CASE DIGEST: CARMELITA I. ZAGUIRRE VS. ATTY.

ALFREDO CASTILLO 03 AUGUST 2005 PER CURIAM

AS A HUSBAND AND FATHER DESPITE THE AFFAIR. MORE THAN A YEAR SINCE THE ORIGINAL DECISION RENDERED BY THE COURT, CASTILLO REITERATED HIS WILLINGNESS TO SUPPORT THE CHILD TO THE COURT AND ATTACHED A PHOTOCOPY OF POSTDATED CHECKS ADDRESSED TO ZAGUIRRE FOR THE MONTHS OF MARCH TO DECEMBER 2005 IN THE AMOUNT OF PHP2,000.00 EACH.

ZARI V FLORES HON. REMIGIO E. ZARI, COMPLAINANT, VS. DIOSDADO S. FLORES, RESPONDENT A.M. NO. (2170-MC) P-1356 NOVEMBER 21, 1979. FACTS: HON. REMIGIO E. ZARI, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH VI CITY COURT OF QUEZON CITY,
RECOMMENDED THE DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE OF MR. DIOSDADO S. FLORES, DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT OF BRANCH VI, CITY COURT, ON GROUNDS OF MORAL TURPITUDE AND PERSISTENT ATTEMPTS TO UNDULY INFLUENCE THE COMPLAINANT AMOUNTING TO UNDUE INTEREST IN CASES PENDING BEFORE BRANCH VI AND GROSS DISCOURTESY TO SUPERIOR OFFICERS AS MANIFESTED BY HIS UNCALLED FOR AND UNJUSTIFIED USE OF STRONG AND CONTEMPTUOUS LANGUAGE IN ADDRESSING THE CITY JUDGES. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS ACTS CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE. HELD: IN HIS AFFIDAVIT SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE THEN CITY JUDGE OSCAR A. INOCENTES ON JUNE 10, 1969, THE RESPONDENT STATED THAT I AM A PERSON OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY AND HAVE NO ADMINISTRATIVE, CRIMINAL OR POLICE RECORD. THIS CLAIM IS NOT TRUE BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF LIBEL IN

FACTS: ISSUE: ATTY. ALFREDO CASTILLO WAS ALREADY MARRIED

WITH THREE CHILDREN WHEN HE HAD AN AFFAIR WITH CARMELITA ZAGUIRRE. THIS OCCURRED SOMETIME FROM 1996 TO 1997, WHILE CASTILLO WAS REVIEWING FOR THE BAR AND BEFORE THE RELEASE OF ITS RESULTS. ZAGUIRRE THEN GOT PREGNANT ALLEGEDLY WITH CASTILLOS DAUGHTER. THE LATTER, WHO WAS ALREADY A LAWYER, NOTARIZED AN AFFIDAVIT RECOGNIZING THE CHILD AND PROMISING FOR HER SUPPORT WHICH DID NOT MATERIALIZE AFTER THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD. THE COURT FOUND HIM GUILTY OF GROSS IMMORAL CONDUCT TO WHICH CASTILLO FILED A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

WHETHER OR NOT ATTY. ALFREDO CASTILLO IS GUILTY OF GROSS IMMORAL CONDUCT AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED WITH THE PENALTY OF INDEFINITE SUSPENSION.

HELD:

THE COURT FOUND THAT CASTILLOS SHOW OF

REPENTANCE AND ACTIVE SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY IS A JUST AND REASONABLE GROUND TO CONVERT THE ORIGINAL PENALTY OF INDEFINITE SUSPENSION TO A DEFINITE SUSPENSION OF TWO YEARS. FURTHERMORE, THE COURT NOTED THAT ZAGUIRRES FURTHER CLAIM FOR THE SUPPORT OF HER CHILD SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE PROPER COURT IN A PROPER CASE.

THE IBP COMMENTED THAT UNTIL CASTILLO

ADMITS THE PATERNITY OF THE CHILD AND AGREES TO SUPPORT HER. IN HIS DEFENSE, THE LATTER PRESENTED DIFFERENT CERTIFICATES APPRECIATING HIS SERVICES AS A LAWYER AND PROVING HIS GOOD MORAL CHARACTER. HIS WIFE EVEN SUBMITTED A HANDWRITTEN LETTER STATING HIS AMICABILITY

CRIMINAL CASE NO. Q-7171, OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH IV, IN A SENTENCE DATED APRIL 28, 1967. THIS PREVARICATION IN A SWORN
STATEMENT IS A GROUND FOR SERIOUS DISCIPLINARY ACTION. THAT IN HIS ACCOMPLISHED CIVIL SERVICE FORM NO. 212 WHICH WAS SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO, THE RESPONDENT ADMITS HAVING ACTED AS COUNSEL FOR THREE COMPANIES; AND THAT THE GIVING OF LEGAL ADVICE BY NOTARIES AND OTHERS WHO ARE NOT ADMITTED TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW IS DANGEROUS TO THE WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY, BECAUSE SUCH PERSONS HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED THEIR CAPACITY BY SUBMITTING TO EXAMINATIONS LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW. THE RESPONDENT'S CONVICTION FOR LIBEL SHOWS HIS PROPENSITY TO SPEAK ILL OF OTHERS AS REFLECTED IN HIS LETTER TO JUDGE MINERVA C. GENOVEA, THEN EXECUTIVE JUDGE OF THE CITY COURT OF QUEZON CITY WHICH CONTAINS DEFAMATORY AND UNCALLED FOR LANGUAGE THE HANDWRITTEN NOTES OF THE RESPONDENT REGARDING DIFFERENT CASES PENDING IN BRANCH VI OF THE CITY COURT OF QUEZON CITY, PRESIDED BY THE COMPLAINANT, SHOW THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD EXERTED UNDUE INFLUENCE IN THE DISPOSITION OF THE CASES MENTIONED THEREIN. RESPONDENT, DIOSDADO S. FLORES, IS DISMISSED AS DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT OF BRANCH VI OF THE CITY COURT OF

QUEZON

CITY, WITH FORFEITURE OF ALL RETIREMENT PRIVILEGES AND WITH PREJUDICE TO REINSTATEMENT IN THE NATIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AS WELL AS, IN ANY GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITY OR AGENCY INCLUDING GOVERNMENT OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS.

NUNEZ V ASTORGA DISBARMENT AND SUSPENSION OF AN ATTORNEY ARE THE MOST SEVERE FORMS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION; THUS, THEY SHOULD BE IMPOSED WITH GREAT CAUTION. UHEY SHOULD BE METED OUT ONLY FOR DULY PROVEN SERIOUS [1] ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES. THE CASE AND THE FACTS THIS ADMINISTRATIVE CASE STEMS FROM A COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT[2] FILED WITH THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES-COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE (IBP-CBD) BY EDUARDO L. NUEZ, EUGENIO O. NUEZ, ELIZA NUEZALVARICO AND IMELDA L. NUEZ. TTY. ARTURO B. ASTORGA WAS CHARGED THEREIN WITH CONDUCT UNBECOMING A MEMBER OF THE BAR. THE MATERIAL AVERMENTS OF THE COMPLAINT ARE SUMMARIZED BY THE IBP-CBD AS FOLLOWS: COMPLAINANTS ALLEGE THAT SOMETIME ON JUNE 5, 1968, THE LATE MARIA ORTEGA VDA. DE NU[]EZ EXECUTED A SALE WITH RIGHT TO REPURCHASE IN FAVOR OF EUGENIO O. NU[]EZ LOT NO. 106 COVERED BY OCT NO. 2651 (NOW TCT NO. 8955) CONTAINING AN AREA OF 384 SQ.

MS. FOR A CONSIDERATION OF P400.00. F N THE SAID CONTRACT, THE STIPULATED TIME OF REPURCHASE WAS TEN (10) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF EXECUTION THEREOF OR UNTIL JUNE 5, 1978. NHAT SAID PERIOD OF VENDORS RIGHT TO REPURCHASE EXPIRED WITHOUT ANY AGREEMENT OF EXTENDING SAID PERIOD OF REPURCHASE. HO DATE, EVEN THE HEIRS OF THE LATE MARIA ORTEGA VDA. DE NU[]EZ HAVE NOT EXERCISED[D] THEIR RIGHT OF REPURCHASE. E P YEAR AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE SAID PACTO DE RET[R]O SALE, THE LATE MARIA ORTEGA VDA. DE NU[]EZ AND HER SON RICARDO NU[]EZ, AS THE SURVIVING HEIRS OF THE LATE ELEUTERIO NU[]EZ, EXTRAJUDICIALLY PARTITIONED HIS ESTATE, AMONG OTHERS, THE SUBJECT [L]OT NO. 106 WAS ADJUDICATED TO RICARDO NU[]EZ WHICH EVENTUALLY WAS THE BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF TCT NO. 8955 IN THE NAME OF RICARDO NU[]EZ. ZUGENIO O. NU[]EZ [HAS] OCCUPIED AND POSSESSED SAID LOT NO. 106 FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS UP TO THE PRESENT AND IT IS ALSO WHERE HIS CHILDREN, EDUARDO, ELISA AND IMELDA, ALL SURNAMED NU[]EZ, GREW AND [ARE] PRESENTLY RESIDING. BY VIRTUE OF A POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED SOMETIME IN 1982 BY THE LATE SPOUSES RICARDO NU[]EZ AND PATERNA NU[]EZ APPOINTING RESPONDENT AS ADMINISTRATOR, AS WELL AS ON THE ALLEGED JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF RESPONDENTS WIFE, AS ACKNOWLEDGED NATURAL CHILD OF RICARDO NU[]EZ, RESPONDENT, ON THE PRETEXT OF ADMINISTERING THE PROPERTIES OF THE LATE SPOUSES, HAD BEEN DISTURBING THE PEACEFUL OCCUPATION AND POSSESSION OF COMPLAINANTS OF LOT NO. 106 CLAIMING THAT COMPLAINANTS HAVE NO RIGHT OVER THE SAME.

WITH OUR DESIRE TO PEACEABLY SETTLE THE CONTROVERSY, COMPLAINANTS AGREED TO BUY LOT NO. 106, AND RESPONDENT, WHO, WITHOUT
BEING APPOINTED BY THE COURT AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE SPOUSES RICARDO NU[]EZ AND PATERNA NU[]EZ, SOLD AND CONVEYED TO IMELDA NU[]EZ AND ELISA NU[]EZ-ALVARICO THE PORTIONS OF LOT NO. 106 THEY WERE OCCUPYING. AFTER WHICH ELISA NU[]EZ-ALVARICO FILED A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR ESTAFA AGAINST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF BAYBAY, LEYTE DOCKETED AS CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-4013-A. SOMETIME ON 29 MARCH 2001 AT AROUND 7:30 IN THE EVENING, RESPONDENT WENT TO THE HOUSE OF EDUARDO L. NU[]EZ AT CORNER J.P. LAUREL AND M.L. QUEZON STS., BAYBAY, LEYTE AND THREATENED TO KILL EDUARDO NU[]EZ BY UTTERING THE WORDS IPAPOSIL TA KA WHICH MEANS ILL HAVE YOU SHOT. L COMPLAINT FOR GRAVE THREATS DOCKETED AS CASE NO. R-4012A WAS FILED BY EDUARDO L. NU[]EZ BEFORE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF BAYBAY, LEYTE.[3] IN A HEARING HELD ON JUNE 5, 2002, COMPLAINANTS APPEARED WITH THEIR COUNSEL, WHILE RESPONDENT WAS REPRESENTED BY ATTY. ARNOLD LOGARES. AS RESPONDENT HAD NOT YET FILED HIS ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT DESPITE A PREVIOUS ORDER DATED DECEMBER 7, 2001, HE WAS GRANTED A PERIOD OF FIFTEEN (15) DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO DO SO. I HE HEARING WAS THUS [4] RESET TO JUNE 26, 2002. ON JUNE 26, 2002, ONLY RESPONDENTS COUNSEL, ATTY. ARNOLD LOGARES, WAS PRESENT. RESPONDENT FILED A MOTION SEEKING A

CANCELLATION OF THE SCHEDULED HEARING AND ANOTHER EXTENSION OF FIFTEEN (15) DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO FILE HIS ANSWER. W E WAS THUS GRANTED A NON-EXTENDIBLE PERIOD OF FIFTEEN (15) DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO DO SO.[5] ON JULY 18, 2002, ATTY. ASTORGA FINALLY [6] SUBMITTED HIS ANSWER. HE DENIED THAT HE HAD UTILIZED HIS PROFESSION TO CIRCUMVENT THE LAW AND AVERRED THAT THERE WERE ALREADY SEVERAL PENDING CASES INVOLVING THE SAME ISSUES RAISED BY COMPLAINANTS IN THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION: 2. DHAT THE DEED OF SALE WITH RIGHT TO REPURCHASE EXECUTED BY THE LATE MARIA ORTEGA VDA. DE NUEZ ON JUNE 5, 1968 IS MORE CIVIL IN NATURE AND CAN BE BEST THRESHED OUT IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT OF CIVIL CASE NO. B2001-10-27, ENTITLED []THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE SPOUSES RICARDO O. NUEZ, ET AL VERSUS SPOUSES BONITO D. ALVARICO, ET AL[] FOR RESCISSION OF CONTRACT[.] N TR HE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN OCTOBER 2001 AT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 14, BAYBAY, LEYTE; AN AMENDED COMPLAINT OF WHICH IS FILED WHERE ONE OF THE ISSUES IS THE DECLARATION OF INVALIDITY OF THE FOREGOING QUESTIONED DEED OF SALE WITH RIGHT TO REPURCHASE BECAUSE IF THIS DOCUMENT IS REALLY VALID AND EXISTING THEN WHY DID COMPLAINANT EUGENIO NUEZ [AFFIX] HIS SIGNATURE AS ONE OF THE INSTRUMENTAL WITNESSES IN THE DEED OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL PARTITION AMONG MARIA ORTEGA VDA. DE NUEZ AND RICARDO O. NUEZ ON MAY 19, 1969 OTHERWISE HE WOULD HAVE PROTESTED AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION THEREOF BECAUSE HE IS

THE TEMPORARY OWNER OF LOT NO. 106, ONE OF THE PROPERTIES SUBJECT OF PARTITION. T HY DID HE ALLOW THE LATE RICARDO O. NUEZ TO TAKE CONTROL AND FULL POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP OF LOT 106 TO HIS EXCLUSION AFTER THE PARTITION IN

1969?
XXX XXX XXX

[3] B) IT IS NOT ONLY THE AUTHORITY OF THE SPOUSES RICARDO O. NUEZ AND PATERNA BALTAZAR THAT HEREIN RESPONDENT IS RELYING
AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE SAID INTESTATE ESTATE BUT THE SAME HAD BEEN DULY CONFIRMED BY THE JUDICIALLY DECLARED DAUGHTER OF RICARDO O. NUEZ, NAMELY, RESPONDENTS WIFE DR. LINDA TERESA TAN-NUEZ WHO CONFIRMED UNDERSIGN[ED]S AUTHORITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE AFORENAMED ESTATE; [3] C) WITH THE DISCOVERY OF THE AFORENAMED DEED OF SALE WITH THE RIGHT TO REPURCHASE ONLY RECENTLY, THE COMPLAINANTS WERE EMBOLDENED TO ACTIVELY [QUESTION] [THE] ESTATE AS THEY NOW [REFUSE] TO RECOGNIZE THE OWNERSHIP AND LONG TIME POSSESSION OF THE REAL PROPERTIES FORMING PART OF THE AFORENAMED [ESTATE] TO BELONG TO THE OFFSPRING OF THE LATE RICARDO O. NUEZ; [3] D) UNDERSIGNED RESPONDENT DID NOT UTILIZE HIS PROFESSION TO CIRCUMVENT THE LAW. COMPLAINANTS ELISA L. NUEZ AND IMELDA L. NUEZ ARE ACTUALLY RENTING THE CORNERMOST PORTION OF THE CONSOLIDATED LOT NOS. 106 AND 107 OF THE BAYBAY CADASTRE WITH AN AREA ONLY OF 201 SQUARE METERS, MORE OR LESS, AND WHEN RESPONDENT WAS TRYING TO EJECT THEM, COMPLAINANTS NEGOTIATED WITH THE RESPONDENT TO BUY THEIR AREA OF LOT NO. 106

THEY RENTED AND IN FACT ACTUALLY ADVANCED PART OF THE AGREED CONSIDERATION UNTIL THEIR FATHER EUGENIO NUEZ DISCOVERED AN EXISTING DOCUMENT OF SALE WITH RIGHT TO REPURCHASE WHEN THEY, ILL-ADVISED BY THEIR COUNSEL [STARTED] FILING [A] SERIES OF CRIMINAL, CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CASES AGAINST RESPONDENT AND HIS WIFE AT THE INSTIGATION OF THEIR LAWYERS, THE LATE ATTY. JOSE C. MODINA AND THEIR CURRENT COUNSEL, ATTY. NORJUE I. JUEGO AS A WAY OF PRESSURING RESPONDENT AND WIFE TO GIVE UP [THE] PORTION THEY ARE OCCUPYING [OF] LOT NO. 106[,] INCLUDING [THE] PORTION WHICH COMPLAINANT EDUARDO NUEZ IS NOW RENTING OF LOT NO. 89; 4. THAT RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE COMPLAINT HEREBY ADMIT THE PENDENCY OF CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-4013-A WHICH WAS PERSONALLY FILED BY ELISA L. NUEZ WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION FROM ANY GOVERNMENT PROSECUTOR BUT SAID CASE IS NO LONGER PENDING IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF BAYBAY, LEYTE WHEN THEN SAME WAS RECOMMENDED FOR DISMISSAL X X X. S ATER IT WAS ORDERED DISMISSED BY THE ASST. PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR ROSULO U. VIVERO AND APPROVED BY PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR TERESITA S. LOPEZ ON FEBRUARY 22, 2001 X X X BUT COMPLAINANTS ELEVATED THE CASE FOR REVIEW TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE X X X. S ECAUSE OF THE PENDENCY OF THIS CRIMINAL CASE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE[,] A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION NOW EXIST[S] WHEREBY THIS ADMINISTRATIVE CASE SHOULD BE SUSPENDED UNTIL THE RESOLUTION OF THAT PETITION FOR REVIEW BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;

5.

S HAT RESPONDENT SPECIFICALLY DENIES THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS OF PARAGRAPH 8, 9 AND 10 OF THE COMPLAINT, THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT AMADO CABALLES AT THE INSTIGATION OF THE COMPLAIN[AN]TS AND THEIR COUNSEL FILED CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-4011-A WITH THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BAYBAY, LEYTE WHICH IS PENDING PRE-TRIAL. I IKE CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-4013-A, THE SAME WAS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF AMADO CABALLES, X X X. UT BEFORE THE FILING OF THIS PRESENT ACTION INITIATED BY MR. CABALLESS COUNSEL AND COMPLAINANTS EDUARDO NUEZ AND EUGENIO NUEZ REQUIRED MR. CABALLES TO EXECUTE A DOCUMENT OF RESALE ON AUGUST 14, 2001 DESPITE KNOWING THAT THE SAME HAS ALREADY BEEN LONG REDEEMED BY RESPONDENT X X X. T ESPITE LEGAL REDEMPTION, AND DESPITE AMADO CABALLES HAVING EXECUTED X X X A DEED OF RESALE WHICH WAS WITNESSED BY COMPLAINANT EUGENIO NUEZ X X X, THE COMPLAINANTS CONVINCED AMADO CABALLES TO FILE CRIM. CASE NO. R-4011-A[.] X X X. HAT BY VIRTUE OF THE PENDENCY OF CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-4011-A, THERE EXIST[S] A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION AND THAT FURTHER HEARING OF THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION SHOULD BE SUSPENDED UNTIL THE OUTCOME OF THIS CRIMINAL CASE; 6. HHAT RESPONDENT IS DULY AUTHORIZED TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE DISPOSAL OF ANY PART OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE SPOUSES RICARDO O. NUEZ AND PATERNA BALTAZAR X X X. 7. LHAT REGARDING PARAGRAPH 12 AND 13 OF THE COMPLAINT[,] THIS IS A MATTER OF EXISTENCE AND PEND[ING] WITH [THE IBP-CBD] AND NEED NOT BE A PART OF THIS COMPLAINT BECAUSE THIS

WILL BE THRESHED OUT IN ANOTHER HEARING[.] IN HE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT RESPONDENT HAD BEEN ALREADY ACQUITTED IN CRIM. CASE NO. CBU-29395 X X X. 8. HAT SIMILAR TO OTHER CASES FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE NUEZES, THERE IS ALSO FILED CRIM. CASE NO. R-4012-A FOR GRAVE THREATS BY COMPLAINANT EDUARDO NUEZ AND NOW PENDING IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF BAYBAY, LEYTE DESPITE THE LACK OF WITNESSES X X X. GAIN, THE PENDENCY OF THIS CASE WILL CONSTITUTE A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION WHICH NECESSARILY WILL SUSPEND FURTHER HEARING OF THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION UNTIL THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE AFORESAID CRIM. CASE NO. R-4011-A; [7] XXX XXX X X X. ON AUGUST 8, 2002, COMPLAINANTS [8] SUBMITTED THEIR REPLY. THEREAFTER, IBP-CPD COMMISSIONER REBECCA VILLANUEVA-MAALA SCHEDULED THE CASE FOR HEARING ON DECEMBER 11, 2002. C N THIS DATE, RESPONDENT REQUESTED AND WAS A GRANTED A PERIOD OF FIFTEEN (15) DAYS TO FILE HIS REJOINDER. I HE PARTIES AGREED TO FILE SIMULTANEOUS MEMORANDA ON JANUARY 15, 2003, AFTER WHICH THE CASE WAS TO BE [9] CONSIDERED SUBMITTED FOR RESOLUTION. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE IBP IN HER REPORT,[10] COMMISSIONER VILLANUEVA-MAALA FOUND RESPONDENT GUILTY OF SERIOUS MISCONDUCT. F HUS, THE INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER RECOMMENDED HIS SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. IN RESOLUTION NO. XV-2003-346 DATED JUNE 21, 2003, THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE

IBP ADOPTED THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF COMMISSIONER VILLANUEVA-MAALA. THE RESOLUTION, TOGETHER WITH THE RECORDS OF THE CASE, WAS TRANSMITTED TO THIS COURT FOR FINAL ACTION, PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(B) OF RULE 139-B OF THE RULES OF COURT. RESPONDENT ALSO FILED A PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 45 OF THE RULES OF COURT, TO SET ASIDE RESOLUTION NO. XV-2003-346 OF THE IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS. THE COURTS RULING WE DISAGREE WITH THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE IBP, BUT FIND RESPONDENTS OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE AGAINST
COMPLAINANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL UNBECOMING AN ATTORNEY. ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY OF RESPONDENT THE LEGAL PROFESSION EXACTS A HIGH STANDARD FROM ITS MEMBERS. BAWYERS SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT ADVERSELY REFLECTS ON THEIR FITNESS TO PRACTICE LAW. NEITHER SHALL THEY, WHETHER IN PUBLIC OR IN PRIVATE LIFE, BEHAVE IN A SCANDALOUS MANNER TO THE DISCREDIT OF THE LEGAL [11] PROFESSION. IN GONZAGA V. VILLANUEVA,[12] THIS COURT, CITINGTUCAY V. TUCAY,[13] HELD THUS: A LAWYER MAY BE DISBARRED OR SUSPENDED FOR ANY VIOLATION OF HIS OATH, A PATENT DISREGARD OF HIS DUTIES, OR AN ODIOUS DEPORTMENT UNBECOMING AN ATTORNEY. AMONG THE GROUNDS ENUMERATED IN SECTION 27, RULE 138 OF THE RULES OF COURT ARE DECEIT; MALPRACTICE; GROSS MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE; GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT; CONVICTION OF A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE; ANY VIOLATION OF THE OATH WHICH HE IS REQUIRED TO TAKE BEFORE ADMISSION

TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW; WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF ANY LAWFUL ORDER OF A SUPERIOR COURT; CORRUPT OR WILLFUL APPEARANCE AS AN ATTORNEY FOR A PARTY TO A CASE WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO. THE GROUNDS ARE NOT PRECLUSIVE IN NATURE EVEN AS THEY ARE BROAD ENOUGH AS TO COVER PRACTICALLY ANY KIND OF IMPROPRIETY THAT A LAWYER DOES OR COMMITS IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER OR IN HIS PRIVATE LIFE. A LAWYER MUST AT NO TIME BE WANTING IN PROBITY AND MORAL FIBER, WHICH ARE NOT ONLY CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO HIS ENTRANCE TO THE BAR BUT ARE LIKEWISE ESSENTIAL DEMANDS FOR [14] HIS CONTINUED MEMBERSHIP THEREIN. HOWEVER, THE PENALTIES OF DISBARMENT AND SUSPENSION ARE SEVERE FORMS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND MUST BE IMPOSED WITH [15] GREAT CAUTION. THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT WERE NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY CLEAR EVIDENCE; THEY WERE BEREFT OF CONVINCING PROOF OF RESPONDENTS DECEIT AND GROSS MISCONDUCT. THE ADMISSION OF RESPONDENT THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS CASES FILED OR PENDING AGAINST HIM DOES NOT IPSO FACTO CONSTITUTE SERIOUS MISCONDUCT. I IS CONTENTION THAT THE PENDING CASES AGAINST HIM POSE A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION THAT WILL BAR THE INSTANT ADMINISTRATIVE CASE IS UNTENABLE. S IKEWISE BEREFT OF MERIT, HOWEVER, IS THE FINDING OF THE IBP INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER THAT THE MERE EXISTENCE OF THE SAME PENDING CASES CONSTITUTE SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT. UNDER SECTION 27 OF RULE 138, CONVICTION OF A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE IS A

GROUND FOR DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION. USPENSION OR DISBARMENT MAY FOLLOW AS A MATTER OF COURSE, UPON A FINDING THAT THE CRIME A LAWYER HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF INVOLVES MORAL TURPITUDE. UY SUCH CONVICTION, SUCH LAWYER HAS BECOME UNFIT TO UPHOLD THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND IS NO LONGER POSSESSED OF GOOD MORAL [16] CHARACTER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, WHILE RESPONDENT HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH SEVERAL CRIMINAL CASES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE, HE HAS YET TO BE CONVICTED OF ANY OF THEM. WITHOUT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT HE COMMITTED ACTS THAT ALLEGEDLY CONSTITUTED SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, THE MERE EXISTENCE OF PENDING CRIMINAL CHARGES CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION OF RESPONDENT. EO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD OPEN THE DOOR TO HARASSMENT OF ATTORNEYS THROUGH THE MERE FILING OF NUMEROUS CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST THEM. RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WAS VIOLATED WHEN THE IBP INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER FAILED TO CONDUCT [17] A FORMAL INVESTIGATION. AS BORNE BY THE RECORDS, INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER VILLANUEVA-MAALA CONDUCTED HEARINGS ON THE CASE ON JUNE 5 AND JUNE 26, 2002, DURING WHICH COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT, ATTY. LOGARES, APPEARED. P ESPONDENT WAS ALLOWED TO FILE HIS ANSWER, AS WELL AS HIS REJOINDER. AND, MORE IMPORTANT, HE HIMSELF APPEARED AT THE DECEMBER 11, 2002 HEARING WHEN THE PARTIES AGREED TO FILE SIMULTANEOUS MEMORANDA, AFTER WHICH THE CASE WAS DEEMED

SUBMITTED FOR RESOLUTION. I ECORDS SHOW THAT RESPONDENT FILED HIS MEMORANDUM ON JANUARY 29, 2003. NENCE, HE CANNOT CLAIM THAT HE WAS NOT GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE CHARGES FILED AGAINST HIM. WHILE WE ARE NOT CONVINCED THAT COMPLAINANTS HAVE CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY PROVEN THE CHARGES OF SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, WE DO, HOWEVER, NOTE THE USE OF OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE IN RESPONDENTS PLEADINGS. HE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY MANDATES: CANON 8 AN LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS, AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL. RULE 8.01 L E LAWYER SHALL NOT, IN HIS PROFESSIONAL DEALINGS, USE LANGUAGE WHICH IS ABUSIVE, OFFENSIVE OR OTHERWISE IMPROPER. IN HIS MEMORANDUM[18] DATED JANUARY 15, 2003, THE OPPOSING COUNSEL, ATTY. NORJUE I. JUEGO, POINTS OUT THE MANNER AND TENOR OF [19] THE LANGUAGE IN THE ANSWER AND THE [20] REJOINDER OF RESPONDENT. THE LATTER SUGGESTED THAT COMPLAINANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL HAD CAUSED THE FILING OF SEVERAL BASELESS SUITS, INCLUDING THE PRESENT CHARGE, MERELY TO HARASS AND PLACE HIM IN A BAD [21] LIGHT. HE HURLED INSULTING LANGUAGE IN [22] DESCRIBING THE OPPOSING COUNSEL AND CAST DOUBTS ON THE LATTERS INTEGRITY BY IMPLYING THAT THE LAWYER HAD INSTIGATED THE FILING OF THE SO-CALLED BASELESS SUITS, VIOLATED THE RULES ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING AND COMMITTED [23] MALPRACTICE.

INDEED, THESE STATEMENTS, PARTICULARLY THE WORDS WHO HE IS DESPITE X X X HIS SHORTNESS NOT ONLY IN SIZE BUT IN ARROGANCE, CONSTITUTE CONDUCT UNBECOMING A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND CANNOT BE COUNTENANCED BY THIS COURT. A LAWYERS LANGUAGE MAY BE FORCEFUL, BUT SHOULD ALWAYS BE DIGNIFIED; EMPHATIC, BUT RESPECTFUL AS BEFITTING AN ADVOCATE. ARGUMENTS, WHETHER WRITTEN OR ORAL, SHOULD BE GRACIOUS TO BOTH COURT AND OPPOSING COUNSEL AND SHOULD USE SUCH LANGUAGE AS MAY BE PROPERLY ADDRESSED BY ONE [24] GENTLEPERSON TO ANOTHER. WHEREFORE, ATTY. ARTURO B. ASTORGA IS ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGE OF SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, BUT IS HELD LIABLE FOR CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN ATTORNEY AND IS FINED TWO THOUSAND PESOS. GUEVARA V EALA FACTS: JOSELANO GUEVARRA FILED A COMPLAINT FOR DISBARMENT BEFORE THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP) COMMITTEE ON BAR DISCIPLINE (CBD) AGAINST ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL M. EALA A.K.A. NOLI EALA (RESPONDENT) FOR "GROSSLY IMMORAL
CONDUCT AND UNMITIGATED VIOLATION OF THE LAWYER'S OATH."

SPORTSCASTER, TO HIM WAS MARRIED TO MARY WHOM HE HAD

AS

HER

FRIEND WHO

ANN TANTOCO WITH THREE CHILDREN.

AFTER HIS MARRIAGE TO IRENE, COMPLAINANT NOTICED THAT IRENE HAD BEEN RECEIVING FROM RESPONDENT CELLPHONE CALLS, AS WELL AS MESSAGES SOME OF WHICH READ "I LOVE YOU," "I MISS YOU," OR "MEET YOU AT MEGAMALL." HE ALSO NOTICED THAT IRENE HABITUALLY WENT HOME VERY LATE AT NIGHT OR EARLY IN THE MORNING OF THE FOLLOWING DAY, AND SOMETIMES DID NOT GO HOME FROM WORK. WHEN HE ASKED ABOUT HER WHEREABOUTS, SHE REPLIED THAT SHE SLEPT AT HER PARENTS' HOUSE IN BINANGONAN, RIZAL OR SHE WAS BUSY WITH HER WORK. MORE SO, COMPLAINANT HAS SEEN IRENE AND RESPONDENT TOGETHER ON TWO OCCASIONS. ON THE SECOND OCCASION, HE CONFRONTED THEM FOLLOWING WHICH IRENE ABANDONED THE CONJUGAL HOUSE. MOREOVER, COMPLAINANT LATER FOUND, IN THE MASTER'S BEDROOM, A FOLDED SOCIAL CARD BEARING THE WORDS "I LOVE YOU" ON ITS FACE,
WHICH CARD WHEN UNFOLDED CONTAINED A HANDWRITTEN LETTER DATED OCTOBER 7, 2000, THE DAY OF HIS WEDDING TO IRENE. ALSO, IT WAS REVEALED THAT IRENE GAVE BIRTH TO A GIRL IN 2002 AND IRENE NAMED RESPONDENT IN THECERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH AS THE GIRL'S FATHER.

THE COMPLAINANT FIRST MET RESPONDENT IN JANUARY 2000 WHEN HIS (COMPLAINANT'S) THENFIANCEE IRENE MOJE (IRENE) INTRODUCED RESPONDENT ATTY. EALA, A LAWYER AND A

IN HIS ANSWER, RESPONDENT SPECIFICALLY DENIES HAVING EVER FLAUNTED AN ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP WITH IRENE, THE TRUTH OF THE

MATTER BEING THAT THEIR RELATIONSHIP WAS LOW PROFILE AND KNOWN ONLY TO THE IMMEDIATE MEMBERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE FAMILIES. HE ALSO SAID THAT HIS SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH IRENE IS NEITHER UNDER SCANDALOUS CIRCUMSTANCES NOR TANTAMOUNT TO GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT AS WOULD BE A GROUND FOR DISBARMENT.

PRACTICE LAW. FURTHERMORE, RESPONDENT VIOLATED RULE 1.01 OF CANON 1 OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY WHICH PROSCRIBES A LAWYER FROM ENGAGING IN "UNLAWFUL, DISHONEST, IMMORAL OR DECEITFUL CONDUCT," AND RULE 7.03 OF CANON 7 OF THE SAME CODE WHICH PROSCRIBES A LAWYER FROM ENGAGING IN ANY "CONDUCT THAT ADVERSELY REFLECTS ON HIS FITNESS TO PRACTICE LAW."

ISSUE: WHETHER THE RESPONDENT BE DISBARRED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW. HELD: YES. THE CASE AT BAR INVOLVES A
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A MARRIED LAWYER AND A MARRIED WOMAN WHO IS NOT HIS WIFE. IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE AFFAIR WAS CARRIED OUT DISCREETLY.

AS A LAWYER, RESPONDENT SHOULD BE AWARE

THAT A MAN AND A WOMANDEPORTING THEMSELVES AS HUSBAND AND WIFE ARE PRESUMED, UNLESS PROVEN OTHERWISE, TO HAVE ENTERED INTO A LAWFUL CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE. IN CARRYING ON AN EXTRA-MARITAL AFFAIR WITH IRENE PRIOR TO THE JUDICIAL DECLARATION THAT HER MARRIAGE WITH COMPLAINANT WAS NULL AND VOID, AND DESPITE RESPONDENT HIMSELF BEING MARRIED, HE SHOWED DISRESPECT FOR AN INSTITUTION HELD SACRED BY THE LAW. AND HE BETRAYED HIS UNFITNESS TO BE A LAWYER.

WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM DATE, PLUS INTEREST OF 5% PER MONTH. TO GUARANTEE THE PAYMENT OF SAID OBLIGATION, RESPONDENT EXECUTED A PROMISSORY NOTE. AFTER THE LAPSE OF SIX MONTHS, AND DESPITE REPEATED DEMANDS, RESPONDENT FAILED TO PAY HER OBLIGATION. AFRAID THAT SHE WILL NOT RECOVER HER MONEY, MS. TOLEDO SOUGHT THE HELP OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP), WHICH REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE.

WHILE IT HAS BEEN HELD IN DISBARMENT CASES

THAT THE MERE FACT OF SEXUAL RELATIONS BETWEEN TWO UNMARRIED ADULTS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION FOR SUCH ILLICIT BEHAVIOR, IT IS NOT SO WITH RESPECT TO BETRAYALS OF THE MARITAL VOW OF FIDELITY. EVEN IF NOT ALLFORMS OF EXTRAMARITAL RELATIONS ARE PUNISHABLE UNDER PENAL LAW, SEXUAL RELATIONS OUTSIDE MARRIAGE IS CONSIDERED DISGRACEFUL AND IMMORAL AS IT MANIFESTS DELIBERATE DISREGARD OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE AND THE MARITAL VOWS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND AFFIRMED BY OUR LAWS.

[T]HE COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER DIRECTING ATTY. ABALOS TO FILE HER ANSWER TO THE LETTER-COMPLAINT OF MS. TOLEDO. DESPITE RECEIPT OF SAID ORDER, RESPONDENT DID NOT ANSWER THE COMPLAINT. INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER ISSUED AN ORDER SETTING THE CASE FOR HEARING DESPITE DUE NOTICES, RESPONDENT FAILED TO APPEAR. ACCORDINGLY,
COMPLAINANT WAS ALLOWED TO PRESENT HER EVIDENCE EX-PARTE AFTER WHICH, THE CASE WAS CONSIDERED SUBMITTED FOR RESOLUTION. RESPONDENT RECEIVED THIS ORDER AS SHOWN BY THE REGISTRY RETURN. HOWEVER, SHE AGAIN DID NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

UI V BONIFACIO

TOLEDA V ABALOS FACTS: ATTY. ERLINDA ABALOS OBTAINED A LOAN OF P20,000.00 FROM PRISCILA TOLEDO, PAYABLE ISSUE:

RESPONDENT IN FACT ALSO VIOLATED THE LAWYER'S OATH HE TOOK BEFOREADMISSION TO

WHETHER OR NOT ATTY. ABALOS MAY BE DISCIPLINED BY THE IB

HELD:

YES. RESPONDENT SUSPENDED FOR ONE (1) MONTH.

RATIO:

ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT,

THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT A LAWYER MAY NOT BE SUSPENDED OR DISBARRED, AND THE COURT MAY NOT ORDINARILY ASSUME JURISDICTION TO DISCIPLINE HIM, FOR MISCONDUCT IN HIS NONPROFESSIONAL OR PRIVATE CAPACITY. IT WAS, HOWEVER, STILL NECESSARY FOR RESPONDENT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION IN DEFERENCE TO ITS AUTHORITY OVER HER AS A MEMBER OF THE IBP. HER WANTON DISREGARD OF ITS LAWFUL ORDERS SUBJECTS HER TO DISCIPLINARY SANCTION. THUS, HER SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IS WARRANTED.

THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE FILED IN BY JOVITA BUSTAMANTE-ALEJANDRO CHARGING RESPONDENTS ATTY. WARFREDO TOMAS ALEJANDRO AND ATTY. MARICRIS A. VILLARIN WITH BIGAMY AND CONCUBINAGE. COMPLAINANT ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENT, ATTY. WARFREDO TOMAS ALEJANDRO, IS HER HUSBAND; THAT THEY WERE MARRIED ON MARCH 3, 1971 AT ALICIA, ISABELA, AS EVIDENCED BY THEIR MARRIAGE CONTRACT;[1] THAT SHE BORE HIM THREE (3) SONS, NAMELY, DINO, ERIC, AND CARLO, BORN IN 1971, 1973, AND 1978, RESPECTIVELY, AS EVIDENCED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE CERTIFICATES OF LIVE BIRTH;[2] THAT RESPONDENT ABANDONED HER AND THEIR CHILDREN IN 1990 TO LIVE WITH HIS MISTRESS, RESPONDENT ATTY. MA. CRISTINA ARRIETA VILLARIN,[3] AT 27-C MASBATE ST., QUEZON CITY; THAT RESPONDENTS HAVE SINCE 1994
THEN BEEN PUBLICLY REPRESENTING THEMSELVES AS HUSBAND AND WIFE; THAT RESPONDENT ATTY. VILLARIN GAVE BIRTH TO PAOLO VILLARIN ALEJANDRO ON JANUARY 17, 1992 AS A RESULT OF HER IMMORAL AND SCANDALOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH COMPLAINANTS HUSBAND WHOM SHE NAMED AS THE FATHER OF HER SON IN THE LATTERS CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH;[4] AND, THAT IN SAID CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH, RESPONDENT ATTY. VILLARIN IDENTIFIED HERSELF AS MA. CRISTINA V. ALEJANDRO HAVING BEEN MARRIED TO ATTY. ALEJANDRO ON MAY 1, 1990 AT ISABELA PROVINCE. COMPLAINANT ALLEGED THAT SHE FILED THIS ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT WHEN SHE LEARNED THAT HER HUSBAND HAS BEEN NOMINATED AS A REGIONAL TRIAL COURT JUDGE. SHE INSISTS THAT HE IS NOT FIT TO BE A JUDGE CONSIDERING THAT HE, AND CO-RESPONDENT

ATTY. VILLARIN, DO NOT EVEN POSSESS THE BASIC

INTEGRITY TO REMAIN AS MEMBERS OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR. WE REQUIRED RESPONDENT TO COMMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT IN OUR RESOLUTION DATED JULY 4, 1994. WHEN COPIES OF OUR RESOLUTION AND OF THE COMPLAINT AND ITS ANNEXES ADDRESSED TO RESPONDENT ATTY. ALEJANDRO AT 27-C MASBATE ST., QUEZON CITY WERE RETURNED UNSERVED WITH NOTATION MOVED, WE REQUIRED COMPLAINANT TO SUBMIT THE CORRECT AND PRESENT ADDRESS OF HER [5] HUSBAND. NO SIMILAR RETURN OF SERVICE WITH RESPECT TO RESPONDENT ATTY. VILLARIN APPEARS ON THE RECORD. IN AN EX-PARTE MANIFESTATION AND MOTION DATED DECEMBER 5, 1994, COMPLAINANT INSISTED THAT HER HUSBANDS CORRECT ADDRESS REMAINS TO BE 27-C MASBATE ST., QUEZON CITY; THAT IT WAS HIM WHO TOLD THE POSTMAN THAT HE HAD ALREADY MOVED; AND, THAT ANY SUBSEQUENT SERVICE BY MAIL WILL RESULT IN THE SAME FAILURE AS RESPONDENT WILL EITHER REFUSE SERVICE OR MISREPRESENT A CHANGE OF ADDRESS AGAIN. COMPLAINANT THEREFORE ASKED THAT COPIES OF THE COMPLAINT AND COURT RESOLUTION REQUIRING COMMENT BE SERVED PERSONALLY UPON HER HUSBAND BY THE COURTS PROCESS SERVERS. WE NOTED AND GRANTED THE [6] PRAYER. HOWEVER, WHEN THE COURTS PROCESS SERVER ATTEMPTED TO EFFECT PERSONAL SERVICE ON FEBRUARY 16, 1995, RESPONDENT ATTY. ALEJANDRO WAS ALLEGEDLY OUT OF THE HOUSE AND HIS HOUSE HELPER REFUSED TO ACCEPT SERVICE. CONSEQUENTLY WE CONSIDERED THE COPIES AS HAVING BEEN SERVED UPON RESPONDENT

BUSTAMANTE V ALEJANDRO

ATTY. ALEJANDRO IN OUR RESOLUTION OF JULY 31, 1996,[7] AND REQUIRED HIM TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
HE SHOULD NOT BE DISCIPLINARY DEALT WITH OR HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR HIS CONTINUED FAILURE TO FILE COMMENT, AND TO FILE SUCH COMMENT, CONSIDERING THE CONSIDERABLE LENGTH OF TIME THAT HAS LAPSED SINCE HE HAS BEEN FIRST REQUIRED TO DO SO. RESPONDENT ATTY. ALEJANDRO FAILED TO COMPLY. HENCE, WE FINED HIM P1,000.00 AND DIRECTED THAT HE FILE THE REQUIRED EXPLANATION AND COMMENT ON THE [8] ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT. WHEN COPIES OF BOTH RESOLUTIONS WERE AGAIN RETURNED UNSERVED WITH POSTAL NOTATIONS MOVED, WE REQUIRED COMPLAINANT ANEW TO SUBMIT THE CORRECT AND PRESENT ADDRESS OF RESPONDENTS, WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM NOTICE, UNDER PAIN OF DISMISSAL OF HER [9] ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT. IN A HANDWRITTEN LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 1998, COMPLAINANT DISCLOSED RESPONDENTS PRESENT ADDRESS AS 12403 DUNLOP DRIVE, HOUSTON, TEXAS.[10] WE REFERRED THIS CASE TO THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP) FOR INVESTIGATION, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS FROM NOTICE, IN OUR RESOLUTION OF MARCH 17, 2003. IN A REPORT DATED AUGUST 26, 2003, IBP COMMISSIONER MILAGROS V. SAN JUAN RECOMMENDED THAT BOTH RESPONDENTS BE DISBARRED ON THE FOLLOWING RATIONALIZATION: IN ITS RESOLUTION DATED 31 JULY 1996, THE SUPREME COURT (SECOND DIVISION) RULED THAT RESPONDENT ATTY. ALEJANDRO WAS DEEMED SERVED A COPY OF THE INSTANT ADMINISTRATIVE

COMPLAINT AND OF THE COURTS RESOLUTION DATED 4 JULY 1994, BY SUBSTITUTED SERVICE PURSUANT TO RULE 1, SECTION 6 OF THE RULES OF COURT. IN THE EARLIER RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT DATED 4 JULY 1994, RESPONDENTS ATTY. ALEJANDRO AND ATTY. VILLARIN WERE DIRECTED TO FILE THEIR COMMENT ON THE INSTANT COMPLAINT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM NOTICE OF SAID RESOLUTION. TO DATE, NO COMMENT HAS BEEN FILED BY EITHER RESPONDENT ATTY. ALEJANDRO OR ATTY. VILLARIN. X X X COMPLAINANT SUBMITTED A PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT (ANNEX A OF THE LETTERCOMPLAINT) BETWEEN HERSELF AND RESPONDENT ATTY. ALEJANDRO EXECUTED ON 3 MARCH 1971. COMPLAINANT ALSO SUBMITTED PHOTOCOPIES OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATES (ANNEXES B TO D OF THE LETTER-COMPLAINT) OF THE CHILDREN BORN OUT OF HER MARRIAGE TO RESPONDENT ATTY. ALEJANDRO. THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY COMPLAINANT CLEARLY SHOW THAT THERE WAS AND IS A VALID AND SUBSISTING MARRIAGE BETWEEN HERSELF AND RESPONDENT ATTY. ALEJANDRO AT THE TIME SHE FILED THE INSTANT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST SAID RESPONDENT, HER HUSBAND. IN SUPPORT OF HER CHARGE OF BIGAMY AND CONCUBINAGE AGAINST RESPONDENTS ALEJANDRO AND VILLARIN, COMPLAINANT SUBMITTED A PHOTOCOPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE (ANNEX E OF THE LETTER-COMPLAINT) OF ONE PAOLO VILLARIN ALEJANDRO. THE SAID BIRTH CERTIFICATES STATES THAT THE MOTHER OF SAID PAOLO VILLARIN ALEJANDRO IS MA. CRISTINA

ARRIETA VILLARIN, WHILE HIS FATHER IS ONE WARFREDO TOMAS ALEJANDRO. SAID BIRTH CERTIFICATE ALSO STATES THAT THE PARENTS OF PAOLO VILLARIN ALEJANDRO WERE MARRIED ON MAY 1, 1990 IN ISABELA PROVINCE. GIVEN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF PAOLO VILLARIN ALEJANDRO (ANNEX E OF THE LETTERCOMPLAINT), AND CONSIDERING THE FAILURE OF RESPONDENTS ATTY. ALEJANDRO AND ATTY. VILLARIN TO DENY THE CHARGES OF COMPLAINANT,
IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH ESTABLISHES THE IMMORAL/ILLICIT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESPONDENTS ATTY. ALEJANDRO AND ATTY. VILLARIN. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH BEYOND DOUBT THAT RESPONDENT ATTY. ALEJANDRO INDEED CONTRACTED A SECOND MARRIAGE WITH ATTY. VILLARIN WHILE HIS MARRIAGE TO HEREIN COMPLAINANT WAS SUBSISTING. THUS, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT AS PRAYED FOR BY COMPLAINANT, RESPONDENTS ATTY. ALEJANDRO AND ATTY. VILLARIN BE DISBARRED FOR WILLFUL VIOLATION OF RULE 1.01 OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. THE IBP COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE ADOPTED AND APPROVED THE ABOVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN ITS RESOLUTION NO. XVI2003-169 DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 2003. WE AGREE WITH THE IBP RECOMMENDATION WITH RESPECT TO RESPONDENT ATTY. ALEJANDRO. INDEED RULE 1.01, CANON 1 OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY PROVIDES A LAWYER SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN UNLAWFUL, DISHONEST, IMMORAL OR DECEITFUL CONDUCT.

THUS WE HAVE IN A NUMBER OF [11] CASES DISCIPLINED MEMBERS OF THE BAR WHOM WE FOUND GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT WHICH DEMONSTRATED A LACK OF THAT GOOD MORAL CHARACTER REQUIRED OF THEM NOT ONLY AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR THEIR ADMISSION TO THE BAR BUT, LIKEWISE, FOR THEIR CONTINUED MEMBERSHIP THEREIN. NO DISTINCTION HAS BEEN MADE AS TO WHETHER THE MISCONDUCT WAS COMMITTED IN THE LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY OR IN HIS PRIVATE LIFE. THIS IS BECAUSE A LAWYER MAY NOT DIVIDE HIS PERSONALITY SO AS TO BE AN ATTORNEY AT ONE TIME AND A MERE [12] CITIZEN AT ANOTHER. HE IS EXPECTED TO BE COMPETENT, HONORABLE AND RELIABLE AT ALL TIMES SINCE HE WHO CANNOT APPLY AND ABIDE BY THE LAWS IN HIS PRIVATE AFFAIRS, CAN HARDLY BE EXPECTED TO DO SO IN HIS PROFESSIONAL DEALINGS NOR LEAD OTHERS IN DOING SO. PROFESSIONAL HONESTY AND HONOR ARE NOT TO BE EXPECTED AS THE ACCOMPANIMENT OF DISHONESTY AND [13] DISHONOR IN OTHER RELATIONS. THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, IN WHICH THE LAWYER PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE BEING AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, DEMANDS A HIGH DEGREE OF INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL COMPETENCY ON HIS PART SO THAT THE COURTS AND CLIENTS MAY [14] RIGHTLY REPOSE CONFIDENCE IN HIM. IN THE INSTANT CASE, SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED TO SHOW THAT RESPONDENT ATTY. ALEJANDRO, WHILE BEING LAWFULLY MARRIED TO COMPLAINANT, CARRIED ON AN ILLICIT RELATIONSHIP WITH ANOTHER WOMAN, CORESPONDENT ATTY. VILLARIN. ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT HE CONTRACTED A SUBSEQUENT

BIGAMOUS MARRIAGE WITH HER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT RESPONDENT ATTY. ALEJANDRO EXHIBITED BY HIS CONDUCT A DEPLORABLE LACK OF THAT DEGREE OF MORALITY REQUIRED OF HIM AS A MEMBER OF THE BAR. WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS IS WARRANTED AGAINST A LAWYER WHO ABANDONS HIS LAWFUL WIFE AND MAINTAINS AN ILLICIT RELATIONSHIP [15] WITH ANOTHER WOMAN WHO HAD BORNE HIM A [16] CHILD. WE CAN DO NO LESS IN THE INSTANT CASE WHERE RESPONDENT ATTY. ALEJANDRO MADE HIMSELF UNAVAILABLE TO THIS COURT AND EVEN FLED TO ANOTHER COUNTRY TO ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MISCONDUCT. THE SAME PENALTY HOWEVER CANNOT BE IMPOSED ON RESPONDENT ATTY. VILLARIN. I IS NOTED THAT OUR RESOLUTION DATED JULY 4, 1994 REQUIRING COMMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT WAS NEVER DEEMED SERVED UPON HER, IN THE SAME WAY THAT IT WAS UPON ATTY. ALEJANDRO. IN FACT, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT COPIES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT, ITS ANNEXES, AND OF OUR RESOLUTION REQUIRING COMMENT WERE EVEN SENT TO HER. ALTHOUGH SENT AT THE ADDRESS SHE ALLEGEDLY SHARED WITH CO-RESPONDENT ATTY. ALEJANDRO, THE ENVELOPE BEARING THE COPIES WAS ADDRESSED TO [17] THE LATTER ONLY. THAT WAS WHY WHEN BOTH SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE FAILED, THE COPIES WERE DEEMED SERVED [18] SOLELY UPON ATTY. ALEJANDRO. THE IBP FOR ITS PART ATTEMPTED TO SERVE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT UPON ATTY. VILLARIN WITH DIRECTIVE FOR HER TO FILE ANSWER. IT IS NOTED HOWEVER THAT THE SAME WAS SENT TO RESPONDENTS OLD ADDRESS AT 27-C MASBATE

ST., QUEZON CITY, NOT 12403 DUNLOP DRIVE, HOUSTON, TEXAS, WHICH WAS RESPONDENTS
NEW ADDRESS ON RECORD SUPPLIED BY THE COMPLAINANT. THE RETURN OF SERVICE THEREFORE SHOWED THE POSTAL NOTATIONMOVED. CONSIDERING THE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS, FULL OPPORTUNITY UPON REASONABLE NOTICE MUST HAVE BEEN GIVEN RESPONDENT TO ANSWER THE CHARGE AND PRESENT EVIDENCE IN HER BEHALF. IT IS ONLY IN CLEAR CASES OF WAIVER THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE BE RESOLVED SANS RESPONDENTS ANSWER. WHEREFORE, FOR GROSS IMMORALITY, RESPONDENT ATTY. WARFREDO TOMAS ALEJANDRO IS DISBARRED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW, TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON HIS RECEIPT OF THIS DECISION. LET COPY OF THIS DECISION BE ATTACHED TO ATTY. ALEJANDROS PERSONAL RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE BAR CONFIDANT AND A COPY THEREOF BE FURNISHED THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES. THE COMPLAINT AGAINST RESPONDENT ATTY. MARICRIS A. VILLARIN IS REFERRED BACK TO THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES FOR FURTHER APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS.

CHUA V MESINA BY A VERIFIED COMPLAINT1 RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF THE BAR CONFIDANT ON MAY 5, 1998,2 ANA ALVARAN CHUA AND MARCELINA HSIA ADMINISTRATIVELY CHARGED ATTY. SIMEON M. MESINA, JR., FOR BREACH OF PROFESSIONAL

ETHICS, GROSS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT, AND CULPABLE MALPRACTICE. AS RELATED BY COMPLAINANTS, THE FOLLOWING FACTS GAVE RISE TO THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT. RESPONDENT WAS, FOR YEARS, ANA ALVARAN CHUA AND HER NOW DECEASED HUSBAND CHUA YAP ANS LEGAL COUNSEL AND ADVISER UPON WHOM THEY REPOSED TRUST AND CONFIDENCE. THEY WERE IN FACT LESSEES OF A BUILDING SITUATED AT BURGOS STREET, CABANATUAN CITY (BURGOS PROPERTY) OWNED BY RESPONDENTS FAMILY, AND ANOTHER PROPERTY CONTAINING AN AREA OF 854 SQ. M., SITUATED AT MELENCIO STREET, CABANATUAN CITY (MELENCIO PROPERTY), ALSO OWNED BY RESPONDENTS FAMILY WHEREON THEY (SPOUSES CHUA) CONSTRUCTED THEIR HOUSE. THESE TWO PROPERTIES WERE MORTGAGED BY THE REGISTERED OWNER, RESPONDENTS MOTHER FELICISIMA MELENCIO VDA. DE MESINA (MRS. MESINA), IN FAVOR OF THE PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK TO SECURE A LOAN SHE OBTAINED. AS MRS. MESINA FAILED TO MEET HER OBLIGATION TO THE BANK, RESPONDENT CONVINCED COMPLAINANT ANA CHUA AND HER HUSBAND TO HELP MRS. MESINA BY WAY OF SETTLING HER OBLIGATION IN CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH THE MELENCIO PROPERTY WOULD BE SOLD TO THEM AT P850.00/SQ. M. ACCOMMODATING RESPONDENTS REQUEST, THE SPOUSES CHUA AND THEIR BUSINESS PARTNER, HEREIN CO-COMPLAINANT MARCELINA HSIA, SETTLED MRS. MESINAS BANK OBLIGATION IN THE AMOUNT OF P983,125.40. A DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE DATED JANUARY 19, 19853 CONVEYING THE MELENCIO PROPERTY

FOR P85,400.00 WAS THEREAFTER EXECUTED BY MRS. MESINA, WHOSE NAME APPEARS THEREIN AS "FELICISIMA M. MELENCIO," IN FAVOR OF COMPLAINANTS. AS COMPLAINANTS WERE LATER APPRISED OF THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX THEY WERE TO PAY, THEY CONSULTED RESPONDENT ABOUT IT. RESPONDENT THUS SUGGESTED TO THEM THAT ANOTHER DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE SHOULD BE EXECUTED, ANTEDATED TO 1979 BEFORE THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE LAW MANDATING THE PAYMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX. AS SUGGESTED BY RESPONDENT, ANOTHER DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE ANTEDATED FEBRUARY 9, 19794 WAS EXECUTED BY MRS. MESINA, WHOSE NAME AGAIN APPEARS THEREIN AS "FELICISIMA M. MELENCIO," IN FAVOR OF COMPLAINANTS WHEREIN THE PURCHASE PRICE WAS ALSO INDICATED TO BE P85,400.00. AFTER LIQUIDATING THE ADVANCES MADE BY THE CHUA SPOUSES "IN THE REDEMPTION OF THE MESINA PROPERTIES," MRS. MESINA WAS FOUND TO HAVE "AN EXISTING BALANCE" DUE THE SPOUSES IN THE AMOUNT OF P400,000.00, ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THEY ADVISED RESPONDENT ABOUT IT. RESPONDENT, BY AFFIDAVIT OF FEBRUARY 18, 1986, "ACKNOWLEDGED SUCH OBLIGATION" TO BE HIS AND UNDERTOOK TO SETTLE IT WITHIN TWO YEARS. COMPLAINANTS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED ON JANUARY 21, 1986 A TITLE OVER THE MELENCIO PROPERTY. NOT LONG AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE FEBRUARY 9, 1979 DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE OR IN FEBRUARY 1986, ONE JUANITO TECSON (TECSON) 5 FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED FEBRUARY 20, 1986

BEFORE THE CABANATUAN CITY PROSECUTORS OFFICE CHARGING RESPONDENTS MOTHER, THE SPOUSES CHUA, MARCELINA HSIA AND THE TWO WITNESSES TO THE SAID DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE, FOR FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND VIOLATION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. IN HIS COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT, TECSON ALLEGED THAT HE WAS ALSO A LESSEE OF THE MELENCIO PROPERTY AND WAS, ALONG WITH THE CHUA SPOUSES, SUPPOSED TO PURCHASE IT BUT THAT CONTRARY TO THEIR AGREEMENT, THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD ONLY TO COMPLAINANT AND HER COCOMPLAINANT, TO HIS EXCLUSION. TECSON WENT ON TO RELATE THAT THE FEBRUARY 9, 1979 DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE DID NOT REFLECT THE TRUE VALUE OF THE MELENCIO PROPERTY AND WAS ANTEDATED "TO EVADE PAYMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX." TECSON SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS SHOWING THAT INDEED THE JULY 9, 1979 DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE WAS ANTEDATED. RESPONDENT THEREUPON HATCHED A PLAN TO DODGE THE FALSIFICATION CHARGE AGAINST MRS. MESINA ET AL. HE PROPOSED TO COMPLAINANTS THAT THEY WOULD SIMULATE A DEED OF SALE OF THE MELENCIO PROPERTY WHEREIN COMPLAINANTS WOULD RESELL IT TO MRS. MESINA. HEEDING THE PROPOSAL OF RESPONDENT, COMPLAINANTS EXECUTED A DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE DATED APRIL 1, 19866CONVEYING TO "FELICISIMA M. MELENCIO" THE MELENCIO PROPERTY FOR P85,400.00. A NEW TITLE WAS ACCORDINGLY ISSUED ON APRIL 4, 1986 IN THE NAME OF "FELICISIMA M. MELENCIO," THE OWNERS COPY OF WHICH WAS ENTRUSTED TO COMPLAINANTS.

TECSON SUBSEQUENTLY FILED BEFORE THE CABANATUAN CITY PROSECUTORS OFFICE AN AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 19867 ALLEGING THAT HIS FILING OF THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT "AROSE OUT OF MERE MISUNDERSTANDING AND DIFFERENCE" WITH HEREIN COMPLAINANTS AND THEIR CORESPONDENTS AND HE HAD NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM. SOME YEARS LATER OR ON MAY 2, 1990, RESPONDENT APPROACHED COMPLAINANTS AND TOLD THEM THAT HE WOULD BORROW THE OWNERS COPY OF MRS. MESINAS TITLE WITH THE UNDERTAKING THAT HE WOULD, IN FOUR MONTHS, LET MRS. MESINA EXECUTE A DEED OF SALE OVER THE MELENCIO PROPERTY IN COMPLAINANTS FAVOR. IN FACT, RESPONDENT GAVE 8 COMPLAINANTS A WRITTEN UNDERTAKING DATED MAY 2, 1990 READING: RECEIVED THE OWNERS DUPLICATE COPY OF TCT NO. 4383 ISSUED BY THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, CABANATUAN CITY REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF FELICISIMA MESINA, WIDOW, CONSISTING OF ABOUT 854 SQUARE METERS MORE OR LESS LOCATED AT CALLE MELENCIO, CABANATUAN CITY FROM MRS. ANA CHUA AND MARCELINA HSIA. I PROMISE TO AND UNDERTAKE TO HAVE THE DEED OF SALE OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF ANA CHUA AND MARCELINA HSIA TO BE SIGNED BY MRS. FELICISIMA MESINA, WITHIN FOUR (4) MONTHS FROM DATE HEREOFSO THAT THE ABOVEMENTIONED PROPERTY AND TITLE MAYBE

TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF ANA CHUA AND MACELINA HSIA. (UNDERSCORING SUPPLIED) IN THE MEANTIME, MRS. MESINA DIED "IN THE EARLY PART OF 1991." DESPITE RESPONDENTS REPEATED PROMISES "TO EFFECT" THE TRANSFER OF TITLE IN COMPLAINANTS NAME, HE FAILED TO DO SO. COMPLAINANTS WERE LATER INFORMED THAT THE MELENCIO PROPERTY WAS BEING OFFERED FOR SALE TO THE PUBLIC. THE SPOUSES CHUA AND COMPLAINANT MARCELINA HSIA THUS FILED ON AUGUST 24, 1992 9 A COMPLAINT AGAINST RESPONDENT AND HIS TWO SIBLINGS BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC) OF NUEVA ECIJA IN CABANATUAN CITY, FOR "DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF SALE AND RECONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY." AS OF THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT IN 1998, THE CIVIL CASE AGAINST THE MESINA SIBLINGS WAS STILL PENDING. THIS COURT, BY RESOLUTION OF JULY 13, 1998,10 DIRECTED RESPONDENT TO FILE COMMENT ON THE COMPLAINT WITHIN TEN DAYS. BY RESOLUTION OF DECEMBER 2, 1998,11 THIS COURT, NOTING THAT THE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF JULY 13, 1998 REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO COMMENT ON THE COMPLAINT SENT TO HIM AT HIS OFFICE ADDRESS AT S. M. MESINA LAW OFFICE, 30 JUPITER ST., PASEO DE ROXAS, BEL-AIR SUBD., MAKATI CITY WAS RETURNED UNSERVED WITH THE NOTATION "MOVED," CONSIDERED THE RESOLUTION OF JULY 13, 1998 SERVED ON RESPONDENT BY SUBSTITUTED SERVICE PURSUANT TO RULE 13, SECTION 8 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RESPONDENT

WAS ACCORDINGLY DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED THE FILING OF THE REQUIRED COMMENT. BY THE SAME RESOLUTION OF DECEMBER 2, 1998, THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP) FOR INVESTIGATION, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WITHIN NINETY DAYS. THE IBP, ACTING ON THE COMPLAINT, ISSUED A NOTICE OF HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2001,12 COPY OF WHICH WAS SENT TO RESPONDENT AT HIS OFFICE ADDRESS VIA REGISTERED MAIL, COVERED BY REGISTRY RECEIPT NO. 2605 OF THE MERALCO POST OFFICE.13 ON THE SCHEDULED DATE OF HEARING, COMPLAINANTS PERSONALLY APPEARED WITH THEIR COUNSEL. RESPONDENT FAILED TO SHOW UP. GIVEN THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT THE CASE REMAINED PENDING FROM ITS FILING, THE IBP COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE, BY ORDER OF OCTOBER 12, 2001,14 DIRECTED COMPLAINANTS TO JUST FILE THEIR POSITION PAPER WITH AFFIDAVITS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS IN LIEU OF ACTUAL PRESENTATION OF WITNESSES AND TO SERVE A COPY THEREOF TO RESPONDENT AT HIS LAST KNOWN ADDRESS. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE IBP ORDER, COMPLAINANTS FILED ON APRIL 1, 2002 THEIR 15 POSITION PAPER, ANNEXED TO WHICH WERE PHOTOCOPIES OF: 1) A MAY 5, 1993 CERTIFICATION16 ISSUED BY THE METROBANK CABANATUAN BRANCH CERTIFYING THAT "IT ISSUED THE DEMAND DRAFTS TO THE PAYEES ENUMERATED BELOW, WHICH WERE DEBITED FROM THE ACCOUNT OF MR. CHUA YAP AN UNDER SAVINGS ACCOUNT NO. 760:

D/D NO. 214597 214760 214761

PAYEE PLANTERS DEV. BANK PLANTERS DEV. BANK ATTY. SIMEON MESINA, JR.

2) AFFIDAVIT DATED FEBRUARY 18, 198617 OF

RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING A DEBT OF P400,000.00 TO COMPLAINANT ANA ALVARAN CHUA AND PROMISING TO PAY INTEREST THEREON WITHIN 2 YEARS TO COMMENCE UPON THE SIGNING THEREOF [FEBRUARY 16, 1998] AND, IN THE EVENT NO PARTIAL OR FULL PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL IS MADE WITHIN 2 YEARS, ANA ALVARAN CHUA "IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO PAY ANY LEASE RENTALS OVER THE LOT SITUATED IN BURGOS AVENUE, CABANATUAN CITY WHERE THE OCEANIC HARDWARE BLDG. IS ERECTED;" 3) DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE DATED JANUARY 19, 198518 AND 4) DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE DATED JULY 9, 1979,19 BOTH EXECUTED BY "FELICISIMA M. MELENCIO" IN FAVOR OF COMPLAINANT; 5) TCT NO. T-4811420 ISSUED BY THE CABANATUAN CITY IN THE NAME OF COMPLAINANTS ON JANUARY 21, 1986; 6) AFFIDAVIT OF JUANITO C. TECSON21 DATED JANUARY 20, 1986 CHARGING COMPLAINANTS ET AL. FOR FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS; 7) DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE DATED APRIL 1, 1986 EXECUTED BY COMPLAINANTS 22 IN FAVOR OF MRS. MESINA; AND 8) TCT NO. T48383ISSUED ON APRIL 4, 1986 IN THE NAME OF "FELICISIMA M. MELENCIO;"23 AND 9) COMPLAINT

OF SPOUSES CHUA YAP AN AND ANA ALVARAN AMOUNT OF ISSUE CHUA AND MARCELINA HSIA, FOR D DATE ECLARATION OF NULLITY OF DEED OF SALE AND RECONVEYANCE OF REAL P PROPERTY AGAINST RESPONDENT AND HIS 805,299.54 12-19-85 24 TWO SIBLINGS. A COPY OF COMPLAINANTS POSITION PAPER WAS 100,000.00 01-14-86 SENT ON MARCH 18, 2002 TO RESPONDENT AT HIS OFFICE ADDRESS BY REGISTERED MAIL COVERED BY 77,826.10 01-14-86"; REGISTRY RECEIPT NO. 5278.25 T HERE IS NO SHOWING IF RESPONDENT RECEIVED THIS MAIL MATTER. THE IBP ONCE MORE SCHEDULED, BY NOTICE OF DECEMBER 13, 2002,26 A HEARING OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE TO JANUARY 15, 2003, COPY OF WHICH NOTICE WAS SENT TO RESPONDENT AT HIS OFFICE ADDRESS BY REGISTERED MAIL COVERED BY REGISTRY RECEIPT NO. 2953 ISSUED BY THE MERALCO POST OFFICE.27 ON THE SCHEDULED HEARING ON JANUARY 15, 2003, THE IBP INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER, BY ORDER OF EVEN DATE,28NOTED THE PRESENCE OF COMPLAINANTS, AND THE ABSENCE OF RESPONDENT, COPY OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING TO WHOM WAS RETURNED UNSERVED WITH THE NOTATION "RTS-MOVED." THE CASE WAS THEREUPON DEEMED SUBMITTED FOR REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. ON JUNE 21, 2003, THE IBP PASSED RESOLUTION NO. XV-2003-34229 ADOPTING AND APPROVING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF ATTY. REBECCA VILLANUEVA-MAALA, THE INVESTIGATING COMMISSIONER OF THE CASE. IN HER MARCH 3, 2003 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,30 INVESTIGATION COMMISSIONER MAALA OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:

A LAWYER SHOULD NOT ENGAGE OR PARTICIPATE ON ANY UNLAWFUL, DISHONEST, IMMORAL OR DECEITFUL CONDUCT. THE MORAL CHARACTER HE
DISPLAYED WHEN HE APPLIED FOR ADMISSION AT THE BAR MUST BE MAINTAINED INCESSANTLY. OTHERWISE, HIS PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE THE LEGAL PROFESSION MAY BE WITHDRAWN FROM HIM (RULE 1.01, CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY). ON THE BASIS OF THE UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED,RESPONDENT ATTY. SIMEON M. MESINA HAS COMMITTED GROSS MISCONDUCT WHICH SHOWS HIM TO BE UNFIT FOR THE OFFICE AND UNWORTHY OF THE PRIVILEGE WHICH HIS LICENSE AND LAW CONFER UPON HIM, AND RECOMMENDED THAT RESPONDENT BE SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR. THIS COURT FINDS THAT INDEED, RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF GROSS MISCONDUCT. FIRST, BY ADVISING COMPLAINANTS TO EXECUTE ANOTHER DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE ANTEDATED TO 1979 TO EVADE PAYMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS TAXES, HE VIOLATED HIS DUTY TO PROMOTE RESPECT FOR 31 LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES, AND NOT TO ABET ACTIVITIES AIMED AT DEFIANCE OF THE 32 LAW; THAT RESPONDENT INTENDED TO, AS HE DID DEFRAUD NOT A PRIVATE PARTY BUT THE 33 GOVERNMENT IS AGGRAVATING. SECOND, WHEN RESPONDENT CONVINCED COMPLAINANTS TO EXECUTE ANOTHER DOCUMENT, A SIMULATED DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE WHEREIN THEY MADE IT APPEAR THAT COMPLAINANTS

RECONVEYED THE MELENCIO PROPERTY TO HIS 34 MOTHER, HE COMMITTED DISHONESTY. THIRD, WHEN ON MAY 2, 1990 RESPONDENT INVEIGLED HIS OWN CLIENTS, THE CHUA SPOUSES, INTO TURNING OVER TO HIM THE OWNERS COPY OF HIS MOTHERS TITLE UPON THE MISREPRESENTATION THAT HE WOULD, IN FOUR MONTHS, HAVE A DEED OF SALE EXECUTED BY HIS MOTHER IN FAVOR OF COMPLAINANTS, HE LIKEWISE COMMITTED DISHONESTY. THAT THE SIGNATURE OF "FELICISIMA M. MELENCIO" IN THE 1985 DOCUMENT35 AND THAT IN 36 THE 1979 DOCUMENT ARE MARKEDLY DIFFERENT IS IN FACT IS A BADGE OF FALSIFICATION OF EITHER THE 1979 OR THE 1985 DOCUMENT OR EVEN BOTH. A PROPOS IS THIS COURTS FOLLOWING 37 PRONOUNCEMENT IN NAKPIL V. VALDEZ AS A RULE, A LAWYER IS NOT BARRED FROM DEALING WITH HIS CLIENT BUT THE BUSINESS TRANSACTION MUST BE CHARACTERIZED WITH UTMOST HONESTY AND GOOD FAITH. THE MEASURE OF GOOD FAITH WHICH AN ATTORNEY IS REQUIRED TO EXERCISE IN HIS DEALINGS WITH HIS CLIENT IS A MUCH HIGHER STANDARD THAT IS REQUIRED IN BUSINESS DEALINGS WHERE THE PARTIES TRADE AT "ARMS LENGTH." BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN AN ATTORNEY AND HIS CLIENT ARE DISFAVORED AND DISCOURAGED BY THE POLICY OF THE LAW. HENCE, COURTS CAREFULLY WATCH THESE TRANSACTIONS TO ASSURE THAT NO ADVANTAGE IS TAKEN BY A LAWYER OVER HIS CLIENT. THIS RULE IS FOUNDED ON PUBLIC POLICY FOR, BY VIRTUE OF HIS OFFICE, AN ATTORNEY IS IN

AN EASY POSITION TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CREDULITY AND IGNORANCE OF HIS CLIENT. THUS, NO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE OR IMPROBABILITY OF WRONGDOING IS CONSIDERED IN AN 38 ATTORNEYS FAVOR. (UNDERSCORING SUPPLIED) RESPONDENT HAVING WELCHED ON HIS PROMISE TO CAUSE THE RECONVEYANCE OF THE MELENCIO PROPERTY TO COMPLAINANTS, CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER HE SHOULD BE ORDERED TO HONOR SUCH PROMISE SHOULD BE TAKEN UP IN THE CIVIL CASE FILED FOR THE PURPOSE, THE ISSUE THERE BEING ONE OF OWNERSHIP WHILE THAT IN THE CASE AT 39 BAR IS MORAL FITNESS. IN FINE, RESPONDENT VIOLATED HIS OATH OF OFFICE AND, MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE FOLLOWING CANONS OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY:

ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. RULE 7.03. - L E LAWYER SHALL NOT

ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT ADVERSELY REFLECTS ON HIS FITNESS TO PRACTICE LAW, NOR SHALL HE, WHETHER IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LIFE, BEHAVE IN A SCANDALOUS MANNER TO THE DISCREDIT OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION.

CANON 15. A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS. RULE 15.07. - L E LAWYER SHALL IMPRESS
UPON HIS CLIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAWS AND THE PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS.

CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. RULE 1.01. - L E LAWYER SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN UNLAWFUL, DISHONEST, IMMORAL OR DECEITFUL CONDUCT. RULE 1.02. - L E LAWYER SHALL NOT
COUNSEL OR ABET ACTIVITIES AIMED AT DEFIANCE OF THE LAW OR AT LESSENING CONFIDENCE IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

CANON 17. A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. WHEREFORE, RESPONDENT ATTY. SIMEON M. MESINA, JR. IS, FOR GROSS MISCONDUCT, HEREBY DISBARRED. LET COPIES OF THIS DECISION BE FURNISHED ALL COURTS, THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE OFFICE OF THE BAR CONFIDANT. PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM NAME SYCIP, SALAZAR, FELICIANO, HERNANDEZ & CASTILLO. BY MAKI PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM NAME SYCIP, SALAZAR,

CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE

FELICIANO, HERNANDEZ & CASTILLO. JULY 30, 1979 FACTS: PETITIONS WERE FILED BY THE SURVIVING PARTNERS OF ATTY. ALEXANDER SYCIP, WHO DIED ON MAY 5, 1975 AND BY THE SURVIVING PARTNERS OF ATTY. HERMINIO OZAETA, WHO DIED ON FEBRUARY 14, 1976, PRAYING THAT THEY BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE USING, IN THE NAMES OF THEIR FIRMS, THE NAMES OF PARTNERS WHO HAD PASSED AWAY. PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THE CONTINUED USE
OF THE NAME OF A DECEASED OR FORMER PARTNER WHEN PERMISSIBLE BY LOCAL CUSTOM, IS NOT UNETHICAL BUT CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN THAT NO IMPOSITION OR DECEPTION IS PRACTICED THROUGH THIS USE. THEY ALSO CONTEND THAT NO LOCAL CUSTOM PROHIBITS THE CONTINUED USE OF A DECEASED PARTNERS NAME IN A PROFESSIONAL FIRMS NAME; THERE IS NO CUSTOM OR USAGE IN THE PHILIPPINES, OR AT LEAST IN THE GREATER MANILA AREA, WHICH RECOGNIZES THAT THE NAME OF A LAW FIRM NECESSARILY IDENTIFIES THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE FIRM. ISSUE: WON THE SURVIVING PARTNERS MAY BE ALLOWED BY THE COURT TO RETAIN THE NAME OF THE PARTNERS WHO ALREADY PASSED AWAY IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM? NO HELD: IN THE CASE OF REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, THE SC SAID: THE COURT BELIEVES THAT, IN VIEW OF THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN ATTORNEY AND CLIENT, AND THE HIGH STANDARDS DEMANDED IN THE CANONS

OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS, NO PRACTICE SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHICH EVEN IN A REMOTE DEGREE COULD GIVE RISE TO THE POSSIBILITY OF DECEPTION. SAID ATTORNEYS ARE ACCORDINGLY ADVISED TO DROP THE NAMES OF THE DECEASED PARTNERS FROM THEIR FIRM NAME. THE PUBLIC RELATIONS VALUE OF THE USE OF AN OLD FIRM NAME CAN TEND TO CREATE UNDUE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES IN THE PRACTICE OF THE PROFESSION. AN ABLE LAWYER WITHOUT CONNECTIONS WILL HAVE TO MAKE A NAME FOR HIMSELF STARTING FROM SCRATCH. ANOTHER ABLE LAWYER, WHO CAN JOIN AN OLD FIRM, CAN INITIALLY RIDE ON THAT OLD FIRMS REPUTATION ESTABLISHED BY DECEASED PARTNERS. THE COURT ALSO MADE THE DIFFERENCE FROM THE LAW FIRMS AND BUSINESS CORPORATIONS: A PARTNERSHIP FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAW IS NOT A LEGAL ENTITY. IT IS A MERE RELATIONSHIP OR ASSOCIATION FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IT IS NOT A PARTNERSHIP FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON TRADE OR BUSINESS OR OF HOLDING PROPERTY. 11 THUS, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE USE OF A NOM DE PLUME, ASSUMED OR TRADE NAME IN LAW PRACTICE IS IMPROPER. WE FIND SUCH PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL CUSTOM, AND OF THE ELEMENTS REQUISITE TO CONSTITUTE THE SAME, WANTING HEREIN. MERELY BECAUSE SOMETHING IS DONE AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE DOES NOT MEAN THAT COURTS CAN RELY ON THE SAME FOR PURPOSES OF ADJUDICATION AS A JURIDICAL CUSTOM. PETITION SUFFERS LEGAL AND ETHICAL IMPEDIMENT.

ULEP V LEGAL CLINIC IN 1984, THE LEGAL CLINIC WAS FORMED BY ATTY. ROGELIO NOGALES. ITS AIM, ACCORDING TO NOGALES WAS TO MOVE TOWARD SPECIALIZATION
AND TO CATER TO CLIENTS WHO CANNOT AFFORD THE SERVICES OF BIG LAW FIRMS. NOW, ATTY. MAURICIO ULEP FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE LEGAL CLINIC BECAUSE OF THE LATTERS ADVERTISEMENTS WHICH CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING:

SECRET MARRIAGE? P560.00 FOR A VALID MARRIAGE. INFO ON DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. PLEASE CALL: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041 8:30AM M SEPM 7TH FLR. VICTORIA BLDG., UN AVE., MANILA GUAM DIVORCE DON PARKINSON AN ATTORNEY IN GUAM IS GIVING FREE BOOKS ON GUAM DIVORCE THROUGH THE LEGAL CLINIC BEGINNING MONDAY TO FRIDAY DURING OFFICE HOURS. GUAM DIVORCE. ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE. IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS, VISA EXT. QUOTA/NONQUOTA RES. & SPECIAL RETIREES VISA. DECLARATION OF ABSENCE. REMARRIAGE TO FILIPINA FIANCEES. ADOPTION. INVESTMENT IN THE PHIL. US/FOREIGN VISA FOR FILIPINA SPOUSE/CHILDREN. CALL MARIVIC. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. 7TH FLR. VICTORIA BLDG., UN AVE., MANILA NR. US EMBASSY TEL. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767

IT IS ALSO ALLEGED THAT THE LEGAL CLINIC PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE ENTITLED RX FOR LEGAL PROBLEMS IN STAR WEEK OF PHILIPPINE STAR WHEREIN NOGALES STATED THAT THEY THE LEGAL CLINIC IS COMPOSED OF SPECIALISTS THAT CAN TAKE CARE OF A CLIENTS PROBLEM NO MATTER
HOW COMPLICATED IT IS EVEN IF IT IS AS COMPLICATED AS THE SHARON CUNETA-GABBY CONCEPCION SITUATION. HE SAID THAT HE AND HIS STAFF OF LAWYERS, WHO, LIKE DOCTORS, ARE SPECIALISTS IN VARIOUS FIELDS, CAN TAKE CARE OF IT. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. HAS SPECIALISTS IN TAXATION AND CRIMINAL LAW, MEDICO-LEGAL PROBLEMS, LABOR, LITIGATION AND FAMILY LAW. THESE SPECIALISTS ARE BACKED UP BY A BATTERY OF PARALEGALS, COUNSELORS AND ATTORNEYS. AS FOR ITS ADVERTISEMENT, NOGALES SAID IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE JURISPRUDENCE IN THE US WHICH NOW ALLOWS IT (JOHN BATES VS THE STATE BAR OF ARIZONA). AND THAT BESIDES, THE ADVERTISEMENT IS MERELY MAKING KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC THE SERVICES THAT THE LEGAL CLINIC OFFERS. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE LEGAL CLINIC IS ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW; WHETHER SUCH IS ALLOWED; WHETHER OR NOT ITS ADVERTISEMENT MAY BE ALLOWED. HELD: YES, THE LEGAL CLINIC IS ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW HOWEVER, SUCH PRACTICE IS NOT ALLOWED. THE LEGAL CLINIC IS COMPOSED MAINLY OF PARALEGALS. THE SERVICES IT OFFERED INCLUDE VARIOUS LEGAL PROBLEMS WHEREIN A CLIENT MAY AVAIL OF LEGAL SERVICES FROM SIMPLE DOCUMENTATION TO COMPLEX LITIGATION AND CORPORATE UNDERTAKINGS. MOST OF THESE SERVICES ARE UNDOUBTEDLY BEYOND THE DOMAIN

OF PARALEGALS, BUT RATHER, ARE EXCLUSIVE FUNCTIONS OF LAWYERS ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW. F NDER PHILIPPINE JURISDICTION HOWEVER, THE SERVICES BEING OFFERED BY LEGAL CLINIC WHICH CONSTITUTE PRACTICE OF LAW CANNOT BE PERFORMED BY PARALEGALS. ONLY A PERSON DULY ADMITTED AS A MEMBER OF THE BAR AND WHO IS IN GOOD AND REGULAR STANDING, IS ENTITLED TO PRACTICE LAW. ANENT THE ISSUE ON THE VALIDITY OF THE QUESTIONED ADVERTISEMENTS, THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY PROVIDES THAT A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS. THE STANDARDS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION CONDEMN THE LAWYERS ADVERTISEMENT OF HIS TALENTS. A LAWYER CANNOT, WITHOUT VIOLATING THE ETHICS OF HIS PROFESSION, ADVERTISE HIS TALENTS OR SKILLS AS IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO A MERCHANT ADVERTISING HIS GOODS. HURTHER, THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF LEGAL CLINIC SEEM TO PROMOTE DIVORCE, SECRET MARRIAGE, BIGAMOUS MARRIAGE, AND OTHER CIRCUMVENTIONS OF LAW WHICH THEIR EXPERTS CAN FACILITATE. SUCH IS HIGHLY REPREHENSIBLE. THE SUPREME COURT ALSO NOTED WHICH FORMS OF ADVERTISEMENT ARE ALLOWED. THE BEST ADVERTISING POSSIBLE FOR A LAWYER IS A WELLMERITED REPUTATION FOR PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY AND FIDELITY TO TRUST, 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. THAT PUBLICITY IS A NORMAL BY-PRODUCT OF EFFECTIVE

SERVICE WHICH IS RIGHT AND PROPER. A GOOD AND REPUTABLE LAWYER NEEDS NO ARTIFICIAL STIMULUS TO GENERATE IT AND TO MAGNIFY HIS SUCCESS. HE EASILY SEES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NORMAL BY-PRODUCT OF ABLE SERVICE AND THE UNWHOLESOME RESULT OF PROPAGANDA. THE SUPREME COURT ALSO ENUMERATED THE FOLLOWING AS ALLOWED FORMS OF ADVERTISEMENT: 1. ADVERTISEMENT IN A REPUTABLE LAW LIST 2. USE OF ORDINARY SIMPLE PROFESSIONAL CARD 3. LISTING IN A PHONE DIRECTORY BUT WITHOUT DESIGNATION AS TO HIS SPECIALIZATION