This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
A disbarment complaint was filed by complainant (Leslie Ui) before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP on the ground of immorality, more particularly for carrying on an illicit relationship with the complainant’s husband. 2. Complainant’s husband, Carlos Ui, was having a relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio, a graduate of the UP and admitted into the Bar in 1982. The two, Carlos and Iris, met sometime in 1983 and Iris had known him all along to be a bachelor, with the knowledge however that Carlos had children by a Chinese woman in Amoy, China from whom he had long been estranged. During one of their trips, Carlos formalized his intention to marry Iris and they got married in Hawaii in 1985. Their union resulted to two offspring (1986 and 1988). In 1986, respondent left the country and stayed in Honolulu, Hawaii and she would only return occasionally to the Philippines to update her law practice and renew legal ties. 3. Meanwhile, complainant Leslie Ui is married to Carlos L. Ui last January 24, 1971 and have four children (Leilani, Lianni, Lindsay and Carl Cavin). 4. When complainant knew of the relationship between her husband and Atty. Bonifacio, she visited respondent at her office and introduced herself as the legal wife of Carlos in June 1988. During the said visit of complainant, respondent admitted that she had begotten a child from Carlos and that everything between them was over. However, she discovered that the relationship between Carlos and Iris continued despite what Bonifacio said during her (Leslie) first visit. Again, in March 1989, she met again with respondent and pleaded that she discontinues her relationship with her husband. 5. When respondent discovered Carlos’ true civil status on June 1988, she cut off all her ties with him. By way of counterclaim by respondent against the disbarment case filed by complainant, she sought moral damages in the amount of Php 10 million. 6. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Integrated Bar, complainant charged her husband and respondent with the crime of concubinage. However, said charge was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause. 7. In the proceedings before the IBP, respondent attached a certificate of marriage duly certified by the State Registrar as true copy of the
record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health which revealed that the date of marriage between Carlos and Iris was October 22, 1987. 8. The Commission on Bar Discipline rendered a decision favourable to respondent on the ground that the Commission failed to find any act on the respondent’s part that can be considered as unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. The Board of Governors of the IBP had likewise adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the Commission. Ruling: 1. Possession of good moral character must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice; otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. 2. In the case at bar, it is the claim of respondent that when she met Carlos she knew and believed him to be single. She fell in love with him and they got married and had two children. Upon her knowledge of the true civil status of Carlos, she left him. The facts of the case lead the Court to believe that perhaps respondent would not have found herself in such compromising situations had she exercised prudence and been more vigilant in finding out more about Carlos’ personal background prior to her intimate involvement with him. 3. A member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships… but must also behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards. Respondent’s act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos upon discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession. 4. It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality. The legal profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality. 5. not disbarred, but reprimanded for attaching a photocopy of her marriage certificate with an altered date
namely: (a) to protect the public. as far as the general public is concerned. According to complainant. From the evidence presented by the complainant. one after the other and had illegitimate children with them. Crispin G. The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawful. When she returned 18 years later. complainant engaged in buy and sell business and relied on dole-outs from the respondent’s mother. 1986 thus made to appear that the children are legitimate. as an officer of the Court and as a member of the Bar. he was forced to live alone in a rented apartment. it was established that they got married on January 19. Atty. If the practice of law is to remain an honourable profession and attain its basic ideals.Dantes v. Dante. dishonest. disbarment should never be decreed. the lawyer’s conduct must not only be immoral but grossly immoral. Respondent’s acts of engaging in illicit relationships with two different women during the subsistence of his marriage to the complainant constitute grossly immoral conduct warranting the imposition of appropriate sanctions. respondent had breached the high and exacting moral standards set for members of the law profession. 3. In his answer to the affidavit-complaint. Emma Dantes sought the disbarment of her husband. he failed to give regular support to complainant and their children. 1979 and lived with respondent’s mother in Balintawak. However. Due to this. Respondent was purportedly engaged in illicit relationships with two women. Thus. respondent abandoned his legal wife. He has made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. Dantes Facts: 1. Norberto Mendoza. Tolentino v. 2. (b) to protect the public image of lawyers. It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character has three ostensible purposes. 5. 4. than the possession of legal learning. or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. in turn. in the present case. married to one Tamos Mindoro. Felicitas Valderia in favour of his paramous Marilyn dela Fuente who is. Ruling: 1. it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so wilful. the seriousness of the offense compels the Court to wield its power to disbar as it appears to be the most appropriate penalty. The requirement of good moral character is of much greater import. Daisy. The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution and only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer. That is. in respondent’s certificate of candidacy filed with the COMELEC during the 1995 . complainant worked abroad as a domestic helper. she insisted that she be accommodated in the place where he and their children were residing. could accomplish the end desired. Dantes on the ground of immorality. those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also. To be the basis of disciplinary action. 2. Pampanga. They have three children: Dandelo. accord continuing fidelity to them. At that time. such as temporary suspension. flagrant. and violation of professional ethics and law. immoral or deceitful conduct. Mendoza Facts: 1. respondent alleged that he and complainant mutually agreed to separate 18 years before after complainant abandoned him in their Balintawak residence and fled to San Fernando. (c) to protect prospective clients. Where a lesser penalty. a former municipal trial court judge. for grossly immoral conduct and gross misconduct. abandonment. Mendoza had likewise fathered two children by his paramour and declared in their birth certificates that Mendoza and his paramous were married on May 12. A disbarment complaint was filed against Atty. A writer added a fourth: to protect errant lawyers from themselves. He likewise asserted that complainant filed this case to force him to remit 70% of his monthly salary to her. in their lives. Evidently. respondent was th just a 4 year law student. From the time respondent’s illicit affairs started. 4. Meanwhile. 3. To make ends meet.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report of Buencamino but increased its recommended period of suspension from three months to six months. it was Moreno who sought to borrow Php 2. belonged to the Philippine Leasing Corporation which she managed when her father passed away.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. according to Moreno. . Moreno v. According to respondent. In the instant case. 4. Ernesto Araneta for deceit and non-payment of debts. The complainants are political opponents in Naujan. 3.” 2. according to the respondent. 6. he declared to be separated. when there was none and the respondent knew such fact was an act of connivance of the respondent with the complainant to make use of these useless commercial documents to deceive the public. The second cause involved Araneta’s non-payment of debts in the amount of Php 11. 5. which makes “mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage. Resolution No. or deceitful conduct. Atty. A disbarment complaint is filed against Atty. 1988. the Board of Governors of the IBP passed a resolution. 2004. to Moreno in consideration of the amount of Php 2.elections. that due to the act of respondent in issuing the two checks which he gave to the complainant for her to show to her creditors that money was coming her way. for instance. This fact and statement without any further explanation from respondent only contributes to the blot in his moral character which good moral character we repeat is a continuing condition for a member to remain in good standing. 177. a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. Araneta issued two Bank of America checks in favour of Moreno but said checks were dishonoured. and indorsed by Araneta purportedly as president of the said corporation. Respondent has violated this rule against engaging in immoral conduct. the procured copies of the birth certificates of his daughters were done illegally thus making them inadmissible as evidence. Inc. The mischief it creates is not only wrong to the payee or holder. conduct. as the effect transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large.500 from him. He is suspended indefinitely from the practice of law until he submits satisfactory proof that he has abandoned his immoral course of conduct. Complainant alleged that borrowed Php 5. Norberto Mendoza is found guilty of immorality in violation of Rule 1. but also an injury to the public since the circulation of valueless commercial papers can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce. respondent has disregarded and made a mockery of the fundamental institution of marriage. Oriental Mindoro. Respondent in fact even so stated that he is separated from his wife. The check. injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. 2. 2. The complaint alleged that almost a year later.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.000.000 to show to his associates and another Php 6. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community. 3. the warrant was dishonoured. Ruling: 1. XVI – 2004 – 123 which suspended indefinitely the respondent from the practice of law until he would be able to submit satisfactory proof that he is no longer cohabiting with a woman who is not his wife and has abandoned such immoral course of conduct. The first involved Treasury Warrant No B-02997354 issued by the Land Registration Commission in favour of Lira. he denied borrowing any amount from Moreno. 3. In a decision by IBP Commissioner Concepcion Buencamino dated December 28. Ruling: 1. He was subjected to suspension of three months. immoral. he declared that his wife is Valderia however in 1998. dishonest.000 for the same purpose. The issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct. In February 27. And. Araneta Facts: 1. Members of the Bar have been repeatedly reminded that possession of good moral character is a continuing condition for membership in the Bar in good standing. However. There are two causes of action filed by complainant. Under Rule 1.
4. gross misconduct in office. decency and morality. he lured an innocent young woman into marrying him. Eduardo Cojuangco. 4. The law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy of standards among its members. Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. Maria Luisa. dishonest. There he met complainant’s 22-year old daughter. This was granted by the court. It involves an act of baseness. His act of contracting a second marriage is contrary to honesty. Leo Palma on the grounds of “deceit. 3. is also a manifestation of moral turpitude. The Commission on Bar Discipline by the IBP recommended that he be suspended from practice of law for a period of 3 years. the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment. He married Maria Luisa in Hong Kong dated June 22. Undoubtedly.” 2. The act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in. filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Atty. insofar as the latter may reflect unfavourably upon the good name and prestige of the profession and the courts may at any time be the subject of inquiry on the part of the proper authorities. modesty or good morals. In particular. modesty of good morals. Palma is guilty of grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer. 5. The disbarment complaint was based on moral turpitude. Martinez failed to respond to the resolution of the Court dated February 17. Ernesto Araneta is disbarred. Atty.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. a ground for disbarment under Section 27. 3. Thus. He and Palma met sometime in the 1970s. or to society in general. and that this case. malpractice. is that they “shall not engage in lawful. Cojuangco v. 2. then a student of Assumption. contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman. Ruling: 1. Next day after the marriage. flagrant or shameless and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion and of the good and respectable members of the community. or credit with. The interdict upon lawyers. he misrepresented himself as a bachelor so he could contract marriage in a foreign land. Francisco Martinez was found guilty by the RTC of Tacloban City for violation of BP 22. Martinez Facts: 1. 1982. Owing to his growing business concerns. knowing fully well that respondent is a married man and has three children. or conduct contrary to justice. not only his professional activities but even his private life. Considering that he had previously committed a similarly fraudulent act. Barrios v. it was when respondent informed complainant and assured him that everything is legal. violation of his oath as a lawyer. he abandoned his lawful wife and three children. likewise involves moral turpitude. we are constrained to impose a more severe penalty. Second. He was arrested in Tacloban City but was . Jr. honesty. First. respondent’s act is manifestly immoral. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice. complainant decided to hire respondent as his personal counsel. Measured against this definition. 2. Third. 3. He exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. This was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors but reduced penalty to a year. Palma Facts: 1. justice. he made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. complainant is a client of Angara Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA) and respondent was the lawyer assigned to handle his cases. honesty. respondent’s act constitutes grossly immoral conduct. 1997. This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. 4. vileness or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men. as inscribed in Rule 1. and grossly immoral conduct. Immoral conduct is that conduct which is wilful. the complainant filed with the CFI of Pasay City a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage between respondent and Maria Luisa. immoral or deceitful conduct. and disbarred from the practice of law.2. Complainant was shocked. Accordingly. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his private life.
00 for a valid marriage. 2. Ulep v. 4. 4. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice. that complainant Michael Barrios passed away sometime in June 1997 and said administrative complaint is an offshoot of a civil case which was decided in respondent’s favour. 3. 2. modesty or good morals. Under Sec.000 and submitting his comment. It involves an act of baseness. a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the SC for any deceit. It is destructive of the honor of a great profession. malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office. Martinez is disbarred and his name is ordered stricken from the roll of attorneys. honesty. either personally or through paid agents or brokers. one pays Php 560. 1929. can renew lost documents of animals. contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman or conduct contrary to justice. respondent has been guilty and convicted by final judgment for violation of BP 22 for issuing worthless check in the amount of Php 8. or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. vileness or depravity in the private duties which a man owes to his fellow men or to society in general. He was practicing in Echague. In Re: Luis Tagorda Facts: 1. During the last general elections. he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements. modesty or good morals. It works against the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the Bar.000. he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano which advertised his services as a lawyer. Luis Tagorda is suspended from practice for a period of 1 month from April 1. . 3. In one instance. can make application and final requisites for the homestead and execute any kind of affidavit. he advertised that he can execute a deed of sale for the purchase of land as required by the cadastral office. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege. constitutes malpractice. honesty. 27. absence. annulment and visa are accepted. He can also help anyone in collecting loans. noted that the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain. Sadly. respondent falls short of the exacting standards expected of him as a vanguard of the legal profession. The Legal Clinic Facts: 1. The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension. According to petitioner. The contact details and address of the company are likewise provided for. It lowers the standards of that profession. In the present case. It results in needless litigation and in inciting to strife otherwise peacefully-inclined citizens. Likewise. information on divorce. It becomes the court’s duty to condemn in no uncertain terms the ugly practice of solicitation of cases by lawyers. demeaning of the law profession and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the Bar and that as a member of the legal profession. Luis Tagorda is a practicing attorney and a provincial board of Isabela. the advertisements are unethical. as amended by Act 2828. 5. The Legal Clinic posted an advertisement which states that for secret marriage. This was written in a card he distributed during the elections. Respondent claimed that he was unable to respond to the resolution because he was undergoing medical treatment. Isabela. 3. not only as a condition precedent to admission but also as a continuing requirement of the practice of law. 2.subsequently released after compliance with the resolution by remitting the amount of Php 2. Ruling: 1. demanding a high degree of good moral character. Ruling: 1. 2.
Ruling: 1. rather engages in legal support services through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines. 2. Theresa Espeleta) called the number and she spoke to Mrs. Staff member of the PIO of the SC (Ma. . 3. Atty. 4. IBP wised that the high court perpetually restrain respondent from undertaking highly unethical activities in the field of law practice. Philippine Bar Association. 2. Likewise same advertisement appeared on PDI which prompted the case. Khan v. Simbillo as pretended to be an interested party. Rizalino Simbillo is an expert in handling annulment cases. failed to state limitation that only paralegal services or legal services are available. Ruling: 1. The use of an ordinary simple professional card is permitted. of brief biographical and informative data. Simbillo Facts: 1. FIA said that advertisements are ethically objectionable because for one. that a decision would be rendered with a period of 4 to 6 months provided separation of property and custody of children are not involved and a fee of Php 48. the Legal Clinic does not engage in the practice of law.3. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. no Philippine marriage can be secret and two. PLA claimed that respondent is engaged in the practice of law contrary to what respondent posits. telephone number and special branch of law practiced. which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. 000. the name of the law firm he is connected with. To practice law is to give advice or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge or skill. the other when judgment has been rendered. BR Sebastian Enterprises v. and August 5. Half of price is to be paid on filing of the case. The card may contain only a statement of his name. The Legal Clinic is restrained and enjoined from issuing or causing the publication or dissemination of similar advertisements being brought into attention. WLAP claimed that the Legal Clinic engaged in advertising its services to solicit cases for the purpose of gain which are illegal and against the Code of Professional Responsibility. Suspended for 1 year upon receipt of resolution. UPWLC claimed that the public should be protected from falling prey to those who advertise legal services without being qualified to offer such service. Trial court rendered a decision finding petitioner liable for damages but absolving the other defendants. There is a newspaper advertisement which reads “Annulment of Marriage specialist 532-4333/521-2667” dates August 2 and 6. Ismael Khan. Another exception to advertising is the publication in reputable law lists in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canons. Mrs. 2. 3. 2000 at the Manila Bulletin. Eulogio Reyes filed an action for damages with CFI of Rizal against director of Public Works and BR Sebastian. acting in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of PIO filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Sternly warned that a repetition of same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. 5. Simbillo claimed that her husband Atty. UP Women Lawyers’ Circle. address. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. According to respondent. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services. Philippine Lawyers’ Association. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines. 2000. Use of ordinary simple professional card and law list are exceptions to the advertising prohibition. CA Facts: 1. 4. PBA claimed that only natural persons may engage in the practice of law. Women Lawyers Association of the Philippines and Federacion International de Abogadas were required to submit their respective position papers to the controversy.
a student. 2. Dela Torre. CA denied motion for reconsideration. According to Alpon. Petition is dismissed. Ruling: 1. the law firm of Baizas. We find that respondent’s misconduct as a lawyer of the CHED is of such a character as to affect her qualification as a member of the Bar. 3. complainant was held liable in the case with the SSC and ordered payment of Php 27. given the respondent’s failure. Consolidated Farms v. Ruling: 1. Alberto and Associates appealed the decision. on various occasions. Vitriolo v. she had likewise demanded from Rocella Eje. She demanded from Betty Mangohon a teacher of Our Lady of Mariazel Educational Center in Novaliches. a student. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. She was charged for gross misconduct in violation of the Attorney’s oath for having used her public office to secure financial spoils to the detriment and reputation of the CHED. 2. 3. 3. she had likewise demanded from Rosalie Dela Torre. QC the amount of Php 20. 3. and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Due to this. Negligence of counsel binds the client. 20.000 (initial 5000).000 and later reduced to php 5000 for the facilitation of her application for correction of name. during her tenure as OIC. senior partner of the Baizas. . IBP governors recommended suspension for three years. Reyes. during the pendency of the appeal died but substituted by his heirs. 3. Respondent through gross negligence and incompetence failed to perform what is required of him. Ng sums of money as consideration for her favorable action on their pending applications or requests before her office. He fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the bar. IBP Board of Governors recommended the suspension of Alpon for 3 months. the death of the latter does not extinguish the lawyer-client relationship between the firm and petitioner. the amount of Php 18000 to Php 20000 for facilitation of her application for correction of name. 117. Rocella G. Decision by IBP was affirmed. Rosalie B. In this case. Ruling: 1. Crispin Baizas. Eje. 2. Pelayo and Associates Law Office. 6. and Jacqueline N. Hence. Alberto and Associates. 2. Crispin Baizas. The evidence remains unrefuted. Upon verification with the office of the court administrator. Mangohon. Legal Services. She is designated as officer-incharge of the Legal Affairs Service. Alpon Facts: 1. CHED. Petitioners’ counsel was the law firm and not merely Atty. it was confirmed that respondent is not a judge. Dasig Facts: 1. despite the opportunities afforded her by this Court and the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline to comment on the charges. Petitioner through the Baizas Law Office filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution dismissing the appeal due to the death of Atty. attempted to extort from Betty C. Negros Occidental.09 as other party’s claim for retirement benefits. a student amount of Php 5000 for same purpose as above. he is the presiding judge of the municipal trial court of La Castellana. He is willing to reimburse complainant the amount judgment decreed. 4.2. for as a lawyer. Complainant alleged that respondent as counsel in said case did not submit the position paper being required by the Commission and likewise failed to attend the scheduled hearings of the case despite due notice. Dasig is an official of the CHED. Same with Jacqueline Ng. she ought to have known that it was patently unethical and illegal for her to demand sums of money as consideration for the approval of applications and requests awaiting action by her office. Petitioner through its counsel. 5. Respondent is connected with Octaviano. Complainant hired service of respondents in its case before the Social Security Commission. the record shows that the respondent.
was not meant to govern the conduct of private practitioners alone. 1988. . Attorney’s Oath is the source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer and any violation thereof is a ground for disbarment. Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1. Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public service. Thus. Hence.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility 3. the Code of Professional Responsibility. This is clear from Canon 6 of said Code.2. as their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the public. The Attorney’s Oath imposes upon every member of the bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice. suspension. or other disciplinary action. but of all lawyers including those in government service. 4. they should be more sensitive in the performance of their professional obligations. Respondent is disbarred. A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations. promulgated on June 21.
He may not. like Ceasar’s wife. Llorente is the election officer of the COMELEC and was designated chairman of Pasig City Board of Canvassers. Due to the dismissal. Held: 1. 2. Maderazo Facts: 1. Llorente Facts: 1. it behoves attorneys. Atty. complainant filed a complaint for damages against respondent. Practice of law is not a property right but a mere privilege and as such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyer’s public responsibilities. His car rammed into a small carinderia owned by Lolita Artezuela. prompting the Investigating Commissioner to receive complainant’s evidence ex parte and to set the case for resolution after the parties have submitted their respective memorandum. not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence. He does not have to publicly hold himself as the counsel of the adverse party. Complainant is a senator who was also a candidate for the Senate in 1995. served as the Board’s ex oficio vice chairman. she filed a disbarment case against respondent on grounds of gross negligence of his duties as a lawyer and failure to represent her interests with zeal and enthusiasm 5. 4. The lawyer is an officer of the court and his actions are governed by the uncompromising rules of professional ethics. 2. To require that he be counsel-ofrecord of the adverse party would punish only the most obvious form of deceit and reward. In the case at bar. With these thoughts in mind. The court upheld the IBP’s decision to suspend Maderazo for six months. Only this can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice. but as to whether the attorney has adhered to proper professional standard. oversight and/or fatigue. But as guardian of the legal profession. Pimentel v. 3. the records show that respondent repeatedly sought the postponement of the hearings. 5. One Allan Echavia drove a car in the early morning of December 24. The relations of attorney and client is founded on principles of public policy. the highest form of disloyalty. Because of the highly fiduciary nature of the attorney-client relationship. He alleged that respondents tampered with the votes received by him. who is the city prosecutor of Pasig City. 3. act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. The destruction of the complainant’s carinderia caused the cessation of the operation of her small business. The question is not necessarily one of the rights of the parties. without being guilty of professional misconduct. Respondents claimed that the errors pointed out by complainant could be attributed to honest mistake. 2. 1992. but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing. 3. She incurred debts from her relatives and stopped sending her two children to college. nor make his efforts to advance the adverse party’s conflicting interests of record – although these circumstances are the most obvious and satisfactory proof of the charge.Artezuela v. It was dismissed. An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. on good taste. In his answer. Thus. with impunity. It is enough that the counsel of one party had a hand in the preparation of the pleading of the other party. The case was dismissed due to the instance of the complainant and her husband. The suspension of the respondent’s privilege to practice law may result to financial woes. 6. respondent claimed that complainant was uncooperative and refused to confer with him. Artezuela engaged the services of Maderazo in filing a damage suit against Echavia and others. sound public policy dictates that a lawyer be prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. we are constrained to balance this concern with the injury he caused to the very same profession he vowed to uphold with honesty and fairness. Ligaya Salayon. a counsel-of-record of one party need not also be counsel-of-record of the adverse party. . To be guilty of representing conflicting interests. good faith and honest intention on the part of the erring lawyer does not make this rule inoperative. Meanwhile. Indeed. claiming adverse and conflicting interests with that of his original client. 4.
2. Respondents are guilty of misconduct. The grounds for disbarment or suspension of an attorney are: (a) deceit.Held: 1. lawyers in govt service in the discharge of their official tasks have more restrictions than lawyers in private practice. such individual may be discipline as a member of the bar for such misconduct. he may be disciplined as a member of the Bar on such ground. 2. The primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is not only to punish and discipline the erring individual lawyers. More significantly. (d) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. 5. There is a strong public interest involved in requiring lawyers to behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor and it is important that the common caricature that lawyers by and large do not feel compelled to speak the truth and to act honestly. Practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually. 3. otherwise. (b) malpractice or other gross misconduct in office. to the courts and to his clients. With the aforesaid rule a high standard of integrity is demanded of a govt lawyer as compared to a private practitioner because the delinquency of a govt lawyer erodes people’s trust and confidence in the govt . and (c) acts dealt with in RA 6646 Section 27(b) which are mala in se and petitioner failed to establish criminal intent on the part of respondents. Edilberto Barcelona was a lawyer formerly employed with the NLRC as chief of the Public Assistance Center. and (g) wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority. However. Respondent visited him in his office and told him to settle the case or else his business. should not become a common reality. (c) grossly immoral conduct. respondents were under greater obligation to observe this basic tenet of the profession because a public office is a public trust. the amount was Php 20. If a lawyer’s misconduct in the discharge of his official duties as a govt official is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency. to the bar. such had already been accomplished and only needed their respective signatures. Atty. Lim requested the NBI to investigate Barcelona. He must faithfully perform his duties to society. calls for the corresponding grave sanctions. 4. Rule 1. an outright violation of the law. For settlement. and the general public so that the respondents would not have risked the commission of any irregularity. the media. 5. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office. if the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyer’s oath or is such of character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part. A lawyer who holds a govt position may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a govt official. Barcelona Facts: 1. Lim v. The IBP recommends the dismissal of petitioner’s complaint on the basis of: (a) respondents had no involvement in the tabulation of the election returns because when the Statement of Votes were given to them. 3. (b) canvassing was done in the presence of watchers. 2. (f) wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. NBI performed an entrapment operation where Barcelona was arrested. (e) violation of lawyer’s oath. especially in his dealings with his clients and the public at large. He informed complainant Lim through phone that his employees filed a labor complaint against him and it was necessary that he sees him and talk. Top Gun Billiards. representatives of the political parties. Extortion by a govt lawyer. A lawyer must at all times conduct himself. 4. More importantly. A violation of the high standards of the legal profession subjects the lawyer to administrative sanctions which includes suspension and disbarment.000. possession of good moral character must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice. the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. As lawyers in the govt service.02 provides that a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. but also to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the courts and . academically and morally. Held: 1.
The duty contemplated in Canon 11 is closely entwined with his vow in the lawyer’s oath “to conduct himself as a lawyer with all good fidelity to the courts. The legal fees ascribed by Circular No. Tiongco had exceeded the bounds of decency and propriety in making the false and malicious insinuation against this Court. 3. In the case Gonzales handled. Aguilar Facts: 1. Ramon Gonzales was charged with malpractice. not for the sake of temporary incumbent of the judicial office. Castellano was found guilty of contempt of court and improper conduct. Tiongco v. but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. He characterized the decision of respondent Judge as “having been crafted in order to fool the winning party”. Tiongco described respondent as a liar. 2. he is not at liberty to resort to arrogance. deceit. When cited for contempt. moved for reconsideration. he agreed with his clients (Fortunado) to pay all expenses including court fees for a contingent fee of 50% of the value of property in litigation. . intimidation and innuendo. Castellano. Atty. Maglasang v. if not hate. Tiongco was ordered to pay fine of Php 5. one with “perfidious character.50 were not paid thus the case Maglasang v. acted as counsel for the Lopez. 3. While a lawyer must advocate his client’s cause in utmost earnest and with the maximum skill he can marshal. gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath by Angel Bautista. People was dismissed.000 plus warning.000 within 15 days or suffer 10 days imprisonment. Barcelona was disbarred. accused all nd the 5 justices of the Court’s 2 division of biases and/or ignorance of the law or knowingly rendering unjust judgments or resolution. As an officer of the Court. He is likewise suspended for 6 months. People Facts: 1. perjurer or blasphemer Ruling: 1. Anger or hate could only come from one who seems to be of that frame of mind whereby he considers as in accordance with law and justice whatever he believes to be right in his own opinion and as contrary to law and justice whatever does not accord with his views. 2. Said action is grossly improper. 6. It was denied with finality. 4. Ruling: 1. Due to it. he reasoned that said constructive criticism intended to correct in good faith the erroneous and strict practices of the justices concerned. Gonzales Facts: 1. counsel for petitioner. he should have known better than to smear the honor and integrity of the Court just to keep the confidence of his client. 3. He was ordered to pay Php 1. The use of unnecessary /offensive and abusive/abrasive and offensive language which jeopardizes high esteem in courts. Bautista v. acting as counsel for Maglasang. after he was not given what he wanted. He acted as counsel for the other party (Fortunado) and without said case being terminated. Such could only come from anger. Castellano sought to pass on the blame for his deficiencies to the Court. amounting to Php 316.” his duty under Section 20(b) of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court “to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.the public from the misconduct of lawyers and to remove from the legal profession persons utter disregard of the lawyer’s oath has proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the bar. 2. in the hope of salvaging his reputation before his client.” 2. 2. as a “hypocritical judgment in plaintiff’s favour”. He had transferred to himself ½ of the properties of the Fortunados while the case was still pending. Atty. Jose Tiongco was charged for violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 1-88 of the Court. Marceliano Castellano. Atty.” and his duty under the first canon “to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. creates or promotes distrust in judicial administration or tends necessarily to undermine the confidence of the people in the integrity of the members of the Court and to degrade the administration of justice by the Court.
2. In criminal cases. It continues even during appeal such that the duty of the court to assign a counsel de oficio persists where an accused interposes anintent to appeal. where the accused signified his intent to withdraw his appeal. Even in a case. 4. Ocampo . his former client. Gonzales knew that the property was already sold at public auction. Rio Facts: 1. among others. He induced complainant. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the expense of truth and administration of justice. He was aware of this when he wilfully resorted to the gambits. He interposed his appeal and as a consequence. 3. Respondent committed acts of misconduct which warrant the exercise by this court of its disciplinary powers. And this can happen more easily to persons who are ignorant or uneducated. 3. By violating his oath not to delay any man for money or malice. 2. Accused was unaware that Court can appoint a counsel de oficio to prosecute his appeal pursuant to Section13. particularly in the rules of procedure. 3. Instead. Crisanto Francisco commenced various suits against Garcia to thwart her right to regain her property. Suspended for 6 months.3. Rio was convicted of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua for having carnal knowledge with Wilma Phua. there can be no fair hearing unless the accused by given an opportunity to be heard by counsel. as correctly observed by the Solicitor General. Although a lawyer may in good faith advance the expenses of litigation. it was forwarded to the CA which in turn forwarded the records of the case to the SC. 2. Right to a counsel de oficio does not cease upon conviction of accused by a trial court. court must assign a counsel de oficio. If the reason is poverty. 2. The right to be heard would be of little meaning if it does not include right to be heard by counsel. it appointed a counsel de oficio for the accused Rio for. People v. Such agreements are against public policy especially where the attorney has agreed to carry on the action at his expenses in consideration of some bargain to have part of the thing in dispute. These suits included one for specific performance and reconveyance with damages. he was disdaining the obligation of the lawyer to maintain only such actions or proceedings as appear to him to be just and such defense only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. It was dismissed. all of Rio’s letter pertain that he is unable to retain services of counsel de parte on account of his poverty. The constitutional provision imposes a duty on the judicial branch. same should be subject to reimbursement. A lawyer may not properly agree with a client to pay or bear the expenses of litigation. Even the most intelligent or educate man may have no skill in the science of the law. Ruling: 1. Court denied motion. Rule 122 of Rules of Court and Article III. continuously seeking relief that was constantly denied. Francisco Facts: 1. he has besmirched the name of an honourable profession and has proved himself unworthy of trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the court. to enter into a contract with him for the development into a residential subdivision of the land involved in the case. An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the client’s rights is champertous. By grossly abusing his right of recourse to the courts for the purpose of arguing a cause that had been repeatedly rebuffed. and without counsel. Suspended for one year. Tiania v. Sec. Ruling: 1. He submitted falsified documents and harassed complainant by filing several complaints without legal basis. Ruling: 1. he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his innocence. Atty. the court is required to inquire into the reason for the withdrawal. 11 of the Constitution. Garcia v. He added to the already clogged dockets of the court and wasted their valuable time.
in one case involving Ms. The Angel spouses sold their house in favour of Blaylock for the amount of Php 70. and complainant. Ocampo made Tiana sign a compromise agreement which she signed without reading.01. Prohibit the representation of conflicting interests not only because the relation of attorney and client is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. Blaylock. when the attorney’s character is bad in such respects as to show that he is unsafe and unfit to be entrusted with the powers of an attorney. Atty. Iloilo. The test of conflict of interest in disciplinary cases against a lawyer is whether or not the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or doubledealing in the performance thereof. Canon 7. Respondent in his application declared that he was single. Ruling: 1. It was solemnized by Judge Jose Tavarro. He passed the exam. It is a violation of Rule 7. Evangeline Leda. His declaration that he was single in his application was a gross misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith. she was order to vacate. Moreover. he appeared for Tiania and also for Blaylock. Ocampo acted as counsel and prepared Deed of Sale of a Residential House and Waiver of Rights over a lot. Two years later.0. contracted marriage at Tigbauan. Tabang Facts: 1. Suspended for 1 year. An attorney has the duty to deserve the fullest confidence of his client and represent him with undivided loyalty. Same with the above. 3. she alleged that after respondent’s law studies. 2. Respondent. he assured Tiania that there was no need to hire a new lawyer since he still remains as her lawyer.000. but also because of the principles of public policy and good taste. 2. 2. 3. the court retain power to discipline him.Facts: 1. Trebonian Tabang. But complainant blocked him from taking his oath claiming that he acted fraudulently in filling out his application. Ocampo advised Tiania to pay him certain amount for the sheriff. 2. Leda v. The parties agreed to keep the marriage until after respondent had finished his law studies and had taken the bar examinations. Ruling: 1. he assured Angel spouses he would take care of everything but still received a notice to vacate. As good character is an essential qualification for admission of an attorney to practice. Amado Ocampo. . he became aloof and abandoned her. However.