Case/ Facts
(violation of canon 7)
IN THE MATTER OF THE
DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE
HARON S. MELING IN THE 2002 BAR
Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez (Melendrez)
filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant
(OBC) a Petition to (Meling) from taking
the 2002 Bar Examinations and to
impose on him the appropriate
disciplinary penalty as a member of the
Philippine Shari’a Bar. It alleges that
Meling did not disclose in his Petition to
take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he
has three (3) pending criminal cases
before (MTCC), It also alleges that
Meling has been using the title
"Attorney" in his communications, as
Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City,
despite the fact that he is not a member
of the Bar.
Republic of the Philippines vs Ma.
Lourdes sereno
Respondent adjudged GUILTY of
UNLAWFULLY HOLDING and EXERCISING
the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
Accordingly, Respondent Maria Lourdes
P.A. Sereno is OUSTED and EXCLUDED
therefrom.
Sereno is ordered to SHOW CAUSE
within ten (10) days from receipt hereof
why she should not be sanctioned for
violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Code of Judicial
Conduct for transgressing the subjudice
rule and for casting aspersions and ill
motives to the Members of the Supreme
Court.
Issue Ruling/ principles/ doctrine
The merit of the cases against Meling is not material
in this case. What matters is his act of concealing
them which constitutes dishonesty.
The non-disclosure of Meling of the criminal cases
filed against him makes him also answerable under
Rule 7.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which states that "a lawyer shall be answerable for
knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a
material fact in connection with his application for
admission to the bar."
The nature of whatever cases are pending against
the applicant would aid the Court in determining
whether he is endowed with the moral fitness
demanded of a lawyer. By concealing the existence
of such cases, the applicant then flunks the test of
fitness even if the cases are ultimately proven to be
unwarranted or insufficient to impugn or affect the
good moral character of the applicant.
Meling, however, did not pass the 2003 Bar
Examinations.
Meling’s concealment of the fact that there are
three (3) pending criminal cases against him speaks
of his lack of the requisite good moral character and
results in the forfeiture of the privilege bestowed
upon him as a member of the Shari’a Bar.
Whether or not The SALN laws were passed in aid of the
filing of SALNs enforcement of the Constitutional duty to submit a
bears no relation declaration under oath of one's assets, liabilities,
to the and net worth. This positive Constitutional duty of
Constitutional filing one's SALN is so sensitive and important that it
qualification of even shares the same category as the Constitutional
integrity duty imposed upon public officers and employees to
owe allegiance to the State and the Constitution. As
such offenses against the SALN laws are not ordinary
offenses but violations of a duty which every public
officer and employee owes to the State and the
Constitution. In other words, the violation of SALN
laws, by itself, defeats any claim of integrity as it is
inherently immoral to violate the will of the
legislature and to violate the Constitution.
Maximino Noble vs Atty. Orlando O.
Ailes
Maximino alleged that Orlando, a
lawyer, filed a Complaint for damages
against his own brother, Marcelo 0.
Ailes, Jr. (Marcelo), whom Maximino
represented, together with other
defendants, therein.
Maxinimino discovered that Orlando had
been maligning him and dissuading
Marcelo from retaining his services as
counsel, claiming that he was
incompetent and that he charged
exorbitant fees
Maximino filed the instant complaint
charging Orlando with violation of Rule
7.03 of Canon 7, the entire Canon 8 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR).
IBP recommended the dismissal of the
case against Orlando, which was adopted
by IBP board of Governors.
Maximino not satisfied filed petition for
certiorari.
Oliver Fabugais vs Atty. Berardo Faundo
Oliver Fabugais (complainant) against
Atty. Berardo C. Faundo, Jr. (respondent
lawyer), for gross misconduct and
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer for
having allegedly engaged in illicit and
immoral relations with his wife, Annaliza
Lizel B. Fabugais (Annaliza).
IBP commissioner found respondent
lawyer guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and
recommended his suspension from the
practice of law for one (1) month
Complainant here passed away
The petition is partly meritorious.
The issue for the The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on
Court's resolution lawyers who meet high standards of legal
is whether or not proficiency and morality.
the IBP correctly
dismissed the a lawyer must at all times, whether in public or
complaint against private life, act in a manner beyond reproach
Orlando especially when dealing with fellow lawyers
Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and
emphatic, it should always be dignified and
respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal
profession. The use of intemperate language and
unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of the
judicial forum.
In this case, the IBP found the text messages that
Orlando sent to his brother Marcelo as casual
communications considering that they were
conveyed privately. To the Court's mind, however,
the tenor of the messages cannot be treated lightly.
The text messages were clearly intended to malign
and annoy Maximino, as evident from the use of the
word ''polpol" (stupid). Likewise, Orlando's
insistence that Marcelo immediately terminate the
services of Maximino indicates Orlando's offensive
conduct against his colleague, in violation of the
above-quoted rules. (WARNING)
(violation of canon 7 and 7.3)
Did respondent
lawyer in fact Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui
commit acts that generis in nature; they are intended and undertaken
are grossly primarily to look into the conduct or behavior of
immoral, or acts lawyers, to determine whether they are still fit to
that amount to exercise the privileges of the legal profession, and to
serious moral hold them accountable for any misconduct or
depravity, that misbehavior which deviates from the mandated
would warrant or norms and standards of the Code of Professional
call for his Responsibility, all of which are needful and
disbarment or necessary to the preservation of the integrity of the
suspension from legal profession.
the practice of
law? "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.21 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."

Atty Herminio Harry Roque vs Atty. Rizal
Balbin
complainant Atty. Herminio Harry L.
Roque, Jr. (complainant) against
respondent Atty. Rizal P. Balbin
(respondent). herein respondent-as
counsel for the defendant, and on
appeal-started intimidating, harassing,
blackmailing, and maliciously
threatening complainant into
withdrawing the case filed by his client.
According to complainant, respondent
would make various telephone calls and
send text messages and e-mails not just
to him, but also to his friends and other
clients, threatening to file disbarment
and/or criminal suits against him. IBP
found respondent administratively liable,
and accordingly, recommended that he
be suspended from the practice of law
for a period of one (1) year, It also found
that instead of availing of the procedural
remedies to assail the adverse MeTC
ruling in order to further his client's
cause, respondent resorted to crudely
underhanded tactics directed at the
opposing litigant's counsel, gross
violation of Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR)
ATTY. ILUMINADA M. VAFLOR-FABROA,
Complainant, vs. ATTY. OSCAR
PAGUINTO, Respondent.
Information for Estafa was filed against
Atty. Iluminada M. Vaflor-Fabroa
(complainant) along with others based
on a joint affidavit-complaint which Atty.
Oscar Paguinto (respondent) prepared
and notarized. As the joint affidavit-
complaint did not indicate the
involvement of complainant,
complainant filed a Motion to Quash the
Information which the trial court
granted. Respondent’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the quashal of the
this Court believes that a one-month suspension
from the practice of law, as recommended by the
IBP, would suffice.
CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with
The essential issue courtesy, fairness and candor towards his
in this case is professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
whether or not tactics against opposing counsel.
respondent should
be administratively In this case, respondent's underhanded tactics
sanctioned for the against complainant were in violation of Canon 8 of
acts complained the CPR. As aptly pointed out by the Investigating
of. Commissioner, instead of availing of remedies to
contest the ruling adverse to his client, respondent
resorted to personal attacks against the opposing
litigant's counsel, herein complainant. Thus, it
appears that respondent's acts of repeatedly
intimidating, harassing, and blackmailing
complainant with purported administrative and
criminal cases and prejudicial media exposures were
performed as a tool to return the inconvenience
suffered by his client. His actions demonstrated a
misuse of the legal processes available to him and
his client, specially considering that the aim of every
lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties
according to law, not to harass them.[16] More
significantly, the foregoing showed respondent's
lack of respect and despicable behavior towards a
colleague in the legal profession, and constituted
conduct unbecoming of a member thereof.
Suspended – 2 years
Atty. Rizal P. Balbin is found guilty of violating Canon
8, Canon 11, Canon 12, Rule 12.03, Rule 12.04,
Canon 19, and Rule 19.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring
the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter
disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondent’s
conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A
Court’s Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere
request, nor should it be complied with partially,
inadequately, or selectively". Respondent’s
obstinate refusal to comply with the Court’s orders
"not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character;
it also underscores her disrespect of the Court’s
lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.
respondent, Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto, is SUSPENDED
for two years from the practice of law for violation
Information was denied.
Respondent also filed six other criminal
complaints against complainant which he
eventually withdrawn
of Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath,
effective immediately.

On October 15, 2001, respondent and his

group took over the GEMASCO office and
its premises, the pumphouses, water
facilities, and operations.

Complainant filed against respondent

disbarment in violation of CPR and
lawyer’s oath.

After the conclusion of the conference,

both parties were ordered to submit
position papers. Complainant filed hers,
but respondent, despite grant, on his
motion, of extension of time, did not file
any position paper.

IBP found respondent guilty of violating

the Lawyer’s Oath as well as Canons 1, 8,
10, and Rule 12.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Louisito N. Chua vs Atty. Oscar A. Pascua