RULE 139-B DISBRAMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEY
Grecia guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and grossly
FERNANDEZ vs. GRECIA
A.C. No. 3694 June 17, 1993
Facts: The disbarment complaint against Attorney Benjamin
M. Grecia was filed by Doctors Alberto Fernandez, Isabelo
Ongtengco and Achilles Bartolome and the St. Luke's
Medical where they are accredited medical practitioners.
The respondent is charged with dishonesty and grave
misconduct in connection with the theft of some pages from
a medical chart which was material evidence in a damage
suit filed by his clients against the aforenamed doctors and
St. Luke's.
Disbarment is nothing new to respondent Grecia.
He was disbarred for his immoral complicity or "unholy
alliance" with a judge in Quezon City to rip off banks and
Chinese business firms which had the misfortune to be sued
in the latter's court. Three years later, the Court, heeding his
pleas for compassions and his promise to mend his ways,
reinstated him in the profession. Only eight (8) months later,
he was back before the court facing another charge of
dishonesty and unethical practice. Apparently, the earlier
disciplinary action that the Court took against him did not
effectively reform him.
Atty Grecia is the counsel of Atty. Aves who filed a
suit against St. Luke's Medical practitioners whom the latter
attributed the death his wife who was confined there for
mild pre-eclampsia. The medical records of the deceased
wife was produced in court by St. Luke’s upon the request of
Atty. Grecia. The records were entrusted to the Clerk of
Court whom Atty. Grecia borrowed the records and secretly
tore off 2 pages of the medical records. Atty. Grecia
crumpled the papers and passed it on to his driver.
Unfortunately, those acts were witnessed by the court
personnel and immediately reported the matter to Judge
Capulong who later on inhibited himself from conducting the
trial of the subject case.
Atty. Grecia denied the stealing for lack of motive
to do so and instead, Atty. Aves alleged that it was the
counsel of the St. Lukes who stole the missing pages. The
stolen pages of medical record of the deceased show that
after Mrs. Aves was readmitted to the hospital on December
26, 1990, the doctors were able to stabilize her blood
pressure with a normal reading of 120/80.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Grecia be disbarred.
Held: Yes. Atty. Grecia violated Rule 1.01, canon 1 of the
Rules of Professional Responsibility as well as canon 7
thereof which provide that: Canon 1 Rule 1.01 — A lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and
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.
By descending to the level of a common thief,
respondent Grecia has demeaned and disgraced the legal
profession. He has demonstrated his moral unfitness to
continue as a member of the honorable fraternity of lawyers.
He has forfeited his membership in the BAR.
Page 1 of 7
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Attorney Benjamin
unethical behavior as a lawyer.
Cf. YUSECO vs. DCA BERNAD
A.M. No. 94-1-061-SC March 29, 1995
Facts: This complaint was filed by Atty. Joaquin Yuseco and
Benjamin Grecia against Deputy Court Administrator Juanito
A. Bernad, charging him with suppressing facts and making
false statements in his report to the Court in the disbarment
case against complainant Grecia for the purpose of causing
injury to him (Grecia).
The disbarment case was assigned to respondent
Bernad for investigation, report and recommendation. Atty.
Grecia submitted report in which Atty. Bernad found therein
Grecia guilty of the charges. Bernad refrained from
recommending the penalty but instead left the matter to the
Court to determine, observing that whether the penalty
should be disbarment or suspension, the two are "severe
forms of disciplinary action [which] should be resorted to
only in cases where a lawyer demonstrates an attribute or
course of conduct wholly inconsistent with approved
professional standard."
Complainants charge respondent with (1)
submitting a report and recommendation to this Court in the
disbarment case without furnishing complainant Benjamin
Grecia with a copy thereof; (2) falsifying his written report
by narrating facts which are absolutely false; (3) deliberately
not revealing his relationship with former Chief Justice
Marcelo Fernan, whose brother-in-law, Atty. Pompeyo
Nolasco of the Quasha law firm, is the counsel for
complainant-doctors in the disbarment case as well as in
Civil Case No. 3548-V-91 which Grecia had filed against the
doctors and the hospital.
Issue: Whether the complaint has merit.
Held: None.
First. Respondent had no duty to complainant to
furnish him a copy of his report in the disbarment case. That
report was submitted to the Court solely for its use. It was
the decision of the Court, in connection with which the
report was required, that complainant Grecia, as respondent
in the disbarment proceeding, was entitled to receive. What
was important was that he was given a copy of the Court's
decision ordering his disbarment and not that a copy of
respondent's report be furnished to him.
Second. Complainants cite fourteen (14) cases or
instances in which respondent allegedly made false
statements in his report to the Court. These instances,
however, are the same ones cited in complainant Grecia's
motion for new investigation and reconsideration which this
Court denied way back on August 12, 1993. Indeed, Grecia's
complaint is nothing but an attempt to circumvent the
resolution of this Court declaring the decision in the
disbarment case final.
Third. What complainants must know is that while
the Court in the disbarment case agreed with much of what
was contained in the report of the Deputy Court
Administrator, it did so only after it had examined the record
of the case and found the report to be in accordance with
the evidence. To the extent that the Court agreed with the
findings of respondent, his findings became those of the
Court and complainants have no basis for charging
suppression of material facts. Indeed, "the Court assumes
full responsibility for all its acts. Its personnel cannot answer
and should not be made to answer for acts of the Court." It
is presumptuous for complainants to presume that because
of alleged omissions and suppression of material facts in the
report the Court was thereby misled in its decision. The
truth is that even a cursory examination of the grounds
alleged in the present complaint will show the utter
baselessness of the charges.
Fourth. Complainants allege that respondent
Bernad is a close personal friend of Atty. Pompeyo Nolasco,
counsel of the complainants in the disbarment case against
Grecia, and that because of this Bernad's objectivity and
impartiality were in "grave doubt and in serious question."
Atty. Nolasco is a brother-in-law of former Chief Justice
Marcelo B. Fernan. While acknowledging his gratitude to the
former Chief Justice for appointing him to his present
position, respondent denies that he is beholden to the
former Chief Justice or that he maintains "fellowship" with
him and Atty. Nolasco. As respondent points out, the fact
was that the disbarment case was assigned to him three
months after Chief Justice Fernan had retired from the
Court. Indeed, aside from this allegation, there is no
evidence in the record to support the charge of
complainants.
In conclusion, we find no basis for the charge that
respondent suppressed material facts in his report which
this Court adopted in its decision disbarring complainant
Grecia. What complainants charge as suppressions in the
report are in reality omissions of facts which in the exercise
of sound judgment were found to be immaterial.
Complainants confuse appreciation of evidence with
suppression of facts. The so-called omissions are the
inevitable result of the evaluation of the evidence — the
sifting of the grain from the chaff — rather that the
suppression of truth.
BARRIENTOS vs. DAAROL
A.C. No. 1512 January 29, 1993
Facts: The complainant Victoria C. Barrientos seeks the
disbarment of respondent Transfiguracion Daarol, member
of the bar and a General Manager of Zamboanga del Norte
Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ZANECO), on grounds of deceit
and grossly immoral conduct.
The complainant was single and was still a teenager
when she came to know the respondent who as the latter
used to go to their house being a friend of her sister. That
the respondent had invited the complainant several times,
with the consent of the latter’s parents, to go out with him
and strolled along the beach until the respondent proposed
his love to her and that he wanted to marry her within six
months from acceptance.
After they went to a party, the respondent had a
carnal knowledge with the complainant with a promise that
Page 2 of 7
he would marry her until the sexual intercourse happens
more often leading to her pregnancy. The respondent came
to talk with the complainant’s parents and agreed that their
marriage be celebrated in Manila. In Manila, the respondent
confessed that he cannot marry the complainant because he
had a subsisting marriage and had been estranged to his wife
for 16 years. Again the respondent promised that he would
work for the annulment of his marriage and subsequently
marry the complainant.
The complainant subsequently delivered the baby
in Cebu but as she returned to Dipolog, she can no longer
contact the respondent. Hence, this complaint.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent be disbarred.
Held: Yes. 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.
Interestingly enough. Respondent lived alone in
Dipolog City though his son, who was also studying in
Dipolog City, lived separately from him. He never introduced
his son and went around with friends as though he was never
married much less had a child in the same locality. This
circumstance alone belies respondent's claim that
complainant and her family were aware of his previous
marriage at the very start of his courtship. The Court is
therefore inclined to believe that respondent resorted to
deceit in the satisfaction of his sexual desires at the expense
of the gullible complainant. It is not in accordance with the
nature of the educated, cultured and respectable, which
complainant's family is, her father being the Assistant
Principal of the local public high school, to allow a daughter
to have an affair with a married man.
But what surprises this Court even more is the
perverted sense of respondent's moral values when he said
that: "I see nothing wrong with this relationship despite my
being married." Worse, he even suggested abortion. Truly,
respondent's moral sense is so seriously impaired that we
cannot maintain his membership in the Bar.
Finally, respondent even had the temerity to allege
that he is a Moslem convert and as such, could enter into
multiple marriages and has inquired into the possibility of
marrying complainant. As records indicate, however, his
claim of having embraced the Islam religion is not supported
by any evidence save that of his self-serving testimony.
By his acts of deceit and immoral tendencies to
appease his sexual desires, respondent Daarol has amply
demonstrated his moral delinquency. Hence, his removal for
conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar on the grounds of
deceit and grossly immoral conduct (Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules
of Court) is in order. Good moral character is a condition
which precedes admission to the Bar (Sec. 2, Rule 138, Rules
of Court) and is not dispensed with upon admission thereto.
It is a continuing qualification which all lawyers must
possess, otherwise, a lawyer may either be suspended or
disbarred.
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.
EDUARDO R. BALAOING vs. JUDGE LEOPOLDO CALDERON
A.M. No. RTJ-90-580. April 27, 1993
Facts: This is the latest of the several administrative
complaints filed by Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing against
different judges of Olongapo City and Zambales.
Notwithstanding prior warnings, censure and suspension
from the practice of law for one (1) year, Atty. Eduardo R.
Balaoing is again before this Court with more administrative
complaints filed against not only one, but two judges, the
Honorable Leopoldo T. Calderon, Jr. and the Honorable
Santiago Maliwanag.
Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing filed a sworn letter-
complaint 3 against Judge Leopoldo T. Calderon, Jr. for
misconduct, grave abuse of authority and malicious delay in
the administration of justice, allegedly committed as follows:
"Complainant alleges that it has been the practice
of respondent Judge to automatically grant postponements
and deferments of the hearing of cases to a later hour
whenever his OIC, Leonor Maniago, makes a manifestation
in open court that a certain lawyer or party called up
requesting that his/her case be postponed or be called later
in the day; that respondent Judge drinks a lot with lawyers
close to Mayor Gordon and fraternizes with them openly;
that with respect to respondent's personal driver, the latter
receives his salary both from Mayor Gordon as a casual
employee and from the SC as a judicial aide; and, that
respondent Judge sanctions the set up of having his legal
researcher, Jaime Dojildo, Jr., to work under the supervision
of an OIC who, according to complainant, is grossly
inefficient and a notorious swindler with no background in
law.”
Complainant further alleges that respondent Judge
has been maliciously delaying the disposition of several
cases pending in his sala.
A second letter-complaint against the same Judge
Calderon and his OIC Maniago charging them both with
misconduct, grave abuse of authority and malicious delay in
Page 3 of 7
the administration of justice relative to civil case entitled
"Eduardo R. Balaoing vs. Santiago Maliwanag and Romeo
Enriquez." Complainant Balaoing, who is the plaintiff in both
cases, alleges that respondent Judge abused his authority by
refusing to declare in default the defendants in the above-
entitled cases despite their repeated failure to attend the
pre-trial conferences and to submit their pre-trial briefs.
With respect to the other respondent OIC Maniago,
complainant Balaoing alleges that when he came out of the
courtroom, he was castigated by the former for allegedly
calling her notorious, swindler, insane, etc.
Respondent Judge Calderon filed his Comment
asserting that the complaint filed against him by
complainant Balaoing was precipitated by incidents in civil
case entitled "Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing vs. Eliseo Gavilan, et
al." for Damages, wherein defendant Gavilan defaulted. All
the other cases mentioned in the letter-complaint were
allegedly included to merely embellish the charges.
The factual backdrop of the Gavilan case shows that
complainant Balaoing won in a foreclosure case against one
Eliseo Gavilan. After the foreclosed properties (a house and
lot) were sold in a public auction, where complainant
Balaoing was the highest bidder, a Certificate of Sale was
issued and the same was registered. Respondent Judge,
however, allegedly prevented the implementation of the
writ of possession, to the prejudice of complainant Balaoing.
In his Comment, respondent Judge explained that the reason
why he quashed the writ of possession he earlier issued in
favor of complainant Balaoing was due to the fact that
Gavilan's widow, Alice, and her children, were residing in the
foreclosed properties and, more importantly, the period to
redeem the said properties had not yet expired. This action
of respondent Judge allegedly infuriated complainant
Balaoing, hence, his filing of several suits, one after the
other, against respondent Judge.
When the redemption period in the Gavilan case
had expired without the heirs redeeming the property,
respondent Judge issued a writ of possession in favor of
complainant Balaoing. But up to the present time,
complainant Balaoing has not yet taken possession of the
same, showing thereby his apparent disinterest.
With regard to the charge of grave misconduct,
respondent Judge vehemently denies the same.
Other respondent OIC Leonor Maniago adopted the
allegations in respondent Judge's Comment, and alleged
further that she has "faithfully performed her duties and
obligations under the law to administer justice in accordance
with her authority and without any impartiality, (sic)
whatsoever."
Consolidated with this administrative case is A.M.
No. R-676-RTJ, entitled "Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing vs. Hon.
Santiago Maliwanag," wherein the former charges the latter
with gross ignorance of the law for allegedly issuing a
patently unjust order.
Respondent Judge Maliwanag, denied the charge
and alleged among others, that his order was issued based
on jurisprudence, equity and justice, in order to prevent an
unjust and inequitable execution of the judgment and an
injustice perpetrated by a lawyer on the unlearned and poor
couple from the barrio.

Issue: Whether or not the acts of the complainant sufficient
ground for his disbarment.
Held: Yes. As shown above, complainant Balaoing has a
penchant for filing administrative charges against judges, in
whose sala he has pending cases, whenever the latter render
decisions or issue orders adverse to him and/or his clients.
Complainant Balaoing went out of bounds when he filed his
baseless and frivolous administrative complaints against
respondent Judges Calderon and Maliwanag, with no other
plain and clear purpose than to harass respondent Judges,
and thus, exact vengeance on them for rendering adverse
judgments against him and his clients.
These acts of complainant Balaoing run counter to
the explicit mandate of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, to wit:
CANON 11 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN
THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL
OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSISTS ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY
OTHERS.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
Courts.
Rule 11.04 — A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives
not supported by the record or have no materiality to the
case.
We have painstakingly reviewed the records of
these cases and find the present administrative complaints
of Atty. Balaoing against Judge Calderon, Jr. and his OIC
Leonor Maniago, and against Judge Maliwanag, just as
frivolous and baseless as the previous ones. Like before, his
present complaints are based on his personal interpretation
of the law and not on material allegations of fact,
substantiated by solid evidence. This We cannot
countenance.
Complainant Balaoing's wanton disregard of our
stern warning not to again file baseless and frivolous
complaints which only clog the already full dockets of this
Court instead of serve the ends of justice, and his adamant
refusal to abide by the above-quoted provisions of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which serve to regulate a
lawyer's conduct in this jurisdiction, have shown
complainant Balaoing's unfitness to hold the license to
practice law. Complainant Balaoing has utterly failed to live
up to the duties and responsibilities of a member of the legal
profession.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
administrative complaints are hereby DISMISSED for lack of
merit. Complainant Eduardo R. Balaoing is hereby
DISBARRED and his name is ordered STRICKEN from the Roll
of Attorneys.
BAUTISTA vs GONZALES
182 SCRA 151 A.M. No. 1625 February 12, 1990
Facts: In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista,
respondent Ramon A. Gonzales was charged with
malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation of
Page 4 of 7
lawyer's oath. The Court referred the case to the Office of
the Solicitor General for investigation, report and
recommendation. The Solicitor General submitted his report
with the recommendation that Atty. Gonzales be suspended
for 6 months for the following acts of misconduct committed
by the respondent:
a. transferring to himself one-half of the properties
of his clients (Fortunados) during the pendency of
the case where the properties were involved;
b. concealing from complainant the fact that the
property subject of their land development
agreement had already been sold at a public
auction prior to the execution of said agreement;
and
c. misleading the court by submitting alleged true
copies of a document where two signatories who
had not signed the original (or even the xerox copy)
were made to appear as having fixed their
signatures
Respondent then filed a motion to refer the case to
the IBP for investigation and disposition pursuant to Section
20 of Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court:
This Rule shall take effect on June 1, 1988 and shall
supersede the present Rule 139 entitled
DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION OF ATTORNEYS. All
cases pending investigation by the Office of the
Solicitor General shall be transferred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of
Governors for investigation and disposition as
provided in this Rule except those cases where the
investigation has been substantially completed.
Issue: Whether or not this case should be referred to the
IBP.
Held: No. Contrary to respondent's claim, reference to the
IBP of complaints against lawyers is not mandatory upon the
Court. Reference of complaints to the IBP is not an exclusive
procedure under the terms of Rule 139-B of the Revised
Rules of Court. Under Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 139-B, the
Supreme Court may conduct disciplinary proceedings
without the intervention of the IBP by referring cases for
investigation to the Solicitor General or to any officer of the
Supreme Court or judge of a lower court. In such a case, the
report and recommendation of the investigating official shall
be reviewed directly by the Supreme Court. The Court shall
base its final action on the case on the report and
recommendation submitted by the investigating official and
the evidence presented by the parties during the
investigation.
Secondly, there is no need to refer the case to the
IBP since at the time of the effectivity of Rule 139-B, the
investigation conducted by the OSG had been substantially
completed. Section 20 of Rule 139-B provides that only
pending cases, the investigation of which has not been
substantially completed by the OSG, shall be transferred to
the IBP. In this case the investigation by the Solicitor General
was terminated even before the effectivity of Rule 139-B.
Respondent himself admitted in his motion to dismiss that
the Solicitor General terminated the investigation on
November 26, 1986, the date when respondent submitted
his reply memorandum.
Thirdly, there is no need for further investigation
since the OSG already made a thorough and comprehensive
investigation of the case. To refer the case to the IBP, as
prayed for by the respondent, will result not only in
duplication of the proceedings conducted by the Solicitor
General but also to further delay in the disposition of the
present case which has lasted for more than 13 years.
Respondent's assertion that he still has some
evidence to present does not warrant the referral of the case
to the IBP. Considering that in the investigation conducted
by the Solicitor General respondent was given ample
opportunity to present evidence, his failure to adduce
additional evidence is entirely his own fault. There was
therefore no denial of procedural due process. The record
shows that respondent appeared as witness for himself and
presented no less than 11 documents to support his
contentions. He was also allowed to cross-examine the
complainant who appeared as a witness against him.
WHEREFORE, finding that respondent Attorney
Ramon A. Gonzales committed serious misconduct, the
Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent from the practice of
law for 6 months.
ZALDIVAR vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. Nos. 79690-707
FACTS: Enrique A. Zaldivar was the governor of Antique and
was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violations of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Raul M. Gonzales was
the then Tanodbayan who was investigating the case.
Zaldivar then filed with the SC a petition for Certiorari,
Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the authority of the
Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases under the 1987
Constitution. The SC, acting on the petition issued a Cease
and Desist Order against Gonzalez directing him to
temporarily restrain from investigating and
filing informations against Zaldivar. Gonzales however
proceeded with the investigation and he filed
criminal informations against Zaldivar. Respondent
Gonzalez has also asserted that the Court was preventing
him from prosecuting "rich and powerful persons," that
the Court was in effect discriminating between the rich and
powerful on the one hand and the poor and defenseless
upon the other, and allowing "rich and powerful" accused
persons to go "scot-free" while presumably allowing or
affirming the conviction of poor and small offenders.
Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against
Gonzalez. The SC then ordered Gonzalez to explain his side.
Gonzalez stated that the statements in
the newspapers were true; that he was only exercising
his freedom of speech; that he is entitled to criticize the
rulings of the Court, to point out where he feels
the Court may have lapsed into error.
Respondent Gonzalez subsequently sought in his
pleading that the 4 Members of the Court inhibit themselves
in the deliberation and resolution of the Motion to Cite in
Contempt. Upon denial, he in effect asked the whole Court
Page 5 of 7
to inhibit itself from passing upon the issues involved in this
proceeding and to pass on responsibility for this matter to
the IBP, upon the ground that respondent cannot expect due
process from this Court, that the Court has become
incapable of judging him impartially and fairly.
ISSUE: Whether or not this case should be passed on the IBP
under Rule 139-B.
HELD: No. Reference of complaints against attorneys either
to the IBP or to the Solicitor General is not mandatory upon
the SC; such reference to the IBP or to the Solicitor General
is certainly not an exclusive procedure under the terms of
Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, especially where
the charge consists of acts done before the SC. There is no
need for further investigation of facts in the present case for
it is not substantially disputed by respondent Gonzalez that
he uttered or wrote certain statements attributed to him. In
any case, respondent has had the amplest opportunity to
present his defense; his defense is not that he did not make
the statements ascribed to him but that those statements
give rise to no liability on his part, having been made in the
exercise of his freedom of speech. The issues which thus
need to be resolved here are issues of law and of basic policy
and the Court, not any other agency, is compelled to resolve
such issues.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND
Atty. Raul M. Gonzalez from the practice of law indefinitely
and until further orders from this Court.
NARAG vs. NARAG
A.C. No. 3405. June 29, 1998
Facts: Mrs. Julieta B. Narag filed an administrative complaint
for disbarment against her husband, Atty. Dominador M.
Narag, whom she accused of having violated the Code of
Ethics for Lawyers for abandoning his family to live with his
paramour who was his former student in tertiary level. The
Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report
and recommendation.
Subsequently, the Office of then Chief Justice received
from complainant another letter seeking the dismissal of the
administrative complaint. She alleged therein that she
fabricated the allegations in her complaint to humiliate and
spite her husband and that her husband had remained a
faithful and responsible family man. She further asserted
that he had neither entered into an amorous relationship
nor abandoned his family. Supporting her letter were an
Affidavit of Desistance and a Motion to Dismiss, which she
filed before the IBP commission on bar discipline, the IBP
Board of Governors dismissed the complaint of Mrs. Narag
for failure to prosecute.
The case took an unexpected turn when the
Court received another letter from the complainant, with
her 7 children as co-signatories, again appealing for the
disbarment of her husband. She explained that she had
earlier dropped the case against him because of his
continuous threats against her.
Issue: Whether or not the IBP shall continue the disbarment
or suspension proceedings against the respondent.
Held: Yes. The Court issued another Resolution referring the
Comment of respondent to the IBP and the hearing before
IBP Commissioner was conducted. Subsequently, the
investigating officer submitted his report recommending the
indefinite suspension of Atty. Narag from the practice of
law. It states among others that except for the testimonies
of respondent’s witnesses whose testimonies tend to depict
the complaining wife, Mrs. Narag, as an incurably jealous
wife and possessive woman suffering everytime with streaks
of jealousy, respondent did not present himself on the
witness stand to testify and be cross-examined on his sworn
comment; much less did he present his alleged
paramour, Gina Espita, to disprove the adulterous
relationship between him and their having begotten their 2
illegitimate children. Worse, respondent’s denial that he is
the father of the two is a ground for disciplinary sanction.
The IBP adopted and approved the investigating
commissioner’s recommendation for the indefinite
suspension of the respondent. However the complainant
sought the disbarment of her husband in a
Manifestation/Comment she filed. The IBP granted this
stiffer penalty and, in its Resolution denied respondents
Motion for Reconsideration for violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility as follows:
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 should he, whether in public or private
life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession.
Thus, good moral character is not only a condition
precedent to the practice of law, but
a continuing qualification for all members of the bar. Hence,
when a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he
may be suspended or disbarred. In the present case, the
complainant was able to establish, by clear and convincing
evidence, that respondent had breached the high and
exacting moral standards set for members of the law
profession.
BILDNER and ILUSORIO vs. ERLINDA ILUSORIO
GR No. 157384 June 5, 2009
Facts: The petitioners asked for the disbarment or discipline
of Atty. Manuel Singson for attempted bribery and gross
misconduct. The disbarment case stemmed from his alleged
attempt, as counsel of Ramon Ilusorio in civil case, to exert
influence on presiding RTC Judge Antonio Reyes to rule in
Ramon’s favor. Judge Reyes alleged in his affidavit that even
before the start of the hearing of said civil case, Atty. Singson
relentlessly worked on by visiting him about 3 times in his
office and made more than a dozen calls to his residences.
That when Ramon’s plea for injunctive relief was submitted
Page 6 of 7
for resolution, Atty. Singson became more unrelenting in
throwing his professional ethics out of the window and
breached his lawyers oath by personally calling many more
times, some of which were even made late evenings, just
trying to convince Judge Reyes to grant the injunctive relief.
That Atty. Singson even offered Judge Reyes, through Atty.
Sevilla, a P500,000 to grant the request.
Likewise, Atty. Sevilla stated in his affidavit that
Atty. Singson requested if the former could mention to Judge
Reyes that they are classmates and good friends at the
Ateneo considering that Atty. Sevilla is a family friend of
Judge Reyes.
The respondent explained that he was merely
following up the status of a temporary restraining order
applied for and sometimes asking for the resetting of
hearings. He also countered that the bribery charge was
based on a hearsay account, since the alleged offer to Judge
Reyes emanated from Atty. Sevilla.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Singson should be
administratively disciplined or disbarred from the practice of
law for alleged gross misconduct in attempting to bribe
Judge Reyes.
Held: Yes. There is a well-grounded reason to believe that
Atty. Singson indeed attempted to influence Judge Reyes
decide a case in favor of Atty. Singson’s client. The Court
finds the explanation proffered as puerile as it is
preposterous. Matters touching on case status could and
should be done through the court staff, and resetting is
usually accomplished thru proper written motion or in open
court.
The highly immoral implication of a lawyer
approaching a judge or a judge evincing a willingness to
discuss, in private, a matter related to a case pending in that
judge’s sala cannot be over-emphasized. The fact that Atty.
Singson did talk on different occasions to Judge Reyes,
initially through a mutual friend, Atty. Sevilla, leads us to
conclude that Atty. Singson was indeed trying to influence
the judge to rule in his clients favor. This conduct is not
acceptable in the legal profession. Canon 13 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility enjoins it:
Canon 13. A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his
cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to
influence or gives the appearance of influencing the court.
We must stress the difficulty of proving
bribery. The transaction is always done in secret and often
only between the two parties concerned. Indeed, there is no
concrete evidence in the records regarding the commission
by Atty. Singson of attempted bribery. Even Atty. Sevilla did
not mention any related matter in his
affidavit. Nevertheless, Judge Reyes disclosures in his
affidavit and in open court deserve some weight. The
possibility of an attempted bribery is not far from reality
considering Atty. Singson’s persistent phone calls, one of
which he made while Judge Reyes was with Atty. Sevilla.
Judge Reyes declaration may have been an emotional
outburst as described by Atty. Singson, but the spontaneity
of an outburst only gives it more weight.
 While the alleged attempted bribery may perhaps
not be supported by evidence other than Judge Reyes
statements, there is nevertheless enough proof to hold Atty.
Singson liable for unethical behavior of attempting to
influence a judge, itself a transgression of considerable
gravity. However, heeding the injunction against decreeing
disbarment where a lesser sanction would suffice to
accomplish the desired end, a suspension for one year from
the practice of law appears appropriate.

Page 7 of 7