void from the beginning due to the then
existing marriage of Atty. Garrido with
MAELOTISEA S. GARRIDO vs. ATTYS. ANGEL
E. GARRIDO and ROMANA P. VALENCIA
[A.C. No. 6593. February 4, 2010.]
Facts:
Maelotisea Garrido (Complainant) filed a
complaint for disbarment against Atty. Angel E.
Garrido (Atty. Garrido) and Atty. Romana P.
Valencia (Atty. Valencia) before the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on
Discipline charging them with gross immorality.
Complainant alleged that she is the legal wife
of Atty. Garrido. They have 6 children.
Sometime in 1987, one of their children
confided that an unknown caller talked with her
claiming that the former is a child of Atty
Garrido. Also, one of her daughter, May
Elizabeth, told her that she saw Atty. Garrido
strolling at a mall together with a woman and a
child who was later identified as Atty. Valencia
and Angeli Ramona Valencia Garrido,
respectively.
By way of defense, Atty. Garrido alleged that
Complainant was not his legal wife, as he was
already married to Constancia David
(Constancia) at the time of their marriage. He
claimed he married Complainant after he and
Constancia parted ways. As he and
Complainant grew apart over the years due to
financial problems, Atty. Garrido met Atty.
Valencia. He became close to Atty. Valencia to
whom he confided his difficulties. Together,
they resolved his personal problems and his
financial difficulties with his second family. Atty.
Garrido denied that he failed to give financial
support to his children with Complainant,
emphasizing that all his six (6) children were
educated in private schools; all graduated from
college except for Arnel Victorino, who finished
a special secondary course.
Atty. Garrido emphasized that all his marriages
were contracted before he became a member
of the bar on May 11, 1979, with the third
marriage contracted after the death of
Constancia on December 26, 1977. Likewise, his
children with Complainant were born before he
became a lawyer.
On her part, Atty. Valencia denied that she was
the mistress of Atty. Garrido. She explained that
Complainant was not the legal wife of Atty.
Garrido since the marriage between them was
Constancia.
In the course of the hearings before the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline, Complainant
filed a motion for the dismissal of her
complaint, arguing that she wanted to maintain
friendly relations with Atty. Garrido, who is the
father of her six (6) children.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not the disbarment case against
Atty. Garrido be dismissed because the alleged
immoral acts were committed before he was
admitted to the Philippine Bar.
2. Whether or not the desistance of
Complainant merits the dismissal of the case.
3. Whether or not Atty. Garrido should be
disbarred for gross immoral conduct.
4. Whether or not Atty. Valencia’s defense that
the marriage between Atty. Garrido and
Complainant is void tenable
Held:
1. No. Prescription of offenses by the
complainant do not apply in the determination
of a lawyers qualifications and fitness for
membership in the Bar. 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 possession of good moral
character is both a condition precedent and a
continuing requirement to warrant admission to
the bar and to retain membership in the legal
profession. Admission to the bar does not
preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry, upon
proper complaint, into any question concerning
the mental or moral fitness of the respondent
before he became a lawyer. Admission to the
practice only creates the rebuttable
presumption that the applicant has all the
qualifications to become a lawyer; this may be
refuted by clear and convincing evidence to
the contrary even after admission to the Bar.
2. In light of the public service character of the
practice of law and the nature of disbarment
proceedings as a public interest concern,
Complainant’s affidavit of desistance cannot
have the effect of discontinuing or abating the
disbarment proceedings. Complainant is more
of a witness than a complainant in these
proceedings. We note further that she filed her
affidavits of withdrawal only after she had
presented her evidence; her evidence are now
available for the Court’s examination and
consideration, and their merits are not affected
by her desistance.
3. The undisputed facts gathered from the
evidence and the admissions of Atty. Garrido
established a pattern of gross immoral conduct
that warrants his disbarment. His conduct was
not only corrupt or unprincipled; it was
reprehensible to the highest degree.
First, Atty. Garrido admitted that he left
Constancia to pursue his law studies; thereafter
and during the marriage, he had romantic
relationships with other women. Second, he
misrepresented himself to Complainant as a
bachelor, when in truth he was already married
to Constancia. This was a misrepresentation
given as an excuse to lure a woman into a
prohibited relationship. Third, Atty. Garrido
contracted his second marriage with
Complainant notwithstanding the subsistence
of his first marriage. Fourth, Atty. Garrido
engaged in an extra-marital affair with Atty.
Valencia while his two marriages were in place
and without taking into consideration the moral
and emotional implications of his actions on the
two women he took as wives and on his six (6)
children by his second marriage. Fifth, instead
of making legal amends to validate his
marriage with Complainant upon the death of
Constancia, Atty. Garrido married Atty. Valencia
who bore him a daughter. Sixth, Atty. Garrido
misused his legal knowledge and convinced
Atty. Valencia (who was not then a lawyer) that
he was free to marry, considering that his
marriage with Complainant was not valid.
Seventh, as the evidence on record implies,
Atty. Garrido married Atty. Valencia in Hong
Kong in an apparent attempt to accord
legitimacy to a union entered into while another
marriage was in place. Eighth, after admission
to the practice of law, Atty. Garrido
simultaneously cohabited and had sexual
relations with two (2) women who at one point
were both his wedded wives. He also led a
double life with two (2) families for a period of
more than ten (10) years.
By his actions, Garrido committed multiple
violations relating to the legal profession,
specifically, violations of the bar admission
rules, of his lawyer’s oath, and of the ethical
rules of the profession. Immoral conduct
involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and that show a moral indifference
to the opinion of the upright and respectable
members of the community. Immoral conduct
is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a
criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree, or when
committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the community’s
sense of decency. We make these distinctions
as the supreme penalty of disbarment arising
from conduct requires grossly immoral, not
simply immoral, conduct.
He did not possess the good moral character
required of a lawyer at the time of his admission
to the Bar. As a lawyer, he violated his lawyer’s
oath; Section 20(a) of Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court; Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct); and Canon 7 (Rule 7.03. A
lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor should he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession).
4. While Atty. Valencia contends that Atty.
Garrido’s marriage with Complainant was null
and void, the fact remains that he took a man
away from a woman who bore him six (6)
children. Ordinary decency would have
required her to ward off Atty. Garrido’s
advances, as he was a married man, in fact a
twice-married man with both marriages
subsisting at that time; she should have said no
to Atty. Garrido from the very start. Instead, she
continued her liaison with Atty. Garrido, driving
him, upon the death of Constancia, away from
legitimizing his relationship with Complainant
and their children. Worse than this, because of
Atty. Valencia’s presence and willingness, Atty.
Garrido even left his second family and six
children for a third marriage with her. This
scenario smacks of immorality even if viewed
outside of the prism of law.
Atty. Valencia violated Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, as her
behavior demeaned the dignity of and
discredited the legal profession. She simply
failed in her duty as a lawyer to adhere
unwaveringly to the highest standards of
morality. Lawyers, as officers of the court, must
not only be of good moral character but must
also be seen to be of good moral character and
must lead lives in accordance with the highest
moral standards of the community. Atty.
Valencia failed to live up to these standards
before she was admitted to the bar and after
she became a member of the legal profession.
Moral character is not a subjective term but one
that corresponds to objective reality. To have
good moral character, a person must have the
personal characteristics of being good. It is not
enough that he or she has a good reputation,
i.e., the opinion generally entertained about a
person or the estimate in which he or she is
held by the public in the place where she is
known. The requirement of good moral
character has four general purposes, namely:
(1) to protect the public; (2) to protect the public
image of lawyers; (3) to protect prospective
clients; and (4) to protect errant lawyers from
themselves. Each purpose is as important as
the other.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court
resolves to:
(1) DISBAR Atty. Angel E. Garrido from the
practice of law for gross immorality, violation
of the Lawyer's Oath; and violation of Rule
1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility; and
(2) DISBAR Atty. Romana P. Valencia from the
practice of law for gross immorality, violation
of Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Victoria C. Heenan vs Atty. Erlinda Espejo
A.C. No. 10050. December 3, 2013
Facts:
Sometime in January 2009, Victoria Heenan
(Complainant) and Atty. Erlinda Espejo
(Respondent), after being introduced by
Complainant’s godmother, entered into a
contract of loan. Since Respondent was
introduced to be her godmother’s lawyer, she
found no reason to distrust the former. Hence,
Complainant agreed to accommodate
Respondent and there and then handed the
latter the amount of P250,000.00. To secure the
payment of the loan, Respondent
simultaneously issued and turned over a check
dated February 2, 2009 for P275,000.00
covering the loan amount and agreed interest.
On due date, Respondent requested
Complainant to delay the deposit of the check
as she was still waiting for the release of the
proceeds of a bank loan to fund the check.
However, after a couple of months of waiting,
Complainant received no word from
Respondent. In July 2009, Complainant
received a check from Respondent in the
amount of P50,000.00, representing the
accrued interest of the subject loan agreement
- this check, however, when deposited,
bounced due to insufficiency of funds.
Respondent failed to pay despite
Complainant’s repeated demands.
Worried that she would not be able to recover
the loaned amount, Complainant decided to
deposit the first check in the amount of
P275,000.00, but without informing
Respondent of the fact. However, the said
check was likewise dishonored due to
insufficiency of funds.
After a criminal complaint for violation of B.P. 22
and Estafa was filed against Respondent, to
which the latter blatantly refused to heed the
directives of the Prosecutors Office, another
check was subsequently issued, dated
December 8, 2009 in the amount of
P275,000.00 - which was yet again, dishonored
for insufficiency of funds.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not Respondent’s issuance
of worthless checks and her blatant
refusal to comply with the legal
processes warrant disciplinary action.
Held:
1. Yes. The Court finds Respondent to
have violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01; Canon
7, Rule 7.03; and Canon 11 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent did not deny obtaining a
loan from Complainant or traverse
allegations that she issued unfunded
checks to pay her obligation. It has
already been settled that the
deliberate failure to pay just debts and
the issuance of worthless check
constitute gross misconduct, for which
a lawyer must be sanctioned. Verily,
lawyers must at all times faithfully
perform their duties to society, to the
bar, to the court and to their clients.

The fact that Respondent obtained the loan
and issued the worthless checks in her private
capacity, and not as a lawyer, is of no moment.
As the Court has consistently held, a lawyer
may be disciplined not only for malpractice and
dishonesty in his profession but also for gross
misconduct outside his professional capacity.
Further, the misconduct of Respondent is
aggravated by her unjustified refusal to obey
the orders of the Prosecutor’s office and the
IBP. This constitutes blatant disrespect for the
IBP which amounts to conduct unbecoming a
lawyer - a lawyer must maintain respect not
only for the courts, but also for judicial officers
and other duly constituted authorities. Thus,
the Court finds it proper to impose the penalty
of suspension from the practice of law for two
(2) years commensurate under the
circumstances.
On a final note, the Court could not sustain the
IBP’s recommendation ordering Respondent to
return the money she borrowed. In disciplinary
proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is
whether the officer of the court is still fit to be
allowed to continue as a member of the Bar.
Disciplinary proceeding against lawyers do not
involve a trial of action, but rather investigations
by the Court into the conduct of one of its
officers.
Perez v. Catindig, A.C. No. 5816, 10 March
2015
Facts: In her complaint, Dr. Elmar Perez
(Complainant) alleged that she and Atty. Tristan
Catindig (Respondent) had been friends since
the mid-1960s when they were both students
of the University of the Philippines, but they lost
touch after their graduation. Sometime in 1983,
their paths again crossed. It was at that time
that Respondent started the court
Complainant.
Respondent admitted to be married to Lily
Corazon Gomez (Gomez), but claims that he
only married the latter because he got her
pregnant; that he was afraid that Gomez would
make a scandal out of her pregnancy should he
refuse to marry her. He further claims that he
was in the process of obtaining a divorce in a
foreign country to dissolve the aforesaid
marriage. Consequently, sometime in 1984,
Respondent obtained a divorce decree from
the Dominican Republic, and assured
Complainant that the said divorce decree was
lawful and valid, and that there was no longer
any impediment to their marriage. Thus, on July
14, 1984, Respondent and Complainant were
married in the State of Virginia, US; and out of
said union, they bore a child.
Years later, Complainant came to know that her
marriage with Respondent was a nullity since
the divorce decree that was obtained by the
latter is not recognized under Philippine laws.
When confronted by this fact, Respondent
assured her that he would legalize their union
once he obtains a declaration of nullity of his
prior marriage under the laws of the Philippines.
Sometime in 2001, Complainant received an
anonymous letter informer her of Respondent’s
scandalous affair with Attyy. Karen Baydo (Atty.
Baydo). She came upon a letter written and
signed by Complainant, professing his love to
Atty. Baydo, promising to marry her once his
impediment is removed. On October 31, 2001,
Respondent abandoned Complainant and their
son; and moved to an upscale condominium in
Makati City where Atty. Baydo was frequently
seen.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not Respondent committed gross
immorality which would warrant disbarment.
Ruling:
1. Yes. The Court finds Respondent guilty of
gross immorality and of violating the Lawyer’s
Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 7, and Rule 7.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
warrants his disbarment.
A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for
any misconduct showing any fault or
deficiency in his moral character, honesty,
probity or good demeanor. Immoral conduct
involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and that show a moral indifference
to the opinion of the upright and respectable
members of the community. Immoral conduct
is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a
criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree, or when
committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the community’s
sense of decency. The Court makes these
distinctions, as the supreme penalty of
disbarment, arising from conduct requires
grossly immoral, not simply immoral, conduct.
The facts gathered from the evidence adduced
established a pattern of conduct that is grossly
immoral; it is not only corrupt and unprincipled,
but reprehensible to a high degree: (i)
Respondent validly married Gomez. Curiously,
15 years into his first marriage and four children
after, Respondent claims that such marriage
was falling apart due to Gomez’ serious
intimacy problems; (ii) A 􀁜ear after pursuing
Complainant, Respondent had a de facto
separation from Gomez, obtained a divorce
decree in the Dominican Republic, and married
Complainant in the USA, all in the same year; (iii)
From his own admission, Respondent knew
that the divorce decree he obtained was not
recognized in this jurisdiction, and that his
marriage was still subsisting when he
contracted another marriage; and (iv) after 17
years of cohabiting with Complainant and
despite the various legal actions he resorted to
in order to give their union a semblance of
validity, Respondent left her and their son, after
being entranced with the much younger Atty.
Baydo, an associate lawyer employed by his
firm.
While the fact that Respondent decided to
separate from Complainant to pursue Atty.
Baydo, in itself, cannot be considered a grossly
immoral conduct, such fact forms part of the
pattern showing his propensity towards
immoral conduct. Lest it be misunderstood, the
Court’s finding of gross immoral conduct is
hinged not on Respondent’s desertion of
Complainant, but on his contracting of a
subsequent marriage during the subsistence of
his previous marriage – “which makes a
mockery of the inviolable social institution of
marriage.”
Vasco-Tamaray v. Daquis
A.C. No. 10868, 26 January 2016
Facts:
Cheryl Vasco-Tamaray (Complainant), in
December 2006, was informed by Atty.
Deborah Daquis (Respondent) that a Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage was filed
before the RTC of Muntinlupa City. Upon
obtaining a copy of the aforesaid Petition,
Complainant was surprised to see that the
same was allegedly signed and filed by her.
She alleged that she did not file the Petition,
that her signature was forged by Respondent,
and that her purported community tax
certificate appearing on the jurat was not hers
as she never resided in Muntinlupa City.
Further, she alleges that she had never
received any court process.
Thus, Complainant filed a Complaint-Affidavit
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), alleging that Respondent filed, on her
behalf, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage without her consent and forged her
signature on the Petition. She also alleged that
Respondent signed the aforesaid Petition as
counsel for petitioner, referring to Complainant.
Complainant stated that Respondent was
actually not her counsel, but that of her
husband. To support her allegation she
attached the Affidavit of Maritess Marquez-
Guerrero:
1. Sometime in October 2006, I accompanied
Cheryl Tamaray in going to East Cafe at
Rustan’s Makati to meet with her husband
Leomarte Tamaray;
2. We arrived at the said place at around
7:00pm and Leomarte introduced us (Cheryl and
I) Atty. Deborah Daquis as his lawyer. He further
told us that Atty. Daquis’s husband also worked
in Japan and that’s how he got to know the
latter and got her services;
3. Among other things, Leomarte told Cheryl
that the reason for that meeting and the
presence of Atty. Daquis was because he had
decided to file a case to annul his marriage with
Cheryl;
4. Cheryl was shocked and just cried. After a
while, Leomarte’s brother arrived and shortly
after, the group left;
5. The next instance that I saw Atty. Daquis was
when we (Cheryl and I) went to McDonald’s-
Greenbelt where Atty. Daquis tried to convince
her not to oppose Leomarte’s decision to have
their marriage annulled.
In her answer, Respondent counters that her
client was Complainant herself, and not
complainant’s husband; that the latter knew of
the Petition as early as October 2006; and that
the community tax certificate was supplied by
Complainant.

Issue:
1. Whether or not Respondent should be held
administratively liable for making it appear that
she is the counsel for Complainant and for the
alleged use of a forged signature on the
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.
Ruling:
1. Yes. The Court finds that Respondent violated
Canons 1, 7, 10 and 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. By pretending to
be counsel for Complainant, Respondent
violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code and
failed to uphold her duty of doing no
falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in
court, as stated in the Lawyer’s Oath. In this
case, Respondent merely denied
Complainant’s allegation that she was
Leomarte Tamaray’s counsel but was unable to
rebut the other allegations against her;
Respondent admitted that she met
Complainant in October 2006, but did not
refute the statement of Maritess Marquez-
Guerrero’s Affidavit. When Respondent filed
the Petition as counsel for the complainant
when the truth was otherwise, she committed
a falsehood against the trial court and
complainant.
Respondent violated Canon 7, Rule 7.03, and
Canon 10, Rule 10.01 when she allowed the use
of a forged signature on a petition she prepared
and notarized. A comparison of the signatures
appearing on the Petition and on Complainant’s
identification cards show a difference which
ultimately brings a conclusion that there was
indeed forgery. While there is no evidence to
prove that Respondent forged Complainant’s
signature, the fact remains that Respondent
allowed a forged signature to be used on a
petition she prepared and notarized. This act is
tantamount to consenting to the commission of
a falsehood before Courts, and demonstrates a
lack of moral fiber in her part.
Finally, Respondent failed to protect the
interests of her client when she represented
Complainant, who is the opposing party of her
client Leomarte Tamaray in the same case
contrary to the language of Canon 17 of the
Code. The responsibilities of a lawyer under
Canon 17 were discussed in Penilla vs Alcid, Jr
(705 SCRA 1):
The legal profession dictates that it is not a
mere duty, but an obligation, of a lawyer to
accord the highest degree of fidelity, zeal and
fervor in the protection of the client's interest.
The most thorough groundwork and study
must be undertaken in order to safeguard the
interest of the client. The honor bestowed on
his person to carry the title of a lawyer does not
end upon taking the Lawyer's Oath and signing
the Roll of Attorneys. Rather, such honor
attaches to him for the entire duration of his
practice of law and carries with it the
consequent responsibility of not only satisfying
the basic requirements but also going the extra
mile in the protection of the interests of the
client and the pursuit of justice.
With consideration to the foregoing, the Court
imposed the penalty of disbarment upon
Respondent, and likewise ordered her name to
be stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys.
Nulada v. Paulma
A.C. No. 8172, 12 April 2016
FACTS:
Alex Nulada (Complainant) alleged that Atty.
Orlando Paulma (Respondent) issued in his
favor a check in the amount of P650,000.00 as
payment for the latter’s debt. Because of
respondent’s standing as a respected member
of the community and his being a member of
the Sangguiniang Bayan, complainant
accepted the check without question.
Unfortunately, when he presented the check
for payment, it was dishonored due to
insufficiency of funds. Despite repeated
demands, Paulma failed to make good his
obligation, prompting Nulada to institute a
criminal complaint for violation of B.P. 22. After
due proceedings, the MTC rendered a decision
finding Paulma guilty. On appeal, the RTC
affirmed in toto the ruling of the MTC.
Prior to the promulgation of the RTC Decision,
Nulada filed an administrative complaint for
disbarment against Paulma by reason of
dishonesty and conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude. In his defense, Paulma denied
committing dishonesty against Nulada; that he
informed the latter that there were insufficient
funds to cover the issued check; and that he
only did so in order to accommodate a friend,
stressing that he did not personally benefit
from the proceeds thereof.
Commission on Bar Discipline: suspension from
the practice of law for a period of 6 months
IBP Board of Governors: suspension from the
practice of law for a period of 2 years
ISSUE: Whether or not Paulma should be
administratively disciplined for having been
found guilty of a crime involving moral
turpitude
RULING: YES. Canon 1 of the CPR mandates all
members of the bar "to obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law x x x." Rule
1.01 thereof specifically provides that "[a] lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct." By taking the
lawyer's oath, a lawyer becomes a guardian of
the law and an indispensable instrument for the
orderly administration of justice. As such, he
can be disciplined for any conduct, in his
professional or private capacity, which renders
him unfit to continue to be an officer of the
court.
BP 22 has been enacted in order to safeguard
the interest of the banking system and the
legitimate public checking account users. The
gravamen of the offense is the act of making
and issuing a worthless check, or any check
that is dishonored upon its presentment for
payment and putting it in circulation.
Being a lawyer, respondent was well aware of
the objectives and coverage of BP 22. If he did
not, he was nonetheless presumed to know
them, for the law was penal in character and
application. Clearly, the issuance of worthless
checks in violation of BP 22 indicates a lawyer's
unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed
on him, shows such lack of personal honesty
and good moral character as to render him
unworthy of public confidence, and constitutes
a ground for disciplinary action.
Paulma’s conviction for violation of BP 22, a
crime involving moral turpitude, had been
indubitably established. Consequently,
respondent violated the lawyer's oath, as well
as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, and, thus, must
be subjected to disciplinary action.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Orlando S.
Paulma is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of two (2) years,
effective upon his receipt of this Resolution. He
is warned that a repetition of the same or similar
act will be dealt with more severely.
Advincula v. Advincula, A.C. No. 9226, 14 June
2016
Keywords: Disbarment case against a lawyer
filed by his angry wife ~
FACTS: In her complaint, Dr. Advincula (wife)
averred that Atty. Advincula (husband)
committed unlawful and immoral acts; that
while Atty. Advincula was still married to her, he
had extra-marital sexual relations with Ms.
Gonzaga and through such an affair, he had
sired a child with a woman other than his lawful
wife. Furthermore, she claims that Atty.
Advincula admitted in the affidavit of late
registration of birth of his love-child that he had
contracted another marriage with Ms. Gonzaga.
To make matters worse, Atty. Advincula failed
to give financial support to their own children
despite having sufficient financial resources.
According to Dr. Advincula, his conduct was
way below the standards of morality required
of every lawyer.
After exhaustive hearings, the IBP
commissioner recommended that Atty.
Advincula should be suspended for at least one
month. Such findings were likewise adopted by
the IBP Board of Governors modifying the
suspension from the practice of law for 2
months.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Advincula is guilty of
immorality and should be disbarred
Relevant provisions -
● Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
● CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times
uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession, and support the
activities of the Integrated Bar.
● Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage
in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor should
he, whether in public or private life,
 behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.
RULING: Atty. Advincula is guilty of
immorality but he should only be suspended,
not disbarred.
The good moral conduct or character must be
possessed by lawyers at the time of their
application for admission to the Bar, and must
be maintained until retirement from the
practice of law. It is expected that every lawyer,
being an officer of the Court, must not only be
in fact of good moral character, but must also
be seen to be of good moral character and
leading lives in accordance with the highest
moral standards of the community. More
specifically, a member of the Bar is required not
only to refrain from adulterous relationships
but also to conduct himself as to avoid
scandalizing the public.
Immoral conduct, to be the basis of disciplinary
action, must be grossly immoral - it must be so
corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act
or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a
high degree or committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to
shock the common decency.
The Supreme Court mentioned that it has on
several occasions subjected lawyers to
disbarment when they engaged in extramarital
affairs because such was considered an
immoral act. However, it cannot sanction Atty.
Advincula with the same gravity because he
committed the act when he was not yet a
lawyer. The Supreme Court found him guilty
of immorality and suspends him from the
practice of law for a period of 3 months.
Tumbaga vs. Teoxon
A.C. No. 5573 November 21, 2017
Facts:
1. Complainant Gizale O. Tumbaga filed a
complaint against respondent Atty. Manuel P.
Teoxon, charging him with gross immorality,
deceitful and fraudulent conduct, and gross
misconduct.
2. According to complainant, respondent was
then the City Legal Officer of Naga City from
whom complainant sought legal advice. They
became close friends and respondent even
volunteered to be the godfather of
complainant’s son. Respondent assured
complainant's mother that although he was
already married to Luzviminda Balang, his
marriage was a sham because their marriage
contract was not registered. They moved in
together in one apartment and complainant got
pregnant. Respondent hesitantly signed the
birth certificate of their child. Respondent then
rarely visited and supported them. He made
promises to support but reneged on them. One
night, respondent raided complainant's new
residence, accompanied by three SWAT
members and his wife.
3. According to respondent, complainant
merely wanted to exact money from him.
Respondent began to visit complainant's
residence to visit his godson. Respondent was
then a member of Representative Roco's
legislative staff. Sometimes, respondent would
leave a bag of clothing in complainant's house
to save money for his fare in going to the office
of Representative Roco. Complainant and her
mother refused to return one of his bags such
that he was forced to file a replevin case. The
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Naga
City decided the case in his favor. He also
denied being the father of Billy John since
complainant supposedly had several live-in
partners. Respondent also claimed that
complainant falsified his signature in the
Certificate of Live Birth of Billy John so he filed
a complaint for the cancellation of his
acknowledgment therein.
4. IBP Commission on Bar Discipline -
suspension for two (2) years
The IBP Board of Governors - suspension for
three (3) years.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent failed to live up to
the good moral conduct required of the
members of the legal profession.
Ruling:
The good moral conduct or character must be
possessed by lawyers at the time of their
application for admission to the Bar, and must
be maintained until retirement from the
practice of law. In this regard, the Code of
Professional Responsibility states:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Accordingly, it is expected that every lawyer,
being an officer of the Court, must not only be
in fact of good moral character, but must also
be seen to be of good moral character and
leading lives in accordance with the highest
moral standards of the community.
Immoral conduct has been described as
conduct that is so willful, flagrant, or shameless
as to show indifference to the opinion of good
and respectable members of the community.
To be the basis of disciplinary action, such
conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly
immoral, that is, it must be so corrupt as to
virtually constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree or committed under such scandalous
or revolting circumstances as to shock the
common sense of decency. More specifically, a
member of the Bar and officer of the Court is
required not only to refrain from adulterous
relationships or keeping mistresses but also to
conduct himself as to avoid scandalizing the
public by creating the belief that he is flouting
those moral standards.
IBP considered in ruling against respondent the
Decision dated May 8, 2006 of the MTCC of
Naga City in Civil Case No. 11546 for replevin.
The MTCC plainly disbelieved respondent's
claim that he merely left his bag of clothing in
complainant's house before he left for his place
of work in Metro Manila - a claim which he
likewise made in the present case. The trial
court further posited that the pieces of furniture
sought to be recovered by respondent were
indeed bought by him but the same were
intentionally given to complainant out of love.
Clearly, the MTCC was convinced that
respondent and complainant were involved in
an illicit relationship that eventually turned sour
and led to the filing of the replevin case.
Complainant further attached pictures of
respondent with her and Billy John as proof of
their romantic relations. A perusal of these
pictures convinces this Court that while the
same cannot indeed prove Billy John's
paternity, they are nevertheless indicative of a
relationship between complainant and
respondent that is more than merely platonic.
Respondent verbally repudiated the
promissory note and affidavit he made for
support, pointing out that the same were
typewritten while he used a computer in his
office, not a typewriter. Respondent further
accused complainant of falsifying his
signatures in the birth certificate. The Court will
no longer discuss the parties' arguments since
respondent did file a complaint for the
cancellation of his acknowledgment therein.
The Court can hardly ascribe any credibility to
the affidavit of Orogo belying the allegations of
complainant and accusing complainant and
her mother to be engaged in the practice of
extorting money. The affidavit lacks evidentiary
value as he should have been presented as
witness before the IBP to confirm his affidavit
and to give complainant an opportunity to
cross-examine him.
There is no credibility in the statement made by
Rep. Roco and Minda Teoxon in their affidavits
as to the residence of respondent as the same
were only given as corroborative statements at
so late a time given the relevancy thereof.
The Court finds that respondent should be held
liable for having illicit relations with
complainant. As to whether respondent also
sired complainant's second child, Billy John,
the Court finds that the same was not
sufficiently established by the evidence
presented in this case.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty.
Manuel P. Teoxon GUILTY of gross immorality
and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of three (3) years.
YAP V. BURI
FACTS
Michelle Yap (Complainant) was the vendor in a
contract of sale of a condominium unit, while
Atty. Grace Buri (Respondent) was the vendee.
Atty. Buri offered to purchase the property for a
reduced price. After consulting with her
husband, Yap agreed. Of the P1,200,000.00
reduced purchase price, P200,000.00
remained unpaid. Atty. Buri insisted that she
would pay the balance on installment but
without specifying the amount to be paid on
each installment.
Because Yap trusted Atty. Buri, she gave the
latter the full and immediate possession of the
condominium unit despite the outstanding
balance. However, when she finally asked for
the balance, Atty. Buri offered to pay it
P5,000.00 monthly until fully paid. Yap
disagreed, so Atty. Buri insisted that the sale be
cancelled.
Thereafter, Atty. Buri threatened Yap through
text messages, and later on filed a case for
estafa against the latter. This prompted Yap to
file an administrative complaint against Atty.
Buri for the alleged false accusations against
her. Atty. Buri did not submit her answer nor
appear during the mandatory conference.
COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE
recommended Buri’s suspension for 3 months
and ordered her to pay the P200,000 balance
on the contract of sale.
IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS resolved to
suspend Buri from the practice of law for 1 year
and ordered her to pay but deleted the order to
pay the P200,000 balance.
ISSUE
Whether or not the IBP Board of Governors’
resolution to suspend Buri is correct despite
the transaction being private.
RULING
Yes, that Buri's act involved a private dealing
with Yap is immaterial. Her being a lawyer calls
for — whether she was acting as such or in a
non-professional capacity — the obligation to
exhibit good faith, fairness and candor in her
relationship with others. There is no question
that a lawyer could be disciplined not only for a
malpractice in his profession, but also for any
misconduct committed outside of his
professional capacity.
Buri forgot that she must not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false
or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the
same. She also took for granted the express
commands of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR), specifically Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1 [A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.] and
Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the CPR. [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.]
Accordingly, lawyers are bound to maintain, not
only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also
of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.
Thus, lawyers may be disciplined for any
conduct, whether in their professional or in their
private capacity, if such conduct renders them
unfit to continue to be officers of the court.
The nature of the office of a lawyer requires
that he shall be of good moral character. This
qualification is not only a condition precedent to
the admission to the legal profession, but its
continued possession is essential to maintain
one's good standing in the profession.
Verily, Buri has fallen short of the high standard
of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing
expected of her. On the contrary, she
employed her knowledge and skill of the law in
order to avoid fulfillment of her obligation,
thereby unjustly enriching herself and inflicting
serious damage on Yap. Her repeated failure to
file her answer and position paper and to
appear at the mandatory conference aggravate
her misconduct. These demonstrate a high
degree of irresponsibility and lack of respect
for the IBP and its proceedings. Her attitude
severely stains the nobility of the legal
profession.
Buri’s deliberate failure to pay just debts
constitutes gross misconduct, for which she may
be sanctioned with 1 year-suspension from the
practice of law. The Court likewise upholds the
deletion of the payment of the P200,000.00
since the same is not intrinsically linked to
Buri's professional engagement. Disciplinary
proceedings should only revolve around the
determination of the respondent lawyer's
administrative and not his civil liability. Thus, the
same should be threshed out in a separate civil
action.
Fabugais v. Faundo Jr.
A.C. No. 10145, June 11, 2018
FACTS:
Oliver Fabugais filed a complaint against
respondent Atty. Berardo Faundo for gross
misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a
lawyer for having allegedly engaged in illicit
and immoral relations with his wife, Annaliza.
Complainant’s 10-year old daughter, Marie
Nicole, executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay
alleging that she and her mother once stayed
in respondent’s house where respondent
(whom she referred as Tito Attorney) slept in
the same bed with her and her mother and that
she saw respondent lawyer embracing her
mother while they were sleeping. The next
morning, she recounted that Tito clad only in a
towel or "tapis," suddenly entered the room,
told them to step outside, while her mother and
respondent lawyer remained inside the room.
Complainant filed a case for the declaration of
nullity of his marriage with Annaliza, with prayer
for the custody of their minor children. In said
case, respondent lawyer entered his
appearance as collaborating counsel for
Annaliza.
Respondent lawyer denied that he had any
immoral relations with Annaliza and claimed
that he was merely assisting Annaliza in the
case for custody of her children against
complainant. His help was sought by Annaliza’s
mother, so he told them to hide in his parent’s
house. His cordial relation with Annaliza was
because the latter was the stepdaughter of his
late uncle. Respondent alleges that he was
incapable of committing the misconduct
imputed to him for three simple reasons to wit:
because he is a good father to his three
children, because he is a respected civic
leader, and because he had never been the
subject even of a complaint with the police. He
claimed that complainant filed the instant
complaint simply to harass him from practicing
his legitimate profession, and for no other
reason.
IBP: Found respondent lawyer guilty of
violating Rule 1.01 of the CPR. Recommended
his suspension from the practice of law for one
(1) month. Respondent acted inappropriately
with Annaliza which created the appearance of
immorality.
Complainant died during the pendency of the
case, and his counsel filed a Motion for
Withdrawal since he was not sure whether
complainant's heirs were still willing to pursue
the disbarment.
ISSUES & RULING:
1. Can the case proceed in spite of
complainant’s death and the apparent
lack of interest of complainant's heirs?
YES
YES. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers
are sui generis in nature: they are intended and
undertaken primarily to look into the conduct or
behavior of lawyers, to determine whether they
are still fit to exercise the privileges of the legal
profession, and to hold them accountable for
any misconduct or misbehavior which deviates
from the mandated norms and standards of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, all of
which are needful and necessary to the
preservation of the integrity of the legal
profession. Because not chiefly or primarily
intended to administer punishment, such
proceedings do not call for the active service of
prosecutors.
2. Is respondent guilty of acts grossly
immoral, or acts that amount to serious
moral depravity, that disbarment or
suspension from the practice of law?
NO. The sexual immorality between
respondent lawyer and complainant's wife was
NOT established as a matter of fact. One would
need to inject a bit of imagination to create an
image of something sexual.
"Immoral conduct" has been defined as that
conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or
shameless as to show indifference to the
opinion of good and respectable members of
the community. For such conduct to warrant
disciplinary action, the same must be "grossly
immoral – so corrupt and false as to constitute
a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree."
There is perhaps no profession after that of the
sacred ministry in which a high-toned morality
is more imperative than that of the law." As
officers of the court, lawyers must in fact and in
truth be of good moral character. They must be
seen or appear to be of good moral character;
and be seen or appear to — live a life in
accordance with the highest moral standards
of the community. Members of the bar can ill-
afford to exhibit any conduct which tends to
lessen in any degree the confidence of the
public in the fidelity, the honesty, and the
integrity of the legal profession. Any
thoughtless or ill-considered actions or
actuations by any member of the Bar can
irreversibly undermine public confidence in the
law and, consequently, those who practice it.
While the acts complained of might not be
grossly or starkly immoral in its rawness or
coarseness, they were without doubt
condemnable. Respondent lawyer who made
avowals to being a respectable father to three
children, and also to being a respected leader
of his community apparently had no qualms or
scruples about being seen sleeping in his own
bed with another man's wife, his arms entwined
in tender embrace with the latter. That he was
inspired by nothing but the best of intentions in
inviting another married man's wife and her 10-
year old daughter to sleep with him in the same
bed reeks with racy, ribald humor.
By calling respondent as "Tito Attorney" Marie
Nicole effectively proclaimed her avuncular
affection for him, plus her recognition of his
being a member of the legal profession. A
modicum of decency should have impelled
respondent to behave more discreetly and
more sensitively, as he could not have been
unaware that Marie Nicole was observing him
closely and that she could be forming her
impressions of lawyers and the legal
profession.
The Court suspended respondent from the
practice of law for ONE MONTH, considering
that this is respondent lawyer's first offense.
JILDO A. GUBATON vs ATTY. AUGUSTUS D.
AMADOR, A.C. No. 8962. July 9, 2018
Jildo Gubaton (Complainant) alleged that Atty.
Augustus Amador (Respondent) was having an
illicit romantic relationship with his wife,
Bernadette. He averred that while working in
the USA, Complainant􀁜s house helper informed
him through a phone call that a man whom she
knows to be 􀁜Fiscal Amador􀁜 often visits
Bernadette; that Respondent spends nights at
their house and stays with Bernadette in their
bedroom. When complainant called
Bernadette􀁜s dental clinic to verify􀁜 the
information, it was the secretary who took his
call. Upon inquiry, the latter confirmed that
Respondent and Bernadette have been
carrying on an illicit affair. Complainant
returned to the country and alleged to have
seen Respondent and his wife together in
arious places, and at one instance, even saw
them kissing while inside a vehicle.
In defense, Respondent denied all the
allegations against him. He claimed that he was
merely acquainted with Bernadette and they
would only see each other on various
occasions and social gatherings.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not grounds exist to hold
Respondent administratively liable.
Held:
1. Yes, Respondent should be held
administratively liable. In this case, substantial
evidence ex􀁜ists to prove Complainant􀁜s claim
and hence, should be adjudged guilty of gross
immorality. The Court is inclined to believe that
Complainant􀁜s imputations against Respondent
are credible, considering that he had no ill
motive to accuse Respondent of such a serious
charge 􀁜 much more a personal scandal
involving his own wife 􀁜 unless the same were
indeed true. Moreover, it should be clarified
that while the information supplied by the
house helper and the secretary about the
alleged illicit affair constitute hearsay, the same
should not be completely disregarded. In Re:
Verified Complaint of Umali, Jr. v Hernandez: 􀁜it
was emphasiz􀁜ed that to satisfy􀁜 the substantial
evidence requirement for administrative cases,
hearsay evidence should necessarily be
supplemented and corroborated by other
evidence that are not hearsay
For his part, Respondent only proferred a bare
denial of the imputed affair. The thrust of his
denial was that, although they would see each
other on occasion, such meeting were
innocent. Suffice it to say that 􀁜denial is an
intrinsicall􀁜y weak defense.􀁜 In an􀁜 event, the
Court observes that the alleged 􀁜accidental􀁜 and
􀁜innocent􀁜 encounters of Respondent and
Bernadette are much too many for comfort and
coincidence. Such encounters only buttress
the allegations of the witnesses that they
carried on an illicit affair. All told, the Court finds
that substantial evidence 􀁜 which only ental
evidence to support a conclusion 􀁜 e􀁜xist to
prove Complainant􀁜s accusation of gross
immorality against respondent.
Based on jurisprudence, extramarital affairs of
lawyers are regarded as offensive to the
sanctity of marriage, the family, and the
community. When lawyers are engaged in
wrongful relationships that blemish their ethics
and morality, the usual recourse is for the erring
attorne􀁜􀁜y’s suspension from the practice of law,
if not disbarment. This is because possession of
good moral character is both a condition
precedent and a continuing requirement to
warrant admission to the Bar and to retain
membership in the legal profession.
Considering Respondent to have violated Rule
1.01, Canon 7, and Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, it sees fit to impose
the penalty of suspension from the practice of
law for a period of one (1) year upon
Respondent
AAA vs. ATTY. ANTONIO N. DE LOS REYES,
A.C. No. 10021. September 18, 2018
Keywords: Sextorted Secretary
Facts: In 1997, AAA (complainant) worked as the
secretary of Atty. De Los Reyes (respondent),
who worked as the VP of of the Legal and
Administrative Group of National Home
Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC). She
became a permanent employee on a co-
terminus status with the respondent.
Respondent would often offer to take her
home using the company car telling her that
her residence was along his route (and
continued on even after she moved to
Mandaluyong and later, in Laguna).
Respondent thereafter became overly
possessive and demanding to the extent that
she could not refuse his offer to bring her
home; her telephone calls were being
monitored; he who constantly asked her who
she was talking with on the telephone and
would get mad if she told him that it was a male
person. Respondent is verbally abusive toward
her, cursing and shouting invectives at her
whenever she did, then overly solicitous the
next moment. In one incident, she was
physically forced inside his service vehicle and
was slapped when she became hysterical. She
reported the incident to the police however she
did not file a formal report or complaint against
respondent as she thought that it would be
futile.
AAA's financial position left her with no choice
but to continue working as Atty. De Los Reyes'
secretary. Respondent knew that AAA was the
sole breadwinner of her family, as her father
had deserted them when she was but 8 years
old, leaving her to care for her sick mother, a
two-year-old niece and two sisters who were
still in school. Atty. De Los Reyes exploited this
knowledge to force AAA to continue working
for him as his secretary. From then on, she
became his sex slave who was at his beck and
call at all times for all kinds of sexual services
ranging from hand-jobs in his vehicle to sexual
intercourse (at least twice a week) in his office.
Respondent’s threats involving complainant’s
friends (Marivic and Mercedita) forced her to
file a complaint against respondent.
CBD-IBP: found Respondent guilty of violating
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and recommended the penalty
of one (1) year suspension.
IBP Board of Governors: found respondent
guilty of violating the CPR and modified his
penalty to indefinite suspension.
Issue: Whether or not respondent Atty. De Los
Reyes committed acts amounting to sexual
harassment and gross immoral conduct in
violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which would warrant his
disbarment
Ruling: Yes. Respondent Atty. De Los Reyes is
DISBARRED. His name was ordered stricken
from the Roll of Attorneys. Pertinent provisions
of the Code of Professional Responsibility read:
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
1. The possession of good moral character is
both a condition precedent and a
continuing requirement to warrant
admission to the bar and to retain
membership in the legal profession. This
proceeds from the lawyer's bounden duty
 to observe the highest degree of morality
in order to safeguard the Bar's integrity,
free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of
malpractice.
As officers of the court, lawyers must not only
in fact be of good moral character but must
also be seen to be of good moral character. A
lawyer must behave himself as to avoid
scandalizing the public by creating the
impression that he is flouting those moral
standards. Consequently, any errant behavior
of the lawyer, be it in his public or private
activities, which tends to show deficiency in
moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension
or disbarment.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
expressly states that members of the Bar may
be disbarred or suspended for any grossly
immoral conduct, which involves acts that are
willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a
moral indifference to the opinion of the upright
and respectable members of the community. It
is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a
criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree, or when
committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the community's
sense of decency.
Respondent Atty. De Los Reyes committed
acts of gross immorality in the conduct of his
personal affairs with AAA that show his
disregard of the lawyer's oath and of the Code
of Professional Responsibility
2. The quoted excerpt from the TSN, shows
that respondent Atty. De Los Reyes is
guilty of "sextortion" which is the abuse of
his position or authority to obtain sexual
favors from his subordinate, the
complainant, his unwilling victim who was
not in a position to resist respondent's
demands for fear of losing her means of
livelihood. The sexual exploitation of his
subordinate done over a period of time
from (1999 to more or less 2000) amounts
to gross misbehavior on the part of
respondent Atty. De Los Reyes that affects
his standing and character as a member of
the Bar and as an officer of the Court. All
these deplorable acts of respondent Atty.
De Los Reyes puts the legal profession in
disrepute and places the integrity of the
administration of justice in peril, thus
warranting disciplinary action from the
Court.
DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS
Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are
sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely
criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action
or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the
Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not
being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no
sense a criminal prosecution. Public interest is
its primary objective, and the real question for
determination is whether or not the attorney is
still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as
such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary
powers, the Court merely calls upon a member
of the Bar to account for his actuations as an
officer of the Court with the end in view of
preserving the purity of the legal profession
and the proper and honest administration of
justice by purging the profession of members
who by their misconduct have proved
themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted
with the duties and responsibilities pertaining
to the office of an attorney (cleanse the ranks of
the legal profession of its undesirable members
for the protection of the public and of the courts).
Ceniza v. Ceniza
Facts:
The complaint, Amalia Ceniza, and the
respondent, Atty. Eliseo Ceniza, have been
married since 1989 and share 2 children.
Sometime in 2008, Complainant, upon
returning from a business trip, found
Respondent to have already moved out of their
home, taking along with him his car and
personal belongings.
Complainant went to Mandaue City Hall, where
the respondent worked as a legal officer, to
inquire about the Respondent's situation. She
learned that the staff had suspected
Respondent of carrying on an extra-marital
affair with one Anna Fe Flores Binoya (Anna).
The next day, Complainant, accompanied by
her daughter, went to the address provided by
the staff to verify the information. They were
able to meet Anna’s sister who informed that
she had move out of their address; that Anna
and her second husband, herein Respondent,
had been living together in Aldea Subdivision;
and that in the evening of said date, the
complainant and her daughter proceeded to
the new address where they found and
confronted the Respondent, who simply
denied having committed any wrongdoing.
On August 11, 2008, the respondent visited the
complainant at work and requested her to
agree to the nullification of their marriage. She
refused and instead pleaded with him to avoid
displaying his paramour in public. Her pleas
notwithstanding, he continued with the illicit
relationship.
For his part, Respondent denied having
engaged in immoral conduct and maintained
that Anna had only been a business partner. He
insisted that he had moved in with his parents
after leaving their family home; and that he had
left the complainant because her behavior had
become unbearable.
The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline
recommended the dismissal of the complaint
and such was then adopted by the IBP Board of
Governors.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent be
disciplined for the actions attributed to him by
the complainant
Ruling:
Yes, the respondent should be
disciplined for the actions attributed to him by
the complainant.
The members of the legal profession must
conform to the highest standards of morality
because the Code of Professional Responsibility
mandated them so, to wit:
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor should he, whether in public
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.
There is no question that a married person's
abandonment of his or her spouse in order to
live and cohabit with another constitutes
immorality. The offense may even be criminal
— either as concubinage or as adultery.
Immoral conduct, or immorality, is that which is
so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show
indifference to the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community. As a
basis of disciplinary action, such immoral
conduct, or immorality must be so corrupt as to
virtually constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree or committed under such scandalous
or revolting circumstances as to shock the
common sense of decency. That the illicit
partner is himself or herself married
compounds the immorality.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of
proof rests upon the complainant. The Court
will exercise its disciplining authority only if the
case against the respondent is established by
clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence.
Given the serious and far-reaching
consequences of disbarment, only a clearly
preponderant showing can warrant the
imposition of the harsh penalty of disbarment.
Herein, the complainant presented clearly
preponderant evidence showing that the
respondent, while being lawfully married to
her, had maintained an illicit relationship with
a married woman. It is of no moment that she
presented no direct evidence of the illicit
relationship between him and his mistress; or
that her proof of his immorality was
circumstantial. Thus, for the respondent to
insist that the complainant did not discharge
her burden of proof because she did not
adduce direct evidence of the immorality is
utterly fallacious. As the records amply
indicated, the circumstantial evidence
adduced herein compelled the conclusion that
he had abandoned the complainant and their
children in order to cohabit with his married
mistress.
Time and again, the Court has pointed out that
when the integrity or morality of a member of
the Bar is challenged, it is not enough that he
or she denies the charge, for he or she must
meet the issue and overcome the evidence
presented on the charge. He or she must
present proof that he or she still maintains the
degree of integrity and morality expected of
him or her at all times. The respondent failed in
this regard.
In keeping with the high standards of morality
imposed upon every lawyer, Respondent
should have desisted from the illicit
relationship with his mistress, and should have
avoided the impression on the part of the
public that he was defying the moral standards
required of him. That the immoral conduct of
the respondent pertained to his private life did
not diminish the gravity of his ethical violation.
In Advincula v. Advincula [793 SCRA 237], the
Court exhorted all lawyers to always conduct
themselves in a manner as to avoid
scandalizing the public by creating the belief
that they are flouting the moral standards of the
legal profession.
MARIFE VENZON vs ATTY. AMADOR PELEO III
A.C. No. 9354. August 20, 2019
Facts: Sometime in 1996, Atty. Amador Peleo III
(Respondent) was engaged by Marife Venzon
(Complainant) to handle her petition of nullity of
her marriage with her husband. In no time, the
two got close as Respondent really exerted
effort to earn her trust. By the time the judicial
decree of annulment of her marriage came out,
they were already in a serious relationship. In
1998, Complainant gave birth to Respondent􀁜s
son.
During the succeeding years, however,
Respondent no longer visited them as
frequently as before. Then he stopped giving
them financial support. Complainant was thus,
constrained to seek assistance from the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The
Senior Deputy of the IBP urged Respondent to
at least provide his child’s basic needs so he
may avoid liability for economic abuse under
R.A. 9292 (Violence Against Women and their
Children). Because of this, the parties drew up
an agreement for support. Respondent,
however, did not honor his undertaking.
Aside from his deliberate refusal to provide
support for their son, Complainant knew of
Respondent’s propensity, for dishonesty,
unethical conduct, and immorality, viz:
1. In filling up the blank spaces on his
son’s Certificate of Live Birth, he
indicated that they got married on May
1, 1996 in Manila,
2. when in truth they never got married;
3. Respondent was legally married to
Erlinda Sierra when he intimately got
involved with her. He remained a
married man before,
4. during, and after he sired a son with her;
5. He had been having illicit affairs with
many other women; and
6. He fraudulent secured a Senior Citizen
card although he was only forty-five
(45) years old. He unabashedly availed
of the 20% discount privilege on plane
tickets for his out-of-town court
hearings.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not the attendant facts of the
case call for administrative sanctions against
Respondent.
Held:
1. Yes. Respondent is charged with violation of
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, forbidding lawyers from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful
conduct. The Court clarifies, however, that it is
not deciding Respondent􀁜s personal fitness on
the basis of a single and one-off private event
in his life. As a rule, the Court does not interfere
with the privacy right to make decision on who
a law􀁜er would want to pair himself or herself
with. It is the law􀁜er􀁜s decision to make. But in the
case at bar, Respondent􀁜s acts do not just
concern him as private individual; they have
crossed the line between what essentiall􀁜
belongs to an individual􀁜s right to privac􀁜 on one
hand, and a pattern of conduct symptomatic of
a clear disregard for the rights of others by
misapplying his knowledge of the law and his
profession as a lawyer, on the other hand.
• First, Respondent maintained sexual
relation with Complainant and several
other faithless contemporaneous
relations while his marriage
• with his lawful spouse was still
subsisting. His pattern of faithlessness,
especially his indiscriminate liaisons,
with emphasis on
• the fact that Complainant was his
vulnerable client when he first pursued
her 􀁜 is a clear and present danger to the
profession where
• utmost fiduciary obligations must be
observed;
 • Second, Respondent misused the legal
process by filing a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage
without any serious intention to
• prosecute it. He clearly did it only as a
ploy to convince Complainant that he
was truly decided to end his marriage
with his lawful wife, in
• contravention of Canon 10, Rule 10.03
of the Code of Professional
Responsibility;
• Third, Respondent falsified the place
and date of marriage entries in the birth
certificate of his son 􀁜 falsification is a
crime; falsification of
• a public document aggravates this
crime;
• Fourth, Respondent has repeatedly
failed to give child support to his son, a
minor. This is contrary to law, an
omission of his obligation imposed
under the Family Code;
• Fifth, Respondent seriously
disrespected the IBP’s authority and
dignity when he disregarded an
agreement brokered by the IBP
• between him and Complainant. He
defied the undertaking which he
voluntarily made before an officer of
the IBP. His lack of respect for the
authority of the IBP constitutes
disrespect for this Court as well;
• Sixth, Respondent has been deceiving
the government and private business
by continuously availing of the Senior
Citizen’s discount
when is not legally entitled thereto. This is plain
dishonesty and fraud, again, a transgression of
his series of transgressions of his
lawyer’s oath to do no falsehood.
By these six (6) counts of unlawful, immoral,
dishonest, or deceitful conduct, Respondent
has lost his fitness to continue as a member of
the Bar. The court has thus, ordered his
disbarment. Public confidence in law may be
eroded by the irresponsible and improper
conduct of a member of the Bar. Hence, every
lawyer is duty bound to act and comport
himself or herself in such a manner that would
promote public confidence in the integrity of
the legal profession. Respondent’s conduct
does not help in that regard, but worse, directly
encourages people to entertain themselves
with jokes about lawyers and the legal
profession as the butt of their unflattering jokes
ANNALIZA CHAN vs ATTY. REBENE CARRERA
A.C. No. 10439. September 3, 2019
Facts:
In her complaint, Annaliza Chan (Complainant)
alleged that she met Atty. Rebene Carrera
(Respondent) sometime in July 2006 while she
was a trainee at a restaurant. At that time,
Respondent was dining with a woman
companion whom Complainant though was his
wife. She was surprised when Respondent later
introduced himself as a widower.
After two (2) weeks, Respondent returned and
requested for Complainant to be his server.
While waiting for his food, he told her that he
had just settled a case and earned P4 million.
He then proceeded to ask her several
questions such as whether she was interested
in studying nursing or caregiving in a school
that he owned in Dagupan City. After his meal,
he left his calling card with her, but she threw
the same away. From that time onwards,
Respondent frequented the restaurant for
Complainant to assist him. He showed
interested in pursuing her. At one point,
however, Complainant told Respondent that it
was best if he pursued somebody else as she
was still married albeit separated. To which the
latter didn’t mind, and even represented that he
can annul her marriage for her. Complainant
eventually grew fond of Respondent.
In September 2008, however, Complainant
discovered that Respondent was not in fact a
widower and that his wife was still alive. She
further discovered that Respondent also had a
child with another woman. Because of this, she
wanted to leave Respondent, but she couldn’t
because she found out that she was pregnant
with Respondent’s child. Throughout her
pregnancy, Respondent often scolded her and
treated her badly. He accused her of stealing
his credit card and withdrawing from his
account. Aside from this, Complainant often
caught Respondent having illicit relationships
with other women. When confronted, he would
usually make empty promises to change his
ways.
Despite his infractions, Complainant
nonetheless helped Respondent during his
time of need. When his business suffered from
irreversible losses, she worked hard as his
paralegal and referred him clients. Because of
her help, he was able to recover his losses, save
his school from closing, and was even able to
purchase more properties. Still, Respondent
refused to give up his womanizing. This time,
when Complainant confronted the latter about
it, he got furious, asked her to leave their home,
to return the car he gave her, and forbade her
from working as his paralegal. He also
consistently humiliated her such that when she
would visit his office to ask for financial support
for their son, he would utter invective words
first before giving her money
For his part, Respondent insists that his only
"sin" was that he was so sympathetic and
charitable to Chan who was never satisfied with
his generosity and with whom he fell deeply in
love with. But this had nothing to do with his
qualifications as a provider of the family and as
lawyer. On the contrary, he was nothing but
respectable having been a member of the
Academe for more than 20 years, a Director
and Treasurer of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, Pangasinan Chapter, and a
member of the bar in good standing since his
admission in 1980. As such, he asked for
compassion given that his infraction did not
amount to the kind of "grossly immoral
conduct" he was accused of engaging in.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not Respondent’s conduct
amounted to grossly immoral conduct which
warrant his disqualification from the practice of
law.
Held:
1. Yes. In view of the circumstances of the
instant case, the Court finds that the actuations
of Respondent warrant the penalty of
disbarment from the practice of law and not
merely suspension therefrom. Both parties
never denied, and even expressly admitted,
that they freely engaged in an extra-marital
affair. They cohabited under one roof for
practically a period of three (3) years, despite
the fact that they were still legally married to
their respective spouses. They also produced a
child who they named after Respondent. This
fact, standing alone, suffices to hold
Respondent administratively liable for grossly
immoral conduct. The court reproduces the
provisions of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor should he, whether in public or private
life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.
Time and again, the Court has ruled that a
married person's abandonment of his or her
spouse in order to live and cohabit with another
constitutes immorality. The offense may even
be criminal 􀁜 either as concubinage or as
adultery. Immoral conduct, or immorality, is
that which is so wilful, flagrant, or shameless as
to show indifference to the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community. As a
basis of disciplinary action, such immoral
conduct, or immorality must be so corrupt as to
virtually constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree or committed under such scandalous
or revolting circumstances as to shock the
common sense of decency. That the illicit
partner is himself or herself married
compounds the immorality.
The facts of the present case are beyond
dispute. Both parties acknowledged their
undeniable love affair, with the latter
designating the same as a "chemistry of two
consensual adults." At the same time, both of
them did not deny the reality that they were still
legally married to another. It is this clear and
outright admission that is the basis for
Respondent's disbarment.
In Amalia R. Ceniza v. Atty. Ceniza, Jr. (A.C. No.
8335, April 10, 2019), the Court enunciated that
any lawyer guilty of gross misconduct should
be suspended or disbarred even if the
misconduct relates to his or her personal life for
as long as the misconduct evinces his or her
lack of moral character, honesty, probity or
good demeanor. Every lawyer is expected to
be honorable and reliable at all times, for a
person who cannot abide by the laws in his
private life cannot be expected to do so in his
professional dealings
ROGER B. DAP-OG vs. ATTY. LUEL C. MENDEZ
A disbarment case was filed by Roger Dap-og
against Atty Mendez when the parties met at
the compound of the Community Environment
and Natural Resources Office (CENRO),
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) XI, Bangkal, Davao City, to
accompany his brother Ruben B. Dap-og
(Ruben) to attend a hearing/conference in a
case where Roger’s wife, Gemma was one of
the respondents.
After the hearing, Roger, together with Ruben
and Atty. Ladaga (one of Gemma’s counsel and
also an important witness in this administrative
case) went to the CENRO canteen to
photocopy some documents where the fight
between the petitioners and respondents
ensued. The parties had conflicting versions as
to what happened.
Roger’s version: Atty. Mendez approached
their table and asked for his name. Meanwhile,
Rodolfo Sigampong (Rodolfo), one of the
protestants in the CENRO case, verbally
confirmed the latter's identity as Roger Dap-og.
Atty. Mendez then suddenly called him a
demon and tried to grab Roger from across the
table. Atty. Mendez then slapped Roger's left
cheek and together with Rodolfo and several
others, pursued him and managed to land
some punches on him. During the commotion,
the group of Atty. Mendez was hurling
invectives and accusations at Roger calling him
“demonyo” “swindler”, “traydor”. Afterwards,
Roger went to have the incident recorded in
their blotter. He also proceeded to get a
medical examination which revealed that
Roger sustained several physical injuries, and a
fractured neck.
Consequently, Roger filed a complaint for Less
Serious Physical Injuries, Grave Slander and
Grave Threat against Atty. Mendez.
Roger’s version was later on affirmed through
an affidavit executed by Atty. Ladaga as an
eyewitness.
Atty Mendez’ version: He denied the allegation
and alleged that he met the complainant at the
CENRO canteen Atty. Mendez asked Roger
why he is siding with the other parties. Rodolfo
then declared that Roger is without principles
or scruples and that he swindled Rodolfo and
his family. At this point, Roger stood up and told
Rodolfo to stop. Roger shouted invectives at
them and was later joined by Ruben.
IBP recommended that Atty. Mendez be
suspended from the practice of law for a period
of 3 months. This was modified by the IBP
Board of Governors (BOG) to 1 year.
Issue
W/N Atty. Mendez should be held
administratively liable based on the allegations
on the Complaint.
Ruling:
YES. Relevantly, Rule 1.01, Canon 1, of the Code
of Professional Responsibility (CPR) provides:
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
The records of this case show without a
shadow of doubt that Atty. Mendez exhibited
Gross Misconduct unbecoming of an officer of
the court.
The SC ruled that "the Court may suspend or
disbar a lawyer for any misconduct showing
any fault or deficiency in his moral character,
honesty, probity or good demeanor, whether in
his profession or private life because good
character is an essential qualification for the
admission to the practice of law and for the
continuance of such privilege."
As applied in this case, Atty. Mendez clearly did
not meet the lofty standards reposed on
lawyers. There is no excuse for respondent's
unlawful and dishonorable behavior. Even
assuming for the sake of argument that
respondent's allegations against Roger were
true, that the latter swindled the former's
clients, no person should take the law into his
own hands. In this regard, this Court must
remind respondent that while he can represent
his clients with zeal, he must do so within the
bounds of the law
Thus, the Court cannot countenance
respondent's pugilistic behavior and brand of
vigilante "justice," as it is this Court's duty to
uphold the rule of law and not the rule of men.
Respondent, being a lawyer and an officer of
the court, should know this basic principle and
should have acted accordingly. Canon 1 of the
CPR provides:
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW
AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
In imposing the penalty of suspension on Atty.
Mendez, we take note of the fact that
respondent's mauling of Roger, coupled with
the use of verbal insults and threats, happened
in broad daylight and in front of other people,
including respondent's fellow lawyer Atty.
Ladaga. Moreover, respondent appears to have
shown no remorse in what he did to Roger and
would instead prefer to showboat his
supposed achievements in a futile attempt to
undermine his despicable acts.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Luel C.
Mendez GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath
and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year effective immediately.
Atty. Mendez is WARNED that a repetition of
the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.
ALBERTO LOPEZ , complainant , vs. ATTY.
ROSENDO C. RAMOS, respondent.
A.C. No. 12081. November 24, 2020.
Facts:
Complainant Lopez was a vendee of a parcel of
land cover by TCT no. 143585. Subsequently,
Lopez discovered that TCT 143583 had been
cancelled upon the issuance of TCT 184238 to
Placida Ronquillo. According to Lopez, it was
thru a forged deed of sale notarized by the
respondent, Atty. Ramos, which enabled the
regular issuance of a new title in Ronquillo's
name.
In a criminal case for Falsification of Public
Document, where respondent was initially
included as defendant but was later dropped
from the information, it was determined that
there were two deed of sale executed by, and
for the benefit, of the same parties and that
these deeds have identical registration, page
and book numbers, in the notarial portion. The
respondent, as counsel for accused Ronquillo,
prepared, notarized and witnessed the
execution of the two (2) deeds of sale covering
the same property.
In Lopez's complaint-affidavit, he avers that
respondent prepared two (2) deeds of sale; one
for P130,000.00 and another for P30,000.00,
with the purpose of helping the alleged seller
minimize the payment of taxes. At the time, a
price of P30,000.00 would have exempted the
transaction from capital gains tax.
- On the other hand, respondent alleged
that he prepared and notarized only
one (1) Deed of Sale, with the amount of
One Hundred Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P130,000.00) as consideration.
- Respondent argues that only certified
photocopies and not certified true
copies of the said documents were
attached to the complaint-affidavit. He
posits that since the photocopies of the
deeds of sale are mere secondary
evidence, these shall be inadmissible,
unless it is shown that the original is
unavailable.
- For this reason, the contention that he
drafted two (2) deeds of sale for
Ronquillo must not be given credence
due to lack of competent evidence.
Also, Lopez argues that respondent was
grossly negligent in the performance of his
duties as a notary public when the latter failed
to exercise prudence in ascertaining that the
identity of the persons who signed the deeds
before him were the same persons who
executed and personally appeared before him.
According to Lopez, respondent did not
attempt to identify the impostor beyond asking
and getting the latter's alleged residence
certificate number.
- Respondent argues that the allegation
that he was grossly negligent in the
performance of his duties as a notary
public is a mere speculation that has
yet to be proven before a judicial
tribunal.
- As to the identity of vendor Aurea
Munar Masangkay, respondent posits
that he exerted efforts in verifying Ms.
Masangkay's true identity through the
latter's CTC since at that time, the CTC
was sufficient proof of identity when
the sale was executed.
Issue:
1. Whether or not respondent was
grossly negligent in the performance of
his duties as a notary public. YES
 2. Whether or not respondent violated
Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the CPR. YES
Ruling:
1. YES. Respondent was grossly
negligent in the performance of his
duties as a notary public. First ,
respondent failed to ascertain
beforehand, the identity of the vendor,
when he notarized the deeds of sale.
The impostor signed as "Aurea Munar," but the
name on the deeds of sale and the title was
"Aurea Munar Masangkay." As to the witnesses
Benjamin and Raymundo, they signed their
names in two different ways on the two (2)
deeds of sale. These did not elicit his suspicion
as notary, wherein he could have had taken
more precautions in ascertaining the identity of
the vendor. Second , the deed of sale which
respondent prepared and notarized, was
proved to have been falsified. To reiterate, in
Criminal Case for Falsification of Public
Document, the CA held:
“There is no question that the signature of
private complainant Aurea M. Masangkay in the
deed of sale was falsified…”
As regards the existence of two (2) deeds of
sale, respondent's secretary, De los Santos
testified on the matter. She stated that on the
same occasion, respondent prepared,
notarized and witnessed the execution of the
two (2) deeds of sale. She further testified that
Atty. Ramos decided to prepare, notarize, and
witness the execution of the said deeds, in
order to minimize the payment of capital gains
tax. She also mentioned that she saw the actual
payment for the same property for the price of
One Hundred Thirty Thousand (P130,000.00)
Pesos. Her testimony was given credence by
the RTC.
2. YES. Respondent violated Rule 1.02,
Canon 1 of the CPR.
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
Based on Delos Santos' testimony, respondent
told her that he drafted and notarized another
instrument that did not state the true
consideration of the sale, in order to reduce the
capital gains tax due on the transaction.
Respondent cannot escape liability for making
an untruthful statement in a public document
for an unlawful purpose. As the second deed
indicated an amount lower than the actual
price paid for the property sold, respondent
abetted in depriving the Government of the
right to collect the correct taxes due.
Respondent assisted the contracting parties in
an activity aimed at defiance of law, and
displayed lack of respect for and made a
mockery of the solemnity of the oath in an
Acknowledgment. When the respondent
notarized an illegal and fraudulent document,
he is entitling full faith and credit upon the face
of the document, which it does not deserve,
considering its nature and purpose.
Despite knowledge of the illegal purpose of
evading the payment of proper taxes due,
respondent proceeded to notarize the second
deed of sale. Instead of accommodating the
request of his client, Benjamin, respondent,
being a member of the legal profession, should
have stood his ground and not yielded to the
request of his client. Respondent should have
been more prudent and unfaltering in his
solemn oath neither to do falsehood nor
consent to the doing of any. As a lawyer,
respondent is expected at all times to uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession
and refrain from any act or omission which
might lessen the trust and confidence reposed
by the public in the integrity of the legal
profession.
Kimteng, et al. v. Young, G.R. No. 210554, 5
August 2015
Facts:
David Yu Kimteng, et. al (Petitioners) are the
majority stockholders of Ruby Industrial
Corporation (Ruby Corp). In Majority
Stockholders of Ruby Industrial Corporation vs
Lim (665 Phil 600), the Court ordered the
liquidation of Ruby Corp and transferred the
case to the appropriate Regional Trial Court to
supervise the liquidation.
Atty. Walter Young, Atty. Jovito Gambol, and
Atty. Dan Reynald Magat (collectively called
Respondents) are lawyers practicing under the
firm, Young Revilla Gambol and Magat (The
Firm). They entered their appearance in the
liquidation proceedings as counsel for the
liquidation.
An Opposition was filed against their firm’s
appearance on the ground that Revilla was
already disbarred in 2009. The Firm filed a
Reply to the Opposition stating that the firm
opted to retain Revilla’s name in the firm name
even after he had been disbarred with the
retention serving as an act of charity, and for
sentimental reasons.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not Respondents are in contempt
of court for continuing to use the name of
Anastacio Revilla, Jr.’s name in the firm name
even after his disbarment.
2. Whether or not maintaining a disbarred
lawyer’s name in the firm name is the same as
using a deceased partner’s name in the firm
name.
Ruling:
1. Yes. The use of the name of a person who is
not authorized to practice law constitutes
contempt of court. The Court has defined
contempt of court as: a willful disregard or
disobedience of a public authority.
In its broad sense, contempt is a disregard of,
or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a
legislative or judicial body or an interruption of
its proceedings by disorderly behavior or
insolent language in its presence or so near
thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to
impair the respect due to such a body. In its
restricted and more usual sense, contempt
comprehends a despising of the authority,
justice, or dignity of a court. The phrase
contempt of court is generic, embracing within
its legal signification a variety of different acts.
In this case, respondents committed acts that
are considered indirect contempt under
Section 3 (d) and (e) of Rule 71, viz:
SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after
charge and Hearing. – After charge in writing
has been filed, and an opportunity given to the
respondent to comment thereon within such
period as may be fixed by the court and to be
heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of
any of the following acts may be punished for
indirect contempt:
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or
indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
administration of justice;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a
court, and acting as such without authority.
In addition, Respondents disregarded the Code
of Professional Responsibility when they
retained the name of respondent Revilla in their
firm name. Canon 3, Rule 3.02 states:
Rule 3.02. In the choice of a firm name, no false,
misleading or assumed name shall be used.
The continued use of the name of a deceased
partner is permissible provided that the firm
indicates in all its communications that said
partner is deceased.
Respondents argue that the use of respondent
Revilla's name is "no more misleading than
including the names of dead or retired partners
in a law firm's name." The Court is not
persuaded. Further, from the time respondent
Revilla was disbarred in 2009, it appears that no
efforts were exerted to remove his name from
the firm name. Thus, Respondents are held
liable for contempt of court.
3. No. Maintaining a disbarred lawyer’s
name in the firm name is different from
using a deceased partner’s name in the
firm name. Canon 3, Rule 3.02 allows
the use of a deceased partner’s name
as long as there is an indication that the
partner is deceased. This ensures that
the public is not misled. On the other
hand, the retention of a disbarred
lawyer’s name in the firm name may
mislead the public into believing that
the lawyer is still authorized to practice
law.
Palencia v. Linsangan
A.C. No. 10557 [Formerly CBD Case No. 07-
1962], 10 July 2018
Facts:
Jerry Palencia (Complainant) was an overseas
Filipino worker seafarer who was seriously
injured during work when he fell into the
elevator shaft of the vessel M/T "Panos G"
flying a Cyprus flag. After initial treatment in
Singapore, complainant was discharged and
flown to the Philippines to continue his medical
treatment and rehabilitation. While confined at
the Manila Doctors Hospital, one "Moises," and
later Jesherel L. Millena (Jesherel), paralegals in
respondents' law office, approached
complainant. They convinced him to engage
the services of respondents' law office in order
to file a suit against his employers for
indemnity. After several visits from the
paralegals and Atty. Pedro Linsangan
(Respondent), Complainant executed (1) an
Attorney-Client Contract; and (2) a Special
Power of Attorney, where he engaged the legal
services of Respondents and Gurbani & Co., a
law firm based in Singapore, and agreed to pay
attorney's fees of 35% of any recovery or
settlement obtained for both.
After execution of the contract, Complainant,
through the efforts of Respondents, was paid
by his employer the following amounts:
US$60,000.00 as indemnity and US$20,000.00
under their collective bargaining agreement.
From these amounts, respondents charged
complainant attorney's fees of 35%.
Respondents and Gurbani & Co. also filed a tort
case against the owners of "Panos G" before the
High Court of Singapore (Singapore case).
Thereafter, negotiations led to a settlement
award in favor of Complainant in the amount of
US$95,000.00. Gurbani & Co. remitted to
respondents the amount of US$59,608.40.
From this amount, Respondents deducted:
their attorney's fees equivalent to 35%, among
others.
Respondents tendered the amount of
US$20,756.05 (representing the US$18,132.43)
to the complainant, which the latter refused. As
complainant contested the amount comprised
of the expenses and attorney's fees deducted,
several civil actions ensued between the
parties. On March 28, 2007, Complainant also
filed before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines a Complaint, requesting that an
investigation be conducted and the
corresponding disciplinary action be imposed
upon the following unethical acts: (1) refusing to
remit the amount collected in the Singapore
case; (2) depositing Complainant’s money into
their own account; and (3) engaging in
ambulance chasing.
Issues:
1. Whether or not lawyers are mandated to
handle their client’s money with great fidelity.
2. Whether or not Respondents were
engaged in the unethical act of ambulance
chasing.
Ruling:
1. Yes. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility reminds a lawyer to: (1) hold in
trust all moneys and properties of his client that
may come into his possession; (2) deliver the
funds and property of his client when due or
upon demand subject to his retaining lien; and
(3) account for all money and property
collected or received for or from his client.
Money collected by a lawyer on a judgment
rendered in favor of his client constitutes trust
funds and must be immediately paid over to
the client. As he holds such funds as agent or
trustee, his failure to pay or deliver the same to
the client after demand constitutes conversion.
Thus, whenever a lawyer collects money as a
result of a favorable judgment, he must
promptly report and account the money
collected to his client. It is the lawyer's duty to
give a prompt and accurate account to his
client. Upon the collection or receipt of
property or funds for the benefit of the client,
his duty is to notify the client promptly and,
absent a contrary understanding, pay or remit
the same to the client, less only proper fees and
disbursements, as soon as reasonably possible.
Here, respondents claim that they promptly
accounted for the total award of US$95,000.00,
and after deducting their fees, tendered the
amount of US$20,756.05. The Court finds that
while respondents gave prompt notice to
complainant of their receipt of money
collected in the latter's favor, they were amiss
in their duties to give accurate accounting of
the amounts due to Complainant, and to return
the money due to client upon demand.
Respondents also showed their lack of good
faith when they appropriated for themselves
more than what is allowed under their contract
- this demonstrated their lack of integrity and
moral soundness. Respondents' flagrant and
malicious refusal to comply with the CPR
amounts to gross misconduct.
2. Yes. The practice of law is a profession and
not a business. Lawyers are reminded to avoid
at all times any act that would tend to lessen
the confidence of the public in the legal
profession as a noble calling, including,
among others, the manner by which he makes
known his legal services.

A lawyer in making known his legal services

must do so in a dignified manner. They are
prohibited from soliciting cases for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers. The Code of
Professional Responsibility explicitly states
that "a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done
any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business."

Corollary to this duty is for lawyers not to

encourage any suit or proceeding for any
corrupt motive or interest. Thus, "ambulance
chasing," or the solicitation of almost any kind
of business by an attorney, personally or
through an agent, in order to gain
employment, is proscribed. Here, there is
sufficient evidence to show that Respondents
violated these rules. In employing paralegals
to encourage Complainant to file a lawsuit
against his employers, Respondents
indirectly solicited legal business and
encouraged the filing of suit. These
constitute malpractice which calls for the
exercise of the Court’s disciplinary powers
and warrants serious sanctions.

Respondents are given the penalty of

suspension from the practice of law for two
years with a WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar act in the future will be dealt
with more severely.