Name: Phulagyn L.

Cañedo
Section: M7
Case #1:

JUAN DULALIA, JR. vs. ATTY. PABLO CRUZ

(A.C. No. 6854, April 25, 2007)

Facts: 
Complainant’s wife Susan Dulalia filed an application for building permit for the construction of a
warehouse, but was not issued a permit. She attributes this fact to the opposition of respondents who
wrote a September 13, 2004 letter to Carlos J. Abacan, Municipal Engineer and concurrent Building
Official of Meycauayan, Bulacan. The letter alleges that high-rise building under construction of the said
Mrs. Soriano-Dulalia is an unbearable nuisance that causes imminent danger to the respondents and his
family, they being the immediate neighbors of this construction site. Complainant claims that respondent
Atty Cruz opposed the application for the permit, because of a personal grudge against his wife Susan
who objected to respondent’s marrying her first cousin Imelda Soriano, respondent’s marriage with
Carolina Agaton being still subsisting. The IBP recommended the dismissal of the complaint, which was
adopted and approved by the Board of Governors. Hence, this petition. Complainant maintains that
respondent violated Rule 1.01 when he contracted a second marriage with Imelda Soriano on September
17, 1989 while his marriage with Carolina Agaton, which was solemnized on December 17, 1967, is still
subsisting.

Issue: 
Whether Atty. Cruz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Ruling: 
Yes. Respondent married Soriano on September 17, 1989 at the Clark County, Nevada, USA,
when the Family Code of the Philippines had already taken effect. He invokes good faith, however, he
claiming to have had the impression that the applicable provision at the time was Article 83 of the Civil
Code. In respondent’s case, he being out of the country since 1986, he can be given the benefit of the
doubt on his claim that Article 83 of the Civil Code was the applicable provision when he contracted the
second marriage abroad. From 1985 when allegedly his first wife abandoned him, an allegation which
was not refuted, until his marriage in 1989 with Imelda Soriano, there is no showing that he was
romantically involved with any woman. Respondent did not deny he contracted marriage with Imelda
Soriano. The community in which they have been living in fact elected him and served as President of the
IBP-Bulacan Chapter from 1997-1999 and has been handling free legal aid cases. However, respondent
may not go scot-free. The act of contracting a second marriage while the first marriage was still in place is
contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality.

Also, respondent violated Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He claim that he
was not aware that the Family Code already took effect on August 3, 1988 as he was in the United States
from 1986 and stayed there until he came back to the Philippines together with his second wife on
October 9, 1990 does not lie, as "ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.”  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. He is suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Name: Phulagyn L. Cañedo
Section: M7

Case #2:

PEDRO LINSANGAN vs. ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO

(A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009)

Facts: 
A complaint for disbarment is filed by Pedro Linsangan against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for
solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services. The complainant alleged that
respondent convinced his clients to transfer legal representation by promising them financial assistance.
The allegations of the complainant were supported by the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio who attested
to the respondent’s acts of trying to lure him to sever his lawyer-client relationship with complainant
Linsangan. An attached calling card of the respondent further supported the complaint which advertised
the respondent’s law firm with the term “with financial assistance”.

Issue: 
Whether or not respondent’s acts violate Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling: 
Yes, Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “A lawyer making known his
legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statements of facts.”
The practice of law is a professions and not a business. Lawyers should not advertise their talents as
merchants advertise their wares. The act of the respondent in including the phrase “with financial
assistance” in his calling card is a conduct of advertising the legal profession with commercialism and with
the purpose of enticing clients to change counsels through the promise of loans to finance their legal
action. A lawyer need not to advertise the legal profession in such a manner similar to commercial
businesses, a lawyer’s best advertisement is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct and not through promises of money.
Name: Phulagyn L. Cañedo
Section: M7

Case #3:

RIZALINA L. GEMINA vs. ATTY. ISIDRO S. MADAMBA

(A.C. No. 6689: August 24, 2011)
Facts:

Complainant, allegedly is an heir of the registered owner of several parcels of land located in Lao
City. These parcels of land were unlawfully sold by Francisco Eugenio in connivance with the respondent,
the documents pertaining to the transactions over these lands were notarized by the respondent either
without the presence of the affiants or with their forged signatures. The documents the complainant
referred to were: 1. Waiver of Rights & Interest; 2. Affidavit of Buyer/Transferee; 3. Deed of Adjudication &
Sales; 4. Affidavit of Non-Tenancy and 5. Deed of Absolute Sale. 

In his comments and compliance, the respondent admitted the complainant’s allegations on the
notarization of the subject documents, but denied any participation in the sale and transfer of the lands
covered by the documents. He claimed that it was his secretary who prepared and drafted the
documents. He claimed that his only participation was to affix his signature on the documents. He
apologized and committed himself not to repeat these misdeeds. 

In a resolution the case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. 
In the position paper she submitted to the IBP, the complainant reiterated her charges against the
respondent. The respondent likewise treated in his position paper his explanations contained in his
comment submitted to this Court. The Commissioner-in-Charge of the case submitted to the IBP Board of
Governors her Report and Recommendation, recommending the dismissal of the complaint for lack of
merit, finding that no documentary evidence was presented to support the same. She insisted that
respondent notarized documents without the appearance before him of the persons who executed the
same, but no clear and sufficient evidence was also presented. The report was adopted and approved by
the IBP Board of Governors.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent guilty for violating the Notarial Law and Code of Professional
Responsibility. 

Ruling:

Yes, respondent Atty. Isidro Madamba is guilty for violating the Notarial Law and Code of
Professional Responsibility. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes.
The Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, moreover, require a duly commissioned notary
public to make the proper entries in his Notarial Register and to refrain from committing any dereliction or
any act which may serve as cause for the revocation of his commission or the imposition of administrative
sanctions. 

In this case, the inaccuracies of Atty. Isidro, in his Notarial Register entries and his failure to enter
the documents that he admittedly notarized constitute dereliction of duty as a notary public. He cannot
escape liability by putting the blame on his secretary. The lawyer himself, not merely his secretary, should
be held accountable for these misdeeds. Moreover, the IBP Resolution, based wholly on Commissioner
Maala’s Report and Recommendation, totally missed and disregarded the submitted evidence and the
respondent’s testimony during the hearing of the complaint. The IBP treated the respondent with
exceptional leniency. The respondent’s age and sickness cannot be cited as reasons to disregard the
serious lapses he committed in the performance of his duties as a lawyer and as a notary public. Thus,
respondent Atty. Isidro Madamba is guilty for violating the Notarial Law and Code of Professional
Responsibility. 
Name: Phulagyn L. Cañedo
Section: M7

Case #4:

RODOLFO ESPINOSA vs. ATTY. JULIETA OMAÑA

(A.C. No. 9081, October 12, 2011)

Facts:

On 17 November 1997, Rodolfo Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal sought Omaña’s legal
advice on whether they could dissolve their marriage and live separately. Omaña prepared a document
entitled “Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay.” Espinosa and Marantal started implanting the conditions of the
said contract. However, Marantal took custody of all their children and took possession of most of the
conjugal property. Espinosa sought the advice of Glindo, his fellow employee who is a law graduate, who
informed him that the contract executed by Omaña was not valid. They hired the services of a lawyer to
file a complaint against Omaña before the IBP-CBD. Omana denied that she prepared the contract. She
admitted that Espinosa went to see her and requested for the notarization of the contract but she told him
that it was illegal. Omaña alleged that Espinosa returned the next day while she was out of the office and
managed to persuade her part-time office staff to notarize the document. Her office staff forged her
signature and notarized the contract. 

Issue:
Whether or not Omaña violated the Canon of Professional Responsibility in the notarization of
Marantal and Espinosa’s "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay." 

Ruling: 
Yes, Omaña violated the Canon of Professional Responsibility in the notarization of Marantal and
Espinosa’s "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay." Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. 

In this case, Omaña had failed to exercise due diligence in the performance of her function as a
notary public and to comply with the requirements of the law. Omaña knew fully well that the "Kasunduan
Ng Paghihiwalay" has no legal effect and is against public policy. Therefore, Omaña may be suspended
from office as an attorney for breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. She was suspended from the practice of law for one year. Also, her notarial
service was suspended for two years.
Name: Phulagyn L. Cañedo
Section: M7

Case #5:

EMILIA R. HERNANDEZ vs. ATTY. VENANCIO B. PADILLA

(A.C. No. 9387, June 20, 2012)

Facts:

Complainant and her husband were the respondents in an ejectment case filed against them. The
RTC ordered that the Deed of Sale executed in favor of complainant be cancelled; and that the latter pay
the complainant therein, Elisa Duigan, attorney’s fees and moral damages. 

Complainant and her husband filed their Notice of Appeal with the RTC. Thereafter, the Court of
Appeals ordered them to file their Appellants’ Brief. But the respondent filed a Memorandum on Appeal
instead of an Appellants’ Brief. Thus, Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal. The CA granted the
Motion in a Resolution. Complainant and her husband failed to file an appeal on the Resolution, because
respondent never informed them of the adverse decision. Complainant further claims that she asked
respondent “several times” about the status of the appeal, but “despite inquiries he deliberately withheld
response,” to the damage and prejudice of the spouses. Hence, Complainant filed an Affidavit of
Complaint with the Committee on Bar Discipline of the IBP seeking the disbarment of respondent on
grounds of deceit, malpractice, and grave misconduct. Complainant prays for moral damages in the
amount of ₱350,000. 

The Director of Bar Discipline ordered respondent to submit an answer to the Complaint. In his
Counter-Affidavit/Answer respondent prayed for the outright dismissal of the Complaint. He explained that
he was not the lawyer of complainant. He averred that prior to the mandatory conference set by the IBP
he had never met complainant, because it was her husband who had personally transacted with him.
According to respondent, the husband “despondently pleaded to me to prepare a Memorandum on
Appeal because according to him the period given by the CA was to lapse within two or three days.”
Thus, respondent claims that he filed a Memorandum on Appeal because he honestly believed that it is
this pleading which was required. 

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that respondent violated Canons 5, 17, and 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended suspension from practicing law from 3 to 6
months. The IBP board of governors of the IBP issued a Resolution adopting and approving the Report
and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. Upon Motion the IBP board of governors partly
granted by reducing the penalty imposed to one- month suspension from the practice of law. 

Issue 
Whether or not Atty. Padilla is guilty of malpractice, deceit and grave misconduct. 

Ruling:

Yes, Atty. Padilla is found guilty of violating the Rules and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives
rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is that lawyer’s
duty to serve the client with competence and diligence. 

In the instant case, respondent has failed to fulfill this duty. Regardless of the pleading his client
may have believed to be necessary, it was respondent’s duty to know the proper pleading to be filed in
appeals from RTC decisions. Respondent, as a litigator, was expected to know the procedure and this is
embodied in Canon 5 of the Code. Respondent’s plea for leniency should not have been granted. The
supposed lack of time given to respondent to acquaint himself with the facts of the case does not excuse
Name: Phulagyn L. Cañedo
Section: M7
his negligence. Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without
adequate preparation. Second, respondent, as counsel, had the duty to inform his clients of the status of
their case. His failure to do so amounted to a violation of Rule 18.04 of the Code. Lastly, the failure of
respondent to file the proper pleading and a comment on Duigan’s Motion to Dismiss is negligence on his
part. Under 18.03 of the Code, a lawyer is liable for negligence in handling the client’s case. 

Wherefore, respondent Atty. Venancio Padilla is found guilty of violating Rules 18.02, 18.03,
18.04, as well as Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence, he is suspended from the
practice of law for six (6) months and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will
be dealt with more severely.
Name: Phulagyn L. Cañedo
Section: M7

SYNTHESIS

The practice of law is a great privilege and also entails a big responsibility for lawyers to obey and
promote respect to the law and legal processes. A lawyer must demonstrate his or her utmost respect to
the law through his or her conduct and dealings in the practice of the law. This is true as in the case of
Gemina vs. Atty. Isidro s. Madamba, A.C. No. 6689, August 24, 2011, where Atty. Madamba cannot put
up the defense that the inaccuracies in his Notarial Register entries were done by his secretary and
escape liability. The lawyer himself, not merely his secretary, should be held accountable for these
misdeeds. Lawyers must, therefore, be extra careful and mindful in their jobs as an agent of the law.

Not only that a lawyer must be mindful of his conduct when in practice of the law but also in his
personal dealings such as in the case of Dulalia vs. Atty. Cruz, A.C. No. 6854, April 25, 2007, where Atty.
Cruz’s act of contracting a second marriage while the first marriage was still in place is contrary to
honesty, justice, decency and morality. Lawyers are expected to know the law and to obey it. Thus the
defense of not being aware of what the law is because ignorance of the law excuses no one. Lawyers are
also expected to be at 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.

The practice of law is also a profession and not a business. This is in accordance with Canon 3 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that “[a] lawyer making known his legal services
shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statements of facts.” Lawyers
should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares. The act of the respondent in the
case of Linsangan vs. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009, in including the phrase “with
financial assistance” in his calling card is a conduct of advertising the legal profession with
commercialism. A lawyer’s best advertisement is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct and not through promises of money.

If a lawyer has proven to gravely abuse his profession or is guilty of misconduct in his or her
practice of the law such as violating one of the canons in the Code of Professional Responsibility, he or
she will have to face disciplinary actions such as suspension or worst, disbarment.