This instant administative case arose from a verified complaint for disbarment filed by complainant
complainant Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares (complainant) against respondent Atty. Roberto "Argee" C.
Guevarra (respondent) for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainant is the Medical Director and principal stockholder of the Belo Medical Group, Inc. (BMGI), a
corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws 2 and engaged in the specialized field of
cosmetic surgery.3 On the other hand, respondent is the lawyer of a certain Ms. Josefina "Josie" Norcio
(Norcio ), who filed criminal cases against complainant for an allegedly botched surgical procedure on her
buttocks in 2002 and 2005, purportedly causing infection and making her ill in 2009.

In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on his Facebook account insulting and verbally abusing
complainant. The complaint further alleged that respondent posted remarks on his Facebook account that were
intended to destroy and ruin BMGI's medical personnel, as well as the entire medical practice of around 300
employees for no fair or justifiable cause. His posts include the following excerpts:

Argee Guevarra Quack Doctor Becky Belo: I am out to get Puwitic Justice here! Kiss My Client’s Ass, Belo.
Senator Adel Tamano, don’t kiss Belo’s ass. Guys and girls, nagiisip na akong tumakbo sa Hanghalan 2010 to
Kick some ass!!! I will launch a national campaign against Plastic Politicians -No guns, No goons, No gold -IN

Argee Guevarra Dr. Vicki Belo, watch out for Josefina Norcio’s Big Bang on Friday -You will go down in
BLOOMBERG, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, L.A. TIMES c/o my partner in the U.S., Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles
�� (September 22 at 11:18pm)

Argee Guevarra is amused by a libel case filed by Vicki Belo against me through her office receptionist in
Taytay Rizal. Haaaaay, style-bulok at style-duwag talaga. Lalakarin ng Reyna ng Kaplastikan at Reyna ng
Payola ang kaso … si Imelda Marcos nga sued me for P300 million pesos and ended up apologizing to me, si
Belo pa kaya? (September 15 at 12:08pm

Argee Guevarra get vicki belo as your client!!! may ‘extra-legal’ budget yon. Kaya Lang, bistado ko na kung
sino-sino ang tumatanggap eh, pag nalaman mo, baka bumagsak pa isang ahensya ng gobyerno dito, hahaha
(August 9 at 10:31pm)

MAGKANONG PANGSUHOL NJ BELO PARA MADIIN AKO HA???? I just [want] to know how much
she hates me, ok? Ang payola budget daw niya runs into tens of millions …. (September 15 at 3:57pm) xxx
xxx xxx
Asserting that the said posts, written in vulgar and obscene language, were designed to inspire public hatred,
destroy her reputation, and to close BMGI and all its clinics, as well as to extort the amount of P200 Million
from her as evident from his demand letter dated August 26, 2009, complainant lodged the instant complaint
for disbarment against respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), docketed as CBD Case
No. 09-2551.

In defense, respondent claimed that the complaint was filed in violation of his constitutionally-guaranteed right
to privacy, asserting that the posts quoted by complainant were private remarks on his private account on
Facebook, meant to be shared only with his circle of friends of which complainant was not a part. He also
averred that he wrote the posts in the exercise of his freedom of speech, and contended that the complaint was
filed to derail the criminal cases that his client, Norcio, had filed against complainant. He denied that the
remarks were vulgar and obscene, and that he made them in order to inspire public hatred against complainant.

This intention can materialize in cyberspace through the utilization of Facebook's privacy tools. Whether respondent can validly invoke his right to privacy. 2. the respective Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or who was tagged can view the post. respondent pointed out that complainant was a public figure who is. and 4. utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation. 3. Thus. A good number of Facebook users "befriend" other users who are total strangers. self-serving. the subject of fair comment. The user's own Facebook friend can share said content or tag his or her own Facebook friend thereto. 2. Facebook -it is first necessary that said user manifests the intention to keep certain posts private. through the employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. or that he restricted its privacy to a select few. regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter is Face book friends or not with the former. however. the latter has failed to offer evidence that he utilized any of the privacy tools or features of Facebook available to him to protect his posts. as well as the civil case for damages against her. Calling complainant a "quack doctor. like all constitutional freedoms. he invokes his right to privacy." and "Reyna ng Kapalpakan. insult others. thus deserving scant consideration." Under the circumstances. usually by the hundreds. or "tag" others who are not Facebook friends with the former. As such. is not absolute. respondent's statement is. even if the Court were to accept respondent's allegation that his posts were limited to or viewable by his "Friends" only." "Reyna ng Kaplastikan. Before. The defense is untenable. were visible only to him and his circle of friends." "Reyna ng Payola. when complainant accessed the same. Also. restricting the privacy of one's Facebook posts to "Friends" does not guarantee absolute protection from the prying eyes of another user who does not belong to one's circle of friends. when the post is shared or when a person is tagged. it has been held that the freedom of speech and of expression. Finally. can have an expectation of privacy in his or her online social networking activity -in this case. As to the second issue. the privacy setting of which was set at "Friends. in light of the following: 1. respondent's claim of violation of right to privacy is negated. ISSUES: 1. in the cyber world.He likewise denied that he attempted to extort money from her. there is no assurance that the same -or other digital content that he uploads or publishes on his Facebook profile -will be safeguarded as within the confines of privacy. explaining that he sent the demand letter as a requirement prior to the filing of the criminal case for estafa. claiming that they were "private remarks" on his "private account" that can only be viewed by his circle of friends. Facebook "allows the world to be more open and connected by giving its users the tools to interact and share in any conceivable way". A punctilious scrutiny of the Facebook remarks complained of disclosed that they were ostensibly made with malice tending to insult and tarnish the reputation of complainant and BMGI. In defense. However. In other words. Moreover. therefore. destroy their name or reputation or bring them into disrepute. Therefore. without any positive evidence to corroborate his statement that the subject posts. The bases of the instant complaint are the Facebook posts maligning and insulting complainant. Thus. RULING: Respondent never denied that he posted the purportedly vulgar and obscene remarks about complainant and BMGI on his Facebook account. the constitutional right of freedom of expression may not be availed of to broadcast lies or half-truths. The sheer number of "Friends" one user has. she violated his constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. despite its being visible only to his or her own Facebook friends. therefore. A user's Facebook friend can "share" the former's post. Whether respondent can validlyn invoke freedom of speech. at best. which posts respondent insists were set to private view. of the user's invocation of his or her right to informational privacy." and insinuating that she . as well as the comments thereto.

03 -A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. Rule 8. participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. Rule 19. 8. and his act of publicly insulting and undermining the reputation of complainant through the subject Facebook posts are.03. labeling BMGI a "Frankenstein Factory. He even threatened complainant with conviction for criminal negligence and estafa -which is contrary to one's obligation "to act with justice." In view of the foregoing. That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore. respondent disregarded the fact that. that is. It is the cardinal condition of all criticism that it shall be bona fide. and decent. respectful.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. for which reason the former must be administratively sanctioned. in his professional dealings. effective upon his receipt of this Decision. use language which is abusive.01 -A lawyer shall not. By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and BMGI. and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. therefore. as well as BMGI. he used words unbecoming of an officer of the law. be it in his public or private life. nor shall he. respondent Atty. whether in public or private life. WHEREFORE. Instead.01. a public personage who is exposed to criticism does not justify respondent's disrespectful language. In this case. He overlooked the fact that he must behave in a manner befitting of an officer of the court. he is bound to observe proper decorum at all times. offensive or otherwise improper." and calling out a boycott of BMGI's services -all these despite the pendency of the criminal cases that Norcio had already filed against complainant. firm. and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Roberto "Argee" C. . respondent's inappropriate and obscene language. he acted inappropriately and rudely. Respondent also ascribed criminal negligence upon complainant and BMGI by posting that complainant disfigured ( "binaboy ") his client Norcio.has been bribing people to destroy respondent smacks of bad faith and reveals an intention to besmirch the name and reputation of complainant. and conducted himself in an aggressive way by hurling insults and maligning complainant's and BMGI' s reputation. Guevarra is found guilty of violation of Rules 7. and 19. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.01 -A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present. respondent's remarks against complainant breached the said walls. in complete and utter violation of the following provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 7. as a lawyer.

. Subsequently. Petitioners contend that such testimonial was only signed by its President. The court finds this as manipulative and gross dishonesty on the part of the respondent. The commission of his offense itself is devoid of honesty. they find respondent unfit to be a member of the law profession therefore it recalled the court resolution of allowing the respondent to take oath. they find Sabandal to have concealed the civil case brought against him in the course of his series of petitions to be allowed to take oath together with the testimonies attesting to his good moral character without any mention of the pending case against him. Tan already forgave the respondent and withdrew her opposition for the taking of oath of office of the respondent while the other 2 petitioners leave upon the court to decide. With the practice of law a matter of privilege and not as a right. a counsel for the in-laws of Sabandal. The court allowed the IBP to manifest testimony to certify as to the good moral character of the respondent and asked for a comment from the RTC Judge in Zamboanga. Members of the IBP manifested that they see no impediments as to the moral character of Sabandal while the RTC Judge informed the court of the civil case against the respondent concerning the mortgaged land which he secured for a free patent which turned out to be a swampland and not susceptible for acquisition for a free patent.TAN VS SABANDAL FACTS: Petitioner files a motion for reconsideration after the court allows respondent to finally take oath and practice the law profession after considering his plea for forgiveness and showing willingness to reform along with testimonials attesting to his good moral character among which is a testimonial by the IBP Zamboanga. Although there were testimonials on his good moral characters those were made without any knowledge of the case against him. The civil case however was settled amicably and the respondent was not charged of any crime. without the authorization of the IBP Board members. ISSUE: WON Sabandal should be allowed to take oath of office RULING: The court ruled that in the development of the case.

Because of their failure to pay the amounts. and due to this assurance the spouses signed the REM. . As to the 2nd cause of action. The spouses paid such usurious interest for 3 months. The acts of Decena as to the 1st cause of action constitute deception. This loan was secured by a real estate mortgage. They failed to pay their obligation and so Decena acquired their property in pulic auction and later sold it to Trinidad Ylanan for P12K. complainants (spouses Erlinda Dalman & Narciso Melendrez) obtained from Atty. Decena collected from the spouses P500/month as usurious interest. Decena then entered into a compromise agreement with Pineda. new contract of mortgage in the amount of P10K with interest at 19%/annum. Reynerio Decena (Decena) a loan of P4K.Decena’s failure to turn over to the spouses the money underscores his lack of honesty and candor in dealing with his clients. Decena clearly failed to get the consent of the spouses before entering into a compromise. ISSUE: W/N Decena’s acts show gross misconduct and should therefore be disbarred HELD: Yes.It was made to appear in the REM that the amount borrowed was P5K. Decena drafted a new REM. a special power of attorney authorizing Decena to sell the mortgaged property in public auction. Decena shall be disbarred. Second Cause of Action Spouses filed a case for estafa against Reynaldo Pineda for recovery of P2K.4K.The spouses never knew the implications of the new REM. 1975. With shattered hopes and grief in their hearts (andrama!). Pineda then paid P500 to Decena. DECENA FACTS: First Cause of Action On Aug. the spouses filed this case for disbarment. Decena also failed to inform the spouses or turn over to them the P500 given to him by Pineda as downpayment for the settlement of the case. dishonesty and conduct unbecoming a member of the bar. Decena assured the spouses that the REM was a mere formality.Spouses then went to Decena with P10K in the hopes of getting their property back. 5.Despite the assurance.MELENDREZ VS. This settlement was never brought to the attention of the spouses nor were they ever consulted about such. Decena then informs them that their debt has soared to P20.

RULING: One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character. respondent allegedly convinced complainant to sign an Affidavit of Disclaimer which the latter signed without reading the said affidavit. Vitug sought the service of respondent Atty. immoral or deceitful conduct. Complainant argues that respondent's acts constitute a violation of his oath as a lawyer. ON THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED: Complainant does not deny being a college graduate or that she knows and understands English. financial security for her daughter. Rongcal who was introduced to her by a common friend. We believe that complainant’s allegations of deceit were not established by clear preponderant evidence required in disbarment cases. The Affidavit is written in short and simple sentences that are understandable even to a layman. . ISSUE: WON respondent be disbarred for immorality. The inevitable conclusion is that she signed the Affidavit voluntarily and without any coercion whatsoever on the part of respondent.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely. It was said that Aquino will give complainant a lump sum provided she would execute an affidavit to the effect that Aquino is not the father of her daughter. Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Set Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the IBP and a Motion to Reopen/Remand Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the Supreme Court. We are left with the most logical conclusion that she freely and wittingly entered into an illicit and immoral relationship with respondent sans any misrepresentation or deceit on his part. Said requirement persists as a continuing condition for the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice. respondent also gave her sweet inducements such as the promise of a job. dishonest. Rongcal GUILTY of immorality and imposes on him a FINE of P15. This court finds Atty. Diosdado M. the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. otherwise. It was not unlawful for respondent to assist his client in entering into a settlement with Aquino after explaining all available options to her. She filed an administrative case against Rongcal which was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines which recommended the suspension of Rongcal from the practice of law. The same was approved by the IBP Board of Governors. We find credence in respondent's assertion that it was impossible for her not to have known of his subsisting marriage. The law encourages the amicable settlement not only of pending cases but also of disputes which might otherwise be filed in court. ON SEXUAL RELATION AND ON RESPONDENT’S SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE: By his own admission. According to Vitug. herein complainant and respondent started having sexual relationship with each other. respondent is obviously guilty of immorality in violation of Rule 1. Rongcal to represent her in the support case she was going to file against her former lover. RONGCAL FACTS: Catherine Joie P.000.01 of the Code which states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. Arnulfo Aquino. and his services as counsel for the prospective claim for support against Aquino. On 9 February 2001. Soon after.VITUG VS. Complainant asked Atty. Diosdado M.

The inadvertence of Santiago's use of words can't be used as a shield to absolve him of any misdeeds. this time with Atty. Vicente Santiago and John Beltran Sotto made use of language that are disrespectful and contemptuous to the Court like "it seems many of our judicial authorities believe they are chosen messengers of God". CLORIBEL FACTS: Note -. particularly with reference to their conduct towards courts. The Court demanded Caling to also "show cause" and he said that it the motion was already prepared by Santiago when he took the case as was verified by Morton Meads. and was just intended to be in the MR's rough draft. Santiago insisted that the statements he made were inadvertently included in the copy sent to the Court. witnesses and suitors. Caling as counsel. Santiago and Castro wanted for the two justices to inhibit themselves in the MR. both Santiago and Caling should've adhered to Canon 16 of the Code of Legal Ethics wherein "a lawyer should use his best efforts to restrain and to prevent his clients from doing those things which a lawyer himself ought not to do. . Even if the idea of the language used in the 4th MR came from Meads. The language employed by Santiago and Sotto degrades the administration of justice which transgresses Section 3 (d) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court as well as Sec.SURIGAO MINERAL RESERVATION BOARD VS. Attys. notably Chief Justice Concepcion and Justice Castro due to alleged interest in the case(Castro's brother works for one of the parties). Juanito M. 2nd case: YES. The MR assailed the decision penned by CJ Concepcion since he was out of town when the decision was written and included seeming threats of elevating the issue to the World Court and allegations of rise of graft and corruption in the judiciary. an employee from MacArthur. The Court demanded for Santiago and Sotto to "show cause" why they shouldn't be cited in contempt for the said statements. "corrupt in its face" and insinuating favouritism and partisanship of the members of the Court. If a client persists in such wrongdoing. Second Contempt case: Counsel for MacArthur drafted a fourth motion for reconsideration. 20 (f) of Rule 138 of the RoC which states that "a lawyer's language should be dignified in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession". They are also expected to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers but their acts resulted in the contrary and are intended to create and atmosphere of distrust. Santiago is also liable here since Caling's represent didn't divest him of his capacity as counsel for MacArthur. the lawyer should terminate their relation". and again contained language which the Court found disrespectful. jurors. judicial officers. ISSUE: W/N the lawyers should be cited in contempt? RULING: 1st case: YES.There are two contempt cases here involving two different sets of people First Contempt case: The Supreme Court rendered a decision against MacArthur International Minerals Corp and in their third Motion for Reconsideration.

and yet dost not consider the beam in thy own eye? x x x Thou hypocrite. saying things like: “We condemn the SIN not the SINNER.” “Did His Honors care to listen to our pleadings and supplications for JUSTICE. Such copy however failed to state the time and place of the hearing thereby making it a “useless scrap of paper. NEVER. Almacen may prove to this Court that he is once again fit to resume the practice of law. GENEROSITY and FAIRNESS? Did His Honors attempt to justify their stubborn denial with any semblance of reason. Almacen then raised the issue on certiorari to the SC who rejected it via minute resolution. Alamacen felt extremely bitter at his motion being denied and the reason for such denial being delivered only through a minute resolution. Such petition also contained lengthy accusations of “constitutional violations” and saying that the justice administered by the SC was not only blind but also “deaf and dumb”. xx x We were provoked. first cast out the beam from thy own eye. Vicente Raul Almacen (passed the bar in 1941) was counsel for the defendant in the case of Virginia Yaptinchay v. CHARITY. RULING: First off. He then filed motion of reconsideration and furnished a copy of it to the adverse party. Any time after this suspension becomes effective Atty.” Atty. It was at this point that Atty.” Atty. It was a civil case which the trial court decided against Atty. cynical embellished with sarcasm and innuendo. “But why doust thou see the speck in thy brother’s eye.IN RE: ALMACEN FACTS: Atty. Almacen served it late and therefore had no more time to correct his mistake). Almacen is suspended from the practice of law until further notice. We detest the ACTS not the ACTOR. Antonio H Calero. “Were we to accept every case or write a full opinion for every petition we reject we should be unable to carry out effectively the burden placed upon us by the Constitution. The Supreme Court emphasizes that it is the RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY of every lawyer to criticize the decision of the Court but such criticism must be decent and proper.” Basically.” The SC only accepts “those cases which present questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved.) . Almacen expressed his disappointment over the SC via filing a “Petition to Surrender Lawyer’s Certificate of Title” where he would surrender his certificate to the Clerk of Court to be held in trust until the time comes when he shall regain faith and confidence in the SC once again and therefore resume his practice of the noblest profession. Asked to show cause as to why he should not be disciplined for his actions he replied with an answer that was undignified. Atty. Atty. and then thou wilt see clearly to cast out the speck from thy brother’s eys. the SC justified the need to reject numerous appeals with an outright denial or minute resolution. Almacen’s client. Almacen also quoted the bible as opening statement.” The lack of proof of service meant failure to perfect the motion on time (Atty. The issue was raised to the CA who agreed with the plaintiff in the case that it should be dismissed. A critique of the court must be intelligent and discriminating fitting to its high function as the court of last resort. (We assume by apologizing because he was unapologetic when he was asked to explain why he shouldn’t be disciplined. not the members. We attack the decision of this Court.

seeks the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for the use of insulting language in the course of judicial proceedingsComplainant was the counsel for the defendants (and at the same time. Jr. respondent failed to measure up to the norm of conduct required of a member of the legal profession. respondent denied having directed the same at the complainant. Sabino Padilla was harassing her and immediately. The only reason why Atty. The statement of Atty. By the use of intemperate language. while complainant was formally offering his evidence. which all the more deserves reproach because this is not the first time that respondent has employed offensive language in the course of judicial proceedings. He has previously been admonished to refrain from engaging in offensive personalities and warned to be more circumspect in the preparation of his pleadings. complainant was unable to proceed with his offer of evidence. claiming that what he said was "Ay. ATTY. The Canons of Professional Ethics likewise exhort lawyers to avoid all personalities between counsel. que bobo". The court proceedings had to be suspended. PADILLA JR.c . he heard respondent say "bobo. 13331 for forcible entry before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan. Embarrassed and humiliated in the presence of many people. Sabino Padilla. the remark "bobo" or "Ay. he exhibited lack of respect not only to a fellow lawyer but also to the court.CASTILLO VS. Castillo referred to by respondent was: ". he saw the latter looking at him (complainant) menacingly. FACTS: Atty. Sec. Respondent had no right to interrupt complainant which such cutting remark while the latter was addressing the court. Jose Castillo was included in the present complaint for ejectment was because defendant Erlinda Castillo wife of this representation called up this representation at his house and crying over the phone. Among the duties of an attorney are: (1) to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice. (Rules of Court. and (2) to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. 1981. In so doing. Rule 138. right then and there l would sock his face. referring to "the manner complainant was trying to inject wholly irrelevant and highly offensive matters into the record" while in the process of making an offer of evidence. . Respondent was counsel for the plaintiff.) The respondent was reprimanded for his misbehavior. this representation like any good husband would do in the defense of his wife immediately went to the school and confronted Atty. with a talk and asked for a yes or no answer if he harassed the wife of this representation and if yes. Jose M. (Canon 17. At the hearing of the case on November 19. Padilla violated the Code of Professional Ethics." When complainant turned toward respondent. claiming that Atty. . Castillo. RULING: Whether directed at the person of complainant or his manner of offering evidence. one of the defendants) in Criminal Case No. complainant." ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. He is directed to observe proper decorum and restraint and warned that a repetition of the offense will be dealt with more severely. que bobo" was offensive and uncalled for. 20 (b) and (f). While admitting the utterance.

Soriano is hereby ordered. PHHC and U. serve to dissuade this Court from requiring him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for entering an appearance at such a late date. in his own behalf and as attorney-in-fact of the other respondents. Atty. however. We find Atty. went to him to engage his professional services in two cases. Soriano's subsequent explanation did not.) as "chief counsel of record" for the respondents Marcelino Tiburcio. Clemente M. et al. were it not for his candor. without fear or favor. Soriano is guilty of negligence. Soriano asked the Court to exhume the case from the archives. it is the right of any lawyer. It is the sense of this Court. This act in itself would have been innocuous were it not for the fact that it was done one year and eight months after the decision in this case became final. to wit: this terminated case (L-24114) and the Varsity Hills case (L-30546). Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 8. at the hearing of this incident. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. . directly or indirectly. however.In Re Clemente Soriano FACTS: On October 10.A lawyer shall not. that he must be as he is hereby severely censured. to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.02 .02. in owning his mistake and the apology he made to this Court. at the very least. He then agreed to render professional services in the two cases in consideration of a contingent fee of 143. His entry of appearance in the case without the consent of the first lawyer amounts to an improper encroachment upon the professional employment of the original counsel. Clemente M. Atty. et al. Atty. a lawyer is enjoined to obtain the conformity of the counsel whom he would substitute. Soriano is further likewise warned that any future similar act will be met with heavier disciplinary sanction. Tiburcio. however. then he should. Soriano. et al. Soriano allegedly relied upon the assurance of a mutual acquaintance and representation of Marcelino Tiburcio that the two cases were pending in the Court. vs. And if this cannot be had. Atty.P. Soriano violates Rule 8. give notice to such lawyer of the contemplated substitution. He alleged that sometime during the first week of October 1969. Soriano guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties as a lawyer and as an officer of this Court. encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer. HELD: YES. Mencias. in the present case. 1969. This inexcusable negligence would merit no less than his suspension from the practice of the law profession. Before taking over a case handled by a peer in the Bar. to forthwith withdraw the appearance that he has entered as chief counsel of record for the respondents Marcelino Tiburcio. Atty. the respondent Marcelino Tiburcio. Atty. a member of the Philippine Bar entered his appearance in the present case (L-24114.33 hectares of land out of the 430 hectares (more or less) involved in the two cases.

The complainants alleged that ther were subjected to a harassment complaint withthe forged signature of Atty. Bancolo and Rustia met. Bancolo. The practice of letting his secretary affix his signature for him constitute negligence and is subject to disciplinary action. Bancolo for other clients and the result was that the signatures in the complaints were not written by one and the same person. Jr. they presented a report which examined three other complaints signed by Atty. however. he violated Rule 9. When Atty. the unauthorized practice of law. The fact that a lawyer is busy cannot serve as an excuse for him from signing personally any legal document. and graft and corrupt practices filed by Nehimias Divinagracia. received a complaint from the Office of the Ombudsman- Visayas for falsification of public document. or at the very least not to assist in. Tapay and Rustia. Bancolo and Atty. denied that he falsified the signature of Atty.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by allowing a non-lawyer to affix his signature to a pleading.Tapay vs. Bancolo’s affidavit and other evidence filed a counter-affidavit accusuing Divinagracia of falsifying the signature of Atty. Allegedly the complaint was signed on behalf of Divinagracia by Atty. Atty. Bancolo of the case filed before the Office of the Ombudsman. Furthermore.On November 2005. Bancolo. Tapay and Rustia filed with the IBP a complaint to disbar Atty. Tapay and Rustia. . Bancolo. It is a lawyer’s duty to prevent. Bancolo and presented evidence that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted the Divinagracia’s case and that thecomplaint filed before the Office of the Ombudsman was signed by the office secretary asinstructed by Atty. Jarder violated the Code of Professional Responsibility RULING: In the case of Atty. Bancolo denied that he represented Divinagracia and that the signature in the complaint was not his. the latter informed Atty. complainants. Bancolo. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. With this. Divinagracia. This duty is founded on public interest and policy that requires that practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and character. the Office of the Ombudsman provisionally dismissed the complaint against Tapay and Rustia and ordered separate cases for Falsification of Public Documents and dishonesty against Divinagracia. Rustia convinced Atty. Bancolo to sign an affidavit to attest such fact. Charlie Bancolo of the Jarder Bancolo Law Office. using Atty. Bancolo ad Atty. Bancolo FACTS: In October 2004. Jarder.

. NO. Alauya referred to himself as “Attorney Ashary M. as well as to the NHMFC. they cannot be excused. He alleges that Alawi used this to make it look as if he was buying a house from Villarosa & Co. ISSUES: 1. W/N the Alauya”s actions violated his duties as a public officer 2. did not have any postage stamp. alleging that he imputed malicious and libellous charges against her w/ no solid ground. if one only took and subsequently passed the Shari”a Bar. detailing in acerbic language Alawi”s supposed fraudulent and deceitful acts. he is expected to act with restraint and dignity.Alawi vs. and that he usurped the title “attorney”.” Because of the letters. he sent strongly-worded letters to the president and VP of Villarosa. which is the title reserved for those who pass the Shari”a Bar. The Court did not decide on this matter citing lack of evidence. Alauya FACTS: Alawi and Alauya were high school classmates and were friends. One of the letters. Alawi filed a complaint against Alauya before the SC. the Court reprimanded Alauya for his actions. Moreover. the phrase “Free Postage — PD 26” was typewritten in the upper right corner. his reactions were merely normal from someone who was distraught and has been victimized of fraud. W/N the his use of the franking privilege was valid RULING: 1. where Alawi worked as a real estate sales agent. He says that the word “Attorney” is synonymous with “Counsellor at-law” or “Counsellor”. Alauya was able to receive a loan from the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation. Righteous indignation or vindication does not allow one to use virulent or insulting language. also without his consent. This was supported by an affidavit of one of his subordinates. that he used the franking privilege given to the judiciary without authority. In all of these letters. most especially name-calling. . YES. According to Alauya. though sent by mail. W/N his use of the title “Attorney” was valid 3. In the end. 3. Because of this. While his actions may be mitigated. While both Shari”a Bar and Philippine Bar passers are considered “counsellors”. However. the Executive Clerk of Court from the 4th District Shari”a District of Marawi City alleged that Alawi obtained his signature on a blank piece of paper through fraud and gross misrepresentation. he is still not entitled to use the title “attorney”. because of that same transaction. Alauya is impressed with an even stricter and more stringent standard of conduct. Alauya says that he actually gave a subordinate P20 to mail the letters. Alauya says that he prefers “attorney” because most mistake “counselor” for “councilor” or konsehal. Alauya. public officers are always expected to act with proper decorum. Instead. the letters were sent using that money. Alauya. and that to the best of his knowledge. As a member of the Shari”a Bar and anofficer of the Court. the title “attorney” is reserved for those who pass the Philippine Bar. 2.As a man of the law. With regard to the alleged improper use of the free postage service.

and to further make a P15.00 for the previous day. NLRC FACTS: Private respondents Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon were hired by the petitioners as taxi drivers and.00. RULING: The Court declares that the deposits made amounts to the prohibition provided by law. on several occasions. or is necessary or desirable as determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate rules and regulations. or equipment supplied by the employer. However. On November 27. on his part. but his working schedule was made on an alternative basis where he drove only every other day. he went to this home province to recuperate. considered a prohibition regarding wages. This was allegedly the practice adopted by petitioners to recoup the expenses incurred in the repair of their taxicab units. When Maldigan insisted on the refund of his deposit.Five J Taxi and/or Juan Armamiento vs. claimed that his termination from employment was effected when he refused to pay for the washing of his taxi seat covers. he abandoned his taxicab in Makati without fuel refill worth P300. he adamantly refused. occupations or business where the practice of making deposits is a recognized one. they worked for 4 days weekly on a 24-hour shifting schedule. 1991. after a tour of duty. ISSUE: Whether or not the deductions made were illegal and if illegal. Sabsalon was re-admitted by petitioners as a taxi driver under the same terms and conditions as when he was first employed. Aside from the daily boundary of P700. while driving a taxicab of petitioners on September 1983.00 deposit to answer for any deficiency in their boundary. as such. Maldigan requested petitioners for the reimbursement of his daily cash deposits for 2 years. Sometime in 1989. the same does not apply to or permit deposits to defray any deficiency which the taxi driver may incur in the remittance of his boundary. materials or equipment supplied by the employer. Clearly. Afterwards it was revealed that he was driving a taxi for Bulaklak Company. Sabsalon. it is . On the matter of the car wash payments. Petitioners learned that he was working for Mine of Gold Taxi Company. Also. Sabsalon failed to remit his boundary of P700. With respect to Sabsalon.00 for car washing. In less than 4 months after Maldigan was hired as an extra driver by the petitioners. He was hospitalized and after his discharge. they were also required to pay P20. Despite repeated requests of petitioners for him to report for work. private respondents filed a complaint with the manila Arbitration Office of the National Labor Relations Commission charging petitioners with illegal dismissal and illegal deductions. the labor arbiter had this to say in his decision: "Anent the issue of illegal deductions. petitioners terminated his services. materials. The deposits made were illegal and the respondents must be refunded. In January. he was held up by his armed passenger who took all his money and thereafter stabbed him. It can be deduced that the said article provides the rule on deposits for loss or damage to tools. Article 114 of the Labor Code provides as follows: Deposits for loss or damage. — No employer shall require his worker to make deposits from which deductions shall be made for the reimbursement of loss of or damage to tools.00 for non-air-conditioned taxi. On September 22.00 for air-conditioned taxi or P450. 1987. 1991. for every actual working day. but herein petitioners told him that not a single centavo was left of his deposits as these were not even enough to cover the amount spent for the repairs of the taxi he was driving. except when the employer is engaged in such trades. there is no dispute that as a matter of practice in the taxi industry. he already failed to report for work for unknown reasons. he failed to report for work during his schedule.

thus we find nothing illegal in this practice. the amount doled out was paid directly to the person who washed the unit.00 car wash payments they made. if they wanted to save their P20. private respondents are not entitled to the refund of the P20. Also. and is. as the Solicitor General correctly noted. in fact." Consequently.incumbent upon the driver to restore the unit he has given to the same clean condition when he took it out. complainant(s) (private respondents herein) were made to shoulder the expenses for washing. dictated by fair play.00. and as claimed by the respondents (petitioners in the present case). . car washing after a tour of duty is a practice in the taxi industry. It will be noted that there was nothing to prevent private respondents from cleaning the taxi units themselves. much more (sic) to consider the amount paid by the driver as illegal deduction in the context of the law.