GROUP 1

CREGENCIA, GRACIELLA LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW

IDANAN, PAMELA USEC. JBJ
WANGIWANG, KAMILLE

TOPIC: FRAUD AND DECEIT

NARCISO MELENDREZ AND ERLINDA DALMAN VS. ATTY. REYNERIO

DECENA
A.M. NO. 2104 – AUGUST 24, 1989

FACTS:
The spouses Erlinda Dalman and Narciso Melendrez charged Reynerio I.
Decena, a member of the Philippine Bar, with malpractice and breach of trust.
The complainant spouses alleged, among others, that respondent had, by
means of fraud and deceit, taken advantage of their precarious financial
situation and his knowledge of the law to their prejudice, succeeded in
divesting them of their only residential lot in Pagadian City; that respondent,
who was their counsel in an estafa case against one Reynaldo Pineda, had
compromised that case without their authority. The respondent denied all the
charges against him. The administrative complaint was referred to the Office of
the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. The
Solicitor General after investigation finds that the complainant is correct.

The complainants allege that they obtained from respondent a loan of P

4,000.00. This loan was secured by a real estate mortgage. In the said Real
Estate Mortgage, it was made to appear that the amount borrowed by
complainants was P5,000.00. Confronted by this discrepancy, respondent
assured complainants that said document was a mere formality, and upon
such assurance, complainants signed the same. The document was brought by
complainant to a Notary Public for notarization. After the same was notarized,
he gave the document to respondent. The parties agreed to an installment
basis of payment. However, the spouses stopped paying due to financial
difficulties.

In view of their failure to pay said amounts, respondent prepared a new

document, a Real Estate Mortgage over the same lot, but this time the sum
indicated in said new contract of mortgage is P 10,000.00, purportedly with
interest at 19% per annum. In this new Real Estate Mortgage, a special power
of attorney in favor of respondent was inserted, authorizing him to sell the

LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1 1

mortgaged property at public auction in the event complainants fail to pay their
obligation on due date.

Without explaining the provisions of the new contract to complainants,

respondent insisted that complainants sign the same, again upon the
assurance that the document was a mere formality. Unsuspecting of the motive
of respondent, complainants signed the document. Because of trust and
confidence to the respondent, the complainants never bothered to ask for the
status of their lot nor tried to pay their obligation. For their failure to pay the
obligation, the respondent applied for the “extrajudicial foreclosure” of the
second real estate mortgage. All the requirements of Act No. 3135 re:
extrajudicial sale of mortgage were ostensibly complied with by respondent.
Hence, finally, title was transferred to him, and later on respondent sold the
involved property to Trinidad Ylanan for P12,000.00. The complainant hope to
redeem property.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent’s overall acts constitute malpractice and
breach of trust therefore may be disbarred?

LAW APPLICABLE
CANON 1: A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
CANON 17:A lawyer owes fidelity t the cause of his client and shall be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
CANON 18:A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case
and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information.
Lawyer's Oath

CASE HISTORY:
The Solicitor General submitted his Report and Recommendation in this
case. In that report, after setting out the facts and proceedings held in the
present case, the Solicitor General presented recommended that Atty. Reynerio
I. Decena be suspended from the practice of law for a period of five (5) years. 

RULING:
The following acts of the respondents are :
1.making it appear on the 5 August 1975 real estate mortgage that
the amount loaned to complainants was P5,000.00 instead of
P4,000.00;

LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1 2

 2.exacting grossly unreasonable and usurious interest;
3.making it appear in the second real estate mortgage of 7 May
1976 that the loan extended to complainants had escalated to
P10,000.00;
4.failing to inform complainants of the import of the real mortgage
documents and inducing them to sign those documents with
assurances that they were merely for purposes of "formality"
5.failing to demand or refraining from demanding payment from
complainants before effecting extrajudicial foreclosure of the
mortgaged property; and
6.failing to inform or refraining from informing complainants that
the real estate mortgage had already been foreclosed and that
complainants had a right to redeem the foreclosed property within
a certain period of time.

These are all constitute “deception” and “dishonesty” and conduct

unbecoming a member of the Bar. From the facts obtaining in the case, it is
clear that complainants were induced to sign the Real Estate documents by
fraudulent representations of respondents that each of successive documents
was a mere formality.

According to the Supreme Court, the respondent being a lawyer should

have at least explained to the complainants the legal implications of various
provisions of the Real Estate Mortgage, particularly the provision appointing
him as the complainant’s attorney-in-fact in the event of default in payment on
the part of the complainant. Secondly, the second charge against respondent
relates to acts done in his professional capacity.
 
The facts show that respondent "settled" the estafa case amicably for
P2,000.00 without the knowledge and consent of complainants. Respondent
likewise received P500.00 as an advance payment on his settlement but it did
turn over to complainants. The rule is that, a lawyers cannot "without special
authority, compromise their clients' litigation or receive anything in discharge
of a client's claim, but the full amount in cash. 

Respondent's failure to turn over to complainants the amount given by

accused Pineda as partial "settlement" of the estafa case underscores his lack
of honesty and candor in dealing with his clients. The nature of the office of an
attorney at law requires that he shall be a person of good moral character. This
qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of
law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of
law, in the exercise of privileges of members of the Bar. Gross misconduct on
the part of a lawyer, although not related to the discharge of professional
duties as a member of the Bar, which puts his moral character in serious
doubt, renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law. 

LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1 3

Lastly, according to Supreme Court, the exploitative deception exercised by
respondent attorney upon the complainants in his private transactions with
them, and the exacting of unconscionable rates of interest, considered together
with the acts of professional misconduct committed by respondent attorney,
compel this Court to the conviction that he has lost that good moral character
which is indispensable for continued membership in the Bar. The respondent
Reynerio I. Decena is hereby DISBARRED and his name shall be stricken from
the Rollo of Attorneys.

OPINION:
The ruling of the Supreme Court is correct and just because as lawyer he
must possess all the qualities that are specifically provided in the Code of
Professional Responsibility or at least all his acts be bound by the law.

WILSON CHAM VS. ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA

A.C. NO. 7494 – JUNE 27, 2008

FACTS:
A Complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Wilson Cham against
respondent Atty. Eva Paita-Moya, who he alleged committed deceit in
occupying a leased apartment unit and, thereafter, vacating the same without
paying the rentals due. Respondent entered into a Contract of Lease with
Greenville Realty and Development Corp represented by complainant as its
President and General Manager, involving a residential apartment unit owned
by GRDC located at Kalayaan Avenue, Quezon City, for a consideration
of P8,000.00 per month for a term of one year.

Upon the expiration of said lease contract, respondent informed the

complainant that she would no longer renew the same but requested an
extension of her stay at the apartment unit until 30 June 2000 with a
commitment that she would be paying the monthly rental during the extension
period. Complainant approved such request but increased the rental rate
to P8,650.00 per month for the period beginning October 1999 until 30 June
2000. Respondent stayed at the leased premises but failed to settle the
obligation. She also failed to settle her electric bills for the months of
September and October 2000. The Statement of Account as of 15 October
20043 shows that respondent’s total accountability is P71,007.88.

A report reached complainant’s office that respondent had secretly

vacated the apartment unit, bringing along with her the door keys. Also,
respondent did not heed complainant’s repeated written demands for payment
of her obligations despite due receipt of the same, compelling complainant to
file the present Complaint.

LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1 4

ISSUE:
Whether or not a lawyer’s failure to fulfill an obligation is a ground for
suspension and or disbarment.

LAW APPLICABLE:
"CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes.
"Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct."

CASE HISTORY:
Investigating Commissioner Acerey C. Pacheco submitted his Report and
Recommendation. Recommending the imposition of the penalty of three-month
suspension on respondent for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility,

RULING:
Having incurred just debts, respondent had the moral duty and legal
responsibility to settle them when they became due. Respondent should have
complied with just contractual obligations, and acted fairly and adhered to
high ethical standards to preserve the court’s integrity, since she is an
employee thereof. Indeed, when respondent backtracked on her duty to pay her
debts, such act already constituted a ground for administrative sanction.

Respondent left the apartment unit without settling her unpaid

obligations, and without the complainant’s knowledge and consent.
Respondent’s abandonment of the leased premises to avoid her obligations for
the rent and electricity bills constitutes deceitful conduct violative of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon I and Rule 1.01

"CANON 1- A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
"Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct."

In this case, respondent fell short of the exacting standards expected of

her as a guardian of law and justice. Any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his or
her professional or private capacity is a ground for the imposition of the
penalty of suspension or disbarment because good character is an essential
qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for the continuance of
such privilege.

LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1 5

The Court has held that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the
issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer
may be sanctioned with one year’s suspension from the practice of law, or a
suspension of six months upon partial payment of the obligation.

Accordingly, administrative sanction is warranted by respondent’s gross

misconduct. The case at bar merely involves the respondent’s deliberate failure
to pay her just debts, without her issuing a worthless check, which would have
been a more serious offense. The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP
recommended that she be suspended from the practice of law for three months.
She is warned that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with
more severely.

OPINION:
The ruling of the Supreme Court is proper because a lawyer has a moral
obligation and legal duty to settle them when it become due. Lawyers must at
all time faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to the court and to
their clients which includes paying their financial obligation on time.

FLORDELIZA A. MADRIA, Complainant 
vs
ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA, Respondent
March 7, 2017 - A.C. No. 11256

FACTS:
Flordeliza Madria with her daughter and nephew, Vanessa and Jason,
consulted Atty. Rivera in his law office to inquire about the process of
annulling her marriage with her husband, Juan C. Madria. After giving the
details of her marriage relevant to the annulment, Atty. Rivera said that she
had a strong case and could obtain for her a decree of annulment. He told her
too that her legal services would cost 25,000 and as such Flordeliza made
installments and was told to wait for the resolution of her complaint as she did
not need to appear before the court. Vanessa made follow ups and was
informed that her petition had been granted, thus she went to Atty. Rivera’s
office and received a copy of the decision. According to Flordeliza, she was
asked to allow five months to lapse after the release of the decision before she
could safely claim the status of “single.”

She used single in her voter’s ID as well as when she renewed her
passport. However, she became a subject of an investigation by the NBI
because her former partner Andrew Grainge filed a complaint that she
fabricated the decision of annulment; and it is only then that she knew that the

LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1 6

certificate of finality given by the respondent did not exist in the records. As a
result, Flordeliza faced criminal charges for violation of the Philippine Passport
Act. She claims that she had relied in good faith on the representations of the
respondent; and that he had taken advantage of his position in convincing her
to part with her money and to rely on the falsified court documents. But Atty.
Rivera denied the allegation and that he informed her that he would still be
reviewing the grounds for petition and that she had also told him to simulate
the court decision to the effect that her marriage had been annulled, and to
fabricate the certificate of finality; that she had assured him that such
simulated documents would be kept strictly confidential; that he had informed
her that the petition had been filed in April 2003, but she had paid no
attention to such information.

ISSUE:
May Atty. Rivera be disbarred on the ground of deceit and violation of the
lawyer’s oath?

LAW APPLICABLE:
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court - Attorneys removed or
suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may
be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for
any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to
a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice.

CASE HISTORY:
IBP concluded that Atty. Rivera violated his Lawyer's Oath; and
recommended his suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years.
But the The IBP Board of Governors, albeit adopting the findings of
Commissioner Villanueva-Maala, modified the recommendation of suspension
from the practice of law for two years to disbarment.

RULING:
Falsifying or simulating the court papers amounted to deceit, malpractice
or misconduct in office, any of which was already a ground sufficient for
disbarment under Section 27, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. The moral
standards of the Legal Profession expected the respondent to act with the
highest degree of professionalism, decency, and nobility in the course of their
practice of law. Moreover, he was already previously charged with
unprofessional misconduct for notarizing documents without a notarial

LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1 7

commission. This act just shows that he had also enticed persons into
believing in the documents he had falsified or simulated.

The law requires the lawyer to be true to his client, and by choosing to
ignore his fiduciary responsibility for the sake of getting money committed a
further violation of his oath by which he swore not to "delay any man's cause
for money or malice," and to "conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best
of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to
his clients." He compounded this violation by taking advantage of his legal
knowledge to promote his own selfish motives.

OPINION:
A lawyer who causes the simulation of court documents not only violates
the court and its processes, but also betrays the trust and confidence reposed
in him by his client and must be disbarred to maintain the integrity of the Law
Profession. He was given a chance to change when he committed an act
previous to this case, however, he still continued to do such unethical act. The
punishment of disbarment is the proper penalty in this case as he blatantly
disregarded the Court.

A.C. No. 501            October 26, 1968

IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NOTARY PUBLIC ATTY.
ZACARIAS MANIGBAS

FACTS:
Zacarias Manigbas, a member of the bar, was charged with alleged acts
of falsification in violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, in that in
the jurat of certain documents that as notary public, he made it appear that
said documents were subscribed, sworn to and signed by Pablo de la Cruz
before him and in his presence, in Lucena City, when in truth they were signed
in Manila and not in his presence. 

Manigbas admitted that he had not exercised utmost care so as to make

sure that the person presenting the document for his signature as notary
public was the same person who was supposed to sign and subscribe the
document before him, relying merely on the assumption that the papers were
in order because they were supposed to have been duly processed by the bank
manager who, he also presumed, had seen to it that no defect existed in the
pertinent documents and no irregularity had been committed in the
preparation of the loan papers.

ISSUE:

LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1 8

 Can Manigbas be disbarred from the practice of law on the ground of
fraud?

LAW APPLICABLE:
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court - Attorneys removed or
suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may
be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for
any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to
a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice.

CASE HISTORY:
The matter was referred to the OSG and Manigbas was given opportunity
to defend himself.

RULING:
There is no showing that respondent was in league with the bank officers
who may have perpetrated a scheme in issuing fraudulent loans in violation of
the charter of the Rural Bank of Lucena so as to warrant the finding that he
had himself committed falsification. His participation in the accomplishment of
the documents relative to the loan supposedly applied for by Pablo de la Cruz
which is that of merely notarizing said documents is not inconsistent with lack
of knowledge on his part of the fraud which was apparently perpetrated by
other parties so as to make him equally liable or guilty of such fraud. At least
the evidence fails to link respondent to whatever fraudulent transactions may
have been indulged in by the Bank.The Solicitor General holds the view that
the respondent "is chargeable only with failure to exercise utmost care in the
performance of his functions as a Notary Public. Manigbas was only warned to
be more careful in the future performance of his duties.

OPINION:
Disbarment is a serious case which is filed against a lawyer, and it
should not be taken lightly and be granted outrightly. Absent any showing that
the lawyer conspired with other people to commit fraud, then he cannot be
liable for their acts and as such be disbarred. In this case there is only failure
to exercise utmost care in his performance of his functions as a notary public.

LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1 9

 A.C. No. 3919
SOCORRO T. CO vs ATTY. GODOFREDO N. BERNARDINO
January 28, 1998

FACTS:
This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant
Socorro T. Co against Atty. Godofredo N. Bernardino charging him with
unprofessional and unethical conduct indicating moral deficiency and
unfitness to stay in the profession of law.

Socorro T. Co alleged that in October 1989, as she was following up the

documents for her shipment at the Bureau of Customs, she was approached by
respondent, Atty. Godofredo N. Bernardino, introducing himself as someone
holding various positions in the Bureau of Customs. In no time, they became
friends and a month after, or in November of the same year, respondent
succeeded in borrowing from complainant P120,000.00 with the promise to pay
the amount in full the following month, broadly hinting that he could use his
influence at the Bureau of Customs to assist her. To ensure payment of his
obligation, respondent issued to complainant several postdated Boston Bank
checks. However, the checks covering the total amount of P109,200.00 were
dishonored for insufficiency of funds and closure of account.

Respondent told complainant that he would be able to pay her if she

would lend him an additional amount of P75,000.00 to be paid a month after
to be secured by a chattel mortgage on his Datsun car. As complainant agreed
respondent handed her three (3) copies of a deed of chattel mortgage which he
himself drafted and six (6) copies of the deed of sale of his car with the
assurance that he would turn over its registration certificate and official
receipt. The agreement was not consummated as respondent later sold the
same car to another.
Despite several chances given him to settle his obligation respondent
chose to evade complainant altogether so that she was constrained to write him
a final demand letter dated 22 September 1992 preceding the filing of several
criminal complaints against him for violation of BP Blg. 22. Meanwhile, a
certain Emelinda Ortiz also filed several criminal and civil cases against
respondent similarly involving money transactions.

By way of defense, respondent averred that he gave the checks to

complainant Co by way of rediscounting and that these were fully paid when he
delivered five cellular phones to her.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent’s act constitutes as a ground for
disbarment

1
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1
0
LAW: Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

CASE HISTORY:
On 3 March 1993 the Court referred this administrative case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation.

On 17 May 1997 the IBP issued a resolution recommending the

suspension of respondent from the practice of law for six (6) months based on
the following findings:

RULING:
Rule 1.01, Chapter 1, entitled The Lawyer and Society of the Code of
Professional Responsibility requires that "a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." "Conduct," as used in this
Rule, is not limited to conduct exhibited in connection with the performance of
professional duties.

It is glaringly clear that the procurement of personal loans through

insinuations of his power as an influence peddler in the Bureau of Customs,
the issuance of a series of bad checks and the taking undue advantage of his
position in the aforesaid government office constitute conduct in gross violation
of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The recommended suspension of respondent for six (6) months is less

than what he justly deserves. His propinquity for employing deceit and
misrepresentations as well as his cavalier attitude towards incurring debts
without the least intention of repaying them is reprehensible. This disturbing
behavior cannot be tolerated most especially in a lawyer who is an officer of the
court.

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. GODOFREDO N. BERNARDINO is

SUSPENDED FOR ONE (1) YEAR from the practice of law with warning that
repetition of the same or similar acts will merit a more severe penalty.

OPINION:
I concur. Atty. Bernardino’s acts are clearly impressed with intent to
commit fraud and deceit, which can be clearly seen initially when he
introduced himself as an official from Bureau of Customs. Moreover, it is the
lawyer’s duty to uphold the law at all times, and he failed to discharge such
duty when he issued bouncing checks for his debt and attempted to evade
payment again through an unconsummated mortgage.

1
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1
1
 A.C. No. 8667
INOCENCIO I. BALISTOY vs ATTY. FLORENCIO A. BRON
February 3, 2016

FACTS:

Balistoy was the plaintiff in a civil case entitled Inocencio I. Balistoy v.

Paul L. Wee and Peter L. Wee, for damages, pending with the Regional Trial
Court. Atty. Bron was the counsel for the defendants, the Wee brothers.

On March 5, 2003, Atty. Bron filed a Motion to Dismiss. Paul and Peter
executed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping for the
motion, exhibiting Community Tax Certificate (CTC) No. 12249877, issued on
January 9, 2003 in Quezon City, for Paul, and CTC No. 1385810, issued on
January 29, 2003, in Manila, for Peter. On January 20, 2004, Atty. Bron filed
an Answer for the defendants who exhibited CTC No. 12249877 for Paul and
CTC No. 12249883 for Peter, both CTCs issued on January 9, 2003, in Manila.

Meantime, Balistoy discovered that the CTCs exhibited by Paul and Peter
had already expired and that the CTC Paul used for the answer had the same
number as the CTC he showed for the motion to dismiss, but the place of issue
was changed from Manila to Quezon City.

Balistoy went to the Office of the Treasurer of the City of Manila and the
Bureau of Internal Revenue in Quezon City to verify the discrepancies in the
CTCs of Paul and Peter and found out that CTC No. 12249877 "was not among
those allotted by the BIR to the City of Manila in the year 2003." It was also
certified that the CTC was issued to the Provincial Treasurer of Pampanga, on
October 2, 2002.

The RTC issued an order, declaring the defendants were deemed to have
waived their right to present evidence due to their failure to attend the hearing
on September 6, 2006.

The defendants moved for reconsideration of the order based on the

reason that one of the defendants’ nephews suffered injuries in a vehicular
accident. This time, Balistoy faulted Atty. Bron for his "inconsistent allegations"
in the motion. He alluded to Atty. Bron’s claim that at 9:00 o’clock in the
morning of September 6, 2006, Paul told him by phone that he suffered knee
injuries in a vehicular accident, Atty. Bron attached to the motion the medical
certificate (unsigned) dated November 27, 2006, of a Dr. Joy M.Villano who
attended to Paul.

1
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1
2
 On June 20, 2007, Atty. Bron moved for a resetting of the hearing on the
ground that Paul, who was scheduled to testify on that day and who had just
arrived from Malaysia with a fever, was placed under quarantine. Atty. Bron
submitted a medical certificate dated June 18, 2007, stating that Paul had a
fever and was under the care of a Dr. Pierette Y. Kaw.

Balistoy also verified the authenticity of the medical certificate and

discovered that it did not come from the NAIA; and that the NAIA arrival
logbook showed that Paul was not registered as a passenger coming from
Malaysia on June 18, 2007.

Armed with his discoveries, Balistoy filed the present complaint.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is sufficient evidence as proof for Atty. Bron’s

misconduct to warrant his disbarment

LAW/PRINCIPLE:

In Siao Aba, et al. v. Atty. Salvador De Guzman, Jr., et al., the Court
stressed that, "In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant, and for the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case
against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and
satisfactory proof."

CASE HISTORY:

In a resolution dated January 13, 2011, the Court referred the complaint
to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.

In his report and recommendation dated September 26, 2011, Comm.

Cachapero of the IBP recommended that the complaint be dismissed for lack of
merit.

On July 28, 2014, the Court referred the case to the OBC for evaluation,
report and recommendation. 

On April 28, 2015, the OBC submitted its report, recommending that the
disbarment case be dismissed for "insufficient evidence proving Respondent’s
participation in the fraudulent or deceitful acts.

RULING:

1
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1
3
 No. The petition is without merit. The court concurs with the
conclusion of Comm. Cachapero and the OBC that the presentation of the Wee
brothers’ "tampered" CTCs for the pleadings in the civil case, and Paul’s
medical certificates in compliance with a court order, do not warrant Atty.
Bron’s disbarment. There is nothing in the records that clearly indicates that
Atty. Bron had knowledge of his clients’ fraudulent and deceitful acts with
respect to their CTCs, or having known of their defects, he had done nothing to
correct their invalidity. The same observation applies to the submission of
Paul’s medical certificates to the RTC.

The Court finds no evidence that Atty. Bron had a hand in the
falsification of the Wee Brothers’ CTCs or Paul’s medical certificates, although
the court has reservations over his claim that he did not have the opportunity
to determine their genuineness. In sum, Balistoy failed to discharge the burden
of proof in his bid to disbar Atty. Bron.

The foregoing notwithstanding, the court finds it necessary to impress

upon Atty. Bron that as a member of the Bar and a notary public, he could
have exercised caution and resourcefulness in notarizing the jurat in the
pleadings he filed in the civil case by seeing to it that the CTCs presented to
him were in order in all respects. That he failed to do so betrays carelessness in
his performance of the notarial act and his duty as a lawyer. For this, he
should be reprimanded.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of

merit. The complaint for disbarment against Atty. Florencio C. Bron
is DISMISSED. Atty. Bron, however, is REPRIMANDED for his lack of due care
in notarizing the motion to dismiss and the answer in Civil Case No. 03-
105743.

OPINION:
I concur with the finding of the court that there was no sufficient
evidence to establish Atty. Bron’s misconduct. He also deserved to be
reprimanded or even a more severe punishment, considering that he was able
to overlook his clients’ fraudulent acts not only once but thrice. Such acts
could have possibly resulted to more serious consequences.

1
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1
4