CASE TITLE ISSUE
yes, the employment of Atty. Vallejo is patently void because it is contrary to law and public
OMICO MINING & INDUSTRIAL CORP. VS. VALLEJO
G.R. No. L-38974 (March 25, 1975)
October 13, 1968, both defendants entered into a contract of
personal and professional services with him under the terms of
which he was to head defendant corporation's legal department
with the condition that he should render such services only after
his office hours, "even into the dead wee hours of the night and
wherever such services would not run in conflict with his duties
as Judge"; that in consideration of such services, the defendants
undertook to pay him a yearly salary of P35,000.
NATANAUAN vs TOLENTINO
A.C. No. 4269 (October 11, 2016)
Complainant Dolores sold a parcel of land to Alejo Tolentino
(Alejo) for P500,000.00. At the time, the title to the property had
not yet been issued by the Land Registration Commission. The
parties thus agreed that payment for the same shall be made in
installments but Alejo failed to comply thus Dolores went to the
court for rescission of the contract. Dolores found out that there
have been multiple falsified deed of sale and was notarized by
Atty Perfecto Tolentino. Dolores filed the present disbarment
complaint against Atty. Tolentino and Perfecto for their alleged
acts of falsification.
DE LEON v PEDREÑA
A.C. No. 9401 (October 22, 2013)
Jocelyn de Leon filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) a complaint for disbarment or suspension from the practice
of law against Atty. Tyrone Pedreña, a Public Attorney. She
Is Atty Vallejo prohibited to accept
the employment ad head of legal
department of OMICO Mining
corp?
Whether or not Atty. Tolentino
committed deceit, malpractice and
gross misconduct through the
aforementioned falsifications in
violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the
Lawyer's Oath which would merit
his disbarment and removal from
the legal profession.
HOLDING
policy.
The contract of professional services entered into between private respondent and the
petitioners, while the former was still a judge of the Court of First Instance, constituted
private practice of law and in contravention of the express provision of Section 35 of Rule 138
of the Revised Rules of Court.
The afore cited Rule was promulgated by this Court, pursuant to its constitutional power to
regulate the practice of law. It is based on sound reasons of public policy, for there is no
question that the rights, duties, privileges and functions of the office of an attorney-at-law
are so inherently incompatible with the high official functions, duties, powers, discretions and
privileges of a judge of the Court of First Instance. This inhibitory rule makes it obligatory upon
the judicial officers concerned to give their full time and attention to their judicial duties,
prevent them from extending special favors to their own private interests and assure the
public of their impartiality in the performance of their functions.
Private respondent should have known or ought to know, that when he was elevated to the
Bench of the Court of First Instance as a judge thereof, his right to practice law as an attorney
was suspended and continued to be suspended as long as he occupied the judicial position.
It is evident, therefore, that the aforesaid contract is void because a contract, whose cause,
object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, is
considered inexistent and void from the beginning.
Atty. Tolentino not only violated the Lawyer's Oath and Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, he also failed to observe his duty as an officer of the court.
He violated the Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide that a lawyer shall, "uphold
the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes"
and "at all times, uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the
activities of the Integrated Bar." Atty. Tolentino's deliberate non-participation in the
disciplinary proceedings shows a lack of respect for the legal (disciplinary) process and sullies
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
Thus, Atty Tolentino is hereby suspended for 3 years
IBP Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Pedreña had made sexual advances on De
Leon in violation of Rule 1.018 and Rule 7.039 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
The possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing
requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the Legal
1
averred in her complaint-affidavit that Atty. Pedreña had
sexually harassed her inside the respondent's car while
consulting him with her case.
ORONCE v CA
G.R. No. 125766. (October 19, 1998)
The case started with an issue involving a piece of land in
Gilmore whose ownership is still without Court's judgement.
After the parties had filed their respective memoranda before
this Court, private respondent filed an urgent motion to cite
petitioner Rosita L. Flaminiano and her husband, Atty. Eduardo
B. Flaminiano, in contempt of court. Flaminiano and her husband
entered the property through craftiness and intimidation.
UI v BONIFACIO
ADM. CASE No. 3319 (June 8, 2000)
Complainant is the wife of Carlos Ui. They have 4 children. On
1987, she found out that her husband is having an illicit
relationship with the latter which is a member of the bar. They
had a child in 1986 and despite introducing herself as the wife,
they had another child on 1988.
Disbarment case was filed against Atty. Bonifacio on the ground
of immorality, more particularly, for carrying on an illicit
relationship with the complainant's husband, Carlos Ui.
Does Atty Flaminiano's action of
taking possession over the property
contemplates contempt in court?
Did Atty Bonifacio should be
desciplined from supreme court
acted with gross immorality for
carrying out illicit rel with Carlos Ui?
Profession. Members of the Bar are clearly duty- bound to observe the highest degree of
morality and integrity in order
to safeguard the reputation of the Bar. Any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer that tends
to expose a deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, be it in the
lawyer’s public or private activities, is sufficient to warrant the lawyer’s suspension or
disbarment.
Atty. Pedreña’s misconduct was aggravated by the fact that he was then a Public Attorney
mandated to provide free legal Service to indigent litigants, and by the fact that De Leon was
then such a client. He also disregarded his oath as a public officer to serve others and to be
accountable at all times, because he thereby took advantage of her vulnerability as a client
then in desperate need of his legal assistance. Thus, he is hereby Suspended 2 yrs
The conduct of her husband, Eduardo Flaminiano, a lawyer whose actuations as an officer of
the court should be beyond reproach. His contumacious acts of entering the Gilmore property
without the consent of its occupants and in contravention of the existing writ or preliminary
injunction issued by the Court of Appeals and making utterances showing disrespect for the
law and this Court, are certainly unbecoming of a member of the Philippine Bar.
Through his acts, Atty. Flaminiano has flouted
his duties as a member of the legal profession. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility,
he is prohibited from counseling or abetting "activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system."
Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless,
and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members
of the community."
We have held that "a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain
from adulterous relationships . . . but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the
public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards."
Respondent's act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true
civil status belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of
flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession. Complainant's bare
assertions to the contrary deserve no credit. After all, the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant, and the Court will exercise its disciplinary powers only if she establishes her case
by clear, convincing <and satisfactory evidence. This, herein complainant miserably failed to
do.
2
 CATU V RELLOSA
[A.C. NO. 5738 : February 19, 2008]
Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a parcel of land that has been
disputed. While the Respondent is punong barangay of Barangay
723 who summoned the parties to conciliation meetings.
Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the
defendants in that case. Because of this, complainant filed the
instant administrative complaint, claiming that respondent
committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as a public
officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the
fact that he presided over the conciliation proceedings between
the Litigants as punong barangay.is
THE DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS vs. BAYOT
A.C. No. L-1117 (March 20, 1944)
Charged with malpractice for having published an advertisement
in the Sunday Tribune of June 13, 1943
Respondent at first denied having published the said
advertisement; but subsequently, thru his attorney, he admitted
having caused its publication and prayed for "the indulgence and
mercy" of the Court, promising "not to repeat such professional
misconduct in the future and to abide himself to the strict ethical
rules of the law profession.
PEOPLE v CERILLA
G.R. No. 177147 (November 28, 2007)
Cerilla, counsel for appellant, to explain within ten days from
notice why he failed to file appellant's brief within the extended
period which expired on February 23, 1974
Can Atty Rellosa engage in a private
practice of law while performing his
public duty as a Barangay
Chairman?
Did Bayot committed a flagrant
violation of the ethics of his
profession by publishing the
advertisement in question
Does Atty Cerilla guilty on any delay
occasioned by negligence or
inattention to duty by failing to
submit the brief within the
extended period given by the court
Accordingly, as punong barangay, respondent was not forbidden to practice his profession.
However, he should have procured prior permission or authorization from the head of his
Department, as required by civil service regulations.
As punong barangay, respondent should have therefore obtained the prior written
permission of the Secretary of Interior and Local Government before he entered his
appearance as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor.This he failed to do.
The failure of respondent to comply with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service
Rules constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer: to obey the laws. Lawyers are servants of
the law, vires legis, men of the law. Their paramount duty to society is to obey the law and
promote respect for it.
In acting as counsel for a party without first securing the required written permission,
respondent not only engaged in the unauthorized practice of law but also violated civil service
rules which is a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
(emphasis supplied) For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with the exacting
ethical standards of the legal profession, respondent failed to comply with Canon 7 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility:
CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY OF THE
LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE Activities thereof.
Suspension on 6 months
Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice.
It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises
his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade.
The most worth and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, . . . is the
establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This
cannot be forced but must be the outcome of character and conduct." (Canon 27, Code of
Ethics.)
Suspended from a practice of law for 1 month.
What concerns this Court was his neglecting to comply with a duty owed it.
He should be aware that in the pursuance of the duty owed this Court as well as to a client,
he cannot be too casual and unconcerned about the filing of pleadings."
3
- stenograohic notes were not handed to him on time by the
father in law of the apellant
-he had reminded and informed to Mr Carable for prompt
submission
-3 weekd before the expiration of date of submission, he
suffered heart ailment and seek for extension
DE ROY v CA
G.R. No. 80718 (January 29, 1988)
A building was burned that caused the death of one of the
respondent and an injury of one of the respondent. RTC ruled in
favor of the respondent where the CA affirmed the decision.
however, petitioners' motion for extension of time was filed on
September 9, 1987, more than a year after the expiration of the
grace period on June 30, 1986. Hence, it is no longer within the
coverage of the grace period
Petitioners contend that the rule enunciated in the Habaluyas
case that that the fifteen-day period for appealing or for filing a
motion for reconsideration cannot be extended should not be
made to apply to the case at bar owing to the non-publication of
the Habaluyas decision in the Official Gazette as of the time the
subject decision of the Court of Appeals was promulgated.
PCGG v SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. NOS. 151809-12. (April 12, 2005)
One of the first acts of President Corazon C. Aquino was to
establish the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG) to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of former
President Ferdinand Marcos, his family and his cronies.
Respondents Tan were representwd by their counsel Mendoza
who isnformer solicitor general
PCGG filee for disqualification of mendoza for actively
intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK
DUCAT v VILLALON
A.C. No. 3910. (August 14, 2000)
deliver to the registered owner, complainant Jose Ducat Jr., the
latter's TCT No. M-3023 covering the subject property within a
period of sixty (60) days from receipt of this Decision, at his sole
expense; being a lawyer, respondent knew or ought to know that
conveyance of a real property, whether gratuitously or for a
consideration, must be in writing and not in oral.
Does the decisions of the Supreme
court need to be published in the
official gazette
Did Atty Villalon remis in his duty to
abide by his sworn oath as a
member of the bar to "do no
falsehood nor consent to its
commission" and further violated
the mandate of his profession to
"uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession?
Even a neophyte should be aware that his responsibility to the judiciary, especially to this
Court, frowns on any delay occasioned by negligence or inattention to duty. Respondent,
therefore, clearly has merited the appropriate disciplinary action.
reprimanded for his failure to file the brief on time and to explain satisfactorily such
occurrence.
It is the bounden duty of counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of decisions
of the Supreme Court particularly where issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated,
and published in the advance reports of Supreme Court decisions (G. R. s) and in such
publications as the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) and law journals.
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility retained the general structure of
paragraph 2, Canon 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics but replaced the expansive phrase
'investigated and passed upon with the word 'intervened. It is, therefore, properly applicable
to both 'adverse-interest conflicts' and 'congruent-interest conflicts.
We hold that this advice given by respondent Mendoza on the procedure to liquidate
GENBANK is not the 'matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear as daylight in stressing that the 'drafting,
enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing
abstract principles of law are acts which do not fall within the scope of the term 'matter and
cannot disqualify.
Atty. Villalon in his long career as a member of the bar. At one time, he was even the President
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Manila 1 Chapter, and as such he introduced
various programs to uphold the confidence of the public in the integrity of the legal profession
and to uplift the welfare of his brethren.
Atty. Arsenio C. Villalon, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of SIX
(6) MONTHS only with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with
more severel
4
 CORDOVA v CORDOVA
A.M. No. 3249 (November 29, 1989)
Fely G. Holgado was herself married and left her own husband
and children to stay with respondent. Respondent Cordova and
Fely G. Holgado lived together in Bislig as husband and wife, with
respondent Cordova introducing Fely to the public as his wife,
and Fely Holgado using the name Fely Cordova. On 6 April 1986,
respondent Cordova and his complainant wife had an apparent
reconciliation. Respondent promised that he would separate
from Fely Holgado and brought his legitimate family to Bislig,
Surigao del Sur. But would frequently come home from beer
houses neglecting his family's support
ARCIGA v MANIWANG
A.M. No. 3249 (November 29, 1989)
Magdalena T. Arciga in her complaint of February 24, 1976 asked
for the disbarment of lawyer Segundino D. Maniwang (admitted
to the Bar in 1975) on the ground of grossly immoral conduct
because he refused to fulfill his promise of marriage to her. Their
illicit relationship resulted in the birth on September 4, 1973 of
their child, Michael Dino Maniwang.
Sabayle v Tandayag
A.C. No. 140-J. (March 8, 1988)
In a sworn complaint for suspension or disbarment dated 15
December l968
Judge Teodulo Tandayag ---- Misconduct in office, inefficiency
and incompetence;
Atty. Carmelito B. Gabor ---- Violation of his duties as Notary
Public by acknowledging a Deed of Sale in the absence of the
purported vendors and for taking advantage of his position as
Assistant Clerk of court by purchasing one-half (1/2) of the land
covered by said Deed of Sale knowing that that Deed of Sale was
fictitious; and.
WoN Atty Cordova's committed an
immoral and misconduct for having
adulterous relationship that would
result to his suspension or
disbarment
WON respondent's refusal to marry
the complainant was so corrupt
and unprincipled as to warrant
disbarment?
"the continued possession . . . of a good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful
continuance in the practice of the law . . . and its loss requires suspension or disbarment, even
though the statutes do not specify that as a ground for disbarment
the instant case, respondent Cordova maintained for about two (2) years an adulterous
relationship with a married woman not his wife, in full view of the general public, to the
humiliation and detriment of his legitimate family which he, rubbing salt on the wound, failed
or refused to support. After a brief period of "reform" respondent took up again with another
woman not his wife, cohabiting with her, and bringing along his young daughter to live with
them. Clearly, respondent flaunted his disregard of the fundamental institution of marriage
and its elementary obligations before his own daughter and the community at large.
WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law
indefinitely and until farther orders from this Court.
Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless,
and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members
of the community.
According to the complainant, two children were born as a consequence of her long intimacy
with the respondent. In 1955, she filed a complaint for disbarment against Villanueva.
This Court found that respondent's refusal to marry the complainant was not so corrupt nor
unprincipled as to warrant disbarment. (See Montaña vs. Ruado, Administrative Case No. 507,
February 24, 1975, 62 SCRA 382; Reyes vs. Wong, Administrative Case No 547, January 29,
1975, 63 SCRA 667; Viojan vs. Duran, 114 Phil. 322; Abaigar vs. Paz, Administrative Case No.
997, September 10, 1979, 93 SCRA 91).
5
Atty. Pablo B. Badong ---- Negligence in the performance of his
professional duties by failing to file an Opposition to a Motion in
Civil Case No. IL-43 handled by him for complainant, and failing
to take an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals in
C.A. G.R. No. 30302-R dated 5 May 1967, to the Supreme Court
after having received the sum of P4,500.00 as court fees,
transportation expenses and attorney's fees.
TAN TEK BENG v DAVID
A.C. No. 1261. (December 29, 1983)
In said agreement lawyer David not only agreed to give one-half
of his professional fees to an intermediary or commission agent
but he also bound himself not to deal directly with the clients
In his 1974 comment, David clarified that the partnership was
composed of himself as manager, Tan Tek Beng as assistant
manager and lawyer Pedro Jacinto as president and financier.
When Jacinto became ill and the costs of office maintenance
mounted, David suggested that Tan Tek Beng should also invest
some money or shoulder a part of the business expenses but Tan
Tek Beng refused.
NARIDO v LINSANGAN
A.M. No. 944 (July 25, 1974)
Two administrative cases wherein respondents Jaime S.
Linsangan and Rufino B. Risma, who presented adverse parties
in a workmen's compensation case, did mutually hurl accusation
at each other.
The charge against respondent Linsangan filed by a certain Flora
Naridois that he violated the attorney's oath by submitting a
perjured statement. When required to answer, not only did he
deny the complaint but he would also hold respondent Risma
accountable for having instigated his client, the complainant,
Flora Narido, to file a false and malicious complaint resulting in
what respondent Linsangan called "embarrassment, humiliation
and defamation" of a brother in aprofession
whether disciplinary action should
be taken against lawyer Timoteo A.
David (admitted to the bar in 1945)
for not giving Tan Tek Beng, a
nonlawyer (alleged missionary of
the Seventh Day Adventists), one-
half of the attorney's fees received
by David from the clients supplied
by Tan Tek Beng.
w/o the false and malicious
complaint filed against the
respondent constitute a ground for
disciplinary action.
Respondent is reprimanded for being guilty of malpractice.
We hold that the said agreement is void because it was tantamount to malpractice which is
"the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers" Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court). Malpractice ordinarily refers to any
malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed by a lawyer. Section 27 gives a special and
technical meaning to the term "malpractice" (Act No. 2828, amending sec. 21 of Act No. 190).
That meaning is in consonance with the elementary notion that the practice of law is a
profession, not a business. "The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or
through others for to do so would be unprofessional" (2 R.C.L. 1097 cited in In re Tagorda, 53
Phil. 37, 42; Malcolm, J., Jayme vs. Bualan, 58 Phil. 422; Arce vs. Philippine National Bank, 62
Phil. 569)
Justice Laurel, announced in Javier v. Cornejo: 4 "It should be observed, in this connection,
that mutual bickerings and unjustifiable recriminations, between brother attorneys detract
from the dignity of the legal profession and will not receive any sympathy from this court."
The complaint against respondent Jaime S. Linsangan is dismissed for lack of merit.
Respondent Rufino B. Risma is exculpated from the charge of having instigated the filing of
an unfounded suit. He is, however, admonished to exercise greater care in ascertaining how
much under our law he could recover by way of attorney's contract entered into between
him and his client as to his being entitled to fifteen per cent of the award granted her in a
workmen's compensation suit is declared to be of no force and effect, the penalty imposed
being that of admonition merely only because he had made no effort to collect on the same
and had even advanced expenses for a poor client. Let a copy of this resolution be spread on
the records of both respondents.
6
 Sabayle v Tandayag
[A.C. No. 140-J. March 8, 1988)
In a sworn complaint for suspension or disbarment dated 15
December l968
Judge Teodulo Tandayag ---- Misconduct in office, inefficiency
and incompetence;
Atty. Carmelito B. Gabor ---- Violation of his duties as Notary
Public by acknowledging a Deed of Sale in the absence of the
purported vendors and for taking advantage of his position as
Assistant Clerk of court by purchasing one-half (1/2) of the land
covered by said Deed of Sale knowing that that Deed of Sale was
fictitious; and.
Atty. Pablo B. Badong ---- Negligence in the performance of his
professional duties by failing to file an Opposition to a Motion in
Civil Case No. IL-43 handled by him for complainant, and failing
to take an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals in
C.A. G.R. No. 30302-R dated 5 May 1967, to the Supreme Court
after having received the sum of P4,500.00 as court fees,
transportation expenses and attorney's fees.
PEOPLE v SESBRENO
G.R. No. L-62449 (July 16, 1984)
atty sesbreno has been filed with a case of libel
Based on alleged defamatory statement found in a pleading that
he made.
allegedly libelous statements imputing that Atty. Ramon B.
Ceniza is an irresponsible person, cannot be trusted, like Judas,
a liar and irresponsible childish prankster.
Requested for squashal of information because accordimg to
him it is protected by doctrine of absolute privilge
communication
Does atty sesbreno's wordings in
the pleading employed language
that is unbecoming of a member of
the Bar and therefore would result
to a violation the CPR?
The finding of the Trial Court, however, that the Deed of Sale is fictitious gives credence to
the charge that respondent ratified the document in the absence of complainant and his wife,
which, needless to say, constitutes censurable conduct.
In the same vein, we do not agree with respondent's defense that he did not participate in
the preparation of the fictitious Deed of Sale.
A lawyer, who through negligence fails to discover the falsity of a document which he uses in
connect on with the performance of his functions may be dealt with administratively for
failure to exercise care, notwithstanding lack of intent on his part to deceive (Berenguer vs.
Carranza, G.R. Adm. Case No. 716, Jan., 1969, 26 SCRA 673).
Although it is understandable, if not justifiable, that, at times, zeal in the defense of one's
clientmay be carried to the point of undue skepticism and doubts as to the motives of
opposing counsel, the spectacle presented by two members of the bar engaged in bickering
and recrimination is far from edifying (Narido v. Linsangan, 58 SCRA 85). Mutual bickerings
and recriminations between brother attorneys detract from the dignity of the legal profession
and will not receive any sympathy from this Court (Javier v. Cornejo, 63 Phil. 293).
In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language should likewise be
dignified (In re Climaco, 55 SCRA 107, 121). Choice of language is a important requirement in
the preparation of pleadings Appropriately, in the
assertion of their client's rights, lawyers - even those gifted with superior intellect - are
enjoined to rein up their tempers. Greater care and circumspection must be exercised in the
preparation of their pleadings and to refrain from using abrasive and offensive language
(Yangson v. Saladanan, 68 SCRA 42). A becoming modesty is a desirable trait also of practising
attorneys
Atty Sesbreno is reprimanded and admonished to refrain from employing language
unbecoming of a member of the Bar and to extend
courtesy and respect to his brothers in the profession with a warning that any future
infraction of a nature similar to that found in this case shall be dealt with more severely.
7
 DELOS REYES v AZNAR
A.M. No. 1334 (November 28, 1989)
Complainant, a second year medical student of the
Southwestern University (Cebu), alleged in her verified
complaint that respondent Atty. Jose B. Aznar, then chairman of
said university, had carnal knowledge of her for several times
under threat that she would fail in her Pathology subject if she
would not submit to respondent's lustful desires. Complainant
further alleged that when she became pregnant, respondent,
through a certain Dr. Gil Ramas, had her undergo forced
abortion
PEOPLE VS ROSQUETA
G.R. No. L-36138 (January 31, 1974)
. This is another such instance. In our resolution of May 25, 1973,
we required respondent Gregorio B. Estacio, counsel de
parte for appellants to show cause why disciplinary action
should not be taken against him for failure to file the brief for
appellants within the period which expired on March 30, 1973.
He failed to show cause as thus required, and on September 7,
1973, we issued a resolution suspending him from the practice
of law except for the purpose of filing the brief which should be
done within thirty days from receipt of notice. Then on October
22, 1973, he filed a motion for reconsideration wherein it
appeared that he did seek to explain his failure to file the brief
on time, but he left it to be mailed on June 9, 1973 with Antonio
Rosqueta, Sr., father of appellants Antonio Rosqueta, Jr. and
Eusebio Rosqueta, who, however, was unable to do so as on the
10th of June, his house caught fire.
WON Atty Aznar should be
disbarred for grossly immoral
conduct, by takkng advantage of
hus position as chairman of
medicine in asking complainant to
go with him to Manila where he had
carnal knowledge of her under the
threat that she would flunk in all
her subjects in case she refuse
It is the duty of a lawyer, whenever his moral character is put in issue, to satisfy this Court
that he is a fit and proper person to enjoy continued membership in the Bar. He cannot
dispense with nor downgrade the high and exacting moral standards of the law profession
Evidence of good moral character precedes admission to bar (Sec. 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court)
and such requirement is not dispensed with upon admission thereto. Good moral character
is a continuing qualification necessary to entitle one to continue in the practice of law. The
ancient and learned profession of law exacts from its members the highest standard of
morality (Quingwa v. Puno, supra).
Under Section 27, Rule 138, "(a) member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
admission to practice . . ." In Arciga v. Maniwang (106 SCRA 591, [1981]), this Court had
occasion to define the concept of immoral conduct, as follows:
"A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude. A member of the bar should have moral integrity in addition
to professional probity.
"Where an unmarried female dwarf possessing the intellect of a child became pregnant by
reason of intimacy with a married lawyer who was the father of six children, disbarment of
the attorney on the ground of immoral conduct was justified .
Respondent's liability is thus mitigated but he cannot be absolved from the irresponsible
conduct of which he is guilty. Respondent should be aware that even in those cases where
counsel de parte is unable to secure from appellants or from their near relatives the amount
necessary to pursue the appeal, that does not necessarily conclude his connection with the
case. It has been a commendable practice of some members of the bar under such
circumstances, to be designated as counsel de oficio. That way the interest of justice is best
served. Appellants will then continue to receive the benefits of advocacy from one who is
familiar with the facts of the case. What is more, there is no undue delay in the administration
of justice. Lawyers of such category are entitled to commendation.<äre||anº•1àw> They
manifest fidelity to the concept that law is a profession and not a mere trade with those
engaged in it being motivated solely by the desire to make money. Respondent's conduct
yields a different impression. What has earned a reproof however is his irresponsibility. He
should be aware that in the pursuance of the duty owed this Court as well as to a client, he
cannot be too casual and unconcerned about the filing of pleadings. It is not enough that he
prepares them; he must see to it that they are duly mailed. Such inattention as shown in this
case is inexcusable. At any rate, the suspension meted on him under the circumstances is
more than justified. It seems, however, that well-nigh five months had elapsed. That would
suffice to atone for his misdeed.
8

HALILI VS CIR
(G.R. No. L-24864 April 30, l985)
Atty. Benjamin C. Pineda, filed an urgent motion with the
Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) requesting for
authority to sell and dispose of the property that was registered
under the name of the Union. Union President Amado Lopez, in
a letter, informed J.C. Espinas and Associates that the general
membership of the said Union had authorized a 20% contingent
fee for the law firm based on whatever amount would be
awarded the Union.
Atty. Jose C. Espinas, (the original counsel) established the award
of 897 workers' claim. When Atty. Pineda appeared for the
Union in these cases, still an associate of the law firm, his
appearance carried the firm name B.C. Pineda and Associates,"
giving the impression that he was the principal lawyer in these
cases.
That During this one-year stint at the latter office, Atty. Pineda
continued handling the case with the arrangement that he
would report the developments to the Espinas firm. When he
rejoined the law firm in 1968, he continued working on these
cases and using the Puyat Building office as his address in the
pleadings.
Atty. Pineda rejoined the Espinas firm in 1968, he did not reveal
to his partners (he was made the most senior partner) that he
had a retainer's contract. He stayed with the law firm until 1974
and still did not divulge the 1967 retainer's contract. Only the
officers of the Union knew of the contract.
Cabildo vs Navarro
G.R. No. L-31865 November 26, 1973
Northcotts were owners of a parcel of land which was sold
at public auction by Cabildo, the provincial treasurer, to
a.Whether or not Atty. Pineda and
Arbiter Valenzuela should be held
in contempt.
b. Whether or not Atty. Pineda
should be disbarred.
Whether the contention of
Northcott is correct.
WHEREFORE, the suspension of Atty. Gregorio B. Estacio is lifted. The requirement to file the
brief is dispensed with but Atty. Gregorio B. Estacio is censured for negligence and inattention
to duty. Likewise, as prayed for by appellants themselves, their appeal is dismissed.
. YES. Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court; such
conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to
interfere with or prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses during litigation.
b. YES. Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides:
Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds.—A member
of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court
for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct,
or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the
oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience
of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corrupt or willfully appearing as an attorney for
a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
the expeditious manner by which Arbiter Valenzuela granted Atty. Pineda's motion for such
authority to sell the property make the entire transaction dubious and irregular.
Significantly Atty. Pineda's act of filing a motion praying for authority to sell was by itself an
admission on his part that he did not possess the authority to sell the property. He could not
and did not even wait for valid authority but instead previously obtained the same from the
labor arbiter whom he knew was not empowered to so authorize.
The 45% attorney's lien on the award of those union members who were no longer working
and the 30% lien on the benefits of those who were still working as provided for in the alleged
retainer's contract are also very exorbitant and unconscionable.
*Atty. Pineda is found guilty of indirect contempt of court for which he is sentenced to
imprisonment and directed to show cause why he should not be disbarred.
Yes. The claim for attorney's fees does not render infirm the to agreement and is no obstacle
to its approval, for a client has an undoubted right to compromise a suit without the
intervention of his lawyer. 1 However, since it is not disputed that Atty. Manuel V. San Jose
had rendered legal services (although short of recovery by the Northcotts of any property)
as stipulated in the retainer contract, and the non-recovery may in the very least be partially
9
the Ilocos Norte Coconut Producers Association. The
Northcotts sought redemption of the land and hence, trial
ensued between both parties then, both parties mutually
agreed to dismiss the case and acceded to a Compromise
Agreement wherein the subject land shall be donated to
the Provincial Government of Ilocos Norte except for 14
hectares to be equally divided into 7 hectares each
between the Northcotts and the Association. However,
Atty. San Jose filed a manifestation stating that the
Northcotts owned him a contingent fee of 60% of all land
and properties the former might recover for them and
that an attorney’s lien was also charged on the subject
land in favour of a certain Atty. Tolentino and they did not
paid the agreed amount.
PEOPLE vs. ROSQUETA
G.R. No. L-36138 January 31, 1974
Whether or not the
suspension of Atty. Estacio
The Supreme Court required Atty. Estacio to show the
should be lifted.
reason why he should not be suspended from practicing
law after he failed to file the appellants’ Antonio
Rosqueta, brief on time. With this, Atty Estacio filed a
motion for reconsideration claiming that he did prepared
an explanation which he left with his father but it was not
submitted for the reason that his fathers’ house burned
down and he only found out about it when he was
preparing for the motion for reconsideration. He also said
that the appellants informed him that they will withdraw
the appeal for failing to raise the necessary funds for it.
Hence, the respondents submitted two affidavits
indicating their consent to the withdrawal of their appeal.
attributable to the Northcotts' entering into the compromise agreement, it is but fair and
just that the said lawyer be compensated for his services on a quantum meruit basis and, to
assure the payment thereof, that a lien be constituted in favor of Atty. San Jose on the 7
hectares retained by the Northcotts under the deed of donation, without prejudice to the
immediate effectivity of the compromise agreement.
ACCORDINGLY, the compromise agreement is approved, and the parties are hereby
enjoined to comply faithfully with its terms. After this resolution shall have become final,
let the record be remanded to the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte which is hereby
ordered to hear and determine, on the basis of quantum meruit, the amount of the
attorney's fee that may be due to Atty. Manuel V. San Jose. Let the corresponding lien be
constituted upon the 7-hectare land retained by the respondents Northcotts under the
deed of donation. No costs.
Yes, however Atty. Estacio is censured for negligence and inattention to duty.
The Court explained that “Respondent's liability is thus mitigated but he cannot be
absolved from the irresponsible conduct of which he is guilty. Respondent should be
aware that even in those cases where counsel de parte is unable to secure from
appellants or from their near relatives the amount necessary to pursue the appeal, that
does not necessarily conclude his connection with the case. It has been a
commendable practice of some members of the bar under such circumstances, to be
designated as counsel de oficio.
That way the interest of justice is best served. Appellants will then continue to receive
the benefits of advocacy from one who is familiar with the facts of the case. What is
more, there is no undue delay in the administration of justice. Lawyers of such category
are entitled to commendation. They manifest fidelity to the concept that law is a
profession and not a mere trade with those engaged in it being motivated solely by the
desire to make money. Respondent's conduct yields a different impression. What has
earned a reproof however is his irresponsibility. He should be aware that in the
pursuance of the duty owed this Court as well as to a client, he cannot be too casual
and unconcerned about the filing of pleadings. It is not enough that he prepares them;
he must see to it that they are duly mailed. Such inattention as shown in this case is
inexcusable. At any rate, the suspension meted on him under the circumstances is
more than justified. It seems, however, that well-nigh five months had elapsed. That
would suffice to atone for his misdeed.”
10
 SPOUSES EDWIN B. BUFFE AND KAREN M. SILVERIO-BUFFE, Whether or not Gonzalez, No. The Court dismiss the administrative case for lack of jurisdiction. The case should
Complainants, v. SEC. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, USEC. FIDEL J. Exconde, and Madrona be resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman.
EXCONDE, JR., AND CONGRESSMAN ELEANDRO JESUS F. should be administratively In accordance to Section 13(1), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, “t]he Office of
MADRONA, Respondent. disciplined based on the the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties: (1) investigate
allegations in the complaint. on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official,
employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
A.C. No. 8168, (October 12, 2016)
improper, or inefficient."
Exconde and Madrona are public officers that are being charged for actions which
After the appointment of Atty Silverio-Buffee as are unfair and discriminatory that involves their official functions during their tenure,
Prosecutor I/Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon the present case should be resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman as the
province by the former Pres. Arroyo, a Memorandum appropriate government agency. The IBP has no jurisdiction over government lawyers
Order was given, ordering her “o cease and desist from who are charged with administrative offenses involving their official duties.
acting as prosecutor in the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Romblon, or in any Prosecutor's Office for
that matter, considering that [she has] no appointment to
act as such, otherwise [she] will be charged of usurpation
of public office.” In reply to this Atty Silverio-Buffe -with
her husband filed a Joint Complaint-Affidavit alleging that
Congressman Eleandro Jesus F. Madrona (Madrona),
acting out of spite or revenge, persuaded and influenced
Gonzalez and Undersecretary Fidel J. Exconde, Jr.
(Exconde) into refusing to administer Silverio-Buffe's oath
of office and into withholding the transmittal of her
appointment papers to the DOJ Regional Office. Madrona
allegedly acted out of spite or revenge against Silverio-
Buffe because she was one of the plaintiffs in a civil case
for enforcement of a Radio Broadcast Contract, which was
cancelled by the radio station due to adverse
commentaries against Madrona and his allies in Romblon.

Investment and Management Services Corp

vs Roxas
G.R. No. 125509 (January 31, 2007)
A petition for disbarment or suspension was filed against Atty
Roxas in 1975 by the Investment and Management Services
Corp. It alleged that three companies that the complainant
manages in Philippines (Worldwide Paper Mills, Inc., Prime
Trading Corporation and Luzon Leather Industries, Inc) while
the respondent was still the Administrative and Legal Officer,
allegedly "misappropriated or appropriated for his own use and
benefit certain sums of money or checks. In addition, according
Yes. Upon by the analysis of the Court it was clear that Atty Roxas has no intention to
squarely face the charges against him. By repeatedly changing his address without informing
Whether or not Atty Roxas should
the investigating officials or the Court he somehow managed to evade the administrative
be suspended from the practise of
investigation for, after years of delay, no longer could the complainant corporation be
law
reached to substantiate its charges.
A lawyer must constantly conduct himself with great propriety. He is also an
officer of the court, and he owes to it, as well as to his peers, utmost respect and fidelity. His
relationship with others should no less be characterized than by the highest degree of good
faith, fairness and candor. When he took the oath as a member of the legal profession, he
made a solemn promise to so stand by those pledges. In this covenant, respondent lawyer
has miserably failed.

11
to petitioner, respondent issued bouncing checks to pay for
personal obligations. With this the Court sent a resolution to
the respondent to his address but no reply was heard. After this
the Court kept sending the respondents letters however it kept
being “returned unclaimed” due to the fact that Atty. Roxas
kept changing his residency.

12