ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG vs. ATTY.

ROGELIO Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that

JUAN A. CELERA degree of morality required of him as a member of
A.C. No. 5581. January 14, 2014. the Bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred
PER CURIAM
institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of
contracting a second marriage while his first
Facts: marriage is subsisting constituted grossly immoral
conduct and are grounds for disbarment under
Bansig, sister of Bunagan narrated that, respondent Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
and Grace Marie R. Bunagan, entered into a
contract of marriage. However, notwithstanding Considering respondent's propensity to disregard
respondent’s marriage with Bunagan, respondent not only the laws of the land but also the lawful
contracted another marriage with a certain Ma. orders of the Court, it only shows him to be wanting
Cielo Paz Torres Alba, as evidenced by a certified in moral character, honesty, probity and good
xerox copy of the certificate of marriage. demeanor. He is, thus, unworthy to continue as an
officer of the court.
Bansig stressed that the marriage between
respondent and Bunagan was still valid and in full ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA, guilty of
legal existence when he contracted his second grossly immoral conduct and willful
marriage with Alba, and that the first marriage had disobedience of lawful orders rendering him
never been annulled or rendered void by any lawful unworthy of continuing membership in the legal
authority. profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED
from the practice of law and his name stricken
Bansig alleged that respondent’s act of contracting of the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
marriage with Alba, while his marriage is still
subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral and conduct SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR. vs. ATTY.
unbecoming of a member of the Bar, which renders FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS
A.C No. 4749. January 20, 2000.
him unfit to continue his membership in the Bar.
MENDOZA, J.
Despite repeated summons and resolutions issued
Facts:
by the Court, Atty. Celera failed to properly answer
the complaint. The complaint dragged on for over a This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-
decade. payment of bar membership dues filed against
respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas. In a letter-
Issue: complaint to this Court dated February 8, 1997,
complainant Soliman M. Santos, Jr., himself a
Whether respondent is still fit to continue to be an member of the bar, alleged that Atty. Llamas, who
officer of the court in the dispensation of justice. for a number of years now, has not indicated the
proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in his
Ruling: pleadings. If at all, he only indicated IBP Rizal
259060 but he has been using this for at least 3
For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these years already. On the other hand, respondent, who
Marriage Certificates bearing the name of is now of age, averred that he is only engaged in a
respondent are competent and convincing evidence limited practice of law and under RA 7432, as a
to prove that he committed bigamy, which renders senior citizen, he is exempted from payment of
him unfit to continue as a member of the Bar income taxes and included in this exemption, is the
payment of membership dues.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Issue:
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful Whether or not the respondent has misled the court
about his standing in the IBP by using the same
conduct.
IBP O.R. number in his pleadings of at least 6
years and therefore liable for his actions.
Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and Whether or not the respondent is exempt from
support the activities of the Integrated Bar. paying his membership dues owing to limited
practice of law and for being a senior citizen.
Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice Ruling:
law, nor should he, whether in public or private
life, behave in a scandalous manner to the Yes. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his
discredit of the legal profession. pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public
and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the
Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: filed a case of falsification of public document
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, against Atty. Cefra and Paran.
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is
also a violation of Rule 10.01 which provides that: A Issue:
lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in court; nor mislead or allow the Whether or not the respondent guilty of violating the
court to be misled by any artifice. Notarial Law and Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
No. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the
Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues and default Ruling:
thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of
membership and if nonpayment covers a period of Respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra violated the
1-year, default shall be a ground for removal of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional
delinquent’s name from the Roll of Attorneys. It Responsibility in notarizing a document without
does not matter whether or not respondent is only requiring the presence of the affiants.
engaged in “limited” practice of law. Moreover,
While it is true that R.A. No. 7432, grants senior The notarization of documents ensures the
citizens "exemption from the payment of individual authenticity and reliability of a document. As this
income taxes: provided, that their annual taxable court previously explained:
income does not exceed the poverty level as
determined by the National Economic and Notarization of a private document converts such
Development Authority (NEDA) for that year," the document into a public one, and renders it
exemption however does not include payment of admissible in court without further proof of its
membership or association dues. authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and
the public at large must be able to rely upon the
Respondent's failure to pay his IBP dues and his acknowledgment executed by a notary public and
misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in court appended to a private instrument. Notarization is
indeed merit the most severe penalty. However, in not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages
view of respondent's advanced age, his express public interest in a substantial degree and the
willingness to pay his dues and plea for a more protection of that interest requires preventing those
temperate application of the law, we believe the who are not qualified or authorized to act as
penalty of one year suspension from the notaries public from imposing upon the public and
practice of law or until he has paid his IBP the courts and administrative offices generally.
dues, whichever is later, is appropriate.
Respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas is Atty. Cefra claims that Jimmy and Juanita wanted
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE to sell their land. Even if this is true, Jimmy and
(1) YEAR, or until he has paid his IBP dues, Juanita, as vendors, were not able to review the
whichever is later. document given for notarization. The Deed of
Absolute Sale was brought to Atty. Cefra by
JIMMY ANUDON and JUANITA ANUDON vs Paran’s representatives, who merely informed Atty.
ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA Cefra that the vendors signed the document. Atty.
A.C. No. 5482. February 10, 2015. Cefra should have exercised vigilance and not just
LEONEN, J. relied on the representations of the vendee.

Facts: Aside from Atty. Cefra’s violation of his duty as a

notary public, Atty. Cefra is also guilty of violating
Complainants Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
are brother- and sister-in-law. Complainants, along This canon requires "[a] lawyer [to] uphold the
with Jimmy’s brothers and sister, co-own a 4,446 Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
square meter parcel of land located in Sison, respect for law and legal processes." He
Pangasinan. Atty. Cefra notarized a Deed of contumaciously delayed compliance with this
Absolute Sale over a land owned by the court’s order to file a Comment.
complainants. The names of petitioners appeared
as vendors, while the name of Celino Paran, Jr. The act of disobeying a court order constitutes
appeared as the vendee. The complainants violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale was Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to "observe
falsified. They alleged that they did not sign it and maintain the respect due to the courts"
before Atty. Cefra. The National Bureau of
Investigation’s Questioned Documents Division WHEREFORE, this court finds respondent Atty.
certified that Jimmy and Juanita’s signatures were Arturo B. Cefra GUILTY of notarizing the Deed
forged. This was contrary to Atty. Cefra’s of Absolute Sale dated August 12, 1998 in the
acknowledgment over the document. Moreover, it absence of the affiants, as well as failure to
was physically impossible for Jimmy’s brothers and comply with an order from this court.
sister to have signed the document because they Accordingly, this court SUSPENDS him from
were somewhere else at that time. Due to the the practice of law for two (2) years, REVOKES
forgery of the Deed of Absolute Sale, the Assistant his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and
Prosecutor, with Jimmy and Juanita as witness, PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES him from being
commissioned as a notary public. Respondent
is also STERNLY WARNED that more severe Section 1, Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as
penalties will be imposed for any further breach the Notarial Law states:
of the Canons in the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The acknowledgment shall be before a notary
public or an officer duly authorized by law of the
country to take acknowledgments of instruments or
LICERIO DIZON vs ATTY. MARCELINO documents in the place where the act is done. The
CABUCANA, JR. notary public or the officer taking the
A.C. No. 10185. March 12, 2014. acknowledgment shall certify that the person
MENDOZA, J. acknowledging the instrument or document is
known to him and that he is the same person who
Facts: executed it, acknowledged that the same is his free
act and deed. The certificate shall be made under
On May 14, 2004, complainant Licerio Dizon the official seal, if he is required by law to keep a
(complainant) filed a petition against Atty. seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.
Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. (Atty. Cabucana),
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines The requirement of affiant's personal appearance
(IBP), praying for the disbarment of the latter for was further emphasized in Section 2 (b) of Rule IV
falsification of public document. of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 which
provides that:
In his petition, Dizon alleged that he was one of the
would-be-buyers of a parcel of land owned by the A person shall not perform a notarial act if the
heirs of the late Florentino Callangan, namely, person involved as signatory to the instrument or
Susana, Jun and Angeleta, all surnamed document –
Callangan, a compromise agreement was executed
by the parties in the said case and notarized before (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the
Atty. Cabucana on the same date it was signed at time of the notarization; and
the MTCC; that at the hearing conducted on
December 11, 2003 regarding the due execution (2) is not personally known to the notary public or
and the veracity of the compromise agreement, the otherwise identified by the notary public through
signatories therein testified that they signed the competent evidence of identity as defined by these
instrument in the court room of MTCC but not in the Rules.
presence of Atty. Cabucana as Notary Public; that
because of the irregularity in the due execution of As a notary public, Atty. Cabucana should not
the Compromise Agreement, there was undue notarize a document unless the person who signs it
delay in the resolution/decision of Civil Case No. 1- is the same person executing it and personally
689 which caused damage and injury to appearing before him to attest to the truth of its
complainant; that Atty. Cabucana violated the contents. This is to enable him to verify the
Notarial Law in notarizing the document in the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging
absence of most of the signatories/affiants; and that party and to ascertain that the document is the
he should be sanctioned in accordance with Rule party's free and voluntary act and deed.
138, Section 27 of the Rules of Code and Code of
Professional Responsibility. Complainant further WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty.
alleged that Atty. Cabucana uttered grave threats Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. GUILTY of violating
against him after the hearing of the said case in Rule 1.01, Canon l of the Code of Professional
MTCC. Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for
In his Answer, Atty. Cabucana averred that the three (3) months, REVOKES his incumbent
complaint was intended to harass him because he notarial commission, if any, and PROHIBITS
was the private prosecutor in a criminal case filed him from being commissioned as a notary
against complainant before the MTCC; that public for two (2) years, effective immediately,
complainant had no cause of action as his right was with a stern WARNING that a repetition of the
not violated because he was just a "would be" same or similar offense shall be dealt with more
buyer and not a party to the compromise severely.
agreement; and that complainant would not suffer
any damage by the pendency of the case or by any
defects obtaining in the notarization of the
compromise agreement.

Issue:

Is the respondent guilty in violation of the Notarial

Law for notarizingthe docu%ents without the
presence of all the parties therein

Ruling:
 NESTOR FELIPE, ALBERTO V. FELIPE, is unbecoming of a lawyer, for lawyers are
AURORA FELIPE-ORANTE, ASUNCION FELIPE- particularly called upon to obey court orders and
DOMINGO, MILAGROS FELIPE CABIGTING, and processes and are expected to stand foremost in
RODOLFO V. FELIPE complying with court directives being themselves
vs. officers of the court. As an officer of the court,
ATTY. CIRIACO A. MACAPAGAL respondent is expected to know that a resolution of
A.C. No. 4549. December 2, 2013. this Court is not a mere request but an order which
DEL CASTILLO, J. should be complied with promptly and completely.
This is also true of the orders of the IBP as the
Facts: investigating arm of the Court in administrative
cases against lawyers.
Petition for disbarment was filed against
respondent Atty. Ciriaco A. Macapagal. Under the circumstances, we deem a reprimand
with warning commensurate to the infraction
In a Resolution dated June 19, 1996, we required committed by the respondent.
respondent to comment. Respondent received a
copy of the Resolution on July 16, 1996.3 On ACCORDINGLY , respondent Atty. Ciriaco A.
August 15, 1996, respondent filed an Urgent Ex- Macapagal is REPRIMANDED for failing to give
Parte Motion For Extension Of Time To File due respect to the Court and the Integrated Bar
Comment. He requested for additional period of 30 of the Philippines. He is WARNED that
days within which to file his comment citing commission of a similar infraction will be dealt
numerous professional commitments. We granted with more severely. Resolution No. XX-2011-246
said request in our October 2, 1996 Resolution. dated November 19, 2011 of the Integrated Bar
The extended deadline passed sans respondent’s of the Philippines is SET ASIDE. A.C. No. 4549
comment. Thus on January 29, 1997, complainants is DISMISSED without prejudice. Let a copy of
file an Urgent Motion To Submit The Administrative this Resolution be entered in the personal
Case For Resolution Without Comment Of records of respondent as a member of the Bar,
Respondent claiming the respondent is deemed to and copies furnished the Office of the Bar
have waived his right to file comment. Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
It took 11 years, more particularly on February 26, and the Office of the Court Administrator for
2010, before the IBP, thru Investigating circulation to all courts in the country.
Commissioner Agustinus V. Gonzaga, submitted its
Report and Recommendation.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. THE
In his Report, the Investigating Commissioner HONORABLE JUANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR.,
quoted verbatim the allegations in the Petition; he HONORABLE CAESAR A. CASANOVA,
then narrated the proceedings undertaken by the HONORABLE CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA,
IBP. Unfortunately, no discussion was made AS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SPECIAL
regarding the merits of the complaint. However, it SECOND DIVISION, COURT OF TAX APPEALS;
was recommended that respondent be suspended and MYRNA M. GARCIA AND CUSTODIO
from the practice of law for one (1) month. In their MENDOZA VESTIDAS, JR.
Petition, complainants alleged that they are co- G.R. No. 208290. December 11, 2013.
plaintiffs while respondent is the counsel for the PER CURIAM.
defendants therein; that respondent committed
dishonesty when he stated in the defendants' Facts:
Answer that the parties therein are strangers to Issue:
each other despite knowing that the defendants are Ruling:
half-brothers and half-sisters of complainants; and
that they filed a criminal case for Perjury [against RENATO CAYETANO vs. CHRISTIAN MONSOD
the defendants pending before Branch 36 of the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. G.R. No. 100113. September 3, 1991
Complainants also alleged that respondent
introduced a falsified Certificate of Marriage as part FACTS:
of his evidence; and that they filed another Perjury
charge. Complainants insisted that by the foregoing Monsod was nominated by President Aquino as
actuations, respondent violated his duty as a lawyer Chairman of the Comelec. The Commission on
and prayed that he be disbarred and ordered to pay Appointments confirmed the appointment despite
complainants the amount of ₱500,000 representing Cayetano's objection, based on Monsod's alleged
the damages that they suffered. lack of the required qualification of 10 year law
practice. Cayetano filed this certiorari and
Issue:
prohibition. The 1987 constitution provides in
Ruling: Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a
Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman
Respondent's unjustified disregard of the lawful and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born
orders of this Court and the IBP is not only citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their
irresponsible, but also constitutes utter disrespect appointment, at least thirty-five years of age,
for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct
holders of a college degree, and must not have MAGDALENA T. ARCIGA VS SEGUNDINO D.
been candidates for any elective position in the MANIWANG
immediately preceding elections. However, a A.M. No. 1608. August 14, 1981.
AQUINO, J.
majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be
members of the Philippine Bar who have been Facts:
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
Magdalena and Segundino got acquainted
ISSUE: sometime in October, 1970 at Cebu City.
Magdalena was then a medical technology student
1. Whether or not Monsod has been engaged in the in the Cebu Institute of Medicine while Segundino
practice of law for 10 years. was a law student in the San Jose Recoletos
College. They became sweethearts, on March
2. Whether or not the Commission on 1971, Magdalena and Segundino had sexual
Appointments committed grave abuse of discretion congress. Thereafter, they had repeated acts of
in confirming Monsod’s appointment. cohabitation. Segundino started telling his
acquaintances that he and Magdalena were
HELD: secretly married.

1. YES. The practice of law is not limited to the In 1972 Segundino transferred his residence to
conduct of cases or litigation in court. It embraces Padada, Davao del Sur. He continued his studies to
the preparation of pleadings and other papers Davao City. Magdalena discovered in January 1973
incident to actions and special proceedings, the that she was pregnant. The two went to her
hometown, Ivisan, Capiz to apprise Magdalena’s
management of such actions and proceedings on
parents that they were married although they were
behalf of clients, and other works where the work not.
done involves the determination of the trained legal
mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions (PLA The respondent convinced Magdalena’s father to
vs. Agrava.) The records of the 1986 constitutional have the church wedding deferred until after he had
commission show that the interpretation of the term passed the bar examinations where he secured his
practice of law was liberal as to consider lawyers birth certificate preparatory to applying for a
marriage license.
employed in the Commission of Audit as engaged
in the practice of law provided that they use their Segundino passed the bar examinations that was
legal knowledge or talent in their respective work. released April 25, 1975. After the oathtaking,
The court also cited an article in the January 11, Segundino stopped corresponding with Magdalena.
1989 issue of the Business Star, that lawyers Magdalena went to Davao to contact Segundino.
nowadays have their own specialized fields such as Segundino told her that they could not get married
for lack of money.
tax lawyers, prosecutors, etc., that because of the
demands of their specialization, lawyers engage in In December 1975 Magdalena followed Segundino
other works or functions to meet them. These days, in Bukidnon only to find out that their marriage
for example, most corporation lawyers are involved could not take place because he had married
in management policy formulation. Therefore, Erlinda Ang.
Monsod, who passed the bar in 1960, worked with
the World Bank Group from 1963-1970, then Segundino followed Magdalena in Davao and
inflicted physical injuries upon her because she had
worked for an investment bank till 1986, became
a confrontation with his wife, Erlinda Ang.
member of the CONCOM in 1986, and also
became a member of the Davide Commission in Magdalena Arciga then filed a disbarment case on
1990, can be considered to have been engaged in the ground of grossly immoral conduct because he
the practice of law as lawyer-economist, lawyer- refused to fulfill his promise of marriage to her.
manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, etc.
Immoral conduct has been defined as "that
2. NO. The power of the COA to give consent to the conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless,
nomination of the Comelec Chairman by the and which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable members
president is mandated by the constitution. The
of the community"
power of appointment is essentially within the
discretion of whom it is so vested subject to the
only condition that the appointee should possess Issue:
the qualification required by law. From the
evidence, there is no occasion for the SC to Whether or not Maniwang should be disbarred and
exercise its corrective power since there is no such be held liable for grossly immoral conduct.
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA.
Ruling:
No, Segundino Maniwang shouldn’t be disbarred. Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the
The Supreme Court found that respondent’s refusal use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
to marry the complainant was not as corrupt or deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
unprincipled as to warrant disbarment. The
statement or claim regarding his qualifications
complaint for disbarment against the respondent is
hereby dismissed. or legal services.

Also, practice of law is not a business. It is a

KHAN vs SIMBILLO
A.C. No. 5299. August 19, 2003. profession in which duty to public service, not
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering
is not primarily meant to be a money-making
venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
FACTS: necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a
Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the livelihood should be a secondary consideration.
Supreme Court, called up the published telephone The duty to public service and to the administration
of justice should be the primary consideration of
number and pretended to be an interested party.
lawyers, who must subordinate their personal
She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her
husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in interests or what they owe to themselves. The
handling annulment cases and can guarantee a following elements distinguish the legal profession
from a business:
court decree within four to six months, provided the
case will not involve separation of property or 1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument
custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her is a by-product, and in which one may attain the
husband charges a fee of P48, 000.00, half of highest eminence without making much money;
which is payable at the time of filing of the case and
the other half after a decision thereon has been 2. A relation as an officer of the court to the
rendered. administration of justice involving thorough
sincerity, integrity and reliability;
Additional research by the Office of the Court
Administrator and the Public Information Office 3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of
revealed that similar advertisements were fiduciary;
published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the
Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The 4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized
Philippine Star. by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to
current business methods of advertising and
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly
his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and with their clients.
Chief of the Public Information Office, filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. There is no question that respondent committed the
Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation of acts complained of. He himself admitted that he
his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule caused the publication of the advertisements. The
3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Court ruled that respondent RIZALINO T.
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violation of Rules
2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional
Respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
argued that his acts for advertising and solicitation Rules of Court. Also, he is suspended from the
are not prohibited acts. practice of law for one (1) year.

ISSUE: LINSANGAN vs TOLENTINO

A.C. No. 6672. September 4, 2009.
Whether or not respondent’s act was a violation of CORONA, J.
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
FACTS:
RULING:
A complaint for disbarment filed by Pedro
Yes, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo violated Rule 2.03 and Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan &
Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Tolentino for solicitation of clients and
Rules of Court. encroachment of professional services.

Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help
of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his
done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
clients to transfer legal representation. Respondent
business. promised them financial assistance and expeditious
collection on their claims. To induce them to hire Moreover, Atty. Tolentino violated Rule 8.02
his services, he persistently called them and sent of the Code of Professional
them text messages. Responsibility. Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not,
directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing professional employment of another lawyer,
Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation however, it is the right of any lawyer, without
of the said calling card. fear or favor, to give proper advice and
assistance to those seeking relief against
unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
ISSUE:
By recruiting Atty.Linsangan’s clients, Atty.
1. Whether or not Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino Tolentino committed an unethical, predatory
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility overstep into another’s legal practice.
and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
The Court ruled that respondent Atty. Nicomedes
RULING: Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04
and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional
Yes. Lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the
for the purpose of gain, either personally or through Rules of Court and he was suspended from the
paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes practice of law for a period of one year.
malpractice, a ground for disbarment.

Atty. Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, and 16.04 CARMELITA I. ZAGUIRRE vs. ATTY. ALFREDO
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and CASTILLO
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. A.C. No. 4921. March 6, 2003.
PER CURIAM
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt
motive or interest, encourage any suit or Facts:
proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Atty. Alfredo Castillo was already married with three
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be children when he had an affair with Carmelita
done any act designed primarily to solicit legal Zaguirre. This occurred sometime from 1996 to
business. 1997, while Castillo was reviewing for the bar and
before the release of its results. Zaguirre then got
Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money pregnant allegedly with Castillo’s daughter. The
from his client unless the client's interest are latter, who was already a lawyer, notarized an
fully protected by the nature of the case or by affidavit recognizing the child and promising for her
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend support which did not materialize after the birth of
money to a client except, when in the interest of the child. The Court found him guilty of Gross
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses Immoral Conduct to which Castillo filed a motion for
in a legal matter he is handling for the client. reconsideration.

Section 27, Rule 138. Attorneys removed The IBP commented that until Castillo admits the
or suspended by Supreme Court on what paternity of the child and agrees to support her. In
grounds. — A member of the bar may be his defense, the latter presented different
removed or suspended from his office as certificates appreciating his services as a lawyer
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, and proving his good moral character. His wife
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such even submitted a handwritten letter stating his
office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of amicability as a husband and father despite the
his conviction of a crime involving moral affair. More than a year since the original decision
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which rendered by the Court, Castillo reiterated his
he is required to take before the admission to willingness to support the child to the Court and
practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any attached a photocopy of post-dated checks
lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly addressed to Zaguirre for the months of March to
or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to December 2005 in the amount of Php 2,000.00
a case without authority so to do. The practice each.
of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents Issue:
or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Castillo is guilty of
Although Atty. Tolentino initially denied knowing gross immoral conduct, making him punishable of
Labiano, he admitted he actually knew her later in Indefinite Suspension.
the proceedings. It is thus clear that Labiano was
connected to his law office. Through Labiano’s Ruling:
actions, Atty. Tolentino’s law practice was
benefited.
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent,
Atty. Alfredo Castillo, is guilty of gross immoral
conduct and should be punished with the penalty of 000.00 on September 26, 2000 as allowance for
Indefinite Suspension. The attempt of respondent research made.
to renege on his notarized statement recognizing
and undertaking to support his child by Carmelita Although an appeal was filed, complainant however
demonstrates a certain unscrupulousness on his charges the respondent of purposely failing to
part which is highly censurable, unbecoming a submit a copy of the summons and copy of the
member of a noble profession, tantamount to self- assailed decision. Subsequently, complainant
stultification. learned that the respondent filed the notice of
appeal 3 days after the lapse of the reglementary
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: period.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in On January 29, 2003, complainant received a
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful demand-letter from the respondent asking for the
conduct. delivery of the 1,000 sq. m. piece of land which he
allegedly promised as payment for respondent’s
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the appearance fee.
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Respondent further contends that he can collect the
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct unpaid appearance fee even without a written
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice contract on the basis of the principle of quantum
law, nor should he, whether in public or private meruit. He claims that his acceptance and
life, behave in a scandalous manner to the appearance fees are reasonable because a Makati
discredit of the legal profession. based legal practitioner, would not handle a case
for an acceptance fee of only P20,000.00 and
The Court found that Castillo’s show of repentance P1,000.00 per court appearance.
and active service to the community is a just and
reasonable ground to convert the original penalty of
indefinite suspension to a definite suspension of Issue:
two years. Furthermore, the Court noted that
Zaguirre’s further claim for the support of her child Whether or not Atty. Ngaseo, violated the Code of
should be addressed to the proper court in a proper Professional Responsibility for demanding the
case. delivery of 1,000 sq. m. parcel of land which was
the subject of litigation.
FEDERICO N. RAMOS vs. ATTY. PATRICIO A.
NGASEO Ruling:
A.C. No. 6210. December 9, 2004.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. Yes. Atty. Ngaseo violated Rule 20.04 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which provides “Rule
Facts: 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with
clients concerning his compensation and shall
This is a complaint for suspension of respondent resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition,
Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo for violation of the Code of injustice or fraud.”
Professional Responsibility and Article 1491 of the
Civil Code by demanding from his client, Rrespondent Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo is found
complainant Federico N. Ramos, the delivery of guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the
1,000 square meters of land, a litigated property, as legal profession in violation of Rule 20.04 of
payment for his appearance fees. Canon 20 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is REPRIMANDED with a
Sometime in 1998, complainant Federico Ramos warning that repetition of the same act will be
went to respondent Atty. Patricio Ngaseo’s Makati dealt with more severely.
office to engage his services as counsel in a case
involving a piece of land in San Carlos,
Pangasinan. Respondent agreed to handle the ROSARIO JUNIO vs ATTY. SALVADOR M.
case for an acceptance fee of P20, 000.00, GRUPO
appearance fee of P1, 000.00 per hearing and the A.C. No. 5020. December 18, 2001
cost of meals, transportation and other incidental MENDOZA, J.
expenses. Complainant alleges that he did not
promise to pay the respondent 1,000 sq. m. of land
as appearance fees. Facts:

On September 16, 1999, complainant went to the This is a complaint for disbarment filed against
respondent’s office to inquire about the status of Atty. Salvador M. Grupo for malpractice and
the case. Respondent informed him that the gross misconduct.
decision was adverse to them because a
congressman exerted pressure upon the trial judge. Rosario N. Junio alleged that sometime in 1995,
Respondent however assured him that they could she engaged the services of Atty. Grupo for the
still appeal the adverse judgment and asked for the redemption of a parcel of land covered by Transfer
additional amount of P3, 850.00 and another P2, Certificate of Title No. 20394 registered in the name
of her parents, spouses Rogelio and Rufina Nietes, suspended from the practice of law for a period
and located at Concepcion, Loay, Bohol. of one (1) month and to pay to respondent,
within 30 days from notice, the amount of
On 21 August 1995, Junio entrusted to respondent P25,000.00 with interest at the legal rate,
the amount of P25,000.00 in cash to be used in the computed from December 12,1996.
redemption of the aforesaid property.
In Re: Atty. David Briones
Notwithstanding the foregoing and for no valid A.C. No. 5486. August 15, 2001
reason, respondent did not redeem the property; as PUNO, J.
a result of which the right of redemption was lost
and the property was eventually forfeited.
Facts:
Because of respondent’s failure to redeem the
property, complainant had demanded the return of This matter arose from the continued failure of
the money which she entrusted to the former for the Atty. David P. Briones, counsel for accused-
above-stated purpose. Despite repeated demands appellant in G.R. No. 130965 (People of the
made by the complainant and without justifiable Philippines vs. Restituto Cabacan) pending
cause, respondent has continuously refused to
before the Second Division of this Court, to file
refund the money entrusted to him.
the required appellant's brief.
The family of the complainant and that of the
respondent were very close and intimate with each The notice to file appellant's brief was mailed to
other. Complainant, as well as two of her sisters, Atty. Briones and was given thirty (30) days from
had served respondents family as household receipt of the notice within which to file the brief.
helpers for many years when they were still in However, Atty. Briones failed to file the required
Manila. Grupo also stated that the basis of his brief within the period. The Court ordered Atty.
rendering legal services was purely gratuitous or Briones to show cause why he should not be
“an act of a friend for a friend” with “consideration
disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such
involved.” He concluded that there was no atty-
client relationship existing between them. failure and to submit the required brief within ten
(10) days from notice. Atty. Briones failed to comply
IBP found respondent liable for violation of Rule with the Court's directive within the specified
16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility period. Copy of said resolution was returned to the
which forbids lawyers from borrowing money Court unserved without specific reason.
from their clients unless the latter’s interests
are protected by the nature of the case or by The Court referred the matter of the repeated
independent advice. The Investigating failure of Atty. Briones to file appellant's brief to the
Commissioner found that respondent failed to
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for evaluation,
pay his client’s money.
report and recommendation. Through letter the IBP
Issue: Commissioner required Atty. Briones to file his
Comment within 5 days from receipt of the said
Whether or not there was an attorney-client letter. Atty. Briones, however, did not file any
relationship. Comment. The Commissioner recommended that
Atty. Briones be suspended for 6 months, which
Ruling:
subsequently adopted and approved by the IBP
Yes. There was an attorney-client relationship Board of Governors. Atty. Briones filed with the
between Junio and Grupo. A lawyer shall not IBP a Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation in
borrow money from his client unless the client’s which he claimed that he filed a Comment on the
interests are fully protected by the nature of the administrative case but the same was not
case or by independent advice (Rule 16.04, Code considered by the investigating commissioner. The
of Professional Responsibility).This rule is intended IBP however denied the motion. Thereafter Atty.
to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his
Briones filed with the Court a Manifestation and
influence over the client.
explained that he failed to file an appellant’s brief
Having gained dominance over Junio by virtue of because he never received a copy of the resolution
such long relation of master and servant, Grupo requiring him to file said brief. If ever a copy was
took advantage of his influence by not returning the received by his secretary, the latter was not able to
money. Grupo has committed an act which falls give it to him because he had already ceased
short of the standard conduct of an attorney. If an
practicing law.
ordinary borrower of money is required by law to
repay his loan, it is more so in the case of a lawyer Issue:
whose conduct serves as an example.
Whether or not Atty. Briones should be suspended
WHEREFORE, the Court finds petitioner guilty
from the practice of law.
of violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and orders him
Ruling: ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON vs. ATTY. RAMIL E.
MACALALAD
YES. The failure of the counsel to submit the A.C. No. 8158. February 24, 2010.
required brief within the reglementary period is an BRION, J.
offense that entails disciplinary action. His failure to
file an appellant’s has caused the appeal to remain Facts:
inactive for more than a year, to the prejudice of his
Atty. Macalalad is the Chief of the Legal Division of
client, the accused himself, who continues to the Department of Environment and Natural
languish in jail pending the resolution of his case. Resources (DENR), Regional Office 8, Tacloban
The accused in a criminal case has the right to a City. Although he is in public service, the DENR
swift and just disposition of his case. Lawyers are Secretary has given him the authority to engage in
obliged to protect, not defeat, such right. The the practice of law.
explanation of Atty. Briones for his failure to comply
While on official visit to Eastern Samar in October
with the Court’s directive is unsatisfactory. Such 2005, Atty. Macalalad was introduced to Atty.
omission can be attributed to pure negligence on Solidon by a mutual acquaintance, Flordeliz Cabo-
the part of Atty. Briones which we deem Borata (Ms. Cabo-Borata). Atty. Solidon asked Atty.
inexcusable. Macalalad to handle the judicial titling of a parcel of
land located in Borongan, Eastern Samar and
It is evident that respondent violated Rule 18.03 owned by Atty. Solidons relatives. For a
of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional consideration of Eighty Thousand Pesos
Responsibility to wit: (P80,000.00), Atty. Macalalad accepted the task to
be completed within a period of eight (8) months.
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter Atty. Macalalad received Fifty Thousand Pesos
entrusted to him, and his negligence in (P50,000.00) as initial payment; the remaining
balance of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00)
connection therewith shall render him liable.
was to be paid when Atty. Solidon received the
certificate of title to the property.
He cannot deny that his office received a copy of
the Court’s resolution ordering him to submit an Atty. Macalalad has not filed any petition for
appellant’s brief. The registry return card shows registration over the property.
that the notice to file appellant’s brief was received
by the addressee. To exonerate himself from Atty. Solidon claimed that he tried to contact Atty.
liability, Atty. Briones claims that his secretary did Macalalad to follow-up on the status of the case six
not forward to him the mail matters received in his (6) months after he paid the initial legal fees.
office. As a member of the Bar, he is expected to
Issue:
exercise due diligence in the practice of his
profession. He should have taken the initiative to Whether or not Atty. Macalalad is guilty of
check with her if there are important matters negligence in handling his case.
requiring his action or attention. Neither is the
cessation of his law practice an excuse for his Ruling:
failure to file the required brief. Even if it were true
YES. In administrative cases against lawyers, the
that Atty. Briones has stopped practicing law, he quantum of proof required is preponderance of
still could not ignore the directives coming from the evidence which the complainant has the burden to
Court. It does not appear from the records that Atty. discharge. The Court considered the evidence
Briones has withdrawn his appearance. It should be presented and fully satisfies the required quantum
stressed that every case a lawyer accepts deserves of proof in proving Atty. Macalalads negligence.
his full attention, diligence, skill and competence,
Respondent violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the
regardless of its importance and whether he
Code of Professional Responsibility provides for the
accepts it for a fee or for free. A lawyer’s fidelity to rule on negligence and states:
the cause of his client requires him to be ever
mindful of the responsibilities that should be Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
expected of him. He is mandated to exert his best matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
efforts to protect within the bounds of the law the connection therewith shall render him liable.
interest of his client. The Code of Professional
In addition to the above finding of negligence, the
Responsibility dictates that a lawyer shall serve his
Court dound Atty. Macalalad guilty of violating Rule
client with competence and diligence and he should 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. which requires a lawyer to account for all the
money received from the client. In this case, Atty.
Atty. David P. Briones is SUSPENDED from the Macalalad did not immediately account for and
practice of law for six (6) months effective promptly return the money he received.
immediately.
We impose on Atty. Ramil E. Macalalad the inquiry for several months is inexcusable. While he
penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS SUSPENSION from is correct to state that a lawyer may be relieved of
the practice of law for violations of Rule 16.03 his duties without the conformity of his client when
and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional he has lost all contact with the latter, the fact
Responsibility, effective upon finality of this remains that the court denied his discharge as
Decision. Atty. Macalalad is STERNLY WARNED counsel and that he is bound by oath to represent
that a repetition of the same or similar acts will Somosot. Lara violated Canon 18 of CPR that a
be dealt with more severely. lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence. Much was left to be desired in this case.
He never informed her of the request for admission
OFELIA R. SOMOSOT vs ATTY. GERARDO F. and the interrogatories. His reason, assuming it
LARA were true, that he had not been paid from May to
A.C. No. 7024. January 30, 2009. august is no cause to withhold vital information
BRION, J. from her. While he had valid reasons to withdraw
and terminate his relationship with his client
Facts: (deliberate failure to pay for services/comply with
retainer agreement AND appointment/election to
Somosot employed Lara as her counsel in a public office) it seems he never cited these before
collection case filed against her by Golden the courts. He was suspended for 3 months.
Collection for the sum of P 1.3M. She was counter-
claiming that Golden Collection Corp owed her P DR. GIL Y. GAMILLA vs. ATTY. EDUARDO J.
800,000. He entered his appearance after securing MARIO JR.
his acceptance fee. She alleged that after filing the A.C. No. 4763. March 20, 2003
answer the respondent failed to inform her of
developments in the case and that she only learned Facts:
that there had been a decision against her. She
learned that Lara had tried to discharge himself THIS DISBARMENT CASE EMANATED from an
from the duty of being her counsel. He said that he intra-union leadership dispute some seventeen
could not locate her, thus he did so without her (17) years ago that spilled over to the instant
knowledge and consent. Somosot claims however complaint alleging impropriety and double-
that Lara knows where she lives and could have dealing in the disbursement of sums of money
easily contacted her. The court had denied Lara’s entrusted by the University of Sto. Tomas to
motion to withdraw from the case and Somosot respondent Atty. Eduardo J. Mario Jr. as
claims that he represented her in a half-hearted president of the UST Faculty Union and his core
manner, resulting in a grant of her opponent’s of officers and directors for distribution among
motion for judgment on the pleadings and because faculty members of the university.
he failed to properly oppose the motion she was
prevented from presenting evidence and once the Sometime in 1986 respondent Atty. Mario Jr. as
decision was executed, sale of her house pushed president of the UST Faculty Union and other
through, despite the assistance of another lawyer. union officers entered into a collective
Lara answered that he pursued the case “according bargaining agreement with the management of
to his own ability and knowledge” that he had UST for the provision of economic benefits
presented all of the defense and claims. But that amounting to P35 million. Instead of creating a
interrogatories and requests for admission were harmonious relationship between the
filed and that these are by law, directed towards contracting parties, the collective bargaining
Somosot and not him.That he became a consultant agreement regrettably engendered disputes
for the BOI and counsel of Gov. Leviste and that arising from the interpretation and
when he tried to contact Lara he was told at the implementation thereof one of which even
office of Lara that she had moved and there was no reached this Court.
forwarding address and that in any case she had
not paid his retainer fees. IBP recommends Issue:
reprimand Ruling:

ABRAGAN v. RODRIGUEZ
Issue: (A.C. No. 4346. April 3, 2002)

Are Respondent’s claims sufficient to exculpate him FACTS:

from liability in so far as Canon 18 is concerned?
Sometime in 1986, complainants hired the
Ruling: services of the respondent to represent in a case
for Forcible Entry with Petition for a Writ of
It appears that Lara was remiss in fulfilling Preliminary Injunction and Damages before the
his duties, but Somosot is not without fault, MTCC of Cagayan de Oro City. The case was won
because she did not make any attempt to follow up by the complainants. After the case was finally
on the status of the case. Instead she assumed that won, and a Writ of Execution was issued by the
he should take complete initiative to inform her. The Honorable Municipal Trial Court in Cities of
court has ruled that no prudent party will leave the Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 3, the same
fate of his case entirely to his lawyer. Absence of respondent lawyer represented the petitioners. But
when respondent counsel disturbed the association respondent acted as the legal counsel and
(Cagayan de Oro Landless Residents Association, accountant of his widow, complainant IMELDA
Inc.), to which all the complainants belong, by NAKPIL. On March 9, 1976, respondents law firm,
surreptitiously selling some rights to other persons Carlos J. Valdes & Associates, handled the
without the consent of the petitioners herein, they proceeding for the settlement of Joses estate.
decided to sever their client-lawyer relationship. Complainant was appointed as administratix of the
estate.
On August 1991, complainants filed a case
of indirect contempt against Sheriff Fernando The ownership of the Moran property became an
Loncion et al. Much to their surprise, respondent issue in the intestate proceedings. It appears that
represented the sheriff. Since the counsel respondent excluded the Moran property from the
employed by the complainants was a former inventory of Joses estate. On February 13, 1978,
student of respondent, said counsel, by the respondent transferred his title to the Moran
suggestions of respondent withdrew the case property to his company, the Caval Realty
without the petitioner’s consent. That as a result of Corporation.
such withdrawal, subsequent events occurred that
damage and prejudice of the herein petitioners. On March 29, 1979, complainant sought to recover
the Moran property by filing with the then Court of
ISSUE: First Instance (CFI) of Baguio City an action for
Whether or not Atty. Rodriguez should be reconveyance with damages against respondent
disbarred. and his corporation. In defense, respondent
claimed absolute ownership over the property and
HELD: denied that a trust was created over it.
Yes. Respondent clearly violated Rule
15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional During the pendency of the action for
Responsibility, which provides that “a lawyer shall reconveyance, complainant filed this administrative
not represent conflicting interests except by written case to disbar the respondent. She charged that
consent of all concerned given after full disclosure respondent violated professional ethics when he:
of the facts.” Respondent should have evaluated
the situation first before agreeing to be counsel for I. Assigned to his family corporation the Moran
the defendants in the indirect contempt property (Pulong Maulap) which belonged to the
proceedings. Attorneys owe undivided allegiance to estate he was settling as its lawyer and auditor.
their clients, and should at all times weigh their
actions, especially in their dealings with the latter II. Excluded the Moran property from the inventory
and the public at large. They must conduct of real estate properties he prepared for a client-
themselves beyond reproach at all times. The Court estate and, at the same time, charged the loan
will not tolerate any departure from the "straight secured to purchase the said excluded property as
and narrow" path demanded by the ethics of the a liability of the estate, all for the purpose of
legal profession. transferring the title to the said property to his
family corporation.

IMELDA A. NAKPIL vs. ATTY. CARLOS J. III. Prepared and defended monetary claims
VALDES against the estate that retained him as its counsel
A.C. No. 2040. March 4, 1998 and auditor.

Facts: In 1983, the CFI of Baguio dismissed the action for

reconveyance. The trial court ruled that respondent
The friendship of JOSE NAKPIL and respondent held the Moran property in trust for the Nakpils but
CARLOS J. VALDES dates back to the 50s during found that complainant waived her right over it.
their schooldays in De La Salle and the Philippine
Law School. Their closeness extended to their On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial
families and respondent became the business court. The appellate court held that respondent was
consultant, lawyer and accountant of the Nakpils. the absolute owner of the Moran property.

In 1965, Jose Nakpil became interested in Issue:

purchasing a summer residence in Moran Street,
Baguio City.[1] For lack of funds, he requested Whether or not there was conflict of interest
respondent to purchase the Moran property for him. between the respondent Atty. Valdes and the
They agreed that respondent would keep the complainant. – CANON 17
property in thrust for the Nakpils until the latter
could buy it back. Pursuant to their agreement, Ruling:
respondent obtained two (2) loans from a bank (in
the amounts of P65,000.00 and P75,000.00) which YES. Respondent was suspended from practice
he used to purchase and renovate the property. of law for one (1) year.
Title was then issued in respondents name.
RATIO:
It was the Nakpils who occupied the Moran summer
house. When Jose Nakpil died on July 8, 1973,
There is no question that the interests of the estate rammed into a small carinderia owned by
and that of its creditors are adverse to each other. complainant Lolita Artezuela.
Respondent’s accounting firm prepared the list of
assets and liabilities of the estate and, at the same The destruction of the complainant's carinderia
time, computed the claims of two creditors of the caused the cessation of the operation of her small
estate. There is clearly a conflict between the business, resulting to her financial dislocation. She
interest of the estate which stands as the debtor, incurred debts from her relatives and due to
and that of the two claimants who are creditors of financial constraints, stopped sending her two
the estate. children to college.

Respondent undoubtedly placed his law firm in a Complainant engaged the services of the
position where his loyalty to his client could be respondent in filing a damage suit against Echavia,
doubted. In the estate proceedings, the duty of Villapez and one Bernardo Sia. However, the case
respondent’s law firm was to contest the claims of was dismissed.
these two creditors but which claims were prepared
by respondent’s accounting firm. Even if the claims Artezuela filed before the Court a verified complaint
were valid and did not prejudice the estate, the set- for disbarment against the respondent. She alleged
up is still undesirable. The test to determine that respondent grossly neglected his duties as a
whether there is a conflict of interest in the lawyer and failed to represent her interests with
representation is probability, not certainty of zeal and enthusiasm. According to her, when the
conflict. It was respondent’s duty to inhibit either of case was scheduled for pre-trial conference,
his firms from said proceedings to avoid the respondent asked for its postponement although all
probability of conflict of interest. the parties were present.

Public confidence in law and lawyers may be Complainant also claimed that respondent engaged
eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct in activities inimical to her interests. While acting as
of a member of the bar. Thus, a lawyer should her counsel, respondent prepared Echavia's
determine his conduct by acting in a manner that Answer to the Amended Complaint. The said
would promote public confidence in the integrity of document was even printed in respondent's office.
the legal profession. Members of the bar are Complainant further averred that it was respondent
expected to always live up to the standards who sought the dismissal of the case, misleading
embodied in the Code of Professional the trial court into thinking that the dismissal was
Responsibility as the relationship between an with her consent.
attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature
and demands utmost fidelity and good faith. In the IBP recommended and found the respondent guilty
case at bar, respondent exhibited less than full of representing conflicting interests, in violation of
fidelity to his duty to observe candor, fairness and Canon 15 and Rule 15.03 of the Code of
loyalty in his dealings and transactions with his Professional Responsibility, as well as, of Canon 6
clients. of the Code of Professional Ethics. He
recommended that the respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
LOLITA ARTEZUELA vs. ATTY. RICARTE B.
MADERAZO Issue:
A.C. No. 4354. April 22, 2002.
Whether or not he had a direct hand in the
Facts: preparation of Echavia's Answer to the Amended
Complaint.
For his failure to meet the exacting standards of
professional ethics, the Board of Governors of Ruling:
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in its
Resolution of May 2, 2000 recommended the Yes.
suspension from the practice of law of
respondent Atty. Ricarte B. Maderazo for the Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Ethics
period of six (6) months, with a stern warning states:
that repetition of the same act will be dealt with
more severely. Respondent allegedly "It is the duty of a lawyer at the time of the
represented conflicting interests in violation of retainer to disclose to the client the
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Ethics, and circumstances of his relations to the parties
Canon 15 and Rule 15.03 of the Code of and any interest in or in connection with the
Professional Responsibility. controversy, which might influence the client in
the selection of the counsel.”
Allan Echavia had a vehicular accident at Caduman
St., corner H. Abellana St., Mandaue City. At the The professional obligation of the lawyer to give his
time of the accident, Echavia was driving a Ford undivided attention and zeal for his client's cause is
Telstar car owned by a Japanese national named likewise demanded in the Code of Professional
Hirometsi Kiyami, but was registered in the name of Responsibility. Inherently disadvantageous to his
his brother-in-law, Jun Anthony Villapez. The car client's cause, representation by the lawyer of
conflicting interests requires disclosure of all facts HELD:
and consent of all the parties involved. Thus: The Court adopted the Integrated Bar of the
Philippine’s recommendation. It is evident that the
"CANON 15- All lawyers shall observe candor, petitioner deposited an amount of P25, 00 for the
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and filing fees of the Regwill complaint. There was a
transactions with his clients. lawyer-client relationship established since the
respondent agreed to legally represent the
Rule 15.03- A lawyer shall not represent petitioner. There’s an obligation on the part of the
conflicting interests except by written consent respondent to file the complaint within the time
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of frame. In addition to that, there was
the facts." misappropriation of funds of the client. His actions
caused damages and prejudice to his clients. His
The Court reminded the respondent that the conduct was dishonest thus unsuitable to be a
practice of law is not a property right but a mere member of the legal profession. He was not
privilege, and as such, must bow to the inherent disbarred; nonetheless, he was suspended from
regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance the practice of law for a period of one year.
with the lawyer's public responsibilities. The
suspension of the respondent's privilege to practice PNB v. ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO
law may result to financial woes. But as the (A.C. No. 3701, March 28, 1995)
guardian of the legal profession, we are
constrained to balance this concern with the injury FACTS:
he caused to the very same profession he vowed to After having arranged the sale of steel
uphold with honesty and fairness. sheets for Mrs Siy, the latter became implicated in
a civil case with the complainant PNB. After having
The Resolution of the IBP finding the stop employment with PNB, respondent Atty.
respondent guilty of violating Canon 6 of the Telesforo Cedo appeared as counsel for Mrs. Siy.
Code of Professional Ethics, and Canon 15 and A similar situation also happened when spouses
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Almeda were implicated to a case with complainant
Responsibility is affirmed. Respondent is PNB— counsel for Sps. Almeda is the Cedo,
suspended from the practice of law for six (6) Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates. Atty. Cedo was AVP
months with a stern warning that a similar act in of the Asset Management group of complainant
the future shall be dealt with more severely. bank, where such loan transaction of Sps. Almeda
came under his purview. Respondent asserted that
BURBE v. MAGULTA in the former case, he did not participate in the
(A.C. No. 5713, June 10, 2002) litigation before the court, while the latter, it was
another partner of the firm that handle the case.
FACTS: IBP made its report and recommendation for
Petitioner Dominador P. Burbe filed a suspension for having deliberate intent to devise
complaint for disbarment, suspension or any ways and means to attract as clients former
disciplinary action against Atty. Alberto C. Magulta. borrowers of complainant bank since he was in the
Respondent agreed to legally represent the best position to see the legal weaknesses of his
petitioner in a money claim and possible civil case. former employer.
He prepared the demand letters and other legal
papers; however, he later on suggested that the ISSUE:
petitioner must file the necessary complaint. Whether or not respondent Atty. Cedo be
Petitioner paid an amount of P25, 000 for lawyer’s held administratively liable.
fees and amounts for filing the case. Months had
passed but there was still no feedback regarding HELD:
the petitioner’s case. Petitioner would frequently SUSPENDED. According to Canon 6.03 of
inquire yet respondent would repeatedly tell him to the Code of Professional Responsibility, “A
wait. To prove that the case was already filed, lawyer shall not, after leaving government
respondent brought the petitioner to the Hall of service, accept engagement or employment in
Justice Building at Ecoland, Davao City. He made connection with any matter in which he had
the petitioner wait for hours at the prosecutor’s intervened while in said service.” Having been
office and came back with the news that the Clerk an executive of complainant bank, respondent
of Court was absent that day. Petitioner personally sought to litigate as counsel for the opposite side, a
went to the Office of the Clerk of Court and found case against his former employer involving a
out that the case was not filed. A confrontation took transaction which he formerly handled while still an
place wherein the respondent denied the allegation. employee of complainant, violated said Canon.
It was only when the certification was shown that
Atty. Magulta admitted that he spent the money for
his own purpose and offered to reimburse the LEONILA J. LICUANAN vs. ATTY. MANUEL L.
Burbe. MELO
A.M. No. 2361. February 9, 1989.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Alberto C. Magulta Facts:
should be disbarred?
An affidavit-complaint, was filed by Leonila J. His name is hereby ordered stricken from the
Licuanan with the Office of the Court Administrator Roll of Attorneys.
against respondent, Atty. Manuel L. Melo, for
breach of professional ethics, alleging that HONORIO MANALANG and FLORENCIO
respondent, who was her counsel in an ejectment CIRILLO vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO F. ANGELES
case filed against her tenant, failed to remit to her A.C. No. 1558. March 10, 2003.
the rentals collected by respondent on different
dates over a twelve-month period, much less did he Facts:
report to her the receipt of said amounts. It was
only after approximately a year from actual receipt Administrative complaint was filed against Atty.
that respondent turned over his collections to Francisco F. Angeles for grave misconduct as a
complainant after the latter, through another lawyer, respondent stands charged with infidelity in
counsel, acquired knowledge of the payment and the discharge of fiduciary obligations to his clients,
had demanded the same. herein complainants Honorio Manalang and
Florencio Cirillo.
Respondent admitted having received the payment
of rentals from complainant's tenant, Aida Pineda, Manalang and Cirillo alleged that they were the
as alleged in the complaint, but explained that he complainants in a case for overtime and separation
kept this matter from the complainant for the pay filed against their employer, the Philippine
purpose of surprising her with his success in Racing Club Restaurant, before the National Labor
collecting the rentals. Relations Commission. Respondent was their
counsel. Judgment was rendered in their favor, in
Thus, the Court find it hard to believe respondent's the amount of P 6,500. After the decision became
defense that he kept the money of complainant for final, a writ of execution issued. However, without
a year merely because he wanted to surprise her authority from his clients, respondent compromised
with his success in collecting the rental payments the award and was able to collect P 5,500 only.
from Pineda. On the contrary, it is very much
discernible that he did not surrender immediately Complainants said they made several demands
the money to complainant because he was using it upon respondent to turn over to them the amount
for his own benefit. collected minus the agreed upon attorney's fees of
thirty percent (30%), but Atty. Angeles refused and
Issue: offered to give them only the sum of P2,650.

Whether there was unreasonable delay on the part In his answer, respondent stated that he offered to
of the respondent in accounting for the funds give complainants their money, but they insisted
collected by him for his former client, the that he "deduct from this attorney's fees the amount
complainant herein, for which unprofessional of P2,000, representing the amount discounted by
conduct respondent should be disciplined. the counsel of the Philippine Racing Club
Restaurant, together with sheriff legal fees and
Ruling: other administrative expenses." Respondent
claimed that to accept complainants' proposition
A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to meant that he "would not be compensated for
delay any man for money or malice and is bound to prosecuting and handling, the case."
conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients.
He is obligated to report promptly the money of his Issue:
clients that has come into his possession. He
should not commingle it with his private property or Whether or not respondent Atty. Francisco F.
use it for his personal purposes without his client's Angeles should be suspended from the practice of
consent. He should maintain a reputation for law because of grave misconduct related to his
honesty and fidelity to private trust. clients' funds.

Respondent's unprofessional actuations Ruling:

considered, we are constrained to find him guilty of Yes. Money claims due to workers cannot, as a
deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct in office. rule, be the object of settlement or compromise
He has displayed lack of honesty and good moral effected by counsel without the consent of the
character. He has violated his oath not to delay any
workers concerned. A client has every right to
man for money or malice, besmirched the name of
an honorable profession and has proven himself expect from his counsel that nothing will be taken
unworthy of the trust reposed in him by law as an or withheld from him, save by the rules of law
officer of the Court. He deserves the severest validly applied. By compromising the judgment
punishment. without the consent of his clients, respondent not
only went against the stream of judicial dicta, he
WHEREFORE, consistent with the crying need also exhibited an uncaring lack of devotion to the
to maintain the high traditions and standards of
interest of his clients as well as want of zeal in the
the legal profession and to preserve
undiminished public faith in attorneys-at-law, maintenance and defense of their rights. In so
the Court Resolved to DISBAR respondent, doing, he violated Canon 17 of the Code of
Atty. Manuel L. Melo, from the practice of law. Professional Responsibility which states:
CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO spouses Genito before the PCGG and the
THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE Sandiganbayan and in ejectment cases against
MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE non-paying tenants occupying the Genito
Apartments. Solatan’s sister was a tenant of the
REPOSED IN HIM.
Genito Apartments. She left the apartment to
Moreover, a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys Solatan and other members of her family. A
complaint for ejectment for non-payment of rentals
and properties of his client that may come into his
was filed against her and a decision was rendered
possession. In the instant case, the records clearly in a judgment by default ordering her to vacate the
and abundantly point to respondent's receipt of and premises. Solatan was occupying said apartment
failure to deliver upon demand, the amount of P4, when he learned of the judgment.
550 intended for his clients. This is a clear breach
of Rule 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of He informed Atty. Inocentes of his desire to arrange
the execution of a new lease contract by virtue of
Professional Responsibility:
which he would be the new lessee of the
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and apartment. Atty. Inocentes referred him to Atty.
Camano, the attorney in charge of ejectment cases
property of his client when due or upon
against tenants of the Genito Apartments. During
demand. However, he shall have a lien over the the meeting with Atty. Camano, an verbal
funds and may apply so much thereof as may agreement was made in which complainant agreed
be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and to pay the entire judgment debt of his sister,
disbursements, giving notice promptly including awarded attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien
to the same extent on all judgments and Complainant issued a check in the name of Atty.
Camano representing half of the attorney’s fees.
executions he has secured for his client as Complainant failed to make any other payment.
provided for in the Rules of Court. The sheriff in coordination with Atty. Camano
enforced the writ of execution and levied the
Moreover, we note that respondent's clients in the properties found in the subject apartment.
instant case were poor working men. They were Complainant renegotiated and Atty. Camano
made to wait long for their money, by their very own agreed to release the levied properties and allow
counsel, contrary to the Attorney's Oath and the complainant to remain at the apartment. Acting on
Code of Professional Responsibility. This is Atty. Camano’s advice, complainant presented an
contrary to all ethical principles that members of the affidavit of ownership to the sheriff who released
the levied items. However, a gas stove was not
bar are supposed to uphold. Thus, we find no returned to the complainant but was kept by Atty.
hesitance in imposing on respondent the penalty of Camano in the unit of the Genito Apartments where
suspension. However, this is the first case on he was temporarily staying. Complainant filed the
record against him, a fact which could be taken into instant administrative case for disbarment against
account by way of mitigation. Considering further Atty. Camano and Atty. Inocentes. The IBP Board
the amount involved, the penalty of six (6) months of Governors resolved to suspend Atty. Camano
from the practice of law for 1 year and to reprimand
suspension appears to us in order.
Atty. Inocentes for exercising command
ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby SUSPENDS responsibility.
Atty. Francisco F. Angeles from the practice of Issues:
law for a period of six (6) months, effective 1) Whether or not Atty. Camano violated the
immediately upon his receipt of this Resolution. Code of Professional Responsibility
He is also ordered to pay the sum of two 2) Whether or not Atty. Inocentes violated the
thousand two hundred seventy five pesos Code of Professional Responsibility
(P2,275.00) each to complainants Honorio
Manalang and Florencio Cirillo, with interest of HELD:
six percent (6%) per annum from the time of
filing this complaint until fully paid. All lawyers must observe loyalty in all
transactions and dealings with their clients.
GEORGE C. SOLATAN vs. ATTYS. OSCAR A.
INOCENTES and JOSE C. CAMANO 1. An attorney has no right to act as counsel or
A.C. No. 6504. August 9, 2005. legal representative for a person without being
retained. No employment relation was offered or
Facts: accepted in the instant case. Canon 15 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility requires all lawyers
Atty. Jose A. Camano was an associate in the firm
to observe loyalty in all transactions and dealings
of Atty. Oscar Inocentes. The Oscar Inocentes and
Associates Law Office was retained by spouses with their clients. Unquestionably, an attorney
Genito, owners of an apartment complex when the giving legal advice to a party with an interest
Genito Apartments were placed under conflicting with that of his client may be held guilty
sequestration by the PCGG. They represented the of disloyalty. However, the advice given by Atty.
Camano in the context where the complainant was
the rightful owner of the incorrectly levied properties
was in consonance with his duty as an officer of the ISSUE:
court. It should not be construed as being in conflict Whether or not respondent is bound to observe the
with the interest of the spouses Genito as they same standard of conduct governing his relations
have no interest over the properties. The act of with his paying clients when he voluntarily offered
informing complainant that his properties would be his services according to Rule 14.04 of Canon 14 of
returned upon showing proof of his ownership may CPR.
hint at infidelity to his clients but lacks the essence
of double dealing and betrayal.

2. Atty. Inocentes’ failure to exercise certain HELD:

responsibilities over matters under the charge of his
law firm is a blameworthy shortcoming. As name If a lawyer volunteers his services to a
practitioner of the law office, Atty. Inocentes is client, and therefore not entitled to attorney’s fees,
tasked with the responsibility to make reasonable nevertheless, he is bound to attend to a client’s
efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the firm should case with all due diligence and zeal. By
act in conformity to the Code of Professional volunteering his services, he has established a
Responsibility. Atty. Inocentes received periodic client-lawyer relationship. A lawyer has a more
reports from dynamic and positive role in the community than
merely complying with the minimal technicalities of
Atty. Camano on the latter’s dealings with the statute. As a man of law, he is necessarily a
complainant. leader of the community, looked up to as a model
citizen. His conduct must, perforce, be par
This is the linchpin of his supervisory capacity over excellence, especially so when, as in this case, he
Atty. Camano and liability by virtue thereof. volunteers his professional services. Despite the
Partners and practitioners who hold supervisory dismissal of the charges against the respondent
capacities are legally responsible to exert ordinary because complainants themselves are partly to
diligence in apprising themselves of the comings
blame for the delay in filing their respective claims
and goings of the cases handled by persons over for their failure to cooperate and pay for the
which they are exercising supervisory authority and Photostat services, the respondent has failed to live
in exerting necessary efforts to foreclose violations
up to that ideal standard. It was unnecessary to
of the Code of Professional Responsibility by have complainants wait, and hope, for six long
persons under their charge. years on their pension claims. Upon their refusal to
BLANZA & PASION v. ATTY. ARCANGEL co-operate, respondent should have forthwith
(A.C. No. 492, September 5, 1967) terminated their professional relationship instead of
keeping them hanging indefinitely.
FACTS: Accordingly, the case against respondent is
Complainants, OlegariaBlanza and Maria Pasion, dismissed.
ask the Court to take disciplinary action against RE: FINANCIAL AUDIT OF ATTY. RAQUEL G. KHO
respondent Atty. Agustin Arcangel, who
volunteered to help them in their respective pension (A.M. No. P-06-2177, June 26, 2006)
claims, for professional non-feasance for (1) his
failure to attend to complainants' pension claims for FACTS:
Atty. Kho is a former clerk of court of the
six years; (2) his failure to immediately return the RTC in Eastern Samar. He was found guilty of
documents despite repeated demands upon him, gross misconduct for his failure to make a timely
and (3) his failure to return to complainant Pasion, remittance of judiciary funds in his custody. She
allegedly, all of her documents. was fined P10k. Since his malfeasance prima facie
contravened Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Respondent admitted having received the Professional Responsibility (A lawyer shall not
documents from complainants but explained that it engage in unlawful conduct), the SC ordered
was for photostating purposes only. He alleged that ordered him to show cause why he should not be
his failure to return it was due to the complainants’ disciplined as a lawyer and as an officer of the
court. Atty. Kho explained that his failure to make a
refusal to hand him the money to pay for the timely remittance of the cash deposited with him
photostating costs. Respondent contends that he was inexcusable; he maintained his contention that
was not obliged to follow up complainants’ pension he kept the money in the court’s safety vault and
since there was no agreement for his compensation never once used it for his own benefit.
as their counsel.
ISSUE:
 Whether Atty. Kho is guilty of violating the courts. Dizon has shown through this incident
Canon 1, Rule 1.01. that he is wanting in even a basic sense of justice.
He obtained the benevolence of the court when it
HELD: suspended his sentence and granted him
YES. Even though he was in good faith, his probation. And yet, it has been four years since he
action was a breach of his oath to obey the laws as was ordered to settle his civil liabilities to
well as the legal orders of the duly constituted complainant. To date, respondent remains adamant
authorities and of his duties under Canon 1, Rule in refusing to fulfill that obligation,
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Canon 1 provides that a lawyer shall uphold the 2. Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules
constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote of Court, conviction for a crime involving moral
respect for law and for legal processes while Rule turpitude is a ground for disbarment or suspension.
1.01 states that a lawyer shall not engage in By such conviction, a lawyer is deemed to have
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. become unfit to uphold the administration of justice
As servants of the law and officers of the court, and to be no longer possessed of good moral
lawyers are required to be at the forefront of character. Moral turpitude has been defined as
observing and maintaining the rule of law. They are "everything which is done contrary to justice,
expected to make themselves exemplars worthy of modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness,
emulation. The least a lawyer can do in compliance vileness or depravity in the private and social duties
with Canon 1 is to refrain from engaging in unlawful which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in
conduct. By definition, any act or omission contrary general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or
to law is unlawful. The presence of evil intent on the good morals." The totality of the facts unmistakably
part of the lawyer is not essential in order to bring bears the earmarks of moral turpitude. By his
his act or omission within the terms of Rule 1.01 conduct, respondent revealed his extreme
which specifically prohibits lawyers from engaging arrogance and feeling of self-importance. As it
in unlawful conduct. Atty. Kho’s conduct was not were, he acted like a god on the road, who
only far from exemplary, it was unlawful as well. For deserved to be venerated and never to be slighted.
this, he must be called to account. Atty. Kho is Clearly, his inordinate reaction to a simple traffic
ordered to pay FINE. incident reflected poorly on his fitness to be a
member of the legal profession. When lawyers are
convicted of frustrated homicide, the attending
SORIANO v. ATTY. DIZON circumstances – not the mere fact of their
(A.C 6792, January 25, 2006) conviction – would demonstrate their fitness to
remain in the legal profession. In the present case,
FACTS: the appalling vindictiveness, treachery, and brazen
Atty. Dizon was driving his car on his way dishonesty of respondent clearly show his
home. Soriano, taxi driver overtook his car driven unworthiness to continue as a member of the bar.
by Dizon who was under the influence of liquor. Atty. Dizon is DISBARRED.
Dizon tailed Soriano until the latter stopped. Dizon
stopped his car held Soriano by his shirt. To stop
the aggression, the Soriano forced open his door CANTILLER v. POTENCIANO
causing the accused to fall to the ground. Soriano (A.M. Case No. 3195, December 18, 1989)
got out of his car to help him get up. But Dizon, by
now enraged, attempted twice to deal Soriano with FACTS:
a fist blow twice. Dizon went back to his car and got Herein respondent, Potenciano, is charged
his revolver and shot Soriano. Soriano survived but with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, and also
sustained a spinal cord injury which disabled him with gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts
for his job as a taxi driver. Dizon filed an application unbecoming of an officer of the court. Complainant,
for probation which was granted on the condition after losing to an ejectment case, contracted the
that he satisfy the civil liabilities imposed by the legal service of Potenciano. Respondent told the
court in favor of Soriano. Dizon failed to comply complainant that the temporary restraining order
with this undertaking and even appealed the civil would be secured if the judge who would hear the
liability. IBP recommended that Dizon be disbarred case is his “barkada” However, when the case was
from the practice of law for having been convicted raffled and assigned to Branch 153, the presiding
of a crime involving moral turpitude. judge asked respondent to withdraw as counsel in
the case on the ground of their friendship.
ISSUE: Respondent went into the house of complainant
1. Whether Atty. Dizon violated Canon 1 of the and asked for 2,000 pesos to be given to another
CPR. judge who could secure the latter’s restraining
2. Whether Atty. Dizon should be disbarred order in the ejectment case. Sometime after the
from the practice of law. filing of Civil Case No. 55118, respondent informed
complainant that there was a need to file another
HELD: case with the Regional Trial Court to enable them
1. YES. It is glaringly clear that respondent to retain possession of the apartment. For this
violated Canon 1 of the CPR through his illegal purpose, respondent told complainant to prepare
possession of an unlicensed firearm and his unjust the amount of 10,000 pesos allegedly to be
refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities. He has thus deposited with the Treasurer's Office of Pasig as
violated the law and disobeyed the lawful orders of purchase price of the apartment and another
1,000.00 pesos to cover the expenses of the suit. Whether or not the suspension of Luis B.
Respondent stressed to the complainant the need Tagorda is meritorious under the code of
and urgency of filing the new complaint. Later on professional responsibility by advertising and
during the hearing, respondent withdrew his soliciting legal work by distributing pamphlets?
appearance as counsel for complainant.
Complainant was not able to get another lawyer as HELD:
replacement. Thus, no restraining order or The respondent was suspended for 1 month
preliminary injunction was obtained. As a under the Rule 2.03 of the Code of Professional
consequence, the order to vacate in the ejectment Responsibility because it is stated in the rule that “A
case was eventually enforced and executed. Later lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
on the complainant wrote a letter asking for designed primarily to solicit legal business.”
reimbursement of the amount given to respondent Practice of law is not a trade or a business. It is a
however the respondent did not returned the said profession in which duty to public service, not
amount (P 11 000) to the complainant. It was also money, is the primary consideration.
found that the respondent prepared a "hastily
prepared, poorly conceived, and haphazardly ULEP v. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
composed petition for annulment of judgment.” (A.C. No. 553, June 17, 1993)

ISSUE: FACTS:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of Petitioner prays the Court to order the
the allegations, deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, respondent to cease and desist from issuing
and also with gross misconduct, malpractice and of advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as
acts unbecoming of an officer of the court, charged that of annexes "A" and "B" (of said petition) and to
against him by the complainant? perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making
advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law
HELD: profession other than those allowed by law. The
The respondent was found guilty of the petitioner contends that the advertisements
offenses charged against him and was sentenced reproduced by the respondents are champertous,
indefinite suspension until such time he can unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and
demonstrate that he has rehabilitated himself as to destructive of the confidence of the community in
deserve to resume the practice of law. His first duty the integrity of the members of the bar and that, to
was to file the best pleading within his capability as which as a member of the legal profession, he is
a lawyer. He had also depended on his closeness ashamed and offended by the adverts of the
to the judge to get desired decisions. He had also respondents on providing services for secret
extorted 10,000 from client as deposit but deposit marriage and giving information regarding Guam
was not required and such was also not made. Divorce, Annulment of Marriage, Remarriage to
Lastly, he had failed to exercise due diligence in Filipina Fiancees, etc. In his answer to the petition,
protecting his client’s interest due to the fact that respondent admits the fact of publication of said
four days before hearing of preliminary injunction, advertisements at its instance, but claims that it is
he already withdrew as counsel because of his not engaged in the practice of law but in the
reason that he had frequent attacks of pain due to rendering of "legal support services" through
hemorrhoids, however he failed to find a paralegals with the use of modern computers and
replacement and failed to inform the complainant to electronic machines.
hire another lawyer in his stead.
ISSUE:
IN RE: TAGORDA Whether or not, the advertised services
(G.R. No. 32329, March 23, 1929) offered by the Legal Clinic, Inc., constitutes practice
of law and whether the same are in violation of the
FACTS: Code of Professional responsibility.
The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a
practicing attorney and a member of the provincial HELD:
board of Isabela, that he made use of a card written The advertisement of the respondent is
in Spanish and Ilocano and distributed it to their covered in the term practice of law as defined in the
municipality so he could render legal service to case of Cayetano vs. Monsod. There is a restricted
them. Respondent also admitted having written a concept and limited acceptance of paralegal
letter in Ilocano addressed to a lieutenant in his services in the Philippines. It is allowed that some
home municipality in Echague, Isabela in which he persons not duly licensed to practice law are or
stated his continued exercise of his profession as a have been permitted with a limited representation in
lawyer and a notary public, besides being a behalf of another or to render legal services, but
Member of the Board of the municipality of Ilagan, such allowable services are limited in scope and
Isabela. He also stated that he would be willing to extent by the law, rules or regulations granting
render his legal services to the people who have permission therefore. Canon 3 of the Code of
not contracted any other lawyer’s services. Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer
Respondent’s service is based on the registration in making known his legal services shall use only
of land titles and charge people three pesos for true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information
every registration. or statement of facts. Canon 3.01 adds that he is
not supposed to use or permit the use of any false,
ISSUE: fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-
laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his Responsibility, specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01,
qualifications or legal services. Nor shall he pay or 1.02, Canon 3, 3.01, and Canon 10.
give something of value to representatives of the
mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, HELD:
publicity to attract legal business (Canon 3.04). The After a careful scrutiny of the records, the
Canons of Professional Ethics, before the adoption Court find the administrative complaint bereft of
of the CPR, had also warned that lawyers should merit and should be dismissed. The core issue to
not resort to indirect advertisements for be resolved here is whether respondent Atty.
professional employment, such as furnishing or Bernas transgressed Circular No. 28-91, Revised
inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his Circular No. 28-91, and Administrative Circular No.
photograph to be published in connection with 04 - 94 on forum shopping. Wherefore, the instant
causes in which the lawyer have been engaged of complaint is hereby DISMISSED.
concerning the manner of the conduct, the
magnitude of the interest involved, the importance DACANAY v. BAKER & MCKENZIE
the lawyer's position, and all other like self- (G.R. No. L-41862, February 7, 1992)
laudation. The respondent’s defense with the case
of Bates vs. State Bar applies only when there is an FACTS:
exception to the prohibition against advertisements A case is filed by complainant Adriano E.
by lawyers, to publish a statement of legal fees for Dacanay against Juan G. Collas Jr. and nine other
an initial consultation or the availability upon lawyers engaging the practice of law under the firm
request of a written schedule of fees or an estimate name Baker & Mckenzie. In November 16, 1979,
of the fee to be charged for the specific services. one of the respondent lawyers, Vicente A. Torres
No such exception is provided for, expressly or sent a letter using the Baker & Mckenzie letterhead
impliedly whether in our former Canons of to Rosie Clurman, a client of herein complainant,
Professional Ethics or the present Code of demanding the release of 87 shares of Cathay
Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client
disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a of herein respondents. Complainant’s response to
proviso that the exceptions stand therein are not the letter denied any liability of Clurman to
applicable in any state unless and until it is respondent’s client. He also questioned
implemented by such authority in that state. The respondent’s use of a letterhead belonging to a
Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN The different law office. Not receiving a reply,
Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the complainant filed the instant case assailing the
publication or dissemination of any advertisement respondent’s use of a foreign law office name.
in any form which is of the same or similar tenor
and purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of the petition, ISSUE:
and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any Whether or not herein respondents violated
activity, operation or transaction proscribed by law Canon 3, Rule 3.02 of the Code of Professional
or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated Responsibility.
herein.
HELD:
CABARRUS, JR. v. BERNAS Yes, the use of a foreign law office name is
(A.C. No. 4634 September 24, 1997) misleading towards the public and the clients. Rule
3.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
FACTS: states that “In the choice of a firm name, no false,
On August 30, 1996, Mr. Jesus Cabarrus, misleading or assumed name shall be used. The
Jr. filed an administrative complaint for disbarment continued use of the name of a deceased partner is
against Atty. Jose Antonio Bernas for alleged permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its
violations of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code communications that said partner is deceased.”
and Code of Professional Responsibility. In his The respondents, being associates of the firm
complaint-affidavit, complainant alleged that Baker & Mckenzie are not authorized to use the
respondent Atty. Bernas, the counsel on record of said firm’s name which may tend to mislead clients.
the respondents in Civil Case No. 65646, is the Respondents' use of the firm name Baker &
same lawyer who instigated a criminal complaint at McKenzie constitutes a representation that being
the NBI for forgery and respondents themselves associated with the firm they could "render legal
conspired and confabulated with each other in services of the highest quality to multinational
facilitating and insuring the open, blatant and business enterprises and others engaged in foreign
deliberate violation of Art. 172 of the Revised Penal trade and investment." This is unethical because
Code. He further alleged that respondent should be Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practice law
disbarred for having instigated, abetted and here.
facilitated the perversion and subversion of truth in
the verification and certification of non-forum CORDOVA v. LABAYEN
shopping which are contrary to Canon 1, Rule 1.01, (A.M. No. RTJ-93-1033, October 10, 1995)
1.02, Canon 3, 3.01, Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for Lawyers. FACTS:
On March 5, 1993, the Municipal Trial Court
ISSUE: (branch II) of Batangas City rendered judgment for
Whether or not herein respondent should be petitioners with respect to four ordering the
disbarred for violation of Code of Professional ejectment of private respondents and ordering them
to pay monthly rentals of P50,000.00 starting April Soriano on September 17, 1989 while his marriage
7, 1992 until they shall have vacated the lots and with Carolina Agaton, which was solemnized on
surrendered their possession to petitioners and the December 17, 1967, is still subsisting; (2)
sum of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees. respondent used his influence as the Municipal
Legal Officer of Meycauayan to oppose his wife’s
On March 29, 1993, petitioners moved for application for building permit, in violation of Rule
the execution of the decision in their favor, alleging 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
that although private respondents had filed a notice (3) And for engaging in the practice of law while
of appeal, the latter had not filed a supersedeas serving as the Municipal Legal Officer of
bond nor make a deposit every month of the Meycauayan, complainant maintains that
reasonable value of the use and occupation of the respondent violated Rule 7.03.
properties as required by Rule 70, sec. 8.
ISSUE:
Private respondents opposed the motion, Whether Atty. Cruz violated the CPR?
claiming that they are co-owners of the lots from
which they were ordered to be ejected and that to HELD:
grant immediate execution of the decision would YES on first ground only, last two grounds
render their appeal moot and academic. dismissed. Respondent married Soriano on
September 17, 1989 at the Clark County, Nevada,
ISSUE: USA, when the Family Code of the Philippines had
Whether there was a late filing of already taken effect. He invokes good faith,
Supersedeas Bond. however, he claiming to have had the impression
that the applicable provision at the time was Article
HELD: 83 of the Civil Code In respondent’s case, he being
The petition is not meritorious. As a general out of the country since 1986, he can be given the
rule, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an benefit of the doubt on his claim that Article 83 of
ejectment suit is immediately executory, in order to the Civil Code was the applicable provision when
prevent further damage to him arising from the loss he contracted the second marriage abroad. From
of possession of the property in question. The 1985 when allegedly his first wife abandoned him,
motion for execution was filed eighteen days from an allegation which was not refuted, until his
the date the petitioners received a copy of the marriage in 1989 with Imelda Soriano, there is no
MTC's decision, after the appeal had already been showing that he was romantically involved with any
perfected. Because no supersedeas bond had woman. Respondent did not deny he contracted
been filed within the period for appeal, a writ of marriage with Imelda Soriano. The community in
execution should have been issued as a matter of which they have been living in fact elected him and
right. Petitioners manifestly failed to adduce a served as President of the IBP-Bulacan Chapter
compelling reason to justify a departure from the from 1997-1999 and has been handling free legal
afore cited rule. Lawyers as officers of the court aid cases. However, respondent may not go scot-
must assist in the administration of justice. free. The act of contracting a second marriage
while the first marriage was still in place is contrary
to honesty, justice, decency and morality
DULALIA v. ATTY. CRUZ
(A.C. No, 6854, April 25, 2007) Also, respondent violated Canon 5 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. He claim that
FACTS: he was not aware that the Family Code already
Complainant’s wife Susan Dulalia filed an took effect on August 3, 1988 as he was in the
application for building permit for the construction of United States from 1986 and stayed there until he
a warehouse, but was not issued a the permit She came back to the Philippines together with his
attributes this fact to the opposition of respondents second wife on October 9, 1990 does not lie, as
who wrote a September 13, 2004 letter to Carlos J. "ignorance of the law excuses no one from
Abacan, Municipal Engineer and concurrent compliance therewith.” The primary duty of lawyers
Building Official of Meycauayan, Bulacan The letter is to obey the laws of the land and promote respect
alleges that high-rise building under construction of for the law and legal processes. They are expected
the said Mrs. Soriano-Dulalia is an unbearable to be in the forefront in the observance and
nuisance that causes imminent danger to the maintenance of the rule of law. This duty carries
respondents and his family, they being the with it the obligation to be well-informed of the
immediate neighbors of this construction site. existing laws and to keep abreast with legal
Complainant claims that respondent Atty Cruz developments, recent enactments and
opposed the application for the permit, because of jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be
a personal grudge against his wife Susan who conversant with basic legal principles. Unless they
objected to respondent’s marrying her first cousin faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be
Imelda Soriano, respondent’s marriage with able to discharge competently and diligently their
Carolina Agaton being still subsisting. The IBP obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they
recommended the dismissal of the complaint, which may become susceptible to committing mistakes.
was adopted and approved by the Board of He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one
Governors. Hence, this petition. Complainant year.
maintains that (1) Respondent violated Rule 1.01
when he contracted a second marriage with Imelda
 DE ROY v. COURT OF APPEALS The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), for its report
(G.R. No. 80718, January 29, 1988) and recommendation, agreed with the OCAT,
making Atty. Avecilla liable.
FACTS:
The firewall of a burned out building owned ISSUE:
by petitioners collapsed and destroyed the tailoring Whether or not respondent Atty. Avecilla be
shop occupied by the family of the private held administratively liable.
respondents resulting in injuries to private
respondents had been warned by petitioners to HELD:
vacate their shop in view of its proximity to the SUSPENDED. According to Rule 6.02 of
weakened wall but the former failed to do. In the the Code of Professional Responsibility, “a lawyer
RTC, petitioners were found guilty of gross in the government service shall not use his public
negligence. On the last day of the 15 days period to position to promote or advance his private interests
file an appeal, petitioners filed a motion for XXX”. Being a court employee, they should not to
reconsideration which was again denied. The take any court records, papers or documents
Supreme Court finds that Court of Appeal did not outside the court premises. Also, the act of the
commit a grave abuse of discretion when it denied respondent in borrowing a rollo for unofficial
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. It correctly business entailed the employment of deceit not
applied the rule laid down in Habulaya’s vs Japzon. becoming a member of the bar.
Counsel for petitioner contends that the said case
should not be applied non-publication in the Official SAMALA v. ATTY. PALANA
Gazette. (A.C. No. 6595, April 15, 2005)

ISSUE: FACTS:
Whether or not Supreme Court decisions This is a complaint files by Joseph Samala
must be published in the Official Gazette before against respondent Atty. Antonuitti K. Palana for
they can be binding. alleged fraudulent activities which violate the Code
of Professional Responsibility. In February 2001,
HELD: complainant was looking for a company wherein he
There is no law requiring the publication of could invest his dollar savings and subsequently
Supreme Court decision in the Official Gazette was introduced to employees of First Imperial
before they can be binding and as a condition to Resources, Inc. (FIRI), including Atty. Palana
their becoming effective. It is bounden duty of (respondent). Due to the personal representations
counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep and assurances of respondent, – claiming that
abreast of decisions of the Supreme Court as complainant would be directly putting his
embedded in Canon 5 of the Code of Professional investment with Eastern Vanguard Forex Limited
Responsibility, particularly where issues have been which is a reputable company based in Virgin
clarified, consistently reiterated and published in Islands and has been in the foreign exchange
the advance reports of Supreme Court decisions business for 13 years – complainant was convinced
and in such publications as the SCRA and law to invest his dollar savings with FIRI on March 9,
journals. 2001. Subsequently, complainant decided to pull
out his investment by sending a letter requesting
Re: Resolution Of The Court Dated 1 June 2004 the withdrawal of his investment of US$10,000 and
In G.R. No. 72954 Against Atty. Avecilla gave FIRI 10 days to produce such fund. On April
(A.C. No. 6683, July 21, 2011) 15, 2001 complainant was given a check
amounting to P574,045.09, as the peso equivalent
FACTS: to complainant’s investment however the check
After the resolution of a petition questioning was dishonored because it was drawn against
the constitutionality of B.P. 883, Supreme Court insufficient funds. On June 1, 2001, respondent as
through its JRO took custody of such rollo (where the legal officer of FIRI, gave complainant
herein respondent Avecilla was involved). Now, in P250,000 in cash and a check in the amount of
order to check on the management of the Judicial P3229,045.09. Respondent assured complainant
Development Fund, herein respondent Atty. that the check was signed by FIRI President Paul
Avecilla made a claim as through the Desiderio in his (respondent’s) presence and that
abovementioned rollo. When the Supreme Court the check would be funded. However, the check
asked the JRO to inquire, the said rollo was was again dishonored for the same reason as the
missing. Later on, such whereabouts where found first. On July 14, 2001, complainant charged Paul
with Atty. Avecilla, having custody through his legal Desiderio of Estafa and Violation of Batas
work with a retired Supreme Court Justice. Through PambansaBilang 22. However, Paul Desiderio
the report and recommendation of the Office of the could not be located when sought to be served a
Chief Attorney (OCAT), it was found out that such warrant of arrest because his identity was unknown
rollo was used for a personal agenda (and only and his residential address was found to be
returned after 12 years), but borrowed through a fictitious. Complainant alleged that respondent’s act
certain Atty. Banzon, another then legal researcher of representing himself to be the legal officer of
with the same abovementioned Justice. However, FIRI and his assurance that the check he delivered
respondent Atty. Avecilla asserted that such was to him which was signed by the President of FIRI in
not through his fault and only found out that it was his (respondent’s) presence when in reality no such
with him when he was contacted to for retrieval. person exists, is fraudulent and violative of the
Canons of Professional Ethics. Respondent was affidavit of desistance and that the only reason why
also one of those who assured the complainant that he reconciled with her is so that she would
his dollar savings would be directly invested in a withdraw the complaint against him. Complainant
reputable company (Eastern Vanguard Forex also claimed that respondent sent her a letter which
Limited). proves all of her allegations where the respondent
states that their marriage was actually void form the
ISSUE: beginning. Respondent denied that he had sent
Whether or not Atty. Palana has violated such letter. On March 26, 1984, the Bar
Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Confidant’s report recommended indefinite
Responsibility. suspension of respondent until the status of his
marriage is settled.
HELD:
The court held that Atty. Antonuitti K. ISSUE:
Palana is guilty of violating Rule 7.03 of the Code of Whether or not Atty. TrebonianTabang
Professional Responsibility and is thus suspended violated Rule 7.01 of Canon 7 of the Code of
from the practice of law for a period of three years, Professional Responsibility.
with warning that a repetition of the same or similar
acts will be dealt with more severely. The court also HELD:
held that “the representations of respondent as The court held that Atty. TrebonianTabangis
legal officer of FIRI caused material damage to the guilty of violating Rule 7.01 of the Code of
complainant” hence “respondent failed to uphold Professional Responsibility and is thus suspended
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and from the practice of law until further notice.The
lessened the confidence of the public in the Court held that respondent’s “declaration in his
honesty and integrity of the same”. application for Admission to the 1981 Bar
Examinations that he was "single" was a gross
misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter
LEDA v. ATTY. TABANG bad faith, for which he should be made answerable.
(A.C. No. 2505, February 21, 1992) Rule 7.01, Canon 7, Chapter II of the Code of
Professional Responsibility explicitly provides: "A
FACTS: lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a
Evangeline Leda (complainant) challenges false statement or suppression of a material fact in
Atty. TrebonianTabang’s (respondent) good moral connection with his application for admission to the
character in two complaints she filed against him, bar." That false statement, if it had been known,
one docketed as Bar Matter No. 78 instituted on would have disqualified him outright from taking the
January 6, 1982 and the case at hand. It appears Bar Examinations as it indubitably exhibits lack of
that complainant and respondent contracted a good moral character.”
marriage in Tigbauan, Iloilo on October 3, 1976
under as one of the exceptional character under ATTY. REYES v. ATTY. CHIONG JR.
Article 76 of the Civil Code. The parties agreed to (A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003)
keep their marriage a secret until respondent had
finished his law studies and had taken the Bar FACTS:
examinations. Complainant admits that they have Complainant Atty. Reyes filed a case for
not lived together as husband and wife. After disbarment against respondent Atty. Chiong
respondent’s law studies and bar examinations, because of the latter’s violation of Canon 8 of the
complainant blocked his oath-taking (by instituting Code of Professional Responsibility dealing with
Bar Matter No. 78) claiming that respondent had the idea that lawyers should treat each other with
acted fraudulently when he filled out his application courtesy, dignity and civility. Chiong’s client did not
declaring he was “single” and is thus unworthy to appear upon the court when Prosecutor Salonga
take the lawyer’s Oath for lack of good moral issued a subpoena for their preliminary
character. Respondent filed his explanation investigation, the Prosecutor filed a criminal
claiming that he was “legally married” to complaint for estafa against said client. After which
complainant but the marriage was not yet made Chiong made an urgent motion to quash the
and declared public so that he may finish his warrant concomitant with his filing for a civil
studies as well as take the bar exams and he complaint and collection for a sum of money and
therefore believed that he was still single. damages against Atty. Reyes, Xu (the
Respondent also alleged that he and the complainant’s client) and the Prosecutor. Upon
complainant has reconciled and prayed that the their confrontation, no settlement was reached.
case be dismissed (on the ground that complainant Chiong argues that there was no disrespect
confirmed with his explanation as evidence by the impleading Atty. Reyes as co-defendant in Civil
affidavit of desistance made by complainant) which Case No. 4884 and no basis to conclude that the
was granted by the Court on August 20, 1982. suit was groundless. He argues that he impleaded
However, on February 14, 1983, complainant filed the Prosecutor because the criminal investigation
an Administrative case and prayed for respondent’s had irregularities due to the action of the
disbarment on the grounds that: Respondent used Prosecutor to file estafa case despite the pendency
his legal knowledge to contract an invalid marriage; for his client’s motion for an opportunity to submit
he mirepresented himself in his application to take counter affidavit and evidence.
the bar exam; lack of good moral character; and
that complainant was deceived into signing the ISSUE:
 Did respondent violate Canon 8 of the Code 1. Did the IBP err in finding Atty. Ferrer guilty
of Professional Responsibility? of the charges set against him?
2. In the affirmative, was the penalty imposed
HELD: on him justified?
Yes, it was recommended by the IBP that
defendant’s purpose of filing for the collection suit HELD:
with damages was to be able to obtain leverage No, there was no reason to disagree with
against the estafa case of his client. Clearly there the findings of the IBP because it can be seen that
was no need to implead complainant and there was an appropriate and tedious investigation
Prosecutor Salonga because they never had any set upon him for administrative purposes and it can
participation in the business transactions between be inferred that the decision went through a
Pan and Xu, clearly it was for the mere harassment rigorous process.
of the two. Chiong was suspended for two (2) years
from the practice of law and was implemented Yes, because as stated in Canon 8 of the
immediately. Code of Professional Responsibility, all lawyers
conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and
candor towards their fellow lawyer and more
ATTY. BARANDON, JR v. ATTY. FERRER, SR. specifically in Rule 8.01 a lawyer shall not in his
(A.C. No. 5768, March 26, 2010) professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper. It was
FACTS: clearly seen in this case that there was a violation
On January 11, 2001 Atty.Barandon filed a of this Canon and also Canon 7 which dealt with
complaint-affidavit with the IBP seeking the the proper conduct of a lawyer and how he should
disbarment, suspension or proper disciplinary not behave in a scandalous manner that would
action against Atty.Ferrer,Sr. for offenses such as discredit the legal profession, appearing drunk and
the use of offensive language when insinuating having multiple cases piled against him would be
that the complainant presented a falsified document very clear that there is a clear-cut violation of said
in court, filing a fabricated charge against Atty. Canon.
Barandon, the usage of threatening phrases before
the start of a hearing such as “…patayan kung CAMBALIZA v. ATTY. CRISTAL-TENORIO
patayan, kasamaang lahat ng pamilya.”, accusing (A.C. No. 6290, July 14, 2004)
Atty. Barandon without bothering to check the facts
and lastly the plethora of cases he was facing that FACTS:
time predominantly the one that deals with sexual A complaint for disbarment filed with the
harassment. Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines. Complainant Cambaliza, a
Atty. Ferrer filed an answer concomitant former employee of respondent Atty. Ana Luz B.
with his motion to dismiss. In his answer contains Cristal-Tenorio in her law office, charged the latter
the improbability of the charges against him with deceit, grossly immoral conduct, and
because he could have not said those remarks malpractice or other gross misconduct in office.
without being reprimanded while the court was in Complainant alleged that the respondent has been
session. Also, the offended party in the falsification falsely representing herself to be married to
case vouchsafed that her thumbmark in the Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., who has a prior and
document has been falsified and other conflicting subsisting marriage with another woman.
stories against what Atty. Barandon filed. Furthermore, Respondent caused the
dissemination to the public of a libelous affidavit
While there was this constant clash derogatory to Makati City; cooperated in the illegal
between the complainant and the respondent on practice of law by her husband, who is not a
December 29, 2000, Atty. Barandon boarded a taxi member of the Philippine Bar; converted her client's
that was owned by defendant’s son and it was money to her own use and benefit, which led to the
involved in an accident, the incident was shady filing of an estafa case against her; and threatened
because no help was given to the victims and that the complainant and her family on 24 January 2000
respondent denied knowing the driver of said taxi. with the statement "Isang bala ka lang" to deter
Atty. Ferrer also prevented an eyewitness from them from divulging respondent's illegal activities
reporting the accident to the proper authorities. and transactions. Respondent denied all the
allegations against her. The Case referred to this
On October 10, 2001 the IBP investigation case to Investigating Commissioner as the
commissioner recommended the suspension of complainant bolstered her claim that the
respondent for two (2) years because they have respondent cooperated in the illegal practice of law
found enough evidence to prove his violation of by her husband by submitting: (1) the letterhead of
Canon 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Cristal-Tenorio Law Office where the name of
Responsibility. On June 29, 2002 the IBP board of Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., is listed as a senior
governors accepted the recommendations of the partner; and (2) a Sagip Communication Radio
investigation commissioner with the reduction of Group identification card signed by the respondent
one (1) year from the suspension. as Chairperson where her husband is identified as
"Atty. Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr." She added that
ISSUES: respondent's husband even appeared in court
hearings. Respondent averred that she neither
formed a law partnership with her husband nor On November 15, 1999, a decision was
allowed her husband to appear in court on her rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite
behalf. If there was an instance that her husband (PARAD) in favor of complainant, Plus Builders,
appeared in court, he did so as a representative of Inc. and against the tenants/farmers Leopoldo de
her law firm. The letterhead submitted by the Guzman, et. al., who were the clients of respondent
complainant was a false reproduction to show that Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found
her husband is one of her law partners. But upon that respondent’s clients were mere tenants and
cross-examination, when confronted with the not rightful possessors/owners of the subject land.
letterhead ofCristal-Tenorio Law Office bearing her The case was elevated all the way up to the
signature, she admitted that Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Supreme Court, with this Court sustaining
Jr., is not a lawyer, but he and a certain Gerardo A. complainant’s rights over the land. Continuing to
Panghulan, who is also not a lawyer, are named as pursue his clients’ lost cause, respondent was
senior partners because they have investments in found to have committed intentional falsehood; and
her law office misused court processes with the intention to delay
the execution of the decision through the filing of
ISSUE: several motions, petitions for temporary restraining
Whether or not Respondent violated Canon orders, and the last, an action to quiet title despite
9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional the finality of the decision. Furthermore, he allowed
Responsibility. non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice
of law – holding themselves out as his
HELD: partners/associates in the law firm.
The Court held Respondent failed to live up
to the exacting standards expected of him as a Respondent denied all allegations and
vanguard of law and justice. for culpable violation of believes that the courses of action he took were
Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional valid and proper legal theory designed to protect
Responsibility, Respondent was suspended from the rights and interests of Leopoldo de Guzman, et.
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months al. The lawyer-client relationship with the former
with a warning that a repetition of the same or lawyer was terminated because Leopoldo de
similar act in the future will be dealt with more Guzman, et. al. felt that their former counsel did not
severely. explain/argue their position very well, refused to
listen to them and, in fact, even castigated them. As
In line with jurisprudence, he is held liable the new counsel, respondent relied on what the
for gross misconduct and is suspended from the tenants/farmers told him in the course of his
practice of law. The lawyer's duty to prevent, or at interview. He avers that he merely exhausted all
the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized possible remedies and defenses to which his
practice of law is founded on public interest and clients were entitled under the law. He submitted
policy. Public policy requires that the practice of law that if he was indeed guilty of violating the rules in
be limited to those individuals found duly qualified the courses of action he took in behalf of his clients,
in education and character. The purpose is to he apologizes and supplicates the Court for kind
protect the public, the court, the client, and the bar consideration, pardon and forgiveness.
from the incompetence or dishonesty of those
unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the ISSUE:
disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon a Whether or not respondent guilty of violating
lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the attorney’s oath, Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the
the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him Code of Professional Responsibility.
not to permit his professional services or his name
to be used in aid of, or to make possible the HELD:
unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, The Court held that Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr.
personal or corporate. And, the law makes it is hereby found guilty of gross misconduct. Taking
misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary the cudgels from the former lawyer in this case is
action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice rather commendable, but respondent should not
of law. forget his first and foremost responsibility as an
officer of the court. In support of the cause of their
clients, lawyers have the duty to present every
PLUS BUILDERS, INC. & GARCIA v. ATTY. remedy or defense within the authority of the law.
REVILLA, JR. This obligation, however, is not to be performed at
(A.C. No. 7056, February 11, 2009) the expense of truth and justice. This is the criterion
that must be borne in mind in every exertion a
FACTS: lawyer gives to his case. Under the Code of
A Petition for Disbarment was filed by Plus Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty
Builders Inc. and Edgardo C. Garcia before the to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. of justice, and is enjoined from unduly delaying a
Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. for committing a willful and case by impeding execution of a judgment or by
intentional falsehood before the court; misusing misusing court processes. After a careful
court procedure and processes to delay the consideration of herein respondent’s motion for
execution of a judgment; and collaborating with reconsideration and humble acknowledgment of his
non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law. misfeasance, the Court was persuaded to extend a
degree of leniency towards the respondent by
reducing his suspension period from two years to motivation thereof. In the present case,
six months. complainant failed to present clear and
preponderant evidence to show that respondent
RUDECON MANAGEMENT CORP. & ATTY. willfully and deliberately resorted to falsehood and
TACORDA v. ATTY. CAMACHO unlawful and dishonest conduct in violation of the
(A.C. No. 6403, August 31, 2004) standards of honesty as provided for by the Code
of Professional Responsibility which would have
FACTS: warranted the imposition of administrative sanction
On September 3, 1998, Sisenando Singson, against him.
represented by herein respondent Atty. Manuel N.
Camacho, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Wherefore, Resolution No. XVI-2004-43
of Quezon City a complaint against herein dated February 27, 2004 of the Integrated Bar of
complainant Rudecon Management Corporation for the Philippines is SET ASIDE and the instant
damages and reconveyance, docketed as Civil administrative case filed against Atty. Manuel N.
Case No. Q-98-35444. The case was originally Camacho is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
raffled to Branch 79, RTC, Quezon City but was
eventually re-raffled to Branch 85 of the same
court. On September 21, 1998, Singson, again ATTY. VAFLOR-FABROA v. ATTY. OSCAR
represented by Atty. Camacho, filed with Branch PAGUINTO
78, RTC, Quezon City a “Motion for Intervention (A.C. No. 6723, March 15, 2010)
(With Attached Answer in Intervention With
Affirmative Defenses and Compulsory FACTS:
Counterclaim)” in Civil Case No. Q-98-35326, On October 10, 2001, complainant, who
entitled, “Rudecon Management was Chairperson of the General Mariano Alvarez
Corporation,plaintiff-appellee vs. Ramon M. Veluz, Service Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), received a
defendant-appellant,” a case for unlawful detainer Notice of Special General Assembly of GEMASCO
on appeal before said court. On October 1, 1998, on October 14, 2001 to consider the removal of four
Rudecon filed a motion before Branch 78 seeking members of the Board of Directors (the Board),
to cite Singson and his counsel, Atty. Camacho, for including her and the General Manager. The notice
contempt for having allegedly violated the rule was signed by respondent. At the October 14, 2001
against forum shopping. And the court, in its Special General Assembly presided by respondent
dispositive portion found them guilty. On the basis and PNP Sr. Supt. Angelito L. Gerangco
of the above-cited order, Rudecon and Tacorda (Gerangco), who were not members of the then
filed the instant complaint for disbarment or current Board, Gerango, complainant’s
suspension against Atty. Camacho. predecessor, as Chair of the GEMASCO board,
declared himself Chair, appointed others to replace
ISSUE: the removed directors, and appointed respondent
Whether or not Atty. Manuel N. Camacho is as Board Secretary.
liable for violation of Canon 10 of the Code of On October 15, 2001, respondent and his group
Professional Responsibility. took over the GEMASCO office and its premises,
the pump houses, water facilities, and operations.
HELD: On even date, respondent sent letter-notices to
Although respondent was held to be guilty in complainant and the four removed directors
forum shopping, the court agreed with respondent informing them of their removal from the Board and
that there was no intention on his part to mislead as members of GEMASCO, and advising them to
the court by concealing the pendency of Civil Case cease and desist from further discharging the
No. Q-98-35444 in Branch 79 when they filed the duties of their positions.Complainant thus filed on
Motion for Intervention and Answer in Intervention October 16, 2001 with the Cooperative
in Civil Case No. Q-98-35326 in Branch 78. Indeed, Development Authority (CDA)-Calamba a complaint
the first paragraph of the said Answer in for annulment of the proceedings taken during the
Intervention shows that respondent and his client October 14, 2001 Special General Assembly.
called the trial court’s attention with respect to the The CDA Acting Regional Director (RD), by
pendency of Civil Case No. Q-98-35444. Herein Resolution of February 21, 2002, declared the
complainant, which is the plaintiff in Civil Case No. questioned general assembly null and void for
Q-98-35326, does not dispute respondent’s having been conducted in violation of GEMASCO’s
allegation that the latter and his client attached to By-Laws and the Cooperative Code of the
their Answer in Intervention a copy of their Philippines. The RD’s Resolution of February 21,
complaint in Civil Case No. Q-98-35444. 2002 was later vacated for lack of jurisdiction of
Complainants seek the disbarment or suspension CDA. Thus, complainant files a disbarment case
of respondent from the practice of law for his against respondent.
having allegedly violated Canon 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, however, in ISSUE:
administrative cases for disbarment or suspension Whether or not respondent is liable for
against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is violation of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of Responsibility.
proof rests upon the complainant. Moreover, an
administrative case against a lawyer must show the HELD:
dubious character of the act done as well as of the
 Respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly Did the non-inclusion of the deed of sale in
ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court the complaint amount to a violation of 10.01, 02,
constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. 03?
Respondent’s conduct indicates a high degree of
irresponsibility. A Court’s Resolution is "not to be HELD:
construed as a mere request, nor should it be No. A lawyer has the duty to be truthful in all
complied with partially, inadequately, or his dealings, however this duty does not require
selectively". Respondent’s obstinate refusal to him to advance matters of defense on behalf of his
comply with the Court’s orders "not only betrays a or her client’s opponent. Villalon was not duty
recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also bound to build the case for Fernandez. The cause
underscores her disrespect of the Court’s lawful of action chosen by Palacios was for the annulment
orders which is only too deserving of reproof. of the deed of donation. Palacios had told her that
Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and the deed of sale was void for lack of consideration.
processes and respondent’s deference is It was not a necessary fact for his case. Only the
underscored by the fact that willful disregard client’s operative facts and not the other evidentiary
thereof will subject the lawyer not only to facts need to be included in the Complaint. It is
punishment for contempt but to disciplinary correct for the respondent to argue that pointing out
sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is the existence of the January 12 Deed of Absolute
imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold Sale was a matter of defense which the defendant
the integrity of the courts and to show respect to in said civil case can freely point out to the trial
their processes. judge through his own pleadings. It cannot be
argued that there was suppression of evidence on
The Court notes that respondent had the part of the respondent as she is not the only
previously been suspended from the practice of law person who had access or possession of the said
for six months for violation of the Code of Deed of Absolute Sale. It was a document readily
Professional Responsibility, he having been found available to the general public through the Notarial
to have received an acceptance fee and misled the Office. Moreover, it was a document which was
client into believing that he had filed a case for her fully known to herein complainant as he was
when he had not. It appears, however, that supposed to be a party to the said Deed of
respondent has not reformed his ways. A more Absolute Sale. In other words, a person cannot
severe penalty this time is thus called for. possibly suppress the existence of a document
which everyone else, especially the opposing party-
Wherefore, respondent, Atty. Oscar P. litigant, knows about.
Paguinto, is SUSPENDED for two years from the
practice of law for violation of Canon 10 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and the NG v. ALAR
Lawyer’s Oath, effective immediately. (ADM Case No. 7952, November 22, 2006)

FERNANDEZ v. DE RAMOS-VILLALON FACTS:

(A.C. No. 7024, February 27, 2009) Ng is one of the respondents in a labor
case, Alar is the counsel for the complainant in the
FACTS: labor case. The case was filed when employees of
In 2004, Palacios, a lot owner in Makati, the Ng Company alleged that they did not receive
sought the help of Fernandez to help him in a land their service incentives because the Ng Company
grabbing case. Palacios won the case and he refused to pay because a strike was conducted on
allegedly agreed to pay Fernandez 2M. In 2005, company premises hampering entrance and exit
Palacios bumped into one Mrs. Lirio and to his into the area. It was later found that the incentive
surprise, he found out that Fernandez was trying to pay had been paid. When the NLRC dismissed the
sell HIS Makati property. Fernandez has for his appeal, Alar filed an MR with a Motion to Inhibit,
basis an alleged deed of donation that Palacio where Alar used scandalous, offensive and
executed in favor of Fernandez. Palacios, with the menacing language to support the complaint. He
help of Atty. Villalon, filed a complaint in order to called the labor arbiter crossed-eyed in making his
nullify the deed of donation. Fernandez answered findings of fact and that the NLRC commissioner
that he had an Absolute Deed of Sale in his favor acted with malice in ruling that the labor arbiter
from Palacios. Thereafter, Villalon was charged by decided correctly. He also alleged that NLRC
Palacios for violation of rules 10.01, 10.02, 10.03 retiring commissioners circumvent the law when the
among others. He claims that Villalon suppressed money claims involved in the cases are large.
and excluded in the complaint the existence of an Because of this a disbarment case was filed
unregistered but notarized deed of absolute sale. against him saying that he violated canons 8 and
Villalon counters that as counsel of Palacios she is 11. Alar argues that he did not violate them
under no duty to include the fact that there existed because: 1) NLRC is not a court contemplated by
a deed of sale because only her client’s operative the rules; 2) NLRC commissioners are not judges;
facts and not other evidentiary facts needed to be 3) the complaints in labor cases are bound to be
included n the complaint. The deed of sale was a heated and that they are entitled to some anger. He
matter of defense that Fernandez, as defendant counterclaimed that the lawyers of Ng are the ones
could raise as a matter of defense. in violation of the CPR by filing multiple suits from
the same cause of action and that they deliberately
ISSUE: lessened the number of complainants in the labor
case. The commission on bar discipline found Alar and credibility of Justice Tinga degrade the dignity
guilty of violating the CPR. of the court and erode public confidence in it. He is
hereby fined P 3,000.00.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Alar violated the CPR. CANON 11
by Aristotle Cruz
HELD:
Yes. The motion he filed contained insults GUERRERO v. VILLAMOR
attacking the NLRC, casting doubt on its moral and (A.M. No. RTJ-90-483, September 25, 1998)
intellectual integrity, implying that the NLRC can be
bought. He used improper and offensive language, FACTS:
which cannot be justified. Though a lawyer’s Carlos and his counsel, Guerrero, charged
language may be forceful and emphatic, it must respondent with gross ignorance of the law and
always be dignified and respectful. He deserves not knowingly rendering an unjust judgment after they
only a warning but also a fine of P 5,0000. The lost a civil and a criminal case tried by respondent.
counter-complaint is dismissed because there was They were also thwarted on appeal. However, in
no position paper submitted to substantiate the the pleadings before the CA, they used abusive
claims. language in describing the respondent’s acts,
hence, respondent judge cited them for direct
contempt, which was later set aside by the SC.
FUDOT v. CATTLEYA LAND, INC.
(G.R. No. 175942, September 13, 2007) ISSUE:
Must the respondent be held liable for
FACTS: violation of the Code for Professional Ethics?
De La Serna requested that Justice Tinga,
the ponente in the Fudot case, be inhibited HELD:
because it was alleged that he received 10 million The case was dismissed. The order of
pesos from Chan in exchange for a favorable direct contempt may only be considered as an error
decision. De La Serna suggests that Tinga of judgment. A judge may not be administratively
abandoned the doctrine in Lim v. Jorge to charged for mere errors of judgment, in the
accommodate Chan. He also said that Tinga absence of showing of any bad faith, malice or
prioritized the case and that Chan already knew of corrupt purpose. Moreover, judges cannot be held
the outcome of the case before the decision was to account criminally, civilly, or administratively for
promulgated. Chan related that he approached De an erroneous decision rendered by them in good
La Serna for the purpose of amicably settling the faith.
case, and offered him to be their retainer in Bohol.
He denied having said to De La Serna that he had
already spent so much money for the Supreme PEOPLE v. JARDIN
Court. (G.R. No. L-33037-42, August 17, 1983)

ISSUE: FACTS:
Whether or not Serna is guilty of indirect The criminal prosecutions originated from a
contempt. letter-complaint of the Provincial Auditor of Quezon
requesting the Provincial Fiscal to file the
HELD: necessary criminal action under Article 217 of the
Yes. Contempt is defined as a disobedience Revised Penal Code against Demetrio Jardin for
to the court by setting up opposition to its authority, malversation of public funds thru falsification of
justice and dignity. It is not only a willful disregard public documents on six counts. The cases were
or disobedience of the court’s orders but it also assigned to Assistant Fiscal Meliton V. Angeles
brings authority of the court and administration of who set them for preliminary investigation. The
law into disrepute or in some manner impedes the accused moved to postpone the investigation four
due administration of justice. Indirect contempt is times but the accused and his counsel failed to
one committed out of or not in the presence of the appear every time. Inspire of their absence, the
court but tends to be little, degrade obstruct or preliminary investigation was conducted and shortly
embarrass the court and justice. Improper conduct afterwards, the six information’s were filed against
tending to directly or indirectly impede obstruct or the accused before the Court of First Instance of
degrade the administration of justice is also indirect Quezon City. The arraignment was set for May 9,
contempt. A lawyer is first and foremost an officer 1967. On the records it was show that from May 9,
of the court and it is his duty to maintain the respect 1967, the arraignment was re-set for June 6; then
due to the courts and judicial officers. While he is re-set for June 26; then from August 16, the same
expected to bring forth irregular and questionable was re-set for September 5, all because of the
practices of those sitting in court it is important that motions for postponement filed at the instance of
this criticism shall be bona fide and shall not spill the accused. When the arraignment of the accused
over the walls of decency and propriety. His was called on September 5, 1967, counsel for the
statements bear badges of falsehood because the accused verbally moved for reinvestigation on the
version of the witnesses disputes his statements. ground that the accused was not given the
He maliciously made these declarations opportunity to present his defense during the
irresponsibly. The libelous attack on the integrity preliminary investigation. This was granted by the
court and the first reinvestigation was set on various suits before different courts to thwart
November 24, 1967. Accused moved to postpone Garcia’s right to regain her property and that all
many times, failed still to appear. When he finally these proceedings were decided against Lee. The
appeared with his counsel, they asked for 15 days proceedings stemmed from the said lease contract
to file memorandum. The memorandum was never and involved the same issues and parties, thus
filed, so the investigating fiscal filed a manifestation violating the proscription against forum-shopping.
before the court that the records of these cases be The respondent, in his comment, says that he
returned and the trial on the merits of the same be asserted in defense of his client’s rights only such
set. The court transferred the case to new branch remedies as were authorized by law. That On
of CFI Quezon without acting on manifestation. March 29, 1989, Lee, through Francisco, filed a
Arraignment date was set but more postponements complaint against Garcia and the other lessors for
was filed at the instance of accused; moved for specific performance and re-conveyance with
reinvestigation again. Arraignment finally happened damages. Thus began more filing of complaints
on Sept 8, 1970. Accused pleaded NOT GUILTY and dismissals of cases as follows: On June 9,
and asked for trial to be postponed. On postponed 1989, Garcia filed a motion to dismiss the
date, accused asked for another postponement. complaint. The case was dismissed on August 10,
1989. On May 29, 1989, Garcia and the other
ISSUE: lessors filed a complaint for unlawful detainer
Whether the acts of the accused and his against Lee. On September 5, 1989, judge Bautista
counsel obstruct the administration of justice. issued a resolution rejecting this allegation on the
ground that the issues before the two courts were
HELD: separate and different. On October 24, 1989, Lee,
The Supreme Court ruled that the dilatory through Francisco, filed a petition for certiorari and
tactics of the defense counsel and the failure of prohibition with preliminary injunction against Judge
both judge and the fiscal to take effective counter Bautista, Garcia and the other lessors. On April 6,
measures to obviate the delaying acts constitute 1990, Lee through Francisco filed a petition for
obstruction of justice. An attorney as an officer of certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary
the court is called upon to assist in the due injunction with the Court of Appeals against Judge
administration of justice. Like the court itself, he is Vera, Judge Singzon, Garcia and the other lessors.
an instrument to advance its cause. For this On June 14, 1990, Judge Singzon decided
reason, any act on the part of a lawyer that the case in favor of complainant Garcia and the
obstructs perverts or impedes the administration of other lessors. Lee did not appeal. Instead, on, June
justice constitutes misconduct and justifies 21, 1990, through Francisco again, he filed a
disciplinary action against him. petition against Judge Singzon and the other
Acts which amount to obstruction in the lessors for certiorari and annulment of the decision
administration of justice may take many forms. of such case. On September 27, 1991, Lee,
They include such acts as instructing a complaining through Francisco, filed a motion to inhibit Judge
witness in a criminal action not to appear at the Singzon and to defer the hearing of the motion then
scheduled hearing so that the case against the finally, Lee, still through Francisco, filed a petition
client, the accused, would be dismissed. asking a for certiorari with preliminary injunction against
client to plead guilty to a crime which the lawyer Judge Singzon, Garcia and the other lessors in the
knows his client did not commit, advising a client Regional Trial Court of Quezon City to set aside
who is detained for a crime to escape from prison and declare the writs of execution in Civil Case No.
prosecuting clearly frivolous cases or appeals to 1455. This was dismissed on August 4, 1992, and
drain the resources of the other party and compel Lee, through Francisco, filed a motion for
him to submit out of exhaustion and filing multiple reconsideration.
petitions or complaints for a cause that has been
previously rejected in the false expectation of ISSUE:
getting favorable action. Whether Atty. Francisco abuses his right of
recourse to the courts.
GARCIA v. FRANCISCO
(A.C. No. 3923, March 30, 1993) HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled that a lawyer
FACTS: owes fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the
In a sworn complaint filed with this Court on expense of truth and the administration of justice.
October 6, 1992, Concordia B. Garcia seeks the The cause of the respondent’s client is obviously
disbarment of Atty. Crisanto L. Francisco. On without merit. The respondent was aware of this
March 9, 1964, Concordia B. Garcia and her fact when he willfully resorted to the gambits
husband Godofredo, the Dionisio spouses, and summarized above, continuously seeking relief that
Felisa and Magdalena Baetiong leased a parcel of was consistently denied, as he should have
land to Sotero Baluyot Lee for a period of 25 years expected. By grossly abusing his right of recourse
beginning May 1, 1964. Despite repeated verbal to the courts for the purpose of arguing a cause
and written demands, Lee refused to vacate after that had been repeatedly rebuffed, he was
the expiration of the lease. Lee claimed that he had disdaining the obligation of the lawyer to maintain
an option to extend the lease for another 5 years only such actions or proceedings as appear to him
and the right of pre-emption over the property. In to be just and such defenses only as he believes to
this disbarment case, the complainant claims that be honestly debatable under the law. By violating
Lee’s counsel, respondent Francisco, commenced his oath not to delay any man for money or malice,
he has besmirched the name of an honorable VDA. DE BACALING v. LAGUNA & HON.
profession and has proved himself unworthy of the ROVIRA
trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the (G.R. No. L-26694, December 18, 1973)
Court.
FACTS:
Private respondent Hector Laguda is the
CAPT. CABAGUI v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS registered owner of a residential land known as lot
THIRD DIVISION No. 3508 situated at La Paz, Iloilo City many years
(G.R. No. L-38377, October 15, 1975) back, petitioner and her late husband, Dr. Ramon
Bacaling, with the acquiescence of private
FACTS: respondent Laguda, constructed a residential
Under its Resolution of November 20, 1974, house on a portion of said lot fronting Huevana
the Court, acting on a third petition for review of a Street, paying a monthly rental of P80.00. Unable
Court of Appeals decision affirming petitioner’s to pay the lease rental from July 1959 to
conviction of the crime of malversation of public September 1961, otaling P2,160.00, an action for
funds, as filed on November 13, 1974 by his ejectment (Civil Case No. 6823) was filed by private
attorney, Eugenio M. Millado, with address at respondent Laguda against petitioner in her
Koronadal, South Cotabato, ordered that said capacity as judicial administratrix of the estate of
petition be expunged from the records and required her late husband, Dr. Bacaling, in the City Court of
“Atty. Eugenio Millado to show cause within ten Iloilo City. The filing of said case spawned various
(10) days from notice hereof why disciplinary action court suits. Petitioner on July 23, 1962, filed
should not be taken against him for trifling with the certiorari proceedings in this Court (G.R. No. L-
Court by filing this third petition despite previous 20061) but was dismissed for lack of merit on
resolutions of this Court.” In its previous Resolution August 3, 1962. Petitioner on November 12, 1962,
of May 8, 1974 referring to the first two petitions filed with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a
filed by respondent Millado on behalf of the same petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction
petitioner, the Court had dismissed the (Civil Case No. 6162) but the same was dismissed
secondpetition (filed on March 18, 1974) by on December 1, 1962. Unsuccessful in her motion
respondent Millado in the guise of a new petition for for reconsideration, petitioner went to the Court of
certiorari with preliminary injunction but which Appeals by way of certiorari (CA-G.R. No. 31882-
merely raised again the same questions in his first R) but her petition was dismissed by that Court on
petition (filed on January 9, 1974) seeking to set March 7, 1967.
aside petitioner’s conviction for malversation of
public funds, by decision of the court of first ISSUE:
instance of Misamis Oriental dated June 20, 1963 Whether or not the acts of the petitioner as
as affirmed with modification by the Court of judicial administratrix prior to her discharge or
Appeals’ decision dated June 8, 1973, for alleged removal are valid and binding upon her successor.
lack of jurisdiction and praying for reversal of the
conviction or for a reduction of his criminal liability HELD:
by finding appellant-petitioner guilty of technical Such a view is not tenable. Under Section 3,
malversation only for the amount of P1,161.65. Rule 82 of the Rules of Court, petitioner’s lawful
Said first petition had been denied on January 15, acts before the revocation of her letters of
1974 by virtue of the petition having been filed late administration or before her removal shall have the
by 4 months and 25 days beyond the last date for same validity as if there was no such revocation or
filing which fell due since August 15, 1973. removal. It is elementary that the effect of
revocation of letters testamentary or of
ISSUE: administration is to terminate the authority of the
Whether or not Respondent Millado is guilty executor or administrator, but the acts of the
of violating Canon 12 of the Code of Professional executor or administrator, done in good faith prior
Responsibility. to the revocation of the letters, will be protected,
and a similar protection will be extended to rights
HELD: acquired under a previous grant of administration.
The Court finds respondent, Attorney The petitioner is not entitled to the writ of certiorari.
Eugenio M. Millado, guilty of gross negligence in In the case at bar, there is absolutely no showing
not having complied with a “show cause” resolution that the respondent courts acted so “arbitrarily”,
and of abusing the right of recourse to the Court by “despotically” or “capriciously” as to amount to lack
filing multiple petitions for the same cause in the of jurisdiction in issuing the questioned orders.
false expectation of getting favorable action from “Grave abuse of discretion” which is a ground for
one division as against the adverse action of the certiorari means “such capricious and arbitrary
other division. The Court deems his suspension exercise of judgment as is equivalent, in the eyes of
from the practice of law since February, 1975 as the law, to lack of jurisdiction.” Even mere abuse of
sufficient penalty and now lifts his suspension with discretion is not sufficient by itself to justify the
the warning that the commission in the future by issuance of a writ of certiorari. For that purpose the
respondent of the same or other infractions shall be abuse of discretion must be grave and patent, and
dealt with severely. it must be shown that it was exercised arbitrarily or
despotically, which is not the case made out by the
present petition.
 Consequently, Atty. Mauricio the counsel of the
RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. BAGABUYO, Cordero’s, was involved in various media
FORMER SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR productions such as being a writer/columnist of
(ADM. CASE No. 7006, October 09, 2007) tabloids including Balitang Patas BATAS, Bagong
TIKTIK, TORO and HATAW!, and a host of a
FACTS: television program KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS
The administrative case has its roots from telecast over UNTV and of a radio program Double
the case of People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza heard B-BATAS NG BAYAN aired over DZBB. Atty.
before the sala of Judge Jose Manuel Tan, Mauricio, in many cases utilized these media
Regional trial court of Surigao City, Branch 29. Luis outlets to place the said company in a bad light by
Bucalon, was found to be guilty of homicide and not declaring to the masses the liver spread of worms;
murder with the evidence as basis. Counsel of the even after his receipt of the Order addressed to him
defense thereafter filed a motion to fix that amount to desist from “further publishing, televising and/or
of bail bond, with which Senior state prosecutor and broadcasting any matter subject of the Complaint in
deputized prosecutor of the case Atty. Rogelio Z. the instant case more specifically the imputation of
Bagabuyo contests stating that murder is non- vices and/or defects on plaintiff and its products”.
bailable. Atty. Bagabuyo thereafter filed a motion Even after the parties have performed an
for reconsideration which was consequently denied. agreement, signed by the Cordero’s and
Hence, instead of resorting to his available judicial Atty.Mauricio himself – resulting in the dismissal of
remedies, respondent caused the publication of an the Cordero case, Atty.Mauricio still inexplicably
article in the August 18, 2003 issue of Mindanao launched a media offensive to the companies.
Gold Star Daily. Atty. Bagabuyo again resorted to
the media, after he was ordered arrested and put ISSUE:
up a bail of P100,000.00 this time at Radio Station Whether or not, Atty. Mauricio has violated
DXKS. He attacked once again Judge Tan and his the Code of Professional Responsibility.
disposition on the proceedings of People v. Luis
Bucalon Plaza. HELD:
Yes. Atty. Mauricio has violated the code of
ISSUE: professional responsibility. His recourse to the
Whether or not Atty. Bagabuyo has violated Media, even after being told to desist from such
the Code of professional conduct. was a clear violation of Rule 13.03 of Canon 13, “A
lawyer shall not make public statements in the
HELD: media regarding a pending case tending to arouse
Atty. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating public opinion for or against a party”. His action has
the code of professional conduct Canon 13, Rule put not only the company Foodsphere and CDO in
13.02 which states that “a lawyer shall not make a bad light, but has also degraded the dignity and
public statements in the media regarding a pending authority of the legal system. Besides the above, he
case tending to arouse public opinion for or against has also violated Canon 1.01 by engaging in
a party.” That instead of resorting to the available deceitful conduct taking advantage of the complaint
judicial remedies before him, Atty. Bagabuyo has against CDO to advance his own interests, and
degraded the dignity and authority of the court and Canon 8, when he used abusive and offensive
the presiding judge, as well as promoted distrust in language in his dealings.
the administration of justice when he resorted to
media and declared his complaints there. Atty. FRANCISCO, TAN & JOAQUIN v. ATTY.
Bagabuyo is also cited for violation of Canon 11, PORTUGAL
when he disrespected the courts and the judicial (A.C. No. 6155, March 14, 2006)
officers and Rule 11.05 when he did not submit
grievances against a judge to proper authorities FACTS:
only. SPO1 Ernesto C. Francisco, SPO1 Donato
F. Tan and PO3 Rolando M. Joaquin were involved
in a shooting incident which resulted in the death of
FOODSPHERE, INC. v. ATTY. MAURICIO, JR. two individuals and the serious injury of another.
(A.C. No. 7199, July 22, 2009) Informations were filed against them before the
Sandiganbayan for murder and frustrated murder.
FACTS: The Sandiganbayan found the accused guilty of
Foodsphere, a corportation engaged in the two counts of homicide and one count of attempted
business of meat processing and manufacture of homicide. Complainants engaged the services of
canned goods of “CDO” filed an administrative herein respondent for the accused. Respondent
complaint against Atty.Melanio Mauricio, Jr. for then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the
violation of the code of professional responsibility. Sandiganbayan but it was denied. They, then, filed
The case at hand involved a certain Alberto an Urgent Motion for Leave to File Second Motion
Cordero who purportedly found a colony of worms for Reconsideration, with the attached Second
inside the can of liver spread by CDO and Motion for Reconsideration and a petition for
Foodsphere that he bought from the grocery. The Review on Certiorari. However, complainants never
Cordero family sued the company for P150,000 for heard from respondent again despite the frequent
damages, but the companies did not agree to the telephone calls they made to his office. When
demands. The Cordero’s thereafter threatened to respondent did not return their phone inquiries,
resort to the media, if their demands are not met. complainants went to respondent’s last known
address only to find out that he had moved out the suspension of the respondent from the practice
without any forwarding address. More than a year of law for three (3) months.
after the petition was filed, they learned that the
Court had already issued a Resolution dated 3 July LIM-SANTIAGO v. ATTY. SAGUCIO
2002, denying the petition for late filing and non- (A.C. No. 6705, March 31, 2006)
payment of docket fees and that the said
Resolution had attained finality and warrants of FACTS:
arrest had already been issued against the accused Respondent, Atty. Sagucio was a former
because respondent, whose whereabouts Personnel manager and Counsel of Taggat
remained unknown, did nothing to prevent the Industries Inc. Thereafter in 1992, he was
reglementary period for seeking reconsideration appointed as Asst. Provincial prosecutor of
from lapsing. Thus, complainants filed before the Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Employees of Taggat filed
Supreme Court an affidavit-complaint against the criminal charges against the complainant who took
Atty. Jamie Portugal, respondent, for violation of over the management and control of Taggat,
Lawyer’s Oath, gross misconduct, and gross withheld the payment of their wages and salaries
negligence for the alleged failure which led to the without a valid cause. The complainant charges
denial of the petition with finality. Respondent respondent with the engaging in private practice of
states that he was not the original counsel of the law while working as a government prosecutor and
accused. He was merely requested by the original for violation of Rule 15.03 of CPR.
counsel to be on hand, assist the accused, and be
present at the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan ISSUES:
decision. Respondent claims that there was no 1. Whether or not the respondent violated Rule
formal engagement undertaken by the parties. 15.03 of CPR.
Though admitting its highly irregular character, 2. Whether or not being a former lawyer of
respondent also made informal but urgent and Taggat posits conflict of interests with his work as
personal representation with the members of the Asst. Provincial Prosecutor.
Division of the Sandiganbayan who promulgated
the decision of conviction. He asserts that because HELD:
of all the efforts he put into the case of the accused, The Court finds that there is no conflict of
his other professional obligations were neglected interest on the part of the respondent when he
and that all these were done without proper and handled the preliminary investigation of the criminal
adequate remuneration. charges filed by the Taggat Employees. The issue
of the matter of the criminal complaint was
ISSUE: pertaining to the withholding of the wages and
Whether or not respondent is guilty of salaries of the Taggat employees which occurred
violation of Canon 14 of Code of Professional from April 1, 1996 to July 15, 1997. Evidently, the
Responsibility. respondent was no longer connected with the
Taggat Inc during such period since he is working
HELD: as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor since 1992.
Had respondent truly intended to withdraw Should there be apparent conflict of interest, it must
his appearance for the accused, he as a lawyer be supported by sufficient evidence that Taggat,
who is presumably steeped in court procedures and respondent’s former client, used any confidential
practices, should have filed the notice of withdrawal information from his preceding employment with
himself instead of the accused. At the very least, he Complainant in resolving the filed criminal
should have informed this Court through the complaint.
appropriate manifestation that he had already given
instructions to his clients on the proper way to go As the former Personnel Manager and
about the filing of the Notice of Withdrawal. In not Retained Counsel of Taggat together with the case
so doing, he was negligent in handling the case of he handled as government t prosecutor was labor-
the accused. Respondent ought to know that he related case which fact, is not a sufficient basis to
was the one who should have filed the Notice to charge respondent for representing conflicting
Withdraw and not the accused. His tale that he sent interests. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s
a registered letter to the accused and gave them absolute duty to his former client does not cover
instructions on how to go about respondent’s transactions that occurred beyond the lawyer’s
withdrawal from the case defies credulity. It should employment with the client. It is apparent that the
have been respondent who undertook the intent of the law is to impose upon the lawyer the
appropriate measures for the proper withdrawal of duty to protect the interests of his clients only on
his representation. He should not have relied on his matters that he has previously handled for the
client to do it for him if such was truly the case. He former client and specifically not for issues and
could relieve himself of his responsibility as counsel cases that arose after the lawyer-client relationship
only first by securing the written conformity of the has ended.
accused and filing it with the court pursuant to Rule
138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court. The rule in Thus, respondent is not guilty of violating
this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
to terminate the attorney-client relation at anytime Responsibility.
with or without cause. The respondent violated
Canon 14 of CPR. Thus, Supreme Court ordered
 GONZALES v. ATTY. CABUCANA acceptance of the Gatchecos’s plead to represent
(A.C. No. 6836, January 23, 2006) them. Thusly, the Court ruled that the respondent is
guilty of violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of CPR
FACTS: and taking consideration of mitigating
Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife went to circumstances, Atty. Cabucana is fined the amount
Gonzales’s residence and harassed the latter. of P 2,000 with stern warning that a commission of
Gatcheco asked her to execute an affidavit of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt
desistance regarding her filed complaint. with more severely.
Thereafter, Gonzales filed criminal cases for
trespass, grave threats, grave oral defamation, JUSTO v. GALING
simple coercion and unjust vexation against (A.C. No. 6174, November 16, 2011)
Gatchecos. Respondent Cabucana represented the
Gatchecos and his law firm was representing the FACTS:
Gonzales. Gonzales alleged that the respondent Sometime in April 2003 complainant Justo
should be disbarred from the practice of law since sought the services of respondent Atty. Galing in
the latter’s acceptance of the cases of Gatcheco connection with dishonored checks issued by
violates the lawyer-client relationship between the Manila City Councilor Arlene W. Koa. Respondent
complainant and respondent’s law firm and shall be in pursuance to such drafted and sent a letter to
liable for violation of Rules 10.01, 13.01,15.02, Ms. Koa demanding payment of the checks. But
15.03, 21.02 and 21.02. On the other hand, since Ms. Koa still failed to pay, complainant filed a
Respondent averred that he never appeared to criminal complaint against her for estafa and
represent such case since it was his brother who violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the
attended such case. However, he admitted that he Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. But on July
is representing Sheriff Gatcheco and his wife in the 2003, a Motion for Consolidation was filed by
cases filed against the Gonzales but claimed that respondent on behalf of Ms. Koa, the accused in
the couple had pleaded him to represent them as the criminal case, and the latter’s daughter Karen
there is no other counsel willing to take their cause. Torralba. Also, respondent appeared as counsel for
Ms. Koa before the prosecutor of Manila. Because
ISSUE: of said acts complainant submits that by
Whether or not the respondent violated Rule representing conflicting interests, respondent
15.03 of CPR. violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
But respondent contended that when he drafted the
HELD: demand letter for complainant it was made only in
The Court held that the respondent is guilty respect to their long standing friendship and not by
violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the CPR. While reason of a professional engagement. He
it is a well-settled principle that lawyer is barred maintained that the filing of the Motion for
from representing conflicting interests except by Consolidation which is a non-adversarial pleading
written consent of all concerned given after a full does not evidence the existence of a lawyer-client
disclosure of the facts. The prohibition is founded relationship between him and Ms. Koa and Ms.
on precepts of public policy as the inherent nature Torralba. Respondent argued that no lawyer-client
of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and relationship existed between him and complainant
confidence of the utmost degree. Lawyers are because there was no professional fee paid for the
expected not only to keep inviolate the client’s services he rendered. Likewise, his appearance in
confidence but also to avoid the appearance of the joint proceedings should only be construed as
double-dealing for there would be difficulties that an effort on his part to assume the role of a
may arise in entrusting their secrets of the cause to moderator or arbiter of the parties.
their lawyers, which is of supreme significance in
the administration of justice. The prohibition against ISSUE:
representation of conflicting interests is applicable Whether or not the acts of respondent by
to a situation where the opposing parties are representing conflicting interests has violated the
present clients in the same action or in an unrelated Code of Professional Responsibility.
action. The court finds that there is no merit to
Respondent’s allegation that it was his brother who HELD:
represented Gonzales, thus there could be no The court resolved to Suspend Atty. Rodolfo
conflict of interest. Furthermore, it was an T. Galing from the practice of law for one (1) year,
admission from the respondent himself that it was with a warning that a repetition of the same or
their law firm which represented Gonzales in the similar offense will warrant a more severe penalty.
civil case. Being the case, it is apparent that there They found respondent guilty of violating Canon 15,
could be conflicting interest which may affect the Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
duty of administration of justice, and specifically, Responsibility by representing conflicting interests
will strain the lawyer-client relationship. However, In and for his daring audacity and for the pronounced
consideration of the facts, the Court considered as malignancy of his act. Under Rule 15.03, Canon
mitigating circumstances the fact that the 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, “[a]
respondent is representing the Gatcheco spouses lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
pro bono and that it was his firm and not except by written consent of all concerned given
respondent personally which handled the civil case after a full disclosure of the facts.” Respondent
of Gonzales. Hence, it was observed that there was therefore bound to refrain from representing
was no malice and bad faith in respondent’s act of parties with conflicting interests in a controversy.
By doing so, without showing any proof that he had into his possession.” The Code further states that
obtained the written consent of the conflicting “[a] lawyer shall account for all money or property
parties, respondent should be sanctioned. The collected or received for or from the client.”
prohibition against representing conflicting interest Furthermore, “[a] lawyer shall deliver the funds and
is founded on principles of public policy and good property of his client when due and upon demand.”
taste. In the course of the lawyer-client relationship,
the lawyer learns of the facts connected with the CELAJE v. SORIANO
client’s case, including the weak and strong points (A.C. No. 7418, October 9, 2007)
of the case. The nature of the relationship is,
therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest FACTS:
degree. Lawyers not only to keep inviolate the This is a disbarment case filed against Atty.
client’s confidence, but also to avoid the Santiago C. Soriano (respondent) for gross
appearance of treachery and double-dealing for misconduct, for failure to return complainant’s
only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust money to be put up as an injunction bond, which
their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount complainant found out later, to be unnecessary and
importance in the administration of justice. for other several occasions wherein herein
respondent asked for complainant’s money
allegedly to spend for or to be given to the judge
MENESES v. MACALINO handling their case, Judge Milagros Quijano, of the
(A.C. No. 6651, February 27, 2006) Regional Trial Court, Iriga City, Branch 36.
In the Report and Recommendation dated January
FACTS: 24, 2006, IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline
Complainant Edgardo Meneses filed a Commissioner Dennis A.B. Funa found respondent
disbarment case against respondent Atty. Rodolfo guilty of Gross Misconduct in his relations with his
Macalino for violation of lawyer’s oath. Complainant client and recommended that respondent be
alleged that respondent offered his legal services to suspended for three years from the practice of law.
help the former claim his car from the Bureau of
Customs for a package deal amounting to P60, ISSUE:
000.00. In order to expedite the case, complainant Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross
entrusted to respondent lawyer initial amounts of misconduct and have violated Canon 16 of the
P10, 000.00 and P30, 000.00 on two separate Code of Professional Responsibility.
instances respectively, without the issuance of a
receipt. Yet respondent promised to furnish HELD:
complainant with a receipt from the Bureau of The Court sustained the IBP’s resolution.
Customs. After receiving an amount of P40, Respondent Atty. Santiago C. Soriano is found
000.00, respondent failed to give complainant an guilty of violating Canon 16 of the Code of
update on the matter. Complainant repeatedly went Professional Responsibility and is hereby
to respondent’s house to inquire on the status of suspended from the practice of law for a period of
the release of the car. Complainant was always told two (2) years from notice, with a stern warning that
that respondent was not around and to just return a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be
another day. This went on for more than a year. dealt with more severely. The code mandates that
a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
ISSUE : properties of his client that may come into his
Is respondent guilty of violating the Code of possession. He shall account for all money or
professional Responsibility? property collected or received from his client and
shall deliver the funds and property of his client
HELD: when due or upon demand. Respondent’s failure to
The Court finds respondent is guilty of return the money to complainant upon demand
violating of Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Rule 16.03,and gave rise to the presumption that he
Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice
Responsibility. Accordingly, respondent Atty. of, and in violation of the trust reposed in him by his
Rodolfo Macalino shall be suspended from the client. It is a gross violation of general morality and
practice of law for one year effective upon finality of of professional ethics and impairs public confidence
decision. Respondent failed to inform and to in the legal profession which deserves punishment.
respond to Inquiries of the complainant regarding As the Court has pronounced, when a lawyer
the status of the case. As it was held in Tolentino v. receives money from the client for a particular
Mangapit, The relationship of lawyer-client being purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an
one of confidence, it is the lawyer’s duty to keep the accounting to the client showing that the money
client regularly and fully updated on the was spent for a particular purpose. And if he does
developments of the client’s case. The Code not use the money for the intended purpose, the
provides that "[a] lawyer shall keep the client lawyer must immediately return the money to his
informed of the status of his case and shall respond client. The Court has been exacting in its demand
within a reasonable time to the client’s request for for integrity and good moral character of members
information." Moreover, respondent failed to of the Bar who are expected at all times to uphold
account a and return the money he received from the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
complainant. The Code provides that “The Code refrain from any act or omission which might lessen
mandates that every “lawyer shall hold in trust all the trust and confidence reposed by the public in
moneys and properties of his client that may come the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal
profession. Indeed, membership in the legal
profession is a privilege. The attorney-client ATTY. PENTICOSTES v. PROSECUTOR IBAÑEZ
relationship is highly fiduciary in nature. As such, it (A.C. No. 167, March 9, 1999)
requires utmost good faith, loyalty, fidelity and
disinterestedness on the part of the lawyer. FACTS:
Encarnacion Pascual, the sister-in-law of
Atty. Prudencio S. Penticostes was sued for non-
SMALL v. ATTY. BANARES remittance of SSS payments in 1989. In the course
(A.C. No. 7021, February 21, 2007) of the investigation, Encarnacion Pascual gave
P1,804.00 to respondent as payment of her Social
FACTS: Security System (SSS) contribution. Respondent,
Melvin Small sought for the services of Atty. however, failed to remit the amount to SSS. The
Jerry Banares on August of 2001 in connection with fact of non-payment was certified to by the SSS on
several complaints against a certain Lyneth Amar. October 2, 1989.
P20,000 as acceptance fee was made.
Complainant gave another P60,000 payment as The complaint was initially filed with the Regional
filing fee on September of 2001. Respondent then Trial Court of Tarlac for professional misconduct
informed complainant that he shall be preparing but was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the
documents for the cases they are to file. Philippines-Tarlac Chapter. The Tarlac Chapter
Complainant made several inquiry on the status of forwarded the same to IBP’s Commission on Bar
the cases but respondent repeatedly told Discipline.
complainant to wait as respondent was still
preparing the documents. In his defense, respondent claimed that his act of
accommodating Encarnacion Pascual’s request to
A complaint for disbarment before the make payment to the SSS did not amount to
Integrated Bar of the Philippines against the professional misconduct but was rather an act of
respondent was filed after the respondent failed to Christian charity. Furthermore, he claimed that the
refund the initial payments made. The request for action was moot and academic, the amount of
refund was due to the failure of the respondent to P1,804.00 having already been paid by him to the
present all the documents for the cases against SSS. Lastly, he disclaimed liability on the ground
Amar the complainant has demanded. October 15, that the acts complained were not done by him in
2004, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Rogelio A. his capacity as a practicing lawyer but on account
Vinluan ordered respondent to submit his answer to of his office as a prosecutor.
the complaint. Respondent did not file an answer
despite receipt of the order. Mandatory conferences
were set on March 3, March 30, April 14 of 2005 ISSUE:
but respondent failed to appear. On April 14, 2005 Whether or not the respondent’s act of non
conference, only complainant appeared despite remittance of the money entrusted to him is a
respondent’s receipt of the notice. The Commission violation of Code of Professional Responsibility.
on Bar Discipline considered the case submitted for
resolution.
HELD:
ISSUE: Yes. This Court has repeatedly admonished
Whether or not respondent violated Canons lawyers that a high sense of morality, honesty and
16, 18, and 19 of the Code of Professional fair dealing is expected and required of a member
Responsibility and is subject for disbarment. of the bar. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that “a lawyer shall not
HELD: engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
Yes. The Report considered complainant’s conduct.” This Court adopts the recommendation of
evidence sufficient to find respondent guilty of the IBP and finds respondent guilty of professional
violating Canons 16, 18, and 19 of the Code of misconduct. While there is no doubt that payment
Professional Responsibility. The Code provides that of the contested amount had been effected to the
a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and SSS on November 23, 1990, it is clear however,
diligence. The Code states that a lawyer shall keep that the same was made only after a complaint had
the client informed of the status of his case and been filed against respondent. Respondent’s claim
shall respond within a reasonable time to the that he may not be held liable because he
client’s request for information. committed such acts, not in his capacity as a
private lawyer, but as a prosecutor is unavailing.
IBP Commissioner Reyes recommended Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
the imposition on respondent of a penalty of provides: “These canons shall apply to lawyers in
suspension from the practice of law for two years government service in the discharge of their official
and that respondent be ordered to return tasks.”
complainant’s P80,000. The court sustained the
findings and recommendations of the IBP. The IBP recommended that the respondent
be reprimanded, with a warning that the
commission of the same or similar offense would
be dealt with more severely in the future. The court
sustained the findings and recommendations of the SPOUSES ARANDA v. ELAYDA
IBP. (A.C. No. 7907, December 15, 2010)

FACTS:
BAUTISTA v. GONZALES The case from complaint filed by the
(A.M. No. 1625, February 12, 1990) spouses Virgilio and Angelina Aranda , before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)charging their
FACTS: former counsel, Atty. Emmanuel F. Elayda with
In complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista gross negligence or gross misconduct in handling
respondent Ramon A. Gonzales was charged with their case. That on February 14, 2006 hearing of
malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation the said case Atty. Elayd] did not appear. That the
of lawyer's oath. Complainant submitted an order setting this case for hearing on February 14,
amended complaint for disbarment, alleging that 2006 was sent only to Atty. Elayda and no notice
respondent prepared a document entitled "Transfer was sent to spouses Aranda that they were
of Rights" which was signed by the Fortunados (his unaware of said hearing and respondent never
client). The document assigned to respondent one- informed them of the setting; That they were totally
half (1/2) of the properties of the Fortunados , for unaware of said judgment as respondent had not
and in consideration of his legal services to the again lifted any single finger to inform them of such
latter. At the time the document was executed, adverse judgment and that there is a need to take a
respondent knew that the abovementioned remedial recourse thereto, they were deprived of
properties were the subject of a civil pending before their right to present their evidence in the said case
the Court of First Instance of Quezon City since he and of their right to appeal because of the gross
was acting as counsel for the Fortunados in said negligence of respondent. Atty. Elayda filed his
case.In executing the document transferring one- Answer that the spouses did not bother to contact
half (1/2) of the subject properties to himself, respondent to prepare for the case and in fact on
respondent violated the law expressly prohibiting a May 30, 2005, he had to ask for postponement of
lawyer from acquiring his client's property or the case for reason that he still have to confer with
interest involved in any litigation in which he may the spouses Aranda who were not around and that
take part by virtue of his profession. It should be he cannot be faulted for what had happened during
noted that the persons mentioned in Art. 1491 of the hearing on February 14, 2006 because he was
the Civil Code are prohibited from purchasing the just at the other branch of the RTC for another case
property mentioned therein because of their and left a message with the court stenographer to
existing trust relationship with the latter. He just call him when the spouses Aranda come.
reasoned that while a purchase by a lawyer of
property in litigation is void under Art. 1491 of the ISSUE:
Civil Code, such purchase is no longer a ground for Whether or not Atty. Elayda guilty of
disciplinary action under the new Code of violation of Canon 17 in relation with Canon 18 of
Professional Responsibility. the Canon of professional responsibility.

ISSUE: HELD:
Whether he violated Canon 17 stating "a Lawyers are expected to maintain at all
lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and times a high standard of legal proficiency and of
he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence morality which includes honesty, integrity and fair
reposed in him." dealing. They must perform their four-fold duty to
society, the legal profession, the courts and their
HELD: clients in accordance with the values and norms of
A lawyer is disqualified from acquiring by the legal profession, as embodied in the Code of
purchase the property and rights in litigation Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take
because of his fiduciary relationship with such up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to
property and rights, as well as with the client. It such cause and must always be mindful of the trust
cannot be claimed that the new Code of and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the
Professional Responsibility has failed to emphasize client with competence and diligence, and
the nature and consequences of such relationship. champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted
Canon 17 states that "a lawyer owes fidelity to the fidelity, care, and devotion. Accordingly, respondent
cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the ATTY. EMMANUEL F. ELAYDA is hereby
trust and confidence reposed in him." SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
Art. 1491 of the Civil Code are prohibited from of SIX (6) MONTHS, with a stern warning that a
purchasing the property mentioned therein because repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt
of their existing trust relationship with the latter. His with more severely.
contentions that such purchase is no longer a
ground for disciplinary action under the new Code
of Professional Responsibility is unmeritorious.
Finding that respondent Attorney Ramon A.
Gonzales committed serious misconduct, the Court
Resolved to SUSPEND respondent from the
practice of law for SIX (6) months.