MAURICIO C. ULEP, Petitioner vs THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
, Respondent
Penalty: FACTS:
The petitioner filed a complaint and praying to the court to order
the respondent to desist from issuing advertisements regarding secret
marriages, divorce, annulment, remarriage and the like. It is the
submission of the petitioner that such advertisement are
champertuous, unethical and demeaning to the law profession and
destructive of the confidence of the community to the integrity of the
bar.
The respondent in its answer, admitted that they caused such
publication but it claimed that they are not engaged in the practice of
law but merely they are rendering legal support services, thru their
paralegals with the use of its modern computers and electronic
machines.
Acting on such complaint, the Court required the IBP, PBA, Phils.
Lawyer assoc., UP Woman’s Lawyers’ Circle, Women Lawyers
Association of the Phils, and Federacion International de Abogadas to
file their respective position papers re the case at bar.
In response, the IBP explained that by its name: “Legal Clinic” it
implies that it is operated by lawyers similar to the medical clinic that
is operated by doctors, thus refuting their claim that its intention is
just to give legal support thru its paralegal. Moreover, the services
that is being offered by the respondent is contrary to the purpose of
the law particularly the giving of services laws regards divorce which
encourages people to have their divorce in Guam. This is also a
violation of Rule 1.02 that prohibits lawyers to abet activities aimed
at defiance of law.
The PBA, on the other hand, explained that it has been held that
the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court, but
it is also extended to rendering opinions, and advising clients as to
their legal right. Thus, all the services rendered by the Legal clinic
falls clearly under the concept of practice of law.
The Philippine Lawyers Association, on the other hand opined that
the Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law and thus their
advertisements are unethical.
The UP-Women Lawyer’s Circle claimed that assuming that the
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON the respondent Yes, the respondent is engaged in the practice of law. The
is engaged in the Sc defined the PRACTICE OF LAW as any activity, in or out
practice of law? of the court, which requires application of law, legal
procedures, knowledge, training and experience.
WON the The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in
advertisements court. It also includes legal advice and counsel, preparation of
conducted by the legal documents for their clients, and appearance for clients
respondent is allowed before the courts.
by the law? Moreover, one who confers with clients, advices them as to
their legal rights and then takes business to an attorney and asks
the latter to look after the case in court, is also considered a
practice of law.
The Court in defining Practice of law used the definition
made by the Black Laws Dictionary which provides that
PRACTICE OF LAW is the rendition of services requiring the
knowledge and application of legal principles and technique to
serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to
appearing in court but embraces all advise to clients, and all
action taken for them in matters connected with the law.
In the case at bar, the Court held that the legal support
services as contemplated by the respondent is basically consists
of giving ready information by trained paralegals to layman and
lawyers which are strictly non-diagnostic and non-advisory.
However, the Court disbelieved the contention fo the
respondent that it is engaged only in the said legal support
services, such that they will just look for the law, get a copy
and furnish their clients such copy. With its attorney and
paralegals it will also be necessary for them to explain the
meaning of the laws and advise them the proper course of
action to be taken. The Court held that this activity, falls
squarely to the definition of practice of law.
Moreover, the respondent’s founder Atty Rogelio P.
Nogales admitted in the StarWeek magazine that the purpose of
the legal clinic is to make it similar to htat of mecial clinic,
respondent is as claimed staffed purely by paralegals it also gives
misleading impression that there are lawyers involved in the Legal
Clinic as there are doctors in medical clinic, when only paralegals are
involved in the Legal Clinic.
The Women Lawyers’ Association of the Phils. opined that the
advertisements conducted by the respondent is not only illegal in that
it is an advertisement to solicit cases, but also immoral because it also
promotes secret marriage.
Lastly, for Federacion Internacional de Abogados, the respondent
states that its services are strictly non-diagnostic, non advisory.
However, it is not controverted that if the services involve giving
legal advice or counselling, such would constitute a practice of law.
Hence, the services being offered by the respondent constitutes
practice of law.
Hence, the present case.
wherein its clients will come to their office, will tell them their
problems and they will resolve such problem by giving legal
advise from their lawyers who are composed of various lawyers
with different specialties. Thus, from the foregoing, the
respondent is indeed engaged in the practice of law.
NO, the advertisements conducted by the respondent is not
allowed. The CPR provides that a lawyer in making known his
legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and
objective information or statement of facts. He is not also
allowed to use self-laudatory or unfair statements. He is also
prohibited from resorting to indirect advertisements of his
talents, this conduct is condemned by the standards of legal
profession.
A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his
profession, advertise his talents or skills in a manner similar to
that of a merchant advertising his wares.
It ahs also been ruled by the Court that the practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally
or thru paid agents constitutes MALPRACTICE. The most
worthy and effective advertisement of his legal profession is
the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional
capacity and fidelity to trust.
The SC held that there are other advertisements that a
lawyer can resort to such as publication in a reputable law list,
provided that such publication is primarily for the purpose of
publication of law lists.
Professional card which may reflect one’s name, address,
field of specialization and telephone number.
Or simple announcement of opening a new law firm.
TEODORO RIVERA, et.al., Complainants vs ATTY. SERGIO ANGELES, Respondent
Penalty: FACTS:
The complainants acquired the legal services of Atty. Angeles, the
herein respondent for a civil case. Consequently, after having
favorable decisions from RTC< CA and SC, an alias writ of
execution was issued. However, the sheriff stated in its return that no
leviable properties can be found in the premises of the defendants.
And it has been found out that the defendant in the civil case has
already given to the respondent the partial settlement of P42,000.00
as evidenced by Payment receipt.
Thus, the complainants demand from their lawyer the remittance
of the said money to them, but the respondent refused and claimed
that as per their agreement he has the right to retain the said amount
and shall serve as payment for his attorneys fee.
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON the Yes, the respondent is guilty for deceit and malpractice. The
respondent lawyer is SC held that respondent’s act constitutes malpractice and deceit
guilty of deceit and which indubitably demonstrated his failure to live up to his
malpractice? sworn duty as a lawyer. This sworn duty of a lawyer is the
maintenance of one’s integrity and good moral character which
is part of lawyer’s equipment to the practice of his profession.
Indeed a lawyer has the right to be paid for the legal services
he has extended to his client but such right should not be
exercised whimsically by appropriating upon himself the
money intended for his client.
 The complainant, on the other hand claimed that they did not
assigned such right to the respondent. Hence, the present case has
been referred to the SOLGEN for investigation, report and
recommendation. The SOLGEN although declared the respondent at
default for his failure to appear on scheduled hearings, SOLGEN
failed to submit its resolution. Thus, the Court directed the IBP to
take action.
Upon investigation it ahs been found that the respondent has
violated the Rule 1.01, 16 and 16.01 of the CPR, thus recommends
his indefinite suspension. The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted
the said findings but recommended that the punishment of the
respondent would be 1 year suspension.
Hence, the present case.

JOSE DUCAT, JR., Complainant vs ATTYS. ARSENIO C. VILLALON, et.al., Respondents

Penalty: FACTS: ISSUE/S: RULING:

The herein complainant is the registered owner of a parcel of land
which is the subject of the case. The herein respondent lawyer is
claiming ownership over the said property and claimed that it was
given to him by the father of the complainant. However, as a lawyer
he ought to know that the father of the complainant Jose Ducat, Sr.
could not possibly give to him the said property without authority
from the complainant thru SPA, because Ducat, Sr. was not the real
owner of the said property.
That the respondent, being a lawyer should ought to know that a
real property whether gratuitously or for consideration, must be in
writing. However, he is claiming the property on the basis of verbal
or oral giving by Jose Ducat, Sr.
Moreover, the Deed of Sale of parcel of land is falsified because
the respondent himself during trial that the signature over the name of
Maria Cabrido, wife of Ducat, Sr. was falsified by his latter husband.
Thus, being a lawyer, the respondent should know that such kind of
act of Ducat, Sr. constitutes forgery, and thus the contract is invalid.
WON the Yes, the respondents are guilty for violating CPR. The SC
respondents are guilty held that the respondent failed to abide his duty to do no
for violating the Code falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, and he also
of Professional failed to uphold integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
Responsibility? However, because of his career as a former IBP President of
Manila Chapter who during his leadership has introduced
various programs to uphold the confidence of the public to the
legal profession and because of his actuations before the Court
has rendered the decision in this case, that he returned
personally the duplicate copy of TCT to the complainant the
penalty that was imposed by the court was reduced to 6 months
suspension and a warning.
 Lastly, the said Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property in favor of
certain Andres Canares, Jr. is being denied by the complainant and
that he never went to the notary public, herein respondent Atty.
Crispulo Ducusin, to notarize the document and that he also never
received any consideration for a certain amount which appears on the
said contract. Thus, with this irregularity the respondent should have
known that such contract is also invalid.
Hence, the present case.
PETITION TO CONTINUE TO USE THE FIRM NAME: SYCIP, SALAZAR, FELICIANO, HERNANDEZ & CASTILLO
PETITION TO CONTINUE TO USE THE FIRM NAME: OZAETA, ROMULO, DE LEON, MABANTA & REYES
Penalty: FACTS:
Petition Denied The case involves 2 petition asking the SC to retain the firm name
despite the demise of Atty. Alexander Sycip and Atty Herminio
Ozaeta.
The petitioners in their argument claimed that:
1. Under Art. 1840 of the Civil Code, in Partnership, the name
of the deceased partner may still be included in the
partnership name
2. In other professions such as accounting and engineering,
which requires the same degree of trust and confidence,
despite the death of a partner, the surviving partners are
allowed to continue to use the name of the firm
3. The CPR of ABA Canon 33 allows law firms to sustain their
name despite the death of their partners however this is so if
permissible by local custom and would not result to
deception
4. That there is no possibility of deception because the demise
of their partners was announced thru newspaper of general
circulation and thru local and international ctories
5. That no local custom prohibits the use of a firm name despite
the demise of its former partners
Hence, the present case.
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON law firms are No. The SC in 1953 and 1958 cases declared that law firms
allowed to use the cannot use the name of their deceased partners and thus,
name of their partners required them to drop off their names in the law firm.
who had passed away The SC refute the claim that under Art. 1840 of the Civil
in their law in the Code, the use of deceased partner’s name is allowed,
names of their firm? explaining that under Art 1815 that the names in the partnership
must be that of the living partners and in fact under Art 1825 it
prohibits that third person’s name be included in the firm’s
name otherwise he shall be held liable similar to that of a
partner.
Accordingly, the claimed Art 1840 is actually for the
purpose of exempting the property of the deceased partner from
any liability that was contracted after his death. Moreover, Art
1840 treats more of a commercial partnership and not of a
professional partnership with no saleable goods but whose
reputation depends on the personal qualification of its
individual partners.
As regards the claim of the law firm is similar to other
profession, the Court held that it cannot be likened to other
professionals whose purpose is for carrying on trade or
business. Law profession’s purpose is to serve the public. And
what distinguishes the legal profession to others are: It has duty
to the public; to the courts, in aiding administration of justice;
to clients; and to their colleagues.
As regards to the cited Canon 33 of the ABA, the Court held
that use of deceased’s partner’s name is based on local
customs. However, in the Philippine we do not have any
customs of such. In the USA their Courts allowed such because
they have customs allowing their law firms to still include in
their firm’s name their deceased partner’s name.
In the Philippines, we do not have any similar customs like
that of the USA, and Courts take no judicial notice of customs,
hence a custom must be proved as fact according to the rules of
evidence.
IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ATTY. DIOSDADO Q. Guitierez

Penalty: FACTS: ISSUE/S: RULING:

Atty Rodriguez was convicted for the crime of murder of Filemon WON the conditional No. The SC answered in negative, stating that an absolute
Samaco, a former municipal mayor of Calapan and was sentenced to pardon operates to pardon granted to a convicted person removes all the penalties
the penalty of death. Upon review of the case by the SC, his wipe out any and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights as if he
conviction was affirmed but the penalty of death was changed to disbarment was a new man and have new credit and capacity. However, the
reclusion perpetua. proceedings against pardon granted to the respondent was not an absolute one, but a
After serving a portion of the sentence he was granted conditional the respondent? conditional one.
pardon by the President of the Philippines on the condition that he The Court held that in a conditional pardon, It merely
will not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines. remitted his sentence for the crime of murder. It does not reach
Subsequently, the widow of Filemon Samaco, filed a verified the disbarment case that was filed against him.
complaint to remove Atty. Rodriguez from the roll of attorney by Moral Turpitude – it is The Court, in the case at bar, ruled that the crime of murder
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. an act of baseness, is one that involves moral turpitude, because this crime is
Hence, the present case. vileness and depravity qualified by treachery and aggravated by its having been
of a person who has committed in hand, by taking advantage of his official position
duty to observe good (respondent being municipal mayor at the time) and with the
conduct which he use of motor vehicle.
owes to another or to The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those
the society. who measure up to certain rigid standards of mental and moral
fitness. For the admission of a candidate to the bar the Rules of
Court not only prescribe a test of academic preparation but
require satisfactory testimonials of good moral character.

EUFROSINA Y. TAN, et.al., Complainants, vs NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL, Respondent

Penalty: FACTS: ISSUE/S: RULING:

The SC sustained the charge of Unauthorized practice of law filed WON respondent No, he should not be allowed to take his lawyer’s oath. The
against Nicolas Sabandal, thus the latter was not allowed to take his
lawyer’s oath.
Consequently, Sabandal field several Motions for Reconsideration
which was denied or noted without action. However, the Court after
considering his plea and mercy, several testimonies attesting his good
moral character and his assurance that he shall strictly abide by and
adhere the language, meaning and spirit of the lawyer’s oath, has
allowed him to take his lawyer’s oath.
Unfortunately, the complainants filed their MR and contesting the
resolution of allowing the respondent to take his lawyer’s oath. One
of the complainants, Tan, claimed that the certification of good moral
character issued by the IBP Zamboanga thru its president is without
authorization by its Board. That the president of IBP Zamboanga was
the same person who is the counsel of the respondent.
Hence, acting on such allegation, the SC required the IBP
Zamboanga to manifest whether or not they are willing to give
testimony certifying as to the good moral character of the respondent.
Likewise, the Executive Judge of RTC Zamboanga was also directed
to submit its comment on the moral fitness of the accused to be a
member of the bar.
Consequently, IBP Zamboanga manifests that it does not find any
acts to disqualify the respondent to become a member of the bar. On
the other hand, the Executive Judge of RTC Zamboanga has
commented that the respondent has an existing civil case filed against
him by the Republic entitled, Republic vs Sabandal.
He was charged in that civil case because he was alleged to have
secured a free patent and a certificate of title to a parcel of land, by
using his office as Land Investigator by Bureau of Lands to make a
loan.
Consequently, the case of Republic vs Sabandal was already
closed and terminated because of the amicable settlement that d been
reached by Sabandal and the Rural bank of Pinan. With such
decision, Sabandal again prayed to the Court to allow him to take his
lawyer’s oath.
Hence, the present case.
Sabandal should be SC held that the case of Republic vs Sabandal, in which the
allowed to take his respondent was the defendant in the said case, was alleged for
lawyer’s oath? gross dishonesty for having procured a certificate of free patent
over a land and mortgage the same to obtain a loan.
That although the said case has been closed and terminated
due to an amicable settlement, the Court had second thoughts in
allowing the respondent to become member of the bar, because
of his failure to state the said case, when during that time he
was pleading to the Court alleging his good moral character.
The civil case in which the respondent had been involved is
a manifestation of his gross dishonesty while in the public
service which cannot be erased by the termination of the case
where no determination of his guilt or innocence was made.
Moreover, as what has been held by SOLGEN that the
amicable settlement was tantamount to a confession on the part
of the respondent.
The Court also claimed that although, he has submitted
several testimonies attesting his good moral character, but these
attestations was made with lack of knowledge of the pendency
of the case filed against him.
The Court finally ruled that the practice of law is not a right
but a privilege bestowed upon only to those persons who
possess good moral character. And this Good Moral Character,
which admits broad dimensions, ahs been defined as including
atleast common honesty. And that the requirement of good
moral character is more important than truthfulness and candor.
SANTA PANGAN, Complainant vs ATTY. DIONISIO RAMOS, Respondent
Penalty: FACTS:
A complaint to hold the respondent in contempt is filed against
Atty. Dionisio Ramos wherein he was accused of using the name:
“Pedro DD Ramos” before a Criminal Case (People vs Marieta M.
Isip) while he used the name: “Dionisio D. Ramos” in the case where
Santa Pangan is the adverse party.
In the respondent’s defense, he claimed that his full name is Pedro
Dionisio Ramos and that DD in his name is an abbreviation of
“Dionisio Dayaw”, where Dayaw is his mother’s maiden surname.
Hence, the present case.
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON Atty Dionisio Yes. According to the SC, the name appearing in the Roll of
Ramos, should be held Attorney is “Dionisio D. Ramos. The said Roll of Attorney is
in contempt for using the official record containing the names and signatures of those
different names in 2 persons who are authorized to practice law. Thus, a lawyer is
different cases? not authorized to use a name other than the one inscribed in the
Roll of Attorneys in his practice of law.
Moreover, the SC held that when the lawyers took their
oath, they solemnly swear that they will do no falsehood.
Lawyers, as an officer in the temple of justice, has an

FLORA NARIDO, Complainant vs ATTY. JAIME S. LINSANGAN, Respondent
FACTS:
Atty. Linsangan and Atty. Rufino B. Risma are the counsels of the adverse
parties in a Workmen’s Compensation Case. The said lawyers mutually hurl
accusations against each other.
Flora Narido, client of Atty. Risma filed an administrative complaint against
the respondent alleging that he violated the lawyer’s oath by submitting perjured
statement. This statement is about an affidavit of Mrs. Milagros M. Vergel De
Dios wherein Narido claims to be perjured. Narido and her counsel Atty Risma
warned the respondent that if he offered the affidavit of Mrs. De Dios, they will
file disbarment against the respondent.
The respondent still filed the affidavit. Hence, the COUrt ordered the
SOLGEN to investigate the case and submit its recommendation.
The SOLGEN upon its investigation, the falsity of the affidavit being
claimed was not proven and assuming that it was a perjured affidavit, there was
irrefragable obligation of TRUTHFULNESS, CANDOR
(Honesty) and FRANKSNESS.
It is their vocation to correctly inform the court upon the law
and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and
arriving at correct conclusions.
From the foregoing, the respondent is using the name other
than the name inscribed in the roll of Attorneys has resorted to
deception and thus demonstrated a lack of candor in dealing
with the courts.
ISSUE/S: RULING:
WON both administrative No. The SC adopted the recommendation of SOLGEN that an
complaints should prosper? administrative case against Atty. Linsangan should be dismissed for lack of
merit and the administrative case against Atrt. Risma also be exculpated
there being no proof that he instigated the filing of an unfounded suit.
AS regards the findings of SOLGEN that Atty. Risma entered into a
contract with his client, Narido granting him 15% of the award granted to
his client is declared to be of no force and effect on the ground that it is
contrary to law.
The Court claimed that since Atty. Risma did not actually claim such
15% and in fact he advanced the expenses for his poor client, the Court
only imposed upon him the penalty of admonition.
no showing however that the respondent is aware of the falsity thereof.
As regards the allegation of the complainant against Atty. Risma, that the
latter instigated his own client to file an administrative case against him in order
to accomplish a short cut winning of the case even by intimidation or unfounded
threats and by causing embarrassment, humiliation, and defamation of his
brother attorney (respondent), the SOLGEN ruled that there was no direct
evidence showing that Atty. Risma has evil motive and is in bad faith in
advising his client to file administrative case against the respondent. The
SOLGEN held that the benefit of the doubt should be resolved in favor of Atty.
Risma, however upon investigation by SOLGEN, it found out that Atty. Risma
is seeking to collect 15% of the recovery obtained by his client (Narido)
contrary to the explicit provision of Workmen’s Compensation Act allowing
only a maximum 10% thereof. Hence, the SOLGEN recommend that for such
reason Atty. Risma be admonished or reprimanded.
Hence, the present case.
 CASIANO U. LAPUT, Petitioner vs ATTY. FRANCISCO E.F. REMOTIGUE and ATTY FORTUNATO P. PATALINGHUG, Respondents
FACTS:
The petitioner was retained by Nieves Rillas Vda. De Barrera to handle her
case entitled “Testate Estate of Macario Barrera”. When the petitioner was about
to file his pleadings to close the said administration proceedings and to declare
Nieves as Universal heir, the latter advised the petitioner not to file them.
Consequently, the petitioner found out that in the records of the proceedings
that the respondents filed a written appearance as the new counsel for Nieves
Rillas. Hence, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents alleging
that:
1. Respondents’ appearance as counsel to his client Nieves were unethical
and improper for the reason that they have induced Rillas to replace him
as her counsel; and
2. Respondents made his client Nieves signed a document captioned
“Revocation of Power of Attorney” and sent them by mail to several
corporations where the Estate of Macario Barrera is the owner of
certificates of stocks, when the respondents’ fully knew that there was no
power of attorney granted in his favor and because of such actuations it
pictured the petitioner as a dishonest lawyer and no longer entrusted by
his client.
The respondents in their defense, claimed that when they entered their
appearance before the court, Nieves Rillas had already lost her confidence in her
lawyer, this is supported bu a pleading she executed entitled “Discharge of
ISSUE/S:
WON the respondents are
guilty of unprofessional and
unethical conduct in soliciting
cases and intriguing against a
brother lawyer?
RULING:
No, the respondents are not guilty of unprofessional and unethical
conduct. The SC held that upon investigation of the SOLGEN, the reason
why Nieves Rillas dismissed the petitioner as her lawyer is because she did
not trust him any longer because she found out that the dividend checks
which should have been sent to her were sent to the petitioner instead.
Moreover, Nieves Rillas claimed that the petitioner made withdrawals from
her bank accounts without her prior authority thus making her feel she was
being cheated by the petitioner.
The Court, therefore see no irregularity in the appearance of the
respondents which the petitioner alleged to be an actual grabbing of the
case.
The Court moreover, ruled that the petitioner is estopped from
complaining that the appearance of the respondents were unprofessional
because the petitioner had already filed a motion for the payment of his
attorney’s fees before the respondents had entered their appearance.
As regards the claim that the issuance of revocation of power of
attorney against the petitioner, the Court ruled that it is not shown and
proved that it is prompted with malice and intended to hurt the feelings of
the petitioner.
Counsel for the Administration and Motion to Cite Atty. Casiano Laput”.
The Court referred the case to SOLGEN for investigation, report and
recommendation. Hence, the present case.

MANUEL N. CAMACHO, Complainant vs ATTY. LUIS MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN, et.al., Respondents

FACTS: ISSUE/S: RULING:

Nine Students of AMA Computer College were expelled from the said WON the respondents are
school on the ground that they used indecent language in their features or guilty for violating the CPR,
articles in their publication and also, they were held guilty of unauthorized use Canon 9?
of publication funds. The students filed their appeal to the University President
but it was denied, hence they filed a complaint before the RTC-Quezon City.
The herein complainant is the legal counsel for the said students and the
respondents (Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices) were the counsel for the
defense (AMACC).
The filing of herein administrative case by the complainant stemmed from
the time when the respondents procured and effected on separate occasions,
without his knowledge a compromise agreement (Re-admission agreements)
with his clients, thus resulting from the dismissal of civil case filed against the
AMACC. These actuations made by the respondents violates the Canon 9 of the
CPR which prohibits a lawyer to communicate the subject controversy to a
party that is represented by a counsel, and instead the said lawyer should only
deal with its counsel.
The respondents in their defense claimed that the RE-Admission agreements
had nothing to do with the dismissal of the civil case and were executed for the
sole purpose of settling the administrative case.
Upon, investigation by the IBP the Board of Governors of IBP recommend
that the respondent Atty. Pangulayan be suspended for 6 months and as regards
the other co-respondents that the cases filed against them be dismissed for they
did not take part in the negotiation of the said case.
Hence, the present case.
Yes, the respondents are guilty for violating the Canon 9 of the CPR.
The SC held that when the said Re-Admission Agreements were made, the
complainant was already the counsel of the plaintiff students in the civil
case. Respondent Pangulayan had full knowledge of this fact, but despite
such awareness, the respondent proceeded in negotiating with the plaintiff
students without communicating the matter to their lawyer.
This failure of respondent, whether by design or because of oversight is
an inexcusable violation of professional ethics and utter disregard if a
lawyer’s duty to his colleague.
Re the claim of the respondent that the dismissal of the civil case was
not due to the re-admission agreements made between the respondents and
the plaintiff students is disproved by the stipulation they made in their
agreement.
As to the penalty only Atty. Pangulayan was suspended from the
practice of law for 3 months and the others were exculpated due to
insufficiency of the evidence against them.
 TAN TEK BENG, Complainant vs ATTY. TIMOTEO A. DAVID, Respondent

FACTS: ISSUE/S: RULING:

Atty. Timoteo A. David and the complainant entered into an agreement
whereby all the commissions or the attorney’s fees which shall they receive
from their clients shall be divided 50/50, and that Atty. David bound himself not
to deal with their client directly without the consent of the complainant.
Consequently, the complainant filed a case against the respondent on the
ground that the respondent refused to give him one-half of the attorney’s fees
received by the respondent, thus violating their agreement.
The respondent in his defense, alleged that they established a partnership
whereby he is the manager and the complainant was the asst. manager and
certain Atty. Pedro Jacinto as the president. But when Atty. Jacinto became ill
and the cost of the office maintenance mounted, the respondent asked the
complainant to invest some money but the complainant refused.
The herein case was referred to the SOLGEN for investigation, report and
recommendation.
Consequently, the herein complainant died and the SOLGEN was informed
of the said fact. Hence, the present case.
WON the respondent is guilty for
malpractice?
Yes, the respondent is guilty for malpractice. The SC held that the
agreement between the complainant and the respondent is tantamount to
“the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or thru paid agents or brokers”, and this practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain constitutes malpractice.
According to the Court, malpractice is in consonance with the
elementary notion that the practice of law is a profession and not a
business. The Court also cited some canons adopted by ABA (American
bar Association) which prohibits the commercialization of the practice of
law:
1. That there shall be no division of fees for legal services except with
another lawyer based upon the division of the services rendered;
2. No law agency, personal, or corporate shall intervene between the
client and the lawyer. The lawyer’s responsibilities are individual;
and
3. That a lawyer should not receive any compensation of
commissions without knowledge of his client after full disclosure.
From the foregoing, the respondent Atty. David should be censured
because he entered into an agreement which is void and which results to an
unprofessional misconduct that violates the rules or ethical code of his
profession.

WALTER T. YOUNG, Complainant vs CEASAR G. BATUEGAS, et.al., Respondents

 FACTS: ISSUE/S:
The herein respondents are the counsel for the accused in a criminal case for WON the respondents are
Murder and the complainant is the private prosecutor in the same case. The guilty of deliberate falsehood?
complainant filed a complaint against the respondents claiming that they acted
deliberate falsehood before the Court when they filed their Motion for Bail for
their client, claiming that their client, the accused has voluntarily surrendered to
the NBI on December 13, 2000, and thus under detention.
However, upon verification by the complainant to the NBI, it has been
shown that the accused surrendered and was detained only on December 14,
2000. Moreover, the complainant also alleged that the clerk of court of RTC-
Manila has calendared the hearing for Motion for Bail despite such irregularity
and that she failed to give notice of hearing to the complainant.
The respondents in their answer, claimed that upon learning that a warrant of
arrest was issued against their client they filed Motion for Bail, and thereafter
fetch their client from Cavite and brought him to the NBI however, it appeared
on record that the accused was just detained on Dec 14, 2000 because they got
into traffic and only at 2:00 am of Dec 14, 2000, that they were able to bring the
accused to the NBI for his detention.
On the other hand, the respondent Clerk of Court answered that he was no
longer the Clerk of Court when the said Motion was filed and also when she
noticed that no Certificate of Detention is attached in the motion of the other
respondents, she was instructed by the Judge to receive such Motion.
Upon investigation, the IBP recommended that the respondents excluding
Atty Franklin Q. Susa, clerk of court be dismissed from the becoming member
of the bar. As for Susa, the complaint filed against him was dismissed for lack
of merit.
Hence, the present case.
TEODORO I. CHAVEZ, Complainant vs ATTY. ESCOLASTICO R. VIOLA, Respondent
FACTS: ISSUE/S:
RULING:
Yes, the respondents are guilty for committing deliberate falsehood. The
SC held that a lawyer swore upon his admission to the Bar that he will do
no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court and he shall conduct
himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion
with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his client.
A lawyer as an officer of the court has high vocation to correctly inform
the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in the
administration of justice.
Indeed, a lawyer has solemn duty to his clients cause and thus it is
expected upon him to show utmost zeal in defending his client’s cause,
however, this should not be at the expense of the truth.
In the case at bar, the respondents craftily concealed the truth by
alleging that the accused had voluntarily surrendered to a person in
authority and was under detention. This kind of artifice according to the
Court was a deliberate intent to mislead the court and thereby contribute to
injustice.
As regards Atty. Susa, the Clerk of Court the complaint against him
should be dismissed for lack of merit, but he was reminded that his
administrative functions although does not involve discretion similar to a
judge, he should not hesitate to inform the judge as to the acts or conducts
of lawyers which are contrary to the established rules of procedures.
RULING:
 The herein respondent is the counsel for Alvendias in a Civil Case against
the herein complainant Teodoro I. Chavez to declare the Alvendias the bona
fide lessees of the fore shoreland in Bulacan.
However, this complaint was dismissed by the Court for the non-appearance
of Alvendias in the proceedings.
Consequently, RA 470 was passed into law which declares that all fore shore
lands in Bulacan facing Manila Bay, shall be reserved for communal fishing
ground purposes. The land which is the subject of the civil case is found to be
one of those foreshore lands covered by RA 470.
Subsequently, the herein respondent in behalf of his client filed an amended
application for Original Registration of Title praying this time that the land in
question be registered in the name of his clients Alvendias alleging that they
were the lawful owners of the subject land, which they have acquired from
certain Teresita Vistan.
However, the herein complainant who came to know this fact, filed a
complaint against the respondent alleging that the respondent is aware and has
knowledge that the clients were just mere lessees to the land in controversy and
not in fact owners.
The respondent, by filing amended application for original registration has
committed a false and unlawful registration of land, in violation of his oath of
office.
The respondent in his answer claimed that the original title registration was
originally filed by certain Atty. Montesclaro, that his appearance to the case was
only the time when he filed the amended application and also believed that it
was proper to file application due to the affirmation of the Legal Department of
Bureau of Lands that they may apply for original registration.
The SC forwarded the MR of the respondent to the SOLGEN for its
comment.
The SOLGEN claimed that the respondent failed to answer why his amended
application for Original Registration which claims that his client was the owner
of the subject land was contrary to his allegations in his earlier Civil Case
complaint wherein the respondent claimed that his client was lessees in the
same subject land.
Thus, it is evident that the respondent is guilty for knowingly false statement.
Hence, the present case.
WON the respondent is guilty
for knowingly making false
statement before the Court?
Yes, the respondent is guilty for making false statement before the
Court. The SC held that practice of law is not a right but a privilege
bestowed by the State to those who possess the qualifications required by
the law.
And one of these requirements are the honesty and candor. In this
regard, the Courts are entitled to receive candor and honesty from lawyers
appearing and pleading to them.
On the other hand, the lawyer has the fundamental duty to satisfy that
expectation.
The lawyers’ first duty is not to their clients but to the courts, this is so
because they are officers of the courts who assist them in the administration
of justice, and their duty to their clients are secondary to it. For this reason,
he is required to swear that he will not do any falsehood nor consent to the
doing of any in court.
In the case at bar, the respondent alleged in his earlier pleading that his
clients were merely lessees while in his later pleading he claimed that his
same clients were owners of the same property. Therefore, from the
foregoing, one of these pleadings is false, however, it doesn’t matter in this
case, what does matter is that the respondent, who is a member of the bar,
who had sworn that he wont do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of
any in court has committed it.
Lastly, he is found to have violated the Canon 10 of the CPR which
requires every lawyer to observe candor, fairness and good faith to the
courts. However, by such actuations of the respondent it has been shown
that respondent lacks candor in his dealings with the Court.
 RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO, FORMER SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR
FACTS:
Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo was the prosecutor in a Criminal Case for
Murder. The RTC-Surigao City Judge Buyser has rendered in its decision for
demurer to evidence filed by the accused claimed that the evidence presented by
the prosecution was sufficient to prove homicide and not the crime of murder.
With this, the accused filed a Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond to
which the respondent objected and claimed that the crime charge was murder,
which is according to law is non-bailable because it is punishable by reclusion
perpetua.
Subsequently, Judge Buyser inhibited himself from taking charge of the case
because of the harsh insinuation of Atty. Bagabuyo that the Judge lacks cold
neutrality of an impartial magistrate. Thus, the case was reshuffled and was
transferred to Judge Tan.
Judge Tan, thereafter resolved the Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail Bond in
favor of the accused. A MR was filed by the respondent o but was denied.
Hence, instead of availing himself of judicial remedies, respondent caused the
publication of an article in the Mindanao Gold Star Daily which degraded the
court and its presiding judge with its lies and misinterpretation.
In this regard, the Judge required the respondent and the publisher Mark
ISSUE/S:
WON Atty Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo
should be suspended from the
practice of law for violating the
CPR?
RULING:
Yes, he should be suspended from the practice of law for violating CPR
and his lawyer’s oath. The SC held that a lawyer maybe disbarred or
suspended for any violation of his oath or a patent disregard of his duties as
an attorney. Moreover, pursuant to Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the ROC has
enumerated several grounds for disbarment or suspension of a lawyer,
these are:
1. Deceit; 2. Malpractice; 3. Gross Immoral Conduct;
4.Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
5. Any violation of the lawyer’s oath;
6. Willful disobedience to a lawful order; and
7. Corrupt or willful appearance as a lawyer to a case in which he is not the
counsel of the party.
The Court also explained that membership in the bar imposes upon them
certain obligations, such as in Canon 11 of the CPR which requires lawyer
to observe and maintain respect due to the courts and to judicial officers.
The said canon also requires lawyers to submit their grievances to proper
authorities
However, this was violated by the respondent when he resorted to the
Francisco why they should not be held in contempt of court. publication of a news article which degraded the image of the court as well
Mark Francisco admitted that he caused the publication of the subject article as its judicial officers concerned. Also, by making statements that Judge
but the alleged lies in the said publication was just based on the press conference Tan was ignorant of the law, that he was a mahjong afficionado and that he
and the story conferred to him by the respondent. Atty. Bagabuyo, on the other was a liar, is sufficient proof that he indeed violated the Canon 11.
hand, admitted that he caused the holding of a press conference but as regards The respondent also violated Rule 13.02 which requires lawyers to not
his answer to the order of the court, he refused. make any public statement in the media regarding a PENDING CASE
Thus, the court held him in indirect contempt of court. Subsequently, he was tending to arouse public opinion for or against the party, when he caused
released from the custody of the upon payment of bond required. Thereafter, the publication of an article while the criminal case was still pending.
despite having been cited in contempt of court he still continued attacking Judge The respondent also violated the lawyer’s oath which requires lawyers
Tan and the Trial Court’s disposition of the case thru Radio Station DXKS and to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and
claimed that Judge Tan does not know the law, that he is grossly ignorant of the discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients.
law and therefore should be disbarred and what he is studying is mahjong. Lastly, as a lawyer his duty is to maintain towards the court a respectful
Thereafter, he was required again to answer the order of the court why he attitude, because it is his duty to uphold the dignity and the integrity of the
should not be cited in contempt. But Atty. Bagabuyo filed an extension of time courts.
to file an answer because of his busy schedule. But this was denied. Later, he
failed to attend the hearing regarding his case of contempt of court. But,
consequently the court received an answer from the respondent and justified his
response in the said interview in the radio station claiming that he was just
exercising his constitutional right of freedom of speech and it was not meant to
offend the court.
The Trial Court in its decision suspended the respondent from the practice of
law for having been guilty for grave professional misconduct.
This ruling of the trial Court was affirmed by the IBP. Hence, the present
case.
JORGE MONTECILLO, et.al., petitioners vs FRANCISCO M. GICA, et. al., Respondents

Penalty: FACTS: ISSUE/S: RULING:

Atty Del Mar is the counsel of Jorge Montecillo who was the WON the Yes, he must be suspended. The SC held that Yes. Atty. Del
defendant in the Oral Defamation Case filed by Francisco M. Gica for respondent counsel Mar, by his contemptuous acts is in
calling the latter a fool or stupid. Consequently, Montecillo was shall be suspended for violation of his duties to the courts. As an officer of the court, it
acquitted in the said criminal case on the ground that Montecillo did imputing disrespectful is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy
not call Gica as stupid or fool. language against the unnecessarily the high esteem and regard towards the court so
Upon appeal by the respondent before the CFI Cebu, the latter Courts? essential to the proper administration of justice. It is manifest
court affirmed the ruling of the lower court. Hence, the respondents that del Mar has scant respect for the two highest Courts of the
filed an appeal before the CA. The latter court ruled in favor of the land when on the flimsy ground of alleged error in deciding a
respondents and thus reversed the ruling of the lower courts. The case, he proceeded to challenge the integrity of both Courts by
rationale for the said decision was based on the preponderance of claiming that they knowingly rendered unjust judgment. In
evidence which favored the respondents. short, his allegation is that they acted with intent and malice, if
The counsel of Montecillo, Atty Quirico Del Mar, filed his Motion not with gross ignorance of the law, in disposing of the case of
for Reconsideration, and in his MR he averred that the CA had his client.Del Mar was then suspended indefinitely.
knowingly rendered unjust judgment and they have rendered such
through negligence. On his second MR, the respondent lawyer again
made a threat that his next appeal would be to the President because
of the CA’s penal violations.
The CA despite its warning against respondent’s abusive language
and threat, the CA ordered the respondent within 10 days why he
should no be held in contempt of Court.
In his answer he claimed that CA could not be threatened and
what he has made is that he only informed the CA of what course he
would follow. Consequently, upon appeal by the respondent before
the SC, the latter court ruled against the respondent.
Again, the respondent counsel made threats before the Court of
Justice, this to the SC. He even asked for the names of Justices who
voted for and against his Motion for reconsideration. AS such the Sc
asked him to show cause why he should be held in contempt of Court.
The respondent counsel made his justification but in a contemptuous
statement in which he intimates that SC is part among the corrupt, the
 grafters and those allegedly committing injustice. The respondent
counsel even filed a civil case against some of the members of the
SC.
Hence, the present case.
FOODSPHERE INC., Complainant vs ATTY. MELANIO L. MAURICIO, JR., Respondent
FACTS: ISSUE/S:
Foodsphere Inc. is a company that is engaged in meat processing and WON the respondent
manufacturing. One-time, certain Alberto Cordero bougt canned goods violated the CPR?
including the CDO liver spread manufactured by the complainant. This liver
spread was found to be sour and soon discovered that it has colony of worms,
thus the Corderos filed a complaint with BFAD against the complainant and
praying that they be paid P 150,000.00 as damages. But the complainant refused
and instead offered to return only the actual medical and incidental expenses
incurred by the Corderos.
RULING:
has Yes, the respondent has violated the CPR. The SC held that the
respondent has violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR which requires that every
lawyer must refrain themselves from engaging in an unlawful, dishonest,
immoral and deceitful conduct.
This, rule has been violated by the respondent when he engaged in
deceitful conduct, taking advantage of the complaint against the
complainant to advance his interest to obtain funds for his tv programs and
tabloids.
 At this time, Atty. Melanio Mauricio was the counsel for the Corderos.
Subsequently, the respondent offered a settlement to the complainant provided
that the latter would place their advertisements in the tabloids and tv programs
of the respondent.
Thereafter, a Kasunduan was forged between the complainant and the
Corderos, and this Kasunduan was prepared by the respondent.
After the forging of agreement, the respondent sent a message to the
complainant offering to the latter an advertising contract.
As a sign of goodwill. The complainant offered to buy full page
advertisements in the tabloid for P45,000 and in tv programs at P23,100.00.
However, the respondent and its producer were disappointed of the offer.
Thus, the respondent in his radio program Double B-Batas at Radio DZBB
announced that the product of the complainant has worms. He also wrote
columns which put the complainant in a bad light, in TV programs he also
repeatedly claims that a worm was found inside the product of the complainant.
In this regard, the complainant for libel and threatening to publish libel was
filed against the respondent. Also, a civil case was filed against the respondent
and its colleagues in the tv and radio stations.
The respondent, despite of this cases filed against him and lower court’s
prohibition and restraining orders, he continued to lambast the complainant thru
publication of articles and tv programs. Moreover, in his motion to elevate the
case to DOJ, the respondent used abusive language against the prosecutors.
Hence, the present case.
He also violated Rule 13.02 of the CPR which mandates that lawyers
shall not make public statements in the media regrading a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
This rule has been violated when the respondent, despite of civil actions
and restraining orders filed against him, continued to publicize, televise and
broadcast any matter involving the complainant.
He also violated Canon 1 of the CPR which requires that every lawyer
shall uphold the constitution and obey the laws of the land as well as the
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein.
This was violated when the respondent refused obey the restraining
orders, which is a legal order by the court.
Furthermore, the respondent also violated Canon 8 and Tule 8.01 of the
CPR which mandates respectively, that:
A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards
professional colleagues and shall avoid harassing tactics against the
opposing counsel; and a lawyer in his professional dealings shall not use
any language that is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
The Court held that a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor
and courage but it shall not be done in such a way that he would use an
offensive and abusive language. Moreover, it has been held that one duty of
a lawyer is to keep the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and this
can be done by using dignified language in his pleadings.
Lastly, the respondent was also found to have violated the Canon 7 of
the CPR which requires every lawyers to uphold at all times the integrity
and the dignity of the legal profession. This was so when the respondent
took advantage of the complaint against the complainant for personal
interests.