No. 7 Wilson Cham vs. Atty.

Eva Paita-Moya

Facts: Wilson Cham filed a disbarment case against Atty. Eva Paita-Moya who alleged that the respondent did not pay her rentals as well as her utility bills before
leaving the apartment unit owned by the complainant.

Respondent entered into leased contract to the complaint on October 1, 1998, the latter will pay an amount to P8,000.00 per month for a term of one-year and
after expiration of the contract the same will be renewed but in a monthly basis wherein the rent is P8,650 per month.

Sometime in October 2000, complainant was informed that respondent secretly vacated the said unit leaving a P71,007.88 obligation. Despite notice from the
former, the latter continuously ignored the said letter thus the Cham was constrained to file a disbarment case against Moya.

Issue: WON, Atty. Moya is guilty for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling: Yes, The respondent is guilty of gross misconduct. Her actions upon leaving the apartment without setting all her obligations and without the consent of
owner constitute violative act in the Code of Professional Responsibility under Canon 1 and Rule 1.01.

Hence, the Court was ordered to suspend her for a month with a warning that repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

No. 18 Khan vs. Simbillo

Facts: On July 5, 2000, Ms. Espelata, one of the staff of Public Information Office of the Supreme Court read in the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper, an
advertisement about the legal office of Atty. Simbillo being an “Annulment of Marriage Specialist.” She later called the office and pretend to be an interested
party. On their further research by the office of Court Administrator and Public Information Office they also found out that other newspaper also has the same
advertisement about the said office, thus constraining them to file a case against Atty. Simbillo.

On September 1, 2000, Atty. Khan filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation, violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

In the answer of the respondent he argued that advertising and solicitation per se are not prohibited; that it is just but right to accept the said advertisement in
this generation and that rationale behind the decades-old prohibition should be abandoned.

Issue: WON, Atty. Simbillo is guilty for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling: Yes, The Court reiterated that practice of law is not a business but a profession in which the duty to public service not money, is the primary
consideration. Respondent is guilty for violating Rule 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.

The Court ordered for respondent’s 1-year suspension and a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt more severely.

No. 16 Bel Air vs. Mendoza

Facts: BeL Air charged Atty. Mendoza with grossly immoral and unethical conduct praying for his disbarment and that his name be stricken-off from the roll of
attorneys.
The complainant reiterated that on September 19 & 28. 2001, respondent entered into a 2 contract in which he rented a car amounting to P5,549.00 on each
contract. After the service was rendered by the complainant they delivered the statement of account on respondent’s business office located at City Land
Mandaluyong City. Respondent refused to pay his account constraining Bel-Air to engage a services of a lawyer to make a formal and final demand. Since all the
demands are being ignored the complainant filed a case before MeTC a complaint for recovery of money.

In respondent’s comment he denied all the allegations and state that his refusal for the payment is because he wanted to talk personally to the President of the
complainant about the incident transpired on September 19 & 28. Since the president continuously refused to speak to him their company was forced also to
not comply on their obligations. He further reiterated that the mere non-payment of his obligation is not a bar for his disbarment.

Issue: WON, Atty. Mendoza violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

Ruling: Yes, the respondent is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar. The Court believed that Mendoza’s excuse of non-payment of his obligation
is not valid and a mere afterthought. The Court ordered Atty. Mendoza, Admonished to be more careful in his financial obligations and his dealing in the public.
He was also sternly warned that similar conduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

No. 3. Alejandro vs. Alejandro

Facts: Jovita Bustamante-Alejandro filed an administrative case against Atty. Warfredo Tomas Alejandro and Atty. Maricris Villarin with bigamy and concubinage.

Mrs. Alejandro alleged that her husband left together with her 3 children and cohabit with Atty. Villarin in Quezon City. That respondents publicly representing
themselves as husband and wife and their cohabitation resulted to a child declaring in the birth certificate that respondents Atty. Villarin and Atty. Alejandro
were also married. However, there is no conclusive evidence that Atty. Alejandro indeed marry Atty. Villarin during the subsisting of the first marriage.
Complainant alleged that she filed the said administrative case because she was informed that her husband was nominated as RTC judge in which she belived
that her husband is not for for the job considering the immoral acts her husband doing together with Att. Villarin.

Issue: WON Atty. Alejandro and Atty. Villarin should be disbar on the ground of grossly immoral conduct.

Ruling. On the part of Atty. Alejandro he is guilty of gross immorality considering his actions to the two women. He made himself unavailable also to the Court
during investigation and even fled to another country to escape from further consequences of his actions. Wherefore he was ordered DISBARRED to the practice
of law. However, Atty. Villarin’s case was reffered back to IBP for further appropriate proceedings.

No. 2 Barrientos vs. Meteoro

Facts: A letter-complained was filed by Isidra Barrientos and Olivia C. Mercado before the IBP against Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro for deceit and non-
payment of debts.

Complainants narrated on their complaint that respondent issued several checks in order to pay her pre-existing debts, the checks bounced due to insufficient
funds charging the respondent for violation of B.P. 22. After knowing the case filed against her, the respondent contacted the complainants, asking for the
deferment of the criminal case filed against her and that she will fulfill her obligations to them. In order to fulfill her obligation, the respondent gave a land title
through her sister to the complainants however upon verifying the said land title belonged to someone else in which it was just entrusted to Atty. Meteoro.
The Complainant tried to get in touch with the respondent but always unavailable thus constraining them to file a disbarment case.

Issue: WON Atty. Meteoro is guilty of gross misconduct.

Ruling: Yes.

The Court notes that deliberate failure to pay just debts and issuance of worthless checks leads to gross misconduct of a lawyer for which one is rightfully
sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Atty. Meteoro is guilty in accordance to the Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Misconduct.
Hence ordering her to suspend from the practice of law for 6 months and ordered to pay Isidra Barrientos P84,000.00 as balance of her debt with 6% interest
from the date of finality of decision.

No. 19 Villatuya vs. Tabalingcos

Facts: Villatuya filed a disbarment case against Atty. Tabalingcos on the ground for violation of Code of Professional Responsibility for nonpayment of fees to
complainant, unlawful solicitation of cases and gross immorality for marrying two other women while the first’s marriage was still subsiting.

Complainant claimed in his position paper that he was employed as a financial consultant to assist the respondent on technical and financial matter in
accordance to the voluminous petitions for corporate rehabilitation need to file to different courts. Villatuya averts that he has oral agreement to the latter
entitling him P50,000 for every Stay Order by the court in addition to his fees of 10% paid by the client. Respondent however failed to pay his fees in an amount
of P4, 539,000.00. Moreover, the former states that the latter has an unlawful solicitation engaging two consultancy firms as front of his legal services. Lastly, the
complainant alleged that respondent entered into second and third marriage considering there his first marriage is subsisting.

Issue: WON, respondent is guilty of (a) Unlawful Solicitation (b) Code of Professional Responsibility of nonpayment of fees (c) gross immoral conduct for having
married thrice.

Ruling:

(1) No. The complainant failed to establish fair evidence to convince the existence of their agreement although if the same was proven it will be violative to
Rule 9.02 of the Code of the Professional Responsibility. (Code of Pro. Nonpayment of fees)
(2) No. Although IBP established the truth of the allegations they failed to point out the specific provision of which the respondent breached. Well taken
that a lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation.
(3) Yes. The Court finds the respondent guilty for gross immoral conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of degree of morality. He made a mockery of marriage when he entered bigamy twice resulting to grossly
immoral conduct which the court ruled a disbarment against him and to strike his name to the roll of attorneys.

No. 12 Ronquillo vs. Cezar

Facts: Complainants file an administrative case against respondent on the ground of unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct, they hope that the
latter will be disbar or suspend from the practice of law because of his actions towards them.
Complainants and respondent entered into a contract on May 1999 in a form of Deed of Assignment, the former claimed that through this deed the respondent
should transfer the rights and interests over a townhouse unit located at Q.C. The latter was also obligated to deliver to the former a copy of Contract to Sell he
executed to the Crown Asia. However the latter did not fulfill his obligation despite demands from the former, thus complainants were constrained to file an
administrative case against them.

Issue: WON Atty. Cezar is guilty for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling: Yes. The respondent violated Rule 1.01 Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he failed to fulfill his undertaking. He is likewise guilty of
dishonest and deceitful conduct when he did not inform the complainant about the real status of the townhouse, moreover his refusal to return the money paid
by him. The Court ordered for his suspension for 3 years.

No. Guevara vs. Eala

Facts: Guevara filed a disbarment case against Atty. Eala for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer’s oath.

Complainant alleged that respondent is guilty for grossly immoral conduct when he discovered that his wife and Atty. Eala have an affair, that he read some of
the text messages of respondent to his wife, he even read a love letter addressed to his wife given by the respondent also, respondent’s abandoned his children
and wife to engage such relationship. The former alleged also that the respondent only take the marriage as “a piece of paper”.

Issue: WON Atty. Eala is guilty for violating the Code of Professional Responsibilty.

Ruling: Yes. Respondent was guilty grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7 Rule, 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

No. A.M. No. AC 4762 Espino vs. Presquito

Facts: Mr. Espino and Atty. Presquito entered into a contract of sale that the latter will buy the a piece of land to the former. Respondent issued post dated
checks for the payments since their contract was through installment basis. However, upon checking to the bank all the checks issued were dishonored and
despite demands to the latter, he did not pay his obligation until Mr. Espino died, forcing his wife to file an administrative case against the respondent to recover
the payment for the land.

Issue: WON respondent is guilty for violationg the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling: Yes, respondent is guilty by his unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct towards complainant’s husband when he issued bouncing checks, refused to
pay his obligation despite demands and deliberately delaying the proceeding of this case. Hence he was suspended from the practice of law.

No. Samaniego vs. Ferrer

Facts: Samaniego filed a complaint against Atty. Ferrer on the ground of immorality.

Complainant alleged that she has a former relationship to the respondent resulting them to have a daughter that despite demand to support their child, the
respondent continuously refused his obligation towards to their child enabling her to file a case against the respondent.
Respondent however manifested in his position paper before the IBP his willingness to support their daughter and admitted his indiscretion that he and the
complainant had an illicit affair which already ended and that he further prayed that the case filed by Samaniego should not be used against him since he did
not abandon the complainant because he only return to his original family.

Issue: WON, the action of Atty. Ferrer constitute grossly immoral conduct.

Ruling: Yes. Since Atty. Ferrer admitted to have a extra-marital affair, the court considered it to be an immoral conduct subject for disciplinary action. Hence, the
respondent was suspended for 6 months with warning that the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

No. Roa vs. Moreno

Facts: Roa acquire a parcel of land through Atty. Moreno. The former paid an amount of P70,000 for the said lot in exchange the latter issued a temporary
receipt and a certificate of land occupancy and assured that the former can use the land. However complainant found out that the said lot is owned by a third
person and that there was a pending controversy over the lot.

Upon knowing all the issues, complainant demand the return of P70,000 and file a criminal case before MTC in which the respondent was found guilty for other
forms of swindling. However the decision was reversed in the RTC acquitting the respondent. Hence the complainant constrained to file an administrative case
against the respondent praying that the latter be disciplined and to return the amount of money he paid for the sale.

Issue: WON Atty. Moreno should be discipline and ordered to return the payment of the complainant.

Ruling: Yes. Atty. Moreno is guilty for violating the Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His continuous refusal to return the payment constitute
him to be unbecoming a member of the bar and an officer of the court. Hence he was suspend by the practice of law for 2 years.

No. 14 Vitug vs. Atty. Rongcal

Facts: Complainant and respondent has a client-lawyer relationship when the former seek the latter’s services to represent her in the support case she was going
to file against her former partner. Upon having a close relationship, their connections become intimate and started having sexual relationship. Complainant
further alleged that respondent promise her a job, security for her daughter and services of the latter as her counsel.

However things went wrong on the part of the complainant when the respondent made her sign an affidavit without explaining the content to her but attesting
that the said document has no weight at all and that upon signing the document her former lover will immediately comply to the support she was requesting for
their daughter.

When the complainant understand the full context of the affidavit she signed, she filed a disbarment case against the respondent alleging that the act of the
respondent toward her is a clear violation of the lawyer’s oath.

Issue: WON respondent is guilty of immorality a ground for his disbarment.

Ruling: The respondent is guilty for immorality but not a ground for respondent’s disbarment. The court is not convinced that complainant has no knowledge
that respondent has his own family when she engaged sexual relationship to the counsel however respondent was fined for P15,000.00 with stern warning that
similar or same act in the future shall be dealt with more severity.

No. 13 Lee vs. Abastillas

Facts: Lee and Moreno filed an Administrative Case before the Supreme Court against Judge Renato E. Abastillas for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act for soliciting a brid]be in the criminal case wherein the accused was the complainant in this case and the respondent was then the presiding judge assigned
to decide their case.

Counsel for the complainant who is Atty. Chua claims that he personally deliver the initial payment for the bribe to the chamber of the respondent in exchange
that the respondent will take over everything. However when complainants realized that the respondent is not doing they constrain to report their actions and
decided to file a disbarment case against respondent.

Issue: WON Jude Abastillas is guilty for bribery.

Ruling: Yes. The Code of Judicial Conduct reiterate that judge should be embody with competence, integrity and independence which the respondent failed to
comply. The court ordered the dismissal for the respondent from his office with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits with prejudice to
re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of government, including government owned or controlled corporation.

No. 15 Abella vs. Barrios

Facts: Complainant is a client of the respondent involving a Labor case. When obtained by favorable judgment before the Court of Appeals the former filed

Several motions for the issuance of writ of execution and writ of execution before the former office of the complainant were being filed but no action was taken
and that the writ of execution was moved to quash by the complainant’s former employer. Later on, his counsel issued another writ of execution modifying the
CA’s decision which later becomes final and executory. Furious with the action of his counsel, the complainant filed a disbarment case before the SC.

Issue: WON respondent is guilty of gross immorality a violation for Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling: Yes. It is well noted that Code of Professional Responsibility under the lawyers should be observed at all times. Hence his infraction constitue misconduct.
The court ordered the respondent to pay a fine amounting to P40,000.

No. 10. Ventura vs. Atty. Samson

Facts: Complainant filed a disbarment case against the respondent on the ground for gross immoral conduct. The former alleged that she had a carnal
knowledge with the latter once when she was still a minor and next is in the farm of the respondent.

Respondent did not deny the said allegation but rather he reasoned out that their actions was with mutual consent and alleged the complainant seeks only
monetary things from him.

Issue: WON respondent acts constitute disbarment.

Ruling. Yes. Respondent’s sexual intercourse to the complainant in her minor days even if with consent constitute grossly immoral and highly reprehensible act.
Such acts transgress the standard of the morality required by the legal profession.For this, Atty. Samson was disbarred in the practice of law for violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

No. 11 Manaois vs. Atty. Deciembre

Facts: Complainant stated that she applied a loan at Rodella Loans through respondent. Respondent however ask her to provide several blank checks for the
security of her loan. The former comply to their agreement, when she was already paid in her loan the former demand the return of the checks but the latter
claims that the loan she applied was not yet paid and allegedly fill up the blank checks made it appear that complainant had them exchanged for cash.
Respondent also filed a criminal case against the complainant which constrained the Juanita to file a disbarment case against Atty. Victor V. Deciembre for willful
and deliberate falsification and conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar.

Issue: WON Atty. Deciembre is guilty for gross misconduct.

Ruling: Yes. Respondent is guilty for gross misconduct. His actions not only to the Juanita but to other officemates of the complainant strengthen the allegations
before him. Wherefore suspending him from the practice of law indefinitely.