Disbarment Cases due to Malpractice and Gross Misconduct

Group
Abaya, Richard G.
Alonzo, Alyssa Nadine M.
Ong, Carol
Prudente, Maica

Legal Ethics Review

A.C. No. 4984 April 1, 2003

ATTY. JULITO D. VITRIOLO, PRECILLANA J. HONORICA, ARLEEN J. RAMOS, DR. ROGER PEREZ, DR.
IMELDA DARAUG, DR. REMIGIA NATHANIELZ, CELEDONIA CORONACION, and JOSE RABALO,
complainants,

vs.

ATTY. FELINA DASIG, respondent.

FACTS:

This is an administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty. Felina S. Dasig, an official of the
Commission on Higher Education (CHED). The charge involves gross misconduct of respondent in
violation of the Attorney’s Oath for having used her public office to secure financial spoils to the
detriment of the dignity and reputation of the CHED.

Almost all complainants in the instant case are high-ranking officers of the CHED.

Complainants allege that respondent committed the following:

A. She demanded from Betty C. Mangohon, a teacher of Our Lady of Mariazel Educational Center in
Novaliches, Quezon City, the amount of P20,000.00 and later reduced to P5,000.00 for the facilitation of
her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service of CHED;

B. She demanded from Rosalie B. Dela Torre, a student, the amount of P18,000.00 to P20,000.00 for
facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service of
CHED;

C. She demanded from Rocella G. Eje, a student, the amount of P5,000.00 for facilitation of her
application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service of CHED. In addition,
Respondent even suggested to Ms. Eje to register her birth anew with full knowledge of the existence of
a prior registration; and

D. She demanded from Jacqueline N. Ng, a student, a considerable amount which was subsequently
confirmed to be P15,000.00 and initial fee of P5,000.00 more or less for facilitation of her application for
correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service of CHED. In addition, the Respondent
even suggested to Ms. Ng to hire a lawyer who shall be chosen by Respondent Dasig to facilitate the
application for correction of name.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent committed gross misconduct which would warrant her disbarment in
the legal profession

LAW APPLICABLE:

1. Rule 1.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

2. Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private
interests.
CASE HISTORY:

IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP board of governors)- Respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for three (3) years.

RULING:

Respondent Atty. Felina S. Dasig is found liable for gross misconduct and dishonesty in violation of the
Attorney’s Oath as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is hereby ordered DISBARRED.

OPINION:

The Disbarment was proper. It is only fitting and just to punish a lawyer with disbarment for his/her
violation of the Attorney’s Oath. Also, the fact that Atty. Dasig committed the extortion of money several
times is tantamount to gross misconduct.
A.C. No. 10758, 5 December 2017

Dela Fuente Torres v. Dalangin

FACTS:

Atty. Dalangin was accused of maintaining an illicit and immoral affair with one Julita Pascual, a clerk at
the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) in Talavera, Nueva Ecija. Upon review, however, the alleged amorous
relationship was not adequately proved (The quantum of proof in administrative cases is substantial
evidence). Also, Atty. Dalangin was said to be misquoting jurisprudence in a pleading he filed in court. In
addition, he took an immediate recourse to the Court via a petition for review that questioned the IBP
Board of Governors’ resolve to affirm the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation on his
administrative liability, notwithstanding the fact that the Court had not yet taken a final action on the
complaints.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Dalangin should be held administratively liable.

LAW APPLICABLE:

Rule 18.03, Canon 18, Rules 1.02 and 1.03, Canon 1, and Canon 11 of the CPR.

CASE HISTORY:

Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner- Respondent Bayani P. Dalangin

violated the provisions of the [CPR] and his Lawyer's Oath specifically on Gross Immorality, and Gross
Misconduct in CBD Case No. 11-3215 and CBD Case No. 12-3292, it is recommended that said
Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for the period of three (3) years from receipt of the
order with a warning that similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely. IBP Board of
Governors-Adopted and Approved the recommendation of the investigating Commissioner

RULING:

Yes. While he vehemently denied any romantic relationship with Pascual, he admitted demonstrating
closeness with the latter’s family, including her children. It was such display of affection that could have
sparked in the minds of observers the idea of a wrongful relationship and belief that Julienne was a
product of the illicit affair. Atty. Dalangin should have been more prudent and mindful of his actions and
the perception that his acts built upon the public, particularly because he and Pascual were both
married. The fault, nonetheless, does not warrant Atty. Dalangin’s suspension, much less disbarment. An
admonition should suffice under the circumstances. Also, while the Court detests Atty. Dalangin’s failure
to properly indicate that the statement was not a verbatim reproduction of the cited jurisprudence and,
accordingly, calls his attention on the matter, it finds the admonition to be adequate. A suspension for
the lone incident would be too harsh a penalty. Lastly, the filing of the petition for review on the issue of
Atty. Dalangin’s suspension from the practice of law was as yet not among his remedies, considering
that the Court still had to release its final action on the matter. Atty. Bayani P. Dalangin is ADMONISHED
to be more prudent and cautious in handling his personal affairs and dealings with courts and the public,
with a STERN WARNING that any repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with
more severely.
OPINION:

I agree that the act does not warrant Atty. Dalangin's suspension, much less disbarment. A stern
warning is proper since it was not proven that Atty. Dalangin and Pascual had an illicit relationship.
ALONZO, ALYSSA NADINE

A.C. No. 5859               November 23, 2010

(Formerly CBD Case No. 421)

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.

FACTS:

The respondent is the former counsel of Rosario P. Mercado in a civil case and an administrative case.
Pursuant to a favorable decision, a writ of execution pending appeal was issued in favor of Rosario P.
Mercado. Herein respondent, 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.

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 one-year suspension from the
practice of law. Following the release of the IBP Resolution, respondent filed a series of lawsuits against
the Mercado family and the chairman and members of the IBP who voted to recommend his
suspension. 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. They maintain that the primary purpose of the cases is to harass and
to exact revenge for the suspension issued by the IBP against the respondent. Thus, they pray that the
respondent be disbarred for malpractice and gross misconduct.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent should be disbarred for malpractice and gross misconduct based on his
actions.

LAW APPLICABLE:

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court

Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Canon 21 and Rule 21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

CASE HISTORY:

Mar. 23, 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 one-year
suspension from the practice of law.
RULING:

Yes, the respondent should be disbarred. After careful consideration of the records of this case and the
parties’ submissions, we find ourselves in agreement with the findings and recommendation of the IBP
Board of Governors.

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
twelve (12) different cases in various fora. In addition to the twelve (12) cases filed, the respondent also
re-filed cases which had previously been dismissed. 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 one year suspension from the practice of law. 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.

OPINION:

I agree with the decision of the Court to disbar respondent. The practice of law is not a right but a
privilege and those who are bestowed this privilege should show that they possess and continue to
possess the qualifications required by law. A lawyer should act with good behavior according to the high
standards required for the practice of law. Respondent’s actions of filing numerous cases to retaliate
against his former client and those who agreed to suspend him makes him unfit to hold a license or to
practice the law.
A.M. No. 1919 March 30, 1979

CARMEN LAMES, complainant, 
vs.
FEDERICO A. LASCIERAS, respondent.

FACTS:

Federico A. Lascieras was charged by Carmen Lames with negligence in handling the defense of her son
in a criminal case. In that case, the accused was charged of qualified theft of coconuts. The judgment of
conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Mrs. Lames also faulted the respondent for not
appearing at the promulgation of the judgment although she gave him ten pesos for transportation
expenses.

Respondent lawyer in his answer to the charges alleged that as counsel de oficio he acted to the best of
his abilities. The respondent disclosed in his answer the he presented three witnesses for the defense of
Lames. The respondent alleged that he submitted a memorandum in behalf of Lames after telling his
mother that he needed the transcripts of the stenographic notes. As he could not attend the
promulgation of the judgment, because he had a hearing in the Circuit Criminal Court, he filed a
manifestation in the municipal court stating that he could not be present at the promulgation of the
judgment and requesting that he be furnished with a copy of the decision. After learning of the
judgment of conviction, the respondent filed a notice of appeal. Mrs. Lames took the records of the case
from him and then denounced him to the President of the Philippines in her letter dated May 22, 1978
which was referred to this Court and was treated a complaint for disbarment.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the actions of respondent as the counsel de oficio in the previous criminal case amount
to gross misconduct and malpractice.

LAW APPLICABLE:

The Lawyer’s Oath

CASE HISTORY:

May 22, 1978 – Mrs. Lames wrote a letter to the President of the Philippines which was referred to the
Court and was treated as a complaint for disbarment.

RULING:

No, respondent’s actions are not a basis for disbarment. The court held that under the circumstances
there is no basis for taking disciplinary action against the respondent. His conduct as counsel de
oficio was not characterized by deceit, malpractice or gross misconduct and incompetence. Nor can any
dishonorable or corrupt motive be ascribed to him just because he failed to obtain a verdict of acquittal.
The respondent cannot be blamed for the failure of the municipal judge to grant his motion for dismissal
based on Delfino's judicial confession. The complainant and her present counsel should know that the
respondent could not guarantee the exoneration of the accused.
Complainant's insinuation that the respondent wrongfully exacted from her the amount of twenty-seven
pesos is unwarranted because that amount was used to pay for the transcripts of stenographic notes
which respondent needed in preparing his memorandum. It does not appear that the respondent
defrauded her of that amount or that he misused and misappropriated it. Respondent's absence at the
promulgation of the judgment is not a sufficient ground for subjecting him to disciplinary action. He
satisfactorily explained why he could not be present at that proceeding.

OPINION:

I agree with the opinion of the Court. A lawyer cannot be blamed for the decisions of the court which
are unfavorable for the client when he conducted himself as a lawyer to the best of his knowledge and
discretion. In the present case, there is no showing that respondent acted maliciously against the
complainant or that he was negligent in exonerating the complainant’s son in the criminal case.
ONG, CAROL

[A.C. No. 7594. February 9, 2016.]

ADELPHA E. MALABED, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. MELJOHN B. DE LA PEÑA, respondent.

FACTS:

In her complaint dated August 7, 2007, complainant charged respondent with dishonesty and
grave misconduct. Complainant claimed the following, among which:

1. The Certificate to File Action in the complaint filed by the respondent for Fortunato Jadulco
against herein complainant refers to a different complaint—that is the complaint filed by
the Complainant’s brother against respondent’s client, Fortunato Jadulco.

2. The respondent also failed to furnish the complainant’s counsel a copy of the free patent
covered by the subject property of the complaint which is essential to the defense of herein
complainant. And she further alleged that the Title presented by the respondent is spurious
in view of the certification issued by the DENR and Registry of Deeds that no such Title can
be found under their records.

3. Respondent should be charged with grave misconduct for he allegedly defied the accessory
penalty of his dismissal as a Judge when he accepted the position of Assistant Dean and
Professor of the Naval Institute of Technology (NIT)-University of Eastern Philippine College
of Law which is a government institution and received salaries therefor. The said accessory
penalty consists of perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government office.

In his Comment, the aforementioned allegations against him were denied by the respondent as
follows:

1. The Certificate of Title submitted by him refers to the Civil Case No. [B-]1118 for quieting
title and that the said is the certification issued by the late Rodulfo Catigbe on May 9, 2001.
2. He claimed that the free patent title was attached to the folio of the records in Civil Case No.
B-1118 and he furnished the same to complainant’s counsel. He further averred if that is
really the case, why did the complainant raise the same only now?
3. The alleged violation of the accessory penalty had become moot, because he is no longer
occupying the alleged position. Also, the said position is of temporary character and he had
not received any salary except honorarium. He even averred that the said fact is known to
Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) and the MCLE and since there’s no objection to the same,
he proceeded in occupying the position.

In IBP Commissioner Norberto Ruiz report and recommendation, he noted that the respondent
had made use of foul language in his pleadings submitted before the IBP. Respondent described
complainant's counsel as "silahis" and accused complainant of "cohabiting with a married man . . .
before the wife of that married man died." According to the IBP Commissioner, such offensive language
is a clear manifestation of respondent's gross misconduct that seriously affect his standing and character
as an officer of the court. Furthermore, the respondent was found to have committed gross misconduct
for (1) misrepresenting that he submitted a certificate to file action issued by the Lupon Tagapamayapa
when in fact there was none prior to the institution of the civil action of his client, Fortunato Jadulco, in
Civil Case No. B-1118; (2) using improper language in his pleadings; and (3) defying willfully the Court's
prohibition on reemployment in any government office as accessory penalty of his dismissal as a judge.

The said resolution is affirmed and adopted by the IBP Governors.

ISSUES:
Whether or not Atty. Dela Peña should be disbarred for gross misconduct?

LAWS INVOLVED:

1. Sec. 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 to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for
the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.”

2. Rule 8.01 of Canon 8. A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.

3. 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.

Rule 10.02 — A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper,

CASE HISTORY:
The instant case is an administrative complaint filed by Adelpha E. Malabed (complainant) against Atty.
Meljohn B. De la Peña (respondent) for dishonesty and grave misconduct.

RULING:

Yes. In sum, respondent committed gross misconduct for (1) misrepresenting that he submitted
a certificate to file action issued by the Lupon Tagapamayapa when in fact there was none prior to the
institution of the civil action of his client, Fortunato Jadulco, in Civil Case No. B-1118; (2) using improper
language in his pleadings; and (3) defying willfully the Court's prohibition on reemployment in any
government office as accessory penalty of his dismissal as a judge. Gross misconduct is defined as
"improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a
forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not a mere
error in judgment.
 Firstly, it is disclosed that the complaint for quieting title with Civil Case No. B-1118 with the RTC
on October 18, 2000. The certificate of endorsement which the respondent claimed as the subject
certificate to file action is dated May 9, 2001. It is clear that there is no certificate to file action yet when
he filed the Civil Case No. B-1118. Thus, a violation of Canon 10.01, 10.02 of Canon 10 of Canons of
Professional Responsibility.

Secondly, it is disclosed that the respondent had really made use foul language in his Comment,
Rejoinder. His claim that such fact is true designed to debunk complainant’s credibility in filing the
administrative case, the Court is not convinced as it is not only inappropriate but also irrelevant to the
resolution of the case. While respondent is entitled and very much expected to defend himself with
vigor, he must refrain from using improper language in his pleadings. For using improper language in his
pleadings, respondent violated Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Thirdly, he knew full well the accessory penalty imposed upon him. Despite such he still
accepted the position which is a clear disregard of the same. Moreover, his contention that its of
temporary is of no merit as the penalty have not distinguished. Furthermore, his submission of a copy of
his designation to OBC and MCLE Office does not in any way extinguish his liability.

In view of respondent's repeated gross misconduct, The Court deemed it proper to increase the
IBP's recommended penalty to suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years.

OPINION:

The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. One should possess the fitness to
practice law and remain fit in order to continue enjoying the privilege. Commission of act of misconduct
so gross should be reprimanded through suspension or disbarment as the privilege is subjected to the
rigid standards and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession.
[A.C. No. 7387. November 7, 2016.]

MANUEL ENRIQUE L. ZALAMEA, and MANUEL JOSE L.

ZALAMEA, petitioners,
vs.
ATTY. RODOLFO P. DE GUZMAN, JR. and PERLAS DE GUZMAN, ANTONIO, VENTURANZA, QUIZON-
VENTURANZA, and HERBOSA LAW FIRM, respondents.

FACTS:

Sometime in 2000, the Zalamea Brothers, herein petitioners, sought respondent’s (Atty De
Guzman) advise on the matter involving properties of their ailing mother and who, upon death of their
mother, was engaged by the Zalamea brothers to handle the legal transfers thereof.

On September 2001, the Zalamea Brothers incorporated a lechon business, Emzee Foods Inc.
(Emzee) with Atty. De Guzman who provided its capital and operational funds. Sometime in 2002,
Manuel Enrique, one of the Zalamea brothers, informed Atty. De Guzman of its intention to purchase a
foreclosed property located in Speaker Perez St., Quezon City (speaker perez property) and convinced
him to help in the acquisition of the speaker perez property from BDO.

Atty. De Guzman, was able to secure a deal on the property with the BDO and was able to
purchase the same with his own funds since the Zalamea brothers has no sufficient funds for the same.
The said purchase is under the name of his wife, herein respondent, Perlas De Guzman (Angel) and is on
the condition that the said property shall be transferred in the name of a new corporation Emzaldek
Venture which will be formed by the Zalamea Brothers and herein respondents. All in all, Angel paid
P13,082,500.00 in order for the Emzee Inc. to transfer its office to speaker perez property.

When the parties’ business relationship turned sour, the spouses De Guzman seek for
reimbursement of the amounts which they have advanced for the new company Emzaldek Venture.

Hence, this case for disbarment was filed by the Zalamea Brothers against Atty. De Guzman for
allegedly buying a client’s property. They claim that Atty. De Guzman, as their counsel, could not acquire
the property either personally or through his wife without violating his ethical duties.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Atty. De Guzman should be disbarred for malpractice?

LAWS INVOLVED:

1. Sec. 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 to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law
 for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.”

2. Art. 1491(5) of the Civil Code. lawyers are prohibited to acquire by purchase, even at a public or
judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another, their client's property and
rights in litigation.

3. Canon 17. "a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.

4. Canon 16. "a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into
his possession."

CASE HISTORY:

The said petition for disbarment was filed by the petitioners against Atty. De Guzman for acquiring their
property by virtue of their lawyer-client relationship. The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline
recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. This resolution was adopted and affirmed
by the IBP Governors.

RULING:

No. The prohibition against a lawyer to buy property rests on considerations of public policy and
interests is intended to curtail any undue influence of the lawyer upon his client on account of his
fiduciary and confidential relationship with him. The said prohibition applies where the property
purchased was involved in litigation in which the said lawyer is the handling counsel.

The case shown that Atty. De Guzman clearly never acquired any of his client's properties or
interests involved in litigation in which he may take part by virtue of his profession. There exists not
even an iota of proof indicating that said property has ever been involved in any litigation in which Atty.
De Guzman took part by virtue of his profession. True, the Zalamea Brothers had previously sought legal
advice from De Guzman but only on how to handle their mother's estate,
which likewise did not involve the contested property. Neither was it shown that Atty. De Guzman's law
firm had taken part in any litigation involving the Speaker Perez property.

Clearly, the relationship between the Spouses De Guzman and the Zalamea brothers is actually
one of business partners rather than that of a lawyer and client. Atty. De Guzman's acquisition of the
Speaker Perez property was a valid consequence of a business deal, not by reason of a lawyer-client
relationship, for which he could not be penalized by the Court. De Guzman and his wife are very well
allowed by law to enter into such a transaction and their conduct in this regard was not borne out to
have been attended by any undue influence, deceit, or misrepresentation.

Accordingly, The Court after considering all the premises dismisses herein petition for
disbarment.

OPINION:
The practice of law is imbued with public interest and client’s confidence. Accordingly, lawyers should
not use its position or knowledge of the law to advance its own interest in the disadvantage of its
clients. However, the fact of him being a lawyer should be of no regard when he enters into transactions
clearly not in the said character but of, as in this case, an investor or a businessman and the same was
entered into without attendant deceit, undue influence, misrepresentation or other conduct which
would render him unfit mentally and morally for the practice law.
PRUDENTE, MAICA

A.C. No. 9074, August 14, 2012

Grace M. Anacta
vs.
Atty. Eduardo D. Resurreccion

FACTS:

Complainant Anacta engaged the services of respondent Resurreccion on her behalf in an

annulment of marriage. However, no petition was filed before the RTC. Complainant, through her new
counsel, wrote a letter to the respondent demanding for an explanation as to how respondent intended
to indemnify the complainant for damages she had suffered due to respondent’s deceitful acts.
Respondent has not replied thereto. Hence, complainant filed before the IBP a verified complaint
praying that respondent be disbarred. Investigating Commissioner found clear and convincing evidence
that respondent is guilty of deceit and dishonesty when he misrepresented having filed the petition for
annulment of marriage after receipt of P 42,000.00 when in fact no such petition was filed. IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved the findings of the Investigating Commissioner but modified the
recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law from two years to four years and ordered
respondent to return to the complainant the amount of P 42,000.00.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent Atty. Resurreccion should be subject of disciplinary actions for
malpractice

LAW APPLICABLE

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”

Canon 16 — A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession

Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.

CASE HISTORY

Complainant Anacta engaged the services of respondent Resurreccion on her behalf in an

annulment of marriage. Respondent presented to complainant a supposed copy of a Peition for
Annulment of Marriage which bore the stamped receipt of the RTC. From then on, complainant did not
hear from respondent or receive any notice from the trial court relative to the said petition. This
prompted her to make inquiries with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Quezon City. To her
surprise and dismay, she discovered that no petition for annulment docketed as Civil Case No. 04-25141
was ever filed before the said court.6 Thus, complainant terminated the services of respondent "for loss
of trust and confidence" and requested the OCC-RTC to refuse any belated attempt on the part of
respondent to file a petition for annulment of marriage on her behalf.

RULING:

Yes.

The Court is not bound to impose the penalty of disbarment in cases of gross misconduct
and/or dishonesty, if in its appreciation of facts and in the exercise of its sound discretion, the penalty of
suspension would be more commensurate. "Disbarment, jurisprudence teaches, should not be decreed
where any punishment less severe, such as reprimand, suspension, or fine, would accomplish the end
desired. This is as it should be considering the consequence of disbarment on the economic life and
honor of the erring person." In this case, the Court believe that the penalty of suspension of four years
will provide Atty. Resurreccion "with enough time to ponder on and cleanse himself of his misconduct.
The Court note that there is no mention in the records of any previous or similar administrative case
filed against herein respondent.

In this case, it is thus clear that respondent violated his lawyer’s oath and code of conduct when
he withheld the amount of P 42,000.00 despite his failure to render the necessary legal services and
after complainant demanded its return. He must therefore be directed to return the same.

OPINION

The action of the respondent is patently deceitful and dishonest, considering further that he
received an amount of money from the complainant and no service have been rendered. The Code
exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal processes but also mandates the utmost
degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with clients and the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to
their fiduciary relationship. Hence, respondent should be held accountable for the money received from
his client.

As to the issue of suspension instead of disbarment, I agree to the Court that suspension is not
primarily intended as punishment, but as a means to protect the public and the legal profession. Since
there is no record that respondent has a previous complaint against him, it serves as a lesson for the
respondent to give due respect and service to his clients.
A.C. No. 7399, August 25, 2009

Antero J. Pobre
vs.
Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago,

FACTS:

Complainant Pobre filed a case for disbarment proceedings or other disciplinary actions be
taken against respondent Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago. In his sworn letter, complainant invites the
Court’s attention on the speech delivered on the Senate floor by the lady senator, “x x x I am not angry. I
am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased, degraded.
And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this nature. I
am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme
Court, I am no longer interested in the position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I
would rather be in another environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots x x x.” To Complainant,
the foregoing statements reflected a total disrespect on the part of the speaker towards then Chief
Justice Panganiban and the other members of the Court and constituted direct contempt of court.
Senator Santiago, through counsel, does not deny making the aforequoted statements. She, however,
explained that those statements were covered by the constitutional provision on parliamentary
immunity. The purpose of her speech, according to her, was to bring out in the open controversial
anomalies in governance with a view to future remedial legislation. She averred that she wanted to
expose what she believed "to be an unjust act of the Judicial Bar Council [JBC],”

ISSUE:

Whether or not Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago should be subject of disciplinary actions

LAW APPLICABLE:

Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution provides: "A Senator or Member of the House of
Representative shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged
from arrest while the Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any
other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.

Canon 8, Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.

Canon 11. A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the judicial officers
and should insist on similar conduct by others.

CASE HISTORY

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago during her delivering of speech in Senate, uttered language of
disrespect to the Court in bringing out in the open controversial anomalies in governance with a view to
future remedial legislation. She said that the JBC after sending out public invitations for nomination to
the soon to-be vacated position of Chief Justice, would eventually inform applicants that only incumbent
justices of the Supreme Court would qualify for nomination. She felt that the JBC should have at least
given an advanced advisory that non-sitting members of the Court, like her, would not be considered for
the position of Chief Justice.

RULING:

No.

The Court dismissed the case based on Art. VI, Sec. 11 of the Constitution.

The Rules of the Senate itself contains a provision on Unparliamentary Acts and Language that
enjoins a Senator from using, under any circumstance, "offensive or improper language against another
Senator or against any public institution." But as to Senator Santiago's unparliamentary remarks, the
Senate President had not apparently called her to order, let alone referred the matter to the Senate
Ethics Committee for appropriate disciplinary action, as the Rules dictates under such circumstance. The
lady senator clearly violated the rules of her own chamber, however, her peers bent backwards and
avoided imposing their own rules on her.

As to violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the lady senator questions Pobre's
motives in filing his complaint, stating that disciplinary proceedings must be undertaken solely for the
public welfare. The Court cannot agree with her more. The Court cannot overstress that the senator's
use of intemperate language to demean and denigrate the highest court of the land is a clear violation
of the duty of respect lawyers owe to the courts.

OPINION

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago belongs to the legal profession bound by the exacting of a strict
Code. Generally speaking, a lawyer holding a government office may not be disciplined as a member of
the Bar for misconduct committed while in the discharge of official duties, unless said misconduct also
constitutes a violation of his/her oath as a lawyer. Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct
committed in their private capacity, as long as their misconduct reflects their want of probity or good
demeanor, a good character being an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law and
for continuance of such privilege. When the Code of Professional Responsibility speaks of "conduct" or
"misconduct," the reference is not confined to one's behavior exhibited in connection with the
performance of lawyers' professional duties, but also covers any misconduct, which albeit unrelated to
the actual practice of their profession would show them to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the
privileges which their license and the law invest in them. Thus, although the Constitution expressly
provides that a Senator may not be held liable for any speech uttered while in Session, the lady senator
must still give due respect to the courts.