Saburdino vs.

Madroño
AC No. 4497 / September 26, 2001

Facts:

Sps. Saburdino filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Madroño.
They alleged that respondent has been harassing them by filing numerous complaints against
them.

Respondent is a former judge of MTC. Mr. Saburdino is a police officer and his wife is a
public school teacher. Previous to this administrative complaint, complainants filed separate
administrative cases against respondent where respondent was found guilty and consequently
was dismissed from service and his retirement benefits were forfeited.

In the present case, complainants allege that respondent has been harassing them by
filing numerous complaints against them, namely:
1. Respondent claimed that Mr. Saburdino lent his service firearm to an acquaintance
who thereafter extorted money from public jeepney drivers while posing as a
member of the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group
2. Respondent averred that Mr. Saburdino, with the help of his co-respondents in a
case, inserted an entry in the police blotter regarding the loss of his firearm
3. Respondent alleged that Mr. Saburdino, without permission from his superior, took
into custody a prisoner who thereafter escaped.
4. Respondent alleged that Mrs. Saburdino served as chairperson of the BEI despite
being related to a candidate for Brgy. Councilor.

Complainants allege that respondent filed those cases against them in retaliation, since
they had earlier filed administrative cases against him that resulted in his dismissal from the
judiciary. Complainants assert that due to the complaints filed against them, they suffered
much moral, mental, physical, and financial damage.

Respondent contends that the grounds for the administrative cases in which he was
dismissed did not constitute moral turpitude, hence he could not be disbarred thereof.

IBP recommends that respondent be suspended from practice of law for one year.

Issue:

Whether or not Respondent committed acts constituting gross misconduct that warrant
the imposition of administrative sanction.

Ruling: YES

Rule 7.03 of CPR provides that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
affects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall be whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Respondent’s act of filing multiple complaints reflects on his fitness to be a member of

the legal profession. His act evinces vindictiveness, a decidedly undesirable trait whether in a
lawyer or another individual, as complainants were instrumental in respondent’s dismissal from
judiciary. Respondent’s tenacity in pursuing several cases against complainants is not the
persistence of one who has been grievously wronged but the obstinacy of one who is trying to
exact revenge.

Although the complainants asked for the disbarment of respondent, however the court
find that suspension from the practice of law is sufficient to discipline respondent.
 Delos Reyes vs. Atty. Aznar
AM No. 1334 / November 28, 1989

Facts:

Complainant, a 2nd year medical student of Southwestern University, filed a complaint

for disbarment against Atty. Aznar, chairman of the said university. Delos Reyes alleged that
respondent had a carnal knowledge of her for several times under threat that she would fail in
her subject if she would not submit to respondent’s lustful desires.

Respondent denied any personal knowledge of the complainant as well as the

allegations. He averred that complainant is a woman of loose morality. While respondent
denied having taking complainant to the hotel in Manila and had sexual intercourse with her
there, he did not present any evidence to show where he was at that date. While this is not a
criminal proceeding, respondent would have done more than keep his silence if he really felt
unjustly traduced. The Solicitor General found that the charge of immorality against respondent
has been substantiated by sufficient evidence both testimonial and documentary.

Issue:
Whether or not Respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct and thus be disbarred.

Ruling: YES

It is the duty of the lawyer, whenever his moral character is put in issue, to satisfy the
court that he is a fir and proper person to enjoy continued membership in the Bar. When his
integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not enough that he denies the charges against him; he
must meet the issue and overcome the evidence for the relator and show proofs that he still
maintains the highest degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is expected of him.

Complainant submitted to respondent’s solicitation for sexual intercourse not because of

a desire for sexual gratification but because of respondent’s moral ascendancy over her and
fear that if she would not accede, she would flunk in her subjects. A lawyer may be disbarred
for grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
A member of the Bar should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity.

Narag vs. Narag

AC No. 3405 / June 29, 1998

Facts:

Mrs. Narag filed a complaint for disbarment against her husband, Atty. Narag.
Complainant alleged that Respondent was a professor in a graduate school and had an illicit
relationship with his student and subsequently abandoned his family to live with the said
student.

Respondent, in his answer, denied the allegations against him. He averred that it was
the complainant who harassed and humiliated him because of jealous rage. He said that
complainant told everyone, everywhere that her husband was worthless, good for nothing, evil
and immoral. And because of that he was disgraced, shamed, and humiliated. He averred that
he never abandoned his family and that it was his family who forcibly drove him out of the
conjugal home.

Respondent did not present himself on the witness stand to testify and be cross-
examined on sworn comment nor did he present his alleged paramour to disprove the
adulterous relationship.

Issue:
 Whether or not Respondent should be disbarred

Ruling: Yes

The court found that the conduct of respondent warrants the imposition of the penalty of
disbarment. Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but
a continuing qualification for all members of the bar. When a lawyer is found guilty of gross
immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.

On the strength of the testimony of Complainant’s witnesses, she was able to establish
that respondent abandoned his family and lived with another woman. While the burden of proof
is upon the complainant, respondent has the duty not only to himself but also to the court to
show that he is morally fit to remain as member of the bar. mere denial does not suffice. Thus,
when his moral character is assailed, such that his right to continue practicing is profession is
imperiled, he must meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the
investigating body and this court, that he is morally fit to have his name in the roll of attorneys.
This he failed to do.

Figueroa vs. Barranco

SBC Case No. 519 / July 31, 1997

Facts:

Complainant petitioned that respondent be denied admission to the legal profession.

Before respondent could take his oath, complainant filed this petition averring that respondent
and she had been sweethearts, that a child out of wedlock was born to them and that
respondent did not fulfill his repeated promises to marry her. Her trust in him and their
relationship ended when she learned that respondent married another woman.

At first, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute the case for an
unreasonable period of time and to allow respondent to take the lawyer’s oath. However, after
such, complainant revived her petition and respondent was prevented from taking the lawyer’s
oath.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct and should not be allowed
to take the lawyer’s oath.

Ruling: NO

The court did not find that the acts of respondent constituted gross immoral conduct that
would warrant the permanent exclusion from the legal profession. His engaging in premarital
sexual relations with complainant and promises to marry suggests a doubtful moral character
on his part but the same does not constitute grossly immoral conduct. To justify suspension or
disbarment, the act complained of must not only be immoral but grossly immoral. A grossly
immoral conduct is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. Respondent and
complainant were sweethearts whose sexual relations were evidently consensual. Although
respondent chose to marry and settle permanently with another woman, the court cannot
castigate a man seeking out the partner of his dreams. The complaint can be viewed as an act
of revenge of a woman who is scorned, bitter and unforgiving to the end. It is also intended to
make respondent suffer severely and sacrificing the profession he worked hard to be admitted
into.
 Chua vs. Atty. Mesina
AC No. 4904 / August 12, 2004

Facts:

A complaint was filed against Atty. Mesina for breach of professional ethics, gross
professional misconduct, and culpable malpractice. There was a conveyance of property and
as complainants were apprised of the amount of capital gains tax, they consulted respondent
about it. Respondent suggested to them that another Deed of Absolute Sale should be
executed that will be antedated before the effectivity of the law mandating the payment of
capital gains tax. This advice was followed by complainants. However later on, complainants
were charged for falsification of public document and violation of the Internal Revenue Code
and that the Deed of Absolute Sale did not reflect the true value of the property and was
antedated to evade payment of capital gains tax.

A notice of hearing was sent to respondent but he did not appear. Given the length of
time that the case remained pending, the complainants were directed to just file their position
paper with affidavits and supporting document.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and be disbarred.

Ruling: YES

By advising complainants to execute another Deed of Absolute Sale antedated to evade

payment of capital gains tax, he violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal
processes, and not to abet activities aimed at defiance of law.

Respondent violated his oath of office and Canons 1,7,15, & 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Alcantara vs. Atty. Pefianco

AC No. 5398 / December 3, 2002

Facts:

This is a complaint against Atty. Pefianco for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar
for using improper and offensive language and threatening and attempting to assault
complainant. The complainant, Atty. Alcantara, is the incumbent District Public Attorney of
PAO in San Jose, Antique. He alleged that while Atty. Salvani was conferring with a client in
the PAO’s office, a woman approached them. Complainant suggested Atty. Salvani to talk with
her when Respondent Atty. Pefianco, who was sitting nearby, stood up and shouted at Atty.
Salvani and his client. Atty. Pefianco was asked to calm down but he did not refrain from his
outburst. This caused a commotion in the office wherein respondent tried to attack complainant
and even shouted at him, “You’re stupid”. Complainant also submitted the affidavits of Atty.
Salvani and other persons who witnessed the incident in order to corroborate his allegations.

Respondent said that the sight of the crying woman, whose husband had been
murdered, moved him and prompted him to take up her defense. He also averred that it was
Atty. Alcantara who punched him and called him stupid.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent’s act violate the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling: YES
 Respondent violated Canon 8 which provides that, a lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel.

Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act
honorably, fairly and candidly toward each other and otherwise conduct themselves without
reproach at all times. In this case, respondent’s meddling in a matter in which he had no right
to do so caused the untoward incident. Though he thought that this is righteous, his public
behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the eyes of the public and erode respect
for it. An injustice cannot be righted by another injustice.

Andres vs. Cabrera

94 SCRA 512 / December 14, 1979

Facts:
 Stanley R. Cabrera was a successful bar examinee in 1977
 Atty. Emila Andres was a legal officer in the Ministry of Labor. She dismissed a case
filed by Cabrera’s mother against a certain Atty. Perez
 Because of the dismissal, Cabrera filed with the City Fiscal a criminal charges against
Andres for graft and corruption, & falsification of public documents)
 Andres then filed a case of disqualification against Cabrera. Cabrera apparently used in
his affidavit vile, uncivil and uncouth language (e.g. moronic, unparalleled stupidity,
idiotic)
 Cabrera’s oath taking was therefore postponed. The SC required him to file an answer
as to why he should not be disqualified. In Cabrera’s reply he still used unfit language.
In subsequent motions by Cabrera, he used the words “a victim of the court’s inhuman
and cruel punishment through its supreme inaction”.
 The court thereafter deferred his oath taking until he has shown that he has changes his
ways. Cabrera then filed a motion for contempt of court and he still used unfit language.
SC required Cabrera to file a reply as to why he should not be held in contempt.
Cabrera filed an apology but the language he used were still improper.

Issue:
Whether or not Cabrera should be held in contempt

Ruling: Yes

A fine was imposed against him amounting to P500 and imprisonment for 50 days.

The duty to observe and maintain the respect due the courts devolves not only upon
lawyers but also upon those who will choose to enter the profession. Their failure to discharge
such duty may prevent them from being inducted into the office of attorney.

Cruz vs. Cabrera

AC No. 5737 / October 25, 2004

Facts:

Complainant alleges that he is a 4 th year law student, he instituted several actions

against his neighbors; he appeared for and in his behalf in his own cases; he met respondent
who acted as the counsel of his neighbors during a hearing.
 Respondent’s imputations were uncalled for and the latter’s act of compelling the court
to ask complainant whether he is a lawyer or not was intended to malign him before the public,
inasmuch as respondent knew that complainant is not a lawyer, having appeared for and in his
behalf as a party litigant in prior cases. Respondent’s imputation of complainant’s
misrepresentation as a lawyer was patently with malice to discredit his owner, with the
intention to threaten him not to appear anymore in cases respondent was handling. The
manner, substance, tone of voice and how the words” appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka
muna!” uttered were totally with the intention to annoy, vex and humiliate, malign, ridicule,
incriminate and discredit complainant before the public.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility.

Ruling:

The court ruled that respondent’s outburst of “appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna”
does not amount to a violation under the said Rule. Such single outburst, though uncalled for,
is not of such magnitude as to warrant respondent’s suspension or reproof. It is but a product
of impulsiveness of the heat of the moment in the course of an argument between them. It has
been said that lawyers should not be held to too strict an account for words said in the heat of
the moment because of chagrin at losing cases, and that the big way is for the court to
condone even contemptuous language.

Cambaliza vs. Cristal-Tenorio

AC No. 6290 / July 14, 2004

Facts:

Complainant, a former employee of respondent in her law office, charged the latter with
deceit, grossly immoral conduct, and malpractice or other gross misconduct in office. Case on
deceit and grossly immoral conduct did not pursue lacking clear and convincing evidence. On
malpractice or other gross misconduct in office, the complainant alleged that the respondent
cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her husband, who is not a member of the Philippine
Bar.

Respondent averred that that this disbarment complaint was filed by the complainant
just to get even with her. The complainant later filed a motion to withdraw complaint but such
was not acted upon by the IBP and the case was pursued. The IBP found the respondent
guilty of assisting in unauthorized practice of law.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling: Yes

A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to misrepresent himself as a lawyer and
to practice law is guilty of violating Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the
unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. Public policy requires that
the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and
character.