#1 Quingwa v.

Puno
Facts:
Quingwa filed a verified complaint for gross immorality and misconduct. In his answer, he denied
all material allegations in the complaint and as a special defense, averred that the allegations
therein do not constitute grounds for the disbarment or suspension under section 25 of the rules of
court.

The case was referred to the solicitor general. After the hearing, the solicitor general filed a
complaint, formally charging respondent of immorality stating that he engaged in various sexual
acts with herein complainant with a promise to marry, but nevertheless did not marry the same. In
this case the Solicitor General stated that:

“The acts of the respondent in having carnal knowledge with the the complainant through
a promise of marriage which he did not fulfill and has refused to fulfill up to the present constitute
a conduct which shows that respondent is devoid of the highest degree of morality and integrity
which at all times is expected of and must be possessed by members of the Philippine bar.”

The solicitor general asked for the disbarment of the respondent.

Respondent failed to make known in his answer his intention to present additional evidence. It was
deemed as a waiver of the right to present such evidence.

Issue: WON the lack of proof is enough (Whether such denials are enough to overcome
disbarment).

Held: No.

One of the requirements for all applicants for admission to the Bar is that the applicant must
produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character (Section 2, Rule
127 of the old Rules of Court, now section 2, Rule 138). If that qualification is a condition
precedent to a license or privilege to enter upon the practice of law, it is essential during the
continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege. (Royong vs. Oblena, Adm. Case No.
376, April 30, 1963, citing In re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 567). When his integrity is challenged by
evidence, it is not enough that he denies the charges against him; he must meet the issue and
overcome the evidence for the relator (Legal and Judicial Ethics, by Malcolm, p. 93) and show
proofs that he still maintains the highest degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is
expected of him. Respondent denied that he took complainant to the Silver Moon Hotel and had
sexual intercourse with her on June 1, 1958, but he did not present evidence to show where he was
on that date. In the case of United States vs. Tria, 17 Phil. 303, Justice Moreland, speaking for the
Court, said:

An accused person sometimes owes a duty to himself if not to the State. If he does not
perform that duty he may not always expect the State to perform it for him. If he fails to
meet the obligation which he owes to himself, when to meet it is the easiest of easy things,
he is hardly indeed if he demand and expect that same full and wide consideration which
the State voluntarily gives to those who by reasonable effort seek to help themselves. This
 is particularly so when he not only declines to help himself but actively conceals from the
State the very means by which it may assist him.

Under the circumstances, we are convinced that the respondent has committed a grossly immoral
act and has, thus disregarded and violated the fundamental ethics of his profession. Indeed, it is
important that members of this ancient and learned profession of law must conform themselves
in accordance with the highest standards of morality. As stated in paragraph 29 of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics:

#2 Adarne v. Aldaba
Facts
In this case, Raymunda Cumpio and her husband filed an action of forcible entry against
Cesario Adarne with the justice of the peace in leyte. It was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Consequently, the plaintiffs therein appealed to the CFI of leyte.it was remanded back to the
justice of the peace, stating that such judge had jurisdiction and upon trial on the merits where
it was once again dismissed.

At the hearing of the case on October 23, 1964 before the Court of First Instance of Leyte,
the respondent was again prevailed upon by the complainant to appear in his behalf. The
respondent entered a "special appearance" for the complainant and thereafter argued that the
interest of justice would best be served of the defendants were allowed to file an action for quieting
of title and the case heard jointly with the pending action for forcible entry. Finding merit in the
argument, the court ordered the defendant Cesario Adarne to file an action for quieting of title
within one (1) week and the plaintiffs to answer the same within the reglementary period, after
which both cases would be tried jointly. The hearing was deferred until after the filing of the action
for quieting of title.

On June 17, 1965, the court declared the defendants in default for their failure to appeal at the
hearing set for that day and directed the plaintiffs to present evidence to support their claim. 6 On
September 17, 1965, the court rendered a decision and a writ of execution was issued thereafter

Because of this, Cesario Adarne filed the present complaint against the respondent Atty. Damian
V. Aldaba on August 3, 1967, praying:

“Dahil dito, isinusumbong ko po ang aking Abogado ng "Mal practice" pabaya at pahamak sa
kliente at sinisingil ko po siya ng pinsala katumbas sa sinisingil sa kin ng akin kalaban. O kaya
lakarin niya na mapigil and decision ng Hukom sa C.F.I. at ulitin and hearing sa Forcible Entry.
Kung hindi niya magagawa ito, ipinauubaya ko na po sa kataas taasan Hukoman and paglapat
ng parusa. Sapagkat kung hindi p susugpo-in and masamang gawa naito ng mga ibang abogado
na nabibili, — lalala and sakit naito sa profession ng mga abogado, at lilikha ng maraming api,
at habang naghahari and pang-aapi, lalaganap and kriminalidad ng walang tigil, at walang
katahimikan ang ating Demukrasya, at kung magkakagayon ang mga mamamayan at — sapilitan
sa kumunista sasamba.”

Issue: WON respondent should be disbarred.

Held
 No, in this case, it was not successfully established that respondent was negligent in
handling the case.

Besides, the respondent honestly believed that he had appeared for the complainant only
for a special purpose and that the complainant had agreed to contact his attorney of record to handle
his case after the hearing of October 23, 1964, so that he did nothing more about it.

It is well settled that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant and for the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent
attorney must be established by convincing proof. In the instant case, there is no sufficient proof
to warrant the disbarment of the respondent attorney. Neither is there culpable malpractice to
justify his suspension.

#3 Ala v Atencia
Facts:

This is malpractice suit with gross misconduct and betrayal of trust, The record discloses that Ala,
a married man with six children (he was fifty-five years old in 1967) was employed since 1964 as
provincial auditor at Virac, Catanduanes. Working in the auditor's office since 1957 as a clerk or
secretary receiving P 180 a month was an unmarried woman (She was thirty-six years old in 1965)
named Miguela R. Luyon, a native of Virac.

Miguela gave birth to a baby girl named Maria Fe, it was made to appear that the father of Fe was
a man named Jose R. Avila, in this case, rumors spread that Miguela was a promiscuous woman
who had affairs with two or more men. Such gossip provoked her to seek a judicial declaration
that Ala Fathered her child, for which she contracted the services of Juan G. Atencia.

Atty. Atencia filed in behalf of Maria Fe a complaint for recognition and support in the Court of
First Instance of Catanduanes (Civil Case No. 562). It was alleged therein that the real father of
Maria Fe was Ala and that, as agreed upon between Miguela and Ala, Maria Fe was given the
surname Avila because that was a common patronymic in Virac and it contains the three letters of
the surname Ala.

Ala, wanting the case to be dismissed, in his allegations approached Atencia who wanted money
in exchange for such relevant evidences of his Ala’s paternity. In such way, it was alleged that
P1050 was paid, for which only 700 pesos was evidenced by a receipt.

Issue: WON a disbarment case should prosper.

Held:
Yes, It is a fact that Atencia received the P700.00 via PAL air cargo. The amount was sent
to him by Ala What is not clear is why Ala sent the money to Atencia. Ala claims that the amount
was extorted from him by Atencia. The note of Lilia Aquino, Exh. 11, tends to support the version
of Atencia that the amount of P700.00 was sent to him by Ala at the instance of Miguela to cover
the transportation and other expenses of Atencia from Quezon City to Virac, Catanduanes to confer
with Miguela about the paternity case.
 It is not therefore clear that Atencia extorted any amount from Ala. This being a disbarment
case, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the respondent.

However, the actuations of Atencia leave much to be desired. He manifested undue interest
in prosecuting the paternity suit against Ala Atencia even went to the extent of asking the Court of
First Instance of Catanduanes to appoint somebody also as guardian ad litem of Maria Fe Luyon
Avila when he learned that Miguela was about to ask for the dismissal of the case against Ala.

Moreover, Atencia did not return the original of the affidavit of Ala acknowledging
paternity of Maria Fe Luyon Avila. It appears that what was attached to the complaint in the
paternity case was only a carbon copy. The original of said affidavit was attached to the
administrative complaint filed by Pedro Patino against Ala and Miguela in the Commission of
Civil Service. There is reason to believe that Atencia instigated the filing of the said administrative
charge.

For these acts of Atencia he should be disciplined. Under the circumstances of the case he should
be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.

#4 Bautista v. Ydia
Facts
For failure respondent to take an appeal from an adverse decision in case handled by him
on behalf of complainants, the latter filed a complaint for disciplinary action against him, alleging
professional misconduct.

Respondent claimed that he desisted from making the appeal upon instruction of one of the
complainants The Solicitor General, to whom the complaint was referred for investigation, report
and recommendation, concluded that the charge has not been proven and recommended its
dismissal.

Issue: WON respondent was negligent on taking an appeal

Held
No, The Supreme Court has gone over the report of the Solicitor General and the record of the
evidence presented by the parties and are satisfied that indeed it is safe to conclude that it was with
the knowledge and consent of Felipe Bucao that respondent desisted from taking further action in
the case of complainants, convinced as they were that an appeal from the adverse decision of the
trial court would be futile. In any event, there is, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, a
presumption that an attorney is innocent of the charge against him until the contrary is proved by
convincing evidence. Complainants’ evidence in this case does not appear to meet such standard.

#5 Mejares v. Romana
Facts
 This is a disbarment case filed by Rosario H. Mejares against Romana for gross negligence
and misconduct. In her complaint, she alleged that she was a member of a labor union in greenfield
corporation where some 300 members sued greenfield for illegal termination where they retained
respondent counsel and agreed to pay attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary
award. respondent required each member of the Union to contribute P500. Complainant claimed
that although not all Union members contributed, respondent collected not more than P100,000.
Complainant alleges that respondent spent a big portion of the amount for his own benefit.
respondent required the then Union president Elena Tolin (Tolin) to sign a document, entitled
Verification and Certification of Service (Verification) of a petition for filing with this
Court.[2] The Verification, among others, authorized respondent to deduct automatically x x x his
contingent thirty (30) per cent attorneys fees from the individual awards that the [union members]
shall win in this case. Complainant claims that it was only later that the Union members learned
of the increase of respondents attorneys fees from 10% to 3%.Complainant claims that respondent
did not explain to Tolin the Verifications contents.

When the case was filed, the IBP found that the respondent violated his lawyer’s oath and
committed gross misconduct and gross negligence. And that complainant was able to prove by
clear and convincing evidence of the charges against the respondent.

Issue:WON the respondent is liable for violation of the rules of professional responsibility.

Held:

Yes, A lawyer should be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to him in his
professional capacity.[9] Consequently, when a lawyer receives money from a client for a
particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to his client, showing that he
spent the money for the purpose intended.[10] Rule 16.01 of the Code provides:

A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the
client.

A lawyer should also timely and properly inform their clients of the status of their cases. In this
case, as an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform h[is] client of whatever
information [he] may have acquired which it is important that the client should have knowledge
of. [He] should notify h[is] client of any adverse decision to enable h[is] client to decide whether
to seek an appellate review thereof.Keeping the client informed of the developments of the case
will minimize misunderstanding and lost of trust and confidence in the attorney.

#6 Gatchalian Promotion Talents Pool Inc. v. Naldoza

Facts
Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc., filed before this Court a Petition for
disbarment against Attorney Primo R. Naldoza. The precursor of this Petition was the action of
respondent, as counsel for complainant, appealing a Decision of the Philippine Overseas
Employment Agency.
It is being alleged that respondent performed the following acts.
1. Appealing a decision knowing that the same was already final and executory.
 2. 2. Deceitfully obtaining two thousand, five hundred and fifty-five US dollars (US$2,555)
from complainant, allegedly for cash bond in the appealed case.
3. Issuing a spurious receipt to conceal his illegal act

He claimed that it was the complainant who insisted on filing the appeal in order to delay the
execution of the POEA decision. Meanwhile, a case for estafa has been filed against him in the
RTC of Makati city, he was acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt.

Thereafter, respondent filed before the IBP a Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss on July 22,
1996, on the ground that he had already been acquitted in the criminal case for
estafa. Complainant opposed the Motion.

The decision of the IBP stated that he failed to rebut the position that the signature on the receipt
was his. Hence, respondent anchors his position on a mere denial which in such case is
insufficient evidence.

Issue:
WON an acquittal against him in a criminal case is a ground to dismiss the case.

Held.
No, The standards of legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables
one to escape the penalties of criminal law. In this case, the acquittal of the criminal charge is not
a bar to the administrative proceeding of disbarment. The burden of proof for these types of cases
differ. In a criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; in an administrative case
for disbarment or suspension, clearly preponderant evidence is all that is required.

Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely
criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but are rather investigations by
the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, they
are in no sense a criminal prosecution.

#7 Dinsay v. Cioco
Facts:
Planters machinery mortgaged several properties as a security for the payment of its loan
to Traders Royal Bank, for defaulting in the loan, the bank foreclosed on the mortgage, in this
foreclosure, the records show that page 4 of the certificate was surreptitiously substituted, the bid
price was lowered from 3.2m to only 730k, deputy sheriff Belleza was charged administratively.
In the instant complaint, Atty Cioco is now sought to be disbarred on the basis of the
aforementioned incident that triggered his untimely dismissal in the Dinsay case.

Claiming res judicata since a case against him had already been adjudicated (Dinsay Case)

Issue: WON res judicata applies in disbarment cases.

Held:
 No, The doctrine of res adjudicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings
and not to the exercise of the [Courts] administrative powers, as in this case. Neither can it be
successfully argued that the instant disbarment case has been already adjudicated in the
first Dinsay case.Therein, respondent was administratively proceeded against as an erring court
personnel under the supervisory authority of the Court. Herein, respondent is sought to be
disciplined as a lawyer under the Courts plenary authority over members of the legal profession.
While respondent is in effect being indicted twice for the same misconduct, it does not amount to
double jeopardy as both proceedings are admittedly administrative in nature.

#8 De vera v. Layague
Facts:
Atty. Eduardo De vera of Davao City filed a complaint to the court administrator against
Judge William Layague for a failure to resolve a number of cases for an unreasonable length of
time. After filing several extensions citing his failing health, he still failed to file an answer to the
Supreme court, who fined him 500 pesos and an imprisonment of 500 pesos if he fails to pay the
fine.

After several months, respondent finally filed a compliance where he stated that the cases
were adjudicated already, the court required complainant to reply, and in 11 days, he filed his reply
wherein he highlighted the number of years and months of delay during which the cases
complained of remained pending even before the alleged sickness adverted to in his medical
certificates.

In a Resolution dated March 8, 1995, respondent judge was required to file his rejoinder. Again,
respondent filed successive motions for extension of time, on the ground that he was suffering
from acute erosive and atropic gastritis and emphysema. These motions for extension were all
granted by this Court on May 15, 1995. On August 30, 1995, respondent still has not filed his
rejoinder; thus prompting this Court to issue another Resolution requiring him to show cause why
he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt. Without any compliance from
respondent, this Court, on July 10, 1996, again imposed on respondent a fine of P500.00 with
subsidiary imprisonment.

The court administrator submitted his own evaluation, report and recommendation where the court
administrator observed that there was only one civil case, where the decision was delayed, hence
the Court administrator recommended that the respondent befined in the amount of P5000, hence
this petition.

Issue:
WON there was a delay in the adjudication of the cases.

Held:
Yes, As can be clearly seen, the directive to the courts to speedily decide or resolve cases or
matters was not a new provision in the 1987 Constitution. It has been there since the previous
Constitution. In a case decided under the 1973 Constitution, this Court reprimanded and
admonished a municipal judge for deciding a criminal case beyond the ninety-day period
required in Article X, Section 15 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Judiciary Act.
 The constitutional mandate to promptly dispose of cases does not only refer to the decision of
cases on their merits, but also to the resolution of motions and other interlocutory matters, as the
constitutional provisions explicitly mention cases and matters. Therefore, respondent judge must
not be excused for his delay in resolving the incident in Civil Case No. 17,215.
Finally, the Court Administrator omitted to mention Criminal Cases Nos. 20,612-90 and
21,882-90, wherein respondent admittedly resolved the motion to recall warrant of arrest after a
delay of one (1) year. This, too, must be taken into consideration in the imposition of sanctions
on respondent judge.

#9 Basilla v. Becamon
Facts:
A Complaint against Executive judge Basilla has been filed with the RTC branch 49,
charging them of gross neglect, grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and violation of
canon 3 of the Code of judicial conduct, in an earlier administrative case, the SC in an en banc
resolution found respondent to be liable for gross ignorance of the law and procedure and imposed
a fine of 21k

A close examination of the present case reveals that the case presents the same matter and
raises the same issues as that of the earlier administrative case.

Issue: Does the principle of Res judicata apply in this case?

Held:
Yes, The records reveal that the two (2) administrative cases stemmed from the same factual
circumstances between the same parties. The earlier administrative case (A.M. No. MTJ-02-
1438) which was already terminated in our en bancResolution of January 22, 2004, arose when
the OCA was furnished with a copy of the order dated April 5, 2000 issued by complainant Judge
Henry B. Basilla.Complete record of MCTC Case No. 263-C was also transmitted to the said
office, and, after evaluating the matter, Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez, in his Report
dated April 19, 2002, recommended that the same be re-docketed as a regular administrative
matter, which recommendation was adopted by this Court in its Resolution of July 10, 2002, and
accordingly had the matter docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-02-1438.

Meanwhile, on December 6, 2000, Executive Judge Henry B. Basilla, in compliance with then
Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayos letter dated October 25, 2000, filed his sworn letter-
complaint formally charging herein respondents for the same irregularities committed by them
relative to the same MCTC Case No. 263-C. Later, in his January 16, 2002 Report, the incumbent
Court Administrator, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., recommended the re-docketing of the present
complaint as a regular administrative matter. And, in our Resolution dated February 27, 2002, we
adopted said recommendation and thus docketed that very same letter-complaint as A.M. No.
MTJ-02-1404. This explain why two (2) administrative cases, having identical subject matter,
cause of action and involving the same parties existed.