purpose or transferring of the title in the name of the

CAMINO v. ATTY. PASAGUI complainant to pay legal interest at the rate of twelve
EUFEMIA A. CAMINO v. ATTY. RYAN REY L. percent per annum computed from receipt of the
PASAGUI amount on February 3, 2011 up to June 30, 2013 and
A. C No. 11095 six percent per annum from July 1, 2013 until fully
January 31, 2017 paid. He is likewise ordered to return all other
documents pertinent to the load obtained from PHCCI
and those received from complaint.
FACTS
EDGARDO AREOLA, vs. ATTY. MARIA VILMA
Disbarment complaint was filed against respondent MENDOZA
Atty. Ryan Rey L. Pasagani before the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines-commission on bar Discipline (IBP- FACTS: Edgardo D. Areola a.k.a. Muhammad
CBD), that the respondent violated their agreement for Khadafy filed an administrative complaint against Atty.
the latter to facilitate and secure a loan to finance the Maria Vilma Mendoza, from the Public Attorney’s
payment of necessary expenses to transfer the title of Office for violation of her attorney’s oath of office,
a certain property under her name, she claimed that deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in office
respondent obtained a loan using their property as a under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
collateral, but atty. Pasagni arrogated the proceeds. Court, and for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Areola stated that he was filing the complaint in behalf
ISSUE of his co-detainees Allan Seronda, Aaron Arca,
Joselito Mirador, Spouses Danilo Perez and Elizabeth
Whether or not a malpractice or gross misconduct can Perez. He alleged that on October 23, 2006, during
be used as grounds for disbarment of a lawyer. Prisoners Week, Atty. Mendoza, visited the Antipolo
The court ruling was in favor of the complainant, the City Jail and called all detainees with pending cases
Court found that the respondent was guilty of deceit, before the RTC, Branch 73, Antipolo City where she
malpractice and gross misconduct in converting the was assigned, to attend her speech/lecture. Areola
money of his client to his own use without her claimed that Atty. Mendoza stated the following during
consent, his failure to use the proceeds for the her speech:
transfer of the title in complainant’s name. He did not "O kayong may mga kasong drugs na may
only betray the trust and confidence of his client, he is pangpiyansa o pang- areglo ay maging praktikal sana
likewise guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful kayo kung gusto ninyong makalaya agad. Upang
conduct. makatiyak kayo na hindi masasayang ang pera ninyo
ay sa akin ninyo ibigay o ng kamag-anak ninyo ang
pera at ako na ang bahalang maglagay kay Judge
RULING Martin at Fiscal Banqui; at kayong mga detenidong
mga babae na no bail ang kaso sa drugs, iyak-iyakan
The Court affirmed the findings and conclusions of the
lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo.
IBP Board of Governors and imposed the penalty to
Malambot ang puso noon."
disbarment. The Court also ordered to return the load
proceeds he received from Perpetual Help Credit
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Mendoza is giving
Cooperative Inc.
improper advice to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02
and Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional
Wherefore, Resolution No. XX1-2014-938 dated
Responsibility.
December 14, 2014 of the IBP Board of Governors
which found respondent Atty. Ryan Rey I Pasagan
RULING: The Court agrees with the IBP Board of
GUILTY of violation for Rule 1.0 if the Code of
Governors that Atty. Mendoza made irresponsible
Professional responsibility affirmed with Modification
advices to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and
as to the penalty. Respondent is instead meted the
Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
penalty of Disbarment, Respondent is further ordered
It is the mandate of Rule 1.02 that "a lawyer shall not
to Return the load proceeds amounting to
counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
1,000.000.00 and to pay legal interest at the rate of
or at lessening confidence in the legal system." Rule
twelve percent per annum computed from the release
15.07 states that "a lawyer shall impress upon his
of the loan on February 15, 2011 up to June 30, 2013
client compliance with the laws and the principles of
and six percent per annum from July 1, 2013 until fully
fairness."
paid as well as the 120,000.00 received for the
Atty. Mendoza’s improper advice only lessens the
confidence of the public in our legal system. Judges
must be free to judge, without pressure or influence
from external forces or factors according to the merits
of a case. Atty. Mendoza’s careless remark is uncalled
for.
In spite of the foregoing, the Court deems the penalty
of suspension for two months as excessive and not
commensurate to Atty. Mendoza’s infraction.
Disbarment and suspension of a lawyer, being the
most severe forms of disciplinary sanction, should be
imposed with great caution and only in those cases
where the misconduct of the lawyer as an officer of
the court and a member of the bar is established by
clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. The Court
notes that when Atty. Mendoza made the remark
"Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain
na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon", she was not
compelled by bad faith or malice. While her remark
was inappropriate and unbecoming, her comment is
not disparaging and reproachful so as to cause
dishonor and disgrace to the Judiciary.
In several administrative cases, the Court has
refrained from imposing the actual penalties in the
presence of mitigating factors. Factors such as the
respondent’s length of service, the respondent’s
acknowledgement of his or her infractions and feeling
of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and
equitable considerations, respondent’s advanced age,
among other things, have had varying significance in
the Court’s determination of the imposable penalty.
The Court takes note of Atty. Mendoza’s lack of ill-
motive in the present case and her being a PAO
lawyer as her main source of livelihood. Furthermore,
the complaint filed by Areola is clearly baseless and
the only reason why this was ever given consideration
was due to Atty. Mendoza’s own admission. For these
reasons, the Court deems it just to modify and reduce
the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of
Governors.
Accordingly, the Court finds Atty. Maria Vilma
Mendoza GUILTY of giving improper advice to her
clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and is accordingly
meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND, with the
STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar act will be dealt with more severely.
A.C. No. 7387 November 07, 2016
MANUEL ENRIQUE L. ZALAMEA, AND MANUEL
JOSE L. ZALAMEA, Petitioners,
v.
ATTY. RODOLFO P. DE GUZMAN, JR. AND
PERLAS DE GUZMAN, ANTONIO, VENTURANZA,
QUIZON-VENTURANZA, AND HERROSA LAW
FIRM, Respondents.
Facts:
In 2000 petitioners (the Zalamea brothers) sought
respondent Atty. Rodolfo P. de Guzman, Jr.'s advice
on the properties of their ailing mother, Merlinda L.
Zalamea, who had a property situated at Scout
Limbaga, Quezon City under her name.
Thereafter the Zalameas put up EMZEE FOODS INC.,
(EMZEE) a corporation engaged in lechon business,
with Atty. De Guzman providing the capital and
operational funds.
Sometime in 2002, Manuel Enrique informed De
Guzman about the property located at Speaker Perez
St. (Speaker Perez property). Said property had been
mortgaged to Banco de Oro (BDO), the bank
foreclosed it for failure to pay the loan and redeem the
property, resulting in the consolidation of the
ownership over the property in BDO's name. Manuel
Enrique approached De Guzman and convinced him
to help in the reacquisition of the Speaker Perez
property from BDO.
De Guzman negotiated with BDO and was able to
secure a deal over the property for P20 Million. The
bank required 10% downpayment of the total price or
P2 Million, to be paid in thirty-six (36) monthly
installments, without interest.
Due to lack of funds on Manuel Enrique's part, De
Guzman's wife, Angel, agreed to shoulder the P2
Million downpayment in order not to lose the good
opportunity, but under the condition that the Speaker
Perez property would later be transferred in the name
of a new corporation they had agreed to form, the
EMZALDEK Venture Corporation, a combination of
the names EMZEE Foods, Zalamea, and Dek de
Guzman. By this time, EMZEE had also relocated to
Speaker Perez.
Subsequently, Angel was forced to pay the monthly
installments and the additional 20% required for
EMZEE to be able to transfer its office to the Speaker
Perez property, since Manuel Enrique still could not involved in litigation. De Guzman clearly never
produce sufficient funds and EMZEE continued to acquired any of his client's properties or interests
incur losses. All in all, Angel paid P13,082,500.00. involved in litigation in which he may take part by
virtue of his profession. There exists not even an iota
Relationship, between the Zalamea brothers and the of proof indicating that said property has ever been
Spouses De Guzman turned sour. The Spouses De involved in any litigation in which De Guzman took
Guzman wanted reimbursement of the amounts which part by virtue of his profession. True, they had
they had advanced for the corporation, while the previously sought legal advice from De Guzman but
Zalamea brothers claimed sole ownership over the only on how to handle their mother's estate, which
Speaker Perez property. Hence, the brothers filed a likewise did not involve the contested property.
disbarment case against De Guzman for allegedly Neither was it shown that De Guzman's law firm had
buying a client's property which was subject of taken part in any litigation involving the Speaker Perez
litigation. property.

Issue: The prohibition which rests on considerations of public

Whether or not Atty. De Guzman should be disbarred
for acquiring the subject property by virtue of lawyer-
client relationship, in violation of the Lawyer's Oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility
Ruling:
No.
The very first Canon of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal process." Canon 17 states
that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him, while Canon 16 provides that "a
lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of
his client that may come into his possession." Further,
Section 3, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court
requires every lawyer to take an oath to obey the laws
as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities. And for any violation of this oath, a lawyer
may be suspended or disbarred by the Court. All of
these underscore the role of the lawyer as the
vanguard of our legal system. The transgression of
any provision of law by a lawyer is a repulsive and
reprehensible act which the Court will never
countenance.ch
Accusation against De Guzman stemmed from his
wife's purchase of the Speaker Perez property from
BDO when Manuel Enrique did not have the means to
buy it. The Zalameas claim that De Guzman, as their
counsel, could not acquire the property, either
personally or through his wife, without violating his
ethical duties, and breached the same when his wife
purchased the subject property.
policy and interests is intended to curtail any undue
influence of the lawyer upon his client on account of
his fiduciary and confidential relationship with him. De
Guzman could not have possibly exerted such undue
influence, as a lawyer, upon the Zalameas, as his
clients. In fact, it was Manuel Enrique who
approached the Spouses De Guzman and asked them
if they would be willing to become business partners in
a lechon business. It was also Manuel Enrique who
turned to De Guzman for help in order to reacquire the
already foreclosed Speaker Perez property. They had
agreed that De Guzman would simply pay the
required downpayment to BDO and EMZEE would
pay the remaining balance in installment. And when
EMZEE continued suffering losses, Angel took care of
the monthly amortizations so as not to lose the
property.
Clearly, the relationship between the Spouses De
Guzman and the Zalamea brothers is actually one of
business partners rather than that of a lawyer and
client. Atty. De Guzman's acquisition of the Speaker
Perez property was a valid consequence of a
business deal, not by reason of a lawyer-client
relationship, for which he could not be penalized by
the Court. De Guzman and his wife are very well
allowed by law to enter into such a transaction and
their conduct in this regard was not borne out to have
been attended by any undue influence, deceit, or
misrepresentation.
Mercullo and Vedano v Atty. Marie
Frances E. Ramon
A.C. 11708. July 19, 2016

However, the prohibition which the Zalameas invoke Facts:

does not apply where the property purchased was not
 Complainants Verlita Mercullo and
Raymond Vedano were authorized by
their mother, Carmelita Verdano, to
inquire from the National Home
Mortgage Finance Corporation
(NHMFC) about the status of her unpaid
obligations secured by a mortgage
covering their residential property in
Novaliches, Caloocan City. They
learned that their mother’s arrear had
amounted to P350,000.
Respondent Atty. Ramon advised
them about their right to redeem the
property within one year from
foreclosure.
Complainants handed respondent
P350,000 who in turn issued two
acknowledgment receipts for the
redemption price and for litigation
expenses. She even showed them her
NHMFC identification card.
When complainants went to the
NHMFC to follow up on the redemption,
they discovered that Atty. Ramon is no
longer connected to them. Nevertheless,
respondent informed them that the
redemption is on process and that the
certificate of redemption will be issued
in two or three weeks time.
Complainants went to see the Clerk
of Court of the RTC in Caloocan City to
inquire on the status of the redemption.
There they discovered that respondent
had not deposited the redemption price
and had not filed the intent of redeeming
the property.
They then demanded the return of
the money to which respondent promised
to deposit it in Verlita’s account, but
failed to do so.
Complainants brought their
disbarment complaint in the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
The IBP required respondent to file
her and answer and to attend the
mandatory conference set. Respondent
failed to do so.
In IBP Commissioner’s Report and
Rrecommendation, he found respondent
to have violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and
recommended her suspension for two
years and to return the P350,000. This
was adopted by IBP Board of Governors.
Issue:
WON respondent should be
disbarred.
Ruling:
The court declared respondent
guilty of dishonesty and deceit.
The Lawyer's Oath is a source of
the obligations and duties of every
lawyer. Any violation of the oath may be
punished with either disbarment,
or suspension from the practice of law,
or other commensurate disciplinary
action. Every lawyer must at no time be
wanting in probity and moral fiber
which are not only conditions precedent
to his admission to the Bar, but are also
essential for his continued membership
in the Law Profession. Any
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer
constitutes a violation of his oath.
The respondent certainly
transgressed the Lawyer's Oath by
receiving
money from the complainants after
having made them believe that she could
assist them in ensuring the redemption in
their mother's behalf. She was
convincing about her ability to work on
the redemption because she had
worked in the NHFMC. She did not
inform them soon enough, however,
that she had meanwhile ceased to be
connected with the agency. It was her
duty to have so informed them. She
further misled them about her ability to
realize the redemption by falsely
informing them about having started the
redemption process. She concealed from
them the real story that she had not
even initiated the redemption
proceedings that she had assured them
she
would do. Everything she did was
dishonest and deceitful in order to have
them part with the substantial sum of
P350,000.00. She took advantage of
the complainants who had reposed their
full trust and confidence in her
ability to perform the task by virtue of
her being a lawyer. Surely, the
totality of her actuations inevitably
eroded public trust in the Legal
Profession.
As a lawyer, the respondent was
proscribed from engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct in her dealings with
others, especially clients whom she
should serve with competence and
diligence. Her duty required her to
maintain fealty to them, binding her not
to neglect the legal matter entrusted to
her. Thus, her neglect in connection
therewith rendered her liable. Moreover,
the unfulfilled promise of
returning the money and her refusal to
communicate with the complainants
on the matter of her engagement
aggravated the neglect and dishonesty
attending her dealings with the
complainants.
The respondent's conduct patently
breached Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility,
which provides:
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and for legal
processes.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or
deceitful conduct.
Evil intent was not essential in
order to bring the unlawful act or
omission of the respondent within the
coverage of Rule 1. 01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The Code
exacted from her not only a firm
respect for the law and legal processes
but also the utmost degree of fidelity
and good faith in dealing with clients and
the moneys entrusted by them
pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.
Yet another dereliction of the
respondent was her wanton disregard of
the several notices sent to her by the IBP
in this case. Such disregard could
only be wrong because it reflected her
undisguised contempt of the
proceedings of the IBP, a body that the
Court has invested with the authority
to investigate the disbarment complaint
against her. She thus exhibited her
irresponsibility as well as her utter
disrespect for the Court and the rest of
the Judiciary. It cannot be understated
that a lawyer in her shoes should
comply with the orders of the Court and
of the Court's duly constituted
authorities, like the IBP, the office that
the Court has particularly tasked to
carry out the specific function of
investigating attorney misconduct.
The Court FINDS and HOLDS
ATTY. MARIE
FRANCES E. RAMON guilty of
violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and the
Lawyer's Oath; SUSPENDS HER
FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW
FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS
EFFECTIVE FROM NOTICE, with
the STERN WARNING that any
similar infraction in the future will be
dealt with more severely; ORDERS
her to return to the complainants the sum
of P350,000.00 within 30 days
from notice, plus legal interest of 6% per
annum reckoned from the finality
of this decision until full payment.
ELADIO D. PERFECTO,
complainant, vs. JUDGE ALMA
CONSUELO DESALES-
ESIDERA, Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Branch
20, Catarman, Northern Samar,
respondent.
FACTS: Eladio filed a complaint
against Judge Alma Consuelo
Esidera, accusing her of soliciting
and receiving the amount of one
thousand pesos from practitioner
Atty. Yruma and the same amount
from Public Prosecutor Diaz,
allegedly to defray expenses from a
religious celebration and barangay
fiesta. Attached to the Complaint was
an affidavit executed by Prosecutor
Ching who claimed to have witnessed
the first incident and heard that
respondent solicited the same
amount from Diaz. There were also
claims regarding respondent's
conduct in performing her duties and
dealing with colleagues
unprofessionally.
The respondent denied the
allegations.
The Office of the Court Administrator
recommended that respondent be
faulted for Impropriety and
Unbecoming Conduct.
ISSUE:
Is the respondent guilty of
Impropriety and Unbecoming
Conduct?
HELD: While the Court finds the
Evaluation and Recommendation of
the OCA that respondent be charged
with Impropriety and Unbecoming
Conduct to be well-taken, it deems
the recommendation for the
imposition of a fine in the amount of
P5,000.00 to be insufficient as would
impress upon her the gravity of the
indictment. Respondents
improprieties as manifested in,
among other things, her lack of
discretion and the vicious attack
upon the person of Prosecutor Ching
as characterized by her use of
uncalled for offensive language
prompts this Court to raise the fine
to Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00).
Specifically with respect to
respondents alleged solicitation from impartial dispenser of justice, held in
Prosecutor Diaz, albeit Prosecutor
Ching merely claimed to have
"heard" of it, respondent did not
deny it categorically as she merely, as that she was using her office to
reflected above, brushed off
Prosecutors Chings Affidavit as
coming from one with a "dubious
personality" and possessed of a
"narcissistic personality disorder."
With respect to the alleged
solicitation from Prosecutor Diaz,
respondent never disclaimed or
disavowed the same.
Respondents admission of having
received the sum of P1,000.00 from
Atty. Yruma albeit allegedly as a
mere accommodation to the latter,
and
her failure to disclaim the same act
with respect to Prosecutor Diaz, only
confirms her lack of understanding of
the notion of propriety under which
judges must be measured.
Respondents act of proceeding to the
Prosecutors Office under the guise of
soliciting for a religious cause betrays
not only her lack of maturity as a
judge but also a lack of
understanding of her vital role as an
high esteem and respect by the local
community, which must be preserved
at all times. It spawns the impression
unduly influence or pressure Atty.
Yruma, a private lawyer appearing
before her sala, and Prosecutor Diaz
into donating money through her
charismatic group for religious
purposes.
To stress how the law frowns upon
even any appearance of impropriety
in a magistrates activities, it has
often been held that a judge must be
like Caesars wife - above suspicion
and beyond reproach. Respondents
act discloses a deficiency in prudence
and discretion that a member of the
judiciary must exercise in the
performance of his official functions
and of his activities as a private
individual.
GRANTED
Lehnert vs Diño (2018)
Petitioners: ALFRED LEHNERT
Respondents: ATTY. DENNIS L.
DIÑO
Ponente: LEONEN (En Banc)
Topic: Legal Ethics
SUMMARY: SC disbarred Diño on
the ground of violations of B.P. 22,
for which he evaded arrest and
prosecution.
DOCTRINE: The issuance of
worthless checks constitutes gross
misconduct and violates Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which mandates all
members of the bar "to obey the laws
of the land and promote respect for
law." Issuance of worthless checks
also violates Rule 1.01 of the Code,
which mandates that "[a] lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct."
FACTS:
Alfred Lehnert filed this
administrative Complaint before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines on
November 11, 2015. He prayed that
respondent Atty. Dennis L. Diño
(Atty. Diño) be permanently
disbarred for violating the lawyer's
oath, as well as the Code of
Professional Responsibility, when he
committed two (2) violations of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22.
In his Complaint, Lehnert
narrated that an Information against
Atty. Diño was filed with Branch 34,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon
City, charging him with two (2)
counts of violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22. A Warrant of
Arrest was then issued for Atty.
Diño's arrest. Members of the
Philippine National Police and
National Bureau of Investigation
attempted to serve the warrant on
Atty. Diño. However, despite their
exhaustive efforts, they were unable
to locate him at his residential
addresses in Bulacan, Quezon City,
San Lazaro, and Sta. Cruz, or even
at his office address in Intramuros,
Manila. Thus, considering that Atty.
Diño was hiding to evade arrest,
Lehnert prayed for his immediate
disbarment
 Atty. Diño did not appear or Visayas requiring them to file a
submit any brief to the Commission counter-affidavit to a complaint for
on Bar Discipline. usurpation of authority, falsification
ISSUES: of public document, and graft and
 WoN Diño is administratively liable corrupt practices filed against them
by Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr., a co-
o YES. This Court has imposed
employee in the Sugar Regulatory
the penalty of one (1)-year Administration. 
suspension from the practice
of law for a cavalier attitude The Complaint was allegedly signed
toward incurring debts. This on behalf of Divinagracia by one
Court has imposed a higher Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo of the Jarder
penalty of two (2)-year Bancolo Law Office based in Bacolod
suspension on a lawyer who City, Negros Occidental.
issued worthless checks and
When Atty. Bancolo and Rustia
also disregarded the
accidentally chanced upon each
Integrated Bar of the
other, the latter informed Atty.
Philippines' orders in Bancolo of the case filed against
administrative proceedings. them before the Office of the
o In light of the foregoing, this Ombudsman. Atty. Bancolo denied
Court finds the recommended that he represented Divinagracia
penalty of two (2)-year since he had yet to meet
suspension from the practice Divinagracia in person. When Rustia
of law proper. showed him the Complaint, Atty.
Bancolo declared that the signature
appearing above his name as counsel
NOTES: Diño SUSPENDED from the
for Divinagracia was not his. Thus,
practice of law for two (2) years.
Rustia convinced Atty. Bancolo to
sign an affidavit to attest to such
fact. 
RODRIGO E. TAPAY and
ANTHONY J. RUSTIA vs.
The Office of the Ombudsman
ATTY. CHARLIE L. BANCOLO and
provisionally dismissed the
ATTY. JANUS T. JARDER
Complaint since the falsification of
A.C. No. 9604               March 20,
the counsel’s signature posed a
2013
prejudicial question to the
Facts: Complaint’s validity. 

Sometime in October 2004, Tapay Thereafter, Divinagracia filed his

and Rustia received an Order from Counter-Affidavit denying that he
the Office of the Ombudsman- falsified the signature of his former
lawyer, Atty. Bancolo. Divinagracia
presented as evidence an affidavit by
Richard A. Cordero, the legal
assistant of Atty. Bancolo, that the
Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted
Divinagracia’s case and that the
Complaint filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman was signed by the office
secretary per Atty. Bancolo’s
instructions.          Whether or not Atty. Bancolo is
The Office of the Ombudsman
dismissed the criminal case for
falsification of public document for
insufficiency of evidence. The
administrative case for dishonesty
was also dismissed for lack of
substantial evidence.
Tapay and Rustia filed with the IBP a
complaint to disbar Atty. Bancolo and
Atty. Jarder, Atty. Bancolo’s law
partner. The complainants alleged
that they were subjected to a
harassment Complaint filed before
the Office of the Ombudsman with
the forged signature of Atty.
Bancolo. Complainants stated further
that the signature of Atty. Bancolo in
the Complaint was not the only one
that was forged. Complainants
attached a Report  by the PNP Crime
Laboratory 6 which examined three
other letter-complaints signed by
Atty. Bancolo for other clients,
allegedly close friends of Atty.
Jarder. The report concluded that the
questioned signatures in the letter-
complaints and the submitted
standard signatures of Atty. Bancolo
were not written by one and the
same person. Thus, complainants
maintained that not only were
respondents engaging in
unprofessional and unethical
practices, they were also involved in
falsification of documents used to
harass and persecute innocent
people.
Issue:
administratively liable
Ruling:
Yes. Atty. Bancolo admitted that the
Complaint he filed for a former client
before the Office of the Ombudsman
was signed in his name by a
secretary of his law office. Clearly,
this is a violation of Rule 9.01 of
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides: A
LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at
the very least not to assist in, the
unauthorized practice of law is
founded on public interest and policy.
Public policy requires that the
practice of law be limited to those
individuals found duly qualified in
education and character. The
permissive right conferred on the
lawyer is an individual and limited
privilege subject to withdrawal if he
fails to maintain proper standards of
moral and professional conduct. The
purpose is to protect the public, the
court, the client, and the bar from
the incompetence or dishonesty of
those unlicensed to practice law and requirements of Bar Matter No. 850 for
not subject to the disciplinary control the periods: First Compliance Period
of the Court.  (April 15, 2001 – April 14, 2004); Second
The preparation and signing of a Compliance Period (April 15, 2004 –
pleading constitute legal work April 14, 2007); and Third Compliance
involving the practice of law which is Period (April 15, 2007 – April 14, 2010).
reserved exclusively for members of Also, his application for exemption from
the legal profession.  MCLE requirement on 2009 was denied
by the MCLE Governors on the ground
The complainants did not present
any evidence that Atty. Jarder was that the application did not meet the
directly involved, had knowledge of, requirements of expertise in law under
or even participated in the wrongful Section 3, Rule 7 of Bar Matter No. 850.
practice of Atty. Bancolo in allowing In his Comment, Adaza stated that
or tolerating his secretary to sign he was wondering why his application
pleadings for him. Thus, the court for exemption could not be granted.
finds Atty. Jarder is not
Adaza then enumerated his
administratively liable.
achievements as a lawyer and claimed
that he had been practicing law for
about 50 years. He stated: 1. that he
was the first outsider of the SC whom
president Cory offered a seat as Justice
Samuel B. Arnado vs. Atty. Homobono of the SC but refused the intended
A. Adaza appointment because he hid not like
Facts: In March 15, 2013, Arnado some of the Cory crowd; 2. That he
called the attention of the SC to the almost single-handedly handled the case
practice of Adaza of indicating “MCLE of Cory in canvassing of the results in
application for exemption under the 1986 snap elections, discussing
process” in his pleadings filed in 2009- constitutional and legal issues which
2012, and “MCLE Application for finally resulted to EDSA I revolution; 3.
Exemption for Reconsideration” in a That he was one of the two lead
pleading filed in 2012. Arnado informed counsels of Senator MDS in the national
the SC that he inquired from the MCLE canvassing for President, the other
Office of the status of Adaza’s counsel being the former Justice Serafin
compliance and received a Certification Cuevas; 4. The he handled the 1987 and
from the MCLE Executive Director that 1989, as well as the 2003 Coup cases; 5.
Adaza did not comply with the That he filed a case in the SC contesting
the constitutionality of 2010 national
elections; 6. That he filed a case
together with another lawyer in the SC
on the constitutionality of the Corona
impeachment; 7. That he have been
implementing and interpreting the
Constitution and other laws as Governor
of Misamis Oriental, Commission of
Immigration and senior member of the
Opposition in the regular Parliament in
the Committee on Revision of Laws and
Constitutional Amendments; 8. That he
was the leading Opposition member
Parliament that drafted the Omnibus
Election Law; 9. That he was the leading
member of the Parliament that
prepared and orchestrated the debate
in the complaint for impeachment
against President Marcos; 10. That he
has been engaged as lawyer for a
number of lawyers who have
exemptions from the MCLE. He also
further claimed that he had written five
books.
The OBC recommended that Adaza
be declared a delinquent member of the
Bar and guilty of noncompliance with
the MCLE requirements. It further
recommended his suspension from the
practice of law for six months.
Issue: Is Adaza administratively
liable for his failure to comply with the
MCLE requirements?
Ruling: Yes. Bar Matter No. 850
requires members of the IBP to undergo
continuing legal education “to ensure
that throughout their career, they keep
abreast with law and jurisprudence,
maintain the ethics of the profession
and enhance the standards of the
practice of law”. Arnado’s letter covered
Adaza’s pleadings filed in 2009 – 2012,
which means he also failed to comply
with the MCLE requirements for the
Fourth Compliance Period (April 15,
2010 – April 14, 2013). According to the
MCLE Governing Board, Adaza’s
application for exemption covered First
and Second Compliance Periods, but did
not apply for exemption for the Third
Compliance Period. The application for
exemption was denied on January 2009,
however, the MCLE Office failed to
convey the denial of the application for
exemption of Adaza, and only informed
him in its letter dated October 1, 2012
when it received inquiries from
complainants. Clearly, Adaza had been
remised in his responsibilities by failing
to comply with Bar Matter No. 850.
But the MCLE Office is not without
fault in this case. While it acted on
Adaza’s application for exemption on
January 14, 2009, it took the office three
years to inform Adaza of the denial of
his application. Hence, during the period
when respondent indicated “MCLE
application for exemption under
process” in his pleadings, he was not
aware of the action of the MCLE
Governing Board on his application for
exemption. However, after he had been
informed of the denial of his application criticism and freedom of speech.
for exemption, it still took Adaza one Upholding the IBP’s findings, the
year to file a motion for reconsideration. Court reasoned that even if Guevarra
After the denial of his motion for had used Facebook’s privacy tools to
reconsideration, Adaza still took, and limit the dissemination of the
still taking, his time to satisfy the remarks, this did not guarantee
absolute protection. The Court also
requirements of MCLE. In addition,
held that his defamatory statements
when Adaza indicated “MCLE overstepped the permissible
Application for Exemption for boundaries of the right to freedom of
Reconsideration” in a pleading, he had expression and fair criticism since
not filed any motion for reconsideration they were made with malice
before the MCLE Office. intending to insult and tarnish the
Adaza’s failure to comply with the reputation of Belo-Henares and her
MCLE requirements and disregard of the company.
directives of the MCLE Office warrant his
declaration as a delinquent member of
the IBP.
Facts
In 2002 and 2005, Maria Victoria G.
Belo-Henares (“Complainant),
Case Summary and Outcome director of Belo Medical Group
The Philippines Supreme Court corporation, performed cosmetic
upheld a ruling suspending the law surgery that allegedly harmed a
license of an attorney for one year patient. Thereafter, Roberto C.
following Facebook remarks he Guevarra (“Respondent),” a licensed
posted containing defamatory attorney, brought criminal
statements about a cosmetic surgeon. complaints against the Complainant
The medical director of Belo Medical on behalf of the patient. During the
Group Inc., Maria Victoria G. Belo- criminal actions, the Respondent
Henares, had applied to the engaged in a series of derogatory
Integrated Bar of the Philippines attacks directed at the Complainant
(IBP) to have Roberto Guevarra and her company on social media.
disbarred for the insulting and Through his personal Facebook
threatening remarks he posted on profile, the Respondent posted
Facebook about her and her dozens of sexually-charged insulting
company. The IBP dismissed and abusive statements intended to
Guevarra’s defenses of privacy, fair discredit the Complainant’s
professional reputation. The
Respondent, who had some 2000
Facebook friends, threatened to
“paralyze” the company, which at the
time had 300 employees, and also
threatened the Complainant with
criminal conviction and sought to
extort money from her.
In August 2013, the Commission on
Bar Discipline (CBD), a branch of
IBP, recommended that the
Respondent be suspended from
practising law for one year. It
rejected his argument that the
complaint violated his constitutional
right to privacy, asserting that his
remarks were only shared with his
Facebook friends and did not include
the Complainant. The Respondent
also argued that the disciplinary
action was in violation of his right to
freedom of expression. He denied
that his remarks were vulgar and
abusive and were intended to inspire
hatred towards the Complainant and
her company and that he had
attempted to extort money from her.
He further asserted that the
Complainant was a public figure and
was therefore a valid subject for fair “untenable.” The Court explained
comment.
The Board of Governors of the Bar
adopted the IBP-CBD’s report and
recommendation, following which
the Respondent moved for
reconsideration, arguing that there
was no specific act that could warrant access thereto or to limit its
a suspension of his law license. He
also referred to a libel action brought
against him by an employee of the
Complainant’s company, which had
been dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. In October 2015, the
Board of Governors partially granted
the Respondent’s motion, reducing
his suspension to six months.
The Complainant later submitted her
verified complaint to the Supreme
Court of the Philippines.
Decision Overview
Associate Justice Estela Perlas-
Bernabe delivered the opinion of the
Supreme Court, with whom all four
other presiding justices concurred.
The main issue for the Court was
whether or not the Respondent was
administratively liable based on the
Complainant’s allegations. It first
ruled that the Respondent’s defense
of privacy in sharing his derogatory
remarks on Facebook was
that in order to claim a reasonable
expectation of privacy on social
media, and in this case, Facebook, “it
is first necessary that said user
manifests the intention to keep
certain posts private, through the
employment of measures to prevent
visibility.” [p. 9] And such intention
“can materialize in cyberspace
through the utilization of Facebook’s
privacy tools.” [p. 9] Here, the Court
did not find any direct evidence that
the Respondent had utilized any of
the privacy tools or features of
Facebook that would ensure his
remarks were only visible to himself
and his circle of friends. The Court
further reasoned that even if the
posts were only viewable by the
Respondent’s friends, there was no
assurance that they would be
safeguarded within the confines of
privacy, in part because any
Facebook friend of the Respondent
could independently share the posts
on their page. “[R]estricting the
privacy of one’s Facebook posts to
“Friends” does not guarantee
absolute protection from the prying
eyes of another user who does not
belong to one’s circle of friends,” the
Court concluded. [p. 10]
The Court also rejected the
Respondent’s claim that the
impugned remarks were within the
exercise of his right to freedom of
expression. It reiterated that the
constitutional freedom is not
“absolute” and every person
exercising the right is “obliged to act
with justice, give everyone his due,
and observe honesty and good faith.”
[p. 11] The Court also noted that the
constitutional protection of the right
“may not be availed of to broadcast
lies or half-truths, insult others,
destroy their name or reputation or
bring them into disrepute” [p. 11] In
this case, the Court found that the
Facebook remarks “were ostensibly
made with malice tending to insult
and tarnish the reputation of
complainant and [her company].” [p.
11]
The Court further dismissed the
Respondent’s justification that his
remarks amounted to fair criticism of
the Complainant as a public figure.
The Court said, “it is the cardinal
condition of all criticism that it shall
be bona fide, and shall not spill over
the walls of decency and propriety,”
and in this case, the Respondent’s
remarks breached the said walls.” [p.
12]
Based on the foregoing analysis, the
Supreme Court of the Philippines
found the Respondent “in complete
and utter violation” of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It
accordingly imposed the original
one-year suspension and “sternly
warned” the Respondent that he
would face more severe
consequences if he repeated the same
or similar acts.
HEIRS OF JUAN DE DIOS E. CARLOS v.
ATTY. JAIME S. LINSANGAN, AC. No.
11494, 2017-07-24
Facts:
Complainants are children of the late Juan De lawyer who acted under his control and
Dios E. Carlos (Juan) who presently seek to supervision), through a Compromise
disbar respondent Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan Agreement wherein 7,500 square meters of the
subject property was given to the heirs of Juan
Complainants alleged that Atty. Linsangan
while the remaining 2,500 square meters
forced them to sign pleadings and documents,
thereof was given to Felicidad.
sold the parcel of land in Alabang, Muntinlupa
City in cahoots with complainants' estranged a Supplemental Compromise Agreement[17]
mother, and evaded payment of income taxes dated December 16, 2009 was submitted by
when he divided his share in the subject the heirs of Juan and Atty. Linsangan, dividing
property as his supposed attorney's fees to his among them the 7,500 square meter-portion of
wife and children, all in violation of his oath as the property as follows: 3,750 square meters to
lawyer. the heirs of Juan and 3,750 square meters to
Atty. Linsangan pursuant to the Contract for
For purposes of recovering the subject
Professional Services.
property from Teofilo (and Teofilo's supposed
wife, Felicidad), and from Pedro, Juan Atty. Linsangan executed a Deed of Absolute
engaged the services of Atty. Linsangan. It Sale[20] with a certain Helen S. Perez (Helen)
appears that Atty. Linsangan, for Juan, filed covering the entire 12,331 square meters of the
the following cases: (a) a case[1] against subject property for a purchase price of One
Felicidad which was settled with the latter Hundred Fifty Million Pesos
acknowledging Juan's one-half interest and (PhP150,000,000). Atty. Linsangan sold the
ownership over the property; (b) a case against entire property
Pedro which was concluded on September 12,
Helen issued several checks[27] in varying
1997; and (c) another case[2] against
amounts either made payable to Cash or to
Felicidad, albeit filed by another lawyer who
Jaime S. Linsangan or Lorna O. Linsangan...
acted under the direct control and supervision
complainants allegedly requested from Atty.
of Atty. Linsangan. In this case against
Linsangan for their shares in the proceeds and
Felicidad, it appears that the other half of the
for the copies of the Special Power of Attorney
property was adjudicated to Juan, as Teofilo's
as well as the case records, but that Atty.
sole heir. Said adjudication was appealed to
Linsangan refused.
the CA.
complainants wrote a letter[33] to Atty.
During the pendency of the above cases, or on
Linsangan revoking the Special Power of
September 22, 1997, Atty. Linsangan and Juan
Attorney which they executed in the latter's
executed a Contract for Professional
favor.
Services[9] enumerating the above cases being
handled by Atty. Linsangan for Juan Complainants, however, recognized Atty.
Lisangan's services for which they proposed
However, it was not only Juan who went after
that the latter be paid on the basis of quantum
the property, but also Bernard Rillo and Alicia
meruit instead of fifty percent (50%) of the
Carlos, a sister-in-law
subject property.
This remaining 10,000 square meter portion
complainants filed the instant administrative
was eventually divided in the case filed by
complaint[35] against Atty. Linsangan
Juan against Felicidad (which Atty. Linsangan
accusing the latter of forcing them to sign
admits[13] to have filed albeit through another
pleadings filed in court, copies of which were subject property were still pending resolution
not furnished them; of selling the subject and final determination, Atty. Linsangan
property in cahoots with their mother; entered into a Contract for Professional
Services with Juan wherein his attorney's fees
Atty. Linsangan avers that the Supplemental
shall be that equivalent to 50% of the value of
Compromise Agreement was never questioned
the property, or a portion thereof, that may be
by the complainants until now[38] and that
recovered. It is likewise not denied by Atty.
they had never requested for a copy thereof
Linsangan that he apportioned upon himself,
from him.
and to his wife and children, half of the
Issues: property awarded to complainants as heirs of
Juan, through a Supplemental Compromise
The threshold issue to be resolved is whether
Agreement. Similarly, such Supplemental
respondent is guilty of violating his lawyer's
Compromise Agreement was entered into by
oath.
Atty. Linsangan and the heirs of Juan
Ruling: concurrently with the pendency of several
cases before the CA and this Court[44]
After a careful review of the record of the case,
involving the very same property. What is
the Court finds that respondent committed acts
more, Atty. Linsangan, probably anticipating
in violation of his oath as an attorney thereby
that he may be charged of having undue
warranting the Court's exercise of its
interest over his client's property in litigation,
disciplinary power.We begin by emphasizing
caused another lawyer to appear but all the
that the practice of law is not a right but a
while making it absolutely clear to Juan that
privilege bestowed by the State upon those
the latter's appearance was nevertheless under
who show that they possess, and continue to
Atty. Linsangan's "direct control and
possess, the qualifications required by law for
supervision."
the conferment of such privilege.[41] Whether
or not a lawyer is still entitled to practice law Plainly, these acts are in direct contravention
may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend or of Article 1491(5)[45] of the Civil Code which
disbar him, based on conduct rendering him forbids lawyers from acquiring, by purchase or
unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties assignment, the property that has been the
and responsibilities of an attorney. The subject of litigation in which they have taken
avowed purpose of suspending or disbarring an part by virtue of their profession.
attorney is not to punish the lawyer, but to
WHEREFORE, We find Atty. Jaime S.
remove from the profession a person whose
Linsangan LIABLE for violations of his
misconduct has proved him unfit to be
lawyer's oath, Article 1491(5) of the Civil
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities
Code, Rule 9.02, Canon 9, and Canon 16 of
belonging to an office of an attorney, and thus
the Code of Professional Responsibility and he
to protect the public and those charged with
is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
the administration of justice.[42] The lawyer's
law for SIX (6) months effective from the date
oath is a source of obligations and its violation
of his receipt of this Decision. Let copies of
is a ground for suspension, disbarment or other
this Decision be circulated to all courts of the
disciplinary action.
country for their information and guidance,
The record shows and Atty. Linsangan does and spread in the personal record of Atty.
not deny, that while the cases involving the Linsangan.