Module 5

Malvar v. Feir
A.C. No. 11871 | March 5, 2018
FACT:
Petitioner Potenciano R. Malvar led a disbarment complaint against Atty. Freddie B. Feir,
alleging threats of ling criminal, civil, and administrative complaints if Malvar failed to pay
₱18,000,000.00 to Feir's client, Rogelio M. Amurao.

ISSUE:
Whether Feir's demand letters, threatening legal action against Malvar, constitute grounds for
disbarment.

HELD:
The Court dismisses the disbarment petition, nding no merit in Malvar's claim. Feir's demand
letters were based on a legitimate cause – Malvar's alleged failure to pay the full purchase price
for properties registered in his name. Feir acted in accordance with his lawyer's oath to protect
his client's rights, and the demand was a valid claim for the remaining balance, not an act of
blackmail or extortion. The absence of evidence supporting disbarment grounds leads to the
dismissal of the petition.

Jardin v. Atty. Villar, Jr.

A.C. No. 5474 | August 28, 2003
FACTS:
Complainant Redentor S. Jardin led a disbarment complaint against Atty. Deogracias Villar, Jr.
for neglecting his duty as counsel in Civil Case No. 21480, resulting in the dismissal of the case
due to the failure to formally o er documentary exhibits. Despite extensions granted by the trial
court, Atty. Villar failed to le the required formal o er, leading to the withdrawal of oral
testimonial evidence and the subsequent dismissal of the case.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Deogracias Villar, Jr.'s failure to le the formal o er of documentary exhibits in
Civil Case No. 21480 justi es disciplinary action.

HELD:
Atty. Deogracias Villar, Jr. is suspended from the practice of law for six months for violating
Canons 12, 17, 18, and 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The neglect of duty,
particularly the failure to le the formal o er of exhibits, resulted in the dismissal of the case
and constituted inexcusable negligence. The recommended penalty of six months suspension
is deemed appropriate, with a warning of more severe consequences for any future similar
violations. The decision is e ective upon nality, with a copy to be entered in Atty. Villar's
personal records as a member of the Bar, and circulated to relevant authorities.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes v. Rivera
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
ff
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
ff
ff
 A.C. No. 9114 | October 06, 2020
FACTS:
Complainant Jose R. Reyes, Jr. led a veri ed complaint against Atty. Socrates R. Rivera,
accusing him of falsely representing the ling of a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
and drafting a fake court decision. Atty. Rivera agreed to handle the case for a fee, prepared
the petition, and claimed that it was led before Branch 215 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City.
Later, Atty. Rivera presented a purported decision from Branch 206 of the same RTC, which
granted the petition. Upon investigation, it was revealed that no case was led, and the
mentioned branches did not exist.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Socrates R. Rivera's actions justify for disbarment.

HELD:
Atty. Socrates R. Rivera is found guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The Court approves the recommendations of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) and the O ce of the Bar Con dant (OBC) for his disbarment. Atty.
Rivera's fraudulent acts, misrepresentation, and the creation of a fake court decision were
deemed disrespectful and dishonorable to the legal profession. He is ordered disbarred, with
an additional directive to return the legal fees amounting to P100,000.00 to the complainant,
plus legal interest at six percent (6%) per annum until full payment.

SO ORDERED.

Mabini Colleges, Inc. v. Atty. Pajarillo

A.C. No. 10687 | July 22, 2015
FACTS:
A veri ed complaint for disbarment was led against Atty. Jose D. Pajarillo, accusing him of
violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by
representing con icting interests. The complaint alleged that Pajarillo, the former corporate
secretary of Mabini Colleges, Inc., later acted as counsel for Rural Bank of Paracale (RBP) in a
case against Mabini Colleges, his former client. The complainant contended that this violated
the rule prohibiting con ict of interest.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Jose D. Pajarillo is guilty of representing con icting interests by serving as
counsel for RBP in a case against his former client, Mabini Colleges.

HELD:
Yes, Atty. Jose D. Pajarillo is found guilty of representing con icting interests. Canon 15, Rule
15.03 of the CPR prohibits a lawyer from representing con icting interests without the written
consent of all parties involved after a full disclosure of the facts. Pajarillo, in appearing as
counsel for RBP against Mabini Colleges, his former client, violated this rule. The Supreme
Court a rmed the ndings of the Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors,
imposing a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year against Atty. Pajarillo.

SO ORDERED.
fi
ffi
fl
fi
fl
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
fl
fl
fi
 Hornilla v. Salunat
A.C. No. 5804 | 1 July 2003
FACTS:
On November 21, 1997, Benedicto Hornilla and Federico D. Ricafort led a complaint against
Atty. Ernesto S. Salunat, accusing him of illegal and unethical practice, and con ict of interest.
Salunat, a member of ASSA Law and Associates, was retained counsel for the Philippine
Public School Teachers Association (PPSTA). Complainants, PPSTA members, led cases
against its Board of Directors, and Salunat represented the Board despite objections of con ict
of interest. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated, and Commissioner Lydia A.
Navarro recommended a six-month suspension.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Ernesto S. Salunat violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
by representing con icting interests in handling cases against PPSTA Board members while
being the retained counsel of PPSTA.

HELD:
Yes, Atty. Ernesto S. Salunat is found guilty of representing con icting interests. Rule 15.03
prohibits a lawyer from representing con icting interests without written consent after full
disclosure. Salunat, as counsel for PPSTA, defended Board members against whom PPSTA
led a case. The Supreme Court a rms that such dual representation constitutes a con ict of
interest. Salunat is admonished to observe a higher degree of delity in the practice of his
profession, with a warning of more severe consequences for repeated o enses.

SO ORDERED.

Adelfa Properties, Inc. v. Mendoza

October 16, 2019
FACTS:
Adelfa Properties, Inc. led a disbarment complaint against Atty. Restituto Mendoza, a former
in-house counsel, accusing him of violating the Lawyer's Oath and several Canons of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Adelfa cited Mendoza's poor performance, threats, and
attempts to extort money. Mendoza claimed wrongful termination, led an illegal dismissal
case, and accused Adelfa of illegal activities, exposing these allegations to the media.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Mendoza violated legal and judicial ethics, particularly Rules 13.02, 21, 21.01,
and 21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for making public statements and
divulging information obtained during his employment.

HELD:
Yes, Atty. Mendoza is found guilty of violating legal and judicial ethics. The Court held that his
act of being interviewed by the media, disclosing information from his employment, violated
con dentiality rules. While the claim of privileged communication violation lacked evidence,
Mendoza's media exposure constituted gross misconduct. He is suspended from the practice
of law for six months, with a stern warning of a more severe penalty for any future similar
o enses.
fi
ff
fi
fl
fi
ffi
fl
fi
fl
fi
fi
ff
fl
fi
fl
fl
SO ORDERED.

Paas v. Almarvez
A.M. No. P-03-1690, April 4, 2003
FACTS:
Pasay City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 44 Presiding Judge Estrellita M. Paas
charged Court Aide/Utility Worker Edgar E. Almarvez with various o enses, including
discourtesy, neglect of duties, and gross violation of the Civil Service Law. The case was
docketed as A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-956-P.

ISSUE:
Whether Almarvez is guilty of the charges led against him.

HELD:
The court found insu cient evidence for some charges against Almarvez, recommending
dismissal for exacting money and violating con dentiality. However, due to unsatisfactory
performance, he was penalized with One (1) Month suspension without pay. On the charges
against Judge Paas, the court dismissed maltreatment and harassment but found her guilty of
simple misconduct for ordering Almarvez to undergo a drug test after ling the administrative
case. She was reprimanded with a warning. Additionally, Atty. Renerio Paas, Judge Paas'
husband, was found guilty of using the judge's o ce address improperly, and he was
suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months.

Paces Industrial Corporation v. Salandanan

A.C. No. 1346 | July 25, 2017
FACTS:
• Atty. Edgardo M. Salandanan, former lawyer for Paces Industrial Corporation (Paces), was
accused of malpractice and/or gross misconduct for representing con icting interests.

• Salandanan, initially a stockholder, became Paces' Director, Treasurer, Administrative O cer,

and Vice-President for Finance.

• He represented Paces in various cases, including Land & Housing Development Corporation
v. Paces, where Paces defaulted due to Salandanan's failure to le an Answer.

• Salandanan, as Paces' lawyer, later handled negotiations with E.E. Black Ltd. regarding an
outstanding obligation of ₱96,513.91.

ISSUE:
Whether Salandanan violated legal and judicial ethics by representing con icting interests
when he shifted from being Paces' lawyer to representing E.E. Black Ltd., a creditor.

HELD:
• Commission on Bar Discipline recommended Salandanan's one-year suspension; IBP Board
of Governors modi ed it to three years, citing con ict of interest rule violations.
fi
ffi
fi
fl
fi
ffi
fi
fl
fi
ff
fl
ffi
 • Court upheld IBP's decision, citing Rules 15.03, Canon 15, and Canon 21 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

• Con ict of interest arises when a lawyer represents opposing parties; Salandanan failed to
secure written consent after a full disclosure of facts.

• Prohibition against con ict of interest ensures undivided loyalty, e ectiveness of legal
representation, con dentiality, and protection of the legal system.

• Even post-termination, a lawyer shouldn't represent interests adverse to former clients.

Salandanan breached this duty, necessitating the suspension.

CONCLUSION:
Atty. Edgardo M. Salandanan is suspended from practicing law for three years due to his
violation of legal and judicial ethics by representing con icting interests.

Yumol, Jr. v. Ferrer Sr.

AC. No. 6585 | April 21, 2005
FACTS:
• Atty. Tomas B. Yumol, Jr., Felix S. Ventic, Elmer L. Maniego, and Jake Magcalas led a
disbarment complaint against Atty. Roberto R. Ferrer, Sr., for grave misconduct.

• Complainants and respondent were employees of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).

• Mrs. Ma. Cecilia Mallari-Dy sought CHR assistance regarding the alleged kidnapping of her
child and coercive acts by her husband, John Burt Dy.

• Respondent issued two orders regarding child custody and the Porac Rural Bank matter.

• An altercation occurred between respondent and Mr. John Burt Dy, who accused CHR of
connivance.

• Complainants witnessed the incident and questioned the validity of the orders.

• Atty. Yumol sought clari cation from the bank, stating the Commission's limited involvement
in family matters.

• Respondent was asked to explain the unauthorized orders within 72 hours.

• It was revealed that respondent engaged in private practice while being a CHR attorney.

ISSUES:
1. Engaging in private practice while being a government employee.
2. Falsifying Daily Time Records (DTRs).
3. Issuing unauthorized orders.
4. Continuing private practice after facing charges for engaging in private practice.

HELD:
• Respondent's private practice violated conditions set by CHR Resolution.
fl
fi
fi
fl
fl
ff
fi
 • Notarizing documents without proper authorization constitutes misconduct.

• Falsi cation of DTRs established as respondent attended court hearings without CHR
approval.

• Issuing orders beyond CHR's investigative powers violated constitutional limits.

• Gross misconduct found, leading to one-year suspension from practicing law.

Intestate Estate of Jose Uy v. Maghari III

A.C. No. 10525 | 2015
FACTS:
The case involves a disbarment complaint against Atty. Maghari, accused of deceitful conduct
and violating the Lawyer's Oath. The dispute arises from con icting claims over Jose Uy's
estate, with Maghari accused of using false information in pleadings.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Maghari violated his Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Atty. Maghari not only committed errors knowingly but also engaged in a pattern of deceit by
appropriating details from another lawyer. His acts violated Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of
Court, constituting deceit as a ground for disbarment. The deliberate use of false information,
including the appropriation of another lawyer's details, led to a suspension from the practice of
law for two years. The ruling emphasizes the gravity of such actions and the importance of
upholding legal standards.

Monares v. Atty. Moñuz

A.C. No. 5582 | January 24, 2017
FACTS:
The case involves a Joint Petition for Review led by Atty. Levi P. Muñoz in response to
disbarment complaints. The complaints, led by various individuals, allege Muñoz's unlawful
private practice and acts of disloyalty, particularly violating con ict of interest rules. The
complainants presented evidence of Muñoz's court appearances and representation of
con icting interests while serving as Provincial Legal O cer of Albay City.

ISSUES:
1. Whether Muñoz violated the conditions of his DILG authorization by using government time
for private practice.
2. Whether Muñoz should have requested authority to engage in private practice for his
second and third terms.
3. Whether Muñoz represented con icting interests.

HELD:
1. Muñoz violated his DILG authorization by utilizing government time for private practice
during his tenure as Provincial Legal O cer. His numerous court appearances and
workload clearly contradicted the conditions set forth in the authorization.
fl
fi
fl
fi
ffi
fi
ffi
fl
fl
 2. Muñoz should have sought authority from the Secretary of DILG for his second and third
terms. His claim of good faith in believing the authority granted by the governor for these
terms su ced is unreasonable. Failure to secure proper authority rendered him liable for
unauthorized practice.
3. Muñoz represented con icting interests by acting as counsel for ALECO under both the old
Board of Directors and the NEA management team. This violated rules on con ict of
interest. The recommended penalty of suspension for three years is deemed appropriate
due to the gravity of his multiple infractions.

Palencia v. Linsangan
A.C. No. 10557 | July 10, 2018
FACTS:
Jerry M. Palencia led a disciplinary complaint against Attys. Pedro L. Linsangan, Gerard M.
Linsangan, and Glenda Linsangan-Binoya. Palencia, a seafarer, engaged respondents' law
o ce for a suit against his employers after being injured. Respondents secured a settlement of
US$95,000.00, deducted attorney's fees, and o ered US$20,756.05, which Palencia refused.
Legal actions ensued.

ISSUES:
Did respondents violate ethical standards in handling Palencia's case, including soliciting legal
business, mishandling funds, and ambulance chasing?

HELD:
1. Ambulance Chasing: Respondents violated ethical standards by indirectly soliciting legal
business through their agents, which constitutes malpractice. A penalty of one year
suspension is imposed on respondents Pedro and Gerard Linsangan.
2. Fiduciary Duty and Accounting: Respondents failed in their duciary duty, not providing a
proper account of amounts due to Palencia and improperly deducting separate fees. The
suspension is increased to two years.
3. Gross Misconduct: Respondents breached trust by unjustly retaining attorney's fees,
forcibly deducting amounts, and mishandling client's money. A two-year suspension is
imposed on Pedro and Gerard Linsangan.
4. Dismissal of Case: The case against Atty. Glenda M. Linsangan-Binoya is dismissed due to
lack of evidence of her participation.

The Court a rms a previous ruling on attorney's fees, and no further directives on returning the
assessed amount are provided due to the principle of immutability of judgments. The decision
is e ective upon nality, with a warning for future acts.
ffi
ff
ffi
ffi
fi
fi
fl
ff
fi
fl