9. Brion, Jr. vs. Brillantes, Jr.

A.C. No. 5305 March 17, 2003

Facts:
Petitioner Marciano P. Brion, Jr., in this petition for disbarment, avers that respondent violated
the court’s decree of perpetual disqualification imposed upon respondent Francisco F.
Brillantes, Jr. (in A.M. No. MTJ-92-706, entitled Lupo Almodiel Atienza v. Judge Francisco F.
Brillantes, Jr.) 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), from 1998 to 2000. Said consultancy included
an appointment by LWUA as 6th member of the Board of Directors of the Urdaneta
(Pangasinan) Water District. Upon expiration of the legal consultancy agreement, this was
subsequently renewed as a Special Consultancy Agreement.
Respondent admits the existence of the Legal Consultancy Contract as well as the Special
Consultancy Contract. However, he raises the affirmative defense that under Civil Service
Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 27, Series of 1993, services rendered pursuant
to a consultancy contract shall not be considered government services, and therefore, are not
covered by Civil Service Law, rules and regulations.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent has transgressed the letter and spirit of the court’s decree in the
Atienza case.
Held:
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 the
Court’s decree in Atienza.
The Court finds 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, 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). The lawyer’s primary duty as enunciated in the Attorney’s Oath is to uphold
the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes.
That duty in its irreducible minimum entails obedience to the legal orders of the courts.
Respondent’s disobedience to this Court’s 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.
Hence, Atty. Brillantes was suspended and ordered to pay a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos
(Php10,000.00).

------------

10. Belleza v. Macasa | AC No. 7815 | 23 July 2009

November 12, 2017
Dolores C. Belleza, Complainant, v. Atty. Alan S. Macasa, Respondent
Adm. Case No. 7815 | 23 July 2009

Facts:
On 10 November 2004, complainant went to see respondent on referral of their mutual friend,
Joe Chua. Complainant wanted to avail of respondent’s legal services in connection with the
case of her son, Francis John Belleza, who was arrested by policemen of Bacolod City earlier
that day for alleged violation of Republic Act (RA) 9165. Respondent agreed to handle the case
for P30,000.

The following day, complainant made a partial payment of P15,000 to respondent thru their
mutual friend Chua. On 17 November 2004, she gave him an additional P10,000. She paid the
P5,000 balance on 18 November 2004. Both payments were also made thru Chua. On all three
occasions, respondent did not issue any receipt.

On 21 November 2004, respondent received P18,000 from complainant for the purpose of
posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of her (complainant’s) son. Again, respondent
did not issue any receipt. When complainant went to the court the next day, she found out that
respondent did not remit the amount to the court.

Complainant demanded the return of the P18,000 from respondent on several occasions but
respondent ignored her. Moreover, respondent failed to act on the case of complainant’s son
and complainant was forced to avail of the services of the Public Attorney’s Office for her son’s
defense.

Thereafter, complainant filed a verified complaint for disbarment against respondent in the
Negros Occidental chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). In an order dated 13
July 2005, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) required respondent to submit his answer
within 15 days from receipt thereof. Respondent, in an urgent motion for extension of time to file
an answer dated 10 August 2005, simply brushed aside the complaint for being "baseless,
groundless and malicious" without, however, offering any explanation. He also prayed that he
be given until 4 September 2005 to submit his answer.

Respondent subsequently filed urgent motions for second and third extensions of time praying
to be given until 4 November 2005 to submit his answer. He never did.

Issue:
Was the Respondent in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility due to his
negligence of the case of the respondent’s son?

Held:
For grossly neglecting the cause of his client, Atty. Macasa is guilty. Respondent undertook to
defend the criminal case against complainant’s son. Such undertaking imposed upon him the
following duties:
CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL
BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND

DILIGENCE.
xxxxxxxxx
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
xxxxxxxxx

CANON 19 – A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE
BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

A lawyer who accepts the cause of a client commits to devote himself (particularly his time,
knowledge, skills and effort) to such cause. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him, constantly striving to be worthy thereof. Accordingly, he owes full devotion to
the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client’s rights and the
exertion of his utmost learning, skill and ability to ensure that nothing shall be taken or withheld
from his client, save by the rules of law legally applied.

A lawyer who accepts professional employment from a client undertakes to serve his client with
competence and diligence. He must conscientiously perform his duty arising from such
relationship. He must bear in mind that by accepting a retainer, he impliedly makes the following
representations: that he possesses the requisite degree of learning, skill and ability other
lawyers similarly situated possess; that he will exert his best judgment in the prosecution or
defense of the litigation entrusted to him; that he will exercise reasonable care and diligence in
the use of his skill and in the application of his knowledge to his client’s cause; and that he will
take all steps necessary to adequately safeguard his client’s interest.

A lawyer’s negligence in the discharge of his obligations arising from the relationship of counsel
and client may cause delay in the administration of justice and prejudice the rights of a litigant,
particularly his client. Thus, from the perspective of the ethics of the legal profession, a lawyer’s
lethargy in carrying out his duties to his client is both unprofessional and unethical.

If his client’s case is already pending in court, a lawyer must actively represent his client by
promptly filing the necessary pleading or motion and assiduously attending the scheduled
hearings. This is specially significant for a lawyer who represents an accused in a criminal case.

The accused is guaranteed the right to counsel under the Constitution. However, this right can
only be meaningful if the accused is accorded ample legal assistance by his lawyer:
The right to counsel proceeds from the fundamental principle of due process which basically
means that a person must be heard before being condemned. The due process requirement is
a part of a person's basic rights; it is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with or
performed perfunctorily.

The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the
mere propounding of standard questions and objections. The right to counsel means that the
accused is amply accorded legal assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself to the
cause for the defense and acts accordingly. The right assumes an active involvement by the
lawyer in the proceedings, particularly at the trial of the case, his bearing constantly in mind of
the basic rights of the accused, his being well-versed on the case, and his knowing the
fundamental procedures, essential laws and existing jurisprudence.

The right of an accused to counsel is beyond question a fundamental right. Without counsel, the
right to a fair trial itself would be of little consequence, for it is through counsel that the accused
secures his other rights. In other words, the right to counsel is the right to effective assistance of
counsel.

The right of an accused to counsel finds substance in the performance by the lawyer of his
sworn duty of fidelity to his client. Tersely put, it means an effective, efficient and truly decisive
legal assistance, not a simply perfunctory representation.

In this case, after accepting the criminal case against complainant’s son and receiving his
attorney’s fees, respondent did nothing that could be considered as effective and efficient legal
assistance. For all intents and purposes, respondent abandoned the cause of his client. Indeed,
on account of respondent’s continued inaction, complainant was compelled to seek the services
of the Public Attorney’s Office. Respondent’s lackadaisical attitude towards the case of
complainant’s son was reprehensible. Not only did it prejudice complainant’s son, it also
deprived him of his constitutional right to counsel. Furthermore, in failing to use the amount
entrusted to him for posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of his client, respondent
unduly impeded the latter’s constitutional right to bail.

The Supreme Court found the Respondent GUILTY not only of dishonesty but also of
professional misconduct for prejudicing Francis John Belleza’s (the Complainant’s son) right to
counsel and to bail under Sections 13 and 14(2), Article III of the Constitution, and for
violating Canons 1, 7, 17, 18 and 19 and Rules 12.03, 16.01, 16.02, 16.03 and 18.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is therefore DISBARRED from the practice
of law effective immediately.

Respondent is hereby ORDERED to return to complainant Dolores C. Belleza the

amounts of P30,000 and P18,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of
promulgation of this decision until full payment. Respondent is further DIRECTED to
submit to the Court proof of payment of the amount within ten days from payment.
Failure to do so will subject him to criminal prosecution
----------------
11. FERNANDEZ VS. GRECIA

In 1990, Linda Aves was admitted to St. Lukes Hospital. Among the doctors who treated her
was Dr. Alberto Fernandez. She was treated well hence she was sent home but then the next
day she died together with her unborn child. Damaso Aves, husband, then filed a damage suit
against the hospital and he impleaded the attending doctors which included Fernandez. Aves
hired Atty. Benjamin Grecia to represent him.

Grecia requested St. Luke to surrender before the court the medical records of Linda Aves. St.
Luke complied and the medical records were delivered to the Clerk of Court. In the morning of
July 16, 1991, Grecia went to the office of the clerk of court to borrow the said medical records.
While Grecia was examining the said medical records, he tore in front of the Clerk and one
office staff two pages from the medical records and then handed it back to the Clerk. The Clerk
was stunned as she watched Grecia walk away. She then reported the incident to the judge.
The judge immediately took action and the torn pages were eventually recovered as it turned
out that Grecia handed the torn pages to someone else.

Grecia was then administratively charged by Dr. Fernandez. Apparently, Grecia has been
disbarred before. However, he was able to get to the good side of the Supreme Court hence he
was reinstated to the profession.

ISSUE: Whether or not Grecia should be disbarred again.

HELD: Yes. Grecia violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a lawyer, he should not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. A lawyer shall at all times uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. A
lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is “like the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance
the ends of justice”. Considering that this is his second offense, an incorrigible practitioner of
“dirty tricks,” like Grecia would be ill-suited to discharge the role of “an instrument to advance
the ends of justice.” 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.

---------------------
12. Pimentel Jr. vs. Llorente and Salayon AC No. 4680

Aquilino Pimentel vs Attys. Llorente and Salayon Adm. Case No. 4680 August 29, 2000
Facts:
Petitioner, Aquilino Pimentel whowas then running for Senator in the 1995elections filed a
complaint for disbarmentagainst respondents Antonio M. Llorenteand Ligaya P. Salayon for
grossmisconduct, serious breach of trust, andviolation of the lawyer's oath. This is inconnection
with the discharge of theirduties as members of the Pasig CityBoard of Canvassers. Salayon,
thenelection officer of the Commission onElections (COMELEC), was designatedchairman of
said Board, while Llorente,who was then City Prosecutor of PasigCity, served as its
ex oficio
vice-chairmanas provided by law.Petitioner alleges that, in violation of R.A.No. 6646, §27(b),
respondents tamperedwith the votes received by him, throughillegal padding. He maintains that,
bysigning the Statements of Votes (SoVs)and Certificate of Canvass (CoC) despiterespondents'
knowledge that some of theentries therein were false, the lattercommitted a serious breach of
publictrust and of their lawyers' oath.Respondents denied the allegations andalleged that the
preparation of the SoVswas made by the canvassing committeeswhich the Board had
constituted to assistin the canvassing. They claimed that theerrors pointed out by complainant
couldbe attributed to honest mistake,oversight, and/or fatigue. The Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, towhich this matter had been referred,recommended the dismissal of thecomplaint
for lack of merit. Petitionerfiled a motion for reconsideration wasalso denied. He then filed
petition beforethis Court.
Issue:
Whether or not respondents wereguilty of misconduct and violation of thelawyer’s oath.
Holding:
What is involved here is not just a case of mathematical error in thetabulation of votes per
precinct but asystematic scheme to pad the votes of certain senatorial candidates at
theexpense of petitioner in completedisregard of the tabulation in the electionreturns. Despite
the fact that thesediscrepancies, especially the doublerecording of the returns from 22precincts
and the variation in thetabulation of votes as reflected in theSoVs and CoC, were apparent on
the faceof these documents and that thevariation involves substantial number of votes,
respondents nevertheless certifiedthe SoVs as true and correct. Their actsconstitute
misconduct.As a lawyer who holds a governmentposition may not be disciplined as amember of
the bar for misconduct in thedischarge of his duties as a governmentofficial. However, if the
misconduct alsoconstitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or thelawyer's
oath or is of such character as toaffect his qualification as a lawyer orshows moral delinquency
on his part,such individual may be disciplined as amember of the bar for such misconduct.In this
case, by certifying as true andcorrect the SoVs in question, respondentscommitted a breach of
Rule 1.01 of theCode which stipulates that a lawyer shallnot engage in "unlawful,
dishonest,immoral or deceitful conduct." Byexpress provision of Canon 6, this ismade applicable
to lawyers in thegovernment service. In addition, theylikewise violated their oath of office
aslawyers to "do no falsehood." The above committed acts would havemerited suspension were
it not for thefact that this is their first administrativetransgression and in the case of
Salayon,after a long public service. Under, thecircumstances the Court find respondentsguilty of
misconduct and imposes oneach of them a fine in the amount of P10,000.00 with a warning
thatcommission of similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
__________________

13. Constantino vs. Saludares AC 2029

FACTS: Constantino charges Atty. Saludares of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer for the
non-payment of a loan which the latter obtained from the former’s son. Atty. Saludares
borrowed money in the amount of P1,000.00 from Constantino’s son Luis, Jr. Atty. Saludares
procured the loan
purportedly for an urgent personal obligation. He failed tocomply with his promise. Subsequent
demands for paymentwere then made by Luis, Jr. but to no avail. Luis, Jr. left thecountry and
afterwards wrote his father, authorizing thelatter to collect the sum of money but again to no
avail.Constantino then sought assistance from the Civil RelationsOffice of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines (AFP) throughan affidavit-complaint. The Civil Relations Office in turnendorsed
the affidavit-complaint to this Court. Atty.Saludares averred that the complaint was without basis
andmalicious in nature. He however, categorically admits havingborrowed money from
complainant's son, Luis, Jr. He reasonsout that he was unable to repay the loan because Luis,
Jr.failed to appear at the appointed place of the payment. Thecase was referred to the Office of
the Solicitor General forinvestigation, report and recommendation.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Saludares was guilty of conductunbecoming of a lawyer

RULING: Yes.
Atty’s Saludares’s conduct is unbecoming and does not speak well of a member of the Bar. The
Supreme Court held that by Atty. Saludares’s failure to present convincing evidence to justify his
non-payment of the debt,not to mention his seeming indifference to the complaint brought
against him made apparent by his unreasonable absence from the proceedings before the
Solicitor General,respondent failed to demonstrate that he still possessed the integrity and
morality demanded of a member of the Bar.Granting arguendo that he failed to meet Luis, Jr. at
the appointed place of payment, respondent does not deny the fact that he has refused and still
refuses to repay the P1,000.00 loan despite repeated demands. Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility clearly provides that a lawyer must not engage in unlawful, immoral
or deceitful conduct. 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. No moral qualification for bar
membership is more important that truthfulness and candor.SUSPENDED for 3 months.

________________________
14. Arrieta vs. Llosa AC 4369

FACTS:
Complainant Pike P. Arrieta filed a disbarment case against respondent, Atty.Joel A. Llosa for
notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale, wherein, the vendors werealready dead prior to its
execution.Respondent sought to dismiss the disbarment case having admitted that henotarized
the Deed of Absolute Sale, exercising due diligence and proceduralverification of parties
concerned, upon the expeditious request of his clients.On September 9, 1996 the complainant
moved for the dismissal of hiscomplaint arguing that no harm was done and the disbarment
case was only aproduct of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of some facts.The Board of
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)resolved to dismiss the case after
finding no reason for such disbarment case toproceed. The Supreme Court did not agree with
the IBP and ruled otherwise.
ISSUE:
Should Atty. Joel A. Llosa be disbarred or suspended from practice of Law?
RULING:
Respondent ordered SUSPENDED for six months from practice of law with awarning that
another infraction will be dealt with more severely. Citing Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 also
known as the Notarial law, the Supreme Court explainedthe importance of adherence to said
law as part of the responsibility of a dulydeputized authority to conduct such notarial process.
Due diligence is to beobserved, this being part of a lawyers professional responsibility and
procedurallapse is not an excuse to cater to the convenience of clients. Any violation
istantamount to misconduct. Such misconduct is a ground for disbarment as stated bythe
Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.Furthermore, the Supreme Court stressed the
primordial responsibility of lawyers to obey the constitution and laws of the land as stated in
Canon I of theCode of Professional Responsibility. Any deviation from such is violative of the
lawyers’ oath and the duty they have subscribed into.
-----------------------------
15. Roberto Soriano vs. Dizon

Roberto Soriano vs. Atty. Manuel Dizon

AC 6792
January 25, 2006

FACTS:
Atty. Manuel Dizon was driving his car under the influence of liquor when along Abanao Street,
Baguio City, a taxi driver overtook him. Incensed, Dizon tailed the taxi, pulled it over, and
berated Roberto Soriano, the taxi driver, and held him by his shirt. To stop the aggression,
Soriano forced open his door, causing Dizon to fall to the ground. Soriano tried to help Dizon get
up, but the latter was about to punch him so Soriano punched Dizon first to fend off an
impending attack. Soriano prevented another attempt by Dizon to hit him. Dizon went back to
his car and got his revolver with the handle wrapped in a handkerchief. As Soriano was handing
Dizon’s eyeglasses, which he just picked up from the pavement, Dizon fired and shot him.
Soriano fell on the thigh of the accused, and the latter merely pushed him out and sped off. The
bullet hit Soriano’s neck and lacerated his carotid artery. According to the doctors who treated
him, he would have died if not for the timely medical assistance. Soriano sustained spinal cord
injury causing the left side of his body to be paralyzed, disabling him for his job as a taxi driver.

Dizon was eventually convicted for frustrated homicide but was allowed probation, conditioned
on payment of civil liabilities. However, four years after judgment was rendered, Dizon has not
yet fulfilled his civil obligation.

Soriano filed complaint before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP for Dizon’s
disbarment. The Commissioner of the CBD recommended that respondent be disbarred for
having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and for violating Rule. 1.01 of Canon
1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP adopted the recommendation of the CBD
and sent their resolution to the Supreme Court for review.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the crime of frustrated homicide committed by Atty. Dizon involved moral
turpitude.
2. Whether or not Atty. Dizon’s guilt warrants his disbarment.

HELD:
1. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the CBD that the crime of frustrated
homicide committed by Atty. Dizon involved moral turpitude. The court defined moral
turpitude as “everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an
act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes
his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
morals.” Moral turpitude was shown when Atty. Dizon shot a taxi driver for no justifiable
reason. His act definitely did not constitute self-defense. It was he who was the
aggressor because he first tried to punch Soriano. The latter was merely defending
himself when he counterpunched Dizon. Moreover, Dizon’s act was aggravated with
treachery when he shot Soriano when the latter was not in a position to defend himself.
Soriano was handing Dizon’s eyeglasses, which he just picked up, when he was shot.
Furthermore, Dizon tried to escape punishment by wrapping the handle of his gun in
handkerchief in order not to leave fingerprints on the gun used. Dizon’s violent reaction
to a simple traffic incident indicated his skewed morals.

1. The Supreme Court held that Dizon also violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides that “A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws
of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.” Dizon failed to obey the
laws of the land through his illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm. He failed to
respect legal processes through his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities, the
condition for his probation.

Dizon also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that “A
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Dizon’s violation
was exhibited when he tried to reach an out-of-court settlement with the family of Soriano but
when the negotiations failed, he made it appear as if it was the family who approached him to
get a referral to a neurosurgeon. In addition, Dizon fabricated a story that it was Soriano and
two other persons who mauled him. According to the three doctors who examined Dizon, his
injuries were so minor that his allegation was so improbable.

The court ruled that the appalling treachery and brazen dishonesty of respondent clearly
showed his unfitness to continue as a member of the bar. Membership in the legal profession is
a privilege demanding a high degree of good moral character, which is not only a condition
precedent to admission, but also a continuing requirement for the practice of law. While the
power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and that disbarment should never be
decreed when any lesser penalty would accomplish the end desired, the court held that meting
out a lesser penalty would be irreconcilable with the lofty aspiration that every lawyer be a
shining exemplar of truth and justice. Atty. Dizon was disbarred.
--------------------------
16. Cecilia Agno vs. Atty. Marciano Cagatan
Facts:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Cecilia A. Agno against respondent Atty. Marciano J.
Cagatan for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The record shows that respondent was the President of International Services Recruitment
Corporation (ISRC), a corporation engaged in the recruitment of Filipino workers for overseas
employment. On July 12, 1988, ISRC's recruitment license was cancelled by the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) for violation of labor law provisions and subsequently, on
August 9, 1988, ISRC was forever banned from participating in overseas recruitment.​1​ cra
On Sepetember 19, 1988, the respondent appealed the DOLE's cancellation of ISRC's license
with the Office of the President. The appeal was resolved by the said office in respondent's
favor in the Resolution dated March 30, 1993​2 which set aside the order of cancellation and
directed both the DOLE and the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) to renew the
recruitment license of ISRC subject to the payment of a guarantee bond which was double the
amount required by law.
Since ISRC's recruitment license had already expired on September 17, 1989, ISRC filed on
April 12, 1994, an application for renewal of its recruitment license with the POEA.​3​ cra
However, during the pendency of the aforementioned appeal with the Office of the President,
particularly on August 9, 1992, the respondent entered into a Memorandum of Agreement​4 with
a United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) national, Mr. Khalifa H. Juma,​5 the husband of herein
complainant, Cecilia A. Agno.
On December 26, 1995, which was more than three (3) years after the execution of the
aforesaid agreement, a Complaint-Affidavit​6 for disbarment was filed with this Court by the
complainant against the respondent claiming that the latter used fraud, deceit and
misrepresentation, in enticing her husband, Khalifa, to join ISRC and invest therein the amount
of P500,000.00 and that although the respondent received the aforesaid amount, the
complainant learned from her inquiries with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
and the POEA that the respondent failed to comply with the terms of the Memorandum of
Agreement. The complainant found out that the said Memorandum of Agreement could not be
validated without the approval of the Board of Directors of ISRC. While respondent even had the
complainant sign an affidavit stating that she was then the acting Treasurer of ISRC, her
appointment as Treasurer was not submitted to the SEC. The records of the SEC showed that
the Board of Directors, officers and stockholders of ISRC remained unchanged and her name
and that of her husband did not appear as officers and/or stockholders thereof. From the POEA,
on the other hand, the complainant learned that ISRC's recruitment license was yet to be
reinstated.
The complainant claimed that respondent used for his own personal benefit the P500,000.00
that she and her husband invested in ISRC. When she demanded that respondent return the
said sum of money, respondent issued a bank check dated March 30, 1994​7 in favor of the
complainant in the amount of P500,000.00 which was dishonored for being drawn against a
closed account. Despite repeated demands by complainant, the respondent failed to settle his
obligation or redeem his dishonored check, prompting the complainant to file a case for violation
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against the respondent. An information was filed before the
Municipal Trial Court of Cainta, Rizal, charging the respondent with the said offense and a
warrant of arrest was issued against respondent after the latter failed several times to attend his
arraignment. The complainant prayed for the disbarment of the respondent for issuing a
bouncing check and for his act of dishonesty in assuring her and her husband that the
Memorandum of Agreement would suffice to install them as stockholders and officers of ISRC
which induced them to invest in said corporation the amount of P500,000.00.
The IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), through Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan,
held several hearings, the last of which was on November 13, 2003. Eventually, on October 12,
2004, Commissioner San Juan submitted her Report and Recommendation.
Thus, the Commissioner's recommendation:cra:nad
Given all the foregoing, it is submitted that respondent manifested lack of candor, when he
knowingly failed to provide the complainant with accurate and complete information due her
under the circumstances. It is respectfully recommended that respondent be SUSPENDED from
the practice of law in the maximum period prescribed by law and to return the money received
from the complainant.
On October 22, 2005, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed Resolution No.
XVII-2005-102​16 adopting and approving, with modification, the afore-quoted report and
recommendation of the investigating commissioner.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law

Ruling:
In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that respondent has violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility as well as his attorney's oath.
The Code of Professional Responsibility specifically mandates the following : cra:nad
Canon 1. A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Canon 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.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Marciano J. Cagatan is SUSPENDED FOR ONE (1) YEAR
and ONE (1) MONTH from the practice of law with warning that repetition of the same or similar
acts will merit a more severe penalty; and ordered to RESTITUTE the amount of P500,000.00 to
the complainant.

------------------------
Bar Matter no 2012 - Mandatory Legal Aid

Bar Matter 2012: Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service

Last February 10, 2009, the Supreme Court approved Bar Matter 2012 or the Rule on
Mandatory Legal Aid Service governing the mandatory requirement for practicing lawyers to
render free legal aid services in all cases (whether civil, criminal, or administrative) involving
indigent and pauper litigants where the assistance of a lawyer is needed. It also mandates other
members of the legal profession to support the legal aid program of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines.
All practicing lawyers are required to render a minimum of sixty (60) hours of free legal aid
services to indigent litigants in a year. Clerks of Court and the IBP Legal Aid Chairperson of the
IBP Chapter are designated to coordinate with a lawyer for cases where he may render free
legal aid service.
The following lawyers are excluded in the term “practicing lawyer”:
1. Government employees and incumbent elective officials not allowed by law to practice;
2. Lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court;
3. Supervising lawyers of students enrolled in law student practice in duly accredited legal
clinics of law schools and lawyers of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and peoples
organizations (POs) like the Free Legal Assistance Group who by the nature of their work
already render free legal aid to indigent and pauper litigants and
4. Lawyers not covered under subparagraphs (1) to (3) including those who are employed in
the private sector but do not appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and
quasi-judicial agencies.
Indigent and pauper litigants are those whose gross income and that of their immediate family
do not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee and those who
not own any real property. They are exempt from payment of docket fees and lawful fees as well
as transcripts of stenographic notes.
A penalty of Php 4,000 shall be imposed on the lawyer who fails to meet the required minimum
number of hours of legal aid service each year required by the IBP without satisfactory
explanation. The lawyer shall have a “not in good standing” status and shall not be allowed to
appear in court or any quasi-judicial body as counsel for a period of 3 months. A lawyer who
fails to comply with the duties in the Rule for at least 3 consecutive years shall be subject to
disciplinary proceedings and may be suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.

------------------------
17. SLU vs Dela Cruz
Facts: A disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and Staff of the Saint Louis
University-Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) against Atty. Rolando C. Dela Cruz, principal of
SLU-LHS, predicated on the following grounds:

1. Gross misconduct- he has pending case of child abuse, administrative case and labor case.

2. Grossly immoral conduct – contracting a second marriage despite the existence of his first
marriage.

3. Malpractice- notarizing documents despite the expiration of his commission.

Issue: May a pending case constitutes facts that determines the existence of gross misconduct
by the respondent?

Held: Practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that
they possess the qualifications required by law. The purpose of suspending or disbarring an
attorney is to remove from the profession those unfit to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities thereby protecting the public and those charged with the administration of
justice, rather than to punish an attorney.

Contracting a second marriage despite existence of first marriage is a violation of the continous
possession of good moral character as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law
practice.

The Court has characterized a lawyer’s act of notarizing documents without the requisite
commission to do so as “reprehensible, constituting as it does not only malpractice but also the
crime of falsification of public documents.” Notarization of a private document converts the
document into a public one making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.
A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason,
notaries public must observe with the utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of
their duties.

Pending case does not constitute facts that determines the existence of gross misconduct by
the respondent as these are still pending before the proper forums. At such stages, the
presumption of innocence still prevails in favor of the respondent.

-------------------------
18. Barrientos vs. Daarol
FACTS:
Complainant, Victoria Barrientos, is single, a college student, and was about 20 years and 7
months old during the time (July-October 1975) of her relationship with respondent, while
respondent Transfiguracion Daarol is married, General Manager of Zamboanga del Norte
Electric Cooperative, and 41 years old at the time of the said relationship.
Respondent is married to Romualda A. Sumaylo with whom be has a son; that the marriage
ceremony was solemnized on September 24, 1955 at Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte by a Catholic
priest, Rev. Fr. Anacleto Pellamo, and that said respondent had been separated from his wife
for about 16 years at the time of his relationship with complainant.
Respondent had been known by the Barrientos family for quite sometime, having been a former
student of complainant's father in 1952 and, a former classmate of complainant's mother at the
Andres Bonifacio College in Dipolog City; that he became acquainted with complainant's sister,
Norma in 1963 and eventually with her other sisters, Baby and Delia and, her brother, Boy, as
he used to visit Norma at her residence; that he also befriended complainant and who became a
close friend when he invited her, with her parents' consent, to be one of the usherettes during
the Masonic Convention in Sicayab, Dipolog City from June 28 to 30, 1973, and he used to
fetch her at her residence in the morning and took her home from the convention site after each
day's activities;
Respondent courted complainant, and after a week of courtship, complainant accepted
respondent's love on July 7, 1973; that in the evening of August 20, 1973, complainant with her
parents' permission was respondent's partner during the Chamber of Commerce affair at the
Lopez Skyroom in the Dipolog City, and at about 10:00 o'clock that evening, they left the place
but before going home, they went to the airport at Sicayab, Dipolog City and parked the jeep at
the beach, where there were no houses around; that after the usual preliminaries, they
consummated the sexual act and at about midnight they went home; that after the first sexual
act, respondent used to have joy ride with complainant which usually ended at the airport where
they used to make love twice or three times a week; that as a result of her intimate relations,
complainant became pregnant;
That after a conference among respondent, complainant and complainant's parents, it was
agreed that complainant would deliver her child in Manila, where she went with her mother on
October 22, 1973 by boat, arriving in Manila on the 25th and, stayed with her brother-in-law
Ernesto Serrano in Singalong, Manila; that respondent visited her there on the 26th, 27th and
28th of October 1973, and again in February and March 1974; that later on complainant decided
to deliver the child in Cebu City in order to be nearer to Dipolog City, and she went there in April
1974 and her sister took her to the Good Shepherd Convent at Banawa Hill, Cebu City; that on
June 14, 1974, she delivered a baby girl at the Perpetual Succor Hospital in Cebu City and,
named her "Dureza Barrientos"; that about the last week of June 1974 she went home to
Dipolog City; that during her stay here in Manila and later in Cebu City, the respondent defrayed
some of her expenses; that she filed an administrative case against respondent with the
National Electrification Administration; which complaint, however, was dismissed; and then she
instituted the present disbarment proceedings against respondent.

In view of the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully recommend that after hearing, respondent
Transfiguracion Daarol be disbarred as a lawyer.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Daarol is grossly immoral.

HELD:
Here, respondent, already a married man and about 41 years old, proposed love and marriage
to complainant, then still a 20-year-old minor, knowing that he did not have the required legal
capacity. Respondent then succeeded in having carnal relations with complainant by deception,
made her pregnant, suggested abortion, breached his promise to marry her, and then deserted
her and the child. Respondent is therefore guilty of deceit and grossly immoral conduct.

By his acts of deceit and immoral tendencies to appease his sexual desires, respondent Daarol
has amply demonstrated his moral delinquency. Hence, his removal for conduct unbecoming a
member of the Bar on the grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct is in order. Good
moral conduct is a condition which precedes admission to the Bar and is not dispensed with
upon admission there. It is a continuing qualification to which all lawyers must possess.
Otherwise, a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred.

------------------------
19. Dahlia S. Gacias vs. Atty Alexander Balauitan
GACIAS vs. ATTY. BULAUITAN
A.C. No. 7280
November 16, 2006

Facts:

Respondent, Atty. Balauitan sold to the petitioner a portion of his 1,242 square meter land
located at Tuguegarao for P322,000.00. Petitioner upon payment of a total P300,000.00 learned
that respondent mortgage the said land compeling the petitioner to demand to the respondent a
copy of the title of the land purchased. Respondent was not able to produce said title compeling
the petitioner to asked for the return of total money paid. Respondent was not able to return the
money instead their land purchase agreement did no push thru because the petitioner failed to
pay the total amount. Hence, petitioner filed a disbarment case against the respondent for
dishonesty and grave misconduct.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent acted in violation of the Rule 7.03 of the Code of professional
Responsibility?

Held:

Rule 7.03 of the Code, provides that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law. Respondent had shown, through his dealing with the complainant
involving a tiny parcel of land, a want of professional honesty. Such misdeed reflects on the
moral stuff which he is made of. His fitness to continue in the advocacy of law and manage the
legal affairs of others are thus put in serious doubt. ATTY. ALEXANDER BULAUITAN, is found
guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty.

-----------------------
20. Aileen A. Ferancullo vs. Atty. Sancho M. Ferancullo

AILEEN A. FERANCULLO vs ATTY. SANCHO M. FERANCULLO

A.C. No. 7214, November 30, 2006
Facts:
Before the Court is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Aileen Ferancullo
(petitioner) against Atty. Sancho M. Ferancullo, Jr. (respondent) grounded on his alleged
commission of estafa, bigamy and violation of the lawyers oath. Complainant narrated how
respondent allegedly took advantage of their attorney-client relationship to extort money from
her in consideration of the out-of-court settlement of her criminal cases and deceived her into
marrying him by concealing his previous marriage. Complainant averred that respondent would
send her breakfast and flowers. When asked about his personal circumstances, respondent
supposedly told complainant that he was still single although he had a child out of wedlock.
Complainant also maintained that she saw no apparent indications suggesting that respondent
was married. As indicative of their romantic relationship, respondent and complainant allegedly
traveled to different places. Complainant found out that she was pregnant sometime in June
2004. Respondent likewise denied courting complainant asserting that the latter had already
known since February 2004 that he was married.​[21] He claimed to be happily married to his
legal wife. He denied living in together with complainant or providing a residence for
complainant. Despite the numerous factual allegations presented by both parties and the
affidavits and documents to support them, the IBP made only a general conclusion that
complainant must be motivated by greed in filing the instant administrative complaint. Thus, the
Court reviewed the records.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Sancho M. Ferancullo is found guilty of gross immorality with regard
to engaging in illicit relationships and abandoning his family?
Ruling:
Respondents intimate relationship with a woman other than his wife shows his moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community. ]​​ It is a
time-honored rule that good moral character 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. However, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and only in a clear
case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer
of the Court and as a member of the bar. Disbarment should never be decreed where any
lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, could accomplish the end desired. Atty. Sancho
M. Ferancullo, Jr. is found guilty of gross immorality and is hereby suspended from the practice
of law for a period of two (2) years effective upon notice with the specific warning that a more
severe penalty shall be imposed should he commit the same or a similar offense hereafter.
________________________________
21. Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala

A.C. No. 7136

August 1, 2007

Facts: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala
for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer’s oath. In the Complaint,
Guevarra first met the respondent in January 2000 when his then fiancée Irene Moje introduced
respondent to him as her friend who was married to Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three
children.

After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed that from January to March
2001, Irene had been receiving from respondent Cellphone calls, as well as messages some
which read “I love you,” “I miss you,” or “Meet you at Megamall.” He also noticed that Irene
habitually went home very late at night or early in the morning of the following day, and
sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked her whereabouts, she replied that she
slept at her parent’s house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work.

In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Respondent together on two occasions.
On the second occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal
house. On April 22, 2001 complainant went uninvited to Irene’s birthday celebration at which he
saw her and the respondent celebrating with her family and friends. Out of embarrassment,
anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the
conjugal house and hauled off all her personal belongings. Complainant later found a
handwritten letter dated October 7, 2007, the day of his wedding to Irene, Complainant soon
saw respondent’s car and that of Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B11 Street, New Manila
where as he was later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was already residing. He also learned
still later that when his friends saw Irene on about January 18, 2002 together with respondent
during a concert, she was pregnant.

Issue: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the reason for the disbarment of
Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala.

Held: Lawyer’s oath stated that a lawyer should support the Constitution and obey the laws,
Meaning he shall not make use of deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct, grossly
immoral conduct, or be convicted in any crime involving moral turpitude. In the case at bar Atty.
Eala was accused of Concubinage, under ART. 334 of the Revised Penal Code, “ Any husband
who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse, under
scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any
other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium period.
Section 2 of ART. XV states that “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation
of the family and shall be protected by the state. Respondent’s grossly immoral conduct runs
afoul of the constitution and the laws, that he as a lawyer has sworn to uphold. Hence the court
declared Atty. Jose Emmanul M. Eala 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.

____________________________
22. MANUEL G. VILLATUYA v. ATTY. BEDE S. TABALINGCOS A.C. No. 6622, July 10, 2012
Case Digest
FACTS:

Complainant, Manuel G. Villatuya filed a Complaint for Disbarment on December 06, 2004
against respondent, Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos. In a resolution, the court required the
respondent to file a comment, which the respondent did. The complaint was then referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation.

In a mandatory conference called for by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP,
complainant and his counsel, and the respondent appeared and submitted issues for resolution.
The commission ordered the parties to submit their verified position papers.

In the position paper submitted by the complainant on August 1, 2005, he averred that he was
employed by the respondent as financial consultant to assist the respondent in a number of
corporate rehabilitation cases. Complainant claimed that they had a verbal agreement whereby
he would be entitled to ₱50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the cases they would
handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their clients. Notwithstanding, 18
Stay Orders that was issued by the courts as a result of his work and the respondent being able
to rake in millions from the cases that they were working on together, the latter did not pay the
amount due to him. He also alleged that respondent engaged in unlawful solicitation of cases by
setting up two financial consultancy firms as fronts for his legal services. On the third charge of
gross immorality, complainant accused respondent of committing two counts of bigamy for
having married two other women while his first marriage was subsisting.

In his defense, respondent denied charges against him and asserted that the complainant was
not an employee of his law firm but rather an employee of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., one
of the financial consultancy firms. Respondent alleged that complainant was unprofessional and
incompetent in performing his job and that there was no verbal agreement between them
regarding the payment of fees and the sharing of professional fees paid by his clients. He
proffered documents showing that the salary of complainant had been paid. Respondent also
denied committing any unlawful solicitation. To support his contention, respondent attached a
Joint Venture Agreement and an affidavit executed by the Vice-President for operations of Jesi
and Jane Management, Inc. On the charge of gross immorality, respondent assailed the
Affidavit of a dismissed messenger of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., as having no probative
value, since it had been retracted by the affiant himself. Respondent did not specifically address
the allegations regarding his alleged bigamous marriages with two other women

On January 9, 2006, complainant filed a Motion to Admit Copies of 3 Marriage Contracts of

respondent wherein he attached the certified true copies of the Marriage Contracts referred to in
the Certification issued by the NSO.

On January 16, 2006, respondent submitted his Opposition to the Motion to Admit filed by
complainant, claiming that he was not given the opportunity to controvert them. He disclosed
that criminal cases for bigamy were filed against him by the complainant before the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Manila. He also informed the Commission that he filed Petition for Declaration
of Nullity of the first two marriage contracts. In both petitions, he claimed that he had recently
discovered that there were Marriage Contracts in the records of the NSO bearing his name and
allegedly executed with Rowena Piñon and Pilar Lozano on different occasions.

The Commission scheduled a clarificatory hearing on 20 November 2007. Respondent moved

for the suspension of the resolution of the administrative case against him, pending outcome of
petition for nullification he filed with RTC, but was denied. The Commission resolved that the
administrative case against him be submitted for resolution.

On February 27, 2008, the Commission promulgated its Report and Recommendation
addressing the specific charges against respondent. The first charge, for dishonesty for the
nonpayment of certain shares in the fees, was dismissed for lack of merit. On the second
charge, the Commission found respondent to have violated the rule on the solicitation of client
for having advertised his legal services and unlawfully solicited cases. It recommended that he
be reprimanded for the violation. As for the third charge, the Commission found respondent to
be guilty of gross immorality for violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Due to the gravity of the acts of
respondent, the Commission recommended that he be disbarred, and that his name be stricken
off the roll of attorneys.

On April 15, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors, through its Resolution No. XVIII-2008-154,
adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.

On August 1, 2008, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the
recommendation to disbar him was premature.

On June 26, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors denied the Motions for Reconsideration and
affirmed their Resolution dated April 15, 2008 recommending respondent’s disbarment.

ISSUES:

1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by nonpayment of fees

to complainant;

2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful solicitation; and

3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married thrice.

RULING:

First charge: Dishonesty for non-payments of share in the fees.

Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s dismissal of the first charge against respondent, but did not
concur with the rationale behind it. The first charge, if proven to be true is based on an
agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer is
proscribed by the Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for legal services rende-red with a
person not licensed to practice law. In the case of Tan Tek Beng v. David, Supreme Court held
that an agreement between a lawyer and a layperson to share the fees collected from clients
secured by the layperson is null and void, and that the lawyer involved may be disciplined for
unethical conduct. Considering that complainant’s allegations in this case had not been proven,
the IBP correctly dismissed the charge against respondent on this matter.

Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients.

In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these allegations and ruled that respondent had
violated the rule on the solicitation of clients, but it failed to point out the specific provision that
was breached. Based on the facts of the case, he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which
prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.

A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation. Impropriety
arises, though, when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be
inconsistent with the lawyer’s duties as a member of the bar. This inconsistency arises when the
business is one that can readily lend itself to the procurement of professional employment for
the lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for indirect solicitation on the lawyer’s behalf; or is of
a nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice of law.

It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by complainant that Jesi & Jane
Management, Inc., which purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was indeed a vehicle
used by respondent as a means to
procure professional employment; specifically for corporate rehabilitation cases.

Rule 15.08 of the Code mandates that the lawyer is mandated to inform the client whether the
former is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity. This duty is a must in those occupations
related to the practice of law. In this case, it is confusing for the client if it is not clear whether
respondent is offering consultancy or legal services.
Considering, however, that complainant has not proven the degree of prevalence of this practice
by respondent, the Supreme Court affirm the recommendation to reprimand the latter for
violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code.

Third charge: Bigamy.

The Supreme Court have consistently held that a disbarment case is sui generis. Its focus is on
the qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue membership in the bar and not the
procedural technicalities in filing the case. Thus, in Garrido v. Garrido:
Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure — such as the verification of pleadings
and prejudicial questions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the filing of affidavits of
desistance by the complainant — do not apply in the determination of a lawyer's qualifications
and fitness for membership in the Bar. We have so ruled in the past and we see no reason to
depart from this ruling. First, admission to the practice of law is a component of the
administration of justice and is a matter of public interest because it involves service to the
public. The admission qualifications are also qualifications for the continued enjoyment of the
privilege to practice law. Second, lack of qualifications or the violation of the standards for the
practice of law, like criminal cases, is a matter of public concern that the State may inquire into
through this Court.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. In this case,
complainant submitted NSO-certified true copies to prove that respondent entered into two
marriages while the latter’s first marriage was still subsisting. While respondent denied entering
into the second and the third marriages, he resorted to vague assertions tantamount to a
negative pregnant.

What has been clearly established here is the fact that respondent entered into marriage twice
while his first marriage was still subsisting. In Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, 56 we held
thus:

[W]e 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.
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member
of the bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and
dignity.57 His acts of committing bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral conduct and are
grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.58

The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the IBP to disbar respondent and ordered
that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
_________________________
B.M. No. 850 (Re: Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for Active Members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines)
NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en bane issued a Resolution dated FEBRUARY 17, 2015,
which reads as follows:

"B.M. No. 850 (Re: Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for Active Members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines). - Acting on the Letter dated January 13, 2015 of Hon.
Bernardo P. Pardo, Chairperson, MCLE Governing Board, submitting for the Court's approval
the MCLE Governing Board Resolution No. 007-2014, the Court Resolved to REQUIRE all
members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to file a written entry of appearance indicating
their MCLE exemption or compliance number for the current or immediately preceding
compliance period and date of issuance thereof before appearing as counsel or engaging in oral
argument in open court or before a quasi-judicial body. However, counsels who affixed their
signatures in- their pleadings and indicated their MCLE exemption or compliance number in
their pleadings need not file a separate entry of appearance. Henceforth, all counsels, including
partners of law firms whose names appear in the said pleadings, shall also indicate their MCLE
exemption or compliance number.

This resolution shall take effect on March 1, 2015 following its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation." Brion, J., on leave. Jardeleza, J., on official leave. (adv36)

Very truly yours,

(sgd.)
ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court

________________
SEC (D), RA 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers
already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public
officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private
enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or
within one year after its termination.

____________________________
Republic Act No. 6713 February 20, 1989

AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC

OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC
OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR
EXEMPLARY SERVICE, ENUMERATING PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of public
officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall
constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials and
employees during their incumbency shall not:

(1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee, consultant,

counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any private enterprise regulated,
supervised or licensed by their office unless expressly allowed by law;

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with
their official functions; or

(3) Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which has a regular or
pending official transaction with their office.

These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after resignation,
retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2)
above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his profession in connection with
any matter before the office he used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition
shall likewise apply.