Barrios v.
Francisco Martinez complaint because of the compensation that the victim had received from
A.C. No. 4585
Facts:
For disbarment filed against Atty. Francisco Martinez for having
been convicted by final judgment in Criminal Case No. 6608 of a crime
involving moral turpitude by Branch 8 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Tacloban City.
Several dates for the hearing of the case were scheduled but none of the
parties appeared before the Commission, until finally it was considered
submitted for resolution last 27 June 2002.On the same date respondent
filed a motion for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the
complainant died sometime in June 1997 and that dismissal is warranted
because the case filed by him does not survive due to his demise; as a
matter of fact, it is extinguished upon his death.
In the present case, respondent has been found guilty and convicted by final
judgment for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for issuing a worthless check in the
amount of P8,000. The issue with which we are now concerned is whether
or not the said crime is one involving moral turpitude.
Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals.[23] It involves an act of baseness,
vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow
men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of
right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals.
Barrios vs. Atty. Francisco Martinez
A.c.no.4585, november 12, 2004
Facts:
Atty. Martinez was convicted of the crime involving bp 22. He was
also involved in another estafa case pertaining to his legal services rendered
on the victim of dona paz tragedy. the victim he represented filed a
sulpicio lines which was later deducted by atty. Martinez. On Sept. 27, 2003
the ibp board of governors passed a resolution approving the report and the
recommendation of its investigating commissioner. on dec. 3, 2003
respondent filed an mr and reinvestigation.
Issue: is the crime of issuing worthless check constituting moral turpitude?
Is the act of the respondent considered to be a ground for disbarment?
Ruling:
Yes, the court finds the respondent guilty of bp 22 which imports
deceit and violation of his attorney’s oath and code of professional
responsibility. In this case, the court also finds disbarment as the
appropriate penalty and ordered that the name of the respondent be stricken
from the roll of attorneys.
Ui vs. Bonifacio
Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000
Facts:
Complainant Lesli Ui found out that her husband Carlos Ui was carrying
out an illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he
begot two children. Hence, a complaint for disbarment was filed by
complainant against respondent before the Commission on Bar Discipline
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on the ground of immorality, more
particularly, for carrying on an illicit relationship with the complainant’s
husband. It is respondent’s contention that her relationship with Carlos Ui is
not illicit because they were married abroad(Hawaii, USA on 1985) and that
after June 1988, when respondent discovered Carlos Ui’s true civil status,
she cut off all her ties with him. Respondent averred that Carlos Ui never
lived with her.
Issue:
Whether or not she has conducted herself in an immoral manner for which
she deserves to be barred from the practice of law.
Held:
The complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio, for
alleged immorality, was dismissed.
All the facts taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that
respondent was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However, the
fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with
what respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered
immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the
moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable members of
the community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action,
the same must be “grossly immoral,” that is, it must be so corrupt and false
as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a
high degree.
PATRICIA FIGUEROA vs. SIMEON BARRANCO, JR.
July 31, 1997
Facts: In 1971, Patricia filed a petition to prevent Simeon from being
admitted to the legal profession. Patricia claimed that she and Simeon had
been in a relationship since 1953, when they were in their teens and both
living in Janiuay, Iloilo.
The court document noted: "Simeon even acted as escort to Patricia when
she reigned as Queen at the 1953 town fiesta. Patricia first acceded to
sexual congress with Simeon sometime in 1960. Their son, Rafael
Barranco, was born on December 11, 1964."
Patricia pointed out that Simeon did not fulfill promise to marry her. She
claimed that Simeon spoke to her about marriage around 20 to 30 times.
During this time, she said he only gave ten pesos to their child on his
birthdays. Pilar eventually gave up on Simeon when she learned that he had
married another woman.
Simeon was prevented from taking the lawyer's oath in 1971 because of the
charges of gross immorality made by complainant.
Court Document Excerpt: "We cannot help viewing the instant complaint
as an act of revenge of a woman scorned, bitter and unforgiving to the end.
It is also intended to make respondent suffer severely and it seems,
perpetually, sacrificing the profession he worked very hard to be admitted
into. Even assuming that his past indiscretions are ignoble, the twenty-six
years that respondent has been prevented from being a lawyer constitute
sufficient punishment therefor. During this time there appears to be no other
indiscretion attributed to him."
Outcome: The SC ruled in favor of Simeon and said he could take the
lawyer's oath. The catch: Simeon was already 62 years old when he
officially became a lawyer.
Ruling:
No, the charges required to constitute a disbarment not only be
immoral, but grossly immoral. In the case at hand, the allegation on
respondent merely suggest a doubtful moral character. Furthermore,
complainant continued to see respondent for a while, even after giving birth
to the child, thus suggesting that the sexual relations were consensual and
not forced.
Cordova vs. Cordova
179 SCRA 680
Facts:
In 1985, Atty. Laurence Cordova, while being married to Salvacion Delizo
and with two children, left his wife and children to cohabit with another
married woman. In 1986, Salvacion and Cordova had a reconciliation where
Cordova promised to leave his mistress. But apparently, Cordova still
continued to cheat on her wife as apparently, Cordova again lived with
another woman and worse, he took one of his children with him and hid the
child away from Salvacion.
In 1988, Salvacion filed a letter-complaint for disbarment against Cordova.
Eventually, multiple hearing dates were sent but no hearing took place
because neither party appeared. In 1989, Salvacion sent a telegraphic
message to the Commission on Bar Discipline intimating that she and her
husband has reconciled. The Commission, since Salvacion failed to submit
her evidence ex parte, merely recommended the reprimand and
admonishment of Cordova.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cordova should be merely reprimanded.
HELD: No. He should be suspended indefinitely until he presents evidence
that he has been morally reformed and that there was true reconciliation
between him and his wife. Before a person can be admitted to the bar, one
requirement is that he possesses good moral character. That requirement is
not exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar.
On the contrary, that requirement persists as a continuing condition for
membership in the Bar in good standing. The moral delinquency that affects
the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that
outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct
for instance, which makes “a mockery of the inviolable social institution or
marriage” such was the case in the case at bar
Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala
A.C. No. 7136
August 1, 2007
Facts: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline against Atty.
Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for grossly immoral conduct and
unmitigated violation of the lawyer’s oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first
met the respondent in January 2000 when his then fiancée Irene Moje
introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to Marianne
Tantoco with whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed that
from January to March 2001, Irene had been receiving from respondent
Cellphone calls, as well as messages some 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 her
whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parent’s house in Binangonan,
Rizal or she was busy with her work.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Respondent
together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them
following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001
complainant went uninvited to Irene’s birthday celebration at which he saw
her and the respondent celebrating with her family and friends. Out of
embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately.
Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all
her personal belongings. Complainant later found a handwritten letter dated
October 7, 2007, the day of his wedding to Irene, Complainant soon saw
respondent’s car and that of Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B11 Street,
New Manila where as he was later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was
already residing. He also learned still later that when his friends saw Irene
on about January 18, 2002 together with respondent during a concert, she
was pregnant.
Issue:
Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the reason for
the disbarment of Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala.
Ruling:
Lawyer’s oath stated that a lawyer should support the Constitution
and obey the laws, Meaning he shall not make use of deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or be convicted in any
crime involving moral turpitude. In the case at bar Atty. Eala was accused
of Concubinage, under ART. 334 of the Revised Penal Code, “ Any
husband who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or, shall have
sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is
not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished
by prision correccional in its minimum and medium period. Section 2 of
ART. XV states that “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the state. Respondent’s
grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the constitution and the laws, that he
as a lawyer has sworn to uphold. Hence the court declared Atty. Jose
Emmanul M. Eala DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of
his oath of office, and violation of canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ROBERTO SORIANO v. ATTY MANUEL DIZON
AC no. 6792 | January 25, 2006
FACTS:
Atty Manuel Dizon was driving under the influence of alcohol
along Abanao st. in Baguio city when a taxi overtook him. Enraged, Dizon
tailed the taxi, pulled it over and berated and threatened Roberto Soriano,
the taxi driver. To stop the aggression, Soriano opened his door which
caused Dizon to fall to the pavement. Soriano tried to help Dizon up but had
to punch Dizon because he was going to punch him. Soriano prevented
another attempt by Dizon to hit him. Dizon went back to his car to get his
gun, the handle wrapped in handkerchief. Dizon shot Soriano who was then
picking up Dizon’s eyeglasses to return it to him. After shooting Soriano,
Dizon sped off with his car and left him to die on the street. The bullet hit
Soriano in the neck and lacerated his carotid artery. According to the
doctors who treated Soriano, he would have easily died if not for the timely
medical assistance. Nevertheless, the left side of Soriano’s body was
paralyzed, leaving him unable to drive anymore.
A complaint for Frustrated Homicide was filed against Dizon by
Soriano. Dizon was eventually found guilty but was allowed probation. One
of the conditions of the probation is the payment of the civil liabilities. Four
years after the judgment was rendered, Dizon has not yet fulfilled his civil
obligation to Soriano.
A Complain-Affidavit for disbarment was filed by Soriano before
the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP). Dizon was declared in default and an ex-parte hearing
was held. The Commissioner of the CBD recommended to the IBP the
disbarment of Dizon for violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and for conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude. The IBP adopted the recommendation of the Commissioner and
sent its resolution to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
1.Whether the crime committed by Atty Dizon involved moral
turpitude.
2. Whether Atty Dizon violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility, warranting his disbarment.
RULING
The Supreme Court approved the Resolution of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines and ordered the disbarment of Atty Manuel Dizon.
1st Issue
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Commissioner that
the frustrated homicide committed by Atty Dizon was attended by moral
turpitude. The Court defined moral turpitude as everything which is done
contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or
depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen,
or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
morals.
Atty Dizon exhibited moral turpitude when he shot a taxi driver for
no valid reason. His act did not constitute self-defense. In fact, he was the
aggressor. It was him who first tried to punch the other. Soriano was merely
defending himself and fending off the aggression when he counterpunched
Dizon. Furthermore, the trial court also ruled that the crime was committed
with treachery. Dizon shot Soriano when he was not in a position to defend
himself. Soriano was picking up Dizon’s eyeglasses which fell on the road
when Dizon fell to return it to him when he was shot. Furthermore, Dizon
tried to escape punishment by wrapping the handle of his gun in
handkerchief. He intended not to leave fingerprints on the gun he used.
2nd Issue
The Supreme Court also ruled that there was indeed a violation of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1 provides that
lawyers must obey the laws of the land and promote respect or law and
legal processes. Atty Dizon was in violation of the law because he was in
illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm. He also failed to obey the lawful
orders of the trial court when he failed to settle his civil liabilities, a
condition for the grant of the probation.
Atty Dizon also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Dizon tried to reach an out-of-
court settlement with the family of Soriano but when the negotiations failed,
he instead made it look like it was the family who approached him to get a
referral to a neurosurgeon. In addition, Dizon fabricated a story saying that
it was Soriano and two other persons who mauled him. According to three
doctors, there was no proof of assault on Soriano.
Adm. Case no. 1474, jan. 28, 2000
Cristino g. Calub, complainant v. Atty. Abraham a. Suller, respondent
Facts:
In the morning of jan. 20, 1975 while the complainant was awa, atty. Suller
went to complainant’s house in aringay la union to borrow a blade. the
respondent was a neighbor and a family friend with the complainant. as he
entered the house,the respondent started touching the private parts of the
wife and threatened her and forced her to have sexual intercourse.as the
complainant returned home to get money for the payment of the real estate
taxes, he saw his wife with the respondent having a sexual intercourse.on
jan. 23, 1975,the complainant filed a case of rape in mtc of aringay, la union
and later remanded to the cfi of agoo, la union.on june 3, 1975,the
complainant filed a disbarment case against the respondent before the
supreme court.the cfi rendered an acquittal of the respondent and on march
3, 1993 the board of governors,ibp issued a resolution recommending a one
(01) year suspension of the practice of law.
Issue: is the one (01) year suspension sufficient penalty for a lawyer’s
immoral act?
Ruling:
no, the court decided that the said suspension is not sufficient
punishment for the immoral act of the respondent. The rape he committed
though he was acquitted on the grounds of not proven beyond reasonable
doubt is not determinative of the administrative case at bar. the testimonies
of the complainant show that the respondent acted in a grossly reprehensible
manner in having carnal knowledge of his neighbor’s wife without her
consent in her very home. The court further states that the said offense
constitutes serious moral depravity and the respondent is not worthy to
remain member of the bar. wherefore, respondent is disbarred from the
practice of law. ( show that respondent acted in a grossly reprehensible
manner in having carnal knowledge of his neighbor's wife without her
consent in her very home.)
EN BANC [G.R. No. 159486-88. November 25, 2003]
PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. THE
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN [SPECIAL DIVISION], HON.
MINITA CHICO-NAZARIO, HON. EDILBERTO SANDOVAL,
HON. TERESITA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Facts:
-Attorney Alan F. Paguia, as counsel for Estrada, averred that the
respondent justices have violated Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
by attending the ‘EDSA 2 Rally’ and by authorizing the assumption of
Vice-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the Presidency in violation of
the 1987 Constitution.
“Rule 5.10. A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on
political questions. But to avoid suspicion of political partisanship,
a judge shall not make political speeches, contribute to party
funds, publicly endorse candidates for political office or
participate in other partisan political activities.”
-Also, petitioner contended that the justices have prejudged a case that
would assail the legality of the act taken by President Arroyo. The
subsequent decision of the Court in Estrada v. Arroyo (353 SCRA 452
and 356 SCRA 108) is, petitioner states, a patent mockery of justice and due
process.
-According to Atty. Paguia, during the hearing of his ‘Mosyong
Pangrekonsiderasyon’ on 11 June 2003, the three justices of the Special
Division of the Sandiganbayan made manifest their bias and partiality
against his client.
-Thus, he averred, Presiding Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario supposedly
employed foul and disrespectful language when she blurted
out, ‘Magmumukha naman kaming gago,’ (Rollo, p. 13.) and Justice
Teresita Leonardo-De Castro characterized the motion as insignificant even
before the prosecution could file its comments or opposition thereto, (Rollo,
p. 12.) remarking in open court that to grant Estrada’s motion would result
in chaos and disorder. (Ibid.) Prompted by the alleged ‘bias and partial
attitude’ of the Sandiganbayan justices, Attorney Paguia filed, on 14 July
2003, a motion for their disqualification.
-The petitioner also asked the Court to include in its Joint Resolution the
TRUTH of the acts of Chief Justice Davide, et al., last January 20, 2001 in:
‘a) going to EDSA 2;
‘b) authorizing the proclamation of Vice-President
Arroyo as President on the ground of ‘permanent
disability’ even without proof of compliance
with the corresponding constitutional conditions,
e.g., written declaration by either the President or
majority of his cabinet; and
‘c) actually proclaiming Vice-President Arroyo on
that same ground of permanent disability.
-In a letter, dated 30 June 2003, addressed to Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide, Jr., and Associate Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, he has
demanded, in a clearly disguised form of forum shopping, for several
advisory opinions on matters pending before the Sandiganbayan.
-Subsequently, the court ruled that the instant petition assailing the
foregoing orders must be DISMISSED for gross insufficiency in substance
and for utter lack of merit. The Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of
discretion, an indispensable requirement to warrant a recourse to the
extraordinary relief of petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure.
-In a resolution, dated 08 July 2003, the Court strongly warned Attorney
Alan Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to desist from further making,
directly or indirectly, similar submissions to this Court or to its Members.
-Unmindful of the well-meant admonition to him by the Court, Attorney
Paguia appears to persist on end. In fact, on the 7th September 2003 issue of
the Daily Tribune, Atty. Paguia wrote to say -
 “What is the legal effect of that violation of President Estrada’s right
to due process of law? It renders the decision in Estrada vs. Arroyo
unconstitutional and void. The rudiments of fair play were not
observed. There was no fair play since it appears that when President
Estrada filed his petition, Chief Justice Davide and his fellow justices
had already committed to the other party - GMA - with a judgment
already made and waiting to be formalized after the litigants shall
have undergone the charade of a formal hearing. After the justices had
authorized the proclamation of GMA as president, can they be
expected to voluntarily admit the unconstitutionality of their own
act?”
Issue: WON Atty. Paguia committed a violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Held:
-Criticism or comment made in good faith on the correctness or wrongness,
soundness or unsoundness, of a decision of the Court would be welcome
for, if well-founded, such reaction can enlighten the court and contribute to
the correction of an error if committed. (In Re Sotto, 82 Phil 595.)
However, Attorney Paguia has not limited his discussions to the merits of
his client’s case within the judicial forum. Indeed, he has repeated his
assault on the Court in both broadcast and print media.
“Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a
member of the bar from making such public statements on any pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. By his acts,
Attorney Paguia may have stoked the fires of public dissension and posed a
potentially dangerous threat to the administration of justice.”
-It should be clear that the phrase “partisan political activities,” in its
statutory context, relates to acts designed to cause the success or the defeat
of a particular candidate or candidates who have filed certificates of
candidacy to a public office in an election. The taking of an oath of office
by any incoming President of the Republic before the Chief Justice of
the Philippines is a traditional official function of the Highest Magistrate.
The assailed presence of other justices of the Court at such an event could
be no different from their appearance in such other official functions as
attending the Annual State of the Nation Address by the President of
the Philippines before the Legislative Department.
-The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; but it will not countenance
any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our people’s faith in the judicial
system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by it to practice law in
the Philippines.
-Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the
lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and
judicial officers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others. In
liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the
impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, Atty.
Paguia has only succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the
dispensation of justice.
-The Court has already warned Atty. Paguia, on pain of disciplinary
sanction, to become mindful of his grave responsibilities as a lawyer and as
an officer of the Court. Apparently, he has chosen not to at all take heed.
-WHEREFORE, Attorney Alan Paguia is hereby indefinitely suspended
from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt hereof, for conduct
unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.
Mr. And mrs. Venustiano g. Saburnido v. Atty. Florante madrono
A.C. No. 4497
Facts:
For disbarment of respondent, Atty. Florante E. Madroño filed by
spouses Venustiano and Rosalia Saburdino. Complainants allege that
respondent has been harassing them by filing numerous complaints against
them, in addition to committing acts of dishonesty.
Complainant Venustiano Saburnido is a member of the Philippine National
Police stationed at Balingasag, Misamis Oriental, while his wife Rosalia is a
public school teacher. Respondent is a former judge of the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, Balingasag-Lagonglong, Misamis Oriental.
Previous to this administrative case, complainants also filed three separate
administrative cases against respondent.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Florante E. Madroño is found
GUILTY of gross misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for one year with a WARNING that a repetition the same or similar
act will be dealt with more severely. Respondent's suspension is effective
upon his receipt of notice of this decision. Let notice of this decision be
spread in respondent's record as an attorney in this Court, and notice of the
same served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the Office of
the Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts concerned.

In A. M. No. MTJ-90-383,3 complainant Venustiano Saburnido filed

charges of grave threats and acts unbecoming a member of the judiciary
against respondent. Respondent was therein found guilty of pointing a high-
powered firearm at complainant, who was unarmed at the time, during a
heated altercation. Respondent was accordingly dismissed from the service
with prejudice to reemployment in government but without forfeiture of
retirement benefits.

Respondent was again administratively charged in the consolidated cases

of Sealana-Abbu v. Judge Madroño, A.M. No. 92-1-084-RTC and Sps.
Saburnido v. Judge Madroño, A.M. No. MTJ-90-486.4 In the first case,
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Florencia Sealana-Abbu charged that
respondent granted and reduced bail in a criminal case without prior notice
to the prosecution. In the second case, the spouses Saburnido charged that
respondent, in whose court certain confiscated smuggled goods were
deposited, allowed other persons to take the goods but did not issue the
corresponding memorandum receipts. Some of the goods were lost while
others were substituted with damaged goods. Respondent was found guilty
of both charges and his retirement benefits were forfeited.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent be disbarred?

Ruling: