COMPLAINANT Josefina Royong

RESPONDENT Atty. Ariston Oblena

CANON/RULE  
FACTS:  

> Complaint for disbarment for the case of rape;

> Complainant is the niece of respondent's common-law wife, Briccia Angeles;
> Angeles is a married woman the respondent has been cohabitating with prior to the respondent's admission to the bar;
> The respondent sworn that he is a person of good moral character ("approximation of himself");
> The complainant alleged that the lawyer raped him one afternoon and threatened to kill her and her family if she reports the incident;
> She eventually got pregnant and gave birth the following year;
> The lawyer admitted he had an illicit relationship with the complainant and confessed the same to Angeles explaining he only wanted a child

WON illicit relationship with Royong and the respondent's open cohabitation with Angeles are sufficient grounds for
ISSUE:
disbarment

CONCLUSIONS | RULING:
> The sexual intercourse happened repeatedly and with consent; the seduction was accomplished with grave abuse of confidence and by means
of promises of marriage; he took advantage of her moral influence over her and his relationship with a married woman permanently disqualified
him from admission to the bar;
> The respondent lawyer is not guilty of rape but of "moral perversion"
> Disbarment was imposed to Atty. Oblena

COMPLAINANT Leslie Ui
RESPONDENT Atty. Iris Bonifacio
CANON/RULE  
FACTS:  

> Complaint for disbarment on the ground of immorality (illicit relationship with a married man)
> 1971 : Leslie Ui married Carlos Ui, they had 4 children
> 1987 : Leslie found out that Carlos was having an illicit relationship with respondent lawyer;
> 1982 : Respondent was admitted to the Bar
> Complainant's side of the story: Leslie came to see the lawyer in her office after Carlos' admission. She thought things would turn out well from
then on. But in 1988, her husband and the respondent had their 2nd child. She saw the lawyer once again and pleaded but the relationship
persisted.
> Respondent's side of the story: Atty. Bonifacio met Carlos Ui in 1983 and had known him to be a bachelor with children by a Chine woman from
whom he had long been estranged. Both got married in Hawaii in 1985. They did not live together upon their return to Manila. In 1988, she met
Leslie and discovered Carlos' true status and so she left for Hawaii. It is respondent's contention that her relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit
because they were married abroad and that after June 1988, when respondent discovered Carlos Ui's true civil status, she cut off all her ties with
him.
> In one of her Answers, Atty. Bonifacio presented a marriage certificate showing October 22, 1987, not October 22, 1985 which was the date of
the wedding initially declared by her.

WON Atty. Bonifacio has conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be barred from the
ISSUE:
practice of law

CONCLUSIONS | RULING:
> The court agreed that the lawyer "was more of a victim that (sic) anything else and should deserve compassion rather than condemnation."
> the complaint for Gross Immorality against Respondent is DISMISSED for lack of merit. "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."
> Atty. Iris Bonifacio is REPRIMANDED for knowingly and willfully attaching to her Answer a falsified Certificate of Marriage with a stern warning
COMPLAINANT Concerned Employee
RESPONDENT Glenda Mayor, Court Stenographer, RTC, Branch 72, Olongapo City
CANON/RULE  
FACTS:  
> Complaint for suspension without pay on the ground of immorality
> 1990 : Glenda E. Mayor secured a temporary appointment Court Stenographer III of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72, Olongapo City.
> 1998 : a letter addressed to then Court Administrator Alfredo Benipayo primarily adverted to several immoral activities on the part of the
respondent. The letter was signed by a "Concerned Employee," whose true identity has never been revealed.
> It was recorded that Mayor was allegedly having an immoral relationship with a married policeman - someone she had a child with. The same
man who promised to provide support for the child after she filed a complaint against him. It is important to note she claims not to have known
that he was married until she got pregnant.
> The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued a Memorandum, wherein it was recommended that respondent be found guilty of disgraceful
and immoral conduct and that she be suspended for six (6) months without pay with warning because Mayor gave birth to a child out of wedlock.

WON OCA is right in suggesting that the fact alone that respondent had given birth to a child out of wedlock is sufficient to
ISSUE:
warrant sanction for disgraceful and immoral conduct.

CONCLUSIONS | RULING:
> The Court disagrees with OCA that the fact of giving birth to a child out of wedlock should result to adminstrative sanction. ("it was held that to
be the basis of a disciplinary action, the act must not merely be immoral; it must be "grossly immoral"―"it must be so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.")
> Respondent's sanction arises not from her having had a child out of wedlock, but from her sexual relations with a married man. The record
record reveals that even after respondent learned of Leaño's marital state, she still had a sexual encounter with him. Her persistence in
maintaining sexual relations with Leaño after that revelation instead manifests a willful subversion of the legal order.
> Mayor was SUSPENDED for six (6) months without pay with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt
with more severely

COMPLAINANT Patricia Figueroa

RESPONDENT Simeon Barranco, Jr.
CANON/RULE  
FACTS:  

> Complaint to deny respondent admission to the Bar (1971)

> Complainant and respondent were steadies since 1953 and had a child in 1964;
> It was after the child was born, complainant alleged, that respondent first promised he would marry her after he passes the bar examinations,
which he did in 1970 after 4 attempts;
> Responded married another woman in 1971.
> The respondent's motion to dismiss the case was denied 3 times by the Court until 1988 when the Court resolved to dismiss the complaint for
failure of complainant to prosecute the case for an unreasonable period of time and to allow Simeon Barranco, Jr. to take the lawyer's oath.
Towards the end of the same year, the Court resolved to cancel his scheduled oath-taking as the case was referred to the IBP for further
investigation in 1993. The IBP recommended the dismissal of the case in 1997.

ISSUE: Whether or not facts presented constitute grosssly immoral conduct warranting non-admission to the legal profession.

CONCLUSIONS | RULING:
> The Court finds the fact of the respondent bearing an illegitimate child with Figueroa not sufficient to constitute gross immorality warranting the
permanent exclusion of respondent from the legal profession.His engaging in premarital sexual relations with complainant and promises to marry
suggests a doubtful moral character on his part but the same does not constitute grossly immoral conduct. The Court has held that to justify
suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral.
> The Court is convinced the complaint was an act of revenge of a woman scorned, bitter and unforgiving to the end.
> The petition is dismissed and the respondent, who at that time was already 62 years old, is allowed to take the lawyer's oath.
COMPLAINANT Jocelyn de Leon
RESPONDENT Public Attorney Atty. Tyrone Pedreña
CANON/RULE Rule 1.018 and Rule 7.039
FACTS:  

> Complaint for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law

> 2006 : The complainant went to the Public Attorney's Office in order to inquire from ATTY. TYRONE PEDRENA about the status of her case which
is being handled by Atty. Pedreña;
> She averred that she agreed to eat lunch with the lawyer and ride with him. Inside his car, he got hold of her hand, rubbed her left leg and forced
to put it on his penis;
> Atty. Pedreña answered with counter-affidavit in the criminal case for acts of lasciviousness and his complaint-affidavit for theft. He said she had
sat very close to him during the ride that even made it hard for him to shift gears and that there was another passenger at the time he gave a ride
to de Leon who attested that she had witnessed De Leon’s act of taking his (Pedreña) cellphone from the handbrake box of the car.
> 2007 : the IBP imposed upon Atty. Pedreña suspension from the practice of law for three months;
> 2012 : ther IBP denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration and increased suspension period to 6 months;

ISSUE: WON suspension is in order given the gravity of the offensive acts committed?

> A lawyer who commits overt acts of sexual harassment against a female client is guilty of reprehensible conduct that is unbecoming of a member
of the Bar, and may be condignly punished with suspension from the practice of law

> The Court SUSPENDS ATTY. TYRONE PEDRENA from the practice of law for two years effective upon receipt of this decision, with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

COMPLAINANT Natividad P. Navarro and Hilda S. Presbitero

RESPONDENT Atty. Ivan M. Solidum, Jr
CANON/RULE Rule 1.01, Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.04
FACTS:  

> Complaint for disbarment filed by Natividad P. Navarro (Navarro) and Hilda S. Presbitero (Presbitero) against Atty. Ivan M. Solidum, Jr.
(respondent) before the IBP;
> 2006 : Presbitero and her daugther Ma. Theresa P. Yulo, engaged in the services of Solidum for each of their own cases concerning land;
> 2006 : respondent borrowed ₱2,000,000 from Navarro and ₱1,000,000 from Presbitero which he failed to pay in accordance with the MOAs he
executed
> Solidum was able to pay complainants a total of Php900,000.00. Thereafter, he failed to pay either the principal amount or the interest thereon.
The checks issued by Solidum to the complainants could no longer be negotiated because the accounts against which they were drawn were
already closed

ISSUE: WON the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsbility

> Respondent promised or agreed to pay the very high interest rates of the loans although he knew them to be exorbitant in accordance with
jurisprudence;
> Respondent likewise failed to deny that he misled Navarro and her husband regarding the identity of the property mortgaged to them;
> Respondent likewise failed to deny that he misled Navarro and her husband regarding the identity of the property mortgaged to them;
> Respondent conspired with Yulo to secure loans by promising her a 10% commission and later claimed that they agreed that Yulo would "ride" on
the loan by borrowing ₱300,000 from the amount he obtained from Navarro and Presbitero.
> Respondent violated at least four provisions: Rule 1.01, Canon 16, Rule 16.01, and Rule 16.04 of the CPR. Solidum was disbarred from the
practice of law. He is also ordered to return the advances he received from Presbitero.
COMPLAINANT Edgardo Areola
RESPONDENT Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza
CANON/RULE 1.02 and Rule 15.07
FACTS:  

> Administrative complaint filed by Edgardo D. Areola (Areola) a.k.a. Muhammad Khadafy against Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza for violation of her
attorney s oath of office, deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct;
> Areola stated that he was filing the complaint in behalf of his co-detainees Allan Seronda, Aaron Arca, Joselito Mirador, Spouses Danilo Perez
and Elizabeth Perez;
>Atty. Mendoza admitted in her Answer that she advised her clients and their relatives to approach the judge and the fiscal "to beg and cry" so
that their motions would be granted and their cases against them would be dismissed.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Mendoza is giving improper advise to her clients in violation of the CPR?

> Atty. Mendoza’s improper advice only lessens the confidence of the public in our legal system. Judges must be free to judge, without pressure
or influence from external forces or factors22 according to the merits of a case. Atty. Mendoza’s careless remark is uncalled for;
> The Court takes note of Atty. Mendoza’s lack of ill-motive in the present case and her being a PAO lawyer as her main source of livelihoo;
> the Court finds Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza GUILTY of giving improper advice to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and is accordingly meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND, with the STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar act will be dealt with more severely.

COMPLAINANT
Atty. Oscar Embido
RESPONDENT Atty. Salvador N. Pe Jr.
CANON/RULE Rule 11.04
FACTS: Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7

> Complaint for disbarment against respondent Pe was instituted by the NBI, represented by Embido, on the ground of falsification of public
document in consideration of a sum of money;
> Atty. Ronel F. Sustituya, Clerk of Court of the RTC, received 2 letters from Mr. Ballam Delaney Hunt, a Solicitor in the United Kingdom,
requesting for a copy of the decision in Special Proceedings Case No. 084 rendered by Judge Rafael O. Penuela entitled “In the Matter of the
Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna,” whose petitioner was one Shirley Quioyo. They found, however, that the RTC had no record, as
Special Proceedings No. 084 was docketed as “In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rolando Austria,” whose petitioner was
one Serena Catin Austria.
> They informed Mr. Hunt that what he had was a falsified court document, and proceeded to communicate the situation to the NBI, thus
triggering an investigation. Meanwhile, Dy Quioyo, brother of Shirley Quioyo, executed an affidavit stating that it was the respondent who had
facilitated the issuance of the falsified decision for P60,000. This was corroborated by the affidavit of Mary Rose Quioyo, Shirley Quiyo’s sister;
> The respondent alleged that he merely gave Shirley Quioyo advice on annulment laws, that Dy Quiyo was the one who caused the falsification
through people on Recto Avenue, and that one Mrs. Florencia Jalipa had executed a sword statement that her late husband, Manual Jalipa, had
been responsible for making the falsified document at the instance of Dy Quioyo

ISSUE: W/N Pe is guilty of falsification of a court document in consideration of a sum of money

> The respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for having authored the falsification of the decision in a non-existent court proceeding;
> Deliberate falsification of the court decision by the respondent was an act that reflected a high degree of moral turpitude on his part;
> The Court DIRECTS the Bar Confidant to remove the name of ASST. PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR SALVADOR N. PE, JR. from the Roll of Attorneys.

COMPLAINANT Rodrigo Tapay and Anthony Rustia, Jr.

RESPONDENT Atty. Charlie Bancolo and Atty. Janus Jarder
CANON/RULE Rule 9.01
FACTS:  

> Complaint for disbarment against Atty. Bancolo and Atty. Jarder as filed by Tapay and Rustia unethical practices in the legal profession;
> 2004 : Tapay and Rustia received an Order from the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas requiring them to file a counter-affidavit to a complaint
filed against them by Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr.;
> The Complaint was allegedly signed on behalf of Divinagracia by one Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo of the Jarder Bancolo Law Office;
> When Atty. Bancolo and Rustia accidentally chanced upon each other, Atty. Bancolo denied that he represented Divinagracia and declared that
the signature appearing above his name as counsel for Divinagracia was not his;
> In his Counter-Affidavit, Divinagracia presented evidence that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted his case and that his Complaint was signed
by the office secretary per Atty. Bancolo’s instructions;
> Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client before the Office of the Ombudsman was signed in his name by a secretary
of his law office.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Bancolo is administratively liable

> Under the Rules of Court, counsel’s signature serves as a certification that (1) he has read the pleading; (2) to the best of his knowledge,
information and belief there is good ground to support it; and (3) it is not interposed for delay.11 Thus, by affixing one’s signature to a pleading, it
is counsel alone who has the responsibility to certify to these matters and give legal effect to the document;
> The Court finds that the suspension of Atty. Bancolo from the practice of law for one year is warranted. We also find proper the dismissal of the
case against Atty. Larder.

COMPLAINANT  
RESPONDENT ATTY. RUFILLO D. BUCANA
CANON/RULE  
FACTS:  

> Administrative case as an action upon the letter of Mrs. Angela Drilon Baltazar, Barangay Captain of Victories, Dumangas, Iloilo;
> 1975 : Atty. Bucana notarized an agreement executed by the spouses Gonzalo Baltazar and Luisa Sorongon wherein the afore-mentioned spouses
agreed therein that "in case anyone of them will remarry both parties offer no objection and waive all civil and criminal actions against them" and
that the afore-mentioned Agreement was "entered into for the purpose of agreement to allow each and everyone of them to remarry without
objection or reservation ..." which affidavit is contrary to law because it sanctions an illicit and immoral purpose;
> Respondent asserted that the document in question was Prepared by his clerk without his previous knowledge, he refused to sign it, placed the
said document on his table among his files and discovered later on that the same was notarized by him. He claimed he was emotionally disturbed
as his father (now deceased) was then seriously ill;

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Bucana is administratively liable

> The Court finds that the document could not have been notarized if the respondent had only exercised the requisite care required by law in the
exercise of his duties as notary public;
> The Court holds respondent Rufillo D. Bucana is guilty of malpractice and is hereby suspended from the office of not try public for a period of six
(6) months, with the admonition that a repetition of the same or a similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.