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.

3.) Caronan vs Carnoan

Complainant: Patrick A. Caronan vs

Respondent: Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. “Atty. Patrick A. Caronan”

Facts:

Complainant and respondent are full siblings and both completed their
secondary education at Makati High School where they graduated in
1993 and in 1991, respectively. Complainant graduated at the
University of Makati in 1997 with a degree in Business Administration.
He married Myrna G. Tapis in 2001 with whom he has two daughters.
Concurrently, respondent enrolled at Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Maynila (PLM) for one year and then transferred to Philippine Military
Academy in 1992 where he was discharged after a year. Respondent
was not able to obtain any college degree since then. In 1999,
respondent enrolled in St Mary’s Law School in Nueva Vizcaya and
passed the Bar examinations in 2004. Complainant had knowledge of
such events but did not mind as he did not anticipate any adverse
consequences to him. In 2009, complainant realized that respondent
had been using his name to perpetrate crimes. Complainant filed the
present Complaint-Affidavit to stop respondent's alleged use of the
former's name and identity, and illegal practice of law. Respondent
denied all the allegations against him and invoked res judicata as a
defense. He maintained that his identity can no longer be raised as an
issue as it had already been resolved in CBD Case No. 09-2362 where
the IBP Board of Governors dismissed the administrative case filed
against him, and which case had already been declared closed and
terminated by the Supreme Court in A.C. No. 10074.32 Moreover,
according to him, complainant is being used by Reyes and her spouse,
Brigadier General Joselito M. Reyes, to humiliate, disgrace, malign,
discredit, and harass him because he filed several administrative and
criminal complaints against them before the Ombudsman. On June 15,
2015, IBP Investigating Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera issued
his Report and Recommendation, finding respondent GUILTY of illegally
and falsely assuming complainant's name, identity, and academic
records. Since respondent falsely assumed the name, identity, and
academic records of complainant and the real "Patrick A. Caronan"
neither obtained the bachelor of laws degree nor took the Bar Exams,
the Investigating Commissioner recommended that the name "Patrick
A. Caronan" with Roll of Attorneys No. 49069 be dropped and stricken
off the Roll of Attorneys. He also recommended that respondent and
the name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being admitted as a
member of the Bar; and finally, for making a mockery of the judicial
institution, the IBP was directed to institute appropriate actions against
respondent.

Issue: Whether or not the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) erred
in their ordering that (a) the name “Patrick A. Caronan” be stricken off
the Roll of Attorneys; and (b) the name “Richard A. Caronan” be barred
from being admitted to the Bar.

Ruling:

No. Respondent Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan"

(respondent) is found GUILTY of falsely assuming the name, identity,
and academic records of complainant Patrick A. Caronan (complainant)
to obtain a law degree and take the Bar Examinations. The Court
hereby resolves that: (1) the name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of
Attorneys No. 49069 is ordered DROPPED and STRICKEN OFF the Roll of
Attorneys; (2) respondent is PROHIBITED from engaging in the practice
of law or making any representations as a lawyer; (3) respondent is
BARRED from being admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar in the
future; ( 4) the Identification Cards issued by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines to respondent under the name "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan"
and the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Certificates issued in
such name are CANCELLED and/or REVOKED; and (5) the Office of the
Court Administrator is ordered to CIRCULATE notices and POST in the
bulletin boards of all courts of the country a photograph of respondent
with his real name, " Richard A. Caronan," with a warning that he is not
a member of the Philippine Bar and a statement of his false
assumption of the name and identity of "Patrick A. Caronan."

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.

5.) Tabao vs Lacaba

The Facts

Complainant, with her siblings, charged Jester Q. Repulda, Edmund C. Elcarte, Noel Vincent P. Cinco
(Noel), Paul Michael P. Cinco (Paul), Marlin B. Cinco (Marlin), and Marie Janice P. Cinco (Marie) of perjury.
According to complainant, Atty. Alexander R. Lacaba (Atty. Lacaba) notarized the two-page Counter-
Affidavit3 executed by Noel, Paul, Marlin, and Marie without the personal appearance of Marlin and
Marie. A perusal of this Counter-Affidavit, which was filed during the preliminary investigation before the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Tacloban City, Leyte, readily shows that somebody else signed for
Marlin and Marie. The signatures above their names read Rosalina Aloha B. Cinco (Rosalina) and Felicita
P. Cinco (Felicita), respectively. More, it is impossible for Marlin and Marie to have personally appeared
before Atty. Lacaba since during the execution of the Counter-Affidavit, Marlin was in Dubai working,
while Marie was in Cebu City. Aside from non-compliance with the requirements of personal appearance
and attestation of the affiants, Atty. Lacaba also failed to indicate the document number, page number,
book number, and corresponding series year of his notarial register in the Counter-Affidavit, as required
by notarial laws.4

In his compliance,5 Atty. Lacaba did not deny complainant's charges. As defense, however, he claimed
that the Investigating Prosecutor in the perjury case was informed before the filing of the Counter-
Affidavit that two of the affiants were "physically absent" but could be contacted through telephone and
video call via internet. According to him, the Investigating Prosecutor offered no objection to the same.
He notarized the Counter-Affidavit by contacting Marlin and Marie by video call using the laptop of
Felicitas, the mother of Marie, Noel, and Paul, in his office in Sta. Fe, Leyte. He narrated that he
contacted Marie first and that during the video call, he "could see her in the monitor of the laptop and
after reading to her the contents of the subject counter-affidavit and asked her if she understood the
contents read to her, the latter affirmed, and voluntarily and knowingly AUTHORIZED her mother
[Felicitas] to sign for and in her behalf."6 He then made the video call with Marlin, and in the same
manner, Marlin authorized her mother, Rosalina, to sign for and in her behalf. Citing the Rules on
Electronic Evidence, he alleged that the video call conversation can be considered a "substitute of
personal presence of a person while physically absent from the place of the other party." Further, the
circumstances of Marlin and Marie fall under the "physical inability" contemplated under Section 1(c),7
Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice. He, nonetheless, admits that not all elements required by the
said provision were present in this case. Atty. Lacaba maintained that he was in good faith.8

On July 29, 2013, the Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report, and recommendation.9

Both parties filed their respective position papers and reiterated their claims.10 Arty. Lacaba added that
during the preliminary investigation, complainant never questioned the representation of Rosalina and
Felicitas even though she was furnished with a copy of the Counter-Affidavit. The law on agency in the
Civil Code does not prohibit a party from appointing an agent to execute a counter-affidavit for purposes
of preliminary investigation. The submission of a counter-affidavit is not even compulsory under the
Rules on Criminal Procedure, hence a respondent may delegate its execution to an agent who must
appear in person before the notary public who will administer the oath.11

The Ruling of the Court

The Court upholds the findings of the IBP Board of Governors.

There is no dispute that Atty. Lacaba violated the Rules on Notarial Practice. Both in his Compliance and
Position Paper, he never disputed the fact that he notarized the Counter-Affidavit without the personal
appearance of all the affiants. He also did not address his failure to indicate in the Counter-Affidavit the
document number, page number, book number, and the corresponding series year of his notarial
register. He merely offered good faith and substantial compliance as defenses. Section 2(b), Rule IV and
Section 2(e), Rule VI of the Rules on Notarial Practice are clear

notary public is not allowed to notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the
very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth
of what are stated therein. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the
party's free act and deed.21 Thus, it is undeniable that Rosalina and Felicitas could not validly sign for
and in behalf of Marlin and Marie for the simple reason that they do not have personal knowledge of the
allegations in the Counter-Affidavit, and therefore, could not attest to the truthfulness thereof.

It cannot be overemphasized that "notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act, but one
invested with substantive public interest. Notarization converts a private document into a public
document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized
document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public
must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his notarial duties;
otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined."22
Atty. Lacaba cannot, therefore, frivolously bend the rules to his benefit.

The Court likewise adopts the recommended penalty of the IBP Board of Governors. The penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for the period of six months, disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years, and revocation of his notarial commission, if
any, is commensurate and in accord with existing jurisprudence.23

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Alexander R. Lacaba is ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
six months effective from the date of finality of this Decision. His notarial commission, if existing, is
hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for two years. He
is also sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. Atty.
Lacaba is directed to inform the Court of the date of his receipt of this Decision.

Lawyer and the society

6.) Fernandez St. Lukes vs Grecia

Fernandez vs Benjamin Grecia

42 SCA D 438 –Legal Ethics– Gross Misconduct.

In 1990, Linda Aves was admitted to St. Lukes Hospital. Among the doctors who treated her was
Dr.Alberto Fernandez. She was treated well hence she was sent home but then The next day she died
togetherwith her unborn child. Damaso Aves, husband, then filed a damage suit against the hospital and
heimpleaded the attending doctors which included Fernandez. Aves hired Atty. Benjamin Grecia to
representhim.Grecia requested St. Luke to surrender before the court the medical records of Linda Aves.
St. Lukecomplied and the medical records were delivered to the Clerk of Court. In the morning of July 16,
1991,Grecia went to the office of the clerk of court to borrow the said medical records. While Grecia
wasexamining the said medical records, he tore in front of the Clerk and one office staff two pages from
themedical records and then handed it back to the Clerk. The Clerk was stunned as she watched Grecia
walkaway. She then reported the incident to the judge. The judge immediately took action and the torn
pages were eventually recovered as it turned out that Grecia handed the torn pages to someone
else.Grecia was then administratively charged by Dr. Fernandez. Apparently, Grecia has been disbarred
before.However, he was able to get to the good side of the Supreme Court hence he was reinstated to
theprofession.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Grecia should be disbarred again.

HELD:

Yes. Grecia violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a lawyer, he should not engage
inunlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity
anddignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. A lawyer is an officer
of thecourts; he is “like the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice”.
Considering thatthis is his second offense, an incorrigible practitioner of “dirty tricks,” like Grecia would
be ill-suited todischarge the role of “an instrument to advance the ends of justice.” By descending to the
level of acommon thief, respondentGrecia has demeaned and disgraced the legal profession. He has
demonstratedhis moral unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable fraternity of lawyers. He
had forfeited his membership in thr bar.

7.) 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.”

8.) Constantino vs Salaudares

In an Affidavit-Complaint dated April 21, 1978, complainant Luis G. Constantino charges respondent Atty.
Prudencio S. Saludares with conduct unbecoming of a lawyer for the non-payment of a loan which the
latter obtained from complainant’s son Luis Constantino, Jr.

It appears that sometime in August 1977, respondent borrowed money in the amount of P1,000.00 from
complainant’s son Luis, Jr. Respondent procured the loan purportedly for an urgent personal obligation
promising to pay it back promptly the following day.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Respondent failed to comply with his promise. Subsequent demands for payment were then made by
Luis, Jr. but to no avail.

In the interim, Luis, Jr. left the country and afterwards wrote his father, authorizing the latter to collect
the sum of money owed by Respondent. Despite complainant’s repeated demands however, respondent
persistently refused to pay back the said amount, prompting the former to seek assistance from the Civil
Relations Office of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) through an affidavit-complaint. The Civil
Relations Office in turn endorsed the affidavit-complaint to this Court on April 24, 1978. (Rollo, p. 4)

The complaint alleges that respondent lawyer, by abusing the trust and confidence of complainant’s son,
was able to obtain a loan in the amount of P1,000.00 which he unjustifiably refused and still refuses to
pay despite repeated demands. This act, complainant alleges, constitutes conduct unbecoming an officer
of the court and is a clear violation of respondent’s oath of office.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

In compliance with this Court’s resolution date May 25, 1979, respondent filed his comment on the
affidavit-complaint alleging among other things that the complaint was without basis and malicious in
nature. He however, categorically admits having borrowed money from complainant’s son, Luis, Jr. He
reasons out that he was unable to repay the loan because Luis, Jr. failed to appear at the appointed place
of payment. Respondent further cites the fact of Luis Jr.’s absence from the country to justify such act of
non-payment.

Complainant, in his reply, challenged the veracity of respondent’s contentions and reiterated his previous
allegation of respondent’s unjustified refusal to settle his indebtedness despite repeated demands.
On October 15, 1979, the case was duly referred to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation,
report and recommendation pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 139 of the Rules of Court and was assigned to
the office of Solicitor Jesus G. Bersamira. After the investigation conducted by the said Solicitor, wherein
respondent failed to appear despite due notice, the case was deemed submitted for report and
recommendation. Solicitor Bersamira, however, was appointed to the Bench and no report nor
recommendation was made by him. On November 8, 1984 the case was re-assigned to another Solicitor.

On March 12, 1990, the Solicitor General rendered its report, the dispositive portion of which
reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that Atty. Prudencio S. Saludares be charged with violation
of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court of Philippines and his Lawyer’s Oath and that he be
suspended for 1 year from the practice of law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Attached is a copy of the complaint for suspension."cralaw virtua1aw library

(Solicitor General’s Report and Recommendation, p.3)

The Solicitor General found that respondent’s unjustified refusal to settle his debt was apparent from the
averments in the affidavit-complaint and this fact was sufficiently established during the proceedings
before the investigating Solicitor. The Solicitor General further adds that respondent’s refusal to pay the
debt constitutes a violation of his lawyer’s oath under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and is
therefore a proper subject for disciplinary action.

There is no doubt that respondent, borrowed P1,000.00 from Luis Constantino, Jr. purportedly for an
urgent personal need, promising to pay it back the following day. As a matter of fact, the respondent
admits said indebtedness but has not given any just and valid reason for his refusal to pay this debt.

It has been held that when a lawyer’s integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not enough that he denied
the charges against him, he must meet the issues and overcome the evidence for the relator and show
proof that he still maintains the highest degree of morality and integrity which is at all times expected of
him (Quingwa v. Puno, 19 SCRA 439 [1967]).

By his failure to present convincing evidence to justify his non-payment of the debt, not to mention his
seeming indifference to the complaint brought against him made apparent by his unreasonable absence
from the proceedings before the Solicitor General, respondent failed to demonstrate that he still
possessed the integrity and morality demanded of a member of the Bar.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law
library

Granting arguendo that he failed to meet Luis, Jr. at the appointed place of payment, respondent does
not deny the fact that he has refused and still refuses to repay the P1,000.00 loan despite repeated
demands by complainant who was duly authorized to collect the same. Had respondent intended to
settle his indebtedness, he could have done so in the several instances repayment was demanded of
him.

It is clear from the records that after Luis, Jr. left the country, complainant and his wife took turns in
trying to recover the debt from respondent, only to be repeatedly turned away empty-handed. This
prompted Luis, Jr. to write respondent a letter dated February 3, 1978 reminding the latter of the
P1,000.00 loan extended to him and at the same time demanding payment thereof. (Rollo, p. 19) This
however, like the other demands, was left unheeded.

The foregoing factual antecedents compel Us to conclude that from the very beginning, respondent had
no intention to honor and/or pay his just debt. We cannot simply close our eyes to the unwarranted
obstinacy displayed by respondent in evading payment of a debt validly incurred. Such a conduct, to say
the least, is unbecoming and does not speak well of a member of the Bar. A lawyer’s professional and
personal conduct must at all times be kept beyond reproach and above suspicion. He must perform his
duties to the Bar, to the courts, to his clients, and to society with honor and dignity (Marcelo v. Javier,
214 SCRA 1 [1992]).

The facts and evidence obtaining in this case indubitably establish respondent’s failure to live up to his
duties as a lawyer in consonance with the strictures of the lawyer’s oath, the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics, thereby degrading not only his person but his
profession as well.

the case at bar, it is clear to the Court that the conduct of respondent Saludares in failing to honor his
just debt to complainant’s son constituted dishonest and immoral conduct. This dishonest conduct was
compounded by respondent’s act of interjecting paltry excuses for his unwarranted refusal to pay a valid
and just debt.chanrobles law library

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby ORDERS the Suspension of Attorney Prudencio S. Saludares from the
practice of law for a period of three (3) months from notice, with the warning that a repetition of the
same or any other misconduct will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this resolution be spread
on the records of said respondent, with copies thereof furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and duly circularized to all courts.

SO ORDERED.

9.) 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.

10.) 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.

11.) CECILIA A. AGNO, Complainant, v. Atty. MARCIANO J. CAGATAN, Respondent.

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

Facts:

This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Cecilia A. Agno against respondent Atty. Marciano J.
Cagatan for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The record shows that respondent was the President of International Services Recruitment
Corporation (ISRC), a corporation engaged in the recruitment of Filipino workers for overseas
employment. On July 12, 1988, ISRC's recruitment license was cancelled by the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) for violation of labor law provisions and subsequently, on
August 9, 1988, ISRC was forever banned from participating in overseas recruitment.1 cra

On Sepetember 19, 1988, the respondent appealed the DOLE's cancellation of ISRC's license
with the Office of the President. The appeal was resolved by the said office in respondent's favor
in the Resolution dated March 30, 19932 which set aside the order of cancellation and directed
both the DOLE and the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) to renew the
recruitment license of ISRC subject to the payment of a guarantee bond which was double the
amount required by law.

Since ISRC's recruitment license had already expired on September 17, 1989, ISRC filed on
April 12, 1994, an application for renewal of its recruitment license with the POEA.3 cra
However, during the pendency of the aforementioned appeal with the Office of the President,
particularly on August 9, 1992, the respondent entered into a Memorandum of Agreement4 with a
United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) national, Mr. Khalifa H. Juma,5 the husband of herein
complainant, Cecilia A. Agno.

On December 26, 1995, which was more than three (3) years after the execution of the aforesaid
agreement, a Complaint-Affidavit6 for disbarment was filed with this Court by the complainant
against the respondent claiming that the latter used fraud, deceit and misrepresentation, in
enticing her husband, Khalifa, to join ISRC and invest therein the amount of P500,000.00 and
that although the respondent received the aforesaid amount, the complainant learned from her
inquiries with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the POEA that the respondent
failed to comply with the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement. The complainant found out
that the said Memorandum of Agreement could not be validated without the approval of the
Board of Directors of ISRC. While respondent even had the complainant sign an affidavit stating
that she was then the acting Treasurer of ISRC, her appointment as Treasurer was not submitted
to the SEC. The records of the SEC showed that the Board of Directors, officers and
stockholders of ISRC remained unchanged and her name and that of her husband did not appear
as officers and/or stockholders thereof. From the POEA, on the other hand, the complainant
learned that ISRC's recruitment license was yet to be reinstated.

The complainant claimed that respondent used for his own personal benefit the P500,000.00 that
she and her husband invested in ISRC. When she demanded that respondent return the said sum
of money, respondent issued a bank check dated March 30, 19947 in favor of the complainant in
the amount of P500,000.00 which was dishonored for being drawn against a closed account.
Despite repeated demands by complainant, the respondent failed to settle his obligation or
redeem his dishonored check, prompting the complainant to file a case for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 against the respondent. An information was filed before the Municipal Trial
Court of Cainta, Rizal, charging the respondent with the said offense and a warrant of arrest was
issued against respondent after the latter failed several times to attend his arraignment. The
complainant prayed for the disbarment of the respondent for issuing a bouncing check and for his
act of dishonesty in assuring her and her husband that the Memorandum of Agreement would
suffice to install them as stockholders and officers of ISRC which induced them to invest in said
corporation the amount of P500,000.00.

The IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), through Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan,
held several hearings, the last of which was on November 13, 2003. Eventually, on October 12,
2004, Commissioner San Juan submitted her Report and Recommendation.

Thus, the Commissioner's recommendation: cra:nad

Given all the foregoing, it is submitted that respondent manifested lack of candor, when he
knowingly failed to provide the complainant with accurate and complete information due her
under the circumstances. It is respectfully recommended that respondent be SUSPENDED from
the practice of law in the maximum period prescribed by law and to return the money received
from the complainant.
On October 22, 2005, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed Resolution No. XVII-2005-
10216 adopting and approving, with modification, the afore-quoted report and recommendation of
the investigating commissioner.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law

Ruling:

In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that respondent has violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility as well as his attorney's oath.

The Code of Professional Responsibility specifically mandates the following : cra:nad

Canon 1. A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and legal processes.

Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Canon 7. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Marciano J. Cagatan is SUSPENDED FOR ONE (1) YEAR
and ONE (1) MONTH from the practice of law with warning that repetition of the same or
similar acts will merit a more severe penalty; and ordered to RESTITUTE the amount of
P500,000.00 to the complainant.

Lawyer and the Legal Profession

12.) 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.

13.) Barrientos vs Daarol

Facts:

Victoria Barrientos filed a disbarment case against Transfiguracion (Trans) Daarol on grounds of Gross

Immoral conduct. Trans is a 41 year old Manager of a company Zaneco. Known by Victoria's father since
the latter was his former teacher and Victoria's mother was his classmate. Victoria is a 20 year old
college student. Known by Trans cos he frequently visits the house due to his familiar relationship with
the family. Trans invited Victoria to be one of the usherettes for Mason Convention on June 28 to 30 in
which he asked to request forher parents approval. Thereafter, they gohome together every aftersession.
On July 1, they went on a joy ride and strolled on a beach. While on strolling he proposed his love to her;
that respondent told her that if she would accept him, he would marry her within six (6) months from
her acceptance; Victoria said she will think about it. He constantly visited the house to court and ask for
the "yes". That on July 7, 1973, she finally accepted respondent's offer of love and respondent continued
his usual visitations almost every night thereafter; they agreed to get married in December
On August 20, they went on a party, before going home he invited her for a joy ride, went on strolling at
the beach at the airport where no houses are around. He again profess his love, caressed her, and act
removing the undies of Victoria. When the latter askrd what he's doing he just professed his love and
said it is ok cause he will marry her and December is near. She gave in to his words and had carnal
knowledge. Every time they go out together he'll bring her to the said beach at the airport and have
sexual intercourse. This happened two to three times a week. On the course of this relationship, Victoria
got pregnant and said

it to Trans. He said she must abort the fetus. She answered no. They went to her parents and told them
to bring her to Manila. They will get married at Manila to prevent scandalous remarks to her. When they
went to Manila. He claimed: He said he's married. He can no longer marry her. He's a moslem. He had
estranged wife. He said she consented to have sexual intercourse with him because of her love to him
and he did not resort to force, trickery, deceit or cajolery; and that the present case was filed against him
by complainant because of his failure to give the money to support complainant while in Cebu waiting
for the delivery of the child and, also to meet complainant's medical expenses when she went to
Zamboanga City for medical check-up.

Issue: WON he is qualified for Disbarment due to gross immoral conduct and deceitful act

Ruling: Yes.

1. By age:

Victoria Barrientos, is single, a college student, and was about 20 years and 7 months old during the time
(July-October 1975) of her relationship with respondent, having been born on December 23, 1952; while
respondent Transfiguracion Daarol is married, General Manager of Zamboanga del Norte Electric
Cooperative, and 41 years old at the time of the said relationship, having been born on August 6, 1932;

2. By keeping marriage: He is married to Romualda A. Sumaylo with whom be has a son; and that said
respondent had been separated from his wife for about 16 years at the time of his relationship with
complainant;

3. He's son living at Dipolog as well but they have different house

4. He said he processed the annulment but to no avail he did not. 5. He claimed he's a moslem but why
cannot he marry her.From the records, it appears indubitable that complainant was never informed by
respondent attorney of his real status as a married individual. The fact of his previous marriage was
disclosed by respondent only after the complainant became pregnant. Even then, respondent
misrepresented himself as being eligible to re-marry for having been estranged from his wife for 16 years
and dangled a marriage proposal on the assurance that he would work for the annulment of his first
marriage. It was a deception after all as it turned out that respondent never bothered to annul said
marriage. More importantly, respondent knew all along that the mere fact of separation alone is not a
ground for annulment of marriage and does not vest him legal capacity to contract another marriage.
Here, respondent, already a married man and about 41 years old, proposed love and marriage to
complainant, then still a 20-year-old minor, knowing that he did not have the required legal capacity.
Respondent then succeeded in having carnal relations with complainant by deception, made her
pregnant, suggested abortion, breached his promise to marry her, and then deserted her and the child.
Respondent is therefore guilty of deceit and grossly immoral conduct. The practice of law is a privilege
accorded only to those who measure up to the exacting standards of mental and moral fitness.
Respondent having exhibited debased morality, the Court is constrained to impose upon him the most
severe disciplinary action — disbarment. Transfiguracion Daarol guilty of grossly immoral conduct
unworthy of being a member of the Bar and is hereby ordered DISBARRED and his name stricken off
from the Roll of Attorney

14.) Garcias vs Bulautian

Before the Court is a complaint for disbarment instituted by the herein complainant Dahlia S. Gacias
against Atty. Alexander Bulauitan on grounds of dishonesty and grave misconduct.

Herein respondent Atty. Alexander Bulauitan used to own a parcel of land with an area of 1,242 square
meters located at Tuguegarao City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-79190. Sometime in
February 1996, complainant and respondent entered into an agreement for the purchase, on installment
basis, of a 92-square meter portion of the 1,242-square meter lot at a unit price of ₱3,500.00 per square
meter. Out of the total consideration of ₱322,000.00, complainant initially paid respondent, as down
payment, US$3,100.00, or its equivalent of ₱82,000.00, as evidenced by a receipt dated February 28,
1996. Subsequent installment payments were remitted, as mutually agreed upon, to the Bank of
Philippine Islands, Kamuning Branch, under the account of respondent’s daughter, Joan Christine. All
told, complainant had, as of November 1996, paid the respondent, in cash and in kind, the peso
equivalent of US$6,950.00, which, per complainant’s computation, using the $1:₱43 dollar-peso rate of
exchange, amounted to ₱300,000.00.

As complainant would also allege in her affidavit-complaint dated April 23, 2001,1 as amended,2 she
asked for the copy of the title over the 92-square meter portion upon learning about the mortgage the
respondent constituted over his Tuguegarao property. According to complainant, respondent’s inability
to produce the desired title impelled her not to complete payment anymore and to request the return of
the amount she had already paid the respondent. Complainant further alleged that the respondent
agreed, but has not made good his undertaking, to make reimbursement. Her request for assistance
from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) proved futile, too. Meanwhile, the mortgagee bank,
China Bank, foreclosed the mortgage constituted on the respondent’s property, then consolidated the
title over it in its name.
In his answer in compliance with an order from the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, respondent
admitted entering into a land purchase agreement with the complainant, but stressed the private nature
of the transaction between them. He described as premature the complainant’s demand for delivery of
title inasmuch as the aforementioned agreement was not consummated for complainant’s failure to pay
in full the purchase price of the 92-square meter portion. Respondent admitted, though, that he
undertook to pay back the amount of ₱300,000.00 as a measure to avoid scandal, given what to him was
complainant’s penchant to make a scene whenever the opportunity presented itself.

To the answer, complainant countered with a reply, to which respondent filed a rejoinder.

In the meantime, complainant, upon the facts above narrated, filed a criminal complaint for estafa
against the respondent before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cagayan.

Following several failed preliminary conferences and hearings, IBP Bar Discipline Hearing Commissioner
Wilfredo E.J. E. Reyes issued, on July 22, 2005, an order3 declaring the case as submitted for resolution
on the basis of the pleadings and position papers submitted by the parties, with their attachments.

In its report dated November 8, 2005, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommends that
respondent be adjudged guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct and meted the penalty of suspension
from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.

The recommendation to suspend and the findings holding it together commend themselves for
concurrence.1âwphi1

The Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest or
deceitful conduct.4 The complementing Rule 7.03 of the Code, on the other hand, provides that "a
lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law." Another
complementing provision is found in the Rules of Court providing that a member of the bar may be
suspended or even removed from office as an attorney for any deceit, malpractice, or misconduct in
office.5 And when the Code or the Rules speaks of "conduct" or "misconduct," the reference is not
confined to one’s behavior exhibited in connection with the performance of the lawyer’s professional
duties, but also covers any misconduct which, albeit unrelated to the actual practice of his profession,
would show him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law
invest him with. To borrow from Orbe v. Adaza.6 "[T]he grounds expressed in Section 27, Rule 138, of the
Rules of Court are not limitative and are broad enough to cover any misconduct, including dishonesty, of
a lawyer in his professional or private capacity."

Like Atty. Adaza in Orbe, respondent Atty. Bulauitan also refused without justifiable reason to comply
with his just obligation under a contract he entered into with the complainant. There can be no quibbling
as to the complainant having paid respondent the amount of ₱300,000.00 out of the total contract cost
of ₱322,000.00. In other words, there had been substantial contract compliance on the part of the
complainant. A reciprocal effort towards complying with his part of the bargain would have been
becoming of respondent, as a man of goodwill. It would appear, however, that this kind of gesture was
alas too much to hope for from the respondent. For, instead of going through the motion of delivering
the portion of his property to its buyer after his receipt of almost the entire purchase price therefor, the
respondent mortgaged the whole property without so much as informing the complainant about it. Like
the IBP investigating commissioner, the Court finds the respondent’s act of giving the property in
question in mortgage bordering on the fraudulent and surely dishonest. The Court, to be sure, takes
stock of respondent’s attempt to make amends by promising to return the amount of ₱300,000.00. But
this promise strikes the Court, as it did the IBP investigating commissioner, as a mere ploy by the
respondent to evade criminal prosecution for estafa, what with the fact that he has yet to make good his
commitment to return.

Respondent had shown, through his dealing with the complainant involving a tiny parcel of land, a want
of professional honesty. Such misdeed reflects on the moral stuff which he is made of. His fitness to
continue in the advocacy of law and manage the legal affairs of others are thus put in serious doubt too.
The private nature of the transaction or the fact that the same was concluded without the respondent
taking advantage of his legal profession is really of little moment. For, a lawyer may be suspended or
disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him wanting
in honesty, probity or good demeanor.7

While the Court agrees with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline respecting the guilt of respondent and
the propriety of a suspension, it is not, however, inclined to impose the severe recommended penalty of
suspension for two (2) years.

WHEREFORE, herein respondent, ATTY. ALEXANDER BULAUITAN, is found guilty of gross misconduct and
dishonesty and ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective upon
his receipt hereof. Let copies of this decision be spread on his record in the Bar Confidant’s Office and
furnished the IBP and the Office of the Court Administrator for proper dissemination to all courts.

SO ORDERED.

15.) Franculo vs Ferranculo

AILEEN A. FERANCULLO vs ATTY. SANCHO M. FERANCULLO

A.C. No. 7214, November 30, 2006

Facts:

Before the Court is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Aileen Ferancullo
(petitioner) against Atty. Sancho M. Ferancullo, Jr. (respondent) grounded on his alleged commission of
estafa, bigamy and violation of the lawyers oath. Complainant narrated how respondent allegedly took
advantage of their attorney-client relationship to extort money from her in consideration of the out-of-
court settlement of her criminal cases and deceived her into marrying him by concealing his previous
marriage. Complainant averred that respondent would send her breakfast and flowers. When asked about
his personal circumstances, respondent supposedly told complainant that he was still single although he
had a child out of wedlock. Complainant also maintained that she saw no apparent indications suggesting
that respondent was married. As indicative of their romantic relationship, respondent and complainant
allegedly traveled to different places. Complainant found out that she was pregnant sometime in June
2004. Respondent likewise denied courting complainant asserting that the latter had already known since
February 2004 that he was married.[21] He claimed to be happily married to his legal wife. He denied
living in together with complainant or providing a residence for complainant. Despite the numerous
factual allegations presented by both parties and the affidavits and documents to support them, the IBP
made only a general conclusion that complainant must be motivated by greed in filing the instant
administrative complaint. Thus, the Court reviewed the records.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Sancho M. Ferancullo is found guilty of gross immorality with regard to
engaging in illicit relationships and abandoning his family?

Ruling:

Respondents intimate relationship with a woman other than his wife shows his moral indifference
to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community. ]It is a time-honored rule that
good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law. Its continued
possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law. However, the power to disbar must be
exercised with great caution, and only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing
and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar. Disbarment should
never be decreed where any lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, could accomplish the end
desired. Atty. Sancho M. Ferancullo, Jr. is found guilty of gross immorality and is hereby suspended from
the practice of law for a period of two (2) years effective upon notice with the specific warning that a
more severe penalty shall be imposed should he commit the same or a similar offense hereafter.

16.) 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.

17.)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.

Lawyer and the Courts

20.) Tiongco vs Aguilar

A judge is expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules
and to apply them properly in all good faith.
Jose B. Tiongco accuses Judge Florentino Pedronio of ―Grave Abuse of Discretion, Gross Incompetence
and Inefficiency Amounting to Ignorance of the Law, and Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge‖. The
complaint arose from the alleged failure of Judge Pedronio to decide the case pending before it within
the reglementary period of 3 months and his incorrect application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
The complaint further alleges that Judge Pedronio refused to inhibit himself from deciding the case of
People v. Sagutier despite Tiongco’s motion that the same be submitted for decision of Judge Rene
Honrado, the former presiding judge who heard and tried the case. Finally, Tiongco brings to the Court’s
attention, Judge Pedronio’s lack of mastery and command of the English language.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Pedronio is guilty of Grave Abuse of Discretion, Gross Incompetence and
Inefficiency Amounting to Ignorance of the Law, and Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge

HELD:

Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, the penalty for undue delay in rendering a decision, a less serious
charge, is suspension from office without salary and other benefits for one (1) to two (2) months and
twenty-nine (29) days or a fine of not less than P10,000.00 but not more than P19,999.00.

The OCA’s recommended penalty of reprimand is thus not proper. Absent any finding of malice or bad
faith on the part of Judge Pedronio, however, the minimum penalty of fine in the amount of P10,000 is
hereby imposed.

As to the charge of gross ignorance of the law in applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the issue is
not, as the OCA finds, judicial in nature, for what is at issue is Judge Pedronio’s lack of familiarity with the
Indeterminate Sentence Law which is properly the subject of an administrative proceeding.

Pedronio stresses that the penalty he imposed in People v. Mahilum carries minimum and maximum
periods instead of a single penalty, which is the very essence of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Pedronio’s imposed penalty is, however, incorrect. Under Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, the
penalty for an attempted crime is two degrees lower than that prescribed by law. As attempted homicide
is punishable by prision correccional, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty to
be imposed upon the accused is anywhere within the range of One (1) Month and One (1) Day to Six (6)
Months of arresto mayor, and the maximum to be taken from the medium period of prision correccional,
the range of which is Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day to Four (4) Years and Two (2)
Months.

The Court’s ruling bears repeating: Although a judge may not always be subjected to disciplinary action
for every erroneous order or decision he renders, that relative immunity is not a license to be negligent
or abusive and arbitrary in performing his adjudicatory prerogatives.

Everyone, especially a judge, is presumed to know the law. And a judge is expected to exhibit more than
just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules, and to apply them properly in all good
faith. Judicial competence requires no less.

For erroneously applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Pedronio is guilty of gross ignorance of the
law.

As to the charge that Pedronio refused to inhibit himself in the case of People v. Sagutier, his Order of
February 28, 2000 stating the reason behind the denial of complainant’s Motion to Inhibit is well-taken
and is, at any rate, mooted by his Order of May 23, 2000 to transmit the records of the case to Judge
Honrado before whom the case was submitted for decision.

And as to Pedronio’s alleged lack of mastery of the English language, the evidence on record does not
suffice to support the same.

21.) Villaflor vs Sarita

FACTS: Complainant filed a case for disbarment against respondent before the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline. The Commissioner assigned to investigate the case issued an order directing respondent to
file his answer or comment to the complaint. The period of time alloted to answer the complaint lapsed
without respondent submitting his comment. An order was issued requiring the parties to attend the
hearing of the case but the respondent failed to appear. A notice of hearing was sent to respondent but
again he failed to attend the proceeding. After giving the respondent enough opportunity to face the
charges against him, which the latter did not avail, the case was submitted for resolution.
ISSUE: Whether or not failure to obey notices from the IBP investigators constitutes an unethical act.

HELD: Yes. As an officer of the court, it is the duty of a lawyer to uphold the dignity and authority of the
court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. It is his foremost responsibility to
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers. The highest form of
respect to the judicial authority is shown by a lawyer’s obedience to court orders and processes.

23