Ui v. Bonifacio Barrios vs.

Martinez
A.C. No. 4585. November 12, 2004
Petitioner: Leslie Ui
Respondent: Atty. Iris Bonifacio FACTS: Respondent Atty. Francisco Martinez was convicted for
violation of BP 22 dated March 1996. Complainant Michael Barrios
Facts of the case: Leslie Ui filed an administrative case for disbarment filed an action for disbarment against the respondent for having
against Atty. Iris Bonifacio on grounds of immoral conduct. Atty. convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and submitted Court’s
Bonifacio allegedly is having an illicit relationship with Carlos Ui, Resolution and Entry of Judgement related to BP 22 case.
husband of Leslie Ui, whom they begot two children. According to The respondent was requested to file comments in several occasions but
petitioner, Carlos Ui admitted to him about the relationship between fail to comply until the court declared the respondent guilty of contempt
them and Atty. Bonifacio. This led Leslie Ui to confront said dated February 1999 and ordered his imprisonment until he complied
respondent to stop their illicit affair but of to no avail. According with aforesaid resolution.
however to respondent, she is a victim in the situation. When April 1999, the respondent was arrested by NBI but was subsequently
respondent met Carlos Ui, she had known him to be a bachelor but with released after having shown proof of compliance with the resolutions of
children to an estranged Chinese woman who is already in Amoy, 17 February 1997 and 27 April 1998 by remitting the amount of P2,000
China. Moreover, the two got married in Hawaii, USA therefore and submitting his long overdue Comment.
legalizing their relationship. When respondent knew of the real status of On September 1997, a certain Robert Visbal of the Provincial
Carlos Ui, she stopped their relationship. Respondent further claims Prosecution Office of Tacloban City submitted a letter to the First
that she and Carlos Ui never lived together as the latter lived with his Division Clerk of Court alleging that respondent Martinez also stood
children to allow them to gradually accept the situation. Respondent charged in another estafa case before the Regional Trial Court of
however presented a misrepresented copy of her marriage contract. Tacloban City, Branch 9, as he offered his legal sevice to the victims of
the Doña Paz tragedy in 1987 and failed to remit compensation for the
Ruling: The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not intended victims, for which the Regional Trial Court of Basey, Samar,
have the right to enjoy the practice of the legal profession simply by Branch 30 rendered a decision against him, his appeal thereto having
passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked, been dismissed by the Court of Appeals.
subject to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath
and the dictates of legal ethics. one of the conditions prior to admission ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent was guilty of crime involving
to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character. More moral turpitude
importantly, possession of good moral character must be continuous as
a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, HELD: Yes. Moral turpitude “includes everything which is done
otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.” It involves “an
privilege. A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct, or act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man
by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude". A owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted
member of the bar should have moral integrity in addition to and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or
professional probity. In the case at bar, Atty. Bonifacio was not proven conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.”
to have conducted herself in a grossly immoral manner. Thus, the case Respondent lawyer’s propensity to disregard or ignore orders of the
is dismissed. But she is reprimanded and given a stern warning with Honorable Supreme Court for which he was fined twice, arrested and
regards to the of her marriage contract with an inculcated date. imprisoned reflects an utter lack of good moral character
Respondent’s conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude (estafa
and/or violation of BP Blg. 22) clearly shows his unfitness to protect
the administration of justice and therefore justifies the imposition of
SBC Case No. 519. July 31, 1997] sanctions against him.
PATRICIA FIGUEROA, complainant Atty. Francisco P. Martinez is was disbarred and his name was ordered
vs. stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
SIMEON BARRANCO, JR., respondent.
Facts:
Simeon Barranco, petitioner, was a bar exam passer. However, before
he could take his oath, Patricia Figueroa, respondent, petitioned that
respondent be denied admission. Her complaint was that respondent
and she had been sweethearts, a child of them was born out of wedlock,
and that respondent did not fulfill his repeated promises to marry.
Furthermore, respondent married and settled with another woman.
Complainant further claimed that respondent forced complainant into
sexual relations with him.
Issue:
Are the charges set against the respondent enough to disbar him from
taking the lawyer’s oath?
Ruling:
No, the charges required to constitute a disbarment not only be
immoral, but grossly immoral. In the case at hand, the allegation on
respondent merely suggest a doubtful moral character. Furthermore,
complainant continued to see respondent for a while, even after giving
birth to the child, thus suggesting that the sexual relations were
consensual and not forced.
 DANTES VS. DANTES
REBECCA MARIE UY
YUPANGCO-NAKPIL, FACTS:
Complainant,
- versus -
ATTY. ROBERTO L. UY, Mrs. Dantes alleged that his husband is a philanderer. Atty. Dantes purp
Respondent. ortedly engaged in illicit relationships with two women, one after the ot
her, and had illegitimate children with them. From the time respondents 
Facts: illicit affairs started, he failed to give regular support to his wife and the
Rebecca is the natural niece and adopted daughter of the late Dra. ir children, thus  forcing her to work abroad to provide for their childre
Pacita Uy. She was adjudged as the sole and exclusive legal heir of n’s needs.
Pacita by virtue of an Order2 dated August 10, 1999 issued by the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 34. Pacita was a stockholder in
several corporations primarily engaged in acquiring, developing, and Atty. Dantes admitted the fact of marriage with her and the birth of thei
leasing real properties (one of these companies is Uy Realty Company, r children, but alleged that they have mutually agreed to separate eighte
Inc [URCI]). Rebecca, through her attorney-in fact, Bella, averred that en years before after his wife had abandoned him in their residence. He 
respondent, continuously failed and refused to comply with the court further asserted that Mrs. Dantes filed the case just to force him to remit 
order declaring her as the successor-in-interest to all of Pacita’s 70% of his monthly salary to her.
properties, as well as her requests for the accounting and delivery of the
dividends and other proceeds or benefits coming from Pacita’s
stockholdings in the corporations. She added that respondent mortgaged Mrs. Dantes then presented documentary evidence consisting of the birt
a commercial despite an existing Trust Agreement wherein respondent, h certificates of Ray Darwin, Darling, and Christian Dave, all surnamed 
in his capacity as President of URCI, already recognized her to be the Dantes, and the affidavits of his husband and his paramour to prove the 
true and beneficial owner of the same. fact that he sired three illegitimate children out of his illicit affairs with 
two different women.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for
violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility  

Held:
Respondent Atty. Roberto L. Uy is found GUILTY of violating Rule ISSUE:
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ratio Decidendi: whether or not having an illicit relationship during the the subsistence o

The Court finds that respondent committed some form of misconduct f marriahe warrants the disbarment of a lawyer.
by, as admitted, mortgaging the subject property, notwithstanding the
apparent dispute over the same. Regardless of the merits of his own
claim, respondent should have exhibited prudent restraint becoming of RULING: Yes.
a legal exemplar. He should not have exposed himself even to the
slightest risk of committing a property violation nor any action which
would endanger the Bar's reputation. Verily, members of the Bar are The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engaging 
expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Immoral conduct 
profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shamel
trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and ess as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable mem
integrity of the legal profession. 26 By no insignificant measure, bers of the community.To be the basis of disciplinary action, the lawyer
respondent blemished not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but s conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it mu
also that of the legal profession. In other words, his conduct fell short of st be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to b
the exacting standards expected of him as a guardian of law and justice. e reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or 
revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.

Undoubtedly, respondents acts of engaging in illicit relationships with t
wo different women during the subsistence of his marriage to the compl
ainant constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting the imposition a
ppropriate sanctions. Complainants testimony, taken in conjunction wit
h the documentary evidence, sufficiently established respondents comm
ission of marital infidelity and immorality.

Atty. Crispin G. Dantes has been DISBARRED.
TOLEDO v. TOLEDO VICTORIA BARRIENTOS V. TRANSFIGURACION DAAROL
7 SCRA 757
A.C. No. 266 FACTS:
April 27, 1963 This is a disbarment case filed by Barrientos against Atty
Daarol, on grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct.
FACTS: Paz Arellano Toledo, a dentist, alleged that she is the wife of Barrientos first knew Daarlo in 1969. She was a college
Atty. Jesus Toledo, that she supported and spent for his studies in FEU student, single. Atty. Daarol went to her house because he was a friend
but after passing the bar, he abandoned. She also alleged that he is of her sister, hence they also became friends. She knew Daarol to be a
cohabiting with another woman and borne him 3 children. She prayed single and as a General Manager of ZANECO (electic cooperative).
for his disbarment from the practice of law. On June 1973, Daarol went to Barrientos’ house and asked
her to be one of the usherettes in the Mason’s convention so the latter
Upon the hearing conducted by the Solicitor General which his alleged said he should ask for the permission of her parents. They consented
wife presented pieces of evidence, respondent was charged for and so she served as an usherette, Daarol picking her up and taking her
abandonment and immorality and the Solicitor prayed that he be home everyday.
disbarred or suspended from the practice of law. In July 1973, Daarol came to petitioner’s house and invited
her for a joy ride, with the permission of her mother (who was Daarol’s
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground "that former classmate). They went to the beach and Daarol proposed his
the charges contained therein are not based on and supported by the love for Barrientos and told her that if she would accept him, he would
facts and evidence adduced at the investigation conducted by the Office marry her within 6 months from her acceptance. After a few days of
of the Solicitor General." Hence, the Court set the case for hearing. The courting, she accepted the offer of love. Visitations continued and they
respondent prayed that his motion be first resolved or be denied, hence agreed to get married in Dec 1973.
invoking Section 6, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court. In Aug 1973, he took Barrientos to a party and when they left,
he took her for a joy ride to an airport in Sicayab where there were no
However, instead of doing what the rule requires, the respondent filed a houses around. There, he pressured her into having sexual intercourse
motion to dismiss without stating that he intended to present evidence reiterating that he loved her, and that he would marry her and that
in his behalf, thereby waiving his right. The fact that at the close of the December was very near anyway they would marry soon. She gave in
hearing conducted by the Solicitor General, he made of record his after much hesitation because she loved him. She cried after the deed.
desire to present evidence in his behalf, is not sufficient. The correct This event happened frequently thereafter during August to
manner and proper time for him to make known his intention is by and October 1973, where she consented because she loved him. Eventually,
in the answer seasonably filed in this Court. she became pregnant and informed Daarol. He however suggested that
she have the baby aborted. She refused. He told her that she didn’t have
Now, to resolve the case. to worry because they were getting married soon anyway.
In late October 1973, Daarol came to see Barrientos and her
ISSUE: Whether or not Jesus Toledo be disbarred or suspended. mother and told them that he could not marry her because he was
already married. He reassured them though that he has been separated
RULING: Yes. The respondent, by abandoning his lawful wife and from his wife for 16 years and that he would work for the annulment of
cohabiting with another woman who had borne him a child, has failed his marriage and subsequently marry her. So Barrientos waited and
to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a delivered the baby but eventually wasn’t able to contact Daarol
member of the Bar. Hence, he is disbarred from the practice of law. anymore (he went MIA).

Through a rigorous test by the Solicitor, the maid of respondent, Marina ISSUE:
Payot, also testified that the lawyer was living with a person named W/N Daarol should be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct.
Corazon Toledo as wife of the respondent with a child of their own,
named Angie. Lino Domingo, operator-mechanic in the Bureau of HELD/RATIO:
Public Highways, also stated that he knows the lawyer and her wife, YES. The fact of his previous marriage was disclosed by respondent
Corazon, for he goes to the lawyer’s residence every now and then. only after the complainant became pregnant. Even then, respondent
misrepresented himself as being eligible to re-marry for having been
The testimony of these two witnesses are worthy of credence. estranged from his wife for 16 years and dangled a marriage proposal
on the assurance that he would work for the annulment of his first
OBUSAN VS. OBUSAN marriage. It was a deception after all as it turned out that respondent
128 SCRA 485 – Legal Ethics – Grossly Immoral Conduct  never bothered to annul said marriage.
Atty. Generoso Obusan Jr., then single, had a relationship with one Respondent resorted to deceit in the satisfaction of his sexual desires at
Natividad Estabillo. In 1972, Estabillo begot a son with Obusan. the expense of the gullible complainant. He is perverted. He says that:
Obusan later found out that Estabillo was at the time still validly "I see nothing wrong with this relationship despite my being married."
married with one Tony Garcia. Four days after the birth of his son with Worse, he even suggested abortion.
Estabillo, Obusan married Preciosa Razon. The couple lived more than Finally, respondent even had the temerity to allege that he is a Moslem
a year together until one day when Obusan left the conjugal home and convert and as such, could enter into multiple marriages and has
never returned. inquired into the possibility of marrying complainant. As records
Preciosa searched for Obusan until she found out that the latter has been indicate, however, his claim of having embraced the Islam religion is
living with Natividad Estabillo. Preciosa then filed a disbarment case not supported by any evidence save that of his self-serving testimony.
against Obusan on the grounds of gross immorality and adultery. By his acts of deceit and immoral tendencies to appease his sexual
Preciosa presented the testimonies of the neighbors of Estabillo who all desires, respondent Daarol has amply demonstrated his moral
testified that Estabillo and Obusan presented themselves as husband delinquency. Hence, his removal for conduct unbecoming a member of
and wife in their community. the Bar on the grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct is in
ISSUE: Whether or not Obusan should be disbarred. order.
HELD: Yes. Obusan failed to counter the evidence presented by his
wife. He even failed to file responsive pleadings. Hence, on the strength
of the evidence against him, he is guilty of grossly immoral conduct.
Abandoning one’s wife and resuming carnal relations with a former
paramour, a married woman, falls within “that conduct which is willful,
flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable members of the community”. He
failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required
of a member of the bar.
TERRE VS. TERRE
SUMMARY: Disbarment case against Jordan Terre who convinced a
married woman to marry without judicial declaration of nullity of void SLU vs. DELA CRUZ
marriage (incestuous) AND THEN marrying someone else after a few Facts: A disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and Staff of the
years without getting a judicial declaration of nullity for his first Saint Louis University-Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) against
marriage (bigamous). Atty. Rolando C. Dela Cruz, principal of SLU-LHS, predicated on the
FACTS: following grounds:
12/24/1981: Disbarment case filed by Dorothy B. Terre against Jordan 1. Gross misconduct- he has pending case of child abuse, administrative
Terre for "grossly immoral conduct," case and labor case.
Jordan Terre alleged to have contracted a second marriage and living 2. Grossly immoral conduct – contracting a second marriage despite the
with another woman other than complainant, while his prior marriage existence of his first marriage.
with complainant remained subsists 3. Malpractice- notarizing documents despite the expiration of his
4/24/85: Three years, respondent still has not answered. SC decided to commission.
suspend respondent for evading notice from court. Issue: May a pending case constitutes facts that determines the
9/28/85: Respondent finally answered via Answer with Motion to Set existence of gross misconduct by the respondent?
Aside/Lift Suspension. Stated the ff: Held: Practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State
Petitioner Dorothy Terre was married to Merito Bercenilla 1968 on those who show that they possess the qualifications required by law.
Petitioner mockingly told him of her private meetings with Bercenilla The purpose of suspending or disbarring an attorney is to remove from
and that child she was carrying then was the son of Bercenilla the profession those unfit to be entrusted with the duties and
That believing in good faith, Jordan Terre married Helina Malicdem responsibilities thereby protecting the public and those charged with the
believing that his first marriage is void ab initio. administration of justice, rather than to punish an attorney.
SC denied petition Contracting a second marriage despite existence of first marriage is a
Petitioner testified. Petitioner and Respondent met highschool where violation of the continous possession of good moral character as a
petitioner was already married. Both moved to Manila where requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice.
eventually, respondent studied Law in Lyceum. Respondent continued The Court has characterized a lawyer’s act of notarizing documents
courting her even with the knowledge that she was married. Respondent without the requisite commission to do so as “reprehensible,
said that her prior marriage was void ab initio since Bercenilla is her constituting as it does not only malpractice but also the crime of
first cousin. falsification of public documents.” Notarization of a private document
Despite her objections, respondent wrote “single” under her status in converts the document into a public one making it admissible in court
the marriage license stating that her first marriage was void ab initio without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law
and requires no judicial declaration. Couple was thereby married. entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason,
Respondent suddenly left petitioner 1981. Eventually, respondent found notaries public must observe with the utmost care the basic
out that respondent married. requirements in the performance of their duties.
ISSUE/S: Pending case does not constitute facts that determines the existence of
WON a judicial declaration of nullity is needed to enter into a gross misconduct by the respondent as these are still pending before the
subsequent marriage proper forums. At such stages, the presumption of innocence still
RULING: prevails in favor of the respondent.
Respondent disbarred.
RATIO: Donton v. Atty. Tansingco, A.C. No. 6057, June 27, 2006
The Court considers this claim on the part of respondent Jordan Terre Facts: Peter Donton filed a complaint against Atty. Emmanuel
as a spurious defense. In the first place, respondent has not rebutted Tansingco, as the notary public who notarized the Occupancy
complainant's evidence as to the basic facts which underscores the bad Agreement, and against others (Duane Stier, and Emelyn Manggay) for
faith of respondent Terre. In the second place, that pretended defense is estafa thru falsification of public document.
the same argument by which he had inveigled complainant into A disbarment complaint filed by petitioner on May 20, 2003 against
believing that her prior marriage to Merlito A. Bercenilla being respondent Atty. Emmanual O. Tansingco for serious misconduct and
incestuous and void ab initio (Dorothy and Merlito being allegedly first deliberate violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of
cousins to each other), she was free to contract a second marriage with Professional Responsibility arose when respondent Atty. Tansingco
the respondent. filed a counter-charge of perjury against Donton.
Respondent Jordan Terre, being a lawyer, knew or should have known Atty. Tansingco in his complaint stated that he prepared and notarized
that such an argument ran counter to the prevailing case law of this the Occupancy Agreement at the request of Mr. Stier, an owner and
Court which holds that for purposes of determining whether a person is long-time resident of a real property located at Cubao, Quezon City.
legally free to contract a second marriage, a judicial declaration that the Since Mr. Stier is a U.S. Citizen and thereby disqualified to own real
first marriage was null and void ab initio is essential. property in his name, he agreed that the property be transferred in the
Even if we were to assume, arguendo merely, that Jordan Terre held name of Mr. Donton, a Filipino.
that mistaken belief in good faith, the same result will follow. For if we Donton averred that Atty. Tansingco’s act of preparing the Occupancy
are to hold Jordan Terre to his own argument, his first marriage to Agreement, despite knowledge that Stier is a foreign national,
complainant Dorothy Terre must be deemed valid, with the result that constitutes serious misconduct and is a deliberate violation of the Code.
his second marriage to Helina Malicdem must be regarded as bigamous Donton prayed that Atty. Tansingco be disbarred.
and criminal in character. Atty. Tansingco claimed that complainant Donton filed disbarment case
against him upon the instigation of complainant’s counsel, Atty.
Bonifacio A. Aletajan, because he refused to act witness in the criminal
case against Stier and Manggay.
In Resolution dated October 1, 2003, the court referred the matter to the
IBP for investigation, report and recommendation and for which the
latter, through Commissioner Milagros San Juan of the IBP
Commission of Discipline recommended suspension from the practice
of law for two years and cancellation of his commission as Notary
Public.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted, with modification, the Report
and recommended respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for
six months.
The report was then forwarded to SC as mandated under Section 12(b),
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
Issue: Whether or Not Atty. Tansingco is guilty of serious misconduct?
Ruling: Yes. Atty. Tansingco is liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule
1.02 of the Code. The Court ruled that a lawyer should not render any
service or give advice to any client which will involve defiance of the
laws which he is bound to uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a
client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating law commits
an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer.
Atty. Tansingco had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he
violated his oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the
Occupancy Agreement to evade the law against foreign ownership of Issue: WON Atty. Paguia committed a violation of the Code of
lands. Atty. Tansingco used his knowledge of the law to achieve an Professional Responsibility.
unlawful end. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for Held:
which he may be suspended. As such, respondent is being suspended -Criticism or comment made in good faith on the correctness or
for six (6) months. wrongness, soundness or unsoundness, of a decision of the Court would
EN BANC [G.R. No. 159486-88.  November 25, 2003] be welcome for, if well-founded, such reaction can enlighten the court
PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, petitioner, and contribute to the correction of an error if committed. (In Re Sotto,
vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN [SPECIAL 82 Phil 595.) However, Attorney Paguia has not limited his discussions
DIVISION], HON. MINITA CHICO-NAZARIO, HON. to the merits of his client’s case within the judicial forum. Indeed, he
EDILBERTO SANDOVAL, HON. TERESITA LEONARDO-DE has repeated his assault on the Court in both broadcast and print media.
CASTRO, and THE PEOPLE OF THE “Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a
PHILIPPINES, respondents. member of the bar from making such public statements on any pending
case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. By his acts,
Facts: Attorney Paguia may have stoked the fires of public dissension and
-Attorney Alan F. Paguia, as counsel for Estrada, averred that the posed a potentially dangerous threat to the administration of justice.”
respondent justices have violated Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial -It should be clear that the phrase “partisan political activities,” in its
Conduct by attending the ‘EDSA 2 Rally’ and by authorizing the statutory context, relates to acts designed to cause the success or the
assumption of Vice-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the defeat of a particular candidate or candidates who have filed certificates
Presidency in violation of the 1987 Constitution. of candidacy to a public office in an election. The taking of an oath of
office by any incoming President of the Republic before the Chief
“Rule 5.10. A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political Justice of the Philippines is a traditional official function of the Highest
questions. But to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall Magistrate. The assailed presence of other justices of the Court at such
not make political speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse an event could be no different from their appearance in such other
candidates for political office or participate in other partisan political official functions as attending the Annual State of the Nation Address
activities.” by the President of the Philippines before the Legislative Department.
-Also, petitioner contended that the justices have prejudged a case that -The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; but it will not
would assail the legality of the act taken by President Arroyo. The countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our people’s faith
subsequent decision of the Court in Estrada v. Arroyo (353 SCRA 452 in the judicial system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by
and 356 SCRA 108) is, petitioner states, a patent mockery of justice and it to practice law in the Philippines.
due process. -Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the
-According to Atty. Paguia, during the hearing of his ‘Mosyong lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and
Pangrekonsiderasyon’ on 11 June 2003, the three justices of the Special judicial officers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others.
Division of the Sandiganbayan made manifest their bias and partiality In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the
against his client. impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, Atty.
-Thus, he averred, Presiding Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario Paguia has only succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert
supposedly employed foul and disrespectful language when she blurted the dispensation of justice.
out, ‘Magmumukha naman kaming gago,’ (Rollo, p. 13.) and Justice -The Court has already warned Atty. Paguia, on pain of disciplinary
Teresita Leonardo-De Castro characterized the motion as insignificant sanction, to become mindful of his grave responsibilities as a lawyer
even before the prosecution could file its comments or opposition and as an officer of the Court. Apparently, he has chosen not to at all
thereto, (Rollo, p. 12.) remarking in open court that to grant Estrada’s take heed.
motion would result in chaos and disorder. (Ibid.) Prompted by the -WHEREFORE, Attorney Alan Paguia is hereby indefinitely suspended
alleged ‘bias and partial attitude’ of the Sandiganbayan justices, from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt hereof, for conduct
Attorney Paguia filed, on 14 July 2003, a motion for their unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.
disqualification.
-The petitioner also asked the Court to include in its Joint Resolution
the TRUTH of the acts of Chief Justice Davide, et al., last January 20,
2001 in:
‘a)   going to EDSA 2;
‘b)   authorizing the proclamation of Vice-President Arroyo as
President on the ground of ‘permanent disability’ even without proof of
compliance with the corresponding constitutional conditions, e.g.,
written declaration by either the President or majority of his cabinet;
and
‘c)   actually proclaiming Vice-President Arroyo on that same ground
of permanent disability.
-In a letter, dated 30 June 2003, addressed to Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide, Jr., and Associate Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, he has
demanded, in a clearly disguised form of forum shopping, for several
advisory opinions on matters pending before the Sandiganbayan.
-Subsequently, the court ruled that the instant petition assailing the
foregoing orders must be DISMISSED for gross insufficiency in
substance and for utter lack of merit. The Sandiganbayan committed no
grave abuse of discretion, an indispensable requirement to warrant a
recourse to the extraordinary relief of petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
-In a resolution, dated 08 July 2003, the Court strongly warned
Attorney Alan Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to desist from
further making, directly or indirectly, similar submissions to this Court
or to its Members.
-Unmindful of the well-meant admonition to him by the Court,
Attorney Paguia appears to persist on end. In fact, on the 7th September
2003 issue of the Daily Tribune, Atty. Paguia wrote to say -
“What is the legal effect of that violation of President Estrada’s right to
due process of law? It renders the decision in Estrada vs. Arroyo
unconstitutional and void. The rudiments of fair play were not
observed. There was no fair play since it appears that when President
Estrada filed his petition, Chief Justice Davide and his fellow justices
had already committed to the other party - GMA - with a judgment
already made and waiting to be formalized after the litigants shall have
undergone the charade of a formal hearing. After the justices had
authorized the proclamation of GMA as president, can they be expected
to voluntarily admit the unconstitutionality of their own act?”
LINSANGAN VS. ATTY. TOLENTINO
In 2005, Atty. Pedro Linsangan filed an administrative complaint
against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino alleging that Atty. Tolentino,
through his paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, “pirated” a client of Atty.
Linsangan. Said client later executed an affidavit in support of Atty.
Linsangan’s allegations.
Atty. Linsangan also questioned the propriety of Labiano’s calling card
which appears as follows:
FRONT

NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
LAW OFFICE
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal

BACK

SERVICES OFFERED:
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
ABROAD.

In his defense, Atty. Tolentino denied knowing Labiano. He also denied

authorizing the printing of such calling cards.
ISSUES: 
1. Whether or not Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino encroached upon the
professional services of Atty. Pedro Linsangan.
2. Whether or not Atty. Tolentino is liable for the improper calling card
of Labiano.
HELD:
1. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. A lawyer should not steal another lawyer’s client nor
induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result
or reduced fees for his services. By recruiting Atty. Linsangan’s clients,
Atty. Tolentino committed an unethical, predatory overstep into
another’s legal practice.
2. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, and 16.04 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Although Atty. Tolentino initially
denied knowing Labiano, he admitted he actually knew her later in the
proceedings. It is thus clear that Labiano was connected to his law
office. Through Labiano’s actions, Atty. Tolentino’s law practice was
benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer representation on
the strength of Labiano’s word that Atty. Tolentino could produce a
more favorable result.
Labiano’s calling card is improper. The card made it appear that the law
office will finance legal actions for the clients. The rule is, a lawyer
shall not lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice,
he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling
for the client.
The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer’s independence of mind so
that the free exercise of his judgment may not be adversely affected. It
seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is handling as well
as his entire devotion and fidelity to the client’s cause. If the lawyer
lends money to the client in connection with the client’s case, the
lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the subject matter of the case or
an additional stake in its outcome. Either of these circumstances may
lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his
client, or to accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in
the verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation of his duty of
undivided fidelity to the client’s cause.
The phrase in the calling card which states “w/ financial assistance“,
was clearly used to entice clients (who already had representation) to
change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal actions.
However, since there is no substantial evidence to prove that Atty.
Tolentino had a personal and direct hand in the printing of said calling
cards, he cannot be punished with severity. At any rate, for all the
infractions Atty. Tolentino committed, he was suspended by the
Supreme Court for one year.