In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to 1953;

ALBINO CUNANAN, ET AL.,

Resolution             March 18, 1954 DIOKNO, J.: EN BANC

Facts: RA 978 was enacted in 1952 which provided that the following passing marks:

1946-1951………………70%

1952 …………………….71%

1953……………………..72%

1954……………………..73%

1955……………………..74%

Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%.

Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any subject shall be deemed to have already passed that subject and
the grade/grades shall be included in the computation of the general average in subsequent bar examinations.” After its approval, many of the
unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions, while others whose motions for the revision of their
examination papers were still pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. Hence, this resolution

Issue: W/n RA 978 is constitutional

Held: No. It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by
Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license.

The law in question, like those in the case of Day and Cannon, has been found also to suffer from the fatal defect of being a class legislation, and that if it
has intended to make a classification, it is arbitrary and unreasonable.

Summarizing, the Court declared that Republic Act No. 972 is unconstitutional and therefore, void, and without any force nor effect for the following
reasons, to wit:

1. Because its declared purpose is to admit 810 candidates who failed in the bar examinations of 1946-1952, and who, it admits, are certainly
inadequately prepared to practice law, as was exactly found by this Court in the aforesaid years. It decrees the admission to the Bar of these candidates,
depriving this Tribunal of the opportunity to determine if they are at present already prepared to become members of the Bar. It obliges the Tribunal to
perform something contrary to reason and in an arbitrary manner. This is a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme
Court.

2. Because it is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of this Court on the petitions of these 810 candidates, without having examined their
respective examination papers, and although it is admitted that this Tribunal may reconsider said resolution at any time for justifiable reasons, only this
Court and no other may revise and alter them. In attempting to do it directly Republic Act No. 972 violated the Constitution.

3. By the disputed law, Congress has exceeded its legislative power to repeal, alter and supplement the rules on admission to the Bar. Such additional or
amendatory rules are, as they ought to be, intended to regulate acts subsequent to its promulgation and should tend to improve and elevate the practice
of law, and this Tribunal shall consider these rules as minimum norms towards that end in the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of
lawyers to the Bar, inasmuch as a good bar assists immensely in the daily performance of judicial functions and is essential to a worthy administration of
justice. It is therefore the primary and inherent prerogative of the Supreme Court to render the ultimate decision on who may be admitted and may
continue in the practice of law according to existing rules.

4. The reason advanced for the pretended classification of candidates, which the law makes, is contrary to facts which are of general knowledge and does
not justify the admission to the Bar of law students inadequately prepared. The pretended classification is arbitrary. It is undoubtedly a class legislation.

5. Article 2 of Republic Act No. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to what the Constitution enjoins, and being inseparable from the
provisions of article 1, the entire law is void.

6. Lacking in eight votes to declare the nullity of that part of article 1 referring to the examinations of 1953 to 1955, said part of article 1, insofar as it
concerns the examinations in those years, shall continue in force.

SALLY D. BONGALONTA vs. ATTY. PABLITO M. CASTILLO and ALFONSO M. MARTIJA

CBD Case No. 176 January 20, 1995 MELO, J.: THIRD DIVISION
Facts: When petitioner filed a criminal case for estafa and a civil case wherein a writ of preliminary attachment on the property
of Sps. Abuel, the latter was granted. However, one Gregorio Lantin filed a case too which resulted in a writ of execution over
the property attached. It was alleged that in all the pleadings filed in these three (3) aforementioned cases, Atty. Pablito Castillo
and Atty. Alfonso Martija placed the same address, the same PTR and the same IBP receipt number to wit" Permanent Light
Center, No. 7, 21st Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City, PTR No. 629411 dated 11-5-89 IBP No. 246722 dated 1-12-88. Hence,
petitioner filed a complaint with the IBP against respondents.
Issue: W/n respondents are guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: No. However, the Court held that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who
show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. One of
these requirements is the observance of honesty and candor. Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty
from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. A lawyer, on the other hand, has the fundamental duty to satisfy that
expectation. for this reason, he is required to swear to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court.
NARCISO MELENDREZ and ERLINDA DALMAN vs. ATTY. REYNERIO I. DECENA
A. M. No. 2104 August 24, 1989 PER CURIAM: EN BANC
Facts: Complainants charged respondent with malpractice and breach of trust. The complainant spouses alleged, among
others, that respondent had, by means of fraud and deceit, taken advantage of their precarious financial situation and his
knowledge of the law to their prejudice, succeeded in divesting them of their only residential lot in Pagadian City; that
respondent, who was their counsel in an estafa case against one Reynaldo Pineda, had compromised that case without their
authority.
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: Yes. Generally, a lawyer should not be suspended or disbarred for misconduct committed in his personal or non-
professional capacity. Where however, misconduct outside his professional dealings becomes so patent and so gross as to
demonstrate moral unfitness to remain in the legal profession, the Court must suspend or strike out the lawyer's name from the
Rollo of Attorneys.  The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that he shall be a person of good moral character. This
qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for
remaining in the practice of law, in the exercise of privileges of members of the Bar. Gross misconduct on the part of a lawyer,
although not related to the discharge of professional duties as a member of the Bar, which puts his moral character in serious
doubt, renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law. 
In the instant case, the exploitative deception exercised by respondent attorney upon the complainants in his private
transactions with them, and the exacting of unconscionable rates of interest, considered together with the acts of professional
misconduct committed by respondent attorney, compel this Court to the conviction that he has lost that good moral character
which is indispensable for continued membership in the Bar.
LOURDES R. BUSIÑOS vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT
A.C. No. 4349 December 22, 1997 PER CURIAM: EN BANC
Facts: Complainant charged respondent with estafa for misappropriating the sum of 32,000 in a civil case wherein the latter
was the counsel of the former.
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: Yes. Respondent's transgressions manifested dishonesty and amounted to grave misconduct and grossly unethical
behavior which caused dishonor, not merely to respondent, but to the noble profession to which he belongs, for it cannot be
denied that the respect of litigants for the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust
and confidence.
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The trust and confidence necessarily
reposed by clients require in the attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his client, his profession, the
courts and the public. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair
dealing. Generally speaking, a lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society,
to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity
which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the
profession.
Here, respondent chose to forget that by swearing the lawyer's oath, he became a guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an
indispensable instrument in the fair an impartial administration of justice — a vital function of democracy a failure of which is
disastrous to society.
Any departure from the path which a lawyer must follow as demanded by the virtues of his profession shall not be tolerated by
this Court as the disciplining authority. This is specially so, as here, where respondent even deliberately defied the lawful orders
of the Court for him to file his comment on the complaint, thereby transgressing Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which requires a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due the courts.
DIANA D. DE GUZMAN VS. ATTY. LOURDES I. DE DIOS
[ A.C. No. 4943, January 26, 2001 ] PARDO, J. FIRST DIVISION
Facts: This is a complaint for disbarment against respondent on the ground of violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the code of
Professional Responsibility, for representing conflicting interests, and of Article 1491 Civil Code, for acquiring property in
litigation. Complainant retained the services of respondent to form a corporation wherein the former was the majority
stockholder. However, after failure to pay her delinquent shares, complainant’s stocks were sold.
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and
integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
"To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the law is to state the obvious, but such statement can never be
overemphasized. Considering that, `of all classes and professions, [lawyers are] most sacredly bound to uphold the law,' it is
imperative that they live by the law. Accordingly, lawyers who violate their oath and engage in deceitful conduct have no place in
the legal profession."
Clearly, respondent violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests and engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. As a lawyer, respondent is bound by her oath to do no falsehood or consent to its commission and
to conduct herself as a lawyer according to the best of her knowledge and discretion. The lawyer's oath is a source of
obligations and violation thereof is a ground for suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action.The acts of respondent Atty.
De Dios are clearly in violation of her solemn oath as a lawyer that this Court will not tolerate.
JESSIE R. DE LEON v.  ATTY. EDUARDO G. CASTELO
A.C. No. 8620 : January 12, 2011 BERSAMIN, J.: THIRD DIVISION
Facts: This administrative case, which Jessie R. De Leon initiated on April 29, 2010, concerns respondent attorney's alleged
dishonesty and falsification committed in the pleadings he filed in behalf of the defendants in the civil action in which De Leon
intervened.
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: No. The Court held that the respondent, as attorney, did not commit any falsehood or falsification in his pleadings in Civil
Case No. 4674MN. The Lawyer’s Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility ordain ethical norms that bind all attorneys, as
officers of the Court, to act with the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. All attorneys are thereby
enjoined to obey the laws of the land, to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing of any
in court, and to conduct themselves according to the best of their knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the
courts as to their clients. Being also servants of the Law, attorneys are expected to observe and maintain the rule of law and to
make themselves exemplars worthy of emulation by others. The least they can do in that regard is to refrain from engaging in
any form or manner of unlawful conduct (which broadly includes any act or omission contrary to law, but does not necessarily
imply the element of criminality even if it is broad enough to include such element).
According to Justice Cardozo, "xxx the fair fame of a lawyer, however innocent of wrong, is at the mercy of the tongue of
ignorance or malice. Reputation in such a calling is a plant of tender growth, and its bloom, once lost, is not easily restored."
A lawyer's reputation is, indeed, a very fragile object. The Court, whose officer every lawyer is, must shield such fragility from
mindless assault by the unscrupulous and the malicious. It can do so, firstly, by quickly cutting down any patently frivolous
complaint against a lawyer; and, secondly, by demanding good faith from whoever brings any accusation of unethical conduct. A
Bar that is insulated from intimidation and harassment is encouraged to be courageous and fearless, which can then best
contribute to the efficient delivery and proper administration of justice.
In the case at bar, The complainant initiated his complaint possibly for the sake of harassing the respondent, either to vex him
for taking the cudgels for his clients in connection with Civil Case No. 4674MN, or to get even for an imagined wrong in relation
to the subject matter of the pending action, or to accomplish some other dark purpose. The worthlessness of the accusation -
apparent from the beginning - has impelled us into resolving the complaint sooner than later.
MARCIANO P. BRION, JR. vs. FRANCISCO F. BRILLANTES, JR.,
A.C. No. 5305 - March 17, 2003 QUISUMBING, J.: SECOND DIVISION
Facts: In this petition for disbarment, complainant Marciano Brion, Jr., charges the respondent, Atty. Francisco Brillantes, Jr., of
having willfully violated a lawful order of this Court in A.M. No. MTJ-92-706, entitled Lupo Almodiel Atienza v. Judge Francisco
F. Brillantes, Jr. Petitioner avers that respondent violated the decree of perpetual disqualification imposed upon him from
assuming any post in government service, including any posts in government-owned and controlled corporations, when he
accepted a legal consultancy post at the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA).
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: Yes. The Court held that for all intents and purposes, respondent performed duties and functions of a non-advisory nature,
which pertain to a contractual employee of LWUA. As stated by petitioner in his reply, 18 there is a difference between a
consultant hired on a contractual basis (which is governed by CSC M.C. No. 27, s. 1993) and a contractual employee (whose
appointment is governed, among others, by the CSC Omnibus Rules on Appointment and other Personnel Actions). By
performing duties and functions, which clearly pertain to a contractual employee, albeit in the guise of an advisor or consultant,
respondent has transgressed both letter and spirit of this Courts decree in Atienza.
The lawyers primary duty as enunciated in the Attorneys Oath is to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and
promote respect for law and legal processes.19 That duty in its irreducible minimum entails obedience to the legal orders of the
courts. Respondents disobedience to this Courts order prohibiting his reappointment to any branch, instrumentality, or agency of
government, including government owned and controlled corporations, cannot be camouflaged by a legal consultancy or a
special consultancy contract. By performing duties and functions of a contractual employee of LWUA, by way of a consultancy,
and receiving compensation and perquisites as such, he displayed acts of open defiance of the Courts authority, and a
deliberate rejection of his oath as an officer of the court. It is also destructive of the harmonious relations that should prevail
between Bench and Bar, a harmony necessary for the proper administration of justice. Such defiance not only erodes respect for
the Court but also corrodes public confidence in the rule of law.
ANGEL L. BAUTISTA v. ATTY. RAMON A. GONZALES
[A.M. No. 1625. February 12, 1990.] PER CURIAM EN BANC
Facts: In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista on May 19, 1976, respondent Ramon A. Gonzales was charged with
malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath.
Issue: whether or not respondent committed the acts of misconduct alleged by complainant Bautista.
Held: Yes. The very first Canon of the new Code states that "a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal process." Moreover, Rule 138, Sec. 3 of the Revised Rules of Court requires every lawyer
to take an oath to "obey the laws [of the Republic of the Philippines] as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein." And for any violation of this oath, a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred by the Supreme Court [Rule 138, Sec. 27,
Revised Rules of Court]. All of these underscore the role of the lawyer as the vanguard of our legal system. The transgression of
any provision of law by a lawyer is a repulsive and reprehensible act which the Court will not countenance. In the instant case,
respondent, having violated Art. 1491 of the Civil Code, must be held accountable both to his client and to society.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ATTY. FE T. TUANDA

[A.C. No. 3360. January 30, 1990.] PER CURIAM EN BANC
Facts: Respondent was convicted of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 which on appeal was affirmed in toto by the CA but, in addition,
suspended her from the practice of law. Thus, in a Motion to Lift Order of Suspension dated 12 July 1989, respondent Fe T.
Tuanda, a member of the Philippine Bar, asks the SC to lift the suspension from the practice of law imposed upon her by the
CA.
Issue: W/n the suspension from the practice of law imposed by the Court of Appeals upon respondent Tuanda should be
affirmed.
Held: Yes. The Court affirms the suspension from the practice of law imposed by the Court of Appeals upon respondent
Tuanda. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that "the offense [of] which she is found guilty involved moral turpitude." We should
add that violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is a serious criminal offense which deleteriously affects public interest and public order.
Respondent was thus correctly suspended from the practice of law because she had been convicted of crimes involving moral
turpitude. Sections 27 and 28 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provide as follows: "Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or
suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court of 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 admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice." "Sec. 28. Suspension of attorney by the Court
of Appeals or a Court of First Instance. — The Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance may spend an attorney from practice
for any of the causes named in the last preceding section, and after such suspension such attorney shall not practice his
profession until further action of the Supreme Court in the premises."
We should add that the crimes of which respondent was convicted also import deceit and violation of her attorney’s oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibility under both of which she was bound to "obey the laws of the land." Conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude might not (as in the instant case, violation of B.P. Blg. 22 does not) relate to the exercise of the
profession of a lawyer; however, it certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person convicted of such
offense. In Melendrez v. Decena, 4 this Court stressed that "the nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that she shall
be a person of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to an admission to the practice of law;
its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law."
ROSITA C. NADAYAG vs. ATTY JOSE A. GRAGEDA
A.C. No. 3232 September 27, 1994 MELO, J.: THIRD DIVISION
Facts: Complainant charged respondent, a practicing attorney and notary public in Iligan City, with conduct unbecoming of a
lawyer in connection with a "Pacto de Retro" transaction wherein complainant was the vendee. Respondent allegedly notarized
a deed of sale using a title certificate which was stolen from the Register of Deeds, causing petitioner to be swindled of her
money since the property was already bought by another person using the owner’s duplicate title.
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: Yes. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The trust and confidence
necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his profession,
the courts and the public. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing.
Generally speaking, a lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the
courts, and to his clients. To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in
any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the profession. (Marcelo vs. Javier, Sr., 214
SCRA 1 [1992]).
Generally, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which
shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity, and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the
court. (Marcelo vs. Javier, Sr., supra).
In the case at bar, respondent should have been conscientious in seeing to it that justice permeated every aspect of a
transaction for which his services had been engaged, in conformity with the avowed duties of a worthy member of the Bar. He
should have fully explained the legal intricacies and consequences of the subject transaction as would aid the parties in making
an informed decision. Such responsibility was plainly incumbent upon him, and failing therein, he must now face the
commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. After all, notarization is not an empty routine. Notarization of a
private document converts such document into a public one and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its
authenticity.
PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION v. ATTY. DANTE A. CARANDANG
[A.C. NO. 5700 - January 30, 2006] SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. SECOND DIVISION
Facts: This is a verified complaint for disbarment filed by petitioner against respondent who allegedly issued bouncing checks to
the former so it filed Manila criminal complaints for violations of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22 against respondent. PAGCOR
contends that in issuing those bouncing checks, respondent is liable for serious misconduct, violation of the Attorney's Oath and
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and prays that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: Yes. The Court declared respondent GUILTY of serious misconduct and violations of the Attorney's Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
As a lawyer, respondent is deemed to know the law, especially B. P. Blg. 22. By issuing checks in violation of the provisions of
this law, respondent is guilty of serious misconduct. In Camus v. Civil Service Board of Appeals, we defined misconduct as
follows:
Misconduct has been defined as "wrong or improper conduct;" and "gross" has been held to mean "flagrant; shameful"
(Webster). This Court once held that the word misconduct implies a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment.
In Lizaso v. Amante, it was held that a lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice in connection with his profession, but
also for gross misconduct outside of his professional capacity, thus:
The nature of the office, the trust relation which exists between attorney and client, as well as between court and attorney, and
the statutory rule prescribing the qualifications of attorney, uniformly require that an attorney shall be a person of good moral
character. xxx So it is held that an attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but
also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties, which shows him to be unfit for the office and
unworthy of the principles which his license and the law confer upon him.
Respondent likewise violated the Attorney's Oath that he will, among others, obey the laws; and the Code of Professional
Responsibility, specifically the following provisions:
Cannon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal
processes.
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.
A VERY CONCERNED EMPLOYEE AND CITIZEN vs. LOURDES S. DE MATEO
A.M. No. P-05-2100               December 27, 2007 PER CURIAM: EN BANC
Facts: In a period of one year, Lourdes S. de Mateo, Clerk III of the MTCC in South Cotabato, had several anonymous letter-
complaints specifically charging her with falsification, dishonesty and grave misconduct.
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held:
Yes. Respondent, it should be stressed, failed to live up to the standards of honesty and integrity in the public service. As the
Constitution felicitously phrases it, public office is a public trust. Inherent in this mandate of trust is the observance of prescribed
office hours and the efficient use thereof for public service, if only to recompense the Government, and ultimately the people,
who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary. Thus, to inspire public confidence and respect for the justice system, court
officials and employees are at all times behooved to strictly observe official time. They must bear in mind that punctuality is a
virtue, but absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.
The Court is duty-bound to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline errant employees and to weed out those who are found
undesirable.We cannot countenance any act or omission by any court employee that violates the norm of public accountability,
which would diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.
VICTOR NUNGA v. ATTY. VENANCIO VIRAY
[Adm. Case No. 4758. April 30, 1999.] DAVIDE, JR., C.J.: EN BANC
Facts: Complainant seeks the disbarment of respondent on the ground of grave misconduct for notarizing documents without a
commission to do so. Complainant allegedly discovered that one of the bank’s assets, a house and lot in Kalookan City was
sold without proper bidding by its manager Jesus B. Manansala to Jesus Carlo Gerard M. Viray, a minor, on May 22, 1987. The
deed of absolute sale was notarized by the respondent who is not only the father of the buyer minor but also a stockholder and
legal counsel of the vendor bank and was not duly commissioned as notary public as of that date.
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization
or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. For one, performing a notarial without such
commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it
appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood,
which the lawyer’s oath similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct."
By such misconduct as a notary public, the lawyer likewise violates Canon 7 of the same Code, which directs every lawyer to
uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Elaborating on this, we said in Maligsa v. Cabanting:
A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his
clients. To this end a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the
confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession. (Citing Marcelo v. Javier,
214 SCRA 1 [1992]).
Needless to state, respondent cannot escape from disciplinary action in his capacity as a notary public and as a member of the
Philippine Bar.
PRISCILLA CASTILLO VDA. DE MIJARES vs. JUSTICE ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ (Retired)
A.C. No. 4431 June 19, 1997 REGALADO, J.: EN BANC
Facts: In a sworn complaint for disbarment complainant Judge charged respondent, a retired Justice of the Court of Appeals,
with gross immorality and grave misconduct. Allegedly, complainant married respondent, who, unknown to her, had a subsisting
marriage.
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: Yes. The Court held that it is evident that respondent dismally fails to meet the standard of moral fitness for continued
membership in the legal profession. The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that he shall be a person of good
moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent for admission to the practice of law; its continued possession
is also essential for remaining in the practice of law.Under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The commission of grossly immoral conduct and deceit are
grounds for suspension or disbarment of lawyers.
However, considering that respondent is in the declining years of his life; that his impulsive conduct during some episodes of the
investigation reveal a degree of aberrant reactive behavior probably ascribable to advanced age; and the undeniable fact that he
has rendered some years of commendable service in the Judiciary, the Court feels that disbarment would be too harsh a penalty
in this peculiar case. Hence, a suspension of two years, as recommended, would suffice as a punitive but compassionate
disciplinary measure.
 CARMELITA I. ZAGUIRRE vs.  ATTY. ALFREDO CASTILLO
A.C. No. 4921. March 6, 2003 PER CURIAM: EN BANC
Facts: This is a Petition for Disbarment filed by complainant against respondent on the ground of Gross Immoral Conduct.
Allegedly, complainant and respondent were lovers but the latter had a subsisting marriage unbeknownst to the former. Carrying
his child, respondent executed an affidavit, admitting his relationship with the complainant and recognizing the unborn child she
was carrying as his. However, respondent had started to refuse recognizing the child and giving her any form of support.
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: Yes. Respondent repeatedly engaged in sexual congress with a woman not his wife and now refuses to recognize and
support a child whom he previously recognized and promised to support. Clearly therefore, respondent violated the standards of
morality required of the legal profession and should be disciplined accordingly.
As consistently held by this Court, disbarment shall not be meted out if a lesser punishment could be given. Records show that
from the time he took his oath in 1997, he has severed his ties with complainant and now lives with his wife and children in
Mindoro. As of now, the Court does not perceive this fact as an indication of respondents effort to mend his ways or that he
recognizes the impact of his offense on the noble profession of law. Nevertheless, the Court deems it more appropriate under
the circumstances that indefinite suspension should be meted out than disbarment. The suspension shall last until such time that
respondent is able to show, to the full satisfaction of the Court, that he had instilled in himself a firm conviction of maintaining
moral integrity and uprightness required of every member of the profession.
The rule is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as
long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.
ALBERTO FERNANDEZ, et. al vs. ATTORNEY BENJAMIN M. GRECIA
A.C. No. 3694 June 17, 1993 PER CURIAM: EN BANC
Facts: This disbarment complaint against Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia was filed by complainants where they are accredited
medical practitioners. The respondent is charged with dishonesty and grave misconduct in connection with the theft of some
pages from a medical chart which was material evidence in a damage suit filed by his clients against the aforenamed doctors
and St. Luke's.
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: Generally, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity,
which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer
of the court, or an unfit or unsafe person to enjoy the privileges and to manage the business of others in the capacity of an
attorney, or for conduct which tends to bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public.
In the case at bar, by descending to the level of a common thief, respondent Grecia has demeaned and disgraced the legal
profession. He has demonstrated his moral unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable fraternity of lawyers. He has
forfeited his membership in the BAR.
LESLIE UI v. ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO
[ADM. CASE No. 3319. June 8, 2000.] DE LEON, JR., J.: SECOND DIVISION
Facts: This is an administrative complaint for disablement against respondent for allegedly carrying on an immoral relationship
with Carlos L. Ui, husband of complainant.
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: No. The Court concluded that respondent was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that
her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered
immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community. Moreover, 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.
The Court have held that "a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous
relationships . . . but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting
those moral standards." 2Respondent’s act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status
belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard
of the legal profession. Complainant’s bare assertions to the contrary deserve no credit. After all, the burden of proof rests upon
the complainant, and the Court will exercise its disciplinary powers only if she establishes her case by clear, convincing and
satisfactory evidence. This, herein complainant miserably failed to do.
It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality. 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 officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality.
AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. vs. ATTYS. ANTONIO M. LLORENTE and LIGAYA P. SALAYON
A.C. No. 4680. August 29, 2000 MENDOZA, J.: SECOND DIVISION
Facts: This is a complaint for disbarment against for gross misconduct, serious breach of trust, and violation of the lawyers oath
in connection with the discharge of their duties as members of the Pasig City Board of Canvassers in the 1995 elections.
Salayon, then election officer of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), was designated chairman of said Board, while
Llorente, who was then City Prosecutor of Pasig City, served as its ex oficio vice-chairman as provided by law. Complainant,
now a senator, was also a candidate for the Senate in that election. 
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: Yes. The Court held that respondents are guilty of misconduct. A lawyer who holds a government position may not be
disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official.  However, if the
misconduct also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyers oath or is of such character as
to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part, such individual may be disciplined as a member of
the bar for such misconduct.
Here, by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, respondents committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code which
stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. By express provision of Canon 6,
this is made applicable to lawyers in the government service. In addition, they likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to
do no falsehood
ROSAURA P. CORDON vs. JESUS BALICANTA
A.C. No. 2797             October 4, 2002 PER CURIAM: EN BANC
Facts: Complainant charged a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Jesus Balicanta for allegedly mishandling the properties of
complainant and her daughter resulting to several losses.
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: The Court held that respondent committed grave and serious misconduct that casts dishonor on the legal profession. His
misdemeanors reveal a deceitful scheme to use the corporation as a means to convert for his own personal benefit properties
left to him in trust by complainant and her daughter.
Not even his deviousness could cover up the wrongdoings he committed. The documents he thought could exculpate him were
the very same documents that revealed his immoral and shameless ways. These documents were extremely revealing in that
they unmasked a man who knew the law and abused it for his personal gain without any qualms of conscience. They painted an
intricate web of lies, deceit and opportunism beneath a carefully crafted smokescreen of corporate maneuvers.
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates upon each lawyer, as his duty to society, the obligation to obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Specifically, he is forbidden to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct. If the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideal, those enrolled in its
ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them.  Thus, 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. Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout
their legal career, in order to maintain one’s good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity. Good moral character is
more than just the absence of bad character. Such character expresses itself in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right
and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. This must be so because "vast interests are committed to his care; he
is the recipient of unbounded trust and confidence; he deals with his client’s property, reputation, his life, his all."
SALVACION DELIZO CORDOVA vs. ATTY. LAURENCE D. CORDOVA
A.M. No. 3249 November 29, 1989 PER CURIAM: EN BANC
Facts: Complainant charged her husband, Atty. Laurence D. Cordova, with immorality and acts unbecoming a member of the
Bar.
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: Yes. In Mortel v. Aspiras, this Court, following the rule in the United States, held that "the continued possession ... of a
good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful continuance in the practice of the law ... and its loss requires
suspension or disbarment, even though the statutes do not specify that as a ground for disbarment. " It is important to note that
the lack of moral character that we here refer to as essential is not limited to good moral character relating to the discharge of
the duties and responsibilities of an attorney at law. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to
continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct for instance,
which makes "a mockery of the inviolable social institution or marriage." 
In the instant case, respondent Cordova maintained for about two (2) years an adulterous relationship with a married woman not
his wife, in full view of the general public, to the humiliation and detriment of his legitimate family which he, rubbing salt on the
wound, failed or refused to support. After a brief period of "reform" respondent took up again with another woman not his wife,
cohabiting with her and bringing along his young daughter to live with them. Clearly, respondent flaunted his disregard of the
fundamental institution of marriage and its elementary obligations before his own daughter and the community at large.
PRISCILA L. TOLEDO vs. ATTY. ERLINDA ABALOS
[A.C. No. 5141. September 29, 1999] MELO, J.: EN BANC
Facts: This is a case of a lawyer who borrowed money without paying it back.
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: The Court agreed with the Commission that respondent may not be disciplined either by the IBP or by this Court for failing
to pay her obligation to complainant. Complainants remedy is to file a collection case before a regular court of justice against
respondent. The general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and the court may not ordinarily assume
jurisdiction to discipline him, for misconduct in his non-professional or private capacity.
However, we find the recommendation to suspend respondent from the practice of law for six months to be grossly
disproportionate to the act complained of , i.e., her failure to appear before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP. With
her legal knowledge and expertise, respondent may have known all along that the Commission has no jurisdiction over a
complaint for collection of a sum of money which she borrowed in her private capacity. Hence, her adamant refusal to appear
before said body.

ISIDRA BARRIENTOS v. ATTY. ELERIZZA A. LIBIRAN-METEORO

[A.C. NO. 6408 : August 31, 2004] AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: SECOND DIVISION
Facts: This is a complaint for disbarment filed against respondent for deceit and non-payment of debts. Allegedly, respondent issued
bouncing checks to complainant for payment of a pre-existing debt which prompted the latter to file a criminal case.Respondent tried to
pay her debt with a land which was not hers.
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: The Court held that respondent should not be held liable for the alleged negotiation of a TCT to complainants for lack of sufficient
evidence, but only for the non-payment of debts and the issuance of worthless checks which were sufficiently proved and which
respondent herself admitted. It was held that deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross
misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law.18 Lawyers are instruments for the
administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. They are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high
standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the people's faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured.19
They must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment
of financial obligations. They must conduct themselves in a manner that reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as
embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.20 Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 explicitly states that:
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.
In this case, respondent in her answer initially tried to deny having any obligation towards Isidra Barrientos. Upon appearing before the
IBP-CBD, however, respondent eventually acknowledged her indebtedness to Isidra in the amount of P134,000.00, promising only to
pay in a staggered basis. Her attempt to evade her financial obligation runs counter to the precepts of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, above quoted, and violates the lawyer's oath which imposes upon every member of the bar the duty to delay no man for
money or malice.
JOVITA BUSTAMANTE-ALEJANDRO, vs. ATTYS. WARFREDO TOMAS ALEJANDRO and MARICRIS A. VILLARIN
A.C. No. 4256 February 13, 2004 PER CURIAM: EN BANC
Facts: This is an administrative case filed in 1994 by Jovita Bustamante-Alejandro charging respondents Atty. Warfredo Tomas
Alejandro and Atty. Maricris A. Villarin with bigamy and concubinage.
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: Indeed Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides –
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Thus we have in a number of cases disciplined members of the Bar whom we found guilty of misconduct which demonstrated a lack of
that good moral character required of them not only as a condition precedent for their admission to the Bar but, likewise, for their
continued membership therein. No distinction has been made as to whether the misconduct was committed in the lawyer’s professional
capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere
citizen at another. He is expected to be competent, honorable and reliable at all times since he who cannot apply and abide by the laws
in his private affairs, can hardly be expected to do so in his professional dealings nor lead others in doing so. Professional honesty and
honor are not to be expected as the accompaniment of dishonesty and dishonor in other relations. The administration of justice, in which
the lawyer plays an important role being an officer of the court, demands a high degree of intellectual and moral competency on his part
so that the courts and clients may rightly repose confidence in him.
In the instant case, sufficient evidence was presented to show that respondent Atty. Alejandro, while being lawfully married to
complainant, carried on an illicit relationship with another woman, co-respondent Atty. Villarin. Although the evidence presented was not
sufficient to prove that he contracted a subsequent bigamous marriage with her, the fact remains that respondent Atty. Alejandro
exhibited by his conduct a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. We have already held that
disbarment proceedings is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife and maintains an illicit relationship with another
woman who had borne him a child. We can do no less in the instant case where respondent Atty. Alejandro made himself unavailable to
this Court and even fled to another country to escape the consequences of his misconduct.
JOSELANO GUEVARRA vs. ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA
A.C. No. 7136 August 1, 2007 PER CURIAM: EN BANC
Facts: Complainant filed a Complaint for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline
(CBD) against respondent for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath."
Issue: W/n respondent is guilty of the offense alleged.
Held: Yes. Respondent is DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01
and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
On the charge of immorality, respondent does not deny that he had an extra-marital affair with complainant, albeit brief and discreet,
and which act is not "so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree" in
order to merit disciplinary sanction. The Court disagreed.
While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between two  unmarried adults is not sufficient to
warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to  betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity . Even if not
all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and
immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows  protected by the Constitution and
affirmed by our laws.
And so in Tucay v. Atty. Tucay:
The Court need not delve into the question of whether or not the respondent did contract a bigamous marriage . . . It is enough that the
records of this administrative case substantiate the findings of the Investigating Commissioner, as well as the IBP Board of Governors,
i.e., that indeed respondent has been carrying on an illicit affair with a married woman, a grossly immoral conduct and indicative of
an extremely low regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession. This detestable behavior renders him regrettably unfit and
undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges which his license confers upon him.