acts he had
committed against Complainant, Isidra Ting-Dumali.
Issue:
 Whether or Petitioner may be reinstated to practice the legal profession.
Held:
 The principle which should hold true for lawyers, being officers of the court, is that judicial
clemency, as an act of mercy removing any disqualification, should be balanced with the
preservation of public confidence in the courts. Thus, the Court will grant it only if there is a
showing that it is merited. Proof of reformation and a showing of potential and promise are
indispensable. In Re: The Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Rolando S. Torres as
a member of the Philippine Bar,24 the Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving
requests for judicial clemency, to wit:
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should
not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent
members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding
of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to
a strong presumption of non-reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a
period of reform.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive
years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem
himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or
legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal
system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public
service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.

7. Rosa Paras vs Atty. Justo Paras

AC No. 5333 – October 18, 2000
Facts:
 Rosa Paras charged her husband with dishonesty and falsification of public documents,
harassment and intimidation, and immorality for siring a child with another woman.
Respondent denied the allegations, contending that his wife, in cahoots with her family, is
out to destroy and strip him of his share in their multi-million conjugal assets.
 It was also alleged that respondent obtained loans from certain banks in the name of
complainant by counterfeiting complainant's signature, falsely making it appear that
complainant was the applicant for said loans. Thereafter, he carted away and
misappropriated the proceeds of the loans and to guarantee the loans, respondent
mortgaged some personal properties belonging to the conjugal partnership without the
consent of complainant.
 In his Answer, respondent interposed that his wife executed in his favor a Special Power of
Attorney to negotiate for an agricultural or crop loan authorizing him to borrow money and
 apply for and secure any agricultural or crop loan for sugar cane from the Bank, and that his
wife filed against him a string of cases for falsification of public documents because he
intends to disinherit his children and bequeath his inchoate share in the conjugal properties
to his own mother.
 Respondent, however, admits that he, his mother and sister, are solicitous and hospitable
to his alleged concubine, Ms. Jocelyn Ching and her daughter, Cyndee Rose (named after
his own deceased daughter), by allowing them to stay in their house and giving them some
financial assistance, because they pity Ms. Ching, a secretary in his law office, who was
deserted by her boyfriend after getting her pregnant.
 No actual hearing was conducted as the parties agreed to merely submit their respective
memoranda, depositions, and other pieces of evidence attached to their pleadings. The
CBD held that the dismissal of the criminal cases against respondent for falsification and
use of falsified documents and for concubinage will not bar the filing of an administrative
case for disbarment against him. In a criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is
required for conviction, while in an administrative complaint, only a preponderance of
evidence is necessary.
Issue:
 Whether or not Respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law.
Held:
 It is a time-honored rule that good moral character is not only a condition precedent to
admission to the practice of law. Its continued possession is also essential for remaining in
the practice of law. In the case at hand, respondent has fallen below the moral bar when he
forged his wife's signature in the bank loan documents, and, sired a daughter with a woman
other than his wife. However, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and
only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the
lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. Disbarment should never be
decreed where any lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, could accomplish the
end desired

7.A. Rosa Paras vs Atty. Justo Paras

AC No. 4947 – February 04, 2005

Facts:
 Complainant alleged that the children of Ledesma de Jesus Paras-Sumabong executed a
Special Power of Attorney prepared by the respondent to sell parcels of land giving
authority to their mother to sell the subject real properties previously registered in the name
of the heirs of Vicente Paras wherein respondent was one of the signatories therein.
 Complainant alleged that on the basis of said Special Power of Attorney, Ledesma J.
Paras-Sumabang executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Aurora Dy-Yap over the
subject real property which was with the respondent’s full knowledge since he was residing
at the house of Soledad Dy-Yap at that time and from that time, the Yap family had been in
possession of the subject real property up to the time of the filing of this case.
 Complainant’s attention was called to the fact that a free patent title to the aforesaid
property was issued in respondent’s name. Complainant alleged that the aforementioned
application was made by the respondent without her knowledge and consent and that
respondent surreptitiously obtained a free patent title over real properties which had been
previously sold by his own mother to Aurora D. Yap and now still under the control and
possession of complainant’s natural family.
 In his Comment, respondent alleged that complainant was obviously not the owner of the
properties and considering that the properties were applied for free patent titling during their
marital union prior to its breakage.
 Respondent further alleged that none of the Yaps including complainant being native or
natural born Filipinos muchless Aurora D. Yap who was said to be already an American
citizen; complainant and her family; the Yaps prevailed upon him to apply for free patent
over said questioned properties for the reason that respondent had already occupied the
properties; introduced improvements thereon.
Issue:
 Whether or not Complainant is the proper party to file the disbarment case against
Respondent.
Held:
 An attorney may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as
an attorney and counsellor which include the statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. These statutory grounds are so broad as to cover practically
any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity. It is a settled rule that the
enumeration of the statutory grounds for disciplinary action is not exclusive and a lawyer
may be disciplined on grounds other than those specifically provided in the law. Generally a
lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any 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, or an unfit or unsafe
person to enjoy the privileges and to manage the business of others in the capacity of an
attorney, or for conduct which tends to bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it
in the favorable opinion of the public.
 The practice of law is not a right but merely a privilege bestowed by the State upon those
who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for
the conferment of such privilege. One of those requirements is the observance of honesty
and candor. In the recent case of Bergonia v. Merrera, the Court ruled that candor in all
their dealings is the very essence of a practitioner’s honorable membership in the legal
profession. Lawyers are required to act with the highest standard of truthfulness, fair play
and nobility in the conduct of litigation and in their relations with their clients, the opposing
parties, the other counsels and the courts. They are bound by their oath to speak the truth
and to conduct themselves according to the best of their knowledge and discretion, and
with fidelity to the courts and their clients.
 Anent his argument questioning the status of complainant and her family as natural born
citizens, this Court holds that the instant case is not the proper forum to address such
issue. Furthermore, as correctly held by the Investigating Commissioner, it is immaterial as
to who instituted the complaint for as long as there was a violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Likewise, any other action which the parties may make against
each other has no material bearing in this case. For, it must be remembered that
administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from
and may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.

7.B. Rosa Paras vs Atty. Justo Paras

AC No. 4947 – June 07, 2007
Facts:
 Herein petitioner-movant filed a verified Petition praying for the disbarment of her estranged
husband respondent Atty. Justo J. Paras alleging acts of deceit, malpractice, grave
misconduct, grossly immoral conduct and violation of oath as a lawyer committed by the
latter.
 Seven years later, the Court issued a Resolution finding Atty. Paras guilty of committing a
falsehood in violation of his lawyer's oath and of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Thus, the Court resolved to suspend Atty. Paras from the practice of law for a period of one
(1) year, with a warning that commission of the same or similar offense in the future will
result in the imposition of a more severe penalty.
 Per records, the aforesaid Resolution was received by Atty. Paras a month later.
Thereafter, he immediately filed a Motion for Reconsideration. During the pendency of Atty.
Paras' motion for reconsideration, complainant-movant filed with the Court the instant
Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment, alleging thereunder, inter alia, that Atty. Paras
violated the suspension order earlier issued by the Court with his continued practice of law.
 In time, the Court issued a Resolution denying for lack of merit Atty. Paras' motion for
reconsideration. In the same resolution, the Court required Atty. Paras to comment on
petitioner-movant's Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment.
 After more than a year, Atty. Paras filed with the Court a Manifestation, stating that he had
completely and faithfully served his one (1) year suspension from the practice of law from
the day after he received the denial resolution on his motion for reconsideration.
 It appearing that Atty. Paras failed to file a comment on the Motion for Contempt and/or
Disbarment, the Court issued another Resolution requiring Atty. Paras to show cause why
he should not be held in contempt of court for such failure and to comply with the said
resolution within ten (10) days from receipt.
Issue:
 Whether or not Respondent should be penalized for failing to comply with Court Order.
Held:
 The Court has repeatedly explained and stressed that the purpose of disbarment is not
meant as a punishment to deprive an attorney of a means of livelihood but is rather
intended to protect the courts and the public from members of the bar who have become
unfit and unworthy to be part of the esteemed and noble profession. Likewise, the purpose
of the exercise of the power to cite for contempt is to safeguard the functions of the court to
assure respect for court orders by attorneys who, as much as judges, are responsible for
the orderly administration of justice. There is, however, no sufficient basis to support
petitioner-movant's allegation that Atty. Paras violated the Court's suspension order, what
with the fact that Atty. Paras himself took the initiative to inform the lower courts of his one-
year suspension from law practice.
 It is clear, however, that all lawyers are expected to recognize the authority of the Supreme
Court and obey its lawful processes and orders. Despite errors which one may impute on
the orders of the Court, these must be respected, especially by the bar or the lawyers who
are themselves officers of the courts. It is well to emphasize again that a resolution of the
Supreme Court is not be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with
partially, inadequately or selectively. Court orders are to be respected not because the
justices or judges who issue them should be respected, but because of the respect and
consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch of the government. This is
absolutely essential if our government is to be a government of laws and not of men.

7.C. Rosa Paras vs Atty. Justo Paras

G.R. No. 147824 – August 02, 2007
Facts:
 Twenty nine years after their marriage Rosa filed with the Regional Trial Court a complaint
for annulment of her marriage with Justo, under Article 36 of the Family Code. She alleged
that Justo is psychologically incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of marriage.
 Herein petitioner later filed a Petition praying for the disbarment of her estranged husband
respondent Atty. Justo J. Paras alleging acts of deceit, malpractice, grave misconduct,
grossly immoral conduct and violation of oath as a lawyer committed by the latter.
 Seven years later, the Court issued a Resolution (AC No. 5333) finding Atty. Paras guilty of
committing a falsehood in violation of his lawyer's oath and of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Thus, the Court resolved to suspend Atty. Paras from the practice of law for
a period of one (1) year
Issue:
 Whether the factual findings of this Court in A.C. No. 5333 are conclusive on the present
case.
Held:
 Accordingly, one’s unfitness as a lawyer does not automatically mean one’s unfitness as a
husband or vice versa. The yardsticks for such roles are simply different. This is why the
disposition in a disbarment case cannot be conclusive on an action for declaration of nullity
of marriage. While Rosa’s charges sufficiently proved Justo’s unfitness as a lawyer,
however, they may not establish that he is psychologically incapacitated to perform his
duties as a husband. In the disbarment case, the real question for determination is whether
or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Its purpose is to
protect the court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court. On the other
hand, in an action for declaration of nullity of marriage based on the ground of
psychological incapacity, the question for determination is whether the guilty party suffers a
grave, incurable, and pre-existing mental incapacity that renders him truly incognitive of the
basic marital covenants. Its purpose is to free the innocent party from a meaningless
marriage. In this case, as will be seen in the following discussion, Justo’s acts are not
sufficient to conclude that he is psychologically incapacitated, albeit such acts really fall
short of what is expected from a lawyer.

7.D. Rosario Mecaral vs Atty. Danilo Velasquez

A.C. No. 5333 – March 13, 2017
Facts:
 Rosario T. Mecaral charged Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez before the IBP-CBD with Gross
Misconduct and Gross Immoral Conduct alleging that after respondent hired her as his
secretary, she became his lover and common-law wife. Later, respondent brought her to
the mountainous area where he left her with a religious group known as the Faith Healers
Association of the Philippines, of which he was the leader. Although he visited her daily, his
visits eventually became scarce, prompting her to return home. Furious, respondent
brought her back and, on his instruction, his followers tortured, brainwashed and injected
her with drugs. When she tried to escape, the members of the group tied her spread-eagled
to a bed. Made to wear only a T-shirt and diapers and fed stale food and was guarded 24
hours a day by the women members including a certain Bernardita Tadeo.
 Despite respondent’s receipt of the Order of the Director for Bar Discipline for him to submit
his Answer within 15 days from receipt thereof, and his expressed intent to properly make
his defense in a verified pleading, he did not file any Answer.
Issue:
 Whether or not respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law.
Held:
 The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the state upon those who show
that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the
conferment of such privilege. When a lawyer’s moral character is assailed, such that his
right to continue practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, it behooves him to meet
 the charges squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the investigating body and
this Court, that he is morally fit to keep his name in the Roll of Attorneys. Respondent has
not discharged the burden. He never attended the hearings before the IBP to rebut the
charges brought against him, suggesting that they are true. Despite his letter manifesting
that he would come up with his defense in a verified pleading, he never did.

7.E. Rosa Para vs Atty. Justo Paras

A.C. No. 8392 – June 29, 2010
Facts:
 Earlier, the Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for six (6) months for
falsifying his wife's signature in bank documents and other related loan instruments, and for
one (1) year for immorality and abandonment of his family, with the penalties to be served
simultaneously. Respondent moved for reconsideration but the Court denied it with finality.
 Later, complainant filed a Motion6 to declare in contempt and disbar respondent and his
associate, Atty. Richard R. Enojo (Atty. Enojo), alleging that respondent continued to
practice law, and that Atty. Enojo signed a pleading prepared by respondent, in violation of
the suspension order. Moreover, complainant claimed that respondent appeared before a
court, thereby violating the suspension order.
Issue:
 Whether or not Respondent should be held administratively liable for his failure to follow teh
suspension meted to him by the Court.
Held:
 Generally, the IBP's formal investigation is a mandatory requirement which may not be
dispensed with, except for valid and compelling reasons, as it is essential to accord both
parties an opportunity to be heard on the issues raised. Absent a valid fact-finding
investigation, the Court usually remands the administrative case to the IBP for further
proceedings. However, in light of the foregoing circumstances, as well as respondent's own
admission that he resumed practicing law even without a Court order lifting his suspension,
the Court finds a compelling reason to resolve the matters raised before it even without the
IBP's factual findings and recommendation thereon.
 According to jurisprudence, the practice of law embraces any activity, in or out of court,
which requires the application of law, as well as legal principles, practice or procedure[,]
and calls for legal knowledge, training, and experience. During the suspension period and
before the suspension is lifted, a lawyer must desist from practicing law. It must be
stressed, however, that a lawyer's suspension is not automatically lifted upon the lapse of
the suspension period. The lawyer must submit the required documents and wait for an
order from the Court lifting the suspension before he or she resumes the practice of law.
 In this case, the OBC correctly pointed out that respondent's suspension period became
effective on May 23, 2001 and lasted for one (1) year, or until May 22, 2002. Therafter,
respondent filed a motion for the lifting of his suspension. However, soon after this filing and
without waiting for a Court order approving the same, respondent admitted to accepting
new clients and cases, and even working on an amicable settlement for his client with the
Department of Agrarian Reform. Indubitably, respondent engaged in the practice of law
without waiting for the Court order lifting the suspension order against him, and thus, he
must be held administratively liable therefor.

8. Luzviminda Cerilla vs Atty. Samuel Lezama

AC No. 11438 – October 03, 2017
Facts:
 Complainant stated that she is one of the co-owners of a parcel of land in Negros Oriental.
Said property was registered in the name of Fulquerio Gringio. It was later sold by his sole
heir, Pancracio A. Gringio, to the heirs of Fabio Solmayor, including the herein complainant.
Being a co-owner of the subject property, complainant engaged the services of respondent
to file an unlawful detainer case against Carmelita S. Garlito.
 At that time, the complainant was working at Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City, and for this
reason, she executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of the respondent to
represent and act on her behalf in filing a case of ejectment against Lita Garlito and appear
on her behalf during the preliminary conference and to make stipulations of facts,
admissions and other matters for the early resolution of the same including amicable
settlement of the case if necessary.
 Complainant said that on the basis of the SPA, respondent entered into a compromise
agreement with the defendant in the unlawful detainer case to sell the subject property of
the complainant without her consent or a special authority from her.
 Respondent contended that the SPA given to him by the complainant was sufficient
authority to enter into the said compromise agreement. Thus, the complaint should only be
anchored on the most serious misconduct of lawyers, which respondent does not believe is
present in this case.
Issue:
 Whether or not respondent acted beyond the scope of his authority and should be dealt
with accordingly.
Held:
 Respondent entered into the Compromise Agreement on the basis of the SPA granted to
him by complainant. The SPA authorized respondent to represent complainant in filing the
ejectment case and to appear on [complainant's] behalf during the preliminary conference
in said ejectment case and to make stipulations of fact, admissions and other matters for
the early resolution of the case, including amicable settlement of the case if necessary."
Nowhere is it expressly stated in the SPA that respondent is authorized to compromise on
the sale of the property or to sell the property of complainant.
 It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for the law and legal processes. They are expected to be in the forefront in
the observance and maintenance of the rule of law. This duty carries with it the obligation to
be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments, recent
enactments and jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal
principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge
competently and diligently their obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may
become susceptible to committing mistakes.

9. Laurence Punla vs Atty. Eleonor Maravilla-Ona

AC No. 11149 – August 15, 2017
Facts:
 Complainants met respondent when they had a Deed of Sale notarized. Subsequently, they
broached the idea to respondent that they intend (sic) to file two (2) annulment cases and
they wanted respondent to represent them wherein respondent committed to finish the two
(2) annulment cases within six (6) months from full payment.
 On the commitment of respondent that she will finish the cases in six (6) months,
complainants followed up their cases about 6 months from their last payment. However,
they were ignored by respondent. Later, complainants sent a letter to respondent
demanding that the payment they gave her be refunded in full within five (5) days from
receipt of the letter.
 The IBP directed respondent to file her Answer within 15 days. No answer was filed. A
Mandatory Conference/Hearing was set but respondent did not appear, so it was reset to
on a later date. However, respondent again failed to attend the mandatory
conference/hearing as scheduled. Hence, in an Order, the mandatory conference was
terminated and both parties were directed to submit their verified position papers.
Issue:
 Whether or not Respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:
 There is clear violation of Canons 17 and 18, Canons of Professional Responsibility.
CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Of particular concern is Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which requires a lawyer to always keep the client informed of the developments in his case
and to respond whenever the client requests for information. Respondent has miserably
failed to comply with this Canon.
 It cannot be stressed enough that once a lawyer takes up the cause of a client, that lawyer
is duty-bound to serve the latter with competence and zeal, especially when he/she accepts
it for a fee. The lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed upon him/her.13 Moreover, a lawyer's failure to return upon
demand the monies he/she holds for his/her client gives rise to the presumption that he/she
has appropriated the said monies for his/her own use, to the prejudice and in violation of
the trust reposed in him/her by his/her client.

10. Elibena Cabiles vs Atty. Leandro Cedo

AC No. 10245 – August 16, 2015
Facts:
 According to Elibena, she engaged the services of respondent lawyer to handle an illegal
dismissal case. where therein respondents were Elibena's business partners. Respondent
lawyer was paid for drafting therein respondents' position paper and for his every
appearance in the NLRC hearings.
 During the hearing, only Danilo Ligbos, the complainant therein, showed up and submitted
his Reply. On the other hand respondent lawyer did not file a Reply for his clients, despite
being paid his appearance fee earlier.
 Later, the Labor Arbiter ruled for Danilo, and ordered the clients of respondent lawyer to
pay Danilo backwages, separation pay, and 13th month pay. Worse still, the NLRC likewise
dismissed the appeal of the clients of respondent lawyer for failure to post the required cash
or surety bond, an essential requisite in perfecting an appeal.
 According to Elibena, respondent lawyer misled them by claiming that it was Danilo who
was absent during the said hearing; and that moreover, because of the failure to submit a
Reply, they were prevented from presenting the cash vouchers that would refute Danilo's
claim that he was a regular employee.
Issue:
 Whether or not Respondent was grossly negligent in representing his clients.
Held:
 Bar Matter 850 mandates continuing legal education for IBP members as an additional
requirement to enable them to practice law. This is ''to ensure that throughout their career,
they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and
enhance the standards of the practice of law." Non-compliance with the MCLE requirement
subjects the lawyer to be listed as a delinquent IBP member. In Arnado v. Adaza, we
 administratively sanctioned therein respondent lawyer for his non-compliance with four
MCLE Compliance Periods. We stressed therein that in accordance with Section 12(d) of
the MCLE Implementing Regulations, even if therein respondent attended an MCLE
Program covered by the Fourth Compliance Period, his attendance therein would only
cover his deficiency for the First Compliance Period, and he was still considered delinquent
and had to make up for the other compliance periods. Consequently, we declared
respondent lawyer therein a delinquent member of the IBP and suspended him from law
practice for six months or until he had fully complied with all the MCLE requirements for all
his non-compliant periods.
 In the present case, respondent lawyer failed to indicate in the pleadings filed in the said
labor case the number and date of issue of his MCLE Certificate of Compliance for the
Third Compliance Period, i.e., from April 15, 2007 to April 14, 2010, considering that NLRC
NCR Case No. 00-11-16153-08 had been pending in 2009. In fact, upon checking with the
MCLE Office, Elibena discovered that respondent lawyer had failed to comply with the three
MCLE compliance periods. For this reason, there is no doubt that respondent lawyer
violated Canon 5.
 The circumstances of this case indicated that respondent lawyer was guilty of gross
negligence for failing to exert his utmost best in prosecuting and in defending the interest
of his client. Hence, he is guilty of the following:
- CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him.
- CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
- Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
 Furthermore, respondent lawyer's act of receiving an acceptance fee for legal services, only
to subsequently fail to render such service at the appropriate time, was a clear violation of
Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Respondent lawyer did not diligently and fully attend to the cases that he accepted,
although he had been fully compensated for them. First off, respondent lawyer never
successfully refuted Elibena's claim that he was paid in advance his Php2,000.00
appearance fee on March 21, 2009 for the scheduled hearing of the labor case on March
26, 2009, during which he was absent. Furthermore, although respondent lawyer had
already received the sum of Php45,000.00 to file an unjust vexation case, he failed to
promptly file the appropriate complaint therefor with the City Prosecutor's Office, in
consequence of which the crime prescribed, resulting in the dismissal of the case.
 A lawyer is expected to exert his best efforts and utmost ability to protect and defend his
client's cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client likewise serves the ends of
justice. However, in the two cases for which he was duly compensated, respondent lawyer
was grossly remiss in his duties as counsel. He exhibited lack of professionalism, even
indifference, in the defense and protection of Elibena's rights which resulted in her losing
the two cases.

11. Spouses Geraldy and Lilibeth Victory vs Atty. Marian Mercado

AC No. 10580 – July 12, 2017
Facts:
 Spouses Victory were enticed by respondent to enter into a financial transaction with her
with a promise of good monetary returns. As respondent is a lawyer and a person of
reputation, Spouses Victory entrusted their money to respondent to invest, manage, and
administer into some financial transactions that would earn good profit for the parties.
 The investment transactions went well for the first 10 months. Spouses Victory received the
agreed return of profit. Some of such financial transactions were covered by Memoranda of
Agreement. Later on, respondent became evasive in returning to Spouses Victory the
money that the latter were supposed to receive as part of the agreement. Respondent failed
to settle and account the money entrusted to her by Spouses Victory.
 Spouses Victory filed a criminal complaint for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.
22. After the filing of said criminal case, respondent met with Spouses Victory. Respondent
proposed to reduce her obligation in staggered payments, to which Spouses Victory
agreed. Respondent then issued three postdated checks. However, said checks bounced.
Issue:
 Whether or not respondent be held administratively liable based on the allegations in the
pleadings of all parties on record.
Held:
 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The bar
should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as honesty and fair dealing. A
lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to
the bar, to the courts and to his clients.
 As a lawyer, respondent is expected to act with the highest degree of integrity and fair
dealing. She is expected to maintain not only legal proficiency, but also a high standard of
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the people's faith and confidence in the
judicial system is ensured. She must, at all times, faithfully perform her duties to society, to
the bar, to the courts and to her clients, which include prompt payment of financial
obligations.

12. Flordeliza Madria vs Atty. Carlos Rivera

AC No. 11256 – March 07, 2017
Facts:
 Complainant Madria consulted the respondent to inquire about the process of annulling her
marriage with her husband. After giving the details of her marriage and other facts relevant
to the annulment, the respondent told her that she had a strong case, and guaranteed that
he could obtain for her the decree of annulment.
 Complainant later returned to the respondent's office and on that occasion, he showed her
the petition for annulment, and asked her to sign it. She paid to him an initial payment in
which he acknowledged the payment through a handwritten receipt.
 Complainant again went to the respondent's office sometime later to deliver another partial
payment, and to follow up on the case. The respondent advised her to just wait for the
resolution of her complaint, and assured her that she did not need to appear in court. He
explained that all the court notices and processes would be sent to his office, and that he
would regularly apprise her of the developments. Subsequently, she returned to his office to
complete her payment, and he also issued his receipt for the payment.
 Complainant’s daughter Vanessa thereafter made several follow­ups on behalf of her
mother. Later, respondent informed the complainant that her petition had been granted.
Thus, Vanessa went to the respondent's office and received a copy of the trial court's
decision signed by Judge Lyliha Abella Aquino.
 Believing that the documents were authentic, the complainant used the purported decision
and certificate of finality in applying for the renewal of her passport. However, she became
the object of an investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) because her
former partner, Andrew Grainge, had filed a complaint charging that she had fabricated the
decision for the annulment of her marriage. Only then did she learn that the decision and
the certificate of finality given by the respondent did not exist in the court records, as borne
 out by the letter signed by Atty. Aura Clarissa B. Tabag-Querubin. As a result, the
complainant faced criminal charges.
 In his answer, the respondent denies the allegations of the complainant. He averred that he
had informed her that he would still be carefully reviewing the grounds to support her
petition; that she had insisted that he should prepare the draft of her petition that she could
show to her foreigner fiancé; that she had also prevailed upon him to simulate the court
decision to the effect that her marriage had been annulled, and to fabricate the certificate of
finality; that she had assured him that such simulated documents would be kept strictly
confidential; that he had informed her that the petition had been filed, but she had paid no
attention to such information; that she had not appeared in any of the scheduled hearings
despite notice; and that he had not heard from her since then, and that she had not even
returned to his office.
Issue:
 Whether or not respondent had violated his Lawyer's Oath.
Held:
 The respondent acknowledged authorship of the petition for annulment of marriage, and of
the simulation of the decision and certificate of finality. His explanation of having done so
only upon the complainant's persistent prodding did not exculpate him from responsibility.
For one, the explanation is unacceptable, if not altogether empty. Simulating or participating
in the simulation of a court decision and a certificate of finality of the same decision is an
outright criminal falsification or forgery. One need not be a lawyer to know so, but it was
worse in the respondent's case because he was a lawyer. Thus, his acts were legally
intolerable. Specifically, his deliberate falsification of the court decision and the certificate of
finality of the decision reflected a high degree of moral turpitude on his part, and made a
mockery of the administration of justice in this country. He thereby became unworthy of
continuing as a member of the Bar.
 Respondent directly contravened the letter and spirit of Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1, and
Rule 15.07, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and a lawyer
shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence
in the legal system.
 It is true that the power to disbar is always exercised with great caution and only for the
most imperative reasons or in cases of clear misconduct affecting the standing and moral
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar.28 But we do not
hesitate when the misconduct is gross, like in the respondent's case. We wield the power
now because the respondent, by his gross misconduct as herein described, absolutely
forfeited the privilege to remain in the Law Profession. No lawyer should ever lose sight of
the verity that the practice of the legal profession is always a privilege that the Court
extends only to the deserving, and that the Court may withdraw or deny the privilege to him
who fails to observe and respect the Lawyer's Oath and the canons of ethical conduct in his
professional and private capacities. He may be disbarred or suspended from the practice of
law not only for acts and omissions of malpractice and for dishonesty in his professional
dealings, but also for gross misconduct not directly connected with his professional duties
that reveal his unfitness for the office and his unworthiness of the principles that the
privilege to practice law confers upon him. Verily, no lawyer is immune from the disciplinary
authority of the Court whose duty and obligation are to investigate and punish lawyer
misconduct committed either in a professional or private capacity. The test is whether the
conduct shows the lawyer to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good
demeanor, and whether the conduct renders the lawyer unworthy to continue as an officer
of the Court.
 13. Heirs of Sixto Tan vs Atty. Nestor Beltran
AC No. 5819 – February 01, 2017
Facts:
 After agreeing to pay attorney's fees, complainants engaged the services of respondent
counsel for the filing of cases to recover their commercial properties. Complainants later
filed a criminal action for falsification of public documents and use of falsified documents
against Spouses Melanio and Nancy Fernando and Sixto Tan, Jr. which, however, was
dismissed by the provincial prosecutor.
 Respondent was notified of the order of dismissal to which he filed an appeal via a Petition
for Review before the Secretary of the Department of Justice (SOJ). It was, however, filed
beyond the 15-day reglementary period to perfect an appeal. Consequently, in his
Resolutio, the SOJ dismissed the belated Petition for Review. Respondent no longer filed a
motion for reconsideration to remedy the ruling.
 Complainants instituted a related civil suit to annul the sale of their commercial properties
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). After being paid by his clients, respondent tasked his
secretary to pay the docket fees. Unfortunately, the Clerk of Court erred in the assessment
of the docket fees. To correct the error, the RTC required the payment of additional docket
fees. However, two weeks earlier, he had moved to withdraw as counsel with the conformity
of his clients. No separate copy of the Order was sent to any of the complainants.
 The balance of the docket fees remained unpaid. Subsequently, the RTC dismissed the
civil case, citing the nonpayment of docket fees as one of its bases. Aggrieved by their
defeat, complainants wrote this Court a letter--complaint asking that disciplinary actions be
meted out to respondent. They likewise contended that he had unduly received attorney's
fees, despite his failure to render effective legal services for them.
 Respondent claimed that he could no longer move for the reconsideration of the SOJ's
dismissal of his belated Petition for Review as he had only learned of the dismissal after the
period to file a motion for reconsideration had lapsed. He argued that while he prepared the
Petition for Review, his clients themselves, through Nilo Tan and Recto Tan, signed and
filed the same. Thus, he imputed to complainants the belated filing of the appeal.
 As for the dismissal of the civil action for nonpayment of docket fees, respondent
disclaimed any fault on his part, since he had already withdrawn as counsel in that case.
Issue:
 Whether or not respondent is guilty of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and other ethical standards for failing to inform complainants of the RTC Order to pay the
balance of the docket fees.
Held:
 In Reontoy v. Ibadlit, we ruled that failure of the counsel to appeal within the prescribed
period constitutes negligence and malpractice. The Court elucidated that per Rule 18.03,
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."
 The excuse forwarded by respondent that he delegated the filing of the Petition for Review
to complainants - will not exculpate him from administrative liability. As correctly explained
by the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP, respondent cannot disclaim negligence,
since he was the lawyer tasked to pursue the legal remedies available to his clients.
 Lawyers are expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure. A
client who deals with counsel has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional
learning and competence, but also a wholehearted fealty to the client's cause. Thus, we find
that passing the blame to persons not trained in remedial law is not just wrong; it is
 reflective of the want of care on the part of lawyers handling the legal matters entrusted to
them by their clients.

14. Cesar Sta. Ana vs Atty. Jose Cortes

AC No. 6980 – August 30, 2017
Facts:
 Complainants alleged that respondent was left with the care and maintenance of several
properties either owned or under the administration of Atty. Casal since the latter's death.
And as administrator, he abused his authority and engineered the sale or transfer of the
said properties which were owned originally by their ancestors, and in connivance with
Cesar Inis (Inis) and A Casal's alleged adopted daughter, Gloria Casal Cledera (Gloria),
and her husband, Hugh Cledera (the spouses Cledera), sold the above-mentioned parcels
of land to the Property Company of Friends, Inc.
 Complainants further averred that as the said properties were originally in the names of
Inis, Ruben Loyola (Loyola), Angela Lacdan (Lacdan) and Cesar Veloso Casal (Veloso),
these persons, in conspiracy with respondent, caused to be executed a Special Power of
Attorney, under which Loyola, Lacdan and Veloso purportedly authorized their co-owner
Inis to sell the said properties; that this SPA was, however, forged or falsified, because
Loyola and Lacdan were already dead by the time said SPA was executed.
 Complainants moreover claimed that respondent notarized twelve falsified Deeds of
Donation and supposedly executed in Cavite, under which it was made to appear that Atty.
Casal purportedly donated sixty-six pieces of property to Gloria.
 In his answer, respondent asserted that all the criminal complaints against him had been
dismissed, and the criminal information/s instituted therefor had been withdrawn by the
Department of Justice (DOJ), hence, he had been exonerated of all the charges against
him.
Issue:
 Whether or not respondent is not only guilty of dishonesty and deceitful conduct, but also
guilty of having violated hls oath as a notary public.
Held:
 Lawyers are instruments in the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal system,
they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality,
honesty, integrity and fair dealing. [It is only in living up to the very high standards and
tenets of the legal profession that] the people's faith and confidence in the judicial system
can be ensured. Lawyers may be disciplined - whether in their professional or in their
private capacity - for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good
demeanor.
 In the instant case, respondent acted with deceit when he used the falsified documents to
effect the transfer of properties owned or administered by the late Atty. Casal. In a letter
sent by Atty. Florante O. Villegas, counsel for the PCFI, to the spouses Cledera, the former
explicitly stated that respondent did have a hand in the negotiation leading to the sale of the
properties. In clarifying that it only entered into a Deed of Absolute Sale because of the
"offer and representation that spouses Cesar and Pilar Casal are the true owners of the
subject parcels of land
 Likewise, it cannot be denied that it was respondent who engineered the execution of the
twelve Deeds of Donation involving sixty-six pieces of Atty. Casal's property. Respondent
was personally present during the alleged signing of the Deeds of Donation in Cavite, which
deeds he brought afterwards to his law office in Quezon City, and notarized the same. By
using the falsified SPA and by knowingly notarizing documents outside of his notarial
commission's jurisdiction, respondent was evidently bereft of basic integrity which is an
 indispensable sine qua non of his ongoing membership, in good standing, in the legal
profession, and as a duly-commissioned notary public.
 Respondent's contention that the DOJ had resolved to withdraw the criminal complaints
filed against him and his co-accused, the spouses Cledera, does not persuade. The
dismissal or withdrawal of the criminal complaints/ information/sat the instance of the DOJ,
is of no moment. As a member of the Bar, respondent should know that administrative
cases against lawyers are sui generis, or a class of their own. "Disciplinary proceedings
involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance." Disbarment cases
are aimed at purging the legal profession of individuals who obdurately scorn and despise
the exalted standards of the noble profession of law. It is within this Court's power, as a
check and balance to its own system, to ensure undeviating integrity by members of the Bar
both on the professional and the personal level. It is only by maintaining this integrity and
this loyalty to the law, to the Courts of Justice and to their client and the public at large, that
lawyers are enabled to maintain the trust reposed upon them and to deliver justice inside
and outside the courtroom.

15. Greogorio Capinpin, Jr. vs Atty. Estanislao Cesa

AC No. 6933 – July 05, 2017
Facts:
 Complainant executed a real estate mortgage (REM) on his two lots in favor of Family
Lending Corporation (FLC) as security for a loan. Due to complainant's default in payment,
FLC, through its President Dr. Eli Malaya (Dr. Malaya), initiated foreclosure proceedings
against the mortgaged properties.
 Complainant availed of legal remedies to stop the said foreclosure proceedings wherein he
filed a case for damages and injunction and also moved for the suspension of the sheriffs
sale, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining
order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) with the Court of Appeals, and filed
an annulment of REM with prayer for a WPI and/or TRO before the trial court. The CA
nullified the said writ, mainly on the ground of forum shopping, which was affirmed by the
SC on review.
 The complaint alleges that during the above-cited proceedings, respondent, without the
knowledge of his client FLC, approached complainant to negotiate the deferment of the
auction sale and the possible settlement of the loan obligation at a reduced amount without
resorting to the auction sale. Respondent allegedly represented himself as being capable of
influencing the sheriff to defer the auction sale, as well as his client FLC through Dr. Malaya
to accept the amount to fully settle the loan obligation. For this, the complaint alleges that
respondent demanded payment of professional fees amounting to Php 1 Million from
complainant. In fact, complainant already gave to respondent payment of professional fees
amounting to Php300,000.00. Despite such payments, the auction sale proceeded.
 For his part, respondent denies that he was the one who approached complainant for
negotiation, the truth being that it was complainant who asked for his help to be given more
time to raise funds to pay the loan obligation. Respondent further avers that he
communicated the said request to his client. Aside from the payments which respondent
claims to be advance payments of his attorney's fees, respondent avers that he did not
receive any other amount from the complainant. All these, according to the respondent,
were known to his client. In fact, in a Letter signed by the complainant and addressed to
FLC through Dr. Malaya, complainant expressly stated that he will negotiate for the
payment of respondent's fees as FLC's counsel.
Issue:
 Whether or not respondent was liable for malpractice and should be suspended from the
practice of law.
Held:
 We are in full accord with the findings of the Investigating Commissioner that respondent
violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 and Canon 16, Rule 16.01 of the CPR.
- CANON 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
- Rule 15.03 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
- CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that
may come into his possession.
- Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for
or from the client.
 Based on the records, the SC finds substantial evidence to hold the respondent liable for
violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the said Code. It must be stressed that FLC engaged
respondent's legal services to represent it in opposing complainant's actions to forestall the
foreclosure proceedings. As can be gleaned from respondent's position paper, however, it
is admitted that respondent extended help to the complainant in negotiating with FLC for
the reduction of the loan payment and cessation of the foreclosure proceedings.
 There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more
opposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to
fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he
argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other
client. This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been
confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used.
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation
will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to
his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double[-]dealing in the performance thereof.
 Evidently, respondent was working on conflicting interests – that of his client, which was to
be able to foreclose and obtain the best amount they could get to cover the loan obligation,
and that of the complainant's, which was to forestall the foreclosure and settle the loan
obligation for a lesser amount.

16. Filipinas Celedonio vs Atty. Jaime Estrabillo

AC No. 10553 – July 05, 2017
Facts:
 A criminal case of Estafa filed by Alfrito D. Mah (Mah) against complainant's husband, the
latter being accused of embezzling a substantial amount from Mah's company. In the said
case, respondent was Mah's legal counsel.
 Complainant averred that she tried talking to Mr. Alfirto Mah's wife to drop the criminal case
against her husband but Mrs. Mah responded that the matter is already in the hands of their
lawyer. Thus, complainant and her husband met several times with the respondent to
negotiate the withdrawal of the criminal case. Respondent assured the complainant and her
husband that he will talk to his client for the possibility of settling the case and delaying the
prosecution thereof in the meantime.
 In the process of negotiating, respondent advised the complainant and her husband to
execute a deed of sale over their house and lot which will be used as a collateral for the
settlement of the case. Respondent explained to them that the said deed of sale will merely
be a security while complainant and her husband are paying the embezzled money in
installments and he assured the spouses that the said deed of sale will not be registered
 nor annotated in the title. The criminal case against complainant's husband was then
dismissed.
 Being the only one who shoulders the family expenses, complainant, at some point,
decided to sell the subject house and lot. However, complainant received summons from
the court regarding a complaint for specific performance with prayer for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) and temporary restraining order (TRO) filed by Spouses
Mah. Apparently, the deed of sale that complainant and her husband executed as a security
for the settlement of the criminal case was notarized by the respondent. The said complaint
averred that herein complainant and her husband have an obligation to deliver the subject
property to Spouses Mah. Complainant found out that the respondent requested the
Register of Deeds (RD) to register and annotate the said deed of sale on the title.
 This prompted the complainant to confront the respondent as this was contrary to what they
have agreed upon. The respondent merely advised complainant to again negotiate with his
client and assured her that he would back her up. However, complainant's efforts to
negotiate were again proven futile.
 In the meantime, complainant has a deadline for the filing of a responsive pleading in the
said civil case. Also, the hearing for the application for issuance of a TRO was already
scheduled. When the complainant went back to the respondent for this matter, the
respondent offered to and indeed prepared a Motion for Extension of Time and Urgent
Motion to Postpone for the complainant. Complainant alleged that it was respondent's
secretary upon respondent's instruction, who drafted the said motions and that she was
required to pay the corresponding fees therefor. In view of the said motion for
postponement, complainant did not appear in the hearing.
 It turned out, however, that the said hearing still proceeded. The respondent even appeared
therein and manifested that he filed a notice of lis pendens and adverse claim with the RD.
Complainant also found out that respondent filed a Motion to Declare Defendants in Default
in the said case which was granted by the court. Later, a decision was rendered in the said
case in favor of respondent's clients. The decision became final and executory and,
thereafter, a writ of execution was issued.
Issue:
 Whether or not respondent should be administratively disciplined based on the allegations
in the complaint.
Held:
- Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
o CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
 The rules are clear. The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be
imbued with the highest level of trust and confidence.20 The legal profession dictates that it
is not a mere duty, but an obligation, of a lawyer to 'accord the highest degree of fidelity,
zeal and fervor in the protection of the client's interest. Thus, part of the lawyer's duty in this
regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests. Jurisprudence is to the effect that a
lawyer's act which invites suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance
of his duty already evinces inconsistency of interests. In broad terms, lawyers are deemed
to represent conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is their duty to contend for
that which duty to another client requires them to oppose.
 There is, thus, no denying that respondent's preparation and filing of motions on behalf of
the complainant, the adverse party in the case filed by him for his client, conflicts his client's
interest. Indeed, a motion for extension to file an answer would not be favorable to his
client's cause as the same would merely delay the judgment sought by his client in filing the
 case. Moreso, the motion for postponement of the TRO hearing would definitely run counter
with the interest of his client as such remedy was precisely sought, supposedly with
urgency, to protect his client's right over the subject property before complainant could
proceed with the sale of the same.
 Moreover, Rule 15.03 above-cited expressly requires a written consent of all parties
concerned after full disclosure of the facts if ever, for whatever reason, a lawyer will be
involved in conflicting interests. Corollary to this, Rule 15.04 of the CPR substantially states
that if a lawyer would act as a mediator, or a negotiator for that matter, a written consent of
all concerned is also required. Notably, there is no record of any written consent from any of
the parties involved in this case.
 In addition, this Court cannot shun the fact that due to respondent's acts, complainant lost
her day in court. Admittedly, the complainant cannot impute fault entirely to the respondent
for losing the opportunity to present her defense in the civil case, as no prudent man will
leave the fate of his or her case entirely to his or her lawyer, much less to his or her
opponent's lawyer. However, We also cannot blame the complainant for relying upon the
motions prepared by the respondent for her, thinking that in view of the said motions, she
was given more time file an answer and more importantly, that there was no more hearing
on the scheduled date for her to attend. As it turned out, respondent even appeared on the
date of the hearing that was supposedly sought to be postponed. This is a clear case of an
unfair act on the part of the respondent. Respondent may not have an obligation to apprise
the complainant of the hearing as the latter is not his client, but his knowledge of the motion
for postponement, drafted by his secretary upon his instruction, calls for his fair judgment as
a defender of justice and officer of the court, to inform the complainant that the hearing was
not postponed. This exactly demonstrates why dealing with conflicting interests in the legal
profession is prohibited it is not only because the relation of attorney and client is one of
trust and confidence of the highest degree, but also because of the principles of public
policy and good taste.

17. Spouses Geraldy and Lilibeth Victory vs Atty. Marian Mercado

AC No. 10580 – July 12, 2017
Facts:
 Spouses Victory were enticed by respondent to enter into a financial transaction with her
with a promise of good monetary returns. As respondent is a lawyer and a person of
reputation, Spouses Victory entrusted their money to respondent to invest, manage, and
administer into some financial transactions that would earn good profit for the parties.
 The investment transactions went well for the first 10 months. Spouses Victory received the
agreed return of profit. Some of such financial transactions were covered by Memoranda of
Agreement. Later on, respondent became evasive in returning to Spouses Victory the
money that the latter were supposed to receive as part of the agreement. Respondent failed
to settle and account the money entrusted to her by Spouses Victory.
 Spouses Victory filed a criminal complaint for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.
22. After the filing of said criminal case, respondent met with Spouses Victory. Respondent
proposed to reduce her obligation in staggered payments, to which Spouses Victory
agreed. Respondent then issued three postdated checks. However, said checks bounced.
Issue:
 Whether or not respondent be held administratively liable based on the allegations in the
pleadings of all parties on record.
Held:
 As a lawyer, respondent is expected to act with the highest degree of integrity and fair
dealing. She is expected to maintain not only legal proficiency, but also a high standard of
 morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the people's faith and confidence in the
judicial system is ensured. She must, at all times, faithfully perform her duties to society, to
the bar, to the courts and to her clients, which include prompt payment of financial
obligations.
 We cannot exempt respondent from liability just because she encountered financial
difficulties in the course of her investment deals. Respondent even admitted that she
continued to do business despite such financial hardships; as such, her monetary
obligations with different investors. accumulated at an alarming rate. In an attempt to settle
her obligations, respondent issued checks, which all bounced.

18. Jocelyn Ignacio vs Atty. Daniel Alviar

AC No. 11482 – July 17, 2017
Facts:
 Respondent was referred to complainant for purposes of handling the case of complainant's
son who was then apprehended and detained by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA). Respondent agreed to represent complainant's son for a stipulated acceptance fee
of PhP100,000. Respondent further represented that he could refer the matter to the
Commission on Human Rights to investigate the alleged illegal arrest made on
complainant's son.
 After the initial payments of PhP20,000 and PhP30,000 were given to respondent, the latter
visited complainant's son at the PDEA detention cell. There, respondent conferred with
complainant's son for some 20 minutes. After which, respondent left.
 Respondent, through his secretary, secured from the Office of the City Prosecutor plain
copies of the case records. Respondent also verified twice from the Hall of Justice if the
case was already filed in court. It was at this time that respondent asked, and was paid, the
remaining balance of PhP50,000. Subsequently, respondent filed his notice of appearance
as counsel for complainant's son.
 Later, complainant informed respondent that her son's arraignment was set. Respondent,
however, replied that he cannot attend said arraignment due to a previously scheduled
hearing. He committed to either find a way to attend the hearing or ask another lawyer-
friend to attend it for him.
 Complainant wrote a letter to respondent informing the latter that she had decided to seek
the intercession of another lawyer owing to the fact that respondent cannot attend her son's
scheduled arraignment. Complainant then requested that respondent retain a portion of the
PhP100,000 to fairly remunerate respondent for the preparatory legal service he rendered.
Respondent, however, denies having received said letter.
 On the date of the arraignment, neither respondent nor his promised alternate, appeared.
When asked, respondent replied that he forgot the date of arraignment. This incident
prompted complainant to write another to respondent, requesting the latter to formally
withdraw as counsel and emphasized that respondent's withdrawal as counsel is necessary
so that she and her son can hire another lawyer to take his stead. In said letter,
complainant also reiterated her request that a portion of the PhP100,000 be remitted to
them after respondent deducts his professional fees commensurate to the preparatory legal
service he rendered.
Issue:
 Whether or not respondent is liable for negligence under Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Held:
 Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise
to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause. Canon 18 of the CPR mandates that once a
 lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is the lawyer's duty to serve the client with competence
and diligence.
 It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every person
who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline employment, subject,
however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take
up the cause of his client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with
competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care
and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warm
zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost
learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the
rules of the law, legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of
any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may
expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an
attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative
duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who
performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he
also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the
community to the legal profession.
 We agree with the finding of the Investigating Commissioner that respondent failed to
competently and diligently attend to the legal matter entrusted to him. It is undisputed that
respondent came to see complainant's son, his client, only once for about 20 minutes and
no more thereafter; it is likewise undisputed that respondent failed to attend the scheduled
arraignment despite the latter's commitment to either find a way to attend, or send a
collaborating counsel to do so; that he forgot the date of arraignment is an equally dismal
excuse.

19. Gizale Tumbaga vs Atty. Manuel Teoxon

AC No. 5573 – November 21, 2017
Facts:
 Complainant met respondent who was then a City Legal Officer from whom complainant
sought legal advice. After complainant consulted with him a few times, he visited her often
at her residence. Respondent even volunteered to be the godfather of her son. In one of his
visits, respondent assured complainant's mother that although he was already married to
Luzviminda Balang, his marriage was a sham because their marriage contract was not
registered. In view of respondent's persistence and generosity to her son, complainant
believed his representation that he was eligible to marry her.
 Later, Complainant moved in with respondent and subsequently she became pregnant.
Respondent allegedly wanted to have the baby aborted but complainant refused. After the
birth of their son, respondent spent more time with them. He used their apartment as a
temporary law office and he lived there for two to three days at a time.
 After their son was baptized, complainant secured a Certificate of Live Birth and gave it to
respondent to sign. He hesitantly signed it and volunteered to facilitate its filing. After
respondent failed to file the same, complainant secured another form and asked
respondent to sign it twice. The Certificate of Live Birth was then registered.
 Thereafter, complainant related that respondent rarely visited them. To make ends meet,
she decided to work in a law office. However, respondent compelled her to resign, assuring
her that he would take care of her financial needs. As respondent failed to fulfill his promise,
complainant sought assistance from the Office of the City Fiscal who held a conference.
Respondent gave complainant an affidavit of support and told her there was no need for
 him to appear in the conference. Sometime later, Complainant went to respondent's office
as he again reneged on his promise of support. To appease her anger, respondent
executed a promissory note. However, he also failed to honor the same.
 Later, complainant moved out of the apartment as respondent did not pay the rentals
therefor anymore. Subsequently, respondent raided complainant's new residence,
accompanied by three SWAT members and his wife. Respondent threatened to hurt
complainant if she will not return the personal belongings that he left in their previous
apartment unit. As respondent barged into the apartment, complainant sought help from the
SWAT members and one of them was able to pacify respondent.
Issue:
 Whether or not there is indeed substantial evidence that respondent committed gross
immorality to warrant respondent’s suspension.
Held:
 The Court agrees with the conclusion of the IBP that the actuations of respondent in this
case showed his failure to live up to the good moral conduct required of the members of the
legal profession.
 In order to justify the imposition of the above administrative penalties on a member of the
Bar, his/her guilt must first be established by substantial evidence. As explained in Re:
Rafael Dimaano, substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
 After a thorough review of the records of the case, the Court upholds the findings of the IBP
as there is indeed substantial evidence that respondent committed gross immorality by
maintaining an extramarital affair with complainant.
 The IBP posited that the above ruling was more than sufficient to prove that respondent
tried to distort the truth that he and complainant did live together as husband and wife in
one apartment unit. The Court agrees with the IBP on this matter.
 In said case, respondent made it appear that he was merely seeking to recover personal
belongings that he left behind at one time in complainant's house. However, the [MTCC] is
not persuaded by his allegation that he left his bag with [complainant] because he was in a
hurry in going to Manila. He boldly declared in [the trial court] that he has three residences
in Naga City and of all places he had to leave his shirt and underwear with a lady whom he
had visited "only twice".

20. Spouses Andre and Maria Chambon vs Atty. Christopher Ruiz

AC 11478 – September 05, 2017
Facts:
 Spouses Chambon alleged that they were creditors of a certain Suzette Camasura Auman,
also known as Mrs. Suzette Camasura Remoreras. To secure her obligation, Remoreras
executed a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land with improvements which was
registered in her maiden name. Said REM was annotated in the Registry of.
 As Remoreras failed to pay her loan obligation, Spouses Chambon were prompted to
institute an extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings on the subject property before the Ex-
Officio Sheriff and a public auction was set.
 Later, counsel for Spouses Chambon learned that an Order was issued by the RTC which
directed the issuance of a new Owner's Duplicate Copy of the Title. Apparently, a Petition
for Issuance of a new Owner's Duplicate Copy of the title, which was grounded on an
alleged Notice of Loss/Affidavit of Loss of the subject title, was filed by Remoreras.
 Before the scheduled public auction, Remoreras filed a complaint to enjoin the holding of
the same on the basis of an alleged execution and delivery of a Release of Mortgage
document on the subject property purportedly executed by Spouses Chambon.
 Spouses Chambon discovered that the Notice of Loss/ Affidavit of Loss and the Release of
Mortgage were notarized by the respondent and that certain defects were found in said
notarized documents and in the Notarial Register. In the jurat of said Notice, there was no
competent evidence of identity of the executor. Also, in said Release, Spouses Chambon
denied having executed the same.
Issue:
 Whether or not respondent should be administratively disciplined based on the allegations
in the complaint and evidence on record.
Held:
 By law, a notary public is empowered to perform the following acts: acknowledgments,
oaths and affirmations, jurats, signature witnessing, copy certifications, among others. The
duties of a notary public is dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. It is
not a meaningless ministerial act of acknowledging documents executed by parties who are
willing to pay the fees for notarization. For notarization by a notary public converts a private
document into a public document, making the same admissible in evidence without further
proof of authenticity; thus, a notarial.
 document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
 In this case, We find that the respondent failed to live up with the duties of a notary public
as dictated by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The subject Notice of Loss/Affidavit of
Loss, allegedly executed by Remoreras, was undisputedly notarized by the respondent and
entered in his Notarial Register. However, a careful examination of said Notice reveals that
violation of the 2004 Rules was committed.
 For one, the jurat was incomplete in that the competent proof of identity of the executor,
Remoreras, was left in blank. Also, reference to the Notarial Register indicates that the
entries pertaining to said Notice were also left in blank. The title/description of instrument,
name and addresses of parties, competent evidence of identity, date and time of
notarization, and type of notarial act were not filled up.

21. Elibena Cabiles vs Atty. Leandro Cedo

AC No. 10245 – August 16, 2017
Facts:
 Complainant engaged the services of respondent lawyer to handle an illegal dismissal case
where therein respondents were Elibena’s business partners. Respondent lawyer was paid
for drafting therein respondents' (in the illegal dismissal) position paper and for his every
appearance in the NLRC hearings.
 During the hearing, only Danilo Ligbos (Danilo), the complainant therein, showed up and
submitted his Reply. On the other hand, respondent lawyer did not file a Reply for his
clients, despite being paid his appearance fee earlier.
 Consequently, the LA ruled for Danilo, and ordered the clients of respondent lawyer to pay
Danilo backwages, separation pay, and 13th month pay. Worse still, the NLRC likewise
dismissed the appeal of the clients of respondent lawyer for failure to post the required cash
or surety bond, an essential requisite in perfecting an appeal.
 According to Elibena, respondent lawyer misled them by claiming that it was Danilo who
was absent during the said hearing; and that moreover, because of the failure to submit a
Reply, they were prevented from presenting the cash vouchers that would refute Danilo' s
claim that he was a regular employee.
 Elibena moreover claimed that respondent lawyer failed to indicate his Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) complianc1 in the position paper and in the
memorandum of appeal that he prepared. Elibena pointed to a certification issued by the
 MCLE Office that respondent lawyer had not at all complied with the first, second, and third
compliance periods of the (MCLE) requirement.
 Elibena also averred that she hired respondent lawyer to file a criminal case for unjust
vexation and despite payment of his professional fees, respondent lawyer did not exert any
effort to seasonably file her Complaint for unjust vexation before the City Prosecutor's
Office; that the Office of the City Prosecutor of Muntinlupa City dismissed her Complaint for
unjust vexation on the ground of prescription; and that although she moved for
reconsideration of the Order dismissing the case, her motion for reconsideration was
denied by the City Prosecutor's Office.
Issue:
 Whether or not respondent lawyer was guilty of having violated Canons 5, 17, and 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and should be suspended.
Held:
 Bar Matter 850 mandates continuing legal education for IBP members as an additional
requirement to enable them to practice law. This is ''to ensure that throughout their career,
they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and
enhance the standards of the practice of law." Non-compliance with the MCLE requirement
subjects the lawyer to be listed as a delinquent IBP member. In Arnado v. Adaza, we
administratively sanctioned therein respondent lawyer for his non-compliance with four
MCLE Compliance Periods. We stressed therein that in accordance with Section 12(d) of
the MCLE Implementing Regulations, even if therein respondent attended an MCLE
Program covered by the Fourth Compliance Period, his attendance therein would only
cover his deficiency for the First Compliance Period, and he was still considered delinquent
and had to make up for the other compliance periods. Consequently, we declared
respondent lawyer therein a delinquent member of the IBP and suspended him from law
practice for six months or until he had fully complied with all the MCLE requirements for all
his non-compliant periods.
 In the present case, respondent lawyer failed to indicate in the pleadings filed in the said
labor case the number and date of issue of his MCLE Certificate of Compliance for the
Third Compliance Period. In fact, upon checking with the MCLE Office, Elibena discovered
that respondent lawyer had failed to comply with the three MCLE compliance periods. For
this reason, there is no doubt that respondent lawyer violated Canon 5.
 The circumstances of this case indicated that respondent lawyer was guilty of gross
negligence for failing to exert his utmost best in prosecuting and in defending the interest of
his client. Hence, he is guilty of the following:
- CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him.
- CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
 Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
 Furthermore, respondent lawyer's act of receiving an acceptance fee for legal services, only
to subsequently fail to render such service at the appropriate time, was a clear violation of
Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

22. Virgillo Mapalad vs Atty. Anselmo Echanez

AC No 10911 – June 06, 2017
Facts:
 Complainant was one of the plaintiffs in a Civil Case for Recovery of Possession, while
respondent was the defendants' counsel in said case. As the said case was decided in
favor of the plaintiffs, respondent filed a Notice of Appeal in which respondent indicated his
 Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Compliance No. II-0014038 without
indicating the date of issue. On appeal, respondent filed the appellants' brief, again only
indicating his MCLE Compliance Number.
 In another Special Civil Action case, respondent, for the same clients, filed a Petition for
Injunction wherein he once again only indicated his MCLE Compliance Number.
Respondent also filed a Motion for Leave of Court in the said special civil action, indicating
his MCLE Compliance Number without the date of issue.
 Upon inquiry with the MCLE Office, complainant discovered that respondent had no MCLE
compliance yet. The MCLE Office then issued a Certification stating that respondent had
not yet complied with his MCLE requirements for the First Compliance Period and Second
Compliance Period.
Issue:
 Whether or not respondent's act of deliberately and unlawfully misleading the courts,
parties, and counsels concerned into believing that he had complied with the MCLE
requirements when in truth he had not, is a serious malpractice and grave misconduct.
Held:
 It was clearly established that respondent violated Bar Matter No. 850. No less than the
MCLE Office had issued a certification stating that respondent had not complied with the
first and second compliance period of the MCLE.
 Despite such non-compliance, respondent repeatedly indicated a false MCLE compliance
number in his pleadings before the trial courts. In indicating patently false information in
pleadings filed before the courts of law, not only once but four times, as per records, the
respondent acted in manifest bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit. In so doing, he indeed
misled the courts, litigants - his own clients · included - professional colleagues, and all
others who may have relied on such pleadings containing false information.
 The Lawyer's Oath in Rule 138, Section 3 of the Rules of Court requires commitment to
obeying laws and legal orders, doing no falsehood, and acting with fidelity to both court and
client, among others.
 Also, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) provides:
- CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.
 Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
 Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the CPR likewise states:
- CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
 Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice.
In using a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings, respondent also put his own
clients at risk. Such deficiency in pleadings can be fatal to the client's cause as pleadings
with such false information produce no legal effect. 25 In so doing, respondent violated his
duty to his clients. 26 Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR
 It cannot be overstressed that lawyers are instruments in the administration of justice. As
vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to maintain legal proficiency and a high
standard of honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. Also, of all classes and professions, the
lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of
all men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and
ignore the very bonds of society, is unfaithful to his position and office and sets a
detrimental example to the society.

23. Rafael Padilla vs Atty. Glenn Samson

 AC No. 10253 – August 22, 2017
Facts:
 Respondent was the former counsel of herein Complainant in a case where Padilla
contends that Samson suddenly cut all communications with him, which almost caused him
to miss the due date for the filing of a required pleading. He even wrote a demand letter
asking Samson to withdraw his appearance and return all the documents pertinent to his
case, but to no avail.
 Also, Padilla had been asking Samson for the refund of his overpayment. However,
Samson failed to offer any response, despite aforementioned demands. Likewise, when
ordered by the Court as well as the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) to refute the allegations in Padilla's complaint and explain his side,
Samson refused to do so.
Issue:
 Whether or not Samson should be held administratively accountable.
Held:
 Ordinarily, lawyers may decline employment and refuse to accept representation, if they are
not in a position to carry it out effectively or competently. But once they agree to handle a
case, attorneys are required by the Canons of Professional Responsibility (CPR) to
undertake the task with zeal, care, and utmost devotion. Acceptance of money from a client
establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's
cause. Every case which a lawyer accepts deserves full attention, diligence, skill, and
competence, regardless of importance.
 Canons 15, and 17, Rule 18.03 of Canon 18, and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the CPR
provide:
- CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
- CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him.
- CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
 Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
- CANON 19 - A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.
 Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to
present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case
or proceeding.
 In the case at bar, Samson completely abandoned Padilla without any justification,
notwithstanding his receipt of the professional fees for services rendered as well as the
latter's efforts to reach him. His continuous inaction despite repeated follow-ups reveals his
cavalier attitude and appalling indifference toward his client's cause, in blatant disregard of
his duties as a lawyer. Also, despite numerous demands, Samson has unjustifiably refused
to return Padilla's documents and the amount of P19, 074.00 as overpayment for his legal
services. It is a hornbook principle that a lawyer's duty of competence and diligence
includes, not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to his care or giving sound legal advice,
but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending
scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting
the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination even without
prodding from the client or the court. Further, Samson failed to file his Answer to the
complaint despite due notice from the Court and the IBP. His unwarranted tenacity simply
shows, not only his lack of responsibility, but also his lack of interest in clearing his name,
 which, as pronounced in case law, is indicative of an implied admission of the charges
levelled against him.
 Clients are led to expect that lawyers would always be mindful of their cause and,
accordingly, exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs.1âwphi1 On
the other hand, the lawyer is expected to maintain, at all times, a high standard of legal
proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of
its importance and whether or not he accepts it for a fee. To this end, he is enjoined to
employ only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives.
 The CPR requires lawyers to give their candid and best opinion to their clients on the merit
or lack of merit of the case. Knowing whether a case would be potentially successful is not
only a function, but also an obligation on the part of lawyers. If ever Samson found that his
client's cause was defenseless, then he should have met with Padilla so that they would be
able to discuss their possible options, instead of abruptly dropping the case without any
notice or explanation. Samson's failure to fulfill this basic undertaking constitutes a violation
of his duty to observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with
his clients.

24. Ortigaz Plaza Development Corp., vs Atty. Eugenio Tumulak

AC No. 11385 – March 14, 2017
Facts:
 Complainant alleges that, Atty. Tumulak, accompanied by uniformed guards of the
Nationwide Security Agency, Inc., unlawfully entered and took control of the entrance and
exit of the property they owned. Prior to the incident, Atty. Tumulak had furnished several
documents to the complainant, including the deed of assignment executed by one Henry F.
Rodriguez as the administrator of the Estate of the late Don Hermogenes R. Rodriguez
designating Atty. Tumulak as an assignee. The documents furnished by Atty. Tumulak were
all related to the intestate proceedings of the Estate of the late Don Hermogenes Rodriguez
which involved the claim of the heirs of the late Don Hermogenes Rodriguez to several
parcels of land situated all over the country.
 The complainant charges Atty. Tumulak with deceit, dishonesty and fraud for claiming to
have coordinated with the proper government agencies prior to the illegal and forcible
intrusion. The complainant manifests that as a lawyer, Atty. Tumulak ought to know that the
claim of his principal in the property was barred by res judicata due to the valid issuance of
a Torrens title under its name. Accordingly, his conduct constituted conduct unbecoming of
a lawyer deserving of sanction.
 In his answer to the complaint, Atty. Tumulak denies having been present when the security
guards of Nationwide Security Agency entered the complainant's property. He insists that
the allegations against him were pure hearsay because Ms. Montero, the representative of
the complainant, had no personal knowledge of the incident; that the documents he had
furnished to the complainant included records of the intestate proceedings in the R TC
involving the Estate of the late Don Hermogenes Rodriguez and Antonio Rodriguez; that he
had no hand in procuring the documents; that he did not himself enter the property; and that
the entry into the property was effected by the sheriff pursuant to a writ of execution. Report
and Recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Issue:
 Whether or not Atty. Tumulak violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility when he facilitated the implementation of the writ of execution
and the entry into the complainant's property.
Held:
 Atty. Tumulak was guilty of misconduct for circumventing existing laws and disregarding
settled rulings in order to commit injustice against the complainant. His conduct betrayed
his Lawyer's Oath "to support [the} Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal
orders of the duly constituted authorities therein." He breached Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and
1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
- CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and for legal processes.
 Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
 Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
 To the best of his ability, every lawyer is expected to respect and abide by the law, and to
avoid any act or omission that is contrary thereto.1âwphi1 The lawyer's personal deference
to the law not only speaks of his or her commendable character but also inspires in the
public a becoming respect and obedience to the law.
 The sworn obligation of every lawyer under the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility to respect the law and the legal processes is a continuing condition for
retaining membership in the Legal Profession. The lawyer must act and comport himself or
herself in such a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the Legal
Profession. Members of the Bar are reminded, therefore, that their FIRST Duty is to comply
with the rules of procedure, rather than to seek exceptions as loopholes. A lawyer who
assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an act
that warrants disciplinary action against him or her.

25. Manuel Zalamea vs Atty. Rodolfo De Guzman

AC No. 7387 – November 07, 2016
Facts:
 Petitioners Manuel Enrique Zalamea and Manuel Jose Zalamea sought respondent Atty.
Rodolfo P. de Guzman, Jr.'s advice on the properties of their ailing mother, Merlinda L.
Zalamea, who had some properties under her name. When Merlinda passed away, De
Guzman then prepared a letter for a possible tax-free transfer of the one property to the
Merlinda Holding Corporation which was sought to be incorporated to handle Merlinda's
estate, and notarized the incorporation papers of said corporation.
 The Zalameas put up EMZEE Corporation with De Guzman providing the capital and
operational funds. Thereafter, Manuel Enrique informed De Guzman about the property
which was then under the name of Elarfoods, Inc., a corporation owned and run by the
Zalamea brothers' aunts and uncles. Since said property had been mortgaged to Banco de
Oro (BDO), the bank foreclosed it when Elarfoods failed to pay the loan. Elarfoods likewise
failed to redeem the property, resulting in the consolidation of the ownership over the
property in BDO's name.
 Later, Manuel Enrique approached De Guzman and convinced him to help in the
reacquisition of the Speaker Perez property from BDO. Due to lack of funds on Manuel
Enrique's part, De Guzman's wife, Angel, agreed to shoulder the downpayment in order not
to lose the good opportunity, but under the condition that the Elarfoods property would later
be transferred in the name of a new corporation they had agreed to form, the EMZALDEK
Venture Corporation, a combination of the names EMZEE Foods, Zalamea, and Dek de
Guzman. By this time, EMZEE had also relocated to Elarfoods.
 Subsequently, Angel was forced to pay the monthly installments and the additional 20%
required for EMZEE to be able to transfer its office to the Speaker Perez property, since
 Manuel Enrique still could not produce sufficient funds and EMZEE continued to incur
losses.
 Not long after, the relationship, between the Zalamea brothers and the Spouses De
Guzman turned sour. The Spouses De Guzman wanted reimbursement of the amounts
which they had advanced for the corporation, while the Zalamea brothers claimed sole
ownership over the Speaker Perez property. Hence, the brothers filed a disbarment case
against De Guzman for allegedly buying a client's property which was subject of litigation.
Issue:
 Whether or not an attorney may be disbarred or suspended by purchasing, at a public or
judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another, their client's property.
Held:
 The prohibition which the Zalameas invoke does not apply where the property purchased
was not involved in litigation. De Guzman clearly never acquired any of his client's
properties or interests involved in litigation in which he may take part by virtue of his
profession. There exists not even an iota of proof indicating that said property has ever
been involved in any litigation in which De Guzman took part by virtue of his profession.
True, they had previously sought legal advice from De Guzman but only on how to handle
their mother's estate, which likewise did not involve the contested property. Neither was it
shown that De Guzman's law firm had taken part in any litigation involving the Speaker
Perez property.
 The prohibition which rests on considerations of public policy and interests is intended to
curtail any undue influence of the lawyer upon his client on account of his fiduciary and
confidential relationship with him. De Guzman could not have possibly exerted such undue
influence, as a lawyer, upon the Zalameas, as his clients. In fact, it was Manuel Enrique
who approached the Spouses De Guzman and asked them if they would be willing to
become business partners in a lechon business. It was also Manuel Enrique who turned to
De Guzman for help in order to reacquire the already foreclosed Speaker Perez property.
They had agreed that De Guzman would simply pay the required downpayment to BDO
and EMZEE would pay the remaining balance in installment. And when EMZEE continued
suffering losses, Angel took care of the monthly amortizations so as not to lose the
property.
 Clearly, the relationship between the Spouses De Guzman and the Zalamea brothers is
actually one of business partners rather than that of a lawyer and client. Atty. De Guzman's
acquisition of the Speaker Perez property was a valid consequence of a business deal, not
by reason of a lawyer-client relationship, for Which he could not be penalized by the Court.
De Guzman and his wife are very well allowed by law to enter into such a transaction and
their conduct in this regard was not borne out to have been attended by any undue
influence, deceit, or misrepresentation.

26. Datu Ismael Malangas vs Atty. Paul Zaide

AC No. 10675 – May 31, 2016
Facts:
 Complainant accused respondent lawyer of committing acts of dishonesty, breach of trust,
and violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics in relation to the complaint for damages that
he filed against Paul Alfeche and the NEMA. Complainant averred that he figured in an
accident causing him to lose consciousness and thereafter he underwent different major
operations for which he spent more than Pl.5 million; and that despite the operations, he
remained crippled and bed ridden.
 Because of these, he engaged respondent lawyer's professional services to prosecute his
complaint for damages against therein defendants Alfeche and NEMA; that he gave
 respondent lawyer acceptance fee and filing fees; that respondent lawyer made him believe
that the amount was needed as filing fees in order to commence a P5 million-damage suit
covering the accrued and anticipated damages caused by the accident; that subsequently,
respondent lawyer filed on his behalf a complaint for damages; that respondent lawyer then
furnished him (complainant) with a copy of said Complaint seeking to recover damages in
the amount of P5 million; and that to assure him that the complaint had indeed been filed,
this complaint was stamped "received" by the RTC.
 According to complainant, he later discovered, however, that his Complaint had been
dismissed by the RTC because of "failure to prosecute," for the reason that respondent
lawyer did not attend two hearings in the case, and also because respondent lawyer did not
submit an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss filed therein by NEMA; that on account of
this, he asked respondent lawyer to file a Motion for Reconsideration, only to find out later
that respondent lawyer not only did not file a motion for reconsideration from the Order of
dismissal issued by the RTC, but worse, respondent lawyer instead filed a Withdrawal of
Appearance as counsel effectively leaving him without counsel to prosecute his case; and
that after this, he sent a relative to the RTC, where he further discovered through this
relative that the amount of damages sought in the Complaint filed by respondent lawyer
was only P250,000.00, and not P5 million, as stated in the copy of the Complaint given to
him by respondent lawyer.
Issue:
 Whether or not Respondent committed Dishonesty, Breach of Trust and Negligence to
Complainant.
Held:
 We find respondent lawyer guilty of professional misconduct and of violating Canons 1, 16,
and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Not only do we find complainant's
version more credible but we also note the glaring inconsistencies in respondent lawyer's
allegations.
 Respondent lawyer's refusal to account for the funds given to him, especially his refusal to
return the amount paid in excess of what was required as docket fees, clearly violated
Rules 16.01and16.03 of the CPR, to wit:
 Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received
for or from the client.
 Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or
upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much
thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent
on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the
Rules of Court.
"The Code of Professional Responsibility demands the utmost degree of fidelity and good
fai1h in dealing wit the moneys entrusted to lawyers because of their fiduciary relationship."
Any lawyer who does not live up to this duty must be prepared to take the consequences of
his waywardness.

27. Helen Chang vs Atty. Jose Hidalgo

AC No. 6934 – April 06, 2016
Facts:
 Complainant alleges that she engaged the services of Atty. Hidalgo as legal counsel to
represent her in several collection cases pending in various courts. Pursuant to the contract
they executed, Chang issued five (5) checks in favor of Atty. Hidalgo. Chang claimed that
despite receiving the payments, Atty. Hidalgo did not attend any of the hearings in the
 collection cases and, instead, sent another lawyer without her consent. The other lawyer
failed to attend all hearings, which resulted in the dismissal of the cases. Thereafter, Chang
filed an administrative case against Respondent and prayed that Atty. Hidalgo be
administratively disciplined by the Court.
 Consequently, Atty. Hidalgo was required to comment on the Complaint in the Resolution.
The Notice of Resolution sent to Atty. Hidalgo in the address provided by Chang was
returned unserved with the notation that Atty. Hidalgo had moved out from the address.
 Finally, much later, Atty. Hidalgo received the Notice of the Resolution requiring him to
comment. However, he still failed to do so. Thus, in the Resolution, this Court considered
the submission of the comment as waived and referred the case "to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation.
 The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines then set a
Mandatory Conference/Hearing in which only Chang appeared.
 Later, the Commission on Bar Discipline received a handwritten and unverified Comment
from Atty. Hidalgo. In his Comment, Atty. Hidalgo admitted that Chang retained him as
counsel but countered that he attended the hearings. He denied allowing another lawyer to
appear on his behalf. Although he denied waiving his appearance fee, he claimed that he
did not receive such a sum referring to the acceptance fee from Chang mainly because of
the length of time that passed. Atty. Hidalgo insisted that due to the transigient and
uncooperative attitude of Chang, he decided that he could no longer perform his job as
Chang’s counsel adequately. He reasoned that he could not put up an effective defense
due to his illness and his impoverished state. He prayed that the administrative case
against him be dismissed.
Issue:
 Whether or not Respondent is guilty of gross misconduct for failing to render legal services
despite receipt of payment of legal fees.
Held:
 In Ramirez v. Buhayang-Margallo: The relationship between a lawyer and a client is
"imbued with utmost trust and confidence." Lawyers are expected to exercise the necessary
diligence and competence in managing cases entrusted to them. They commit not only to
review cases or give legal advice, but also to represent their clients to the best of their
ability without need to be reminded by either the client or the court.
 Similarly, in Nonato v. Fudolin, Jr.: A lawyer is bound to protect his client’s interests to the
best of his ability and with utmost diligence. He should serve his client in a conscientious,
diligent, and efficient manner; and provide the quality of service at least equal to that which
he, himself, would expect from a competent lawyer in a similar situation. By consenting to
be his client’s counsel, a lawyer impliedly represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence
or that reasonable degree of care and skill demanded by his profession, and his client may
reasonably expect him to perform his obligations diligently. The failure to meet these
standards warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.

28. Nenita Sanchez vs Atty. Romeo Aguilos

AC No. 10543 – March 16, 2016
Facts:
 Complainant avers that she sought the legal services of the respondent to represent her in
the annulment of her marriage with her estranged husband, Jovencio C. Sanchez.
Allegedly, Respondent accepted the engagement fee plus the appearance fee that she then
gave to him. Later, she had gone to his residence to inquire on the developments in her
case, but he told her that he would only start working on the case upon her full payment of
the acceptance fee.
 Complainant learned then that what he had contemplated to file for her was a petition for
legal separation, not one for the annulment of her marriage, Respondent further told her
that she would have to pay a higher acceptance fee for the annulment of her marriage.
 Complainant subsequently withdrew the case from him, and requested the refund of the
amounts already paid, but he refused to do the same as he had already started working on
the case. she had sent him a letter, through Atty. Isidro S.C. Martinez, to demand the return
of her payment less whatever amount corresponded to the legal services he had already
performed, however, respondent did not heed her demand letter despite his not having
rendered any appreciable legal services to her. Due to his constant refusal to return the
amounts prompted her to bring an administrative complaint against him in the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines.
Issue:
 Whether or not the respondent should be held administratively liable for misconduct.
Held:
 Clearly, the respondent misrepresented his professional competence and skill to the
complainant. As the foregoing findings reveal, he did not know the distinction between the
grounds for legal separation and for annulment of marriage. Such knowledge would have
been basic and expected of him as a lawyer accepting a professional engagement for either
causes of action. His explanation that the client initially intended to pursue the action for
legal separation should be disbelieved. The case unquestionably contemplated by the
parties and for which his services was engaged, was no other than an action for annulment
of the complainant's marriage with her husband with the intention of marrying her British
fiancee. They did not contemplate legal separation at all, for legal separation would still
render her incapacitated to re-marry. That the respondent was insisting in his answer that
he had prepared a petition for legal separation, and that she had to pay more as attorney's
fees if she desired to have the action for annulment was, therefore, beyond comprehension
other than to serve as a hallow afterthought to justify his claim for services rendered.
 In the absence of the written agreement, the lawyer's compensation shall be based on
quantum meruit, which means "as much as he deserved."22 The determination of
attorney's fees on the basis of quantum meruit is also authorized "when the counsel, for
justifiable cause, was not able to finish the case to its conclusion."23 Moreover, quantum
meruit becomes the basis of recovery of compensation by the attorney where the
circumstances of the engagement indicate that it will be contrary to the parties' expectation
to deprive the attorney of all compensation.
 Nevertheless, the court shall determine in every case what is reasonable compensation
based on the obtaining circumstances,24 provided that the attorney does not receive more
than what is reasonable, in keeping with Section 24 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to
wit:
- Section 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees - An attorney shall be
entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation
for his services, with a view to the importance of the subject matter of the controversy,
the extent of the services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney. No
court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper
compensation, but may disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its own
professional knowledge. A written contract for services shall control the amount to be
paid therefor unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.
 The courts supervision of the lawyer's compensation for legal services rendered is not only
for the purpose of ensuring the reasonableness of the amount of attorney's fees charged,
but also for the purpose of preserving the dignity and integrity of the legal profession.
 29. Paulina Yu vs Atty. Berlin Dela Cruz
AC No. 10912 – January 19, 2016
Facts:
 Respondent lawyer agreed to represent Paulina T. Yu (complainant) in several cases after
having received various amounts as acceptance fees. While the lawyer-client relationship
was subsisting, respondent lawyer borrowed pieces of jewelry from complainant and
pledged the same with a Promissory Note with Deed of Pledge. In order to facilitate the
redemption of the said jewelry, respondent lawyer issued a check to complainant. Upon
presentment, however, complainant was shocked to learn that the check was dishonored
for the reason Account Closed in which Complainant immediately notified respondent
lawyer of the dishonor of the check. Later, Complainant made several demands for the
refund of the acceptance fees received by respondent lawyer prior to the abandonment of
the cases and the payment of the value of the jewelry, but to no avail.
 Consequently, a verified complaint was filed with the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP-CBD), where complainant prayed for the disbarment of respondent lawyer on account
of grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and commission of acts in violation
of the lawyer's oath. The IBP-CBD required respondent lawyer to submit his answer to the
complaint. Despite having been duly served with a copy of the complaint and the order to
file his answer, respondent still failed to file an answer.
 Respondent lawyer was likewise notified of the scheduled mandatory conference/hearing,
but only the complainant and her counsel appeared. The IBP-CBD then ordered the
resetting of the mandatory conference and a personal service of the notice was sent to
respondent lawyer's given address. Notwithstanding the receipt of the notice by respondent
lawyer's mother, he still failed to appear during the conference, prompting complainant to
move for the termination of the conference and the submission of the case for report and
recommendation.
Issue:
 Whether or not Respondent is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar.
Held:
 Based on the evidence on record, respondent lawyer was found to have violated Rule
16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which proscribed the borrowing of
money from a client, unless the latter's interests were fully protected by the nature of the
case or by independent advice. Worse, respondent lawyer had clearly issued a worthless
check in violation of law which was against Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR stating that, a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.
 The CPR (Rule 16.04) is clear in that lawyers are proscribed from borrowing money or
property from clients, unless the latter's interests are fully protected by the nature of the
case or by independent advice. Here, respondent lawyer's act of borrowing does not
constitute an exception. Respondent lawyer used his client's jewelry in order to obtain, and
then appropriate for himself, the proceeds from the pledge. In so doing, he had abused the
trust and confidence reposed upon him by his client.

30. Cobalt Resources vs Atty. Ronald Aguado

AC No. 10781 – April 12, 2016
Facts:
 A group of armed men, clad in vests bearing the mark "PASG" and pretending to be agents
of the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Group (PASG), hi-jacked Complainant’s delivery van
which was then loaded with cellular phones. With the use of Global Positioning Satellite
(GPS) Tracking Device installed in the cellular phones, the PNPCIDU tracked down the
location of the cellular phones to be in front of a Bar. The PNP-CIDU, proceeded to the Bar
 and found three (3) vehicles parked in front of the bar. When the PNP-CIDU approached
the vehicles, Anthony Palmes (Palmes) ran but he was chased by the police officers and
was arrested. Atty. Aguado who was then standing in the reception area was not arrested
as none of the police officers knew, at that time, of his participation in the crime. The PNP-
CIDU then searched the vehicles and found the cellular phones, the Identification Card (ID)
showing Atty. Aguado as Legal Consultant of the PASG, the Mission Order identifying Atty.
Aguado as the Assistant Team Leader, and a vest bearing the mark PASG.
 CRI further averred that the men who hijacked its delivery van used the fake mission order
when it flagged down the delivery van; that the mission order identified Atty. Aguado as the
assistant team leader and authorized the armed men to seize CRI’s cellular phones; that
the PASG issued a certification stating that the mission order was fake; that Atty. Aguado
carried an ID bearing his picture and name which showed that he was a PASG legal
consultant; and that this ID was likewise fake as evidenced by a certification issued by the
PASG.
 Based on the Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Palmes, CRI concluded that it was Atty.
Aguado who prepared the fake mission order and masterminded the crime as he was the
one who conceived it and laid down the nitty-gritty details of its execution; and that it was he
who recruited the armed men who actually executed the hijacking. Eventually, two separate
Informations were filed against Atty. Aguado and several others. The IBP directed Atty.
Aguado to submit his answer but, despite several extensions, he failed to do so. The IBP
then set the case for mandatory conference.
 In its Report and Recommendation, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found
Atty. Aguado liable for unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct in falsifying the
ID and mission order showing him as the Legal Consultant and the Assistant Team Leader,
respectively, of the PASG. The IBP-CBD recommended that he be suspended for two (2)
years. It, however, deferred the issue of Atty. Aguado’s purported participation in the
alleged hijacking incident as the issue pertained to a judicial function.
Issue:
 Whether or not Atty. Aguado deserved the ultimate penalty of disbarment as the falsification
of public documents was sufficiently established.
Held:
 It must be emphasized that a disbarment proceeding, being administrative in nature, is
separate and distinct from a criminal action filed against a lawyer and they may proceed
independently of each other. A finding of guilt in the criminal case does not necessarily
mean a finding of liability in the administrative case. In the same way, the dismissal of a
criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence against an accused, who is also a
respondent in an administrative case, does not necessarily exculpate him administratively
because the quantum of evidence required is different. In criminal cases, proof beyond
reasonable doubt is required. In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against
lawyers, the quantum of proof required is clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of
proof rests upon the complainant. Preponderance of evidence means "evidence which is
more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition
thereto.
 It must be emphasized that a membership in the Bar is a privilege laden with conditions,
and granted only to those who possess the strict intellectual and moral qualifications
required of lawyers as instruments in the effective and efficient administration of justice. As
officers of the courts and keepers of the public’s faith, lawyers are burdened with the
highest degree of social responsibility and so mandated to behave at all times in a manner
consistent with truth and honor. They are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but
also this high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing.
 Atty. Aguado has committed acts that showed he was unfit and unable to faithfully
discharge his bounden duties as a member of the legal profession. Because he failed to live
up to the exacting standards demanded of him, he proved himself unworthy of the privilege
to practice law. As vanguards of our legal system, lawyers, are expected at all times to
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal professor and to refrain from any act or omission
which might diminish the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the
legal profession.

31. Carrie-Anne Reyes vs Atty. Ramon Nieva

AC No. 8560 – September 06, 2016
Facts:
 Complainant has been working at CAAP as an Administrative Aide on a Job Order basis
since. She was later re-assigned at the CAAP Office of the Board Secretary under the
supervision of respondent, who was then acting as CAAP Acting Board Secretary. During
complainant's stint under respondent, she would notice that during office hours, respondent
would often watch videos which turned out to be pornographic films. Complainant also
averred that whenever respondent got close to her, he would hold her hand and would
sometimes give it a kiss. During these instances, complainant would remove her hands and
tell him to desist. According to complainant, respondent even offered her a cellular phone
together with the necessary load to serve as means for their private communication, but
she refused the said offer, insisting that she already has her own cellular phone and does
not need another one.
 Complainant further recounted that one day, respondent asked complainant to encode a
memorandum he was about to dictate. Suddenly, respondent placed his hand on
complainant's waist area near her breast and started caressing the latter's torso.
Complainant immediately moved away from respondent. Instead of asking for an apology,
respondent told complainant he was willing to give her P2,000.00 a month from his own
pocket. And on the same day, while complainant and respondent were left alone in the
office, respondent suddenly closed the door, grabbed complainant's arm, and then
attempted to kiss complainant. This prompted complainant to thwart respondent's advances
with her left arm, raised her voice in order to invite help. After respondent let her go,
complainant immediately left the office to ask assistance from her former supervisor who
advised her to file an administrative case4 against respondent before the CAAP Committee
on Decorum and Investigation (CODI).
 In his defense, respondent denied all of complainant's allegations. Respondent then pointed
out that the administrative case filed against him before the CODI was already dismissed
for lack of basis and that complainant was only being used by other CAAP employees who
were agitated by the reforms he helped implement upon his assumption as CAAP
consultant and eventually as Acting Corporate Board Secretary.
Issue:
 Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Held:
 The provision of Canon 1 Rule 1.01 instructs that as officers of the court, lawyers are bound
to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty,
integrity, and fair dealing.
 Good moral character is a trait that every practicing lawyer is required to possess. It may be
defined as what a person really is, as distinguished from good reputation, or from the
opinion generally entertained of him, or the estimate in which he is held by the public in the
place where he is known. Moral character is not a subjective term but one which
 corresponds to objective reality. Such requirement has four (4) ostensible purposes,
namely: (a) to protect the public; (b) to protect the public image of lawyers; (c) to protect
prospective clients; and (d) to protect errant lawyers from themselves.
 Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded by the Court that possession of good moral
character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission
to the Bar and to retain membership in the legal profession. This proceeds from the lawyer's
bounden duty to observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the Bar's
integrity, and the legal profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called
upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of
malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest
degree of morality.
 In Arnobit v. Atty. Arnobit, the Court has explained that as officers of the court, lawyers
must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral
character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the
community. A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only required to refrain
from adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress but must also behave himself so as to
avoid scandalizing the public by creating the impression that he is flouting those moral
standards." Consequently, any errant behavior of the lawyer, be it in his public or private
activities, which tends to show deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment.
 Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar
but also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain their good standing in this
exclusive and honored fraternity. They may be suspended from the practice of law or
disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows
him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.
 In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is
substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Further, the complainant has the burden of
proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. The basic rule is that mere
allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion
and speculation likewise cannot be given credence.
 Jurisprudence provides that in similar administrative cases where the lawyer exhibited
immoral conduct, the Court meted penalties ranging from reprimand to disbarment. Here,
respondent exhibited his immoral behavior through his habitual watching of pornographic
materials while in the office and his acts of sexual harassment against complainant.
Considering the circumstances of this case, the Court deems it proper to impose upon
respondent the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.

32. Maria Victoria Belo-Henares vs Atty. Roberto Guevarra

AC No. 11394 – December 01, 2016
Facts:
 Respondent is the lawyer of a certain Ms. Josefina "Josie" Norcio (Norcio), who filed
criminal cases against complainant for an allegedly botched surgical procedure on her
buttocks purportedly causing infection and making her ill. Respondent wrote a series of
posts on his Facebook account insulting and verbally abusing complainant. The complaint
further alleged that respondent posted remarks on his Facebook account that were
intended to destroy and ruin BMGI's medical personnel, as well as the entire medical
practice of around 300 employees for no fair or justifiable cause. Moreover, respondent,
through his Facebook account, posted remarks that allegedly threatened complainant with
criminal conviction, without factual basis and without proof. Complainant likewise averred
 that some of respondent's Facebook posts were sexist, vulgar, and disrespectful of women.
Finally, complainant averred that the attacks against her were made with the object to extort
money from her.
 Asserting that the said posts, written in vulgar and obscene language, were designed to
inspire public hatred, destroy her reputation, and to close BMGI and all its clinics, as well as
to extort money from her, complainant lodged the instant complaint for disbarment against
respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
 In defense, respondent claimed that the complaint was filed in violation of his
constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy. He also averred that he wrote the posts in the
exercise of his freedom of speech, and contended that the complaint was filed to derail the
criminal cases that his client, Norcio, had filed against complainant. He denied that the
remarks were vulgar and obscene, and that he made them in order to inspire public hatred
against complainant. He likewise denied that he attempted to extort money from her,
explaining that he sent the demand letter as a requirement prior to the filing of the criminal
case for estafa, as well as the civil case for damages against her. Finally, respondent
pointed out that complainant was a public figure who is, therefore, the subject of fair
comment.
Issue:
 Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable based on the allegations
of the verified complaint.
Held:
 The defense is untenable. Social media are web-based platforms that enable online
interaction and facilitate users to generate and share content. By posting the subject
remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and BMGI, respondent disregarded the fact
that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or
private life. He overlooked the fact that he must behave in a manner befitting of an officer of
the court, that is, respectful, firm, and decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and rudely;
he used words unbecoming of an officer of the law, and conducted himself in an aggressive
way by hurling insults and maligning complainant's and BMGI's reputation.
 Respondent's inappropriate and obscene language, and his act of publicly insulting and
undermining the reputation of complainant through the subject Facebook posts are,
therefore, in complete and utter violation of the following provisions in the Code of
Professional Responsibility:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
- Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
- Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
- Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten
to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any
case or proceeding.

33. Maria Japitana vs Atty. Sylvester Parado

AC No. 10859 – January 26, 2016
Facts:
 Atty. Parado notarized the Real Estate Mortgage4 between RC Lending Investors, Inc. (RC
Lending), as mortgagee, and Maria Theresa G. Japitana (Theresa) and Ma. Nette Japitana
(Nette), as mortgagors. It was supposedly witnessed by Maria Sallie Japitana (Sallie) and
Maria Lourdes Japitana-Sibi (Lourdes) and her husband Dante Sibi (Dante), Fatima's
 sisters and brother-in-law, respectively. The mortgage covered a parcel of land on which
the family home of the Japitanas was constituted. On the same date, Atty. Parado notarized
the Affidavit allegedly executed by Theresa, Nette, Lourdes, Dante, and Sallie to show their
conformity to the Real Estate Mortgage over the land where their family home was situated.
 RC Lending, through Cristeta G. Cuenco (Cuenco), filed its Petition for ExtraJudicial
Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage.6 Consequently, the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
was issued under the name of RC Lending. Consequently, it filed an ex-parte motion for the
issuance of a break-open order, for RC Lending to effectively take the possession of the
subject property as it was gated and nobody would answer in spite of the sheriffs repeated
knocking.
 Fatima, however, assailed that the signatures in the Real Estate Mortgage as well as in the
Affidavit, both notarized were forgeries. She asserted that Atty. Parado did not require the
persons who appeared before him to present any valid identification. Fatima alleged that
Atty. Parado manually forged the signatures of Sallie, Lourdes and Dante, as witnesses to
the Real Estate Mortgage. She added that her sister, Theresa, was a schizophrenic. More
importantly, Fatima averred that Atty. Parado had no notarial authority, as certified by the
Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu.
Issue:
 Whether or not Atty. Parado was guilty of unethical conduct for performing notarial acts
without the necessary authority, and knowingly notarized forged documents.
Held:
 A close perusal of the records reveals that Atty. Parado had no existing notarial commission
when he notarized the documents in question in 2006. This is supported by the certification
issued by the Clerk of Court of the RTC stating that based on the Notarial Records, Atty.
Parado had not been issued a notarial commission for the year 2006. He failed to refute the
same as he neither appeared during the mandatory conference nor filed his position paper.
 Under the rule, only persons who are commissioned as notary public may perform notarial
acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the court which granted the commission. By
performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court, Atty. Siapno
violated not only his oath to obey the laws particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice but
also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes all
lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and directs
them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at all times.
 Atty. Parado knowingly performed notarial acts in 2006 in spite of the absence of a notarial
commission for the said period. Further, he was dishonest when he testified in court that he
had a notarial commission effective until 2008, when, in truth, he had none. Atty. Parado's
misdeeds run afoul of his duties and responsibilities, both as a lawyer and a notary public.

34. Erlinda Sistual vs Atty. Eliordo Ogena

AC No. 9807 – February 02, 2016
Facts:
 Complainants alleged that respondent Atty. Eliordo Ogena (Atty. Ogena), who was the legal
counsel of their late father, Manuel A. Sistual (Manuel), wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
falsified several documents which included, among others, a Special Power of Attorney
(SPA), Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate, Affidavit of Identification of Heirs, Deed of
Donation, and a Deed of Absolute Sale by making it appear that all the children of Manuel
and their mother, Erlinda Sistual (Erlinda), executed the documents resulting to the
cancellation of TCT 60467 registered in the name of Heirs of Martin Sistual, represented by
Manuel Sistual, and was subdivided into several lots; and that these lots were sold to
interested buyers.
 In his Answer with Affirmative/Special Defenses and Motion to Dismiss, Atty. Ogena denied
the allegations averring that he was engaged by Manuel to represent the heirs of Martin
Sistual in a complaint for recovery of possession in which the heirs of Martin Sistual were
able to obtain a favorable decision and pursuant to the said decision, Lot 464 was awarded
to the heirs of Martin Sistual and TCT No. T-60467 was issued in their names.
 When Manuel died, the heirs of Martin Sistual executed a SPA designating Bienvenido
Sistual (Bienvenido) as their attorney-in-fact; that Erlinda, the wife of Manuel, manifested
her desire to represent the heirs of Martin Sistual, so her two children also executed an
SPA in her favor; that the heirs of Martin Sistual opposed the appointment of Erlinda and
executed another SPA in favor of Bienvenido; and that Atty. Ogena wrote the names of
complainants Erlinda and Flordeliza Sistual but they did not sign it.
 Atty. Ogena explained that Bienvenido, upon the prodding of the heirs of Martin Sistual with
the exception of the complainants, caused the subdivision of the property covered by TCT
No. T-60467 into several sub-lots.
Issue:
 Whether or not Atty. Ogena should be suspended from the practice of law and forever
barred from becoming a notary public.
Held:
 Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a person shall not
perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document -
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary
public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
 Doubtless, Atty. Ogena was negligent in the performance of his duty as a notary public. He
failed to require the personal presence of the signatories of the documents and proceeded
to notarize the aforementioned documents without the signatures of all the parties.
Likewise, Atty. Ogena failed to comply with the most basic function that a notary public
must do -to require the parties to present their residence certificates or any other document
to prove their identities.
 Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act. It is invested with substantive
public interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public
document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A
notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public
must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties;
otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of the document would be undermined.
 By notarizing the aforementioned documents, Atty. Ogena engaged in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. His conduct is fraught with dangerous possibilities considering
the conclusiveness on the due execution of a document that our courts and the public
accord to notarized documents. His failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted
not only in damaging complainants' rights but also in undermining the integrity of a notary
public and in degrading the function of notarization. Thus, Atty. Ogena should be liable for
such negligence, not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.

35. Heirs of Pedro Alilano vs Atty. Roberto Examen

AC No. 10132 – March 24, 2015
Facts:
 Pedro Alilano and his wife, Florentina, were the holders of Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
No. P-23261 covering a parcel of land. Pedro and Florentina died on March 6, 1985 and
October 11, 1989, respectively. Sometime in September 1984, Spouses Examen obtained
possession of the property.
 Later, the heirs of Alilano filed a suit for recovery of possession against Edna Examen and
Atty. Roberto Examen. However, it appears that on March 31, 1984 and September 12,
1984, an 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 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 based on IBP Resolution No. XVI-2004-
13 where it was proposed that the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Section 1, Rule VIII, be revised to include a prescription
period for professional misconduct: within two years from the date of the act.
Issue:
 Whether or not the action against Atty. Examen may not prosper due to prescription based
on IBP Resolution No. XVI-2004-13 and due to good faith.
Held:
 In Bengco v. Bernardo, the Court stated that putting a prescriptive period on administrative
cases involving members of the bar would only serve to embolden them to disregard the
very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private
complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely
exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for.
 Note must be taken that under 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule IV, Section 3(c), a
notary public is disqualified among others to perform the notarial act if he is related by
affinity or consanguinity to a principal within the fourth civil degree, to wit:
SEC. 3. Disqualifications. – A notary public is disqualified from performing a
notarial act if he:
(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity
or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree.cralawlawlibrary
That Atty. Examen was not incompetent to act as a notary public in the present case does
not mean that he can evade administrative liability under the CPR in conjunction with the
provisions of the Notarial Law.
 A notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with public
interest, with accuracy and fidelity. Good faith cannot be a mitigating circumstance in
situations since the duty to function as a notary public is personal. We note that the error
could have been prevented had Atty. Examen diligently performed his functions: personally
checked the correctness of the documents. To say that it was his secretary’s fault reflects
disregard and unfitness to discharge the functions of a notary public for it is he who
 personally acknowledges the document. He was behooved under Section 251, Chapter 11
of the Revised Administrative Code to check if the proper cedulas were presented and
inspect if the documents to be acknowledged by him reflected the correct details. This
Court cannot stress enough that notarization is not a routinary act. It is imbued with
substantive public interest owing to the public character of his duties

36. Arcatomy Guarin vs Atty. Christine Limpin

AC No. 10576 – January 14, 2015
Facts:
 Guarin was hired by Mr. Celso G. de los Angeles as COO and thereafter as President of
OneCard Company, Inc. He later resigned from his post and transferred to St. Luke's
Medical Center as the Vice President for Finance. Atty. Limpin, the Corporate Secretary of
Legacy Card, Inc. (LCI), another corporation under the Legacy Group, filed with the SEC a
GIS for LCI for updating purposes identifying Guarin as Chairman of the Board of Directors
(BOD) and President.
 Mired with allegations of anomalous business transactions and practices, LCI applied for
voluntary dissolution with the SEC. Consequently, Guarin filed the complaint with the IBP
CBD claiming that Atty. Limpin violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR by knowingly
listing him as a stockholder, Chairman of the Board and President of LCI when she knew
that he had already resigned and had never held any share nor was he elected as
chairperson of the BOD or been President of LCI. He also never received any notice of
meeting or agenda where his appointment as Chairman would be taken up. He has never
accepted any appointment as Chairman and President of LCI.
 Atty. Limpin admits that she filed the GIS with the SEC listing Guarin as a stockholder, the
Chairman of the BOD and President of LCI. She argued that the GIS was provisional to
comply with SEC requirements. It would have been corrected in the future but unfortunately
LCI filed for voluntary dissolution shortly thereafter. She averred that the GIS was made
and submitted in good faith and that her certification served to attest to the information from
the last BOD meeting.
 She asserted that Guarin knew that he was a stockholder. Atty. Limpin said that she sent
Guarin a text message and asked him to meet with her so he may sign a Deed of
Assignment concerning shareholdings. Guarin responded in the affirmative and said that he
would meet with her. Guarin, however, neglected to show up at the arranged time and
place for reasons unknown to Atty. Limpin. On the strength of Guarin’s positive reply, Atty.
Limpin filed the GIS.
Issue:
 Whether or not Atty. Limpin may be absolved from liability as she allegedly acted in good
faith.
Held:
 Members of the bar are reminded that their first duty is to comply with the rules of
procedure, ratherthan seek exceptions as loopholes. A lawyer who assists a client in a
dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an act which justifies
disciplinary action against the lawyer.
 As Justice Malcolm stated the serious consequences of disbarment or suspension should
follow only where there is a clear preponderance of evidence against the respondent. The
presumption is that the attorney is innocent of the charges proferred and has performed his
duty as an officer of the court in accordance with his oath.
 Grounds for such administrative action against a lawyer may be found in Section 27, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court. Among these are (1) the use of any deceit, malpractice, or other
 gross misconduct in such office and (2) any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before the admission to practice.
 After going through the submissions and stipulations of the parties, we agree with the IBP
that there is no indication that Guarin held any share to the corporation and that he is
therefore ineligible to hold a seat in the BOD and be the president of the company. It is
undisputed that Atty. Limpin filed and certified that Guarin was a stockholder of LCI in the
GIS. While she posits that she had made the same in good faith, her certification also
contained a stipulation that she made a due verification of the statements contained therein.
That Atty. Limpin believed that Guarin would sign a Deed of Assignment is inconsequential:
he never signed the instrument. We also note that there was no submission which would
support the allegation that Guarin was in fact a stockholder. We thus find that in filing a GIS
that contained false information, Atty. Limpin committed an infraction which did not conform
to her oath as a lawyer in accord with Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR.

37. Erlinda Foster vs Atty. Jaime Agtang

AC No. 10579 – December 10, 2014
Facts:
 Complainant was referred to respondent in connection with her legal problem regarding a
deed of absolute sale she entered into with Tierra Realty, which respondent had notarized.
After their discussion, complainant agreed to engage his legal services for the filing of the
appropriate case in court, for which they signed a contract.
 Respondent wrote a letter to Tropical Villas Subdivision in relation to the legal problem
referred by complainant. He then visited the latter in her home and asked for a loan payable
in sixty (60) days, for the repair of his car. Complainant, having trust and confidence on
respondent being her lawyer, agreed to lend the amount without interest.
 Later, complainant became aware that Tierra Realty was attempting to transfer to its name
a lot she had previously purchased. She referred the matter to respondent who
recommended the immediate filing of a case for reformation of contract with damages.
Subsequently, respondent requested and thereafter received from complainant the amount
of P150,000.00, as filing fee. When asked about the exorbitant amount, respondent cited
the high value of the land and the sheriffs’ travel expenses and accommodations in Manila,
for the service of the summons to the defendant corporation. However, complainant later
confirmed that the fees paid was only amounted to P22,410.00 per trial court records.
During a conversation with the Registrar of Deeds, complainant also discovered that
respondent was the one who notarized the document being questioned in the civil case she
filed.
 In his Answer, respondent admitted the fact that he notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale
subject of complainant’s case, but he qualified that he was not paid his notarial fees
therefor. He likewise admitted acting as counsel for complainant for which he claimed to
have received P10,000.00 as acceptance fee and P5,000.00 for incidental fees. Anent the
loan of P100,000.00, respondent averred that it was complainant, at the behest of her
husband, who willingly offered the amount to him for his patience in visiting them at home
and for his services. The transaction was declared as “no loan” and he was told not to worry
about its payment. As regards the amount of P150,000.00 he received for filing fees,
respondent claimed that the said amount was suggested by the complainant herself who
was persistent in covering the incidental expenses in the handling of the case. He denied
having said that the sheriffs of the court would need the money for their hotel
accommodations. Complainant’s husband approved of the amount.
Issue:
 Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:
 Rule 1.0, Canon 1 of the CPR, provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It is well-established that a lawyer’s conduct is “not
confined to the performance of his professional duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for
misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is whether his
conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor,
or whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. In this case,
respondent is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct, both in his professional
and private capacity. As a lawyer, he clearly misled complainant into believing that the filing
fees for her case were worth more than the prescribed amount in the rules, due to feigned
reasons such as the high value of the land involved and the extra expenses to be incurred
by court employees. In other words, he resorted to overpricing, an act customarily related to
depravity and dishonesty. He demanded the amount of P150,000.00 as filing fee, when in
truth, the same amounted only to P22,410.00. His defense that it was complainant who
suggested that amount deserves no iota of credence. For one, it is highly improbable that
complainant, who was then plagued with the rigors of litigation, would propose such amount
that would further burden her financial resources. Assuming that the complainant was more
than willing to shell out an exorbitant amount just to initiate her complaint with the trial court,
still, respondent should not have accepted the excessive amount. As a lawyer, he is not
only expected to be knowledgeable in the matter of filing fees, but he is likewise duty-bound
to disclose to his client the actual amount due, consistent with the values of honesty and
good faith expected of all members of the legal profession.
 Verily, when the Code or the Rules speaks of “conduct” or “misconduct,” the reference is
not confined to one’s behavior exhibited in connection with the performance of the lawyer’s
professional duties, but also covers any misconduct which, albeit unrelated to the actual
practice of his profession, would show him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the
privileges which his license and the law vest him with.
 Moreover, the fiduciary nature of the relationship between the counsel and his client
imposes on the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or received
for or from his client. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose but not used for the
purpose should be immediately returned. A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the
funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has
appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client.
Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs
public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. It is clear that
respondent failed to fulfill this duty. As pointed out, he received various amounts from
complainant but he could not account for all of them. Worse, he could not deny the
authenticity of the receipts presented by complainant. Upon demand, he failed to return the
excess money from the alleged filing fees and other expenses. His possession gives rise to
the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of, and in
violation of the trust reposed in him by, the client. When a lawyer receives money from the
client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client
showing that the money was spent for the intended purpose. Consequently, if the lawyer
does not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the
money to the client.
 A member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred or suspended from his office as an
attorney, for violation of the lawyer’s oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal
profession as embodied in the CPR. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on any of the following
grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral
 conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyer's
oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willful
appearance as an attorney for a party without authority. 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, honesty, probity and good demeanor, or unworthy to
continue as an officer of the court.

38. Heinz Heck vs Hon. Anthony Santos

AM No. RTJ-01-1657 – February 23, 2004
Facts:
 Heinz R. Heck filed a verified Letter-Complaint praying for the disbarment of Judge Anthony
E. Santos. Complainant alleged that prior to the respondent’s appointment as RTC, he
violated the notarial law by subscribing and forwarding (on a non-regular basis) notarized
documents to the Clerk of Court during the time that he was not duly commissioned as
notary public.
 In his Answer, the respondent judge categorically denied the charges against him. He also
submitted a certification from Clerk of Court, Atty. Sabio-Beja, to prove that there was no
proper recording of the commissioned lawyers in the City of Cagayan de Oro as well as the
submitted notarized documents/notarial register. The respondent further averred that the
complainant has never been privy to the documents notarized and submitted by the
respondent before the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis
Oriental, nor his rights prejudiced on account of the said notarized documents and therefore
not the proper party to raise the said issues and that the complainant was one of the
defendants in a case for Specific Performance & Sum of Money, filed before the Regional
Trial Court, wherein respondent is the Presiding Judge.
Issue:
 Whether or not a retired judge charged with notarizing documents without the requisite
notary commission more than twenty years ago be disciplined.
Held:
 The fact that a judge has retired or has otherwise been separated from the service does not
necessarily divest the Court of its jurisdiction to determine the veracity of the allegations of
the complaint, pursuant to its disciplinary authority over members of the bench. As we held
in Gallos v. Cordero:
The jurisdiction that was ours at the time of the filing of the administrative
complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent, had ceased in
office during the pendency of his case. The Court retains jurisdiction either to
pronounce the respondent public official innocent of the charges or declare him
guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustice and pregnant with
dreadful and dangerous implications... If innocent, respondent public official
merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which
he has served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the
corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation.
 In order for an administrative complaint against a retiring or retired judge or justice to be
dismissed outright, the following requisites must concur: (1) the complaint must have been
filed within six months from the compulsory retirement of the judge or justice; (2) the cause
of action must have occurred at least a year before such filing; and, (3) it is shown that the
complaint was intended to harass the respondent.
 In this case, the Administrative Complaint dated March 21, 2001 was received by the Office
of the Court Administrator on March 26, 2001.21 The respondent retired compulsorily from
the service more than a year later, or on May 22, 2002. Likewise, the ground for disbarment
 or disciplinary action alleged to have been committed by the respondent did not occur a
year before the respondent’s separation from the service. Furthermore, and most
importantly, the instant complaint was not prima facie shown to be without merit and
intended merely to harass the respondent. Clearly, therefore, the instant case does not fall
within the ambit of the foregoing resolution.
 It is settled that a judge may be disciplined for acts committed prior to his appointment to
the judiciary. In fact, even the new Rule itself recognizes this, as it provides for the
immediate forwarding to the Supreme Court for disposition and adjudication of charges
against justices and judges before the IBP, including those filed prior to their appointment to
the judiciary.23 It need not be shown that the respondent continued the doing of the act or
acts complained of; it is sufficient that the evidence on record supports the charge on the
respondent, considering the gravity of the offense.
 It would be unreasonable and unfair to presume that since he had wandered from the path
of moral righteousness, he could never retrace his steps and walk proud and tall again in
that path. No man is beyond information and redemption. A lawyer who aspires for the
exalted position of a magistrate knows, or ought to know, that he must pay a high price for
that honor - his private and official conduct must at all times be free from the appearance of
impropriety.