A.C. No.

6116
Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon, complainant,
vs.
Atty. Mariano R. Pifianco, respondent.
August 1, 2012
Perlas-Bernabe J.:
Facts:
Complainant Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon filed a disbarment case against Atty. Mariano Pifianco, for grave
dishonesty, gross misconduct constituting deceit and grossly immoral conduct. Complainant alleged
that respondent has not lived up to the high moral standards required of his profession for having
abandoned his legal wife, Milagros Hilado, with whom he has two children and cohabited with Mae
Florgalido, with whom he has four children. He also accused respondent of engaging in money lending
business without the required authorization from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Mariano Pifianco violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:
Rule 1.01 states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawfu, disonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned his legal family yo cohabit with his
mistress. The settled rule is that betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relation outisde
marriage is considered disgracefull and immoral as its manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of
marriage and the marital vows proteted by the constitution. However, the charge of engaging in illegal
money lending not to have been sufficiently established. Wherefore, respondent Atty. Mariano is found
guilty of violation of the lawyer's oath, rule 1.01, canon 1 of the code of professional responsibility and
suspende from the active practice of law for 1 year.

A.C. No. 8382

Alfredo B. Roa, complainant
vs.
Atty. Juan R. Moreno, respondent.
April 21, 2010
Carpio, J.:
Facts:
Atty. Juan Moreno sold to Alfredo Roa, complainant, a parcel of land located along Cupang, Antipolo.
Complainant paid Atty. Moreno, P70,000.00 in cash full payment for the lot. Respondent did not issue
a deed of sale instead, he issued a temporary receipt and a certificate of land occupancy. Thereafter,
complainant learned that the certificate of land occupancy could not be registered in the Register of
Deeds. When complainant went to see Atty. Moreno, the latter admitted that the real owner of the lot
was ceratin Rubio. He also said there was a pending legal controversy over the lot. Complainant sent a
letter to respondent demanding to return the money he paid for the lot. Respondent denied ever
meeting the complainant, much less selling the lot he did not own.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Moreno violated rule 1.01, canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or private
capacity. In the present case, respondent acted in his private capacity. He misinterpreted that he owned
the lot he sold to complainant. He refused to return the amount paid by complainant. Also, he denied
having any transaction with the said complainant. Respondent's refusal to return to complainant the
money paid for the lot is unbecoming a member of the bar and an officer of the court. By his conduct,
respondent failed to live up to the strict standard of professionalism required by the Code of
Professional Respnsibility. Wherefore, the court finds Atty. Moreno, guilty of violating Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the court suspends him from the
practice of law for a period of 2 years and ordered to return the P70,000.00.

A.C. No. 5738

Rural Bnk of Calape, Inc. (RCBI), complainant,
vs.
Atty. James Benedict Florido, respondent.
June 18, 2010
Carpio, J.:
Facts:
RCBI filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Florido. RCBI alleged that respondent violated his
oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. On April 1, 2000 respondent and his clients
Nazareno-Relampagas Group, through force and intimidation, with the use of armed men, forcibly took
over the management and the premises of RCBI. They also forcibly evicted Cirilo Garay, the bank
manager, destroyed the bank's vault and installed their own staff to run the bank.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Florido violated Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Pofessional Responsibility.
Held:
The duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the
constitution and obey the laws of the land. Likewise, it is the lawyers duty to promote respect for the
law and legal processes and to abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the law or lessening
confidence in the legal system. Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon
taking their oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law. Their fidelity to their clients must
always be made within the parameters of law and ethics, and the fair administration of justice.
Wherefore, respondent Atty. Florido, guilty of violating Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, he is suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.

A.C. No. 6655

Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla, complainant,
vs.
Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua
William, Jr., J.:
Facts:
Complainant Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla seeking the disbarment of respondent Atty. Victoriano Pascua
for allegedly fortifying a public document an evading the payment of correct tapes through the use of
falsified documents. On September 2001, respondent notarized deeds of extra judicial settlement of the
estate od deceased Lope Caalim with sale was for a consideration of P250,000.00 and the second deed
was for a consideration of P1,000,000.00 and appears to have been executed and signed by Lope's
surviving spouse, Caridad Tabajeros and her children Virginia Caalim-Inog and Marivinia Caalim.
Complainant avers that both deeds are spurious because all the signatures were falslified. She contends
that her sister Marivinia does not know how to sign her name and was confined at the Cagayan Valley
Medical Center at the time the deeds were allegedly signed, being diagnosed of substance induced
psychosis and schizophrenia. Complainant further allege that the community tax certificates in her
name and in the name of her mother were produced only by the vendee Shirley. The signatures and
thumbmarks appearing on the documents are not genuine and authentic.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Pascua violated Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:
Rule 1.02 states that a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system. Respondent should not have been more prudent and remained
steadfast in his solemn oath, not to commit falsehood nor consent to the doing of any. As a lawyer,
respondent is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain
from any act or ommission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the
integrity of legal profession. Wherefore, respondent Atty. Pascua is hereby suspended from the practice
of law for a period of 2 years. In addition, his present notarial commission, if any, is hereby revoked
and he is disqualified from reappointment as a notary public for a period of 2 years. He is further
warned that any any similar act or infraction in the future sall be dealt with more severely.

A.C. No. 6672

Pedro L. Linsangan, complainant,
vs.
Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino, respondent.
September 4, 2009
Corona, J.:
Facts:
Pedro Linsangan, complainant, of the Linsangan Law Office filed a disbarment case against Atty.
Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services. Complainant alleged
that respondent with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal
representation. Respondent promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection on their
claims. Complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio, stating that Labiano tried to
prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize respondent's services
instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000.00
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Tolentino violated Rule 1.03, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:
Rule 1.03 states that a lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man's cause. This rule proscribes ambulance chasing, the solicitation of almost
any kind o f legal business by attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain employment.
Money was dangled to lure clients away from their original lawyers, thereby taking advantage of their
financial distress and emotional vulnerability. It degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved no place
in the legal profession. Wherefore, respondent Atty. Tolentino for violating Rule1.03, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility is hereby suspended from the prctice of law for a period of 1 year.

A.C. No. 6622

Miguel G. Villatuya, complainant,
vs.
Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos, respondent.
July 10, 2012
Per Curiam:
Facts:
Complainant Miguel Villatuya charged Atty. Bede Tabalingcos with unlawfully soliciting clients and
advertising legal services through business entities. Allegedly respondent set up two financial
consultancy firms, Jesi and Jane Management, Inc. and Christmel Business Link, Inc. and used them as
fronts to advertise his legal services and solicit cases. Complainant supported his allegations by
presenting a position paper, the articles of incorporation of Jesi and Jane, letter proposals to clients
signed by respondent and on various dates and proofs of payment made to the latter clients.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Tabalingcos violated Rule 2.03, Canon 2 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Held:
Rule 2.03 provides that a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed to primarily solicit
business. A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other unlawful occupation.
Impropriety arises, though, when the business is conducted in such a manner as to inconsistent with the
lawyer's duties as a member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the business is one that can
readily lend itself to the procurement of professional employment for the lawyer or that can be used as
a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyer's behalf. Jesi and Jane Management, Inc. proposed an
agreement for the engagement of legal services. It is stated that the client agree to the proposed fees,
respondent would render legal services related to the former's loan obligation with a bank. Wherefore,
respondent Atty. Tabalingcos is reprimanded for acts of illegal advertisement and solicitation, violating
Rule 2.03, Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

A.C. No. 5380

Mary D. Malecdan, complainant,
vs.
Atty. Matthew P. Kollin, respondent.
January 20, 2004
Callejo, Sr., J.:
Facts:
Complainant Mary Malecdan enterd into a Deed of Sale with the spouse Washington and Eliza Fanged
over a parcel of land located in Baguio City. The complainant paid P2,600,000.00 as full and final
payment. The money was deposited in the account of Atty. Artemio Bustamante, theres counsel of Eliza
Fanged. Later, complainant found out that the said lot was subject to a controversy. Eliza Fanged
through her new counsel respondent Atty. Matthew Kollin, filed a complaint for rescission of contract
with a prayer for the issuance of a TRO with damages against the complainant, Atty. Bustamante, Phil.
Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB). Respondent, thereafter filed a manifestation of compromise
settlement praying that an order be issued directing PCIB to transfer the amount of P30,000.00 from the
account of Atty. Bustamante as attorney's fees of the former. Respondent knew that the money did not
belong to his client. When the complainant requested the released of her money, Atty. Kollin refused to
do so.
Issue:
whether or not resondent Atty. Kollin violates Rule 2.04, Canon 2 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Held:
Rule 2.04 states that a lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed unless the
circumstances warrant. It is settled principles that the compensation of a lawyer should be but a mere
incident of the practice of law, the primary purpose of which is to render public service. The practice of
law is a profession and not a money-making tradde. As they are an indispensable part of the system of
administering justice, the attorneys must comply strictly with the oath of office and the canons of
professional respondibility. A lawyer's vocation is not synonymous with an ordinary business
proposition but a serious matter of public interest. Wherefore, respondent Atty. Kollin is suspended
from the practice of law for 3 years.

A.C. No. 6290

Ana Marie Cmbaliza, complainant,
vs.
Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio, respondent.
July 14, 2004
Davide, Jr., J.:
Facts:
Complainant Ana Marie Cambaliza, a former employee of respondent Atty. Ana Luz Cristal-Tenorio in
her law office, charged the latter with malpractice or misconduct in office. Respondent cooperated in
the illegal practice of law, her husband Felicisimo Tenorio, Jr., is not a lawyer nor even an accountant;
submitted the letterhead of her law office where the name of his husband is listed as a senior partner
and a Sagip Communication Radio Group identification card identified him as Atty. Felicisimo Tenorio,
Jr. The latter as well even appear in court hearings.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Tenorio violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:
Rule 9.01 states that a lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a member of the bar in good standing. Public policy requires
that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified iin education and character.
The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client and the bar from the incompetence or
dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law. Thus, the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him
not to permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to make possible the
unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate. Wherefore,for culpable violation of
Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent Atty. Tenorio is hereby
suspended for the practice of law for a period of 6 months, with a warning that a repetition of the same
act in the future will be dealt more severely.