HEADNOTES FOR PALE CASES

FIRST 20 CASES

SUBMITTED TO: ATTY. CASTILLO

SUBMITTED BY: MULA, Iane Gem M.

December 12, 2019

Case No. 1: MICHELLE YAP, Complainant, v. ATTY. GRACE C. BURI

Lawyers may be disciplined for any conduct, whether in their professional or in their
private capacity, if such conduct renders them unfit to continue to be officers of the court.
Thus, for failure to pay her loan obligations, Atty. Buri is liable for violation of Canon 1
and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which state that:

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.

Case No. 2: ARNOLD PACAO, Complainant, v. ATTY. SINAMAR LIMOS, Respondent.

The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who
show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for
the conferment of such privilege. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions. Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold
the laws.

Case No. 3: STEPHAN BRUNET and VIRGINIA ROMANILLOS BRUNET, Complainants,

vs. ATTY. RONALD L. GUAREN, Respondent.

The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not
money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-
making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The
gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration.
Case No. 4: RENATO L. CAYETANO, Petitioner, v. CHRISTIAN MONSOD

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of
law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To engage in the practice of
law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to
practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service
requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.

Case No. 5: HEIRS OF JUAN DE DIOS E. CARLOS, Complainants, v. ATTY. JAIME S.

LINSANGAN, Respondent.

The acts of the lawyer in this case are in direct contravention of Article 1491(5) of the Civil
Code which forbids lawyers from acquiring, by purchase or assignment, the property
that has been the subject of litigation in which they have taken part by virtue of their
profession.

While Canon 10 of the old Canons of Professional Ethics, which states that "[t]he lawyer
should not purchase any interests in the subject matter of the litigation which he is
conducting," is no longer reproduced in the new Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR), such proscription still applies considering that Canon I of the CPR is clear in
requiring that "a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal process" and Rule 138, Sec. 3 which requires every lawyer to take
an oath to "obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein."

Here, the law transgressed by Atty. Linsangan is Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, in
violation of his lawyer's oath.
Case No. 6: MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA, Complainant, v. ATTY. DANILO S.
SAMSON, Respondent.

The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of
mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the
rules of the legal profession are the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing
of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law.

In this case, respondent’s gross misbehavior and unrepentant demeanor clearly shows a serious
flaw in his character, his moral indifference to sexual exploitation of a minor, and his outright
defiance of established norms.

Case No. 7: FATHER RANHILIO C. AQUINO, et. al., Complainants, v. ATTY. EDWIN
PASCUA, Respondent.

Failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register touching his
notarial acts in the manner required by law is a ground for revocation of his commission (Sec. 249,
Article VI).

In the instant case, there is no question that the subject documents allegedly notarized by Atty.
Pascua were not recorded in his notarial register.

Case No. 8: BENJAMIN Q. ONG, Complainant, vs. ATTY. WILLIAM F. DELOS

SANTOS, Respondent.

A lawyer's issuance of a worthless check renders him in breach of his oath to obey the laws. To
accord with the canon of professional responsibility that requires him to uphold the Constitution,
obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes, he thereby
becomes administratively liable for gross misconduct.
Case No. 9: VERLITA V. MERCULLO AND RAYMOND VEDANO, Complainants, v. ATTY.
MARIE FRANCES E. RAMON, Respondent.

The Lawyer's Oath is a source of the obligations and duties of every lawyer. Any violation of the
oath may be punished with either disbarment, or suspension from the practice of law, or other
commensurate disciplinary action. Every lawyer must at no time be wanting in probity and moral
fiber which are not only conditions precedent to his admission to the Bar, but are also essential
for his continued membership in the Law Profession. Any conduct unbecoming of a lawyer
constitutes a violation of his oath.

Case No. 10: BIENVENIDA FLOR SUAREZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. ELEONORA

MARAVILLA-ONA, Respondent.

Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code provides that "[lawyers] shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct." By taking the lawyer's oath, lawyers become guardians of the law
and indispensable instruments for the orderly administration of justice. As such, they can be
disciplined for any conduct, in their professional or private capacity, which renders them unfit to
continue to be officers of the court.

Case No. 11: PAULINO LIM, Complainant, v. ATTY. SOCRATES R. RIVERA, Respondent.

It has been consistently held that "[the] deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of
worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with
suspension from the practice of law.

Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system.
They are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality,
honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the peoples' faith and confidence in the judicial
system is ensured.
Case No. 12: ELIBENA A. CABILES, Complainant, v. ATTY. LEANDRO S. CEDO, Respondent.

Bar Matter 850 mandates continuing legal education for IBP members as an additional
requirement to enable them to practice law. This is ''to ensure that throughout their career, they
keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the
standards of the practice of law." Non-compliance with the MCLE requirement subjects the
lawyer to be listed as a delinquent IBP member.

Case No. 13: FERDINAND A. CRUZ, Petitioner, vs. ALBERTO MINA, HON. ELEUTERIO F.
GUERRERO and HON. ZENAIDA LAGUILLES, Respondents.

There is really no problem as to the application of Section 34 of Rule 138 and Rule 138-A. In the
former, the appearance of a non-lawyer, as an agent or friend of a party litigant, is expressly
allowed, while the latter rule provides for conditions when a law student, not as an agent or a
friend of a party litigant, may appear before the courts.

Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a non-lawyer is
allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law student.

Case No. 14: TERESITA P. FAJARDO, Complainant, v. ATTY. NICANOR C.

ALVAREZ, Respondent.

Under Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and Memorandum Circular No. 17, series
of 1986, government officials or employees are prohibited from engaging in private practice of
their profession unless authorized by their department heads. More importantly, if authorized,
the practice of profession must not conflict nor tend to conflict with the official functions of the
government official or employee

In this case, respondent was given written permission by the Head of the National Center for
Mental Health, whose authority was designated under Department of Health Administrative
Order No. 21, series of 1999. However, by assisting and representing complainant in a suit
against the Ombudsman and against government in general, respondent put himself in a
situation of conflict of interest.
Case No. 15: CHRISTOPHER R. SANTOS, Complainant vs.ATTY. JOSEPH A. ARROJADO,
Respondent.

Where a lawyer's integrity is questioned through a disbarment complaint, this Court, as the
ultimate arbiter of such disbarment proceedings, is duty-bound to ascertain the veracity of the
charges involved therein. But, when the charges lack merit, the Court will not hesitate to
dismiss the case.

There is no evidence to show that [Atty. Arrojado] had used his son as a conduit to gain the
property in question considering that (Julius] is a personality separate and distinct from his
father, herein respondent.

Case No. 16: ATTY. ILUMINADA M. VAFLOR-FABROA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.

OSCAR PAGUINTO, RESPONDENT.

When respondent caused the filing of baseless criminal complaints against complainant, he
violated the Lawyer's Oath that a lawyer shall "not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid or consent to the same."

When, after obtaining an extension of time to file comment on the complaint, respondent failed
to file any and ignored this Court's subsequent show cause order, he violated Rule 12.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that "A lawyer shall not, after obtaining
extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without
submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so."

Case No. 17: DELFINA HERNANDEZ SANTIAGO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ZOSIMO

SANTIAGO AND ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondents.

Clearly, the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors is merely recommendatory. The "power to
recommend" includes the power to give "advice, exhortation or indorsement, which is essentially
persuasive in character, not binding upon the party to whom it is made."

Necessarily, the "final action" on the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors still lies with this
Court.
Case No. 18: LORENZO D. BRENNISEN, Complainant, vs.ATTY. RAMON U.
CONTAWI, Respondent.

In this case, respondent's established acts exhibited his unfitness and plain inability to discharge
the bounden duties of a member of the legal profession. He failed to prove himself worthy of the
privilege to practice law and to live up to the exacting standards demanded of the members of
the bar. It bears to stress that "[t]he practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the
high standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the
lawyer to administrative liability."

Case No. 19: ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG, Complainant, vs.ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A.

CELERA, Respondent.

A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal, but is rather an
investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. The issue to be determined is whether
respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation of justice. Hence,
an administrative proceeding for disbarment continues despite the desistance of a complainant,
or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same, or in this case, the failure of respondent to
answer the charges against him despite numerous notices.

Case No. 20: ROMAN DELA ROSA VERANO* , Complainant vs. ATTY. LUIS FERNAN
DIORES, JR., Respondent

In dealing with clients or other people, lawyers are expected to observe the highest degree of
good faith, fairness and candor, both in their private and professional capacities.

Thus, any form of deception or fraudulent act committed by a lawyer in either capacity is not
only disgraceful and dishonorable, but also severely undermines the trust and confidence of
people in the legal profession, violates Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR, and puts the lawyer's moral
character into serious doubt as a member of the Bar, rendering him unfit to continue his practice
of law.