1. In re 1989 Elections of the IBP, B.M. No. 491, Oct.

6, 1989, 178 SCRA 398 (1989)

- Facts: The newly-elected officers were set to take their oath of office on July 4,1989, before the
Supreme Court en banc. However, disturbed by the widespread reports received by some members of
the Court from lawyers who had witnessed or participated in the proceedings and the adverse
comments published in the columns of some newspapers about the intensive electioneering and
overspending by the candidates, led by the main protagonists for the office of president of the
association, namely, Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and Violeta C. Drilon, the alleged use of
government planes, and the officious intervention of certain public officials to influence the voting, all of
which were done in violation of the IBP By-Laws which prohibit such activities.

- Issue: What the Court viewed with considerable concern was the reported electioneering and
extravagance that characterized the campaign conducted by the three candidates for president of the
IBP.

- Basis: The court called a basic postulate of the IBP, heavily stressed at the time of its organization and
commencement of existence, that the IBP shall be non- political in character and that there shall be no
lobbying nor campaigning in the choice of members of the Board of Governors and of the House of
Delegates, and of the IBP officers, national, or regional, or chapter.

- Ruling: Elections held on June 3,1989 be annulled, relevant by-laws be amended as per the court’s
resolution and new elections be held such that the persons named in the resolution cannot contest for
any IBP position.

2. Fernandez v. Grecia, A.C. No. 3694, June 17, 1993, 223 SCRA 425 (1993)

- Facts: This disbarment complaint against Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia was filed on August 20, 1991 by
Doctors Alberto Fernandez, Isabelo Ongtengco and Achilles Bartolome and the St. Luke's Medical Center
(hereafter "St. Luke's" for brevity) where they are accredited medical practitioners. The respondent is
charged with dishonesty and grave misconduct in connection with the theft of some pages from a
medical chart which was material evidence in a damage suit filed by his clients against the aforenamed
doctors and St. Luke's.

- Issue: "Public interests is the 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." The purpose is "to protect the
court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court" (In Re Montagne & Dominguez, 3 Phil.
577, 588), or to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney (Ledesma vs.
Climaco, 57 SCRA 473; Atienza vs. Evangelista, 80 SCRA 338).
- Basis: On the basis of the evidence presented before Judge Bernad, the Court is convinced that the
charge against Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia is true. By stealing two pages from Linda Aves' medical chart
and passing them on to his driver, he violated Rule 1.01, canon 1 of the Rules of Professional
Responsibility as well as canon 7...

- Ruling: The Court finds Attorney Benjamin Grecia guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and grossly
unethical behavior as a lawyer. Considering that this is his second offense against the canons of the
profession, the Court resolved to impose upon him once more the supreme penalty of DISBARMENT.

3. Santos Jr. v. Llamas, A.C. No. 4749, January 20, 2000, 322 SCRA 529 (2000)

- Facts: Complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues. It appears that Atty.
Llamas, who for a number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in
his pleadings. If at all, he only indicated “IBP Rizal 259060” but he has been using this for at least 3 years
already. On the other hand, respondent, who is now of age, averred that he is only engaged in a
“limited” practice of law and under RA 7432, as a senior citizen, he is exempted from payment of income
taxes and included in this exemption is the payment of membership dues.

- Issue: Whether or not the respondent is exempt from paying his membership dues owing to limited
practice of law and for being a senior citizen.

- Basis: GUILTY. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues and
default thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of membership and if nonpayment covers a
period of 1-year, default shall be a ground for removal of the delinquent’s name from the Roll of
Attorneys. It does not matter whether or not the respondent is only engaged in “limited” practice of law.
Moreover, the exemption invoked by respondent does not include exemption from payment of
membership or association dues.

- Ruling: Lawyer was suspended for 1 year or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.

4. In re Diao, A.C. No.244, March 29, 1963, 7 SCRA 475 (1963)

- Facts: After successfully passing the corresponding examinations held in 1953, Telesforo A. Diao was
admitted to the Bar. About two years later, Severino Martinez charged him with having falsely
represented in his application for such Bar examination, that he had the requisite academic
qualifications. it was also discovered that Diao did not complete his high school training; and never
attended Quisumbing College, and never obtained his A.A. diploma therefrom — which contradicts the
credentials he had submitted in support of his application for examination, and of his allegation therein
of successful completion of the "required pre-legal education".
- Issue: w/n Diao would be stricken from the roll of Attys

- Basis: The fact that he hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial. Passing such examinations is not the
only qualification to become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the
regular manner is equally essential.

- Ruling: Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations; but due to his false
representations, he was allowed to take it, luckily passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Bar. Such
admission having been obtained under false pretenses must be, and is hereby revoked. The Clerk is,
therefore, ordered to strike from the roll of attorneys, the name Telesforo A. Diao. And the latter is
required to return his lawyer's diploma within thirty days.

5. In re: Galang, A.C. No. 1163, 29 August 1975

- Facts: Landicho wrote a confidential letter to the court about the startling fact that the grade in one
examination (Civil Law) of at least one bar candidate was raised for one reason or another, before the bar
results were released that year and that there are grades in other examination notebooks in other
subjects that underwent alterations to raise the grades prior to the release of results.

- The investigation showed that the re-evaluation of the examination papers of Ramon E. Galang alias
Roman Galang, was unauthorized, and therefore he did noy obtain a passing average in the 1971 Bar
Examinations.

- Issue: w/n Lanuevo is guilty defrauding the examiners into re-evaluating Galang’s exam notebook.; w/n
Galang is guilty of fraudulently concealing and withholding from the court his pending case.

- Basis: That the concealment of an attorney of the fact that he had been charged with, or indicted for,
an alleged crime, in his application to take the Bar Exam is a ground for revocation of his license to
practice law as well-settled. He is therefore unworthy of becoming a member of the noble profession of
law.

- Ruling: (1) Yes. It is evident that Lanuevo staged the plot to convince the examiners to individually
re-examine the grades of Galang to help him pass even without the authority of the Court Ramon Galang
is guilty of fraudulently concealing and withholding from the Court his pending criminal case for
physical injuries in 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1969, and 1971; and in 1966, 1967, 1969, and
1971, he committed perjury when he declared under oath that he had no pending criminal case in court.
 6. Velasco-Tamaray v. Daquis, AC No. 10868, January 26, 2016

- Facts: Cheryl E. Vasco-Tamaray (Vasco- Tamaray) filed a ComplaintAffidavit before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines on July 30, 2007, alleging that respondent Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis (Atty. Daquis) filed, on
her behalf, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage without her consent and forged her signature
on the Petition.1 She also alleged that Atty. Daquis signed the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage as "counsel for petitioner," referring to Vasco-Tamaray, who was her husband’s.

- Issue: Respondent Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis is found GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 7,
Rule 7.03, Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The charge for
violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 against respondent Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis is DISMISSED.

- Basis: Pretending to be counsel for a party in a case and using a forged signature in a pleading merit the
penalty of disbarment.

- Ruling: The penalty of DISBARMENT is imposed upon respondent Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis. The Office of
the Bar Confidant is directed to remove the name of Deborah Z. Daquis from the Roll of Attorneys.

7. Zaguirre v. Castillo, A.C. No. 4921, March 6, 2003, 398 SCRA 659 (2003)

- Facts: In the Decision dated March 6, 2003, the Court found respondent Atty. Alfredo Castillo guilty of
Gross Immoral Conduct and imposed upon him the penalty of Indefinite Suspension. Respondent, who
was already married with three children, had an affair with the complainant between 1996 to 1997,
while he was reviewing for the bar until before the release of the results thereof. Complainant got
pregnant and the respondent, who was then already a lawyer, executed a notarized affidavit
acknowledging the child as his with a promise to support said child. Upon the birth of the child, however,
respondent started to refuse recognizing the child and from giving her any form of support.

- Issue: w/n indefinite suspension be lifted - Basis: In view of respondent’s show of repentance and
active service to the community, the Court deems it just and reasonable to convert the penalty of
indefinite suspension to a definite period of two years suspension.

- Ruling: Respondent’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The indefinite suspension imposed on
him by the Court in its Decision dated March 6, 2003 is REDUCED to TWO YEARS suspension effective
from date of receipt of herein Resolution. Complainant’s further claim for support of her child should be
addressed to the proper court in a proper case.

8. Tan v. Sabandal, B.M. No. 44, February 24, 1992, 206 SCRA 473 (1992)
- Facts: Respondent Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was denied to take his oath in view
of the finding of the Court that he was guilty of unauthorized practice of law. Since then, he had filed
numerous petitions for him to be allowed to take his lawyer's oath.

- Facts: The executive judge of the province where Sabandal is domiciled wrote in a comment requested
by the Court that respondent has a pending civil case before his court for cancellation/reversion
proceedings, in which respondent, then working as Land Investigator of the Bureau of Lands, is alleged to
have secured a free patent and later a certificate of title to a parcel of land which, upon investigation,
turned out to be a swampland and not susceptible of acquisition under a free patent, and which he later
mortgaged to the bank. The case has however been settled through amicable settlement. The
respondent also paid the bank a certain sum for the loan and interest.

- Issue: w/n the respondent may be admitted to the practice of law considering that he already
submitted three (3) testimonials regarding his good moral character, and his pending civil case has been
terminated.

- Basis: (1) The practice of law is not a matter of right—it is a privilege. (2) No moral qualification for bar
membership is more important than truthfulness or candor.

- Ruling: His petition was denied.

9. Tapucar v. Tapucar, A.C. No. 4148, July 30, 1998, 293 SCRA 331 (1998)

- Facts: In a letter-complaint dated November 22, 1993, complainant Remedios Ramirez Tapucar sought
the disbarment of her husband, Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar, on the ground of continuing grossly immoral
conduct for cohabiting with a certain Elena (Helen) Peña under scandalous circumstances. Also, the
respondent was already administratively charged four times for conduct unbecoming an officer of the
court.

- Issue: w/n respondent violated canon 1 of the code of professional responsibility

- Basis: Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility

- Ruling: Yes. Respondent Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar was DISBARRED, and the Clerk of Court was directed to
strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys.

10. Guevara v. Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007, 517 SCRA 600 (2007)

- Facts: This a complaint for disbarment for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the
lawyer's oath."
- Issue: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the reason for the disbarment of Atty. Jose
Emmanuel Eala.

- Basis: It bears emphasis that adultery is a private offense which cannot be prosecuted de oficio and
thus leaves the DOJ no choice but to grant the complainant's motion to withdraw his petition for review.
But even if respondent and Irene were to be acquitted of adultery after trial, if the Information for
adultery were filed in court, the same would not have been a bar to the present administrative
complaint.

- Ruling: Petition was granted. Respondent was DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his
oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

11. Advincula v. Macabata, A.C. No. 7204, March 7, 2007, 517 SCRA 604 (2007)

- Facts: This is a complaint for disbarment. respondent admitted that he agreed to provide legal services
to the complainant; that he met with complainant on 10 February 2005 and 6 March 2005, to discuss the
relevant matters relative to the case which complainant was intending to file against the owners of
Queensway Travel and Tours for collection of a sum of money; that on both occasions, complainant rode
with him in his car where he held and kissed complainant on the lips...

- Issue: w/n respondent committed acts that are grossly immoral or which constitute serious moral
depravity that would warrant his disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.

- Basis: Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded that their possession of good moral character is a
continuing condition to preserve their membership in the Bar in good standing. The continued
possession of good moral character is a requisite condition for remaining in the practice of law.

- Ruling: The complaint was dismissed. Respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED to be more prudent and
cautious in his dealing with his clients with a STERN WARNING that a more severe sanction will be
imposed on him for any repetition of the same or similar offense in the future.

12. Tiong v. Florendo, A.C. No. 4428, December 11, 2011, 662 SCRA 1 (2011)

- Facts: This is a disbarment case for gross immorality and grave misconduct. Complainant, an American
citizen and real estate lessor in Baguio, engaged the services of respondent Atty. George M. Florendo not
only as legal counsel but also as administrator of their businesses whenever the complainant would
leave for the US, who also engage in the assembly and repair of motor vehicles in Pangasinan.
Complainant learned that his wife and respondent were having an illicit affair from 1993-1995.
- Issue: w/n the pardon extended by complainant in the Affidavit dated May 15, 1995 is sufficient to
warrant the dismissal of the present disbarment case against respondent for gross immoral conduct.

- Basis: Respondent's act of having an affair with his client's wife manifested his disrespect for the laws
on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. Violated Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

- Ruling: Respondent was found GUILTY of Gross Immorality and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for SIX (6) MONTHS effective upon notice hereof, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same
or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

13. Sanchez v. Somoso, A.C. No. 6061, 3 October 2003

- Facts: When respondent was discharged on 09 April 1998, he urged complainant that, since it was a
public holiday and banks were closed that day for business, the latter be good enough to accept a check
in payment of the hospital bills due complainant totalling P44,347.00. When deposited, the checks were
dishonored. Complainant immediately met with an informed respondent about it. Respondent promised
to redeem the dishonored checks in cash; he never did.

- Issue: w/n respondent be disbarred

- Basis: Violation of Canons 1 and 7

- Ruling: GUILTY of misconduct, and he is

ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective from receipt of this
decision, with a warning that any further infraction by him shall be dealt with most severely.

14. Dantes v. Dantes, A.C. No. 6486, 22 September 2004

- Facts: This is a complaint for disbarment against the respondent husband on the ground of immorality,
abandonment, and violation of professional ethics and law. Respondent purportedly engaged in illicit
relationships with two women, one after the other, and had illegitimate children with them.

- Issue: w/n respondent be disbarred

- Basis: Violation of Canons 1 and 7

(Precedent: Toledo v Toledo, Cordova vs.Cordova)

- Ruling: Respondent was DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
 15. Carrie Anne Reyes v. Atty. Ramon Nieva, A.C. No. 8560, 6 September 2016

- Facts: During complainant's stint under respondent, she would notice that during office hours,
respondent would often watch "pampagana" videos saved in his office laptop, all of which turned out to
be pornographic films. Complainant also

averred that whenever the respondent got close to her, he would hold her hand and would sometimes
give it a kiss. During these instances, the complainant would remove her hands and tell him to desist.
According to the complainant, the respondent even offered her a cellular phone together with the
necessary load to serve as means for their private communication, but she refused the said offer,
insisting that she already has her own cellular phone and does not need another one.

- Issue: w/n respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR)

- Basis: Violation of Canons 1 and 7

- Ruling: Respondent was found GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of two (2) years, effective upon the finality of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

16. AAA v. Atty. Antonio N. De los Reyes, A.C. No. 10021 & 10022, 18 September 2018

- Facts: Sometime in February 1997, [AAA] was hired as secretary to NHMFC. Respondent offered to take
the complainant home. Sometime in the last quarter of 1998, AAA began to feel very uncomfortable
with the situation, so she tried to avoid it. Respondent started being verbally abusive toward her, cursing
and shouting invectives at her whenever she did, and overly solicitous the next moment, apparently to
placate her. Due to financial difficulties, complainant was unable to leave her post and she then became
a sex slave to him.

- Issue: w/n 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.

- Basis: Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of

Court expressly states that members of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended for any deceit, grossly
immoral conduct, or violation of their oath.

- Ruling: Respondent was guilty of sextortion and was disbarred.

- Ruling: Respondent was found GUILTY of gross immoral conduct and violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1,
and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is hereby DISBARRED from the
practice of law.

17. Gizale O. Tumbaga v. Atty. Manuel P. Teoxon, A.C. No. 5573, 21 November 2017

- Facts: This is an administrative complaint filed by complainant Gizale O. Tumbaga against respondent
Atty. Manuel P. Teoxon, charging him with gross immorality, deceitful and fraudulent conduct, and gross
misconduct.

- Facts: Complainant narrated that she met respondent sometime in September 1999. He was then the
City Legal Officer of Naga City from whom the complainant sought legal advice. After the complainant
consulted with him a few times, he visited her often at her residence and brought gifts for her son, Al
Greg Tumbaga. Respondent even volunteered to be the godfather of Al Greg. In one of his visits, the
respondent assured the complainant's mother that although he was already married to Luzviminda
Balang,his marriage was a sham because their marriage contract was not registered. In view of the
respondent's persistence and generosity to her son, the complainant believed his representation that he
was eligible to marry her.

- Issue: w/n it affects the lawyer's public conduct as an officer of the court.

- Basis: The Court agrees with the conclusion of the IBP that the actuations of respondent in this case
showed his failure to live up to the good moral conduct required of the members of the legal profession.
(Precedent: Advincula v. Advincula) Violated Rule 1.01, Canon 7, Rule 7.03

- Ruling: The Supreme Court (SC) has suspended former Naga City legal officer Manuel Teoxon from
practicing law for 3 years, finding him guilty of gross immorality for having an affair—and the gall to lie
about it before the court.

18. Amalia R. Ceniza v. Atty. Eliseo B. Ceniza , Jr., A.C. No. 8335, 10 April 2019

- Facts: The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received the complainant's letter- complaint denouncing
the immoral conduct committed by her husband, a member of the IBP.

- Issue: w/n respondent is guilty of immorality in his relationship with Anna Fe Binoya.

- Basis: The Office of the Ombudsman issued its decision... in which it found the respondent guilty of
disgraceful and immoral conduct for having an extra- marital affair with a woman in violation of the Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
- Basis: The abandonment by an attorney of his legitimate family in order to cohabit with a married
woman constitutes gross immorality that want-ants his disbarment.

- Ruling: Respondent was found guilty of gross immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and ordered to be disbarred and his name be stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys.

19. Reyes v. Chiong, A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 212 (2003)

- Facts: In his Complaint, Atty. Reyes alleges that sometime in January 1998, his services were engaged
by one Zonggi Xu, 3 a Chinese-Taiwanese, in a business venture that went awry. Xu invested P300,000 on
a Cebu-based fishball, tempura and seafood products factory being set up by a certain Chia Hsien Pan,
another Chinese-Taiwanese residing in Zamboanga City. Eventually, the former discovered that the latter
had not established a fishball factory. When Xu asked for his money back, Pan became hostile, making it
necessary for the former to seek legal assistance.

- Issue: w/n Chiong Jr. violated his lawyer’s oath and of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

- Basis: Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity and civility. The bickering and the hostility
of their clients should not affect their conduct and rapport with each other as professionals and
members of the bar.

- Ruling: Respondent was found guilty as charged and is hereby SUSPENDED for two years from the
practice of law, effectively immediately.

20. Alcantara v. Pefianco, A.C. No. 5398, December 3, 2002, 393 SCRA 247 (2002)

- Facts: This is a complaint against Atty. Mariano Pefianco for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar
for using improper and offensive language and threatening and attempting to assault the complainant.
The complainant, Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara, is the incumbent District Public Attorney of the Public
Attorney’s Office in San Jose, Antique. He alleged that while Atty. Ramon Salvani III was conferring with a
client in the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) at the Hall of Justice in San Jose, Antique, a woman
approached them. The Complaint suggested Atty. Salvani to talk with her when respondent Atty.
Mariano Pefianco, who was sitting nearby, stood up and shouted at Atty. Salvani and his client. Atty
Pefianco was asked to calm down but he did not refrain from his outburst which led to commotion.

- Issue: w/n respondent’s act violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

- Basis: Pefianco violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL
CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES,
AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

- Ruling: Atty. Mariano Pefianco is found GUILTY of violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and, considering this to be his first offense, is hereby FINED in the amount of P1,000.00
and REPRIMANDED with a warning.

21. Barandon, Jr. v. Ferrer, A.C. No. 5766, March 26, 2010, 616 SCRA 529 (2010)

- Facts: This administrative case concerns a lawyer who is claimed to have hurled invectives upon
another lawyer and filed a baseless suit against him.

- Issue: w/n (1) the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP Investigating Commissioner erred in finding
respondent Atty. Ferrer guilty of the charges against him; and (2) If in the affirmative, whether or not the
penalty imposed on him is justified.

- Basis: Atty. Ferrer’s display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct in the
performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before the public and the court, was
a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold.

- Ruling: The Court AFFIRMS the May 22, 2008 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors in CBD Case
01-809 and ORDERS the suspension of Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. from the practice of law for one year
effective upon his receipt of this decision.

22. Camacho v. Pangulayan, A.C. No. 4807, March 22, 2000, 328 SCRA 631 (2000)

- Facts: Respondent lawyers stand indicted for a violation of the Code of Professional Ethics, specifically
Canon 9

- Issue: w/n respondent violated Canon9 Basis: It would appear that when the individual letters of
apology and Re- Admission Agreements were formalized, the complainant was by then already the
retained counsel for plaintiff students in the civil case. Respondent Pangulayan had full knowledge of this
fact. Although aware that the students were represented by counsel, respondent attorneys proceeded to
negotiate with them and their parents without at the very least communicating the matter to their
lawyer.

Ruling: Respondent Atty. Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan is ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period of 3 months effective immediately upon his receipt of this decision. The case against the
other respondents is DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.
 23. Spouses Suarez v. Salazar, G.R. No. 139281, September 29, 1999, 315 SCRA 502 (1999)

- Facts: Considering respondents' "Motion to Expunge All Pleadings Filed by Atty. Filemon A. Manangan
with Motion to Hold Him in Contempt of Court and to Dismiss the Petition" and said Atty. Manangan's
admission at the hearing this morning, September 29, 1999, that he is not a lawyer entitled to practice
law in the Philippines, and that he is the same "Filemon A. Manangan"

- Issue: w/n Atty Manangan who is in reality Andres Culanag is qualified to represent clients to court;
w/n he is a member of the bar

- Basis: Found by this Court in G.R. No. 82760 (Filemon Manangan v. Court of First Instance of Nueva
Vizcaya, Branch 28) decided on August 30, 1990, to be in reality Andres Culanag who is not a member of
the Philippine Bar, but despite these facts he has continued to misrepresent himself to be an attorney-at-
law and has appeared as counsel for petitioners in this case

- Ruling: "Atty. Filemon A. Manangan, who is in reality Andres Culanag, is hereby declared guilty of
indirect contempt of this Court. Wherefore, he is hereby sentenced to three (3) months imprisonment to
be served at the Headquarters of the National Bureau of Investigation, Taft Avenue, Manila, until further
orders from this Court.

24. Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA 342 (2003)

- Facts: On 21 May 2001, one day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar examinees as
members of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie Aguirre ("complainant") filed against
respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. Complainant charged respondent with
unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation.

- Facts: Respondent has not signed the Roll of Attorneys

- Issue: w/n respondent is admitted to the bar

- Basis: Before one is admitted to the Philippine Bar, he must possess the requisite moral integrity for
membership in the legal profession.

- Ruling: Respondent Edwin L. Rana is DENIED admission to the Philippine Bar.

25. In Re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys, Michael A. Medado, B.M. No. 2540, 24
September 2013

- Facts: Michael A. Medado passed the Philippine bar exams in 1979. On 7 May 1980, he took the
Attorney’s Oath at thePICC. He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980, but failed
to do so allegedly because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. Several years later,
while rummaging through his things, he found said Notice. He then realized that he had not signed in the
roll, and that what he had signed at the entrance of the PICC was probably just an attendance record.

- Issue: w/n petitioner may be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.

- Basis: Admission to the Bar, Unauthorized Practice of Law, Canon 9, Signing of the Roll of Attorneys

- Ruling: Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition subject to the payment of a fine and the imposition
of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of law.

- Ruling: However, Medado is not free from all liability for his years of inaction. A mistake of law cannot
be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences.

- Ruling: Medado cannot be suspended as he is not yet a full-fledged lawyer. However, the Court
imposed upon him a penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1)
year after receipt of the Resolution. He was also made to pay a fine of P32,000. Also, during the one-year
period, the petitioner was not allowed to engage in the practice of law.

26. Tomas P. Tan, Jr. v. Atty. Haide V. Gumba, A.C. No. 9000, 10 January 2018

- Facts: Atty. Gumba obtained a loan of P350,000.00 from Mr. Tan and offered the parcel of land
registered in her father's name as security. She even showed Special Power of Attorney that she was
authorized to sell or encumber the property. However, Atty. Gumba defaulted on her loan obligation and
failed to pay the same despite repeated demands. So, Mr. Tan went to the Register of Deeds to register
the sale, only to find out that the SPA did not give respondent the power to sell the property but only
empowered respondent to mortgage the property solely to banks.

- Issue: w/n a lawyer should be subject to disciplinary actions considering that the deception was made
in her private capacity

- Basis: Violation of Canon 7, Rule 1.01 Canon 1; Yes, a lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct
committed either in his professional or private capacity.

- Ruling: Atty. Haide V. Gumba is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for an additional period of
six months (from her original six - month suspension) and WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

27. Linsangan v. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, 4 September, 2009

- Facts: Complaint for disbarment filed by Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law
Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional
services. Complainant alleged that the respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano,
convinced his clients to transfer legal representation. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently
called them and sent them text messages.

- Issue: ambulance chasing

- Basis: Violation of Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02

and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court

- Ruling: Respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year effective
immediately

28. Noe-Lacsamana v. Busmente, A.C. No. 7269, 23 November 2011

- Facts: This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana (Noe- Lacsamana) against
Atty. Yolando F. Busmente (Busmente) before the IBP .

- Facts: Falsification; Atty Dela Rosa not a lawyer but acting as one

- Issue: w/n Busmente is guilty of directly or indirectly assisting Dela Rosa in her illegal practice of law
that warrants his suspension from the practice of law

- Basis: Violation of Canon 9; IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found that Dela Rosa was not a
lawyer and that she represented Ulaso as Busmente’s collaborating counsel in Civil Case No. 9284. The
IBP-CBD noted that while Busmente claimed that Dela Rosa no longer worked for him since 2000, there
was no proof of her separation from employment.

- Ruling: Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for 6 months.

29. Tapay v. Bancolo, A.C. No. 9604, 20 March 2013

- Facts: This administrative case arose from a Complaint tiled by Rodrigo E. Tapay (Tapay) and Anthony J.
Rustia (Rustia), both employees of the Sugar Regulatory Administration, against Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo
(Atty. Bancolo) and Atty. Janus T. larder (Atty. Jarder) for violation of the Canons of Ethics and
Professionalism, Falsification of Public Document, Gross Dishonesty, and Harassment.
- Facts: Sometime in October 2004, Tapay and Rustia received an Order dated 14 October 2004 from the
Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas requiring them to file a counter-affidavit to a complaint for usurpation
of authority, falsification of public document, and graft and corrupt practices filed against them by
Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr. (Divinagracia), a co- employee in the Sugar Regulatory Administration.

- Issue: w/n respondent violated Canon 9

- Basis: Administratively liable for violating Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

- Ruling: The complaint against Atty. Janus T. larder was DISMISSED for lack of merit, and the respondent
was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year effective upon finality of this Decision.

30. Lijuaico v. Terrado, A.C. No. 6317, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 301 (2006)

- Facts: An administrative complaint was filed by complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco against respondent
Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado for gross misconduct, malpractice and conduct unbecoming of an officer of the
court when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him despite receipt of payment representing
attorney’s fees.

- Issue: w/n he violated the CPR

- Basis: Violation of Rules 1.01 and 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

- Ruling: tty. Rogelio P. Terrado is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 9.02, 18.02 and 20.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six months effective from
notice... He is further ordered to RETURN, within thirty days from notice, the sum of P70,000.00 to
complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco and to submit to this Court proof of his compliance within three days
therefrom.