PALE 3E/3D: G-J C A S E S |1
G1
[ADM. CASE No. 6595. April 15, 2005]
JOSEPH SAMALA, complainant, vs. ATTY. ANTONUITTI K. PALAA, respondent.
Canon 7: Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
FACTS:
Sometime in February 2001, complainant was looking for a company where he could
invest his dollar savings. He met Raymond Taino, a trader-employee of First Imperial
Resources, Inc. (FIRI), a company located at Legaspi Village, Makati City. Taino
introduced him to FIRI Manager-Agustin, Chief Trader-Bernal, and Legal Officer
Antonuitti K. Palaa, the respondent herein.
Complainant expressed his concern to the said 3 officers of FIRI about having been
warned of numerous fraudulent businesses in the Philippines. Respondent assured him
that through FIRI he would be directly putting his investment with Eastern Vanguard
Forex Limited, a reputable company based in the Virgin Islands which has been in the
foreign exchange business for 13 years. The 3 officers presented to him their company
profile and documents purporting to establish their relationship with Eastern Vanguard
Forex Limited.
Due to the personal representations and assurances of respondent, Agustin, and
Bernal, complainant was convinced and he invested his dollar savings with FIRI on
March 9, 2001. Subsequently, complainant decided to pull out his investment. On April
5, 2001, he sent FIRI a letter requesting the withdrawal of his investment amounting to
US$10,000 and giving FIRI 10 days to prepare the money.
Samala asked FIRI Manager-Agustin when his money would be returned. Agustin told
him that the request was sent to Thomas Yiu of Eastern Vanguard at Ortigas Center.
Complainant went to see Yiu at his office. Yiu phoned Agustin and demanded an
explanation as to where the money was. Agustin said that he would return Samala’s
investment at FIRIs office in Makati. On the same day, in the presence of Palaa, Agustin
delivered to complainant a check in the amount of P574,045.09, as the peso equivalent
of complainants investment with FIRI. On May 2, 2001, the said check was dishonored
because it was drawn against insufficient funds.
Samala informed Palaa of the dishonor of the check. Respondent assured him that the
check would be replaced. A month later, Palaa, as legal officer of FIRI, gave
complainant P250,000 in cash and a check in the amount of P329,045.09. Respondent
told complainant that the check was signed by FIRI President Paul Desiderio in his
presence and assured complainant that the check would be funded. But on June 28,
2001, the check was dishonored because it was drawn against insufficient funds.
Palaa charged FIRI President-Paul Desiderio of Estafa and Violation of BP 22 at the
Prosecutors Office of Makati. Thereafter, MTC Makati Judge issued a warrant of arrest
against Paul Desiderio. The complainant joined 3 police officers in serving the warrant
of arrest against Paul Desiderio at B.F. Homes, Paranaque City, but there was no
residence numbered 10. They were told by the subdivision association that no such
address existed and that no resident named Paul Desiderio lived in the subdivision.
Complainant alleged that respondents act of representing himself to be the legal officer
of FIRI and his assurance that the check he personally delivered to him was signed in
his presence by FIRI Officer Paul Desiderio, when no such person appears to exist, is
clearly fraudulent and violative of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
Complainant requested the IBP for a thorough investigation of respondent as a member
of the bar. It is evident from the Investigating Commissioner’s report that respondent
and his cohorts violated the main purpose of the FIRI By-Laws particularly the
prohibition against investment or foreign exchange business which must have been the
reason why Yiu was surprised and got mad when complainant approached him about
his dollar savings investment of USD10,000 received by the respondent as Legal
Officer and the 2 other alleged officers Agustin and Bernal of the FIRI, a transaction
expressly prohibited by the FIRI By-laws.
ISSUE: W/N Palaa violated Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD: YES. The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall at
all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. To this end, nothing
should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any
degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the
profession.
In this case, respondent assured complainant that by investing his dollar savings with
FIRI, his investment was in a stable company, even if, as it was later discovered, the
by-laws of FIRI prohibited it from engaging in investment or foreign exchange business
and its primary purpose is to act as consultant in providing professional expertise and
reliable data analysis related to partnership and so on.
When complainant decided to withdraw his investment from FIRI, the first check given
to him in the amount of his total investment bounced. Respondent then assured
complainant that the second check was a good check and that it was signed by Paul
Desiderio, the alleged president of FIRI. However, the said check bounced because it
was drawn against insufficient funds, and the drawer of the check, Paul Desiderio,
could not be located when sought to be served a warrant of arrest since his identity was
unknown and his residential address was found to be non-existent.
Hence, it is clear that the representations of respondent as legal officer of FIRI caused
material damage to complainant. In so doing, respondent failed to uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession and lessened the confidence of the public in the
honesty and integrity of the same.
Atty. Antonuitti K. Palaa is found GUILTY of violating Rule 7.03 and hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of 3 years, with a WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

G2
TOMAS P. TAN, JR., complainant, vs. ATTY. HAIDE V. GUMBA, respondent.
[A.C. No. 9000. October 5, 2011.]
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.
FACTS: Complainant Tomas P. Tan, Jr., a self-made businessman with a tailoring
shop in Naga City, filed a verified Complaint against respondent Atty. Haide B. Vista-
Gumba, also a resident of Naga City, before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-
Camarines Sur Chapter.
It appears that sometime in August 2000, respondent Gumba asked complainant Tan to
lend her P350,000.00. Respondent Gumba assured Tan that she would pay the
principal plus 12% interest per annum after one year and offered by way of security a
105-square-meter parcel of land located in Naga City, covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. 2055 and registered in her father's name. Respondent showed
complainant a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by respondent's
parents, and verbally assured complainant that she was authorized to sell or
encumber the entire property. Complainant consulted one Atty. Raquel Payte and
was assured that the documents provided by respondent were valid. Thus, complainant
agreed to lend money to respondent. With the help of Atty. Payte, respondent executed
in complainant's favor an "open" Deed of Absolute Sale over the said parcel of land,
attaching thereto the SPA. Complainant was made to believe that if respondent fails to
pay the full amount of the loan with interest on due date, the deed of sale may be
registered. Accordingly, complainant Tan gave the amount of P350,000.00 to
respondent Gumba.
Respondent, however, defaulted on her loan obligation and failed to pay the same
despite complainant's repeated demands. Left with no recourse, complainant went
to the Register of Deeds to register the sale, only to find out that respondent
deceived him since the SPA did not give respondent the power to sell the
property but only empowered respondent to mortgage the property solely to
banks. Complainant manifested that he had lent money before to other people albeit for
insignificant amounts, but this was the first time that he extended a loan to a lawyer and
it bore disastrous results. He submitted that respondent committed fraud and deceit or
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.
Hence, complainant Tan filed an administrative complaint for the disbarment of
respondent Atty. Gumba.
On February 9, 2009, IBP Commissioner Jose I. De La Rama, Jr. rendered his
report finding respondent guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommending that she be suspended
from the practice of law for one year. Commissioner De La Rama opined that while
respondent appears to be a co-owner of the property as evidenced by an annotation on
the back of TCT No. 2055 showing that half of the property has been sold to her, it was
evident that she employed deceit and dishonest means to make complainant believe,
by virtue of the SPA, that she was duly authorized to sell the entire property.
PALE 3E/3D: G-J C A S E S |2
On August 28, 2010, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and
recommendation of Commissioner De La Rama, Jr.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Atty. Gumba violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility
HELD: The court held that respondent Atty. Gumba violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The court agreed with the findings and conclusion of the IBP, but found that a reduction
of the recommended penalty is called for, pursuant to the principle that the appropriate
penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based
on the surrounding facts.
Well entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that a lawyer may be disciplined for
misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is whether
his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good
demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
Verily, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all lawyers to
uphold at all times the dignity and integrity of the legal profession. Lawyers are similarly
required, under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the same Code, not to engage in any unlawful,
dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.
Here, respondent's actions clearly show that she deceived complainant into lending
money to her through the use of documents and false representations and taking
advantage of her education and complainant's ignorance in legal matters. As
manifested by complainant, he would have never granted the loan to respondent were it
not for respondent's misrepresentation that she was authorized to sell the property and
if respondent had not led him to believe that he could register the "open" deed of sale if
she fails to pay the loan. By her misdeed, respondent has eroded not only
complainant's perception of the legal profession but the public's perception as
well. Her actions constitute gross misconduct for which she may be disciplined.
In this case, the Court finds the penalty of suspension more appropriate but finds the
recommended penalty of suspension for one year too severe. Considering the
circumstances of this case, the Court believes that a suspension of six months is
sufficient. After all, suspension is not primarily intended as a punishment, but as a
means to protect the public and the legal profession.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Haide B. Vista-Gumba is found administratively liable
for grave misconduct. She is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6)
MONTHS, effective immediately, with a warning that a repetition of the same or a
similar act will be dealt with more severely.
 PALE 3E/3D: G-J C A S E S |3

H1
ROSA YAP-PARAS vs ATTY. JUSTO PARAS
AC No.4947, June 7 2007
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS
AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL
AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
Facts:
On September 9, 1998, herein petitioner-movant filed a verified Petition praying for the
disbarment of her estranged husband respondent Atty. Justo J. Paras.
On February 14, 2005, the Court issued a Resolution finding Atty. Paras guilty of
committing a falsehood in violation of his lawyers oath and of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Thus, the Court resolved to suspend Atty. Paras from the practice of law
for a period of one (1) year, with a warning that commission of the same or similar
offense in the future will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty.
The Court takes this opportunity to remind the parties in the instant case, as well
petitioner-movants counsels, to avoid further squabbles and unnecessary filing
of administrative cases against each other. An examination of the records reveals
a pervasive atmosphere of animosity between Atty. Paras and petitioners
counsels as evidenced by the number of administrative cases between them. It is
well to stress that mutual bickerings and unjustified recriminations between
attorneys detract from the dignity of the legal profession and will not receive
sympathy from this Court. Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy,
fairness, candor and civility.
All told, the Court deems a reprimand with warning as a sufficient sanction for Atty
Paras failure to promptly comply with its directives. The imposition of this sanction in the
present case would be more consistent with the avowed purpose of a disciplinary case,
which is not so much to punish the individual attorney as to protect the dispensation of
justice by sheltering the judiciary and the public from the misconduct or inefficiency of
officers of the court.

During the pendency of Atty. Paras motion for reconsideration, complainant-movant

filed with the Court the instant Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment, alleging
thereunder, inter alia, that Atty. Paras violated the suspension order earlier issued by
the Court with his continued practice of law. In time, the Court issued a Resolution
dated July 18, 2005, denying for lack of merit Atty. Paras motion for reconsideration. In
the same resolution, the Court required Atty. Paras to comment on petitioner-movants
Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment.

It appearing that Atty. Paras failed to file a comment on the Motion for Contempt and/or
Disbarment, the Court issued another Resolution dated November 27, 2006 requiring
Atty. Paras to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for such
failure and to comply with the said resolution within ten (10) days from receipt.
Consequently, a Comment on Motion for Contempt and Explanation on Failure to
Timely File Required Comment[7] was filed by Atty. Paras denying all the allegations in
petitioner-movants Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment.

Issue: Whether Atty. Paras should be disbarred and be held in contempt for his failure
to comply with this Court’s resolutions.

Held: Court orders are to be respected not because the justices or judges who issue
them should be respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be
extended to the judicial branch of the government. This is absolutely essential if our
government is to be a government of laws and not of men.

Here, Atty. Paras admitted that he had been less than prudent, and indeed fell short, of
his obligation to follow, obey and comply with the specific Order of the Honorable
Supreme Court contained in Its Resolution dated July 18, 2005 due to his deteriorating
health condition which required him to undergo a coronary angiogram and bypass graft.
He likewise expressed his profound and immeasurable sorrowness amidst regrets for
his delayed compliance with the Courts order.

H2
A.C. No. 5768 March 26, 2010
ATTY. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR., Complainant, vs. ATTY. EDWIN Z. FERRER,
SR., Respondent.
The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of
legal procifiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the
lawyer to administrative liability.
Facts:
On November 22, 2000, Respondent Atty. Ferrer, as counsel for plaintiff in Civil Case
No. 7040 before the Municipal Trial Court of Daet, insinuated in a pleading, using
abusive, offensive and improper language, that Complainant Atty. Barandon presented
a falsified document. Before the start of the hearing of the Civil Case on December 19,
2000, Atty. Ferrer, in a drunken stupor, then threatened Atty. Barandon, including his
family, with physical violence. By January 11, 2001, Atty. Barandon then filed a
complaint-affidavit with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), seeking to
disbar or suspend Atty. Ferrer based on the aforementioned facts. By October 10, 2001,
Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP-CBD found evidence to
prove that Respondent violated, among others, Canon 8.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. San Juan found that Respondent indeed attributed to Complainant the
falsification of a document despite the absence of evidence that the document had in
fact been falsified and that Complainant was a party to it. Further, San Juan found
indeed uttered the threatening remarks in the presence of other counsels, court
personnel, and litigants before the start of hearing. Subsequently, the IBP Board of
Governors found it proper to suspend Respondent from the practice of law for 1 year.
Respondent moved for a reconsideration of the ruling but the same was denied by the
Board on the ground that it had already endorsed the matter to the Court. By February
5, 2003, the Court referred the case back to the IBP for resolution. On May 22, 2008,
the IBP Board again adopted and approved the Report of Commissioner San Juan in a
Resolution. On February 17, 2009, Atty. Ferrer then filed a Comment on the May 22,
2008 Resolution of the IBP Board. By August 12, 2009, the Court treated Atty. Ferrer’s
Comment as a petition for review under Rule 139 of the Rules of Court hence this case.
Issue:
Whether or not the IBP Board and the IBP Investigating Commissioner erred in finding
Respondent Atty. Ferrer guilty of the charges against him.
Held:
YES. The Court ruled that the practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet
the high standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards
exposes the lawyer to administrative liability. Citing Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility commands all lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and
candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics opposing counsel.
Examining Atty. Ferrer’s action against Canon 8, specifically, Rule 8.01, the Court found
that Atty. Ferrer does not meet the standard. Evidence exists showing that Atty. Ferrer
made the imputation with pure malice since he had no evidence that the affidavit had
been falsified and that Atty. Barandon authored the same. The Court noted that Atty.
Ferrer could have aired his charge of falsification without using offensive and abusive
language against a fellow lawyer.
PALE 3E/3D: G-J C A S E S |4
I1
MANUEL G. VILLATUYA vs ATTY. BEDE S. TABALINGCOS
A.C. No. 662, July 10, 2012
FACTS:
Villatuya filed a Complaint for Disbarment on December 06, 2004 against Atty.
Tabalingcos. Complainant claimed that he was employed by respondent as a financial
consultant to assist him in a number of corporate rehabilitation cases. Complainant
claimed that they had a verbal agreement whereby he would be entitled to P50,000 for
every Stay Order issued by the court in cases they would handle, in addition to 10% of
the fees paid by the clients. A total of 18 Stay Orders were issued by the court, but the
respondent failed to pay the amount due to complainant. (He also alleged that
respondent engaged in multiple unlawful solicitation cases by setting up two financial
consultancy firms as fronts for his legal services. Another charge was made on the
ground of gross immorality, wherein complainant accused respondent of committing
two counts of bigamy for having married two other women while his first marriage was
subsisting.)
In his defense, respondent denied the charges against him and asserted that
complainant was not an employee of his law firm but rather an employee of Jesi and
Jane Management, Inc., one of the consultancy firms. He even gave documents
showing that the salary of the complainant has been duly paid. (Respondent also
denied committing any unlawful solicitations and attached a Joint Venture Agreement
and affidavits from the Vice-President of Jesi and Jane Management Inc. to support his
claim. On the gross immorality charge regarding his alleged bigamous marriages,
respondent did not specifically address the allegations.)
(Three Marriage Contracts were provided by complainant, but was countered
by the respondent with the reason that he had only recently discovered that the two
other marriage contracts bearing his name were not his.)
The Commission promulgated its Report and Recommendation addressing the
specific charges against respondent. The first charge, dishonesty for the non-payment
of certain shares in the fees, was dismissed for lack of merit. (On the second charge, it
was found that respondent violated the rule on solicitation of clients for having
advertised his legal services and unlawfully solicited cases. As for the third charge,
respondent was found to be guilty of gross immorality for violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility (Rules 1.01 and 7.03) and Sec.138 of the Rules of Court.)
The Commission recommended the disbarment of the respondent. Motion for
Reconsiderations were made, but to no avail.
ISSUES:
1. WON respondent violated the CPR by nonpayment of fess to complainant;
2. WON respondent violated the CPR on the rule against unlawful solicitation;
3. WON respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married thrice.
HELD:
SC adopted the recommendation of the IBP to disbar respondent and ordered that
his name be stricken from the Roll of Attys.

1. SC affirmed the IBP’s dismissal of the first charge against respondent. If
proven to be true is based on the agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02 of
the CPR. A lawyer is proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the
fees for legal services rendered with a person not licensed to practice law. The
agreement between the lawyer and the layperson to share the fees collected
from clients secured by the layperson is null and void, the lawyer involved may
be disciplined for unethical conduct. Considering the allegations have not been
proven, the IBP correctly ruled on the matter.
2. Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the CPR, which
prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit. It is clear from
the documentary evidence submitted by complainant that Jesi and Jane
Management Inc., which purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was
indeed a vehicle used by respondent as a means to procure professional
employment; specifically for corporate rehabilitation cases. Rule 15.08 was
also used by the Court. Considering, however, that complainant has not
proven the degree of prevalence of this practice, the SC affirms the
recommendation to reprimand the latter for violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of
the Code.
3. In disbarment proceedings the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. In
the case, complainant submitted NSO-certified true copies to prove that
respondent entered into two marriages while the latter’s first marriage was still
subsisting. While respondent denied the claims, he resorted to vague
assertions tantamount to a negative pregnant. Respondent exhibited a
deplorable lack of that degree of morality and required of him as a member of
the bar. His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral
conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Sec.27, Rule 138 of the RoC.
PALE 3E/3D: G-J C A S E S |5
J1
Clarita J. Samala vs. Atty. Luciano D. Valencia
A.C. No. 5439, January 22, 2007
Facts:
Clarita J. Samala (complainant) filed a complaint against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia
(respondent) for Disbarment on the following grounds:
(a) serving on two separate occasions as counsel for contending parties;
(b) knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence;
(c) initiating numerous cases in exchange for non-payment of rental fees; and
(d) having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children.
After respondent filed his Comment, the Court referred the case to the IBP for
investigation, report, and recommendation. After a series of hearings, the parties filed
their respective memoranda and the case was deemed submitted for resolution. The
Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and recommended the penalty of suspension for six
months.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of
Commissioner Reyes but increased the penalty of suspension from six months to one
year.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent violated Canons 15 and 21 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Hence, should be suspended.
Ruling: Yes. Respondent Atty. Valencia is found guilty of misconduct and violation of
Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
On serving as counsel for contending parties
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer
shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts. A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional
misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present
or former client. One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance
of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided
fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in
the performance of that duty.
Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility "a lawyer shall preserve the
confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is
terminated." Here, respondent's representation of Valdez and Alba against Bustamante
and her husband and Valdez against Alba is a clear case of conflict of interests which
merits a corresponding sanction from this Court. Respondent may have withdrawn his
representation from the first civil case upon being warned by the court, but the same will
not exculpate him from the charge of representing conflicting interests in his
representation.

On knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence
Respondent cannot feign ignorance of the fact that the title he submitted was already
cancelled in lieu of a new title issued in the name of Alba in 1995 yet, as proof of the
latter's ownership. What is decisive in this case is respondent's intent in trying to
mislead the court by presenting an old title despite the fact that said title was already
cancelled and a new one was already issued in the name of Alba.
On initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees
The act of respondent of filing numerous cases to protect the interest of his client, on
one hand, and his own interest, on the other, cannot be made the basis of an
administrative charge unless it can be clearly shown that the same was being done to
abuse judicial processes to commit injustice.
On having a reputation for being immoral by siring illegitimate children
Respondent admitted that he sired three children by Teresita Lagmay who are all over
20 years of age, while his first wife was still alive. He also admitted that he has eight
children by his first wife, the youngest of whom is over 20 years of age, and after his
wife died in 1997, he married Lagmay in 1998.
In this case, the admissions made by respondent are more than enough to hold him
liable on the charge of immorality. He even justified his transgression by saying that he
does not have any relationship with Lagmay and despite the fact that he sired 3 children
by the latter, he does not consider them as his second family.
Under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It may be difficult to specify
the degree of moral delinquency that may qualify an act as immoral, yet, for purposes of
disciplining a lawyer, immoral conduct has been defined as that "conduct which is
willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of
respectable members of the community.
PALE 3E/3D: G-J C A S E S |6
J2
A.C. No. 6198 September 15, 2006
RENATO M. MALIGAYA, complainant, vs. ATTY. ANTONIO G. DORONILLA, JR.,
respondent.
CORONA, J.:
Atty. Antonio G. Doronilla, Jr. of the Judge Advocate Generals Service is
before us on a charge of unethical conduct for having uttered a falsehood in open court
during a hearing of Civil Case No. Q-99-38778.[1]
Civil Case No. Q-99-38778 was an action for damages filed by complainant
Renato M. Maligaya, a doctor and retired colonel of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, against several military officers for whom Atty. Doronilla stood as
counsel. At one point during the February 19, 2002 hearing of the case, Atty. Doronilla
said:
And another matter, Your Honor. I was appearing in other cases he
[complainant Maligaya] filed before against the same defendants. We
had an agreement that if we withdraw the case against him, he
will also withdraw all the cases. So, with that understanding, he
even retired and he is now receiving pension.[2]
Considering this to be of some consequence, presiding Judge Reynaldo B. Daway
asked a number of clarificatory questions and thereafter ordered Atty. Doronilla to put
his statements in writing and file the appropriate pleading.[3] Weeks passed but Atty.
Doronilla submitted no such pleading or anything else to substantiate his averments.
On April 29, 2002, Maligaya filed a complaint against Atty. Doronilla in the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline. [4] The complaint,
which charged Atty. Doronilla with misleading the court through misrepresentation of
facts resulting [in] obstruction of justice,[5] was referred to a commissioner[6] for
investigation. Complainant swore before the investigating commissioner that he had
never entered into any agreement to withdraw his lawsuits.[7] Atty. Doronilla, who took
up the larger part of two hearings to present evidence and explain his side, admitted
several times that there was, in fact, no such agreement.[8] Later he explained
in his memorandum that his main concern was to settle the case amicably among
comrades in arms without going to trial [9] and insisted that there was no proof of his
having violated the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyers oath. [10] He
pointed out, in addition, that his false statement (or, as he put it, his alleged acts of
falsity) had no effect on the continuance of the case and therefore caused no actual
prejudice to complainant.[11]
In due time, investigating commissioner Lydia A. Navarro submitted a report
and recommendation finding Atty. Doronilla guilty of purposely stating a falsehood in
violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility[12] and

recommending that he be suspended from the government military service as legal
officer for a period of three months. [13] This was adopted and approved in toto by the
IBP Board of Governors on August 30, 2003.[14]
There is a strong public interest involved in requiring lawyers who, as officers
of the court, participate in the dispensation of justice, to behave at all times in a manner
consistent with truth and honor.[15] The common caricature that lawyers by and large do
not feel compelled to speak the truth and to act honestly should not become a common
reality.[16] To this end, Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility state:
CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS, AND GOOD
FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice.
By stating untruthfully in open court that complainant had agreed to withdraw
his lawsuits, Atty. Doronilla breached these peremptory tenets of ethical conduct. Not
only that, he violated the lawyers oath to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court, of which Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 are but restatements. His act infringed
on every lawyers duty to never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law.[17]
Atty. Doronillas unethical conduct was compounded, moreover, by his
obstinate refusal to acknowledge the impropriety of what he had done. From the very
beginning of this administrative case, Atty. Doronilla maintained the untenable position
that he had done nothing wrong in the hearing of Civil Case No. Q-99-38778. He
persisted in doing so even after having admitted that he had, in that hearing, spoken of
an agreement that did not in truth exist. Rather than express remorse for that
regrettable incident, Atty. Doronilla resorted to an ill-conceived attempt to evade
responsibility, professing that the falsehood had not been meant for the information of
Judge Daway but only as a sort of question to complainant regarding a pending
proposal to settle the case.[18]
The explanation submitted by Atty. Doronilla, remarkable only for its
speciousness,[19] cannot absolve him. If anything, it leads us to suspect an unseemly
readiness on his part to obfuscate plain facts for the unworthy
purpose of escaping his just deserts. There is in his favor, though, a presumption of
good faith[20] which keeps us from treating the incongruity of his proffered excuse as an
indication of mendacity. Besides, in the light of his avowal that his only aim was to settle
the case amicably among comrades in arms without going to trial, [21] perhaps it is not
unreasonable to assume that what he really meant to say was that he had intended the
misrepresentation as a gambit to get the proposed agreement on the table, as it
were. But even if that had been so, it would have been no justification for speaking
falsely in court. There is nothing in the duty of a lawyer to foster peace among
PALE 3E/3D: G-J C A S E S |7
disputants that, in any way, makes it necessary under any circumstances for counsel to
state as a fact that which is not true. A lawyers duty to the court to employ only such
means as are consistent with truth and honor [22] forbids recourse to such a tactic. Thus,
even as we give Atty. Doronilla the benefit of the doubt and accept as true his avowed
objective of getting the parties to settle the case amicably, we must call him to account
for resorting to falsehood as a means to that end.
Atty. Doronillas offense is within the ambit of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court, which in part declares:
A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office
as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit x x x or for any
violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice x x x.
The suspension referred to in the foregoing provision means only suspension
from the practice of law. For this reason, we disagree with the IBPs recommendation for
Atty. Doronillas suspension from the government military service. After all, the only
purpose of this administrative case is to determine Atty. Doronillas liability as a member
of the legal profession, not his liability as a legal officer in the military service. Thus, it
would be improper for us to order, as a penalty for his breach of legal ethics and the
lawyers oath, his suspension from employment in the Judge Advocate Generals
Service. Of course, suspension from employment as a military legal officer may well
follow as a consequence of his suspension from the practice of law but that should not
be reason for us to impose it as a penalty for his professional misconduct. We would
be going beyond the purpose of this proceeding were we to do so. Therefore, we shall
treat the IBPs recommendation as one for suspension from the practice of law.
At any rate, we are not inclined to adopt the IBPs recommendation on the
duration of Atty. Doronillas suspension. We need to consider a few circumstances that
mitigate his liability somewhat. First, we give him credit for exhibiting enough candor to
admit, during the investigation, the falsity of the statement he had made in Judge
Daways courtroom. Second, the absence of material damage to complainant may also
be considered as a mitigating circumstance.[23] And finally, since this is Atty. Doronillas
first offense, he is entitled to some measure of forbearance.[24]
Nonetheless, his unrepentant attitude throughout the conduct of this
administrative case tells us that a mere slap on the wrist is definitely not enough. Atty.
Doronilla, it seems, needs time away from the practice of law to recognize his error and
to purge himself of the misbegotten notion that an effort to compromise justifies the
sacrifice of truthfulness in court.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Antonio G. Doronilla, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for TWO MONTHS. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar misconduct shall be dealt with more severely.
 PALE 3E/3D: G-J C A S E S |8

J3 After realizing that his motion failed to give him beneficial monetary gain from the
PLUS BUILDERS, INC. CO vs ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR. PARAD judgment, a Petition for Preliminary Injunction with prayer for Issuance of
A.C. No. 7056 September 13, 2006 Temporary Restraining Order and to Quash Alias Writ of Execution with Demolition plus
Damages was filed by Respondent before the DARAB Central Office,notwithstanding
FACTS
the fact that this instant case was appealed by another lawyer (Atty. Willy Roxas)
Administrative case originated from a Verified Petition for Disbarment filed by Plus
On the basis of this Petition, a Temporary Restraining Order by the DARAB Central
Builders Inc. and Edgardo C. Garcia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Office, Quezon City, was issued on July 25, 2001 and an extension of or another
(IBP). Complainants charged Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. with committing a willful and
intentional falsehood before the court; misusing court procedure and processes to delay
Temporary Restraining Order was issued dated August 24, 2001, as a result of the
the execution of a judgment; and collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of
active participation of Respondent.
law

Emboldened by the two (2) TROs coming from DARAB Central Office, Respondent filed
On April 7, 1999, Plus Builders Inc. filed before the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite
an Indirect Contempt case against Plus Builders Inc. and their Board of Directors,
(PARAD) of DAR, DARAB CASE against Leopoldo De Guzman, Heirs of Bienvenido De
Edgardo Garcia and its counsel Atty. Leopoldo S. Gonzalez before the same Office
Guzman, Apolonio Ilas and Gloria Martirez Siongco, Heirs of Faustino Siongco; Serafin
Sensing a series of orders against herein Petitioners and considering, further, that the
Santarin, Benigno Alvarez and Maria Esguerra hereinafter called TENANTS/FARMERS.
DARAB Central Office refused to hear arguments from Petitioners on the two (2)
questionable TROs, Petitioners decided to elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals by
On November 15, 1999, the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) rendered a
way of a Petition for Certiorari.
consolidated Decision in favor of petitioner/complainant [Plus Builders, Inc.], and
against [tenants/farmers].
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed orders issued by the DARAB are hereby
declared NULL AND VOID for having been issued without jurisdiction. this Court sees
[Tenants/farmers] filed several verified pleadings as part of the records of DARAB cases
no impediment for the IMPLEMENTATION of the 15 November 1999 Decision of the
alleging that they were MAGSASAKANG NAMUMUWISAN or mere tenants of subject
provincial adjudicator
properties, acknowledging the rights of the registered owners at that time, even before
the ownership and title were transferred to Petitioner/ Complainant Plus Builders, Inc
Elevated to the Supreme Court by Respondent through a Petition, but said Petition was
dismissed with finality
On December 17, 1999 counsel for TENANTS/FARMERS Atty. Damian S. J. Vellaseca,
filed a pro-forma Motion for Reconsideration and Manifestation. As a result, PARAD did
Enraged by his defeat, Respondent filed a verified Action to Quiet Title before the
not give due course to the same
Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite praying for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO),
among others, to deliberately and maliciously stop the enforcement of the Decisions of
On March 27, 2000, another counsel for TENANTS/FARMERS, by the name of Atty.
the higher courts to implement the PARAD Decision
Willy G. Roxas, who represented himself as counsel for TENANTS/FARMERS, filed a
manifestation stating that he is representing TENANTS/FARMERS and alleged that
Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite quashed the earlier issued TRO and dismissed the
they were bona fide members of the [Kalayaan Development Cooperative] (KDC). he
case on the ground of res judicata because the Court of Appeals ruled that, the
filed a Notice of Appeal alleged that the Decision is against the law and jurisprudence.
Decision of the Provincial Adjudicator of DAR dated November 15, 1999 has already
become final and that, prescription does not run against registered land
On May 31, 2001, Respondent Anastacio Revilla Jr., knowing that there was a
On August 4, 2004, both parties appeared at a hearing scheduled by Edmund T.
monetary judgment by way of Disturbance Compensation granted to Tenants/Farmers,
Espina, commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar
filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Allow Correction of Caption and Amendment of
Discipline (IBP-CBD). During the hearing, the parties were directed to submit their
Judgment (referring to the Decision of PARAD of Cavite dated November 15, 1999 )
respective Memoranda.
with a prayer to include the name of the KALAYAAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Investigating Commissioner Espina found respondent guilty of violating the attorneys
representing the following respondents herein above stated in the caption of [the]
oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Allegedly, respondent had maliciously
pleading
concealed the defeat of his clients in the case before the PARAD of Cavite and the
higher courts in order to secure a temporary restraining order from the RTC of
 PALE 3E/3D: G-J C A S E S |9

Imus, Cavite. As a result, he was able to delay the execution of the provincial Respondent failed to live up to the exacting standards expected of him as a vanguard of
adjudicators Decision law and justice.

Commissioner Espina opined that the charge that respondent had been engaged in the
unlawful practice of law was neither satisfactorily explained nor specifically denied by
the latter

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR herein responden is guilty of gross
misconduct

HELD:
Yes, the court held that Lawyers are officers of the court, called upon to assist in the
administration of justice. They act as vanguards of our legal system protecting and
upholding truth and the rule of law. They are expected to act with honesty in all their
dealings, especially with the courts. Verily, the Code of Professional Responsibility
enjoins lawyers from committing or consenting to any falsehood in court or from
allowing the courts to be misled by any artifice. Moreover, they are obliged to observe
the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
Good faith, fairness and candor constitute the essence of membership in the legal
profession. Thus, while lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their client, they must never
abuse their right of recourse to the courts by arguing a case that has repeatedly been
rejected. Neither should they use their knowledge of the law as an instrument to harass
a party or to misuse judicial processes. These acts constitute serious transgression of
their professional oath

In the present case, respondent claims good faith in pursuing the cause of his
clients. The records show, however, that his course of legal action was obviously a
stratagem. It was meant to delay unduly the execution of the provincial adjudicators
Decision

It must be noted that when the Court of Appeals and this Court upheld that Decision,
respondent resorted to a different forum to pursue his clients lost cause. In the
disturbance compensation case, he represented his clients as tenants and
acknowledged that complainants were the owners of the subject land. In the action to
quiet title, however, he conveniently repudiated his previous admission by falsely
alleging that his clients were adverse possessors claiming bona fide ownership.
Consequently, he was able to obtain a temporary restraining order preventing the
execution of the provincial adjudicators Decision.
Clearly, he was shielding his clients from the Order of execution. Contrary to his later
claim of ownership of the land, he cannot feign ignorance of his previous admission of a
tenancy relationship existing between his clients and complainants, as correctly
observed by IBP Commissioner Espina.

J4
ATTY. CARMEN LEONOR M. ALCANTARA, VICENTE P. MERCADO,
SEVERINO P. MERCADO AND SPOUSES JESUS AND ROSARIO MERCADO,
Complainants, vs. ATTY. EDUARDO C. DE VERA, Respondent.
A.C. No. 5859 November 23, 2010(Formerly CBD Case No. 421)
CANON 10
FACTS: The respondent is a member of the Bar and was the former counsel of Rosario
P. Mercado in a civil case filed in 1984 with the RTC Davao City and an administrative
case filed before the SEC.
Pursuant to a favorable decision, a writ of execution pending appeal was issued in favor
of Rosario P. Mercado. De Vera, as her legal counsel, garnished the bank deposits of
the defendant, but did not turn over the proceeds to Rosario. Rosario demanded that
the respondent turn over the proceeds of the garnishment, but the latter refused
claiming that he had paid part of the money to the judge while the balance was his, as
attorney’s fees. Such refusal prompted Rosario to file an administrative case for
disbarment against the respondent.
In 1993, the IBP Board of Governors promulgated a Resolution holding the respondent
guilty of infidelity in the custody and handling of client’s funds and recommending to the
Court his 1-year suspension from the practice of law.
Following the release of the aforesaid IBP Resolution, the respondent filed a series of
lawsuits against the Mercado family except George Mercado. The respondent also
instituted cases against the family corporation, the corporation’s accountant and the
judge who ruled against the reopening of the case where respondent tried to collect the
balance of his alleged fee from Rosario. Later on, the respondent also filed cases
against the chairman and members of the IBP Board of Governors who voted to
recommend his suspension from the practice of law for 1 year.
Complainants allege that the respondent committed barratry, forum shopping,
exploitation of family problems, and use of intemperate language when he filed several
frivolous and unwarranted lawsuits against the complainants and their family members,
their lawyers, and the family corporation. They maintain that the primary purpose of the
cases is to harass and to exact revenge for the one-year suspension from the practice
of law meted out by the IBP against the respondent. Thus, they pray that the
respondent be disbarred for malpractice and gross misconduct under Section 27, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court.
De Vera denies he has committed barratry by instigating or stirring up George Mercado
to file lawsuits against the complainants. He insists that the lawsuits that he and George
filed against the complainants were not harassment suits but were in fact filed in good
faith and were based on strong facts. Also, the respondent denies that he has engaged
in forum shopping. He argues that he was merely exhausting the remedies allowed by
law and that he was merely constrained to seek relief elsewhere by reason of the denial
of the trial court to reopen the civil case so he could justify his attorney’s fees.
PALE 3E/3D: G-J C A S E S | 10
Further, he denies that he had exploited the problems of his client’s family. He argues
that the case that he and George Mercado filed against the complainants arose from
their perception of unlawful transgressions committed by the latter for which they must
be held accountable for the public interest.
Finally, the respondent denies using any intemperate, vulgar, or unprofessional
language. On the contrary, he asserts that it was the complainants who resorted to
intemperate and vulgar language in accusing him of "extorting from Rosario shocking
and unconscionable attorney’s fees."
ISSUE: W/N De Vera is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD: YES. It is worth stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege
bestowed by the State upon those who show that they possess, and continue to
possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. A
lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law only during good behavior and can
only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court
after opportunity to be heard has been afforded him. Without invading any constitutional
privilege or right, an attorney’s right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to
suspend or disbar him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to
exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. It must be understood that the
purpose of suspending or disbarring an attorney is to remove from the profession a
person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities belonging to an office of an attorney, and thus to protect the public and
those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish the attorney.
To this end a member of the legal profession should refrain from doing any act which
might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity,
honesty and integrity of the legal profession. An attorney may be disbarred or
suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and counselor,
which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court.
In the present case, the respondent committed professional malpractice and gross
misconduct particularly in his acts against his former clients after the issuance of the
IBP Resolution suspending him from the practice of law for one year. In summary, the
respondent filed against his former client, her family members, the family corporation of
his former client, the Chairman and members of the Board of Governors of the IBP who
issued the said Resolution, the Regional Trial Court Judge in the case where his former
client received a favorable judgment, and the present counsel of his former client, a
total of 12 different cases in various fora.
Now, there is nothing ethically remiss in a lawyer who files numerous cases in different
fora, as long as he does so in good faith, in accordance with the Rules, and without any
ill-motive or purpose other than to achieve justice and fairness. In the present case,
however, we find that the barrage of cases filed by the respondent against his former
client and others close to her was meant to overwhelm said client and to show her that
the respondent does not fold easily after he was meted a penalty of 1 year suspension
from the practice of law.
 PALE 3E/3D: G-J C A S E S | 11

The nature of the cases filed by the respondent, the fact of re-filing them after being
dismissed, the timing of the filing of cases, the fact that the respondent was in
conspiracy with a renegade member of the complainants’ family, the defendants named
in the cases and the foul language used in the pleadings and motions all indicate that
the respondent was acting beyond the desire for justice and fairness. His act of filing a
barrage of cases appears to be an act of revenge and hate driven by anger and
frustration against his former client who filed the disciplinary complaint against him for
infidelity in the custody of a client’s funds.

As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper

administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty by filing frivolous petitions that
only add to the workload of the judiciary.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera is hereby DISBARRED from the

practice of law effective immediately upon his receipt of this Resolution.