University of San Jose – Recoletos

Magallanes St., Cebu City

School of Law

CASE DIGEST
BM NO. 1154, AC NO. 1481, AC NO. 4973, AC NO. 6593, AC NO. 5338

JOANA ROSE G. FANTONIAL

BASIC LEGAL ETHICS, FRIDAY 5:30 PM – 8:30 PM
Rev.Fr. Domingo P. delos Angeles, Jr.
 IN THE MATTER OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE
HARON S. MELING IN THE 2002 BAR EXAMINATIONS AND FOR THE
DISCIPLINARY ACTION AS MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE SHARI’A BAR,
ATTY. FROILAN R. MELENDREZ, PETITIONER
B.M. NO. 1154, June 08, 2004

FACTS:
1. On May 21, 2001, Haron S. Meling (Meling) allegedly uttered defamatory
words against Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez (Atty. Melendrez) and his wife in
front of media practitioners and other people, and also purportedly
attacked and hit the face of Atty. Melendrez’s wife causing the injuries of
the latter.

2. On October 14, 2002, Atty. Melendrez filed with the Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify Meling from taking the Bar
Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as
a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar.

3. Atty. Melendrez alleged that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take
the Bar Examination that he has three (3) pending criminal cases before
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), namely: Criminal Cases No.
15685 and 15686, both for Grave Oral Defamation, and 15687 for Less
Serious Physical Injuries. As well as his usage of the title “Attorney” in his
communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City.

4. The reasons of Meling of not disclosing the criminal cases filed against him
by Atty. Melendrez because retired Judge CorocoyMoson, their former
professor in the College of Law, advised him to settle his
misunderstanding with Melendrez and believed that in good faith that the
case has been “closed and terminated”. Moreover, Meling denies the
charges and adds that the acts complained of do not involve moral
turpitude. In addition, he also admits that some of his communications
really contained the word “Attorney”, but were typed by the office clerk.

5. In its Report and Recommendation dated December 8, 2003, the OBC

disposed of the charge of non-disclosure against Meling in this wise:
The reasons of Meling in not disclosing the criminal cases filed against him
in his petition to take the Bar Examinations are ludicrous.  He should have
known that only the court of competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases, not
a retired judge nor a law professor.  In fact, the cases filed against Meling
are still pending. The merit of the cases against Meling is not material in
this case. What matters is his act of concealing them which constitutes
dishonesty.

6. As regards Meling’s use of the title "Attorney", the OBC had this to say:
Anent the issue of the use of the appellation "Attorney" in his letters, the
explanation of Meling is not acceptable.
 7. Consequently, the OBC recommended that Meling not be allowed to take
the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys in the event that he
passes the Bar Examinations. Further, it recommended that Meling’s
membership in the Shari’a Bar be suspended until further orders from the
Court.

8. Meling, however, did not pass the 2003 Bar Examinations. This renders
the Petition, insofar as it seeks to prevent Meling from taking the Lawyer’s
Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys, moot and academic.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Meling be disqualified in Bar Examinations in relation to the

violation of Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for non-disclosure of his
pending criminal case.

RATIO DECIDENDI:

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.

The non-disclosure of Meling of the criminal cases filed against him makes him
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.”

With regards to the application to take the 2002 Bar Examinations requires the
applicant to ever that he or she “has not been charged with any act or omission
punishable by law, rule or regulation before a fiscal, judge, officer or
administrative body, or indicated for, or accused or convicted by any court or
tribunal of, any offense or crime involving moral turpitude; nor is there any
pending case or charge against him/her.” His deliberate silence constitutes
concealment, done under oath at that. 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’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
Philippine Shari’a Bar.

Although there is no showing that Meling is engaged in the practice of law, the
fact is he is signing communications as “Atty. Haron S. Meling” knowing that he
is not entitled thereto. As held by the Court in Bar Matter 1209, the unauthorized
use of the appellation, “attorney” may render a person liable for indirect
contempt of court.
…Persons who pass the Sharia Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine
Bar, hence, may only practice law before Sharia courts. While one who has been
admitted to the Sharia Bar, and one who has been admitted to the Philippine
Bar, may both be considered counselors, in the sense that they give counsel or
advice in a professional capacity, only the latter is an attorney. The title attorney
is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study of
law and successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing;
and it is they only who are authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction.

FALLO:

Petition is granted insofar as it seeks the imposition of appropriate

sanctions upon Haron S. Meling as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar.
Accordingly, his membership in Philippine Shari’a Bar is hereby SUSPENDED until
further orders from the Court, the suspension to take effect immediately. Insofar
as the Petition seeks to prevent him from taking the Lawyer’s Oath and signing
the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the Philippine Bar, the same is DISMISSED
for having become moot and academic.
 REBECCA B. ARNOBIT, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. PONCIANO P.
ARNOBIT, RESPONDENT.

A.C. No. 1481, October 17, 2008

FACTS:

1. Rebecca B. Arnobit, filed an affidavit-complaint dated May 11, 1975

praying that the Court exercise its disciplinary power over her husband,
respondent Atty. Ponciano P. Arnobit, on the grounds of Immorality and
Abandonment.

2. Complainant and respondent were married on August 20, 1942 with

twelve children born out from this union. Several years after passing the
bar examinations and became a member of the Philippine bar in 1968 the
respondent left the conjugal home and cohabited Benita Buenafe, a
married woman, who bore him 4 more children.

3. Respondent’s infidelity, according to Rebecca, impelled her to file a

complaint for legal separation and support. A criminal case for adultery
against Benita and respondent later followed.

4. In his response dated July 31, 1975 he admitted that Rebecca is his
wedded wife and the mother of their twelve children however he denied
the allegation that he cohabited with Benita. Instead he pointed out that it
was Rebecca who was the cause of the separation due to her frequent
travel all over the country purportedly for business purposes without his
consent and hereby neglecting her obligations toward her family.

5. Hearings were conducted before the Office of the Solicitor General and
subsequently, before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). Complainant presented both oral and
documentary evidence to support her allegations of abandonment and
immorality. Two witnesses and affidavits from NBI agents to show the
existence of prima facie case for adultery. Respondent, however, failed to
present evidence to support his claim and failed to attend personal
hearings.

6. The Commission found the respondent liable for abandonment and

recommended his suspension from the practice of law to the IBP Board
Governors for three (3) months and recording of such penalty in his
record being sufficient to berate him as to his lack of responsibility as
evidenced by his abandonment of the children. It was accepted and
adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Arnobit should be disbarred from the practice of law
RATIO DECIDENDI:

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.

As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character
but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in
accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. A member of the
bar and an officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous
relationships or keeping a mistress but must also so behave himself as to avoid
scandalizing the public by creating the impression that he is flouting those moral
standards.

The fact that respondent's philandering ways are far removed from the exercise
of his profession would not save the day for him. For a lawyer may be suspended
or disbarred for any misconduct which, albeit unrelated to the actual practice of
his profession, would show him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the
privileges with which his license and the law invest him. To borrow from Orbe V.
Adaza, "[t]he grounds expressed in Section 27, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court
are not limitative and are broad enough to cover any misconduct x x x of a
lawyer in his professional or private capacity." To reiterate, possession of good
moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a
continuing qualification for all members of the bar.

Undoubtedly, respondent's act of leaving his wife and 12 children to cohabit and
have children with another woman constitutes grossly immoral conduct. And to
add insult to injury, there seems to be little attempt on the part of respondent to
be discreet about his liaison with the other woman. As we have already ruled,
disbarment is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife to
maintain an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne him a child.

FALLO:

Atty. Ponciano P. Arnobit is hereby DISBARRED.

 SPOUSES MANUEL C. RAFOLS, JR. AND LOLITA B. RAFOLS, COMPLAINANTS,
VS. ATTY. RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR., RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 4973, March 15, 2010

FACTS:

1. The complainants, Spouses Manuel C. Rafols, Jr and Lolita B. Rafols, were

the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 6209 of the RTC in General Santos City,
wherein they sought the cancellation of a deed of sale. The Civil Case was
assigned to Branch 37 of the RTC, presided by Judge Dizon, Jr. The
complainants were represented by the respondent, paying him PHP
15,000.00 as an acceptance fee.

2. December 22, 1997, the respondent visited the complainants at their

residence and informed the complainant Manuel that the judge who is
handling their case wanted to talk to him. The respondent and Manuel
thus went to East Royal Hotel’s Coffee shop where Judge Dizon, Jr was
already waiting for them. The respondent introduce Manuel to the judge,
who informed Manuel that their case was pending in his sala. The judge
said that he would resolve the case in their favor, assuring their success
up to the Court of Appeals if they could deliver an amount of PHP
150,000.00 to him.

3. According to the complainants, the respondent demanded PHP 25,000.00

as his expenses in securing the testimony of Soledad Elevencionado –
Provido in Iloilo City to be used as an evidence in their Civil Case. In
addition, the respondent requested the complainants to borrow PHP
60,000.00 from their bank because he wanted to redeem hos fore closed
Isuzu Elf and because he also wanted to give money to his nephew who
was due to leave for work abroad.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent Atty. Ricardo Barrios, Jr. is guilty of misconduct

RATIO DECIDENDI:

The respondent’s denial of knowledge of the transaction between the

complainants and Judge Dizon, Jr. was not only implausible, but also
unsubstantiated. It was the respondent himself who introduced the complainants
to the judge. His act of introducing them to the judge strongly implied that he
was aware of the illegal purpose of the judge wanting to talk with his clients.
Thus, the Court unqualifiedly accept the aptness of the following evaluation
made in the OBC’s Report and Recommendation. Being the Officer of the Court,
he must have known that meeting litigants outside the court is something
beyond the bounds of the rule and it can never be justified by any reason.

The respondent was guilty of gross misconduct, which 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.” Any gross misconduct of an attorney in
his professional or private capacity shows him unfit to manage the affairs of
others, and is ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or
disbarment. Good moral character is an essential qualification for the admission
of an attorney and continuance of such privilege.

The conclusion that the respondent and the disgraces Judge Dizon, Jr. were
conspirators against the former’s own clients, whom he was sworn to protect and
to serve with utmost fidelity and morality, is inevitable for the Court to make in
this administrative case. And, being conspirators, they both deserve the highest
penalty. The disbarment of the respondent is in order, because such sanction is
on par with the dismissal of Judge Dizon, Jr.

FALLO:

Atty. Ricardo Barrios, Jr. is DISBANNED.

He is suspended from the practice of law for three (3) years with a stern warning
that a repetition of similar act in the future will be dealt more severely.
 MAELOTISEA S. GARRIDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTYS. ANGEL E. GARRIDO
AND ROMANA P. VALENCIA, RESPONDENTS.

A.C. No. 6593, February 4, 2010

FACTS:

1. The petitioner, the respondent’s legal wife, Maelotisea filed a

complaint-affidavit and a supplemental affidavit for disbarment against
the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana P. Valencia
before the IBP Committee on Discipline charging them with gross
immorality.

2. The complaint arose after the petitioner caught wind through her
daughter that her husband was having an affair with a woman other
than his wife and already had a child with her; and the same
information was confirmed by one of her daughters, May Elizabeth
who saw them strolling at the Robinson’s Department Store in Ermita,
Manila with the other respondent Atty. Valencia, with their child who
was later identified as Angeli Ramona Valencia Garrido.

3. The petitioner was able to secure the Certfiicate of Live Birth of the
child, stating that the said child is the daughter of Attys. Garrido and
Valencia and were married in Hongkong sometime on 1978. Moreover,
on June 1993 Atty Garrido left their conjugal home and joined Atty.
Valencia at their residence, he failed and still failing to give the needed
financial support to the prejudice of their children who stopped
schooling due to financial constraints.

4. In Atty. Garrido’s defense, he alleged that Maelotisea was not his legal
wife, as he was already married to Constancia David when he married
the petitioner. He claimed that he married Maelotisia after he and
Constancia parted ways. He also emphasizes that all his marriage was
contracted before he became a member of the bar in 1979 with the
third marriage contracted after the death of Constancia in 1977.
Likewise, his children were born before he became a lawyer.

5. In Atty. Valencia’s part, she denied that she was the mistress of Atty.
Garrido. She explained that Maelotisea was not the legal wife of Atty.
Garrido since the marriage between them was void from the beginning
due to the then existing marriage of Atty. Garrido and Constancia.

6. In the course of the hearings before the IBP Commission on Bar

Disciline, the petitioner filed a motion for the dismissal of her
complaint, arguing that she wanted to maintain friendly relationship
with Atty. Garrido, who is the father of her six (6) children but the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline denied this motion.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Garrido’s and Valencia’s action of immorality thus good
enough cause for their disbarment, despite the offense supposedly committed
before they were lawyers.
RATIO DECIDENDI:

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. As we
explained in Zaguirre v. Castillo, 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. Admission to the bar does
not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry, upon proper complaint, into any
question concerning the mental or moral fitness of the respondent before he
became a lawyer. 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.

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. We note further that she filed her affidavits of
withdrawal only after she had presented her evidence; her evidence is now
available for the Court's examination and consideration, and their merits are not
affected by her desistance. We cannot fail to note, too, that Mealotisea filed her
affidavit of desistance, not to disown or refute the evidence she had submitted,
but solely because of compassion (and, impliedly, out of concern for her personal
financial interest in continuing friendly relations with Atty. Garrido)

In this case, the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the
admissions of Atty. Garrido 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.

First, Atty. Garrido admitted that he left Constancia to pursue his law studies;
thereafter and during the marriage, he had romantic relationships with other
women. He had the gall to represent to this Court that the study of law was his
reason for leaving his wife; marriage and the study of law are not mutually
exclusive.

Second, he misrepresented himself to Maelotisea as a bachelor, when in truth he

was already married to Constancia.[26] This was a misrepresentation given as an
excuse to lure a woman into a prohibited relationship.

Third, Atty. Garrido contracted his second marriage with Maelotisea

notwithstanding the subsistence of his first marriage. This was an open
admission, not only of an illegal liaison, but of the commission of a crime.

Fourth, Atty. Garrido engaged in an extra-marital affair with Atty. Valencia while
his two marriages were in place and without taking into consideration the moral
and emotional implications of his actions on the two women he took as wives
and on his six (6) children by his second marriage.
Fifth, instead of making legal amends to validate his marriage with Maelotisea
upon the death of Constancia, Atty. Garrido married Atty. Valencia who bore him
a daughter.

Sixth, Atty. Garrido misused his legal knowledge and convinced Atty. Valencia
(who was not then a lawyer) that he was free to marry, considering that his
marriage with Maelotisea was not "valid."

Seventh, as the evidence on record implies, Atty. Garrido married Atty. Valencia
in Hongkong in an apparent attempt to accord legitimacy to a union entered into
while another marriage was in place.

Eighth, after admission to the practice of law, Atty. Garrido simultaneously

cohabited and had sexual relations with two (2) women who at one point were
both his wedded wives. He also led a double life with two (2) families for a
period of more than ten (10) years.

Lastly, Atty. Garrido petitioned for the nullity of his marriage to Maelotisea.
Contrary to the position advanced by Atty. Alicia A. Risos-Vidal, this was not an
act of facing up to his responsibility or an act of mending his ways. 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.

By his actions, Garrido committed multiple violations relating to the legal

profession, specifically, violations of the bar admission rules, of his lawyer's oath,
and of the ethical rules of the profession.

He did not possess the good moral character required of a lawyer at the time of
his admission to the Bar. As a lawyer, he 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.
In marrying Maelotisea, he committed the crime of bigamy, as he entered this
second marriage while his first marriage with Constancia was subsisting. He
openly admitted his bigamy when he filed his petition to nullify his marriage to
Maelotisea.

As a lawyer, his community looked up to Atty. Garrido with the expectation and
that he would set a good example in promoting obedience to the Constitution
and the laws. When he violated the law and distorted it to cater to his own
personal needs and selfish motives, he discredited the legal profession and
created the public impression that laws are mere tools of convenience that can
be used, bended and abused to satisfy personal whims and desires. In this case,
he also used the law to free him from unwanted relationships.

The Court find that 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 legal profession. She simply failed in her duty as a lawyer to
adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality. We are not unmindful
of Atty. Valencia's expressed belief that Atty. Garrido's second marriage to
Maelotisea was invalid; hence, she felt free to marry Atty. Garrido. While this
may be correct in the strict legal sense and was later on confirmed by the
declaration of the nullity of Atty. Garrido's marriage to Maelotisea, we do not
believe at all in the honesty of this expressed belief.
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 failed to live up to these standards before she was admitted to the
bar and after she became a member of the legal profession.

FALLO:

(1) DISBAR Atty. Angel E. Garrido from the practice of law for gross
immorality, violation of the Lawyer’s Oath; and violation of Rule 1.01,
Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and

(2) DISBAR Atty. Romana P. Valencia from the practice of law for gross
immorality, violation of Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
EUGENIA MENDOZA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE,
RESPONDENT.

A.C. No. 5338, February 23, 2009

FACTS:

1. Complainant Eugenia Mendoza, filed a petition before the Court seeking

disbarment of Atty. Victor V. Deciembre, respondent last September 19,
2000 for his acts of fraudulently filling up blank postdated checks without
her authority and using the same for filing unfounded criminal suits
against her.

2. Complainant, a mail sorter at the Central Post Office Manila, averred that
on October 13, 1998 she borrowed from Rodela Loans, Inc,, through
respondent the amount of PHP 20,000.00 payable in six (6) months at
20% interest, secured by 12 blank checks, with numbers 47253, 47256 to
47266, drawn against the Postal Bank.

3. Although she was unable to faithfully pay her obligations in their due
dates, she made remittances however, to respondent’s Metrobank account
from November 11, 1998 to March 15, 1999 in the total sum of PHP
12,910.00.

4. Claiming that the amounts remitted were not enough to cover the
penalties, interests and other charges, respondent warned complainant
that he would deposit Postal Check No. 47253 filled up by him on March
30, 1999 in the amount PHP 16,000.00. Afraid that respondent might sue
her in court, complainant made a good said check and he was able to
encash the same on March 30, 1999.

5. The complainant made subsequent payments to the Metrobank account of

respondent from April 13, 1999 to October 15, 1999 thereby paying
respondent the total amount of PHP 35, 690.00.

6. Complaint further claimed that the respondent filled up two more of the
postal checks she issued in blank, Check Nos. 47261 and 47262 with the
amount of PHP 50,000.00 each with the dates January 15, 2000 and
January 20, 2000 respectively. Which respondent claims was in exchange
for the PHP 100,000.00 cash that complainant received on November 15,
1999 whom the complainant insisted that she never borrowed PHP
100,000.00 from respondent and that it was unlikely for him to lend her
who is a mail sorter with a basic monthly salary of less than PHP
6,000.00.

7. Complainant also claimed that he has been victimizing other employees in

the Postal Office by filling up, without authorization, blank checks issued
to him as condition for loans.

8. Respondent averred that his dealings with complainant were done in his
private capacity and not as a lawyer, and that when he filed a complaint
for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P. Blg.) 22 against complainant,
 he was only vindicating his rights as a private citizen. He alleged further
that: it was complainant who deliberately deceived him by not honoring
her commitment to their November 15, 1999 transaction involving
P100,000.00 and covered by two checks which bounced for the reason
"account closed"; the October 13, 1999 transaction was a separate and
distinct transaction; complainant filed the disbarment case against him to
get even with him for filing the estafa and B.P. Blg. 22 case against the
former; complainant's claim that respondent filled up the blank checks
issued by complainant is a complete lie; the truth was that the checks
referred to were already filled up when complainant affixed her signature
thereto; it was unbelievable that complainant would issue blank checks,
and that she was a mere low-salaried employee, since she was able to
maintain several checking accounts; and if he really intended to defraud
complainant, he would have written a higher amount on the checks
instead of only P50,000.00.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Victor V. Deciembre is guilty of gross misconduct and

violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and should be disbarred from
the practice of law.

RATIO DECIDENDI:

The practice of law is not a right but merely a privilege bestowed by the State
upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the
qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. A high sense
of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of members of the
bar. They must conduct themselves with great propriety, and their behavior must
be beyond reproach anywhere and at all times.

The fact that there is no attorney-client relationship in this case and the
transactions entered into by respondent were done in his private capacity cannot
shield respondent, as a lawyer, from liability.

As manifested by these cases, respondent's offenses are manifold. First, he

demands excessive payments from his borrowers; then he fills up his borrowers'
blank checks with fictitious amounts, falsifying commercial documents for his
material gain; and then he uses said checks as bases for filing unfounded
criminal suits against his borrowers in order to harass them. Such acts manifest
respondent's perversity of character, meriting his severance from the legal
profession.

While the power to disbar is exercised with great caution and is withheld
whenever a lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired, the seriousness of
respondent's offense compels the Court to wield its supreme power of
disbarment. Indeed, the Court will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney
from the esteemed. brotherhood of lawyers where the evidence calls for it This is
because in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a
member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court, with
the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper
and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who
by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted
with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.

As respondent's misconduct brings intolerable dishonor to the legal profession,

the severance of his privilege to practice law for life is in order.

FALLO:

Atty. Victor V. Deciembre is hereby found GUILTY OF GROSS MISCONDUCT AND

VIOLATION of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is DISBARRED from the practice of law and his
name is ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately.