SY 2019-2020
INTRODUCTION
Caronan v. Caronan
The complainant Patrick A. Caronan and respondent Richard A. Caronan are
siblings. Complainant obtained a degree in BA in 1997 at the University of
Makati. While respondent never went back to earn a college degree after
being discharged from PMA and married, having 3 children. Years later,
respondent enrolled at St. Mary University College of Law in Bayombong,
Nueva Vizcaya,
using the complainant’s name and college records from the University of
Makati and passed the Bar exam in 2004. In 2009, after complainant was
promoted as a Store Manager of the 7-11 store in Muntinlupa, he was
ordered to report to the head office of Philippine Seven Corporation (PSC) and
was then
requested at the NBI in relation to an investigation involving respondent, who
at that point, was using the name “Atty. Patrick A. Caronan”. He was asked to
identify documents showing respondent’s use of the “Patrick A. Caronan”. It
was then that the complainant was informed in a case of qualified theft and
estafa in which respondent was involved. Respondent’s use of the name
“Atty. Patrick A. Caronan” continues to perpetuate crimes and commit
unlawful activities such as gun-running, illegal possession of explosives and
violation of BP 22. With this, the complainant filed the present Complaint-
Affidavit to stop respondent’s alleged use of the former’s name and identity,
and illegal practice of law.
IBP Investigating Commissioner
 Respondent is guilty of illegally and falsely assuming complainant’s name,
identity and academic records
 recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of Attorneys
No. 49069 be dropped and stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
 recommended that respondent and the name "Richard A. Caronan" be
barred from being admitted as a member of the Bar
 for making a mockery of the judicial institution, the IBP was directed to
institute appropriate actions against respondent.
The practice of law, after all, is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right
to be granted to everyone who demands it. Rather, it is a privilege limited to
citizens of good moral character.
Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, no applicant for admission to
the Bar Examination shall be admitted unless he had pursued and
satisfactorily completed a pre-law course. In the case at hand, respondent
never completed his college degree. The Court does not discount the
possibility that respondent may later on complete his college education and
earn a law degree under his real name. However, his false assumption of his
brother's name, identity, and educational records renders him unfit for
admission to the Bar.
Good moral character is what a person really is, as distinguished from good
reputation or from the opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in
which he is held by the public in the place where he is known. Moral
character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective
1 | Page| K.D.Alianza
reality. Good moral character includes at least common honesty. Good moral
character is imperative in the nature of the office of a lawyer, the trust
relation which exists between him and his client, as well as between him and
the court.
Respondent made a mockery of the legal profession by pretending to have
the necessary qualifications to be a lawyer. He also tarnished the image of
lawyers with his alleged unscrupulous activities, which resulted in the filing of
several criminal cases against him. Certainly, respondent and his acts do not
have a place in the legal profession where one of the primary duties of its
members is to uphold its integrity and dignity.
Malecdan v. Baldo
Malecdan filed a complaint for Estafa, Breach of Contract and Damages
against Sps Baldo. Before the Lupon of Barangay, Atty. Baldo appeared as
counsel of Sps Baldo during the hearing on the subject complaint before the
Punong Barangay. Malecdan filed an administrative complaint before the
local IBP Chapter praying that proper sanctions be imposed on Atty. Baldo for
violating Sec. 9 of PD 1508 (Katarungang Pambarangay Law), which prohibits
the participation of lawyers in the proceedings before the Lupon.
Investigating Commissioner
 Recommended to give Atty. Baldo a warning.
IBP-BOG
 Issued a resolution reprimanding the respondent.
WON Atty. Baldo is liable for the violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the
CPR? YES
The language of P.D. 1508 is mandatory in barring lawyers from appearing
before the Lupon. A personal confrontation between the parties without the
intervention of a counsel or representative would generate spontaneity and a
favorable disposition to amicable settlement on the part of the disputants.
Atty. Baldo's violation of P.D. 1508 thus falls squarely within the prohibition of
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR, which provides:
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 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer to laws and legal
processes. A Lawyer, to the best of his ability, is expected to respect and
abide by the law, and thus, avoid any act or omission that is contrary to the
same. A lawyer's personal deference to the law not only speaks of his
character but it also inspires the public to likewise respect and obey the law.
Rule 1.01, on the other hand, states the norm of conduct to be observed by
all lawyers. Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or
unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law is
unlawful. Unlawful conduct does not necessarily imply the element of
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
criminality although the concept is broad enough to include such element.
Here, Atty. Baldo admitted that he appeared and participated in the
proceedings before the Punong Barangay in violation of Section 9 of P.D.
1508. Atty. Baldo therefore violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR in connection with
Section 9 of P.D. 1508 when he appeared as counsel for spouses Baldo in a
hearing before the Punong Barangay.
CANON 1
Garrido v. Garrido
Petitioner Garrido, second wife of Atty. Angel Garrido, filed a disbarment case
against her husband as well as his alleged mistress, Atty. Valencia. She alleged
that her husband has an illicit relationship with Atty. Valencia which produced
an offspring. Both, according to her, had their marriage in HK. She also
purported that ever since respondent left their conjugal home, the latter
failed to provide financial support. Respondent Garrido denied all the
allegations. He asserted that the marriage between him and Maelotisea is
void ab initio as he was still married with Constancia, his first wife. He also
pointed out that those transpired before his admission to the bar. Petitioner
herself filed a motion for the dismissal of the complaints she filed against the
respondents, arguing that she wanted to maintain friendly relations with Atty.
Garrido but the same was dismissed. IBP proceeded with the respondent
Garrido’s disbarment.
Admission to the practice of law is a component of the administration of
justice and is a matter of public interest because it involves service to the
public. The admission qualifications are also qualifications for the continued
enjoyment of the privilege to practice law.
Lack of qualifications or the violation of the standards for the practice of law,
like criminal cases, is a matter of public concern that the State may inquire
into through this Court. In this sense, the complainant in a disbarment case is
not a direct party whose interest in the outcome of the charge is wholly his or
her own; effectively, his or her participation is that of a witness who brought
the matter to the attention of the Court.
As applied to the present case, the time that elapsed between the immoral
acts charged and the filing of the complaint is not material in considering the
qualification of Atty. Garrido when he applied for admission to the practice of
law, and his continuing qualification to be a member of the legal profession.
From this perspective, it is not important that the acts complained of were
committed before Atty. Garrido was admitted to the practice of law. The
possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a
continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain
membership in the legal profession. Likewise, there is no distinction whether
the misconduct was committed in the lawyer's professional capacity or in his
private life. Admission to the practice only creates the rebuttable
presumption that the applicant has all the qualifications to become a lawyer;
this may be refuted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary even
after admission to the Bar.
SY 2019-2020
Parenthetically, Article VIII Section 5 (5) of the Constitution recognizes the
disciplinary authority of the Court over the members of the Bar to be merely
incidental to the Court's exclusive power to admit applicants to the practice
of law.
In light of the public service character of the practice of law and the nature of
disbarment proceedings as a public interest concern, Maelotisea's affidavit of
desistance cannot have the effect of discontinuing or abating the disbarment
proceedings. As we have stated, Maelotisea is more of a witness than a
complainant in these proceedings.
Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and
that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable
members of the community.
Immoral conduct is gross:
o when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or
o when it is so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or
o when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to
shock the community's sense of decency.
We make these distinctions as the supreme penalty of disbarment arising
from conduct requires grossly immoral, not simply immoral, conduct.
 lawyer entered into multiple marriages and subsequently used legal
remedies to sever them
- disbarment; undermined the institutions of marriage and family —
institutions that this society looks up to for the rearing of our children,
for the development of values essential to the survival and well-being
of our communities, and for the strengthening of our nation as a whole.
 lawyer married the complainant while his marriage with his first wife was
subsisting
- act of contracting the second marriage was contrary to honesty, justice,
decency and morality.
 lawyer secretly contracted a second marriage with the daughter of his
client in Hongkong.
- a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of members of the
Bar; made a mockery of marriage — a sacred institution that demands
respect and dignity; his act of contracting a second marriage contrary
to honesty, justice, decency and morality.
In this case, the undisputed facts established a pattern of gross immoral
conduct that warrants his disbarment. His conduct was not only corrupt or
unprincipled; it was reprehensible to the highest degree.
 He admitted that he left Constancia to pursue his law studies; thereafter
and during the marriage, he had romantic relationships with other
women.
 He misrepresented himself to Maelotisea as a bachelor, when in truth he
was already married to Constancia. This was a misrepresentation given as
an excuse to lure a woman into a prohibited relationship.
2 | Page| K.D.Alianza
 He contracted his second marriage with Maelotisea notwithstanding the
subsistence of his first marriage.
 He engaged in an extra-marital affair with Atty. Valencia while his 2
marriages were in place and without taking into consideration the moral
and emotional implications of his actions on the 2 women he took as
wives and on his 6 children by his second marriage.
 Instead of making legal amends to validate his marriage with Maelotisea
upon the death of Constancia, he married Atty. Valencia who bore him a
daughter.
 After admission to the practice of law, he simultaneously cohabited and
had sexual relations with 2 women who at one point were both his
wedded wives. He also led a double life with 2 families for a period of
more than 10 years.
 He petitioned for the nullity of his marriage to Maelotisea. This was an
attempt, using his legal knowledge, to escape liability for his past actions
by having his second marriage declared void after the present complaint
was filed against him.
As a lawyer, Garrido violated his lawyer's oath, Section 20 (a) of Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court, and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, all
of which commonly require him to obey the laws of the land.
Moral character is not a subjective term but one that corresponds to
objective reality. The requirement of good moral character has 4 general
purposes:
(1) to protect the public;
(2) to protect the public image of lawyers;
(3) to protect prospective clients; and
(4) to protect errant lawyers from themselves. Each purpose is as important
as the other.
As to Atty. Valencia
Prior to becoming a lawyer, Atty. Valencia already knew that Atty. Garrido
was a married man, and that he already had a family. She was under the
moral duty to give him proper advice; instead, she entered into a romantic
relationship with him for about 6 years during the subsistence of his 2
marriages. Hence, Atty. Valencia's actions are grossly immoral. Her actions
were so corrupt as to approximate a criminal act, for she married a man who,
in all appearances, was married to another and with whom he has a family.
Her actions were also unprincipled and reprehensible to a high degree; as the
confidante of Atty. Garrido, she preyed on his vulnerability and engaged in a
romantic relationship with him during the subsistence of his two previous
marriages. As already mentioned, Atty. Valencia's conduct could not but be
scandalous and revolting to the point of shocking the community's sense of
decency; while she professed to be the lawfully wedded wife, she helped the
second family build a house prior to her marriage to Atty. Garrido, and did not
object to sharing her husband with the woman of his second marriage.
Atty. Valencia violated Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, as her behavior demeaned the dignity of and discredited the
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
legal profession. Lawyers, as officers of the court, must not only be of good
moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and
must lead lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the
community.
Membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. As a privilege
bestowed by law through the SC, membership in the Bar can be withdrawn
where circumstances concretely show the lawyer's lack of the essential
qualifications required of lawyers.
In imposing the penalty of disbarment upon the respondents, we are aware
that the power to disbar is one to be exercised with great caution and only in
clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of
the lawyer as a legal professional and as an officer of the Court. The present
case is one of them. The records show the parties' pattern of grave and
immoral misconduct that demonstrates their lack of mental and emotional
fitness and moral character to qualify them for the responsibilities and duties
imposed on lawyers as professionals and as officers of the court. In like
manner, Atty. Valencia's behavior over a long period of time unequivocally
demonstrates a basic and serious flaw in her character, which we cannot
simply brush aside without undermining the dignity of the legal profession
and without placing the integrity of the administration of justice into
question. She was not an on-looker victimized by the circumstances, but a
willing and knowing full participant in a love triangle whose incidents crossed
into the illicit.
Ecraela v. Pangalangan
This is a case for disbarment against Atty. Pangalangan for his illicit relations,
chronic womanizing, abuse of authority as an educator, and "other
unscrupulous activities" which cause "undue embarrassment to the legal
profession."
Complainant and respondent were best friends and both graduated from UP
College of Law. After passing the bar examinations and being admitted as
members of the Bar, they were both registered with the IBP Quezon City.
Respondent was formerly married to Jardiolin with whom he has 3 children.
Complainant avers that while married to Jardiolin, respondent had a series of
adulterous and illicit relations with married and unmarried women between
the years 1990 to 2007. These alleged illicit relations involved:
(1) AAA, who is the spouse of a colleague in the UP College of Law, from
1990 to 1992, which complainant had personal knowledge of such illicit
relations;
(2) BBB, sometime during the period from 1992 to 1994 or from 1994 to
1996, despite being already married to Jardiolin;
(3) CCC, despite being married to Jardiolin and while also being romantically
involved with DDD;
(4) DDD, sometime during the period from 2000 to 2002, despite still being
married to Jardiolin and while still being romantically involved with CCC;
(5) EEE, who is related to complainant, sometime during the period from
May 2004 until the filing of the Petition, while still being romantically
involved with CCC.
SY 2019-2020
However, Atty. Pangalangan took advantage of his legal skills by attacking the
Petition through technicalities and refusing to participate in the proceedings.
Should Atty. Pangalangan be disbarred? YES
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
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.
xxx xxx xxx
CANON 7 — A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
The practice of law is a privilege given to those who possess and continue to
possess the legal qualifications for the profession. Good moral character is
not only required for admission to the Bar, but must also be retained in order
to maintain one's good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity.
In suspension or disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys
the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant to prove the allegations in his complaint. The evidence required
in suspension or disbarment proceedings is preponderance of evidence.
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is,
as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. It means
evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that
which is offered in opposition thereto. In case the evidence of the parties are
equally balanced, the equipoise doctrine mandates a decision in favor of the
respondent.
The grounds expressed in Section 27, Rule 138 of the ROC are not limitative
and are broad enough to cover any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional
or private capacity.
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.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 10.03 — A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
Respondent could have easily admitted or denied said allegations or
explained the same, as he clearly had knowledge thereof; however, he chose
to take advantage of Complainant's position of being not present in the
country and not being able to acquire the necessary documents, skirt the
3 | Page| K.D.Alianza
issue, and mislead the Commission. In doing so, he has violated Canon 10 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer owes
candor, fairness and good faith to the court" as well as Rule 10.01 and Rule
10.03 thereof which states that "a lawyer should do no falsehood nor consent
to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be
misled by any artifice" and that "a lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure
and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice."
Valdez v. Dabon, Jr.
Nelson charged Atty. Dabon, a Division Clerk of Court of the CA, with gross
immorality for allegedly carrying on an adulterous relationship with his wife,
Sonia, which was made possible by sexual assaults and maintained through
threat and intimidation.
Sonia narrated that her illicit relationship with Atty. Dabon started sometime
in November 2000 and ended in March 2006 when she, bothered by her
conscience, decided to break it off; that Atty. Dabon relentlessly pursued her
for years and even admitted that he fell in love with her the first time he laid
eyes on her; that on November 13, 2000, Atty. Dabon lured her to what
appeared to be a mere friendly lunch date, managed to put sleep-inducing
drug into her food or drink causing her to feel drowsy and weak and,
thereafter, brought her to Victoria Court Motel where he sexually molested
her while she was asleep; that she opted to keep silent about the incident for
fear of its adverse repercussions of shame and embarrassment to her and her
family; that she pleaded with Atty. Dabon to leave her and forget what had
happened, but the respondent instead taunted her by laughing at her misery;
that since then, Atty. Dabon succeeded in having repeated carnal knowledge
of her once or twice a week through intimidation and threats; that Atty.
Dabon threatened her that he would tell everyone that she had been playing
around with him, if she would not yield to his lascivious cravings; and that she
suffered in silence for years and submitted herself to the bestial desires of
Atty. Dabon, until she even thought that she was in love with him.
However, it appeared that Sonia continually remained in the company for
more than 5 years, even inviting him for lunch-outs and frequenting his office
to bring food whenever the latter was preoccupied with his workload and
could not go out with her to eat.
There was substantial evidence showing that Atty. Dabon did have an illicit
relationship with Nelson's legal wife. Respondent appeared to be perplexed
as to WON he would admit his extramarital liaisons with Sonia. Atty. Dabon
interposed a blanket denial of the romantic involvement but at the same
time, he seemed to have tacitly admitted the illicit affair only that it was not
attended by sexual assaults, threats and intimidations.
Possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a
continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain
membership in the legal profession. This proceeds from the lawyer's bounden
duty to observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the Bar's
integrity, and the legal profession exacts from its members nothing less.
Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from
misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality.
The respondent's denial is a negative pregnant, a denial coupled with the
admission of substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not
squarely denied.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Canon 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
In the case at bench, Atty. Dabon's intimate relationship with a woman other
than his wife showed his moral indifference to the opinion of the good and
respectable members of the community. It manifested his disrespect for the
laws on the sanctity of marriage and for his own marital vow of fidelity.
Indeed, he has fallen below the moral bar. Even if not all forms of
extramarital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations
outside of marriage are considered disgraceful and immoral as they manifest
deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows
protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.
When deciding upon the appropriate sanction, the Court must consider that
the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings are to protect the public; to
foster public confidence in the Bar; to preserve the integrity of the
profession; and to deter other lawyers from similar misconduct.
The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the
preservative and not on the vindictive principle, with great caution and only
for the most weighty reasons and only on clear cases of misconduct which
seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the
court and member of the Bar. The dubious character of the act charged as
well as the motivation which induced the lawyer to commit it must be clearly
demonstrated before suspension or disbarment is meted out. The mitigating
or aggravating circumstances that attended the commission of the offense
should also be considered.
The penalty for maintaining an illicit relationship may either be suspension or
disbarment, depending on the circumstances of the case. In case of
suspension, the period would range from 1 year to indefinite suspension.
In the case at bench, Atty. Dabon's misconduct and unrepentant demeanor
clearly showed a serious flaw in his character, his moral indifference to the
sanctity of marriage and marital vows, and his outright defiance of
established norms. All these could not but put the legal profession in
disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril.
Accordingly, the extreme administrative penalty of disbarment should be
imposed.
SY 2019-2020
Heenan v. Espejo
Despite being new acquaintances, Heenan loaned Atty. Espejo P250,000 as
the latter was introduced to her as her godmother’s lawyer. To secure the
payment of the loan, Atty Espejo turned over a check covering the loan and
agreed interest amounting to P275,000. Heenan was not able to encash said
check on its due date upon request of the respondent. The respondent issued
a second check amounting to the agreed interest which was similarly
dishonored by the bank due to insufficiency of funds.
With the sustained failure to pay and disregard of notices and subpoenas
issued by the court, Heenan filed a criminal complaint against Atty. Espejo for
violation of BP 22 and estafa. After the only preliminary investigation which
respondent attended, she issued another check amounting to P275,000,
which was again dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. After the case was
submitted for resolution, complainant filed the instant administrative case
against Espejo before the Committee on Bar Discipline. The respondent did
not submit any answer to the case filed nor appeared for a mandatory
conference.
CBD recommended:
Suspension of Atty. Espejo from the practice of law and as a member of the
Bar for a period of 5 years.
Board of Governors Resolution:
 modified: suspension from five (5) years to two (2) years.
 also ordered to return to Victoria the amount of PhP250k within thirty
(30) days from receipt of notice with legal interest reckoned from the
time the demand was made.
Was the case filed by Heenan against Espejo valid despite the fact that the
acts complained were not committed in her capacity as a lawyer? YES
The fact that Atty. Espejo obtained the loan and issued the worthless check in
her private capacity and not as an attorney of Victoria is of no moment. As we
have held in several cases, a lawyer may be disciplined not only for
malpractice and dishonestly in his profession but also for gross misconduct
outside of his professional capacity. While the Court may not ordinarily
discipline a lawyer for misconduct committed in his non-professional or
private capacity, the Court may be justified in suspending or removing him as
an attorney where his misconduct outside of the lawyer’s professional
dealings is so gross in character as to show him morally unfit and unworthy of
the privilege which his licenses and the law confer.
Atty. Espejo’s issuance of worthless checks and her blatant refusal to heed the
directives of the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office and the IBP contravene
Canon 1, Rule 1.01; Canon 7, Rule7.03; and Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. In line with this, the Supreme Court upheld the
recommendation of the CBP to penalize Espejo with suspension from the
practice of law for two (2) years. However, it did not sustain the IBP’s
recommendation to order Atty. Espejo to return the money she borrowed
from Victoria. The Court claimed that in disciplinary proceedings against
4 | Page| K.D.Alianza
lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be
allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. Therefore, its concern is the
determination of respondent’s administrative liability. Its findings have no
material bearing on other judicial action which the parties may choose to file
against each other.
SC:
Atty. Espejo is GUILTY of gross misconduct and of violating Canons 1, 7 and 11
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We SUSPEND respondent from the
practice of law for two (2) years, effective immediately.
Chu v. Guico, Jr.
Chu retained Atty. Guico as counsel to handle his company’s labor disputes.
After a decision was rendered adversely to Chu’s company, Atty. Guico asked
Chu to prepare a substantial amount of money to be given to the NLRC
Commissioner handling his appeal to insure a favourable decision. Chu
delivered P300,000.00 to Atty. Guico, who then gave him a copy of an alleged
draft decision of the NLRC in favour of his company.
Atty. Guico told Chu to raise another P300,000 to encourage the NLRC
Commissioner to issue the decision; however, Chu could only produce
P280,000.00. Atty. Guico’s assistant received said amount without issuance of
a receipt. Chu followed up on the status of the case but was told to wait. He
was assured that should the NLRC Commissioner not accept the money, Atty.
Guico would return it.
The NLRC promulgated a decision adverse to Chu’s company, prompting Atty.
Guico to file for a motion of reconsideration and an appeal which were
denied. Chu then terminated Atty. Guico as his legal counsel and filed a
disbarment complaint against him due to alleged gross misconduct. Atty.
Guico denied Chu’s allegations. However, the IBP found that Atty. Guico had
violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommended three years suspension.
IBP Commissioner
 recommended the disbarment of Atty. Guico in view of his act of
extortion and misrepresentation that caused dishonor to and contempt
for the legal profession.
IBP Board of Governors
 adopted the findings of IBP Commissioner, but modified the
recommended penalty of disbarment to three years suspension
WON Guico violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 1.01 and 1.02 , Canon I of
the Code of Professional Responsibility for demanding and receiving
P580,000.00 from Chu to guarantee a favourable decision from the NLRC.?
YES
In taking the Lawyer’s Oath, Atty. Guico bound himself to:
x x x maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; x x x support its
Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein; x x x do no falsehood, nor consent to the
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
doing of any in court; x x x delay no man for money or malice x x x.
The Code of Professional Responsibility echoes the Lawyer’s Oath, to wit:.
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of
the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
To discharge the obligation, every lawyer should not render any service or
give advice to any client that would involve defiance of the very laws that he
was bound to uphold and obey, for he or she was always bound as an
attorney to be law abiding, and thus to uphold the integrity and dignity of the
Legal Profession. Verily, he or she must act and comport himself or herself in
such a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the
Legal Profession. Any lawyer found to violate this obligation forfeits his or her
privilege to continue such membership in the legal profession.
Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the law in appearing to counsel Chu
to raise the large sums of money in order to obtain a favorable decision in the
labor case. He thus violated the law against bribery and corruption. He
compounded his violation by actually using said illegality as his means of
obtaining a huge sum from the client that he soon appropriated for his own
personal interest. His acts constituted gross dishonesty and deceit, and were
a flagrant breach of his ethical commitments under the Lawyer’s Oath not to
delay any man for money or malice; and under Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility that forbade him from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His deviant conduct eroded the faith
of the people in him as an individual lawyer as well as in the Legal Profession
as a whole. In doing so, he ceased to be a servant of the law.
Atty. Guico committed grave misconduct and disgraced the Legal Profession.
Grave misconduct is “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 mere error of
judgment.” There is no question that any gross misconduct by an attorney in
his professional or private capacity renders him unfit to manage the affairs of
others, and is a ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or
disbarment, because good moral character is an essential qualification for the
admission of an attorney and for the continuance of such privilege.
SC:
Disbarment
Perez v. Catindig
Atty. Catindig courted Dr. Perez, but admitted that he was already wed to Lily
Gomez. Atty. Catindig told Dr. Perez that he was in the process of obtaining a
divorce in a foreign country to dissolve his marriage to Gomez, and that he
would eventually marry her once the divorce had been decreed.
Consequently, sometime in 1984, Atty. Catindig and Gomez obtained a
SY 2019-2020
divorce decree from the Dominican Republic.
On July 14, 1984, Atty. Catindig married Dr. Perez in the State of Virginia in
USA. Years later, Dr. Perez came to know that her marriage to Atty. Catindig is
a nullity since the divorce decree that was obtained from the Dominican
Republic by the latter and Gomez is not recognized by Philippine laws.
Sometime in 1997, Dr. Perez reminded Atty. Catindig of his promise to legalize
their union by filing a petition to nullify his marriage to Gomez.
Sometime in 2001, Dr. Perez alleged that she received an anonymous letter in
the mail informing her of Atty. Catindig’s scandalous affair with Atty. Baydo,
and that sometime later, she came upon a love letter written and signed by
Atty. Catindig for Atty. Baydo dated April 25, 2001. In the said letter, Atty.
Catindig professed his love to Atty. Baydo, promising to marry her once his
“impediment is removed.” On October 31, 2001, Atty. Catindig abandoned Dr.
Perez and their son; he moved to an upscale condominium in Salcedo Village,
Makati City where Atty. Baydo was frequently seen.
Atty. Catindig, in his Comment, admitted that he married Gomez on May 18,
1968. He claimed, however, that immediately after the wedding, Gomez
showed signs that she was incapable of complying with her marital
obligations. Eventually, their irreconcilable differences led to their de facto
separation in 1984. Atty. Catindig claimed that Dr. Perez knew of the
foregoing, including the fact that the divorce decreed by the Dominican
Republic court does not have any effect in the Philippines. Atty. Catindig
claimed that his relationship with Dr. Perez turned sour. Eventually, he left
their home in October 2001 to prevent any acrimony from developing. He
denied that Atty. Baydo was the reason that he left Dr. Perez.
For her part, Atty. Baydo denied that she had an affair with Atty. Catindig.
IBP – recommended the disbarment of Atty. Catindig for gross immorality,
violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Complaint against Atty. Baydo – dismissed for dearth of
evidence.
Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-CBD
recommended the disbarment of Atty. Catindig for gross immorality, violation
of Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
IBP Board of Governors
Disbarment
WON the respondents committed gross immorality, which would warrant
their disbarment? YES
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Canon 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
5 | Page| K.D.Alianza
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave
in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
In this regard, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that a
lawyer may be removed or suspended from the practice of law, inter alia, for
grossly immoral conduct.
“A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct showing any
fault or deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor.” Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright
and respectable members of the community. Immoral conduct is gross when
it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or
revolting circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of decency. The
Court makes these distinctions, as the supreme penalty of disbarment arising
from conduct requires grossly immoral, not simply immoral, conduct.
Contracting a marriage during the subsistence of a previous one amounts to a
grossly immoral conduct. The facts gathered from the evidence adduced by
the parties and, ironically, from Atty. Catindig’s own admission, indeed
establish a pattern of conduct that is grossly immoral; it is not only corrupt
and unprincipled, but reprehensible to a high degree. Moreover, assuming
arguendo that Atty. Catindig’s claim is true, it matters not that Dr. Perez knew
that their marriage is a nullity. The fact still remains that he resorted to
various legal strategies in order to render a façade of validity to his otherwise
invalid marriage to Dr. Perez. Such act is, at the very least, so unprincipled
that it is reprehensible to the highest degree.
Further, after 17 years of cohabiting with Dr. Perez, and despite the various
legal actions he resorted to in order to give their union a semblance of
validity, Atty. Catindig left her and their son. It was only at that time that he
finally decided to properly seek the nullity of his first marriage to Gomez.
Apparently, he was then already entranced with the much younger Atty.
Baydo, an associate lawyer employed by his firm.
While the fact that Atty. Catindig decided to separate from Dr. Perez to
pursue Atty. Baydo, in itself, cannot be considered a grossly immoral conduct,
such fact forms part of the pattern showing his propensity towards immoral
conduct. Lest it be misunderstood, the Court’s finding of gross immoral
conduct is hinged not on Atty. Catindig’s desertion of Dr. Perez, but on his
contracting of a subsequent marriage during the subsistence of his previous
marriage to Gomez. Atty. Catindig’s subsequent marriage during the
subsistence of his previous one definitely manifests a deliberate disregard of
the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution
and affirmed by our laws. By his own admission, Atty. Catindig made a
mockery out of the institution of marriage, taking advantage of his legal skills
in the process. He exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality
required of him as a member of the bar, which thus warrant the penalty of
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
disbarment.
There is insufficient evidence to prove the affair between the respondents. As
it is, the evidence that was presented by Dr. Perez to prove her claim was
mere allegation, an anonymous letter informing her that the respondents
were indeed having an affair and the purported love letter to Atty. Baydo that
was signed by Atty. Catindig.
SC:
Atty. Tristan A. Catindig is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.
The charge of gross immorality against Atty. Karen E. Baydo is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of evidence.
Vasco-Tamaray v. Daquis
Vasco-Tamaray filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the IBP on July 30, 2007,
alleging that Atty. Daquis filed, on her behalf, a Petition for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage without her consent and forged her signature on the
Petition. She also alleged that Atty. Daquis signed the Petition for Declaration
of Nullity of Marriage as "counsel for petitioner," referring to Vasco-Tamaray.
Vasco-Tamaray stated that Atty. Daquis was not her counsel but that of her
husband, Leomarte Regala Tamaray.
On March 5, 2007, Vasco-Tamaray appeared before the City Prosecutor's
Office upon Atty. Daquis’ request. She asked Atty. Daquis to give her a copy of
the Petition but Atty. Daquis refused. Vasco-Tamaray stated that she obtained
a copy of the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage from Branch 207
of the RTC of Muntinlupa City. She was surprised to see that the Petition was
allegedly signed and filed by her. Vasco-Tamaray alleged that she did not file
the Petition, that her signature was forged by Atty. Daquis, and that her
purported community tax certificate appearing on the jurat was not hers
because she never resided in Muntinlupa City. Instead, it was her husband’s
family’s address.
Commission on Bar Discipline
recommended the dismissal of the Complaint because Vasco-Tamaray failed
to prove her allegations. Vasco-Tamaray should have questioned the Petition
or informed the prosecutor that she never filed any petition, but she failed to
do so.
Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Commission
on Bar Discipline
WON Atty. Daquis should be held administratively liable for making it appear
that she is counsel for complainant Cheryl Vasco-Tamaray and for the alleged
use of a forged signature on the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage? YES
Respondent violated Canons 1, 7, 10, and 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The charge against respondent for violation of Canon 15 is
dismissed.
SY 2019-2020
By pretending to be counsel for complainant, respondent violated Canon 1,
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and failed to uphold her
duty of doing no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any falsehood in court
as stated in the Lawyer's Oath.
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
RULE 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Respondent argued in her Answer that she was the counsel for complainant.
Yet, there is no explanation how she was referred to complainant or how they
were introduced. It appears, then, that respondent was contacted by
Leomarte Tamaray to file a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on
the ground of bigamy. However, respondent made it appear that
complainant, not her client Leomarte Tamaray, was the petitioner. There is a
probability that respondent did not want Leomarte Tamaray to be the
petitioner because he would have to admit that he entered into a bigamous
marriage, the admission of which may subject him to criminal liability.
Respondent violated Canon 7, Rule 7.03 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 when she
allowed the use of a forged signature on a petition she prepared and
notarized. Her act demonstrates a lack of moral fiber on her part.
CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession, and support the activities of the integrated bar.
RULE 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave
in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
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.
Respondent failed to protect the interests of her client when she represented
complainant, who is the opposing party of her client Leomarte Tamaray, in
the same case. Thus, she further violated Canon 17 of the CPR.
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.
SC
The penalty of DISBARMENT is imposed upon Atty. Daquis.
Nulada v. Paulma
Complainant alleged that respondent issued a check in his favor for the
payment of the latter’s debt. When he presented the check for payment, it
was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Respondent failed to comply
despite notice of dishonor and repeated demands. Petitioner filed a criminal
complaint for violation of BP 22 against respondent and also filed an
administrative case.
6 | Page| K.D.Alianza
Commission on Bar Descipline
recommend respondent to be suspended for 6 months for violation of the
CPR and guilty of moral turpitude
IBP Board
Modified the punishment, suspending the respondent for 2 years
The issuance of worthless checks in violation of BP Blg. 22 indicates a lawyer's
unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows such lack of
personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of
public confidence, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. In this
case, respondent's conviction for violation of BP 22, a crime involving moral
turpitude, had been indubitably established. Such conviction has, in fact,
already become final. Consequently, respondent violated the lawyer's oath,
as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, as aptly found by the IBP and, thus,
must be subjected to disciplinary action.
By taking the lawyer's oath, a lawyer becomes a guardian of the law and an
indispensable instrument for the orderly administration of justice. As such, he
can be disciplined for any conduct, in his professional or private capacity,
which renders him unfit to continue to be an officer of the court.
Membership in the legal profession is a privilege burdened with conditions. A
lawyer is required to observe the law and be mindful of his or her actions
whether acting in a public or private capacity. Any transgression of this duty
on his part would not only diminish his reputation as a lawyer but would also
erode the public's faith in the legal profession as a whole. In this case,
respondent's conduct fell short of the exacting standards expected of him as a
member of the bar, for which he must suffer the necessary consequences.
SC:
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of 2 years. He is warned that
a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Advincula v. Advincula
Dr. Advincula has averred that Atty. Advincula committed unlawful and
immoral acts; that while Atty. Advincula was still married to her, he had extra-
marital sexual relations with Ms. Gonzaga; that the extra-marital relations
bore a child, Alexandria); that Atty. Advincula failed to give financial support
to their own children; that he admitted in the affidavit of late registration of
birth of Alexandria that he had contracted another marriage with Ms.
Gonzaga; that even should Atty. Advincula prove that his declaration in the
affidavit of late registration of birth was motivated by some reason other than
the fact that he truly entered into a subsequent marriage with Ms. Gonzaga,
then making such a declaration was in itself still unlawful; that siring a child
with a woman other than his lawful wife was conduct way below the
standards of morality required of every lawyer; that contracting a subsequent
marriage while the first marriage had not been dissolved was also an unlawful
conduct; that making a false declaration before a notary public was an
unlawful conduct punishable under the Revised Penal Code; and that the
failure of Atty. Advincula to provide proper support to his children showed his
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
moral character to be below the standards set by law for every lawyer. Dr.
Advincula prayed that Atty. Advincula be disbarred.
In his answer, Atty. Advincula denied the accusations. He asserted that during
the subsistence of his marriage with Dr. Advincula but prior to the birth of
their youngest, their marital relationship had deteriorated; that they could
not agree on various matters concerning their family, religion, friends, and
respective careers; that Dr. Advincula abandoned the rented family home
with the 2 children to live with her parents; that despite their separation, he
regularly gave financial support to Dr. Advincula and their children; that
during their separation, he got into a brief relationship with Ms. Gonzaga; and
that he did not contract a second marriage with Ms. Gonzaga. Atty. Advincula
further acknowledged that as a result of the relationship with Ms. Gonzaga, a
child was born and named Alexandra; that in consideration of his moral
obligation as a father, he gave support to Alexandra; that he only learned that
the birth of Alexandra had been subsequently registered after the child was
already enrolled in school; that it was Ms. Gonzaga who informed him that
she had the birth certificate of Alexandria altered by a fixer in order to enroll
the child; that he strived to reunite his legitimate family, resulting in a
reconciliation that begot their third child; that Dr. Advincula once again
decided to live with her parents, bringing all of their children along; that
nevertheless, he continued to provide financial support to his family and
visited the children regularly; that Dr. Advincula intimated to him that she had
planned to take up nursing in order to work as a nurse abroad because her
medical practice here was not lucrative; that he supported his wife's nursing
school expenses; that Dr. Advincula left for USA to work as a nurse; that the
custody of their children was not entrusted to him but he agreed to such
arrangement to avoid further division of the family; that during the same
period he was also busy with his law studies; that Dr. Advincula proposed that
he and their children migrate to the USA but he opposed the proposal
because he would not be able to practice his profession there; that Dr.
Advincula stated that if he did not want to join her, then she would just get
the children to live with her; that when Dr. Advincula came home for a
vacation he was not able to accompany her due to his extremely busy
schedule as Chief Legal Staff of the General Prosecution Division of the NBI;
and that when they finally met arguments flared out, during which she
threatened to file a disbarment suit against him in order to force him to allow
her to bring their children to the USA. Atty. Advincula prayed that the
disbarment case be dismissed for utter lack of merit.
Atty. Advincula manifested in his compliance that he had immediately
accepted the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors suspending him from
the practice of law for two months as final and executory; that he had then
gone on leave from work in the NBI for 2 months.
The good moral conduct or character must be possessed by lawyers at the
time of their application for admission to the Bar, and must be maintained
until retirement from the practice of law.
Accordingly, it is expected that every lawyer, being an officer of the Court,
must not only be in fact of good moral character, but must also be seen to be
of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest
SY 2019-2020
moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar
and officer of the Court is required not only to refrain from adulterous
relationships or keeping mistresses but also to conduct himself as to avoid
scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral
standards. If the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and
attain its basic ideals, whoever is enrolled in its ranks should not only master
its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing
fidelity to them. The requirement of good moral character is of much greater
import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal
learning.
Atty. Advincula cannot be sanctioned with disbarment. Although his siring the
child with a woman other than his legitimate wife constituted immorality, he
committed the immoral conduct when he was not yet a lawyer. The degree of
his immoral conduct was not as grave than if he had committed the
immorality when already a member of the Philippine Bar. Even so, he cannot
escape administrative liability.
The manifestation of compliance is unacceptable. A lawyer like him ought to
know that it is only the Court that wields the power to discipline lawyers.
The IBP Board of Governors did not possess such power, rendering its
recommendation against him incapable of finality. It is the Court's final
determination of his liability as a lawyer that is the reckoning point for the
service of sanctions and penalties. As such, his supposed compliance with the
recommended two-month suspension could not be satisfied by his going on
leave from his work at the NBI. Moreover, his being a government employee
necessitates that his suspension from the practice of law should include his
suspension from office. A leave of absence will not suffice. This is so
considering that his position mandated him to be a member of the Philippine
Bar in good standing. The suspension from the practice of law will not be a
penalty if it does not negate his continuance in office for the period of the
suspension. If the rule is different, this exercise of reprobation of an erring
lawyer by the Court is rendered inutile and becomes a mockery because he
can continue to receive his salaries and other benefits by simply going on
leave for the duration of his suspension from the practice of law.
SC:
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of 3 months, with a
STERN WARNING that a more severe penalty shall be imposed should he
commit the same offense or a similar offense
Tumbaga v. Teoxon
Tumbaga narrated that she met Teoxon sometime in September 1999. He
was then the City Legal Officer of Naga City from whom complainant sought
legal advice. After complainant consulted with him a few times, he visited her
often at her residence and brought gifts for her son, Al Greg. Teoxon even
volunteered to be the child’s godfather. In one of his visits, Teoxon assured
Tumbaga’s mother that although he was already married, his marriage was a
sham because their marriage contract was not registered. In view of Teoxon’s
persistence and generosity to her son, Tumbaga believed his representation
that he was eligible to marry her. Tumbaga averred that she moved in with
7 | Page| K.D.Alianza
Teoxon. She became pregnant. Teoxon allegedly wanted to have the baby
aborted but Tumbaga refused. After the birth of their son, Teoxon spent more
time with them. He used their apartment as a temporary law office and he
lived there for 2-3 days at a time. After their son was baptized, Tumbaga
secured a Certificate of Live Birth and gave it to Teoxon to sign. He hesitantly
signed it and volunteered to facilitate its filing. After Teoxon failed to file the
same, Tumbaga secured another form and asked Teoxon to sign it twice. The
Certificate of Live Birth was registered.
Complainant related that respondent rarely visited them. To make ends meet,
she decided to work in a law office in Naga City. However, respondent
compelled her to resign, assuring her that he would take care of her financial
needs. As respondent failed to fulfill his promise, complainant sought
assistance from the Office of the City Fiscal.
To corroborate her allegations, complainant attached the following
documents to her complaint, among others: (a) pictures showing respondent
lying in a bed holding Billy John, respondent holding Billy John in a beach
setting, complainant holding Billy John in a beach setting, respondent holding
Billy John in a house setting, and respondent and complainant seated beside
each other in a restaurant; (b) the Certificate of Live Birth of Billy John with an
Affidavit of Acknowledgment/Admission of Paternity showing respondent's
signature; (c) the affidavit of support executed by respondent; (d) the
promissory note executed by respondent; (e) the police blotter entry dated
September 9, 2001; and (f) copies of pleadings showing the signature of
respondent.
In said case, respondent made it appear that he was merely seeking to
recover personal belongings that he left behind at one time in complainant's
house. The items included a traveling bag with various articles of clothing and
file folders of cases that he was handling. He also tried to recover the pieces
of furniture that he allegedly bought for the complainant, which the latter
failed to reimburse as promised.
The MTCC plainly disbelieved respondent's claim that he merely left his bag of
clothing in complainant's house before he left for his place of work in Metro
Manila — a claim which he likewise made in the present case. The trial court
further posited that the pieces of furniture sought to be recovered by
respondent were indeed bought by him but the same were intentionally given
to complainant out of love. Clearly, the MTCC was convinced that respondent
and complainant were involved in an illicit relationship that eventually turned
sour and led to the filing of the replevin case.
WON the actuations of respondent showed his failure to live up to the good
moral conduct required of the members of the legal profession? YES
A perusal of the pictures convinces this Court that while the same cannot
indeed prove Billy John's paternity, they are nevertheless indicative of a
relationship between complainant and respondent that is more than merely
platonic.
The trial court first heard the parties and received their respective evidence
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
before it rendered a decision. As such, the trial court cannot be accused of
arriving at the aforementioned findings lightly. Accordingly, the Court finds no
reason to mistrust the observations and findings of the MTCC.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds
therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred 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
willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do
so. x x x.
In order to justify the imposition of the above administrative penalties on a
member of the Bar, his/her guilt must first be established by substantial
evidence or that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In this case, there is indeed
substantial evidence that respondent committed gross immorality by
maintaining an extramarital affair with complainant.
We have considered such illicit relation as a disgraceful and immoral conduct
subject to disciplinary action. The penalty for such immoral conduct is
disbarment, or indefinite or definite suspension, depending on the
circumstances of the case. In another case, suspension from the practice of
law for 2 years was an adequate penalty imposed on the lawyer who was
found guilty of gross immorality. In said case, we considered the absence of
aggravating circumstances such as an adulterous relationship coupled with
refusal to support his family; or maintaining illicit relationships with at least 2
women during the subsistence of his marriage; or abandoning his legal wife
and cohabiting with other women. However, considering respondent's blatant
attempts to deceive the courts and the IBP regarding his true relationship
with complainant, the proper penalty in this instance is a 3-year suspension
from the practice of law.
Yap v. Buri
Michelle Yap was the vendor in a contract of sale of a condominium unit,
while Atty. Buri was the vendee. Of the total amount of purchase price of
P1.2M, P200k remains unpaid. Because she trusted the respondent, Yap gave
Buri the full and immediate possession of the condominium unit upon
completion of the P1M despite the outstanding balance and even without the
necessary Deed of Absolute Sale. However, when Yap finally asked for the
balance, Buri said she would pay it on a monthly installment of P5,000.00
until fully paid. When Yap disagreed, Buri said she would just cancel the sale.
Thereafter, Buri also started threatening her through text messages, and then
later on filed a case for estafa against her.
Buri alleged in the criminal case that when she found out that the sale of the
condominium unit was made without the consent of Yap's husband, Yap
cancelled the sale and promised to return the amount of P1M initially paid.
SY 2019-2020
Despite several demands, however, she failed and refused to return the
money. Thus, Buri was constrained to file a case for estafa against Yap. Said
case was later dismissed.
Yap then filed an administrative complaint against Buri for the alleged false
accusations against her. When ordered to submit her answer, Buri failed to
comply. She did not even appear during the mandatory conference. Thus, the
mandatory conference was terminated and the parties were simply required
to submit their respective position papers. However, only Yap complied with
said order.
Instead of paying Yap the remaining balance of the purchase price of the
condominium unit, Buri opted to simply threaten her and file a criminal case
against her. Obviously, this strategy was to intimidate Yap and prevent her
from collecting the remaining P200k. When given a chance to defend herself,
Buri chose to stay silent and even refused to file an answer, attend the
hearing, or to submit her position paper, despite due notice. Hence, Yap's
version of the facts stands and remains uncontroverted.
Buri's unwarranted tenacity simply shows, not only her lack of responsibility,
but also her lack of interest in clearing her name, which is indicative of an
implied admission of the charges levelled against her. Buri's persistent refusal
to pay her obligation despite frequent demands clearly reflects her lack of
integrity and moral soundness; she took advantage of her knowledge of the
law and clearly resorted to threats and intimidation in order to get away with
what she wanted, constituting a gross violation of professional ethics and a
betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.
Buri indubitably swept aside the Lawyer's Oath that enjoins her to support
the Constitution and obey the laws. She forgot that she must not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor
consent to the same. She also took for granted the express commands of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1
and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the CPR.
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR provide:
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.
xxx xxx xxx
While Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the CPR state:
CANON 7 — A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
That Buri's act involved a private dealing with Yap is immaterial. Her being a
lawyer calls for — whether she was acting as such or in a non-professional
capacity — the obligation to exhibit good faith, fairness and candor in her
relationship with others.
8 | Page| K.D.Alianza
Verily, Buri has fallen short of the high standard of morality, honesty,
integrity, and fair dealing expected of her. On the contrary, she employed her
knowledge and skill of the law in order to avoid fulfillment of her obligation,
thereby unjustly enriching herself and inflicting serious damage on Yap. Her
repeated failure to file her answer and position paper and to appear at the
mandatory conference aggravate her misconduct. These demonstrate high
degree of irresponsibility and lack of respect for the IBP and its proceedings.
The deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes gross misconduct, for
which a lawyer may be sanctioned with 1 year-suspension from the practice
of law. The Court likewise upholds the deletion of the payment of the P200k
since the same is not intrinsically linked to Buri's professional engagement.
Disciplinary proceedings should only revolve around the determination of the
respondent lawyer's administrative and not his civil liability. Thus, when the
claimed liabilities are purely civil in nature, as when the claim involves money
owed by the lawyer to his client in view of a separate and distinct transaction
and not by virtue of a lawyer-client relationship, the same should be threshed
out in a separate civil action.
SC:
SUSPENDS Atty. Buri from the practice of law for a period of 1 year and
WARNS her that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with
more severely.
Fabugais v. Faundo Jr.
Fabugais filed a complaint against Atty. Faundo, Jr. for gross misconduct and
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer for having allegedly engaged in illicit and
immoral relations with his wife. It was alleged that then 10-year old girl Marie
Nicole, daughter of Fabugais, saw Atty Faundo (whom Marie Nicole call as
“Tito Attorney”) in the same bed with her and her mother, Annaliza, and that
she saw the lawyer embracing her mother while they were sleeping during
their stay at his house. Marie Nicole further recounted that the next morning,
while she was watching television along with her mother, Ate Mimi and Ate
Ada, Atty. Faundo who just had a shower, and clad only in a towel or “tapis,”
suddenly entered the room; that she (Marie Nicole) along with her Ate Mimi
and her Ate Ada, were told to step outside the room, while her mother and
Atty. Faundo remained inside the room.
Atty. Faundo denied that he had had any immoral relations with Annaliza. He
insisted that he was incapable of committing the misconduct imputed to him
for three simple reasons to wit: because he is a good father to his 3 children,
because he is a respected civic leader, and because he had never been the
subject even of a complaint with the police. He claimed that complainant tiled
the instant complaint simply “to harass him from practicing his legitimate
profession, and for no other reason.”
IBP Investigating Commissioner
Atty. Faundo is guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
IBP-Board of Governors
adopted and approved the findings and recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner.
Meanwhile, complaint’s counsel filed a Notice, Manifestation, and Motion for
Withdrawal from this case, stating that complaint had passed away.
Did respondent lawyer in fact commit acts that are grossly immoral, or acts
that amount to serious moral depravity, that would warrant or call for his
disbarment or suspension from the practice of law? YES
This case can proceed in spite of complainant's death and the apparent lack of
interest on the part of complainant's heirs. Disciplinary proceedings against
lawyers are sui generis in nature: they are intended and undertaken primarily
to look into the conduct or behavior of lawyers, to determine whether they
are still fit to exercise the privileges of the legal profession, and to hold them
accountable for any misconduct or misbehavior which deviates from the
mandated norms and standards of the CPR, all of which are needful and
necessary to the preservation of the integrity of the legal profession.
"Immoral conduct" has been defined as that conduct which is so willful,
flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community. This Court has held that for such
conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be "grossly immoral,
that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree."
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility further provides:
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
As officers of the court, lawyers must in fact and in truth be of good moral
character. They must moreover also be seen or appear to be of good moral
character; and be seen or appear to — live a life in accordance with the
highest moral standards of the community. The Courts require adherence to
these lofty precepts because any thoughtless or ill-considered actions or
actuations by any member of the Bar can irreversibly undermine public
confidence in the law and, consequently, those who practice it.
The acts complained of in this case might not be grossly or starkly immoral in
its rawness or coarseness, but they were without doubt condemnable.
Respondent lawyer who made avowals to being a respectable father to three
children, and also to being a respected leader of his community apparently
had no qualms or scruples about being seen sleeping in his own bed with
another man's wife, his arms entwined in tender embrace with the latter.
Respondent lawyer's defense that he was a "respectable father with three
SY 2019-2020
children" and that he was a "respected civic leader" to boot, flies in the face
of a young girl's perception of his diminished deportment. Indeed, by calling
respondent lawyer as "Tito Attorney," Marie Nicole effectively proclaimed her
avuncular affection for him, plus her recognition of his being a member of the
legal profession. In all these happenings, a modicum of decency should have
impelled this "Tito Attorney" to behave more discreetly and more sensitively,
as he could not have been unaware that Marie Nicole was observing him
closely and that she could be forming her impressions of lawyers and the legal
profession by the actions and the behavior of this, her "Tito Attorney."
In the context of the circumstances obtaining in this case, and hewing to
jurisprudential precedence, and considering furthermore that this is
respondent lawyer's first offense, this Court believes that a one-month
suspension from the practice of law would suffice.
Gubaton v. Amador
As per complainant's own account, he actually saw respondent and
Bernadette together on various intimate occasions. In fact, he attempted to
confront them at one time when he saw them kissing inside a vehicle,
although respondent was able to evade him. Complainant's statements were
corroborated by the affidavit executed by Navarez, who works in BIR as a
messenger and therefore, goes around the city in relation to his work.
Navarez categorically stated that respondent and Bernadette have been
carrying on an illicit affair while complainant was in the USA, and further
averred that he had seen them together on different intimate occasions. He
even saw them kissing each other at one instance. Moreover, complainant's
sister, Nila, described to complainant, while the latter was in the USA, how
respondent would often visit Bernadette and spend the night in their
residence, while she was still living with Bernadette and their children
thereat. She narrated that Bernadette first introduced respondent to her as a
"cousin" from Davao City. However, the two would often have lunch in the
house and thereafter, respondent would even spend some time with
Bernadette inside the latter's bedroom. Nila likewise recounted that
whenever the two of them arrived home in one vehicle, they would kiss each
other before alighting therefrom. Complainant offered in evidence love
letters/notes supposedly written by Bernadette to respondent to prove the
existence of their illicit relationship.
It is fundamental that the quantum of proof in administrative cases is
substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine
otherwise. In this case, substantial evidence exists to prove complainant's
claim that respondent had illicit affairs with Bernadette and hence, should be
adjudged guilty of gross immorality. TN that to satisfy the substantial
evidence requirement for administrative cases, hearsay evidence should
necessarily be supplemented and corroborated by other evidence that are
not hearsay.
Based on jurisprudence, extramarital affairs of lawyers are regarded as
offensive to the sanctity of marriage, the family, and the community. When
lawyers are engaged in wrongful relationships that blemish their ethics and
9 | Page| K.D.Alianza
morality, the usual recourse is for the erring attorney's suspension from the
practice of law, if not disbarment. This is because possession of good moral
character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to
warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the legal
profession.
Under the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Canon 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession, and support the activities of the integrated bar.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
The penalty for maintaining an illicit relationship may either be suspension or
disbarment, depending on the circumstances of the case. In case of
suspension, the period would range from one year to indefinite suspension.
Under the given circumstances, the Court sees fit to impose on respondent a
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of 1 year.
Taday v. Apoya, Jr.
Complainant Taday, an OFW in Norway asked her parents who were then
living in the Philippines to seek legal services for the nullification of her
marriage. Her parents contracted the legal services of herein respondent. The
respondent was informed that the complainant is living abroad but assured
them that he can find ways to push for the resolution of the case despite her
absence. Respondent drafted the Petition for annulment, notarized it and
sent it to the RTC. While petitioner was on a vacation on the Philippines, she
payed the respondent and a decision was delivered granting the annulment.
Complainant was suspicious as the decision came from a different branch
presided by a different judge where the case was originally filed.
Complainant’s family became skeptical as the said decision seemed to come
too soon and was poorly crafted. They did discover that the court which
rendered the decision did not exist. The fake decision is starkly the same as
the petition prepared and filed by respondent. A reading of the fake decision
shows that the statement of facts, issues and the rationale therein are
strikingly similar, if not exactly alike, with the petition. Even the grammatical
errors in both documents are similar.
WON Respondent violated Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the CPR and
Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice? YES
The Court finds that complainant has established by clear, convincing and
satisfactory evidence that: (1) respondent notarized the verification and
certification of non-forum shopping of the petition without the personal
presence of complainant; (2) respondent is the author of the fake decision to
deceive complainant that her petition for annulment of marriage was
granted; and (3) respondent retaliated against complainant for confronting
him with the fake decision by withdrawing the petition in the court, resulting
into the dropping of the case from the civil docket of the court. These acts
constitute violations of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code, to wit:
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
RULE 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
RULE 1.02. A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of
the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Respondent also violated Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice, which states that:
SECTION 2. Prohibitions. — x x x
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as
signatory to the instrument or document —
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the
notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise
identified by the notary public through competent evidence of
identity as defined by these Rules.
In this case, respondent committed unlawful, dishonest, immoral and
deceitful conduct, and lessened the confidence of the public in the legal
system. Instead of being an advocate of justice, he became a perpetrator of
injustice. His reprehensible acts do not merit him to remain in the rolls of the
legal profession. Thus, the ultimate penalty of disbarment must be imposed
upon him.
AAA v. De Los Reyes
AAA was hired as secretary to Atty. De Los Reyes, then VP of the Legal and
Administrative Group of a corporation. She became a permanent employee
with a plantilla position of private secretary, pay grade 11, on a co-terminus
status with respondent. She later learned that it was Atty. De Los Reyes who
facilitated her rapid promotion. Sometime in 1997, respondent started his
advances on her. At first, he offered to take her home, telling her that her
residence was along his route, which then became a daily routine.
Respondent soon became overly possessive and demanding; her telephone
callswere being monitored and would get mad if it was with a male person;
she would be called to his office during office hours simply because he
wanted to see her. He also sent or left her love notes. AAA tried to avoid
respondent, but he would use force and abuse her, both verbally and
physically. Much as she wanted to pursue her plan to resign, her financial
position at that time left her with no choice but to continue working as
respondent’s secretary. AAA was the sole breadwinner of her family since her
father abandoned them, and her mother was sick. Respondent exploited
AAA’s plight to turn her into a sex slave who was at his beck and call at all
times for all kinds of sexual services ranging from hand-jobs in his vehicle to
sexual intercourse in his office. She could not even refuse him without risking
physical, verbal and emotional abuse.
WON Atty. De Los Reyes committed acts amounting to sexual harassment and
gross immoral conduct in violation of the CPR which would warrant his
disbarment? YES
The pertinent provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility read:
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes.
SY 2019-2020
Rule 1.01. — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar.
xxx xxx xxx
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.
Lawyers are duty-bound to observe the highest degree of morality and
integrity not only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their career
in order to safeguard the reputation of the legal profession. Any errant
behavior, be it in their public or private life, may subject them to suspension
or disbarment. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court expressly states that
members of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended for any deceit, grossly
immoral conduct, or violation of their oath.
Atty. De Los Reyes is guilty of "sextortion" which is the abuse of his position or
authority to obtain sexual favors from his subordinate, the complainant, his
unwilling victim who was not in a position to resist respondent's demands for
fear of losing her means of livelihood. The sexual exploitation of his
subordinate done over a period of time amounts to gross misbehavior on the
part of Atty. De Los Reyes that affects his standing and character as a member
of the Bar and as an officer of the Court. All these deplorable acts of
respondent Atty. De Los Reyes puts the legal profession in disrepute and
places the integrity of the administration of justice in peril, thus warranting
disciplinary action from the Court.
It bears emphasizing that an administrative case for disbarment is sui generis
and not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case but is
intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable
members for the protection of the public and of the courts. It is an
investigation on the conduct of the respondent as an officer of the Court and
his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.
Disbarment should not be imposed where a lesser penalty may accomplish
the desired goal of disciplining an erring lawyer. In the present case, however,
respondent Atty. De Los Reyes's actions show that he lacks the degree of
morality required of him as a member of the legal profession, thus warranting
the penalty of disbarment.
Ceniza v. Ceniza, Jr.
The complainant (W) stated that respondent (H) told her that he would be
attending a seminar in Manila, but because she had some business to attend
to in General Santos City, he seemingly agreed to her request to forego with
his trip to Manila. Upon her return from Gen San, however, he had already
moved out of their home, taking along with him his car and personal
belongings. The complainant went to the Mandaue City Hall where the
respondent worked as a legal officer in order to inquire about his situation.
She learned from members of his staff that they had suspected him of
carrying on an extra-marital affair with Anna. On the next day, the
10 | Page| K.D.Alianza
complainant, accompanied by her daughter and a nephew, went to the
address provided by the staff to verify the information. They were able to
meet Anna's sister who informed them that she had moved out of their
address; that Anna and her second husband, the respondent, had been living
together in Aldea Subdivision; and that in the evening of said date the
complainant and her daughter proceeded to the new address where they
found and confronted the respondent, who simply denied having committed
any wrongdoing.
The respondent commenced a civil action seeking the declaration of nullity of
his marriage with the complainant, alleging her psychological incapacity
under Art. 36 of the Family Code. The respondent visited the complainant at
work and requested her to agree to the nullification of their marriage. She
refused and instead pleaded with him to avoid displaying his paramour in
public. Her pleas notwithstanding, he continued with the illicit relationship.
Vis-à-vis complainant's overwhelming allegations, respondent offered only
self-serving denials. Aside from his general claim that complainant only
wanted to destroy his reputation and that the instant complaint is purely a
vendetta on her part, respondent did not attempt to present countervailing
evidence to substantiate his bare allegations. Moreover, no less than
respondent's own daughter, Marie Agnes, spoke her piece about the nature
of her father's association with Binoya. His daughter is a budding teen-ager
and has already attained a certain level of maturity to understand the
dynamics of the relationship of her parents.
Should the respondent be disciplined for the actions attributed to him by the
complainant?
In the face of the evidence presented by private respondent, the bare denial
and self-serving statements of petitioner crumble. The positive and
categorical assertions of private respondent and the uncontradicted
statements of the witnesses that they saw petitioner staying overnight at
Anna Fe's house on numerous occasions, have sufficiently established the
administrative liability of petitioner. They reasonably and logically lead to the
conclusion that petitioner was intimately and scandalously involved with
Anna Fe.
Immorality is not confined to sexual matters, but includes conduct
inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity,
and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral
indifference to opinions of respectable members of the community, and as an
inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.
The members of the legal profession must conform to the highest standards
of morality because the Code of Professional Responsibility mandated them
so, to wit:
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
There is no question that a married person's abandonment of his or her
spouse in order to live and cohabit with another constitutes immorality. The
offense may even be criminal — either as concubinage or as adultery. That
the illicit partner is himself or herself married compounds the immorality.
Herein, the complainant presented clearly preponderant evidence showing
that the respondent, while being lawfully married to her, had maintained an
illicit relationship with a married woman. The lack of direct evidence should
not obstruct the adjudication of a dispute, for circumstantial evidence may be
available for the purpose.
Time and again, the Court has pointed out that when the integrity or morality
of a member of the Bar is challenged, it is not enough that he or she denies
the charge, for he or she must meet the issue and overcome the evidence
presented on the charge. He or she must present proof that he or she still
maintains the degree of integrity and morality expected of him or her at all
times. The respondent failed in this regard.
His leaving his wife and family to cohabit with his married mistress definitely
transgressed the clearly-defined bounds of decency and morality. His
transgression inflicted on his wife and children a lot of suffering, including
depression, as borne out by one child's attempt at suicide out of despair for
what he had caused to their family. These circumstances were more than
sufficient to establish the charge of gross immorality. A member of the Bar
and officer of the Court is required not only to refrain from adulterous
relationships or keeping mistresses but also to conduct himself as to avoid
scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral
standards. If the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and
attain its basic ideals, whoever is enrolled in its ranks should not only master
its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing
fidelity to them. The requirement of good moral character is of much greater
import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of
legal learning. Every lawyer is expected to be honorable and reliable at all
times, for a person who cannot abide by the laws in his private life cannot be
expected to do so in his professional dealings.
In view of the foregoing, the respondent's immoral conduct violated Rule 1.01
and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
SC:
Disbarment
Venzon v. Peleo III
Venzon met Atty. Peleo who handled her petition for declaration of nullity of
her marriage with her husband. And when the judicial decree of annulment of
her marriage came out, they were already I a serious relationship and Vencon
gave birth to Atty. Peleo’s son. In the beginning and up until 2003, Atty. Peleo
responsibly acted as a family man. Petitioner alleged that during the
succeeding years, Atty. Peleo stopped giving them financial support and did
not fulfill his undertaking during their meeting at the IBP office and continued
to ignore her pleas for support of their child. She argued that Atty. Peleo has
SY 2019-2020
propensity for dishonesty, unethical conduct, and immorality:
o He indicated on their son’s Certificate of Live Birth that they got married
when in truth, they never got married.
o He was legally married to Sierra when he got involved with her; and made
her believed that he filed a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of his
marriage, when in fact it was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
o He had been having illicit affairs with many other women.
o He fraudulently secured a Senior Citizen card although he was only 45
years old to avail for discounts.
Atty. Peleo denied that he was not giving child support. He claimed that from
2009 until 2011, she had been receiving the monthly apartment rent of P12k.
o He filed out his son’s birth certificate indicating that he and complainant
got married because he did not want his son to be humiliated or called
“putok sa buho.”
o He did not intend to deceive complainant when he filed the petition for
declaration of nullity of his marriage with his first wife. The reason why he
failed to prosecute the case was a purely personal matter.
o He secured a Senior Citizen card solely to avail of the discount privileges
granted to cardholders.
WON Atty. Peleo should be disbarred? YES
Respondent's acts here do not just concern him as a private individual. They
have crossed the line between what essentially belongs to an individual's
right to privacy on one hand, and a pattern of conduct symptomatic of a clear
disregard for the rights of others by misapplying his knowledge of the law and
his profession as a lawyer, on the other. This is the nexus that makes us act.
We are taking objective action because respondent's pattern of conduct has
already impacted on his professional fitness and status as a member of the
Bar.
Consider:
First. Respondent maintained sexual relation with complainant and several
other faithless contemporaneous relations while his marriage with his lawful
spouse was still subsisting. His pattern of faithlessness, especially his
indiscriminate liaisons, with emphasis on the fact that complainant was his
vulnerable client when he first pursued her — is a clear and present danger to
the profession where utmost fiduciary obligations must be observed.
Second. Respondent misused the legal process by filing a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage without any serious intention to prosecute
it. He clearly did it only as a ploy to convince complainant that he was truly
decided to end his marriage with his lawful wife. He just left it there to clog
the already clogged docket of the court and waited till it was dismissed.
Lawyers are ordained to avoid casual resort to judicial processes for their
personal gain. As officers of the court, they ought to foster respect for court
procedures and processes and be the frontline of defense against those who
wittingly and willingly misuse and/or abuse them. Respondent is guilty of
violating Canon 10, Rule 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, viz.:
CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
11 | Page| K.D.Alianza
COURT
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 10.03 — A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
Third. Respondent falsified the place and date of marriage entries in the birth
certificate of his son. Falsification is a crime. Falsification of a public document
aggravates this crime. This act shows that he is not only prone to committing
a crime, something that should already impact on his fitness to remain as a
lawyer, but is also a serial fraudster. Time and again, lawyers have been
reminded of the oath they took, upon admission to the legal profession, to do
no falsehood. This solemn promise does not and will never waver.
Fourth. Respondent has repeatedly failed to give child support to his son, a
minor. This is contrary to law. Under the Family Code, he as a parent is
obliged to support and provide everything indispensable for his son's
sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education, and
transportation. Too, he has the duty to instruct his children according to right
precepts and good example and to give them love, companionship, and
understanding, as well as moral and spiritual guidance. Not only has he
evaded his duty to support his son and deprived him of the love and affection
he deserves from him as his father, he has also displayed an abusive and rude
behavior toward his son's mother.
Fifth. Respondent defied the undertaking which he voluntarily made before
an officer of the IBP. His lack of respect for the authority of the IBP constitutes
disrespect for this Court as well. For the IBP is integrated by the Supreme
Court to assist in the administration of justice, elevate the standards of the
legal profession, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibilities
more effectively. Canon 7 of the CPR mandates:
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.
Sixth. Respondent has been deceiving the government and private businesses
by continuously availing of the Senior Citizens' discount when he is not legally
entitled thereto. This is plain dishonesty and fraud, again, a transgression of
his series of transgressions of his lawyer's oath to do no falsehood.
He is ordered disbarred.
Chan v. Carrera
Chan was a trainee at Max’s Restaurant, whom Carrera requested to be his
server as he was dining there. Carrera introduced himself as a widower to
Chan. After that, Carrera frequented the restaurant and not long after that,
the 2 fell in love with each other and became a couple. However, when Chan
and Carrera moved to another house, Chan discovered that Carrera was not a
widower and his wife was still alive who was in an institution because she had
schizophrenia. Chan further discovered that Carrera also had a child with
another woman. Because of this, Chan wanted to leave Carrera.
Unfortunately, she found out that she was pregnant with his child.
Nevertheless, while Chan decided to stay with Carrera, their relationship was
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
no longer harmonious and Carrera treated her badly. Things got worse when
Carrera started womanizing, as Chan contended.
Contrary to Chan’s claims, Carrera asserted that all the accusations against
him were untrue and in fact it was Chan who deceived him by claiming that
she was single when in reality she was also legally married to another man.
Carrera claimed that he made Chan aware of his marriage the moment they
first met.
Chan filed a complaint against Carrera but then withdrew and requested that
the court approve of her withdrawal insisting that she was merely induced
into filing the same by some individuals who had a personal grudge against
Carrera. At the time of her filing, she was angry and furious at Carrera who
was leaving her for his wife who was seriously ill. She realized soon after,
however, that she was only being irrational. In fact, Chan recounts that she
originally wrote her complaint in Tagalog but was translated in English by a
lady staff in the IBP. While the translation was blessed with Chan's consent,
she revealed that she no longer read the same. It turned out that the
translation was an exaggeration of the original complaint written in Tagalog.
WON the actuations of Carrera warrant the penalty of disbarment from the
practice of law and not merely suspension therefrom? YES
Section 5, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides that "no investigation
shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement,
compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the
complainant to prosecute the same." Indeed, Chan may very well be
disinterested in pursuing the instant complaint, but this shall not necessarily
set Carrera free from any liability he may have already incurred.
But at any rate, even if We sustain Chan's contention that the English
translation exaggerated the allegations she raised in her Tagalog complaint,
both parties never denied, and even expressly admitted, that they freely
engaged in an extra-marital affair. They cohabited under one roof for a period
of 3 years, despite the fact that they were still legally married to their
respective spouses. They also produced a child who they named after Carrera.
This fact, standing alone, suffices to hold Carrera administratively liable for
grossly immoral conduct.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. aDSIHc
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Both Chan and Carrera acknowledged their undeniable love affair, with the
latter designating the same as a "chemistry of two consensual adults." At the
same time, both of them did not deny the reality that they were still legally
married to another. In a heartbeat, they left their respective homes and
moved into a house that Carrera had bought and where they willfully resided
for a good 3 years. It is in said house that they played husband and wife to
each other and father and mother to their child. All of these facts, both
SY 2019-2020
parties do not contest. At most, their disagreement lies merely in the alleged
time when each found out about the fact that the other was still legally
married to his or her spouse. But the precise date and time one discovered
the other party's existing marriage cannot affect the outcome of the case for
both parties nonetheless openly and deliberately cohabited despite
knowledge of their status, separating only when their relationship had turned
sour.
Carrera’s endless accomplishments listed in his curriculum vitae cannot
render him innocent of the charges against him. On the contrary, the Court
wonders how despite all these achievements in his professional career,
Carrera allowed himself to falter in such a highly scandalous manner.
SC:
disbarment
Yu Kimteng v. Young
Atty. Young and Atty. Magat explained that they did not intend to deceive the
public and that in any case, the retention of Revilla's name does not give
added value to the law firm nor does it enhance the standing of the member
lawyers thereof. They further argue that the non-deletion of Revilla's name in
the Young Law Firm's name is no more misleading than including the names
of dead or retired partners in a law firm's name. It is more for sentimental
reasons. It is a fraternal expression to a former brother in the profession that
the Private Respondents fully understand, his referring to Revilla principled
albeit quixotic advocacy.
Private respondents point out that the Balgos Law Firm is derailing the
liquidation of Ruby Industrial Corporation by filing this Petition for contempt
because the Balgos Law Firm resents that its nominee was not elected as
liquidator. Private respondents add that petitioners have continuously
blocked Ruby Industrial Corporation's unsecured creditors from obtaining
relief, as shown by the number of times that Ruby Industrial Corporation's
cases have reached this court.
Private respondents also raise the issue of forum shopping in their Comment
because petitioners allegedly filed a disbarment Complaint against them
before the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
One of the grounds for disbarment cited by petitioners was the use of
Revilla's name in their firm name.
Atty. Gambol filed a separate Comment, arguing that from the time Revilla
was disbarred, he no longer practiced law. He stated that he passed the 1990
Bar Examination but took his oath in July 2006. He is a junior member of the
Young Revilla Magat & Gambol law firm and has no power and/or authority
[to decide who should be removed from the firm's name. He argues that in all
the cases he handled after Revilla's disbarment, he omitted Revilla's name
from the firm name in the pleadings that he signed. Such deletion was
through his own initiative.
Petitioners filed their Reply, with petitioners addressing respondents'
12 | Page| K.D.Alianza
allegations that they remained silent on the disbarment case they had filed by
citing Rule 139-B, Section 18 of the Rules of Court, which provides that
“Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential. However,
the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in
other cases.” Petitioners argue that liability for contempt is separate from
disciplinary action; hence, no forum shopping was committed. Petitioners did
not address private respondents' allegations regarding the delay in the
liquidation of Ruby Industrial Corporation.
WON Atty. Young, Atty. Gambol, and Atty. Magat are in contempt of court
when they continued to use respondent Revilla, Jr.'s name in their firm name
even after his disbarment? YES
WON they are in contempt of court for deliberately allowing a disbarred
lawyer to engage in the practice of law? YES
WON Revilla, Jr. is in contempt of court for continuing to practice law even
after disbarment? NO (included as respondent but was not served copies of
the Petition and subsequent pleadings)
WON Judge Calo is in contempt of court when she held that Atty. Young can
appear in court as long as it is under the Young Law Firm, which is a non-
existent firm? NO
WON the filing of this Petition despite the pendency of a disbarment
complaint before the IBP constitutes forum shopping? NO
A disbarred lawyer's name cannot be part of a firm's name. A lawyer who
appears under a firm name that contains a disbarred lawyer's name commits
indirect contempt of court.
Rule 71, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a person
guilty of (1) any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede,
obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice; (2) assuming to be an
attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority; among
others, may be punished for indirect contempt. In this case, respondents
committed such acts and even disregarded the CPR when they retained the
name of Revilla in their firm name.
Canon 3, Rule 3.02 states:
Rule 3.02. In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name
shall be used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is
permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that
said partner is deceased.
The use of the name of a person who is not authorized to practice law
constitutes contempt of court. Maintaining a disbarred lawyer's name in the
firm name is different from using a deceased partner's name in the firm
name. The retention of a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name may
mislead the public into believing that the lawyer is still authorized to practice
law. The purpose of the firms in continuing the use of the names of their
deceased founders is to retain the clients who had customarily sought the
legal services of the deceased and to benefit from the goodwill attached to
the names of those respected and esteemed law practitioners. That is a
legitimate motivation.
A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to misrepresent himself as a
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
lawyer and to practice law is guilty of violating Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which read as follows:
Canon 9 — A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized
practice of law.
Rule 9.01 — A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member
of the Bar in good standing.
The term "practice of law" implies customarily or habitually holding oneself
out to the public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in
consideration of his services. Holding one's self out as a lawyer may be shown
by acts indicative of that purpose like identifying oneself as attorney,
appearing in court in representation of a client, or associating oneself as a
partner of a law office for the general practice of law. Such acts constitute
unauthorized practice of law.
This court recognizes Atty. Gambol's effort to avoid misleading the public by
removing Revilla's name in the pleadings he filed. Thus, the Complaint against
him is dismissed.
With regard to respondent Judge Calo, petitioners pray that she be cited in
contempt for allowing respondent Atty. Young's appearance as long as it was
under the Young Law Firm. A photocopy of the Order was attached to the
Petition. A portion of Judge Calo's Order states:
Although this court grants the appearance of Atty. Walter Young for the
Liquidator, his appearance however shall be allowed only if in the name of the
Young Law Firm, managed by the said counsel, and not under the name of the
Law Firm of Young Revilla Gambol and Magat. This is to avoid any
misconception that a disbarred lawyer, Revilla, continues to practice law.
Judge Calo committed an error in judgment when she allowed Atty. Young's
appearance under the Young Law Firm. However, this Petition to cite HIM in
contempt is not the proper remedy. The established doctrine and policy is
that disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against Judges are not
complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, these judicial remedies,
whether ordinary or extraordinary. Whether petitioners availed themselves of
judicial remedies was not stated in their Petition. Nevertheless, this court
cannot ignore the possible effect of Judge Calo's Order. Thus, the Complaint
against her shall be re-docketed as an administrative matter. Article VIII of the
1987 Constitution provides that the Supreme Court en banc shall have the
power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote
of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on
the issues in the case and voted thereon. Also, Rule 4, Section 3(a) of the
Internal Rules of the Supreme Court provides that the administrative
functions of this court include "disciplinary and administrative matters
involving justices, judges, and court personnel.”
The filing of a Complaint for disbarment before the IBP and the filing of this
Petition for contempt under Rule 71 do not constitute forum shopping.
Disbarment proceedings are sui generis, and are not akin to civil or criminal
cases. It is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its
SY 2019-2020 LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts. Also, the business by an attorney, personally or through an agent, in order to gain have violated Rule 1.03, Rule 2.03, Canon 3, Canon 16, Rule 16.01, and Rule
IBP’s findings are recommendatory, and the power to sanction erring employment, is proscribed. 16.03 of the CPR, the records do not support respondent Atty. Linsangan-
members of the bar lies with this court. The disciplinary authority of the Court Binoya's participation in their unethical activities.
over members of the Bar is broader than the power to punish for contempt. Here, there is sufficient evidence to show that respondents violated these
The power to punish for contempt of court does not exhaust the scope of rules. No less than their former paralegal Jesherel admitted that Atty.  For his violation of the proscription on ambulance chasing – we have
disciplinary authority of the Court over lawyers. Linsangan came with her and another paralegal named Moises, to Manila previously imposed the penalty of suspension of one year.
Doctors Hospital several times to convince complainant to hire their services.  Violation of Canon 16 of the CPR – usually ranges from suspension for 6
This is a far cry from respondents' claim that they were merely providing free months, to suspension for 1 year, or 2 years, and even disbarment
CANONS 2-3 legal advice to the public. In employing paralegals to encourage complainant depending on the amount involved and the severity of the lawyer's
to file a lawsuit against his employers, respondents indirectly solicited legal misconduct.
Palencia v. Linsangan business and encouraged the filing of suit. These constitute malpractice which  Gross misconduct consisting in the failure or refusal, despite demand, of a
calls for the exercise of the court's disciplinary powers and warrants serious lawyer to account for and to return money or property belonging to a
Palencia was an overseas worker that was injured during work in M/T Panos
sanctions. client – penalty imposed has been suspension from the practice of law for
G, where he was treated in Singapore, then it was continued in the Philippines
2 years.
at Manila Doctors Hospital. During his treatment at the hospital he was
The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary. Canon 16
visited by 2 paralegals of Atty. Linsangan where they encourage the
and its rules remind a lawyer to: (1) hold in trust all moneys and properties of We recognize, however, respondents' efforts in tendering payment, albeit of
complainant to file a suit for indemnity against the latter’s ER, wherein
his client that may come into his possession; (2) deliver the funds and an improper amount, to complainant, as well as the fact that this is their first
Palencia agreed. After which, Atty. Linsangan and Palencia executed an
property of his client when due or upon demand subject to his retaining lien; offense. The imposition of a 1-year suspension is sufficient under the
attorney-client contract and a SPA, for the engagement of legal services of the
and (3) account for all money or property collected or received for or from his circumstances.
respondent and Gurbani & Co. and agreed to pay them 35% of any recovery
client.
and settlement obtained for both. After the contract, the respondent has
More importantly, respondents' acts do not merely constitute a violation of
recovered from the complainant’s employer US $60k as indemnity and US 20k
Whenever a lawyer collects money as a result of a favorable judgment, he Canon 16 and its rules, but already amounts to gross misconduct. First,
under their CBA. Not satisfied with the recovery, the respondent and Gurbani
must promptly report and account the money collected to his client. As he respondents breached the trust reposed in them when they betrayed the
& Co. also filed a tort case against M/T Panos G before the High Court of
holds such funds as agent or trustee, his failure to pay or deliver the same to express language of their Attorney-Client Contract. Second, their actions
Singapore, together with the help of Papadopoulos, Lycourgos & Co. and
the client after demand constitutes conversion. The lawyer is under absolute following complainant's objection manifests their disregard of their fiduciary
retired Justice Gancayo, the complainant has received US $90k. Gurbani & Co.
duty to give his client a full, detailed, and accurate account of all money and duties. For two years, respondents insisted on, and forcibly deducted the
remitted the said amount to the respondent amounting to US $54, 608.40.
property which has been received and handled by him, and must justify all amount when there are alternative avenues to determine the correct amount
Feeling cheated by the respondent, the complainant contested the tendered
transactions and dealings concerning them. And while he is in possession of of attorney's fees. Third, respondents also mishandled their client's money
amount of US $20, 756.05 that they received from the respondent. Wherein
the client's funds, he should not commingle it with his private property or use when they did not exercise proper safekeeping over it; they failed to deposit
the respondent filed 2 cases against the respondent, one is an action for
it for his personal purposes without his client's consent. it in a separate trust account in a bank or trust company of good repute for
preliminary mandatory injunction and one is an action for accounting,
safekeeping but co-mingled it with their own funds.
remittance of amounts of settlement of account. Both cases where dismissed
In this case, while respondents gave prompt notice to complainant of their
and ruled in favor against the complainant. The complainant filed a subject
receipt of money collected in the latter's favor, they were amiss in their duties The penalty of 2 years of suspension corresponds to the compounded
letter complaint with the IBP-CBD, requesting that an investigation be
to give accurate accounting of the amounts due to complainant, and to return infractions of the violations of Rule 1.03, Rule 2.03, Canon 3, Canon 16, Rule
conducted against the respondent for disciplinary action be imposed for
the money due to client upon demand. 16.01, and Rule 16.03 of the CPR: (1) the penalty of suspension of 1 year is
unethical acts committed namely: (1) refusal to remit the amount of US
imposed for the violation of the proscription on ambulance chasing; and (2)
90,000, and only offering the amount of US 20, 756.05; (2) depositing
Since a claim for attorney's fees may be asserted either in the very action in the penalty of 1 year suspension for gross misconduct consisting in the failure
complainant’s money in the account; and (3) engaging in an ambulance
which the services of a lawyer had been rendered, or in a separate action, or refusal, despite demand, of a lawyer to account for and to return money or
chasing by deploying their agent to hire respondents’ services while the
respondents, instead of forcibly deducting their share, should have moved for property belonging to a client.
former is still bedridden in the hospital.
the judicial determination and collection of their attorney's fees. The fact
WON the respondent has violated the canons of Code of Professional
alone that a lawyer has a lien for his attorney's fees on money in his hands
Responsibility? YES
collected for his client does not entitle him to unilaterally appropriate his CANONS 4-5
The practice of law is a profession and not a business. Lawyers are reminded
client's money for himself. Worse, respondents allegedly kept the money
to avoid at all times any act that would tend to lessen the confidence of the
inside the firm's vault for 2 years until they were made aware of the People v. Arrojado
public in the legal profession as a noble calling, including, among others, the
disciplinary complaint against them before the IBP-CBD. Jesus Arrojado, was charged with Murder. He filed a Motion to dismiss the
manner by which he makes known his legal services.
Information against him on the ground that the investigating prosecutor who
It is improper for the lawyer to put his client's funds in his personal safe filed the Information did not indicate the number and date of issue of her
The CPR explicitly states that "a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any
deposit vault. Funds belonging to the client should be deposited in a separate Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Certificate of Compliance, as
act designed primarily to solicit legal business." Corollary to this duty is for
trust account in a bank or trust company of good repute for safekeeping. required by Bar Matter No. 1922. The Office of the City Prosecutor opposed
lawyers not to encourage any suit or proceeding for any corrupt motive or
interest. Thus, "ambulance chasing," or the solicitation of almost any kind of the MTD, contending that the lack of proof of MCLE compliance by the
While we find respondents Attys. Pedro Linsangan and Gerard Linsangan to prosecutor who prepared and signed the Information should not prejudice
O R A E T L A B O R A
13 | Page| K.D.Alianza
SY 2019-2020
the interest of the State in filing charges against persons who have violated
the law. She contends that: (1) the term "pleadings" as used in B.M. No. 1922
does not include criminal Informations filed in court; (2) the failure of the
investigating prosecutor to indicate in the Information the number and date
of issue of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance is a mere formal defect and is
not a valid ground to dismiss the subject Information which is otherwise
complete in form and substance. However, the MTD was granted. Petitioner
then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 for grave abuse of discretion.
WON the Motion to dismiss the Information was proper for failure of the
Investigating Prosecutor to indicate her MCLE Certificate of Compliance? YES
B.M. No. 1922 provides that practicing members of the bar are REQUIRED to
INDICATE in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the
number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or
Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately preceding
compliance period. Failure to disclose the required information would cause
the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the
records. Section 1, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, as amended, defines
pleadings as the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of
the parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment. Under Section 4,
Rule 110 of the same Rules, an information is defined as an accusation in
writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and
filed with the court. In accordance with the above definitions, it is clear that
an information is a pleading since the allegations therein, which charge a
person with an offense, is basically the same as a complaint in a civil action
which alleges a plaintiff's cause or cause of action.
Petitioner cannot invoke the principle on liberal construction of procedural
rules by arguing that such liberal construction "may be invoked in situations
where there may be some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading,
provided that the same does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and
connotes at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with the Rules." The
prosecution has never shown any reasonable attempt at compliance with the
rule enunciated under B.M. No. 1922. Even when the motion for
reconsideration of the RTC Order dismissing the subject Information was filed,
the required number and date of issue of the investigating prosecutor's MCLE
Certificate of Compliance was still not included nor indicated. Thus, in the
instant case, absent valid and compelling reasons, the requested leniency and
liberality in the observance of procedural rules appear to be an afterthought,
hence, cannot be granted. To avoid undue delay in the disposition of the
subject criminal case and to uphold the parties' respective rights to a speedy
disposition of their case, the prosecution could have simply re-filed the
Information containing the required number and date of issue of the
investigating prosecutor's MCLE Certificate of Compliance, instead of
resorting to the filing of various petitions in court to stubbornly insist on its
position and question the trial court's dismissal of the subject Information,
thereby wasting its time and effort and the State's resources.
(TN: The SC issued an En Banc Resolution, dated January 14, 2014 which
amended B.M. No. 1922 by repealing the phrase "Failure to disclose the
required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the
expunction of the pleadings from the records" and replacing it with "Failure to
14 | Page| K.D.Alianza
disclose the required information would subject the counsel to appropriate
penalty and disciplinary action.")
Cerilla v. Lezama
Cerilla is a co-owner of a parcel of land situated somewhere in Negros
Oriental registered in the name of Gringio. When it was sold by the latter’s
sole heir, Cerilla hired the services of Atty. Lezama to file an unlawful detainer
case and executed an SPA in the latter’s favor to act on her behalf in the filing
of the case as well as to appear during the preliminary conference.
On the basis of the SPA, Atty. Lezama entered into a compromise agreement
with the defendant in the unlawful detainer case to sell the subject property
of the complainant for P350,000.00 without her consent or a special authority
from her.
Cerilla contended that respondent misrepresented in paragraph 2 of the
Compromise Agreement that she was willing to sell the subject property for
P350,000.00. She averred that she did not authorize the respondent to sell
the property and she is not willing to sell the property in the amount of
P350,000.00, considering that there are other co-owners of the property.
The Investigating Commissioner stated that respondent must have
overlooked the fact that the subject property was co-owned by complainant's
siblings. Respondent knew about the co-ownership because of the existence
of the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate. He also stated that the TSN shows
that respondent admitted that complainant did not grant him the authority to
sell the property in the amount of P350,000.00. Thus, knowing that he did not
possess such authority, respondent cannot validly claim that his client,
complainant herein, was willing to sell the property in the amount of
350,000.00.
Investigating Commissioner
suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.
IBP Board of Governors:
adopted and approved the Report and recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner – suspended respondent from the practice of law for two (2)
years.
SC agreed with the findings of the IC and IBP-Board of Governors. Nowhere is
it expressly stated in the SPA that respondent is authorized to compromise on
the sale of the property or to sell the property of complainant.
Atty. Lezama stated that his action was based on an honest belief that he was
serving both the interest of his client and the policy of the law to settle cases
amicably. However, his justification does not persuade, because his alleged
honest belief prejudiced his client, since the property she was not willing to
sell was sold at a price decided upon by respondent on his own, which caused
his client and her co-owners to file further cases to recover their property
that was sold due to respondent's mistake. He overlooked the fact that he
was not authorized by his client to sell the property.
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
CANON 5 - A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in
continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high
standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students
and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence.
Atty. Lezama also violated Canons 15 and 17 of the Code of Responsibility:
CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his
dealings and transactions with his client.
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.
SC:
Atty. Samuel SM. Lezama is found guilty of violating Canons 5, 15 and 17 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence, he is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of TWO (2) YEARS and STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Intestate Estate of Jose Uy v. Maghari III
Hofileña filed a Petition before the RTC praying that she be designated
administratrix of the estate of her common-law partner, the deceased Jose
Uy. Hofileña was initially designated administratrix. However, a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Order designating Hofileña as administratix was filed
by Wilson Uy, one of Jose Uy’s children, on behalf of Jose Uy’s spouse and
other children. In its Order the RTC designated Wilson Uy as administrator of
Jose Uy’s estate. Subsequently, Hofileña’s claims in the settlement of Jose
Uy’s estate were granted. Hence, she filed a Motion for Execution.
In other proceedings arising from the conflicting claims to Jose Uy’s estate,
Hofileña was represented by her counsel, Atty. Mariano L. Natu-El (Atty. Natu-
el). In a pleading filed in the course of these proceedings Atty. Natu-El
indicated the following details:
MARIANO L. NATU-EL
Counsel for Private-Respondent
Rm. 14, J.S. Building
Lacson-Galo Sts., Bacolod City
IBP O.R. No. 731938 11/24/08
PTR NO. 0223568 1/5/09
ROLL NO. 20865
MCLE NO. 001597010 (Emphasis supplied)
Thereafter, Magdalena Uy, through Maghari, her counsel, filed a Motion to
Quash Subpoena ad Testificandum with Alternative Motion to Cite the
Appearance of Johnny K.H. Uy. In signing this Motion, Maghari indicated the
following details:
PACIFICO M. MAGHARI, III
Counsel for Magdalena Uy
590 Ylac St., Villamonte
SY 2019-2020
Bacolod City copying the professional details of Atty. Natu-El.
IBP O.R. No. 731938 11/24/08 B.C.
PTR NO. 0223568 1/5/09 B.C. Wilson Uy filed before this court the present Complaint for disbarment.
ROLL NO. 20865 Pointing to Maghari’s act of repeatedly a changing and using another lawyer’s
MCLE Compl. 0015970 1/14/0915 (Emphasis supplied) professional details, Wilson Uy asserts that Maghari violated the Lawyer’s
Oath and acted in a deceitful manner.
Wilson Uy filed his Opposition to Magdalena Uy’s Motion to Quash.
For resolution are the issues of whether respondent Atty. Pacifico M.
Magdalena Uy, through Maghari, filed her Reply to Wilson Uy’s Opposition. In Maghari, III engaged in unethical conduct and of what proper penalty may be
signing this Reply, Maghari indicated the following details: meted on him.
PACIFICO M. MAGHARI, III WON the Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility when
Counsel for Magdalena Uy he failed to put his correct Attorney Details in his pleadings? YES
590 Ylac St., Villamonte A counsel’s signature is such an integral part of a pleading that failure to
Bacolod City comply with this requirement reduces a pleading to a mere scrap of paper
IBP O.R. No. 766304 11/27/09 B.C. totally bereft of legal effect. Thus, faithful compliance with this requirement is
PTR NO. 3793872 1/4/10 B.C. not only a matter of satisfying a duty to a court but is as much a matter of
ROLL NO. 20865 fidelity to one’s client.
MCLE Compl. 0015970 1/14/0918 (Emphasis supplied)
A deficiency in this respect can be fatal to a client’s cause. As with the
The RTC subsequently denied Magdalena Uy’s Motion to Quash. Thereafter, signature itself, these requirements are not vain formalities: The inclusion of a
Maghari filed for Magdalena Uy a Motion for Reconsideration. In signing this counsel’s Roll of Attorneys number, professional tax receipt number, and
Motion, Maghari indicated the following details: Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) receipt (or lifetime membership)
number is intended to preserve and protect the integrity of legal practice.
PACIFICO M. MAGHARI, III They seek to ensure that only those who have satisfied the requisites for legal
Counsel for Magdalena Uy practice are able to engage in it. With the Roll of Attorneys number, parties
590 Ylac St., Villamonte can readily verify if a person purporting to be a lawyer has, in fact, been
Bacolod City admitted to the Philippine bar. With the professional tax receipt number, they
IBP O.R. No. 815530 1/4/11 B.C. can verify if the same person is qualified to engage in a profession in the place
PTR NO. 4190929 1/4/11 B.C. where he or she principally discharges his or her functions. With the IBP
ROLL NO. 20865 receipt number, they can ascertain if the same person remains in good
MCLE Compl. IH-0000762 1/14/0921(Emphasis supplied) standing as a lawyer. These pieces of information protect the public from
bogus lawyers. Paying professional taxes (and the receipt that proves this
As the Motion for Reconsideration was denied, Maghari filed for Magdalena payment) is likewise compliance with a revenue mechanism that has been
Uy a Motion to Recall Subpoena ad Testificandum. In signing this Motion, statutorily devolved to LGUs.
Maghari indicated the following details:
The inclusion of information regarding compliance with (or exemption from)
PACIFICO M. MAGHARI, III Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seeks to ensure that legal
Counsel for Magdalena Uy practice is reserved only for those who have complied with the recognized
590 Ylac St., Villamonte mechanism for “keep[ing] abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintaining]
Bacolod City the ethics of the profession[,] and enhancing] the standards of the practice of
IBP O.R. No. 848630 12/27/11 B.C. law.”
PTR NO. 4631737 1/2/12 B.C.
ROLL NO. 44869 Lastly, the inclusion of a counsel’s address and contact details is designed to
MCLE Compl. III-0000762 1/14/0924 (Emphasis supplied) facilitate the dispensation of justice. These pieces of information aid in the
service of court processes, enhance compliance with the requisites of due
At this point, Wilson Uy’s counsel noticed that based on the details indicated process, and facilitate better representation of a client’s cause.
in the March 8, 2012 Motion, Maghari appeared to have only recently passed
the bar examinations. This prompted Wilson Uy to check the records. Upon SC:
doing so, he learned that since 2010, Maghari had been changing the Atty. Maghari, having clearly violated his Lawyer’s Oath and the Canons of the
professional details indicated in the pleadings he has signed and has been CPR through his unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct, is SUSPENDED
O R A E T L A B O R A
15 | Page| K.D.Alianza
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
from the practice of law for two (2) years.
Mapalad, Sr. v. Echanez
Complainant filed a disbarment case against the respondent for presenting
falsified MCLE Number without indicating the date of issue. The respondent
used the said falsified MCLE Number in several legal pleadings against the
complainant. Upon inquiry with the MCLE Office, a certification was issued
stating the respondent has yet complied his MCLE requirements. The
complainant filed his complaint against the respondent at the IBP for act of
deliberately and unlawfully misleading the courts, parties and counsels
concerned into believing that he had complied with the MCLE requirements
when in truth he had not, is a serious malpractice and grave misconduct. The
complainant, thus, prayed for the IBP to recommend respondent’s
disbarment.
The respondent repeatedly failed to obey legal orders of the trial court, the
IBP-CBD, and also the SC despite due notice. In the special civil action, the
trial court directed the respondent to file a comment on a motion which
raised in issue respondent's use of a false MCLE compliance number in his
pleadings but he did not file any. SC also directed respondent to file a
comment on the instant complaint but he failed to do so. We then issued a
show cause order against the respondent to explain why he should not be
disciplined or held in contempt for failing to file the required comment but
again, respondent did not heed this court's order. The IBP-CBD also notified
the respondent to appear before it for mandatory conference/hearing but the
said notice was also ignored.
In a decision dated April 11, 2013 by this Court en banc, respondent was
found guilty of engaging in notarial practice without a notarial commission,
and was thus suspended from the practice of law for 2 years with the warning
that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall merit a more
severe sanction. In another decision dated May 31, 2016, this Court en banc
again found respondent guilty of performing notarial acts without a notarial
commission and was thus suspended from the practice of law for 2 years and
barred permanently from being commissioned as notary public with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with severely.
IBP-CBD recommend the respondent be disbarred and his name stricken from
the Roll of Attorneys.
The IBP-BOG adopted and approved the IBP-CBD’s report.
It was clearly established that respondent violated Bar Matter No. 850. No
less than the MCLE Office had issued a certification stating that respondent
had not complied with the first and second compliance period of the MCLE.
Despite such non-compliance, respondent repeatedly indicated a false MCLE
compliance number in his pleadings before the trial courts. In indicating
patently false information in pleadings filed before the courts of law, not only
once but 4 times, as per records, the respondent acted in manifest bad faith,
dishonesty, and deceit. In so doing, he indeed misled the courts, litigants —
his own clients included — professional colleagues, and all others who may
have relied on such pleadings containing false information. The Lawyer's Oath
SY 2019-2020
in Rule 138, Section 3 of the Rules of Court requires commitment to obeying
laws and legal orders, doing no falsehood, and acting with fidelity to both
court and client, among others. Also, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR) provides:
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 10, Rule 10.01 of the CPR likewise states:
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 mislead by any
artifice.
In using a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings, respondent also
put his own clients at risk. Such deficiency in pleadings can be fatal to the
client's cause as pleadings with such false information produce no legal effect.
In so doing, respondent violated his duty to his clients. Canons 17 and 18 of
the CPR provide:
CANON 17 — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him.
CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Court orders should be respected not only because the authorities who issued
them should be respected, but because of the respect and consideration that
should be extended to the judicial branch of the government, which is
absolutely essential if our government is to be a government of laws and not
of men. By the respondent’s repeated dismissive conduct, he exhibited an
unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court.
Taken altogether, considering respondent's act of using a false MCLE
compliance number in his pleadings, his repeated failure to obey legal orders,
and the fact that he had already been sanctioned twice by this Court on
separate cases – disbarment.
CANON 6
Pasok v. Zapatos
Zapatos was the Presiding Judge of the MTCC where he presided over a
Forcible Entry case entitled Rupinta vs. Sps. Conol. Atty. Pasok was the
counsel of Rupinta. Another civil complaint was filed by Rupinta together with
his mother, against Spouses Conol where complainant represented the
plaintiffs. Later on, respondent was appointed Presiding Judge of RTC.
Complainant was surprised that the defendants are now represented by
respondent, the former judge who once presided over the aforesaid case.
Since the case was later on dismissed, complainant appealed to the RTC.
Respondent raised as his defense that he cannot be charged nor penalized of
any violation because when he rendered the first judgment in the Forcible
Entry case, he believes he was completely in absolute neutrality. Respondent
also justified his appearance as counsel for the defendants on the ground that
16 | Page| K.D.Alianza
he is encountering extreme poverty due to the absence of adequate income
and as a source of livelihood he was constrained to handle the aforesaid case.
Respondent was later on promoted as RTC Judge on until he retired from the
Judiciary. Thereafter, on account of the fact that respondent needs income in
order to survive or he would die of starvation, he engaged in the private
practice of law. Ignoring the warnings of the complainant, the respondent
persisted in his representation of the defendants in the said civil case. Hence,
the complainant commenced this administrative case.
IBP-CBD
the respondent is guilty of violating Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of
law and as a member of the Bar for 1 month.
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
Rule 6.03. A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service.
A lawyer should not accept employment as an advocate in any matter upon
the merits of which he has previously acted in a judicial capacity. A lawyer,
having once held public office or having been in the public employ should not,
after his retirement, accept employment in connection with any matter he
has investigated or passed upon while in such office or employ.
In this case, the respondent, in his capacity as the judge of the MTCC,
presided over the case before eventually inhibiting himself from further
proceedings. His act of presiding constituted intervention within the meaning
of the rule whose text does not mention the degree or length of the
intervention in the particular case or matter. It is also plain and
unquestionable that Canon 36, supra, from which the canon was derived,
prohibited him as a former member of the Bench from handling any case
upon which he had previously acted in a judicial capacity. In this context, he
did not only exercise the power to influence the outcome of the proceedings
but also had a direct hand in bringing about the result of the case by virtue of
his having the power to rule on it.
The restriction extended to engagement or employment. The respondent
could not accept work or employment from anyone that would involve or
relate to any matter in which he had intervened as a judge except on behalf
of the body or authority that he served during his public employment. The
restriction as applied to him lasted beyond his tenure in relation to the
matters in which he had intervened as judge. Although the respondent
removed himself from the cases once his neutrality and impartiality were
challenged, he ultimately did not stay away from the cases following his
retirement from the Bench, and acted thereon as a lawyer for and in behalf of
the defendants.
The respondent has pleaded for the sympathy of the Court towards his plight
of "poverty." However, his actuations cannot be overlooked because they
contravened the express letter and spirit of Rule 6.03 of the Code of
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
Professional Responsibility. In any case, his representing the defendants in
the civil cases was not the only way by which he could improve his dire
financial situation. He could accept clients whom he could ethically represent
in a professional capacity, serve as a notary public under a valid commission,
etc.
SUSPENDS him for a period of 1 MONTH
Trovela v. Robles
The complainant initiated this disbarment complaint against Pasig City
Assistant Prosecutor Robles for issuing a resolution recommending the
dismissal of his complaint for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the
RPC against Katigbak, Salonga and Reyes for insufficiency of evidence; and
against Prosecutor II Obuñgen and City Prosecutor Ang, both of Pasig City, for
approving the recommendation of dismissal. The complainant also seeks the
disbarment of former Prosecutor Arellano and former Secretary of Justice De
Lima for allegedly incurring inordinate delay in issuing their resolutions
resolving his petition for review and MR before the DOJ.
In his complaint-affidavit, the complainant has posited that respondents
committed grave errors of facts and law that require an inquiry into their
mental and moral fitness as members of the Bar; and that Arellano and
Secretary De Lima be declared guilty of dereliction of duty or gross
inexcusable negligence for belatedly resolving his petition for review and
motion for reconsideration. The allegations in Alicias' complaint against the
respondents include their (1) failure to evaluate CSC records; (2) failure to
evaluate documentary evidence presented to the CSC; and (3) non-service of
CSC Orders and Resolutions
Should the respondents be administratively disciplined based on the
allegations of the complainant? NO
The acts complained of undoubtedly arose from the respondents'
performance or discharge of official duties as prosecutors of the DOH. Hence,
the authority to discipline respondents exclusively pertained to their superior,
the SOJ. In the case of Secretary De Lima, the authority to discipline pertained
to the President. In either case, the authority may also pertain to the Office of
the Ombudsman, which similarly exercises disciplinary jurisdiction over them
as public officials pursuant to the Ombudsman Act of 1989. Indeed, the
accountability of respondents as officials performing or discharging their
official duties as lawyers of the Government is always to be differentiated
from their accountability as members of the Philippine Bar. The IBP has no
jurisdiction to investigate them as such lawyers.
The 1987 Constitution clothes the Office of the Ombudsman with the
administrative disciplinary authority to investigate and prosecute any act or
omission of any government official when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. The Office of the Ombudsman is the
government agency responsible for enforcing administrative, civil, and
criminal liability of government officials "in every case where the evidence
warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the
people."
SY 2019-2020
The allegations in Alicias' complaint against the respondents all relate to their
misconduct in the discharge of their official duties as government lawyers
working in the CSC. Hence, the IBP has no jurisdiction over Alicias' complaint.
CANON 7
Campos v. Campos
The case at bar is a complaint for disbarment on grounds of serious
misconduct, immorality and dishonesty filed against Atty. Eliseo, former
presiding judge of the MTC. The complainants are his wife, Aida, and their
children. Eliseo purchased by installment a 936-square meter lot from a
certain Alimpoos. The lot was registered in under the name of Alistair (one of
the children). Eliseo filed a Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
on grounds of psychological incapacity. He executed an Affidavit of Loss
wherein he represented himself as the owner of the subject lot. He declared
that he unknowingly lost the OCT which used to be in his files. Alistair filed
before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor a complaint for perjury against
Eliseo. He stated that the owner’s copy of OCT was in his possession. Eliseo
was aware of such fact, but he still deliberately and maliciously asserted a
falsehood. The wife and the children filed the instant complaint for
disbarment against Eliseo. They alleged that Eliseo committed acts of
dishonesty, immorality and serious misconduct in (a) causing the issuance of
OCT in Alistair’s name; (b) subsequently misrepresenting himself as the real
owner of the lot; (c) falsely declaring under oath in the Affidavit of Loss that
the owner’s copy of OCT is missing despite his knowledge that the said title is
with Alistair; (d) stating in his Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
that he is a homosexual albeit admitting to his children that he has an
intimate relation with another woman; and (e) choking and boxing his
children.
However, this Court, on February 8, 2012, in A.M. No. MTJ-10-1761, had
already imposed upon Eliseo a fine of Php20k for simple misconduct in
causing the issuance of the OCT in Alistair's name when the subject property
actually belongs to the former. The charges of (a) immorality in engaging in
extra-marital affairs; and (b) dishonesty in executing the Affidavit of Loss
were, on the other hand, dismissed by the Court after finding either the
evidence of the complainants as insufficient or the issues raised being already
the subjects of Eliseo's pending Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage.
Not one of the parties had presented even one independent witness to prove
what transpired inside the chamber of Judge Casals on September 14, 2009.
That a scuffle took place is a fact, but the question of who started what
cannot be determined with much certainty. While admitting Eliseo’s
engagement in the scuffle, he vigorously attempts to justify his conduct as
self-defense on his part.
The instant disbarment complaint and A.M. No. MTJ-10-1761 are anchored
upon almost the same set of facts, except that in the former, the issue of
occurrence of the scuffle is raised as well. The SC does not intend to punish
17 | Page| K.D.Alianza
Eliseo twice for the same acts especially since they pertain to his private life
and were not actually committed in connection with the performance of his
functions as a magistrate before.
The SC held that there would be superfluity of instituting a disbarment
complaint against a lawyer when an administrative case had been previously
filed against him or her as a magistrate. Ideally therefore, the instant
disbarment complaint should have been consolidated with A.M. No. MTJ-10-
1761. However, while all the allegations in A.M. No. MTJ-10-1761 are
replicated in the instant disbarment complaint, the last issue of engagement
in the scuffle is an addition to the latter. Hence, this Court shall now resolve
the said issue to write finis to the parties' bickerings.
While this Court finds credence and logic in Eliseo's narration of the incident,
and understands that the successive acts of the parties during the tussle were
committed at a time when passions ran high, he shall not be excused for
comporting himself in such an undignified manner.
Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly
proscribes a lawyer from engaging 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."
Unbecoming conduct "applies to a broader range of transgressions of rules
not only of social behavior but of ethical practice or logical procedure or
prescribed method."
Sans any descriptive sophistry, what Eliseo did was to engage in a brawl with
no less than his own children inside the chamber of a judge. This Court shall
not countenance crude social behavior. Besides, the courtroom is looked
upon by people with high respect and is regarded as a sacred place where
litigants are heard, rights and conflicts settled, and justice solemnly
dispensed. Misbehavior within or around the vicinity diminishes its sanctity
and dignity.
A FINE of P5k is hereby imposed upon him, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Francia v. Abdon
The complainant alleged that Francia had a meeting with Abdon to seek his
assistance with respect to a pending case in the CA involving the labor union
of Nueva Ecija III Electric Cooperative. The respondent told the complainant
that he can facilitate, expedite and ensure the release of a favorable decision,
particularly the award of assets and management of NEECO III to the union.
To bolster his representation, he told him that the same regional office where
he was assigned had earlier rendered a decision in favor of the labor union
and against the National Electrification Administration. With the respondent’s
assurance, the complainant yielded.
The complainant met the respondent and told the former that in order to
facilitate the release of such favorable decision, the union must produce the
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
amount of P1M. The complainant handed him the amount of P350k. The
complainant made several follow-ups with the respondent about the status of
the decision. He promised favorable decision before the end of that year but
was not issued by the CA, with no explanation from the respondent.
The respondent denied that he made any representation to the complainant;
that he had the capacity to facilitate the release of a favorable decision in the
CA; and that he received money in exchange therefor. He admitted that he
had a chance meeting with the complainant. He inquired if he knew anyone
from the CA who can help the union members in their case as he was assisting
them in following up their case. The respondent answered in the negative but
told him that he can refer him to his former client, a certain Vistan, who may
be able to help him. The complainant had a conversation with Vistan over the
phone. Sometime thereafter, he received a call from Vistan who told him that
he was given P350k as facilitation fee. After their conversation, he never
heard from Vistan again.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant.
For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the
respondent must be established by convincing and satisfactory proof.
Considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a
member of the Bar, the Court has consistently held that clearly preponderant
evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty on a
member of the Bar.
After a careful review of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court
finds that the evidence submitted by the complainant fell short of the
required quantum of proof. Aside from bare allegations, no evidence was
presented to convincingly establish that the respondent engaged in unlawful
and dishonest conduct, particularly in extortion and influence-peddling.
Considering the lasting effect of the imposition of the penalty of suspension
or disbarment on a lawyer's professional standing, this Court cannot allow
that the respondent be held liable for misconduct on the basis of surmises
and imagined possibilities. A mere suspicion cannot substitute for the
convincing and satisfactory proof required to justify the suspension or
disbarment of a lawyer.
The respondent, however, is not entirely faultless. He has, nonetheless,
engendered the suspicion that he is engaged in an illegal deal when he
introduced the complainant to Vistan, who was the one who allegedly
demanded P1M in facilitation fee from the union members. The records bear
out that the complainant, at the outset, made clear his intention to seek the
respondent's assistance in following up the union's case in the CA. The
respondent, however, instead of promptly declining the favor sought in order
to avoid any appearance of impropriety, even volunteered to introduce the
complainant to Vistan, a former client who allegedly won a case in the CA in
August 2006. It later turned out that Vistan represented to the complainant
that he has the capacity to facilitate the favorable resolution of cases and
does this for a fee. This fact was made known to him by Vistan himself during
a telephone conversation when the latter told him he was given P350k as
facilitation fee. His gesture of introducing the complainant to Vistan
precipitated the idea that what the latter asked of him was with his approval.
SY 2019-2020
It registered a mistaken impression on the complainant that his case can be
expeditiously resolved by resorting to extraneous means or channels. Thus,
while the respondent may not have received money from the complainant,
the fact is that he has made himself instrumental to Vistan's illegal activity. In
doing so, he has exposed the legal profession to undeserved condemnation
and invited suspicion on the integrity of the judiciary for which he must be
imposed with a disciplinary sanction.
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a "lawyer
shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession." For,
the strength of the legal profession lies in the dignity and integrity of its
members. It is every lawyer's duty to maintain the high regard to the
profession by staying true to his oath and keeping his actions beyond
reproach.
Also, the respondent, as a member of the legal profession, has a further
responsibility to safeguard the dignity of the courts which the public perceives
as the bastion of justice. He must at all times keep its good name untarnished
and not be instrumental to its disrepute.
A strong and independent judiciary is one of the key elements in the orderly
administration of justice. The duty to safeguard the good name of the
judiciary is similarly required from all the members of the legal profession.
The respondent, however, compromised the integrity of the judiciary by his
association with a scoundrel who earns a living by dishonoring the court and
maliciously imputing corrupt motives on its members.
The members of the Bar must maintain high standards of legal proficiency, as
well as morality including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. For, they are at
all times subject to the scrutinizing eye of public opinion and community
approbation.
SUSPENDED for a period of 1 MONTH, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with severely.
Ricafort v. Medina
Complainant alleged that his tricycle sideswiped respondent’s car.
Respondent alighted from his car and confronted complainant. Respondent
allegedly snapped the complainant, saying, “Wa ka makaila sa ako?”
Respondent proceeded to slap the complainant. Complainant filed a
complaint attached were his Affidavit, Cuizon’s Affidavit (traffic aide), and a
letter signed by Mayor Navarro, League of Mayors Pres. of Surigao del Norte
Chapter. Mayor Navarro stated that respondent slapped complainant and
caused him great humiliation. Thus, respondent should be administratively
penalized for his fross misconduct and abuse of authority.
WON respondent Atty. Rene O. Medina should be held administratively liable?
A lawyer is presumed to be innocent of the charges against him or her. He or
she enjoys the presumption that his or her acts are consistent with his or her
oath. Thus, the burden of proof still rests upon complainant to prove his or
her claim. In administrative cases against lawyers, the required burden of
proof is preponderance of evidence, or evidence that is superior, more
18 | Page| K.D.Alianza
convincing, or of "greater weight than the other."
In this case, complainant discharged this burden. The slapping incident was
not only alleged by complainant in detail in his signed and notarized Affidavit;
complainant's Affidavit was also supported by the signed and notarized
Affidavit of a traffic aide present during the incident. It was even the traffic
aide who informed complainant of respondent's plate number. In finding that
complainant was slapped by respondent, Commissioner De La Rama gave
weight to the letter sent by the League of Mayors and ruled that "the people's
faith in the legal profession eroded" because of respondent's act of slapping
complainant.
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
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.
By itself, the act of humiliating another in public by slapping him or her on the
face hints of a character that disregards the human dignity of another.
Respondent's question to complainant, "Wa ka makaila sa ako?" ("Do you not
know me?") confirms such character and his potential to abuse the profession
as a tool for bullying, harassment, and discrimination. This arrogance is
intolerable. It discredits the legal profession by perpetuating a stereotype
that is unreflective of the nobility of the profession. As officers of the court
and of the law, lawyers are granted the privilege to serve the public, not to
bully them to submission.
Atty. Medina is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 3 months.
Re: Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr.
A complaint filed anonymously requested the Court to investigate allegations
of sexual harassment that Atty. Co Untian committed against his students at
Xavier University.
Petitioner:
o Toyco claims that Atty. Co Untian expressed interest towards her when he
sent her flowers and messaged her through one of her fellow law
students. He also texted her texts with a romantic tone through his own
mobile number. Aside from this, he also invited her to accompany him on
a trip to Camiguin, which she refused. These unwelcome advances have
made her feel degraded.
o Sagarbarria claims that Atty Co Untial showed her a photograph of her
face on a naked woman, teasing her within hearing range of her fellow
students. She claims that the incident caused her depression, affecting
her participation in a moot court competition.
o Dal) says that in one of her recitations, she clarified a question asked of
her by saying “Sir, come again?” Atty. Co Untian then proceeded to
respond in a sexually charged manner, and continued to narrate the
incident to almost all his classes. The actions of Atty. Co Untian have
caused her to feel embarrassment.
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
Respondent:
o Atty Co Untian claims that the complaints were made by dismayed
students.
o He denies sending flowers and romantic messages to Toyco, but admits to
sending messages that said “luv u” and “miss u” as friendly messages,
evidenced by misspellings
o As for Sagarbarria, Atty. Co Untian claims that he confiscated the
photograph from another student, which he then showed Sagarbarria in a
joking manner. He went on to say that Sagarbarria was his niece, and that
they were close before enough to discuss sensitive and mature matters.
He also claims that she was not humiliated, and even gamely lowers her
pants to prove it was not her.
o As for Dal, Co Untian countered that Dal recited in a disrespectful
manner, and in a joking manner he told her not to use“slang”. He claims
that the joke was made towards himself.
What makes respondent's act of sexual harassment even more reprehensible
is the fact that he is both a professor and a member of the legal profession.
Lawyers carry the burden of living up to the ethical standards of the legal
profession as embodied in the CPR because public confidence in law and in
lawyers may be tainted by the irresponsible and improper conduct of
members of the Bar. Those privileged to practice the legal profession are
expected to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of
morality considering that they are always under the watchful public eye
scrutinizing them both in their public and private lives.
Rule 1.01 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not engage in an unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. On the other hand, Canon 7
mandates that lawyers shall, at all times, uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession. Further, Rule 7.03 of the CPR commands lawyers not to
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, or
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Much is expected of lawyers in that it does not suffice that they are persons
of integrity and values, but must also appear to be so in the eyes of the
people, and of God. Notwithstanding the relativity of morality, lawyers, as
keepers of public faith, are burdened with a high degree of social
responsibility — they must handle their personal affairs with greater caution.
IOW, members of the bar are measured in a more demanding light because
their actions or inactions not only affect themselves, but also the legal
profession and the public's trust and respect for the law.
It must be remembered that lawyers are both preachers and stewards of law,
justice, morals and fairness in that they are duty-bound to propagate
observance and deference thereto.
Respondent's responsibilities and expectations are even more heightened
because he is a law professor. He should be a beacon of righteous and
conscientious conduct. Respondent, as a molder of minds of soon-to-be
lawyers, should guide his students to behave and act in a manner consistent
with the lofty standards of the legal profession. Instead, he abused his
position of authority creating an offensive and uncomfortable atmosphere in
SY 2019-2020
school. Again, what should be a place of learning and growth had become a
place of fear and distrust for the affected students.
Atty. Co Untian, Jr. is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 5 years and 10
years from teaching law in any school, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
CANON 8
Malabed v. De La Peña
Malabed filed an administrative complaint charging Atty. De La Peña with
dishonesty and grave misconduct for misrepresenting that he filed a
Certificate to File Action which turns out to be for a different complaint;
failure to furnish the opposing counsel with a copy of free patent title; conflict
of interest by representing the occupants of the lot owned by the
complainant’s family in a case when he previously notarized a deed of
donation by the complainant’s family; conniving with an RTC Judge to rule in
his client’s favor; and lastly, for violation of the accessory penalty of perpetual
disqualification from reemployment in any government office for his dismissal
as a judge. The IBP also noted his use of foul language against the
complainant and her counsel in his pleadings.
In his Comment, respondent called complainant's counsel "silahis by nature
and complexion" and accused complainant of "cohabiting with a married man
before the wife of that married man died."
Complainant accuses respondent of conflict of interest when the latter
allegedly notarized a deed of donation of a parcel of land executed by
complainant's family in favor of the Roman Catholic Church. Eventually,
respondent allegedly sought to litigate as counsel for the opposing parties
who are occupants in the lot owned by complainant's family.
Respondent alleges that his designation was only temporary, and "no fixed
salary was attached to his designation except for honorarium." Respondent
also claims that he furnished a copy of his designation to the OBC and MCLE
office as a "gesture of respect, courtesy and approval from the Supreme
Court." He further avers that complainant in the administrative case against
him (as a judge) posed no objection to his petition for clemency.
WON respondent is guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct? YES
Using foul language in pleadings
Aside from the language being inappropriate, it is irrelevant to the resolution
of this case. While respondent is entitled and very much expected to defend
himself with vigor, he must refrain from using improper language in his
pleadings. On many occasions, the Court has reminded members of the Bar to
abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the
honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the
cause with which he is charged. In keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession, a lawyer's language even in his pleadings must be dignified.
19 | Page| K.D.Alianza
For using improper language in his pleadings, respondent violated Rule 8.01
of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states:
Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Non-submission of certificate to file action
The respondent misrepresented that he filed a certificate to file action when
there was none, which act violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and Rule 10.02 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
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, . . . .
Failure to furnish opposing counsel with copy of title
With regard to respondent's alleged act of not furnishing complainant's
counsel with a copy of the free patent title, we find that it does not constitute
dishonesty. The remedy of complainant should have been to file with the CA a
motion to furnish complainant or counsel with a copy of the title so she and
her counsel could examine the same.
Moreover, whether OCT No. 1730 is fabricated, as complainant alleges, is a
question of fact demanding an examination of the parties' respective
evidence. Obviously, this matter falls outside the scope of this administrative
case, absent any clear and convincing proof that respondent himself
orchestrated such fabrication. The DENR and Registry of Deeds certifications
do not prove that respondent manufactured OCT No. 1730. Such documents
merely confirm that OCT No. 1730 does not exist in their official records.
Conflict of interest
Notarization is different from representation. A notary public simply performs
the notarial acts authorized by the Rules on Notarial Practice, namely,
acknowledgments, oaths and affirmations, jurats, signature witnessings, and
copy certifications. Legal representation, on the other hand, refers to the act
of assisting a party as counsel in a court action.
Violation of prohibition on reemployment in government office
Respondent knows full well the consequences of his dismissal as a judge, one
of which is the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from
reemployment in any government office, including GOCCs. Despite being
disqualified, respondent accepted the positions of Associate Dean and
Professor of NIT-College of Law, a government institution, and received
compensation therefor.
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
The prohibition on reemployment does not distinguish between permanent
and temporary appointments. Further, furnishing a copy of his designation to
the OBC and MCLE office does not in any way extinguish his permanent
disqualification from reemployment in a government office. Neither does the
fact that complainant in his previous administrative case did not object to his
petition for clemency. Clearly, respondent knowingly defied the prohibition
on reemployment in a public office imposed upon him by the Court.
Gross Misconduct
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; (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."
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, gross misconduct is a
ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. In view of
respondent's repeated gross misconduct, we accordingly SUSPEND Atty. De la
Peña from the practice of law for 2 years with a WARNING that the
commission of the same or similar act or acts shall be dealt with more
severely.
Law Firm of Chavez Miranda Aseoche v. Lazaro
A criminal case for libel was pending against Soriano. Complainant acted as
the legal counsel of Soriano in that case while respondents represented
private complainant Sandoval. On 11 October 2005, lawyers from
complainant law firm, led by Atty. Chavez, appeared before the RTC to seek
the cancellation of Soriano's scheduled arraignment. During the hearing, Atty.
Chavez informed the RTC that a Petition for Review had been filed before the
DOJ on 10 October 2005. The Petition questioned the resolution of the Office
of the City Prosecutor finding probable cause to indict Soriano for libel. Atty.
Chavez presented an extra copy of the Petition for Review before the RTC,
and explained that the main copy of the Petition stamped received by the DOJ
was still with the office messenger, who had personally filed the pleading the
day before. Citing the filing of the Petition for Review, Atty. Chavez moved for
the suspension of the arraignment for a period of 60 days pursuant to Rule
116, Section 11 (c) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The RTC,
however, denied the motion and proceeded with Soriano's arraignment.
The events that transpired during the arraignment led complainant to
conclude that Presiding Judge Laqui was biased against its client.
Consequently, it filed a Motion for Inhibition requesting Judge Laqui to
voluntary inhibit himself from the case.
SY 2019-2020
On 11 November 2005, respondents filed a pleading entitled "A Vehement
Opposition to the Motion for Inhibition" to contradict complainant's motion.
The following statements, which have become the subject of the instant
disbarment complaint, were contained in that pleading:
If indeed the petition was duly filed with the DOJ on October 10, 2005, why is
it that the accused did not present a copy of the petition stamped "received"
by the DOJ? Why did he not make a manifestation that he forgot to bring a
copy? He could have easily convinced the Presiding Judge to suspend the
arraignment upon a promise that a copy thereof will be filed with the court in
the afternoon of October 11, 2005 or even the following day. Thus, we come
to the conclusion that the accused was able to antedate the filing or mailing
of the petition.
The allegation of antedating was reiterated by respondents in a
Comment/Opposition to the Accused's Motion for Reconsideration filed with
the RTC.
Non-joinder of a party is not a ground to dismiss a disciplinary proceeding.
Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. These proceedings
are neither purely civil nor purely criminal, but are rather investigations by
the Court into the conduct of its officers. Technical rules of procedure are not
strictly applied, but are construed in a manner that allows us to determine
whether lawyers are still fit to fulfill the duties and exercise the privileges of
their office.
We cannot countenance the dismissal of the case against respondents merely
because the public prosecutor has not been joined as a party. We emphasize
that in disbarment proceedings, the Court merely calls upon members of the
bar to account for their actuations as officers of the Court. 34 Consequently,
only the lawyer who is the subject of the case is indispensable. No other
party, not even a complainant, is needed.
In this case, respondents are only called upon to account for their own
conduct. Specifically, their pleadings contain the accusation that complainant
antedated the filing of a petition before the DOJ. The fact that Public
Prosecutor Jaban-Fama also signified her conformity to the pleadings
containing these statements is irrelevant to the issue of whether respondents'
conduct warrants the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.
Respondents cannot excuse their conduct by invoking the presumption of
regularity accorded to official acts of the public prosecutor. It must be
emphasized that the act in question, i.e., the preparation of the pleadings
subject of the Complaint, was performed by respondents and not by the
public prosecutor. Hence, any impropriety in the contents of or the language
used in these pleadings originated from respondents. The mere fact that the
public prosecutor signed the pleadings after they were prepared could not
have cured any impropriety contained therein. The presumption that the
public prosecutor performed her duties regularly and in accordance with law
cannot shield respondents from liability for their own conduct.
The claim of respondents that they relied in good faith on the approval of the
public prosecutor is likewise untenable. As lawyers, they have a personal
20 | Page| K.D.Alianza
obligation to observe the CPR. This obligation includes the duty to conduct
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their professional
colleagues, including opposing counsel. Respondents cannot disregard this
solemn duty solely on the basis of the signature of a public prosecutor and
later seek to absolve themselves from liability by pleading good faith.
Respondents violated Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. This Court has repeatedly urged lawyers to utilize only
respectful and temperate language in the preparation of pleadings, in keeping
with the dignity of the legal profession. In this case, respondents twice
accused complainant of antedating a petition it had filed with the DOJ without
any proof whatsoever. This allegation of impropriety undoubtedly brought
complainant and its lawyers into disrepute. The accusation also tended to
mislead the courts, as it was made without hesitation notwithstanding the
absence of any evidentiary support.
It is the duty of members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive personality
and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or
witness, unless required by the justness of the cause with which they are
charged.
Respondents' defense of absolute privilege is likewise untenable. While
lawyers may enjoy immunity from civil and criminal liability for privileged
statements made in their pleadings, they remain subject to this Court's
supervisory and disciplinary powers for lapses in the observance of their duty
as members of the legal profession.
The use of intemperate and abusive language does not merit the ultimate
penalty of disbarment. Nonetheless, respondents should be disciplined for
violating the CPR and sternly warned that the Court will deal with future
similar conduct more severely. Attys. Restituto Lazaro and Rodel Morta are
hereby ADMONISHED to use only respectful and temperate language in the
preparation of pleadings and to be more circumspect in dealing with their
professional colleagues. They are likewise STERNLY WARNED that a
commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.
Belo-Henares V. Guevarra
This instant administative case arose from a verified complaint for disbarment
filed by Belo-Henares (complainant) against Atty. Guevarra (respondent) for
alleged violations of the CPR.
Rrespondent wrote a series of posts on his Facebook account insulting and
verbally abusing complainant. The complaint further alleged that respondent
posted remarks on his Facebook account that were intended to destroy and
ruin BMGI's medical personnel, as well as the entire medical practice of
around 300 employees for no fair or justifiable cause. His posts include the
following excerpts:
Argee Guevarra Quack Doctor Becky Belo: I am out to get Puwitic Justice here!
Kiss My Client’s Ass, Belo. Senator Adel Tamano, don’t kiss Belo’s ass. Guys
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
and girls, nagiisip na akong tumakbo sa Hanghalan 2010 to Kick some ass!!! I
will launch a national campaign against Plastic Politicians -No guns, No
goons, No gold -IN GUTS I TRUST!
Argee Guevarra Dr. Vicki Belo, watch out for Josefina Norcio’s Big Bang on
Friday -You will go down in Medical History as a QUACK DOCTOR!!!! QUACK
QUACK QUACK QUACK. CNN, FOX NEWS, BLOOMBERG, CHICAGO TRIBUNE,
L.A. TIMES c/o my partner in the U.S., Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles ��
(September 22 at 11:18pm)
Argee Guevarra is amused by a libel case filed by Vicki Belo against me
through her office receptionist in Taytay Rizal. Haaaaay, style-bulok at style-
duwag talaga. Lalakarin ng Reyna ng Kaplastikan at Reyna ng Payola ang
kaso … si Imelda Marcos nga sued me for P300 million pesos and ended up
apologizing to me, si Belo pa kaya? (September 15 at 12:08pm
Argee Guevarra get vicki belo as your client!!! may ‘extra-legal’ budget yon.
Kaya Lang, bistado ko na kung sino-sino ang tumatanggap eh, pag nalaman
mo, baka bumagsak pa isang ahensya ng gobyerno dito, hahaha (August 9 at
10:31pm)
Argee Guevarra ATTENTION MGA BATCHMATES SA DOJ: TIMBREHAN NIYO
AKO KUNG MAGKANONG PANGSUHOL NJ BELO PARA MADIIN AKO HA???? I
just [want] to know how much she hates me, ok? Ang payola budget daw niya
runs into tens of millions …. (September 15 at 3:57pm) xxx xxx xxx
In defense, respondent claimed that the complaint was filed in violation of his
constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy, asserting that the posts quoted
by complainant were private remarks on his private account on Facebook,
meant to be shared only with his circle of friends of which complainant was
not a part. He also averred that he wrote the posts in the exercise of his
freedom of speech, and contended that the complaint was filed to derail the
criminal cases that his client, Norcio, had filed against complainant. He denied
that the remarks were vulgar and obscene, and that he made them in order
to inspire public hatred against complainant. He likewise denied that he
attempted to extort money from her, explaining that he sent the demand
letter as a requirement prior to the filing of the criminal case for estafa, as
well as the civil case for damages against her. Finally, respondent pointed out
that complainant was a public figure who is, therefore, the subject of fair
comment.
WON respondent should be held administratively liable based on the
allegations of the verified complaint? YES
Facebook is a voluntary social network to which members subscribe and
submit information. It has a worldwide forum enabling friends to share
information such as thoughts, links, and photographs, with one another. To
address concerns about privacy, but without defeating its purpose, Facebook
was armed with different privacy tools designed to regulate the accessibility
of a user's profile, as well as information uploaded by the user. Consequently,
before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her online social
networking activity — in this case, Facebook — it is first necessary that said
SY 2019-2020
user manifests the intention to keep certain posts private, through the
employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility.
IOW, utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation, in the cyber world,
of the user's invocation of his or her right to informational privacy.
The bases of the instant complaint are the Facebook posts maligning and
insulting complainant, which posts respondent insists were set to private
view. However, the latter has failed to offer evidence that he utilized any of
the privacy tools or features of Facebook available to him to protect his posts,
or that he restricted its privacy to a select few.
Moreover, even if the Court were to accept respondent's allegation that his
posts were limited to or viewable by his "Friends" only, there is no assurance
that the same — or other digital content that he uploads or publishes on his
Facebook profile — will be safeguarded as within the confines of privacy, in
light of the following:
(1) Facebook "allows the world to be more open and connected by giving its
users the tools to interact and share in any conceivable way";
(2) A good number of Facebook users "befriend" other users who are total
strangers;
(3) The sheer number of "Friends" one user has, usually by the hundreds; and
(4) A user's Facebook friend can "share" the former's post, or "tag" others
who are not Facebook friends with the former, despite its being visible only to
his or her own Facebook friends.
Thus, restricting the privacy of one's Facebook posts to "Friends" does not
guarantee absolute protection from the prying eyes of another user who does
not belong to one's circle of friends.
Neither can the Court accept the argument that the subject remarks were
written in the exercise of his freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of
speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute.
While the freedom of expression and the right of speech and of the press are
among the most zealously protected rights in the Constitution, every person
exercising them, as the Civil Code stresses, is obliged to act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. As such, the
constitutional right of freedom of expression may not be availed of to
broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy their name or reputation
or bring them into disrepute.
Calling complainant a "quack doctor," "Reyna ng Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng
Payola," and "Reyna ng Kapalpakan," and insinuating that she has been
bribing people to destroy respondent smacks of bad faith and reveals an
intention to besmirch the name and reputation of complainant, as well as
BMGI. Respondent also ascribed criminal negligence upon complainant and
BMGI by posting that complainant disfigured ("binaboy") his client Norcio,
labeling BMGI a "Frankenstein Factory," and calling out a boycott of BMGI's
services — all these despite the pendency of the criminal cases that Norcio
had already filed against complainant. He even threatened complainant with
conviction for criminal negligence and estafa — which is contrary to one's
obligation "to act with justice."
21 | Page| K.D.Alianza
In view of the foregoing, respondent's inappropriate and obscene language,
and his act of publicly insulting and undermining the reputation of
complainant through the subject Facebook posts are, therefore, in complete
and utter violation of the following provisions in the CPR:
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.
Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 19.01 — A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting
or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper
advantage in any case or proceeding.
By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and
BMGI, respondent disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to
observe proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or private life. That
complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a public
personage who is exposed to criticism does not justify respondent's
disrespectful language. It is the cardinal condition of all criticism that it shall
be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.
Accordingly, the Court finds that respondent should be suspended from the
practice of law for 1 year, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Washington v. Dicen
Complainant alleged that on August 14, 2015, she went to her house in
Dumaguete City, then occupied by the family of her niece, Roselyn, in order
to perform necessary repairs thereon after discovering that said house was in
a dilapidated state and badly infested by termites. The repairs, however, did
not push through as planned because the police arrived in the premises and
arrested complainant and her companions. Complainant claimed that it was
Atty. Dicen, Roselyn's uncle and her first cousin, who had ordered her to be
arrested for trespassing even though she was the lawful owner of the
property.
Atty. Dicen denied the allegation and argued that complainant was arrested
after she was caught in flagrante delicto committing acts of coercion by
removing the G.I. sheet roofing of Roselyn's house to force the latter and her
family to move out.
In Atty. Dicen’s Manifestation, he described complainant's actions as having
"no sane purpose," and meant only to "satisfy her crazy quest for revenge,"
called complainant as “a puppet and a milking cow”, and even characterized
complainant as a "lunatic.” In his Position Paper, he stated:
“It is the observation of the respondent that complainant is no longer
thinking on her own but has become fixated on her illicit and immoral, if not
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
adulterous relationship with her ex-husband, Martin Vince, (while current
husband is in the [United States] reportedly recuperating from a surgery), a
foreigner who by the latter's manipulation caused her to be estranged from
the entire Flores-Dicen clan.
Blinded by manipulative lover, Martin, she had become so hostile and
unreasonable, if not unchristian, to her relatives who are members of the
Seventh-Day Adventist Church.”
Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-CBD
DISBARRED
IBP Board of Governors
Disbarment
Canon 8 of the CPR in particular, instructs that a lawyer's arguments in his
pleadings should be gracious to both the court and his opposing counsel, and
must be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to
another. The language vehicle does not run short of expressions which are
emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not
offensive.
Ru1e 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which
is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Atty. Dicen violated Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the CPR for his use of language that
not only maligned complainant's character, but also imputed a crime against
her, i.e., that she was committing adultery against her husband who was, at
the time, living in the United States.
ADMONITION + STERN WARNING.
Canete v. Puti
Canete, the wife of the victim to where the client of Atty Puti was the
accused, filed a disbarment complaint against Puti for appearing in the court
drunk, provoking the opposite counsel by calling him bakla done in an open
court during a hearing, provoking and insulting the prosecutors for
inappropriate remarks, and for disrespecting the court through bullying the
judge who is handling the case and threatened the same in open court,
claiming that the court is biased. Puti denied these allegations and contended
that he never appeared in court drunk, that it was actually the opposing
counsels who provoked him, and that it was his duty to call out the judge for
being biased and that he was only discharging his duties to his client. IBP
imposed 6 months suspension.
Investigating Commissioner of the CBD
recommending suspension for 2 years from the practice of law.
IBP Board of Governors
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 6 months.
WON Atty Puti violated Canons 8, Rule 10.01, 10.03, Canon 10 and Canon 11
of CPR? YES
SY 2019-2020
The penalty is reduced to stern warning only. While Atty Puti is guilty of using
inappropriate language against the opposing counsels and the judge, such
transgression is not of a grievous character as to merit his suspension since
his misconduct is considered as simple rather than grave. It is also his first
administrative case in his more than three decades in the legal profession.
Although there is no evidence that he appeared in court drunk or intoxicated,
there is however evidence that he uttered inappropriate remarks against the
opposing counsels, as seen in the TSN. The term bakla was used in a
pejorative and depreciating manner. Although it is not a derogatory word,
such offensive language finds no place in the courtroom or in any other place
for that matter. He ought to be aware that using such term in a derogatory
way is no longer acceptable. He also made several inappropriate remarks
unbecoming of a lawyer.
SC:
REPRIMANDS him with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Eustaquio v. Navales
Complainants alleged that they are the owners of an apartment located at 4-
D Cavite St., Barangay Paltok, SFDM, Quezon City, which they leased to
respondent under a Contract of Lease... dated April 16, 2005. However,
respondent violated the terms and... conditions of the aforesaid contract
when he failed to pay monthly rentals in the aggregate amount of
P139,000.00 and to vacate the leased premises despite repeated oral and
written demands.
Respondent eventually reneged on his obligations under the settlement...
agreement, constraining complainants to file an ejectment case.
Further, complainants filed the instant case before the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP, contending that respondent miserably failed to
exemplify honesty, integrity, and respect for the laws when he failed and
refused to fulfil his obligations to complainants.
IBP Investigating Commissioner
suspension from the practice of law for a period of 6 months, with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely.
OBC
recommended that respondent be further suspended from the practice of
law and from holding the position of Assistant City Prosecutor for a period of
six (6) months, thus, increasing histotal suspension period to one (1) year,
effective immediately.
In this relation, the OBC ratiocinated that since respondent was holding a
position which requires him to use and apply his knowledge in legal matters
and practice of law, i.e., Assistant City Prosecutor, he should have ceased and
desisted from acting as such.
22 | Page| K.D.Alianza
WON respondent should be held administratively liable?
It is settled that the Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the
practice of law. As such, when the Court orders a lawyer suspended from the
practice of law, he must desist from performing all functions requiring the
application of legal knowledge within the period of suspension. This includes
desisting from holding a position in government requiring the authority to
practice law.
The practice of law embraces any activity, in or out of court, which requires
the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,... training, and
experience. It includes performing acts which are characteristic of the legal
profession, or rendering any kind of service which requires the use in any
degree of legal knowledge or skill.
Verily, a plain reading of the foregoing provision evidently shows that the
government office of Assistant City Prosecutor requires its holder to be
authorized to practice law. Hence, respondent's continuous discharge of his
functions as such constitutes practice of law andthus, a clear defiance of the
Court's order of suspension against him
SC:
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for an additional period of six (6)
months from his original six (6)-month suspension, totalling one (1) year from
service of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same
or similar acts will be dealt with more severelyo.
Bonifacio v. Era
An administrative complaint was filed against Atty. Era for representing
conflicting interests. On July 16, 2013, he was found guilty of the charge and
imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years.
On January 26, 2006, a Writ of Execution was issued to implement the June
15, 2004 Decision, a case where the client of Atty. Era, Abucejo Group, won
against Bonifacio. From November to December 2013, Atty. Era and Atty.
Bragas committed the following acts: (1) appeared on behalf of their winning
clients in the public auction of the condemned properties; (2) tendered bid in
the auction for their clients; (3) secured the certificate of sale and presented
the said document to the corporation's officers and employees present in the
premises at that time; (4) insisted that their clients are now the new owners
of the subject properties, hence, should be allowed entry in the premises; (5)
initiated the pull out of the properties; and (6) negotiated with Bonifacio's
children in his law office as regards the payment of the judgment award with
interest instead of pulling out the properties.
This prompted Bonifacio to file the instant administrative complaint against
Atty. Era and Atty. Bragas. Atty. Era argued that he did not violate the Court's
order of suspension from the practice of law as he merely acted as his clients'
attorney-in-fact pursuant to a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated May 3,
2006. With such SPA, he was not engaged in the practice of law in
representing his clients in the implementation of the alias writ. He never
signed any document or pleading on behalf of his clients during his
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
suspension. For Atty. Bragas, she argued that being an associate of Era and
Associates Law Firm, she was merely representing the Abucejo Group as said
law firm's clients.
Investigating Commissioner
recommended the dismissal of the instant administrative complaint for
insufficiency of evidence.
The Investigating Commissioner found nothing wrong with the indication of a
suspended lawyer's name in a pleading considering that the same was not
signed by the latter. There was also no proof that a pleading was prepared by
Atty. Era. On the other hand, there was no impediment against Atty. Bragas to
sign the pleadings. There was also no proof that in doing so, Atty. Bragas was
assisting suspended Atty. Era in filing a pleading. Neither the presence of Atty.
Era during the public auction and the negotiations was an implication or proof
that Atty. Era was engaging in the practice of law during his suspension.
According to the Investigating Commissioner, anybody, not exclusively
lawyers, can be present at an auction sale or negotiation.
IBP Board of Governors (Board)
reversed and set aside the Investigating Commissioner's findings and
conclusions:
Atty. Era is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 3 years.
Atty. Bragas is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month.
Did Atty. Era engage in the practice of law during his suspension therefrom
that would warrant another disciplinary action against him? YES
Is Atty. Bragas guilty of directly or indirectly assisting Atty. Era in his illegal
practice of law that would likewise warrant this Court's exercise of its
disciplining authority against her? YES
1. Atty. Era's acts constituted "practice of law." Black defines "practice of
law" as "The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the
application of legal principles and technique to serve the interest of
another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or
advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the
preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special
proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all
kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients.
In this case, it is true that being present in an auction sale and negotiating
matters relating to the same may not be exclusively for lawyers. However,
Atty. Era's acts clearly involved the determination by a trained legal mind
of the legal effects and consequences of each course of action in the
satisfaction of the judgment award. Precisely, this is why his clients chose
him to represent them in the public auction and in any
negotiation/settlement with the corporation arising from the labor case
as stated in the SPA being invoked by Atty. Era. Such trained legal mind is
what his clients were relying upon in seeking redress for their claims. This
is evident from the fact that they agreed not to enter into any amicable
SY 2019-2020
settlement without the prior written consent of Atty. Era, the latter being
their lawyer. It could readily be seen that the said SPA was executed by
reason of Atty. Era being their legal counsel. Thus, the said SPA cannot be
invoked to support Atty. Era's claim that he was not engaged in the
practice of law in performing the acts above-cited as such SPA cunningly
undermines the suspension ordered by this Court against Atty. Era.
Atty. Era was engaged in an unauthorized practice of law during his
suspension. His acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful order of
this Court, which under Section 27, 44 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is a
sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment. Further, Atty. Era's
intentional maneuver to circumvent the suspension order not only
reflects his insubordination to authority but also his disrespect to this
Court's lawful order which warrants reproach. Members of the bar, above
anyone else, are called upon to obey court orders and processes. Graver
responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the
integrity of the courts and to show respect to their processes.
2. Atty. Bragas is guilty of assisting Atty. Era in his unauthorized practice of
law and, thus, must likewise be reproved. There is no question that Atty.
Bragas has knowledge of Atty. Era's suspension from the practice of law
and yet, she allowed herself to participate in Atty. Era's unauthorized
practice. Clearly, Atty. Bragas violated the CPR, specifically: CANON 9 — A
lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice
of law.
Indeed, it is a lawyer's duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in,
the unauthorized practice of law. Such duty is founded upon public
interest and policy, which requires that law practice be limited only to
individuals found duly qualified in education and character.
As correctly observed by the Board, Atty. Bragas ought to know that Atty.
Era's acts constitutive of law practice could be performed only by a
member of the Bar in good standing, which Atty. Era was not at that time.
Hence, she should have not participated to such transgression. Being an
associate in Atty. Era's law firm cannot be used to circumvent the
suspension order. The factual circumstances of the case clearly shows
that Atty. Bragas did not act to replace Atty. Era as counsel for his and/or
the law firm's clients during the latter's suspension. Atty. Bragas merely
assisted Atty. Era, who admittedly was the one actively performing all acts
pertaining to the labor case he was handling.
SC:
Atty. Era is found GUILTY of willfully disobeying this Court's lawful order and is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years
Atty. Bragas is likewise found GUILTY of violating CANON 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for one (1) month,
Both Attys. Era and Bragas are WARNED that a repetition of the same or
23 | Page| K.D.Alianza
similar offense, or a commission of another offense will warrant a more
severe penalty.
Gradiola v. Deles
Complaint for disbarment filed by Gradiola, charging respondent lawyer Atty.
Deles with violating the CPR, specifically Rule 9.01 and Rule 9.02 of Canon 9;
and Rule 10.01 and Rule 10.02 of Canon 10 thereof. Deles was her counsel
and that he assigned or delegated his professional duties to Atty. Araneta.
Instead of attending full time to her case, respondent lawyer allowed Atty.
Araneta to do the legal research works and the preparation of various
pleadings relative to the civil case. She was assured that the case was in good
hands because respondent lawyer and Atty. Araneta have a contact in the CA.
She was shown a photocopy of a resolution that declared her and her spouse
as the owners of the 4 lots subject matter of the said case. Gradiola added
that respondent lawyer nonetheless cautioned that their adversaries in the
case had appealed to the SC, hence they had to prepare their own position
paper to support the appeal before this Court. And, that naturally, this would
inevitably entail monetary expenses; Gradiola was billed P207k. Atty. Araneta
split the atty’s fees with respondent lawyer.
Gradiola discovered that Atty. Araneta was disbarred from the practice of law;
the resolution was a fabrication; the position paper was an utter simulation
and she and her husband lost the said case. She filed a criminal complaint for
Estafa against Atty. Araneta; and filed an administrative complaint for
disbarment against Deles.
The IBP issued its Order directing respondent lawyer to submit his Answer. In
a Manifestation, the respondent lawyer’s son informed the IBP that about 3
weeks before receipt of the IBP’s Order, his father suffered a stroke and
underwent a brain surgery. The son claimed that at that time, his father could
hardly move and could not talk. The son consulted Atty. Mampang to
represent his father.
While Atty. Araneta admitted of his involvement in a fraudulent scheme in
defrauding litigants that included Gardiola, we cannot immediately conclude
that respondent lawyer himself was likewise part of this racket that duped
Gardiola. It must be stressed that, because of his medical condition,
respondent lawyer could not yet explain his side. While indeed, an Answer
was filed, it was John who signed the same and not respondent lawyer. As
such, we still cannot consider respondent lawyer to have been adequately
represented.
The serious imputations hurled at respondent lawyer warrant an observance
of due process, i.e., to accord him the opportunity to explain his side of the
story.
Atty. Mampang candidly declared that it was John who consulted him and
sought his legal services, and, thus, it cannot be said that respondent lawyer
voluntarily and intelligently accepted Atty. Mampang to represent him.
Respondent lawyer, with his condition, could not even communicate with
Atty. Mampang regarding the case at the time of filing of the Answer, which
compelled the counsel to merely rely on the available documents. In effect,
O R A E T L A B O R A
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
Atty. Mampang substituted his judgment for that of respondent lawyer.
With respondent lawyer not yet in a position to factually dispute the
accusations and defend himself, and considering that there was no
established lawyer-client relationship at all between him and Atty. Mampang,
albeit the latter acted for respondent lawyer's best interest, proceeding with
the investigation of the administrative case against him would amount to a
denial of a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard.
This Court has consistently held that an attorney enjoys the legal presumption
that he is innocent of charges against him until the contrary is proved, and
that as an officer of the court, he is presumed to have performed his duties in
accordance with his oath.
WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the IBP adopting and approving the Report
and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner is hereby ANNULLED
and SET ASIDE. This case is ordered REMANDED to the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP for further investigation, report and recommendation.
JOSE GATCHALIAN, ET AL. v THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
IMPERIAL, J p:
Co-ownership or Co-possession
FACTS:
The plaintiffs, are a group of 15 persons who consolidated their money to purchase one
ticket from the
National Charity Sweeepstakes Office at 2 pesos. The ticket was personally purchased
by Gatchalian and
registered it in the name of Jose Gatchalian and Company. Such ticket won the 3
rd
prize in the amount of
P50,000. A check was drawn in favor of Jose Gatchalian and Company against the PNB
and cashed by
Jose Gatchalian and Company.
Thereafter, income tax examiner Alfredo David required Gatchalian to file the income
tax return covering
the prize won. David made an assessment requesting payment for the sum of
P1,499.94.
The plaintiffs requested for tax exemption, but was denied. To prevent a levy from
being made against
them, they paid the tax due under protest.
ISSUE: WON the plaintiffs formed a partnership or a community property
HELD: The plaintiffs formed a partnership. Partnership is defined as a situation where
two or more
persons bound themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common
fund with the intention
of dividing the profits among themselves. In this case, 15 people, including Gatchalian,
pooled their
money to a common fund to buy a sweepstakes ticket, with the intention of dividing
the prize in case the
ticket wins a prize. Therefore, there was a partnership formed and, they are liable to
pay income tax for
SY 2019-2020 LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW DIGEST
the profit the partnership earned.
JOSE GATCHALIAN, ET AL. v THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
IMPERIAL, J p:
Co-ownership or Co-possession
FACTS:
The plaintiffs, are a group of 15 persons who consolidated their money to purchase one
ticket from the
National Charity Sweeepstakes Office at 2 pesos. The ticket was personally purchased
by Gatchalian and
registered it in the name of Jose Gatchalian and Company. Such ticket won the 3
rd
prize in the amount of
P50,000. A check was drawn in favor of Jose Gatchalian and Company against the PNB
and cashed by
Jose Gatchalian and Company.
Thereafter, income tax examiner Alfredo David required Gatchalian to file the income
tax return covering
the prize won. David made an assessment requesting payment for the sum of
P1,499.94.
The plaintiffs requested for tax exemption, but was denied. To prevent a levy from
being made against
them, they paid the tax due under protest.
ISSUE: WON the plaintiffs formed a partnership or a community property
HELD: The plaintiffs formed a partnership. Partnership is defined as a situation where
two or more
persons bound themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common
fund with the intention
of dividing the profits among themselves. In this case, 15 people, including Gatchalian,
pooled their
money to a common fund to buy a sweepstakes ticket, with the intention of dividing
the prize in case the
ticket wins a prize. Therefore, there was a partnership formed and, they are liable to
pay income tax for
the profit the partnership earned

O R A E T L A B O R A
24 | Page| K.D.Alianza