Case Title: Rodica vs Lazaro; A.C No.

9259

Petitioner's Claims: Petitioner Rodica claimed that she is a client of Lazaro Law Office
(some respondents' law office) but said respondents deceived her when they misrepresented
to complainant that her withdrawal of a Regional Trial Court case was only a step in a
settlement package of her grievances with her legal adversaries, however, she heard nothing
from Lazaro Law after such withdrawal. She also alleged that respondents from said Law
Office extorted from her P7 million as legal fees and penalties regarding the immigration case
of her live-in partner, Strong. Most of said money however, was used as bribe for Strong's
deportation plea. Such actions warrant disbarment of respondents for gross and serious
misconduct, deceit, malpractice, grossly immoral conduct, and violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Respondent's Claims: Respondents claimed that Rodica withdrew the RTC case
because it was one of the conditions set by Apostol, a buyer of the Boracay property involved
in the case. Atty. Espejo, one of the respondents, claimed that Rodica begged him to prepare
her Motion to Withdraw Motion for Reconsideration relative to the RTC case, and due to the
friendship formed between them, Atty. Espejo accepted. He did the petitioner's requests of
putting Lazaro Law Office, and its partners (without their consent), out of his good intention to
help and make the Boracay property more saleable. Atty. Manuel, a partner in Lazaro Law
Office and the lawyer of Strong, claimed that it is improbable for them to impress upon
petitioner that they will coordinate with Atty. Tan, the lawyer of the defendant in the RTC case,
regarding said case to expedite the deportation proceedings because the RTC case was
already dismissed prior to said deportation proceedings.

Issue/s: Whether or not the allegations in Rodica's complaint merit the disbarment or
suspension of respondents.

Ruling per Issue: Lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence in suspension or

disbarment proceedings, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove her
allegatios by propenderant evidence. In this case however, Rodica failed to overcome said
presumption of evidence. An analysis of the chronology of events showed that there is no
relation between the deportation proceedings and the withdrawal of the RTC case. The RTC
case was dismissed before the filing of the deportation case making it impossible to say that
the withdrawal of the RTC case is a settlement consideration for Strong's case. Regarding the
P7 million that the respondents allegedly extorted from her, she only showed documents
showing her withdrawals, but those do not necessarily mean they were used to pay Lazaro
Law Office. About petitioner being a client of said law office, it was shown in her Sworn
Affidavit that Lazaro only handled the deportation case and does not include the RTC case. In
fact, the counsel of record of petitioner is Atty. Ibutnande, not Lazaro Law Office.

Regarding Atty. Espejo's claim, Apostol corroborated his story. Apostol affirmed that he
got assurance from petitioner when he told her that he would only consider buying the
property if it is free from any pending case to protect his rights as a buyer. However,
regarding his participation in filing the Motion for Withdrawal, he should know that petitioner
has another counsel who should have prepared such instead of him. “It is true that under
Rules 2.01 and 2.02, Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not
reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed, and in such
cases, even if he does not accept a case, shall not refuse to render legal advise to the person
concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter’s right.” As previously noted,
petitioner is represented by a counsel other than respondents, therefore, she is not to be
considered as “oppressed or defenseless”. Atty. Espejo's actions only assisted petitioner in
misrepresenting before the RTC that she was being represented by said law firm though she
was not.

Considering Atty. Espejo's sincere apologies and new admission to the Bar, the Court
deemed it proper to warn him to be more circumspect and prudent with his actuations. The
Disbarment Complaint against respondents is dismissed.

Case Title: Catalan vs Silvosa; A.C. No. 7360

Petitioner's Claims: Atty. Silvosa accused Atty. Catalan of violating Rule 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility by appearing as private counsel in a case where he
previously appeared as public prosecutor. He also claimed that Atty. Silvosa bribed his
colleague Prosecutor Toribio to reconsider her findings and uphold the charge of frustrated
murder. The Sandiganbayan then convicted him for direct robbery.

Respondent's Claims: Atty. Silvosa stated that he resigned as prosecutor from the said
case in October 2002. The trial court rendered its decision where the accused's bail is
cancelled in November 2005. He stated that his appearance is only for the reinstatement of
bail, also denying any relationship between him and the accused. He also dismissed the
allegations regarding the bribery stating that they are "self-serving" and "purposely dug by
[Atty. Catalan] and his puppeteer to pursue persecution." Atty. Silvosa admits his conviction
by the Sandiganbayan and is under probation but states that "conviction under the 2nd
paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, do [sic] not involve moral turpitude since
the act involved ‘do not amount to a crime.’" He further states, "it is not the lawyer in
respondent that was convicted, but his capacity as a public officer, the charge against
respondent for which he was convicted falling under the category of crimes against public
officers”.

Issue/s: Whether or not the causes of action against Atty. Silvosa merit his disbarment.

Ruling per Issue: In the 1st cause of action, Atty. Catalan relied on Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which states that "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." On the other hand, Atty. Silvosa relied on Rule 2.01 stating
that "A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons the cause of the defenseless or the
oppressed" and on Canon 14 which provides that "A lawyer shall not refuse his services to
the needy." The Court however, agreed with Atty. Catalan stating that Atty. Silvosa violated
Rule 6.03 when he forgot Rule 15.03 providing that "A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of facts."

Atty. Silvosa's denial of allegations of bribery is not enough. There was an affidavit
executed against him by Prosecutor Toribio which he must counter by showing proof that he
still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which is expected of him at all times.
Furthermore, administrative offenses do not prescribe so mere delay in the filing of an
administrative complaint against a member of the bar does not automatically exonerate a
respondent.

The crime of direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude and the conviction for
such crime is a ground for disbarment. The Court no longer reviews a final judgment of
conviction in a disbarment case. Considering all these, Atty. Silvosa is DISBARRED and his
name ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

Case Title: Pacana vs Pascual-Lopez; A.C No. 8243

Petitioner's Claims:

Respondent's Claims:

Issue/s:

Ruling per Issue:

Case Title: Linsangan vs Tolentino; A.C No. 6672

Petitioner's Claims: Complainant alleged that respondent Tolentino, with the help of
paralegal Fe Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation by promising
financial assistance, expeditious collection on their claims, and persistent calls and texts.

Respondent's Claims: Respondent denied this allegation by denying knowing Labiano

and authorizing the printing and circulation of the calling card bearing the phrase “with
financial assistance”, which was provided as evidence.

Issue/s: Whether or not respondent Tolentino should be disbarred.

Ruling per Issue: The Commission on Bar Discipline recommended that respondent be
reprimanded based on the evidence presented. Such evidence showed that respondent had
encroached on the professional practice of complainant, violating Rule 8.02 and other canons
of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Moreover, he contravened the rule against
soliciting cases for gain, personally or through paid agents or brokers as stated in Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “A LAWYER IN

MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR,
DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.” This reminds
us that the practice of law is a profession, not a business. Lawyers should not advertise their
talents as merchants advertise their wares. Because to allow such would degrade the
profession and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character of service to which
every member of the Bar is called.

Atty. Tolentino also violated Rule 2.03 which provides that “A LAWYER SHALL NOT
DO OR PERMIT TO BE DONE ANY ACT DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO SOLICIT LEGAL
BUSINESS.” Said rule is to be read in connection with Rule 1.03 providing that “A LAWYER
SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR INTEREST, ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR
PROCEEDING OR DELAY ANY MAN’S CAUSE.” Such prevents “ambulance chasing”
(solicitation of legal business by an attorney to gain employment) to protect the community
from barratry and champerty.

Rule 16.04 was also violated when respondent engaged in money-lending venture with
his clients. Said rule provides that “A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the
client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice.  
Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to
advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.” The only
exception is when justice requires that he advance expenses for matters he is handling for the
client. This rule is to safeguard the lawyer's independence of mind so that the free exercise of
his judgment may not be affected.

Labiano's calling card contained the phrase “with financial assistance” which is used to
entice clients from taking the services offered. This commercialization degraded the integrity
of the Bar, however, there was no substantial evidence to prove that respondent was
personally and directly responsible for the printing and circulation of said cards, therefore,
respondent Atty. Tolentino is merely suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.

Case Title: Bengco vs Bernardo; A.C No. 6368

Petitioner's Claims: Complainants alleged that Respondent Atty. Bernardo, with the
help of a certain Magat, willfully and illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud
complainants by using false pretenses, deceitful words saying that he would expedite the
titling of the land owned by the Miranda family, acquaintances of complainants. They also
claimed that respondent employed deceit to induce them to give him the respondent's
required amount. Respondent misrepresented himself as the lawyer of Gatchalian, the
prospective buyer of the said land. Respondent also said that he has contracts with
NAMREA, DENR, CENRO and REGISTER OF DEEDS which were false. Upon receipt of the
required amount, complainants alleged that said amount was misappropriated and used for
respondent's personal use and benefit.

Respondent's Claims: Respondent denied the allegations, claiming that he had not
deceived the complainants regarding the amount because it was Magat whom the
complainants contacted and who received the amount. Magat merely sought respondent's
legal services after the said contact. He further claims that the arrangement for the titling of
the land was made without respondent's participation. He also contends that complaints for
disbarment, suspension or discipline of lawyers prescribe in 2 years from the date of the
professional conduct as provided under Section 1 Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the
Commission of Bar Discipline.

Issue/s: Whether or not respondent has committed any grounds for disbarment or
suspension.

Ruling per Issue: Respondent's defense of prescription is untenable because

administrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe. Otherwise, it would be okay for the
members of the bar to disregard the very oath they took as lawyers as long as no complainant
would immediately come forward, thereby exonerating them from any administrative liability
they ought to answer for.

Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide:

Rule 2.03. – A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit
legal business.

Rule 3.01. – A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications
or legal services.

Respondent admitted that he has been hired by complainants through Magat regarding
the purported titling of land supposedly purchased. He, however, never denied that he did not
benefit from the money given by the complainants. The practice of law is not a business but a
profession, therefore, it is the duty to serve the public that must be the primary consideration.

A disbarment proceeding is separate and distinct from a criminal action filed against a
lawyer despite having involved the same set of facts.Therefore, a finding of guilt in the
criminal case will not necessarily result in the guilt of the accused in the administrative case.
In this case however, respondent was previously convicted by the RTC for the crime of
Estafa. Such criminal conviction undermines his fitness to be a member of the Bar.

In view of the forgoing, respondent Atty. Bernardo is found guilty of violating the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED for the practice of law for 1
year.