Practice of Law

1.) CAYETANO vs. MONSOD

G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991

Facts: Renato Cayetano questioned Christian Monsod’s nomination by President Corazon Aquino as
Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Cayetano stated that Monsod allegedly lacked the
necessary requirement of practicing law for at least 10 years. However, despite Cayetano’s objection, the
Commission on Appointments (COA) still confirmed Monsod’s appointment.

Issue: Whether or not the Commission on Appointments committed grave abuse of discretion in
confirming Monsod’s appointment.

Held: No. COA’s power to give consent to the nomination of the COMELEC chairman by the President is
mandated by the Constitution under Article IX, Section 1 (2), Sub Article C. It provides:

“The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first
appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five years, and the last
Members for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the
unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity.”

The power of appointment is essentially within the discretion to whom it is so vested subject to the only
condition that the appointee should possess the qualification required by law. Therefore, there is no
occasion for the Supreme Court to exercise its corrective power since COA did not commit grave abuse of
discretion based on the evidence presented.

Admissions to practice

2.) GARCIA vs. SESBREÑO

A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457 | February 3, 2015

By: Karen P. Lustica

FACTS:

Garcia filed a complaint for disbarment against Sesbreño before the Office of the Bar Confidant.
Garcia alleged that in 2005 while he was in Japan, Sesbreño, representing Maria Margarita and Angie
Ruth, filed an action for support against him and his sister Milagros Garcia Soliman. At the time of the
filing of the case, Maria Margarita was already 39 years old while Angie Ruth was 35 years old. The case
was dismissed. In 2007, Garcia returned from Japan. When Sesbreño and Garcia’s children learned about
his return, Sesbreño filed a Second Amended Complaint against him.

Garcia alleged that he learned that Sesbreño was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City,
Branch 18, for Homicide in Criminal Case No. CBU-31733. Garcia alleged that Sesbreño is only on parole.
Garcia alleged that homicide is a crime against moral turpitude; and thus, Sesbreño should not be
allowed to continue his practice of law.

In his answer to the complaint, Sesbreño alleged that his sentence was commuted and the phrase “with
the inherent accessory penalties provided by law” was deleted. Sesbreño argued that even if the
accessory penalty was not deleted, the disqualification applies only during the term of the sentence.
Sesbreño further alleged that homicide does not involve moral turpitude. Sesbreño claimed that Garcia’s
complaint was motivated by extreme malice, bad faith, and desire to retaliate against him for
representing Garcia’s daughters in court.

ISSUES:

WON conviction for the crime of homicide involves moral turpitude.

WON Sesbreño should be disbarred

HELD:

YES.

YES.
RATIO:

1. This is not to say that all convictions of the crime of homicide do not involve moral turpitude.
Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the crime. Moral
turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown by every known and intentional violation
of statute, but whether any particular conviction involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and
frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances. While x x x generally but not always, crimes
mala in se involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibitado not, it cannot always be ascertained
whether moral turpitude does or does not exist by classifying a crime as malum in se or as malum
prohibitum, since there are crimes which are mala in se and yet rarely involve moral turpitude and there
are crimes which involve moral turpitude and are mala prohibita only. It follows therefore, that moral
turpitude is somewhat a vague and indefinite term, the meaning of which must be left to the process of
judicial inclusion or exclusion as the cases are reached.

The IBP-CBD correctly stated that Amparado and Yapchangco were just at the wrong place and time.
They did not do anything that justified the indiscriminate firing done by Sesbreño that eventually led to
the death of Amparado.

We cannot accept Sesbreño’s argument that the executive clemency restored his full civil and political
rights. Sesbreño cited In re Atty. Parcasio to bolster his argument. In that case, Atty. Parcasio was granted
“an absolute and unconditional pardon” which restored his “full civil and political rights,” a circumstance
not present in these cases. Here, the Order of Commutation did not state that the pardon was absolute
and unconditional.

There are four acts of executive clemency that the President can extend: the President can grant
reprieves, commutations, pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. In
this case, the executive clemency merely “commuted to an indeterminate prison term of 7 years and 6
months to 10 years imprisonment” the penalty imposed on Sesbrefio. Commutation is a mere reduction
of penalty. Commutation only partially extinguished criminal liability. The penalty for Sesbrefio’ s crime
was never wiped out. He served the commuted or reduced penalty, for which reason he was released
from prison.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that a member of the bar may be disbarred or
suspended as attorney by this Court by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. This
Court has ruled that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime
involving moral turpitude. Moral turpitude is an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private
duties which a man owes to his fellow men or to society in general, contraryto justice, honesty, modesty,
or good morals.

DISPOSITION: Respondent Raul H. Sesbreno is DISBARRED.

Duties and priveleges of lawyer

3.) Brion, Jr. vs. Brillantes, Jr.

A.C. No. 5305 March 17, 2003

Facts:

Petitioner Marciano P. Brion, Jr., in this petition for disbarment, avers that respondent violated the
court’s decree of perpetual disqualification imposed upon respondent Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr. (in A.M.
No. MTJ-92-706, entitled Lupo Almodiel Atienza v. Judge Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr.) from assuming any
post in government service, including any posts in government-owned and controlled corporations,
when he accepted a legal consultancy post at the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), from 1998
to 2000. Said consultancy included an appointment by LWUA as 6th member of the Board of Directors of
the Urdaneta (Pangasinan) Water District. Upon expiration of the legal consultancy agreement, this was
subsequently renewed as a Special Consultancy Agreement.

Respondent admits the existence of the Legal Consultancy Contract as well as the Special Consultancy
Contract. However, he raises the affirmative defense that under Civil Service Commission (CSC)
Memorandum Circular No. 27, Series of 1993, services rendered pursuant to a consultancy contract shall
not be considered government services, and therefore, are not covered by Civil Service Law, rules and
regulations.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent has transgressed the letter and spirit of the court’s decree in the Atienza
case.

Held:

By performing duties and functions, which clearly pertain to a contractual employee, albeit in the guise
of an advisor or consultant, respondent has transgressed both letter and spirit of the Court’s decree in
Atienza.
The Court finds that for all intents and purposes, respondent performed duties and functions of a non-
advisory nature, which pertain to a contractual employee of LWUA. As stated by petitioner in his reply,
there is a difference between a consultant hired on a contractual basis (which is governed by CSC M.C.
No. 27, s. 1993) and a contractual employee (whose appointment is governed, among others, by the CSC
Omnibus Rules on Appointment and other Personnel Actions). The lawyer’s primary duty as enunciated
in the Attorney’s Oath is to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for
law and legal processes. That duty in its irreducible minimum entails obedience to the legal orders of the
courts. Respondent’s disobedience to this Court’s order prohibiting his reappointment to any branch,
instrumentality, or agency of government, including government owned and controlled corporations,
cannot be camouflaged by a legal consultancy or a special consultancy contract.

Hence, Atty. Brillantes was suspended and ordered to pay a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00).

4.) Belleza vs Macasa

Fact: Complainant went to see respondent to avail of respondent’s legal services in connection with the
case of her son who was arrested by policemen of Bacolod City earlier that day for alleged violation of
Republic Act (RA) 9165. Respondent agreed to handle the case for ₱30,000. The following day,
complainant made a partial payment to respondent thru their mutual friend. She gave him an additional
₱10,000 and ₱5,000 as payment for the balance. Both payments were also made thru Chua. Respondent
received ₱18,000 from complainant for the purpose of posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of
her (complainant’s) son. When complainant went to the court the next day, she found out that
respondent did not remit the amount to the court. Complainant demanded the return of the ₱18,000
from respondent on several occasions but respondent ignored her. Moreover, respondent failed to act
on the case of complainant’s son and complainant was forced to avail of the services of the Public
Attorney’s Office for her son’s defense. Thereafter, complainant filed a verified complaint for disbarment
against respondent in the Negros Occidental chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. IBP Negros
Occidental chapter transmitted the complaint to the IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline. The CBD
required respondent to submit his answer within 15 days from receipt thereof. Respondent, in an urgent
motion for extension of time to file an answer for three times but failed to send an answer. In its report
and recommendation the CBD ruled that respondent failed to rebut the charges against him. He never
answered the complaint despite several chances to do so. The CBD found respondent guilty of violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Issue: Whether the respondent violated his Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility and must
be barred to practice law.

Held: Yes, the court affirmed the CBD’s finding of guilt as affirmed by the IBP Board of Governors but we
modify the IBP’s recommendation as to the liability of respondent. The Respondent disrespected the
legal processes. Respondent was given more than enough opportunity to answer the charges against
him. Yet, he showed indifference to the orders of the CBD for him to answer and refute the accusations
of professional misconduct against him. Respondent grossly neglected the cause of his client.
Respondent undertook to defend the criminal case against complainant’s son, but neglected them. A
lawyer’s negligence in the discharge of his obligations arising from the relationship of counsel and client
may cause delay in the administration of justice and prejudice the rights of a litigant, particularly his
client. Thus, from the perspective of the ethics of the legal profession, a lawyer’s lethargy in carrying out
his duties to his client is both unprofessional and unethical. Respondent failed to return his Client’s
money. When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose (such as for
filing fees, registration fees, transportation and office expenses), he should promptly account to the
client how the money was spent. If he does not use the money for its intended purpose, he must
immediately return it to the client. His failure either to render an accounting or to return the money (if
the intended purpose of the money does not materialize) constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent was undeserving of the trust reposed in him.
Instead of using the money for the bond of the complainant’s son, he pocketed it. He failed to observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in his dealings with his client.34 He failed to live up to his fiduciary duties. By
keeping the money for himself despite his undertaking that he would facilitate the release of
complainant’s son, respondent showed lack of moral principles. His transgression showed him to be a
swindler, a deceitful person and a shame to the legal profession. Therefore considering all the violation
and infraction of the respondent, the court DISBARRED him from the practice of law.

Lawyer and the society

5.) Pimentel vs. Llorente (Legal Ethics)

Pimentel vs. Llorente

Adm. Case No. 4680, August 29, 2000

Facts:

Complainant was then a candidate during the May 8, 1995 elections. He filed this complaint against
respondent Attys. Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon, in their capacity as members of the Pasig
City Board of Canvassers, for gross misconduct, serious breach of trust, and violation of the lawyer’s
oath. Complainant alleges that respondents tampered with the votes received by him, with the result
that, as shown in the Statements of Votes (SoVs) and Certificate of Canvass (CoC), other senatorial
candidates were credited with votes which were above the number of votes they actually received while,
on the other hand, petitioner’s votes were reduced. Respondents denied the allegations, claiming that
the errors pointed out by complainant could be attributed to honest mistake, oversight, and/or fatigue.

Issue:

Whether or not respondents are guilty of misconduct.

Held:
Considering the facts, the Supreme Court held that respondents are guilty of misconduct.

Here, by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, despite the fact that the discrepancies,
especially the double recording of the returns from 22 precincts and the variation in the tabulation of
votes as reflected in the SoVs and CoC were apparent on the face of the documents and that the
variation involves substantial number of votes, respondents committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code
which stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in “unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” By
express provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to lawyers in the government service. In addition,
they likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to “do no falsehood.”

6.) Arietta vs Llosa

FACTS: A disbarment case was filed against Atty. Llosa by Pike P. Arrieta for allegedly notarizing a Deed of
Absolute sale, wherein, vendors noted were already dead prior to its execution. In answer, respondent
admitted having notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale. But before affixing his notarial seal, he first
ascertained the authenticity of the signatures, verified the identities of the signatories, and determined
the voluntariness of its execution.

However, in a later date, the respondent sought to dismiss the disbarment case admitting to the fact the
instant case is only a product of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of some facts and is now
convinced that everything is in order. The designated Investigating Commissioner of the IBP
recommended the dismissal of the instant case. The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted the above
recommendation and resolved to dismiss the instant case after finding no compelling reason to continue
with the disbarment proceedings.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Joel A. Llosa be disbarred or suspended from practice of law.

HELD: YES. Respondent ordered SUSPENDED for six months from practice of law with a warning that
another infraction will be dealt with more severely. Citing Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 also known as
the Notarial law, the Supreme Court explained the importance of adherence to said law as part of the
responsibility of a duly deputized authority to conduct such notarial process. Due diligence is to be
observed, this being part of a lawyers professional responsibility and procedural lapse is not an excuse to
cater to the convenience of clients. Any violation is tantamount to misconduct. Such misconduct is a
ground for disbarment as stated by the Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the
Supreme Court stressed the primary responsibility of lawyers as stated in Canon I of the Code of
Professional Responsibility that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes. A lawyer must also refrain from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and
counsellor, which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, all
of these being broad enough to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private
capacity may be disbarred or suspended.

7.) Soriano v. Dizon

A.C. No. 6792. January 25, 2006.

Per Curiam

FACTS:

While driving on his way home, a taxi driver (herein complainant) overtook the car driven by herein
respondent. Incensed, respondent tailed the taxi driver until the latter stopped to make a turn. An
altercation resulted therefrom that got to the point that the respondent fired and shot complainant
hitting him on the neck. He fell on the thigh of the respondent so the latter pushed him out and sped off.

ISSUE:

WON respondent’s guilt warrants disbarment.

RULING:

Yes. Moral turpitude has been defined 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.” It is also
glaringly clear that respondent seriously transgressed Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
through his illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm and his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities.

Lawyer and the Legal Profession

8.) SLU vs. DELA CRUZ

Facts: A disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and Staff of the Saint Louis University-Laboratory
High School (SLU-LHS) against Atty. Rolando C. Dela Cruz, principal of SLU-LHS, predicated on the
following grounds:

1. Gross misconduct- he has pending case of child abuse, administrative case and labor case.

2. Grossly immoral conduct – contracting a second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage.

3. Malpractice- notarizing documents despite the expiration of his commission.

Issue: May a pending case constitutes facts that determines the existence of gross misconduct by the
respondent?

Held: Practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they
possess the qualifications required by law. The purpose of suspending or disbarring an attorney is to
remove from the profession those unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities thereby
protecting the public and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish an
attorney.

Contracting a second marriage despite existence of first marriage is a violation of the continous
possession of good moral character as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice.

The Court has characterized a lawyer’s act of notarizing documents without the requisite commission to
do so as “reprehensible, constituting as it does not only malpractice but also the crime of falsification of
public documents.” Notarization of a private document converts the document into a public one making
it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to
full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason, notaries public must observe with the utmost care
the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.

Pending case does not constitute facts that determines the existence of gross misconduct by the
respondent as these are still pending before the proper forums. At such stages, the presumption of
innocence still prevails in favor of the respondent.

9.) 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.

Held: 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.

10.)Villatuya vs Tabalingkos

Attorney; bigamy; gross immorality. A disbarment case is sui generis. Its focus is on the qualification and
fitness of a lawyer to continue membership in the bar and not the procedural technicalities in filing the
case.Respondent’s regard for marriage contracts as ordinary agreements indicates either his wanton
disregard of the sanctity of marriage or his gross ignorance of the law on what course of action to take to
annul a marriage under the old Civil Code provisions. Respondent entered into marriage twice while his
first marriage was still subsisting. He exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of
him as a member of the bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect
and dignity.His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for
disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. Manuel G. Villatuya vs. Atty. Bede
S. Tabalingcos A.C. No. 6622, July 10, 2012.

This is a disbarment case against Tabalingcos; one of the grounds for which is gross immorality for
marrying two other women while his first marriage was still subsisting. Villatuya presented as evidence a
certification from the NSO that Tabalingcos contracted marriage thrice and the dates of the celebrations,
and names of the women were also indicated. He also submitted copies of the 3 Marriage Certificates.
Tabalingcos did not present any evidence to rebut abovementioned documents. He contends that after
his discovery of the 2nd and 3rd marriages, he filed civil actions for their annul the Marriage Contracts,
treating the latter as ordinary agreements rather than as special contracts contemplated under the then
Civil Code provisions on marriage, considering that he did not invoke any grounds in the Civil Code
provisions on marriage, prior to its amendment by the Family Code.

- The documents, certified by the NSO, which is the official repository of civil registry records pertaining
to the birth, marriage and death of a person, is accorded much evidentiary weight and carries with it a
presumption of regularity. In this case, respondent has not presented any competent evidence to rebut
those documents.

- Respondent’s regard for marriage contracts as ordinary agreements indicates either his wanton
disregard of the sanctity of marriage or his gross ignorance of the law on what course of action to take to
annul a marriage under the old Civil Code provisions.