You are on page 1of 1

Grande vs Atty Silva Pursuant to the Code of Professional Responsibility under Canon 1, it was stated

that:
Facts: A Lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
Emilio Grande, the complainant, filed an Estafa case against Sergio Natividad. respect for Legal Processes.
During the proceedings, Atty Silva, acting as the counsel of the accused, issued a
check amounting to P144, 768 sufficient enough to pay the debt of the accused. Atty Silvas persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders directed at her without
The complainant initially refused to accept but Atty Silva assured him that as a any explanation is a clear violation of her oath.
lawyer, she will not issue a check that is not sufficiently funded.
The complainant desisted from his complaint and Sergio Natividad was then Atty. Ecraela vs Atty. Pangalangan
released.
Facts:
However, when Emilio deposited the check, it was declined as the account was Atty Roy Ecraela and Atty Ian Pangalangan were bestfriend and both graduated
already closed. Emilio then wrote a letter to the respondent lawyer to pay the face from UP College of Law.
value but the latter ignored his demand.
Atty Pangalangan was formerly married to Sheial P. Jardiolin whom he had 3
Emilio then instituted a criminal complaint against Atty Silva of Estafa and violation children. From 1990 2007, it was alleged by Atty Exraela that Atty Pangalangan
of BP22. Few months after, Emilio proceeded to file an administrative complaint of was involved in a series of adulterous and illicit relationships with 5 women (AAA,
disbarment for deceit and violation of Lawyers oath. BBB, CCC, DDD & EEE). There was an instance that his relationship with 2 women
had overlapped at 1 time.
Atty Silva failed and refused to accept the notice of the complaints.
Atty Pangalangan was also involved in sabotaging MIAAs case in cancellation
The Investigating Commisioner of found Atty Silva guilty of deceit, gross misconduct proceedings in favor of Kendrick Development Corp. That despite being a public
and violation of the Lawyers Oath and thereby recommending for the suspension of office, he conspired with Atty Espejo, then counsel of KDC.
the respondent for 2 years.
The respondent even bribed the OSG in exchange of a favorable decision to dismiss
Issue: WON, Estafa is a ground for violation of the Lawyers Oath? the cancellation proceedings in favor of KDC. In return, he was awarded with a
Toyota Corolla XL. In the involvement in the MIAA case, he was summoned by
Ruling: Senate in an inquiry and was then recommended for disbarment for grave
Yes. misconduct and violation of the RPC.
The issuance of an unfunded check is a clear manifestation of deceit, immoral
conduct thus violation of the Lawyers Oath. Atty Silva, deceived the complainant He even abused his authority as an educator when he induced his male students to
into withdrawing his complaint against Emilio, her client, in exchange for a check engage in nocturnal preoccupations and entertained romantic gestures of his
she drew against a closed account. female students in exchange of passing their grades.

LEGAL ETHICS 1