DUMLAO, Cheyenne Hope Assignment in Legal Profession Atty.

Jun Cadugo

• What do you understand by disbarment?

Disbarment proceedings are sui generis and can proceed independently of civil and
criminal cases. It is separate and distinct from a criminal action filed against a lawyer even
if they involve the same set of facts. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal this proceeding
is not and does not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by
the Court into the conduct of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is no
sense a criminal prosecution.

Public interest is the primary objective and the real question for determination is whether
or not the attorney is still a person fit to be allowed their privileges as such. These
proceedings do not prescribe.

• What are the two (2) primary objects of disbarment and suspension?

In the case of Zaguirre vs. Castillo, it was held that the purpose of a proceeding for
disbarment is to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise
this important function be competent, honorable and reliable. It is immaterial that the
complainant is in pari delicto because the purpose of disbarment proceedings is to purge
the law profession of unworthy members.

• What are the grounds for disbarment and suspension under Sec. 27, Rule
138?

As to the grounds relied upon in order to file a disbarment complaint, Rule 138, Sec. 27
provides that a lawyer may be disbarred for any of the following grounds:
(1) Deceit;
(2) Malpractice;
(3) Gross misconduct in office;
(4) Grossly immoral conduct;
(5) Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(6) Violation of the lawyer’s oath;
(7) Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and
(8) Willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority to do so.

• Ramos vs. Imbang A.C. No. 6788, August 23, 2007

FACTS: This case is about the disbarment or Suspension against Atty. JoseR. Imbang
for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 1992, Ramos sought the
assistance of Atty. Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions against the spouses Roque
and ElenitaJovellanos. She gave Imbang P8, 500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued
a receipt for P5,000 only.Ramos tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases
against the Jovellanoses. Imbang never allowed her to enter the courtroom and always
told her to wait outside. He would then come out after several hours to inform her that the
hearing has been cancelled and rescheduled. This happened six times and foreach
“appearance” in court, respondent charged her P350.Ramos was shocked to learn that

1
DUMLAO, Cheyenne Hope Assignment in Legal Profession Atty. Jun Cadugo

Imbang never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed
in thePublic Attorney's Office (PAO).

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Imbang should be disbarred.

RULING: YES. Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity.
More specifically, lawyers in government service are expected to be more conscientious
of their actuations as they are subject to public scrutiny. They are not only members of
the bar but also public servants who owe utmost fidelity to public service.

(1) Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees Section 7(b)(2) of
the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides:

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. -- In addition to acts and omissions

of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing
laws, the following constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official
and employee and are hereby declared unlawful (b) Outside employment and
other activities related thereto, public officials and employees during their
incumbency shall not (1) Engage in the private practice of profession unless
authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict
with their official function. In this instance, Imbang received P5,000 from the
complainant and issued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he was still connected
with the PAO. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client
relationship.

(2) Revised Administrative Code Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the
Revised Administrative Code provides:

The PAO shall be the principal law office of the Government in extending free legal
assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil,labor, administrative and other
quasi-judicial cases. As a PAO lawyer, Imbang should not have accepted
attorney's fees from the complainant as this was inconsistent with the office's
mission.

(3) Code of Professional Responsibility Canon 1 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility provides:

CANON 1. — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,OBEY THE

LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESSES. Every lawyer is obligated to uphold the law. This undertaking
includes the observance of the above-mentioned prohibitions blatantly violated by
Imbang when he accepted the complainant's cases and received attorney's fees
in consideration of his legal services. Consequently, Imbang's acceptance of the
cases was also a breach of Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
because the prohibition on the private practice of profession disqualified him from
acting as Ramos' counsel.

2
DUMLAO, Cheyenne Hope Assignment in Legal Profession Atty. Jun Cadugo

• Sebastian vs. Calis, A.C. No. 5118, 9 September 1999

FACTS: Marilou Sebastian was referred to Atty. Calis who promised to process all
necessary documents required for her trip to the USA for a fee of Php 150, 000. She
made a partial payment of Php 20, 000 which was received by the wife of said lawyer.
Calis demanded another Php 65, 000 and told Sebastian to resign from her job as
stenographer of the Commission on Human Rights. Sebastian issued Calis a check worth
Php 65, 000, and the lawyer furnished her some documents and told her to assume
another identity. Sebastian demanded the return of her Php 150, 000 after realizing that
she will be travelling with a spurious document. The lawyer assured her she has nothing
to worry about. Sebastian gave the lawyer her remaining balance before her departure.
She was detained in Singapore and was deported back to the Philippines. She demanded
the return of her money, and so Calis gave her partial refunds. She then gave a demand
letter for the return of Php 114, 000 which Calis ignored. She then found out Calis
transferred to another residence with apparent intentions to evade responsibility. She
then filed a complaint for disbarment.

ISSUE: Whether or not Calis is guilty of gross misconduct.

RULING: YES. Herein respondent is guilty of gross misconduct by engaging in unlawful,

dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct contrary to Canon I, Rule 101 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Respondent deceived the complainant by assuring her that
he could give her visa and travel documents; that despite spurious documents nothing
untoward would happen; that he guaranteed her arrival in the USA and even promised to
refund her the fees and expenses already paid, in case something went wrong. All for
material gain. Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and
dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a lawyer. They are unacceptable practices. A
lawyer’s relationship with others should be characterized by the highest degree of good
faith, fairness and candor. This is the essence of the lawyer’s oath. The lawyer's oath is
not mere facile words drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and kept
inviolable. The nature of the office of an attorney requires that he should be a person of
good moral character. This requisite is not only a condition precedent to admission to the
practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of
law.

• Fernandez vs. Grecia, A.C. No. 3694, 17 June 1993

FACTS: In 1990, Linda Aves was admitted to St. Luke's Hospital. Among the doctors who
treated her was Dr. Alberto Fernandez. She was treated well hence she was sent home
but then the next day she died together with her unborn child. Damaso Aves, husband,
then filed a damage suit against the hospital and he impleaded the attending doctors
which included Fernandez. Aves hired Atty. Benjamin Grecia to represent him. Grecia
requested St. Luke’s to surrender before the court the medical records of Linda Aves. St.
Luke’s complied and the medical records were delivered to the Clerk of Court. In the
morning of July 16, 1991,Grecia went to the office of the clerk of court to borrow the said
medical records. While Grecia was examining the said medical records, he tore in front

3
DUMLAO, Cheyenne Hope Assignment in Legal Profession Atty. Jun Cadugo

of the Clerk and one office staff two pages from the medical records and then handed it
back to the Clerk. The Clerk was stunned as she watched Grecia walk away. She then
reported the incident to the judge. The judge immediately took action and the torn pages
were eventually recovered as it turned out that Grecia handed the torn pages to someone
else.Grecia was then administratively charged by Dr. Fernandez. Apparently, Grecia has
been disbarred before. However, he was able to get to the good side of the Supreme
Court hence he was reinstated to the profession.

ISSUE: Whether or not Grecia should be disbarred again.

RULING: YES. Grecia violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a lawyer, he

should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. A lawyer shall
at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities
of the Integrated Bar. A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is “like the court itself, an
instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice”. Considering that this is his second
offense, an incorrigible practitioner of “dirty tricks,” like Grecia would be ill-suited to
discharge the role of “an instrument to advance the ends of justice.” By descending to the
level of a common thief, respondent Grecia has demeaned and disgraced the legal
profession. He has demonstrated his moral unfitness to continue as a member of the
honorable fraternity of lawyers. He has forfeited his membership in the Bar.

• What is the definition of Malpractice?

Legal malpractice consists of failure of an attorney to use such skill, prudence, and
diligence, as lawyers of ordinary skill and capacity commonly possess and exercise in the
performance of tasks which they undertake, and when such failure proximately causes
damage, it gives rise to an action in tort.

• Afurong vs. Aquino A.C. No. 1571, 23 September 1999

FACTS: The case before the court is a verified letter-complaint for disbarment file against
Atty. Aquino for misrepresenting himself as an attorney for the Citizens Legal Assistance
Office.

Respondent admitted that at the time of the pre-trial of the case he was handling, he was
no longer connected with the Citizens Legal Assistance Office, but reasoned out that he
was still waiting for his reinstatement.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Aquino guilty of misrepresenting himself to the Court.

RULING: YES. Atty. Aquino purposely allowed the court to believe that he was still
employed with the Citizens Legal Assistance Office when in fact he had been purged from
said office. That he was awaiting reinstatement to the same position at the time does not
remove the fact that he was misrepresenting himself to the court. By doing so, he has
violated his duty to employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him,
such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the

4
DUMLAO, Cheyenne Hope Assignment in Legal Profession Atty. Jun Cadugo

judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. He could have
delegated the case to another lawyer in the same office.

• Stemmerik vs. Mas, A.C. No. 8010, 16 June 2009

FACTS: Complainant was led to believe by respondent that he can legally acquire
properties in the Philippines. Atty. Mas processed all the paperwork but instead run away
with the 400,000 payment and 3.8 million payment. On top of that, the land was also
inalienable. Atty. Mas ran away with the money and was nowhere to be heard of.
Complainant Keld Stemmerik is a citizen and resident of Denmark. He expressed his
interest in acquiring real property in the Philippines and consulted respondent who
advised him that he could legally acquire and own real property in the Philippines.
Respondent even suggested an 86,998 square meter property in Subic, Zambales with
the assurance that the property was alienable. Complainant agreed to purchase the
property through respondent as his representative or attorney-in-fact. Complainant
returned to Denmark, entrusting the processing of the necessary paperwork to
respondent. Thereafter, respondent prepared a contract to sell the property between
complainant, represented by respondent, and a certain Bonifacio de Mesa. After the
various contracts and agreements were executed, complainant tried to get in touch with
respondent to inquire about when the property could be registered in his name. However,
respondent suddenly became scarce and refused to answer complainant’s calls and e-
mail messages. When complainant visited the Philippines again, he engaged the services
of another lawyer to ascertain the status of the property he supposedly bought. He was
devastated to learn that aliens could not own land under Philippine laws. Moreover,
revealed that the property was inalienable as it was situated within the former US Military
Reservation. Complainant, exerted diligent efforts to locate respondent for purposes of
holding him accountable for his fraudulent acts but the respondent was nowhere to be
found. He had already abandoned his law office in Olongapo City. Complainant filed a
complaint for disbarment against the respondent. He deplored respondent’s acts of
serious misconduct and for gravely misrepresenting that a foreigner could legally acquire
land in the Philippines and for maliciously absconding with complainant’s P3.8 million.
Respondent failed to file his answer and position paper despite service of notice at his
last known address. He did not appear in the scheduled mandatory conference. CBD
found that respondent abandoned his law practice in Olongapo City after his transaction
with complainant and that he did not see it fit to contest the charges against him The CBD
found respondent to be “nothing more than an embezzler” who misused his professional
status as an attorney as a tool for deceiving complainant and absconding with
complainant’s money. Respondent was dishonest and deceitful. He abused the trust and
confidence reposed by the complainant in him. Recommended the disbarment of the
respondent.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent should be made administratively liable.

RULING: YES. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas be
DISBARRED. Respondent committed a serious breach of his oath as a lawyer. He is also
guilty of culpable violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the code of ethics

5
DUMLAO, Cheyenne Hope Assignment in Legal Profession Atty. Jun Cadugo

of the legal profession. All lawyers take an oath to support the Constitution, to obey the
laws and to do no falsehood. That oath is neither mere formal ceremony nor hollow words.
It is a sacred trust that should be upheld and kept inviolable at all times. Lawyers are
servants of the law and the law is their master. They should not simply obey the laws,
they should also inspire respect for and obedience thereto by serving as exemplars
worthy of emulation. Respondent, in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental
constitutional policy, showed disrespect for the Constitution and gross ignorance of basic
law. Worse, he prepared spurious documents that he knew were void and illegal.
Respondent's misconduct did not end there. By advising complainant that a foreigner
could legally and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines and by assuring complainant
that the property was alienable, respondent deliberately foisted a falsehood on his client.
He did not give due regard to the trust and confidence reposed in him by the complainant.
Instead, he deceived the complainant and misled him into parting with P400,000 for
services that were both illegal and unprofessional. Moreover, by pocketing and
misappropriating the P3.8 million given by the complainant for the purchase of the
property, respondent committed a fraudulent act that was criminal in nature. A lawyer who
resorts to nefarious schemes to circumvent the law and uses his legal knowledge to
further his selfish ends to the great prejudice of others, poses a clear and present danger
to the rule of law and to the legal system. He does not only tarnish the image of the bar
and degrade the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, he also betrays everything
that the legal profession stands for. It is the respondent and his kind that give lawyering
a bad name and make laymen support Dick the Butcher's call, "Kill all lawyers!" A disgrace
to their professional brethren, they must be purged from the bar.

• Definition of Gross Misconduct.

Gross misconduct is defined as any inexcusable, shameful, or flagrant unlawful conduct

on the part of the person concerned in the administration of justice which is prejudicial to
the rights of the parties or to the right determination of the cause; a conduct that is
generally motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. Its elements are:
1) corruption; 2) clear intent to violate the law; or 3) flagrant disregard of an established
rule.

• Penticostes vs. Ibañez, Admin Case, CBD No. 167, 9 March 1999

FACTS: Sometime in 1989, Encarnacion Pascual was sued for non-remittance of SSS
premiums which complaint was assigned to Prosecutor Ibañez for preliminary
investigation. In the course of the investigation, Encarnacion gave the amount of
P1,804.00 to respondent as payment of her SSS contribution in arrears. Respondent did
not pay the SSS, hence on Nov. 16, 1990, a complaint was filed against respondent for
professional misconduct in allegedly misappropriating the amount. On Nov. 23, 1990, the
respondent paid SSS the amount of P1,804.00 on behalf of Encarnacion.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of misconduct.

6
DUMLAO, Cheyenne Hope Assignment in Legal Profession Atty. Jun Cadugo

RULING: YES. The High Court observed that it was glaringly clear that respondent’s non-
remittance for over one year of the funds coming from Encarnacion is a gross violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. The belated payment does not excuse his
misconduct. Neither would his defense that the acts complained of were not done by him
in his office as a prosecutor exculpate him from responsibility. While Encarnacion may
not strictly be considered a client of respondent, the rules relating to a lawyer’s handling
of funds of a client is applicable.

Respondent’s failure to immediately remit the amount gives rise to the presumption of
misappropriation. That is in gross violation of general morality as well as professional
ethics, it impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. The
Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished lawyers that a high sense of morality,
honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of every member of the Bar. Want of
moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible
public office.

• What constitutes Grossly Immoral Conduct?

Grossly immoral conduct is defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant or

shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members
of the community. To warrant suspension or disbarment, such conduct must not only be
immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act
or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.

• Barrientos vs. Daarol, A.C. No. 1512, January 29, 1993

FACTS: The complainant, known to be Victoria Barrientos, single, college student, 20

years of age and 7 months having a relationship with the respondent, Atty.
Transfiguracion Daarol, married, member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and a
General Manager of Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative, sometime from July-
October 1975. The complainant did not know that the respondent is already married and
had a son. She thus seeks his disbarment on grounds of deceit and grossly immoral
conduct after being deceived by his love and fooled by his promise that he will marry her.

ISSUE: Whether or not Transfiguracion Daarol should be disbarred as a lawyer.

RULING: YES. Having exhibited debased morality, the Court is constrained to impose
the respondent the most severe disciplinary action – disbarment. As officers of the court,
lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of
good moral character and must lead a life in accordance with the highest moral standards
of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and an officer of the Court is
not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses but
must also behave himself in such a manner as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating
the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.

7
DUMLAO, Cheyenne Hope Assignment in Legal Profession Atty. Jun Cadugo

• In a Conviction of a Crime involving Moral Turpitude, is conviction in a

criminal case necessary for finding a member of the bar guilty in an
administrative proceeding?

Yes. The mere existence of criminal charges against the lawyer cannot be a ground for
his disbarment or suspension.

• Office of the Court Administrator vs. Librado A.M. No. P-94-1089, August 22,
1996

FACTS: Respondent Vicente P. Librado is deputy sheriff of the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC), in Iligan City, he was charged with violation of R.A. No. 6425 in an
information filed with the Regional Trial Court of Lanao Del Norte, Branch 5, for selling
and having in his possession certain quantities of prohibited drugs known as
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" and marijuana. He was subsequently found
guilty and sentenced to six (6) years of imprisonment.
Pursuant to its authority under the Resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 12, 1981,
the Office of the Court Administrator filed this administrative complaint against him and
on November 23, 1994, he was suspended from office.

Respondent admits that he had been convicted of violation of R.A. No. 6425 and claims
that he is now on probation.

ISSUE: Whether or not Librado should be suspended from office.

RULING: YES. This case involves a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude as a
ground for disciplinary action under the Civil Service Law. Under the rules of the Civil
Service Commission, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is considered a grave
offense punishable, upon first commission, by dismissal. As this Court has held, it alone
suffices as a ground for the dismissal of a civil service employee.

There is no doubt that drug-pushing is a crime which involves moral turpitude and implies
" everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals" including
"acts of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man
owes to his fellowmen or to society in general, contrary to the accepted rule of right and
duty between man and man." Indeed nothing is more depraved than for anyone to be a
merchant of death by selling prohibited drugs

The image of the judiciary is tarnished by conduct, which involves moral turpitude. While
indeed the purpose of the Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended) is to save valuable
human material, it must not be forgotten that unlike pardon probation has been convicted.
The reform and rehabilitation of the probationer cannot justify his retention in the
government service. He may seek to reenter government service, but only after he has
shown that he is fit to serve once again. It cannot be repeated too often that a public office
is a public trust, which demands of those in its service the highest degree of morality.

8
DUMLAO, Cheyenne Hope Assignment in Legal Profession Atty. Jun Cadugo

• Curimatmat vs. Gojar, A.C. No. 4411, 10 June 1999

FACTS: Atty. Gojar, the counsel of the former employees of Uniwide Sales, Inc., was
charged with lack of fidelity to his clients' cause on the allegation that: The employees
filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court and Atty. Gojar (herein
respondent) moved for the dismissal of the petition without their consent; Atty.Gojar
appealed from the dismissal of an unfair labor practice beyond the 10-day period to do
so; He promised to file a petition before the Supreme Court after an a peal in the NLRC
for money claims was dismissed, but he did not prepare the petition on the ground of
pressure of work; And he deliberately hid from his clients the fact that a decision had
already been rendered in the NLRC case.

In his comment, the respondent attempted to refute the allegations against him and
explained his side of the controversy. However, other than his self-serving claims, he did
not adduce any evidence. Worse, he chose to ignore the hearings before the IBP where
he could have shed more light on the controversy.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated the canons of the profession.

RULING: YES. Respondent has violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility which provides that "lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence." A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and must be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed on him.
Respondent's shortcomings however, did not warrant suspension from the practice of law
considering that this was his first offense.

The Supreme Court added "Litigants are reminded that lawyers are not demi-gods or
magicians who can always win their cases for their clients no matter the utter lack of merit
of the same or how passionate the litigants may feel about their cause."

• What constitute Willful disobedience of any lawful order of any superior

court.

A lawyer has the duty to obey lawful orders of a superior court and the IBP. Willful
disobedience to such orders, especially to those issued by the Supreme Court, is a
sufficient ground to disbar a lawyer or suspend him from the practice of law under Section
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which provides that “A member of the bar may be
disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the
oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience
of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney
for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for
the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.”

9
DUMLAO, Cheyenne Hope Assignment in Legal Profession Atty. Jun Cadugo

• Villaflor vs. Sarita, A.C. CBD No. 471, 10 June 1999

FACTS: Villaflor filed a case for disbarment against respondent before the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline. The Commissioner assigned to investigate the case
issued an order directing respondent to file his answer or comment to the complaint. The
period of time given to answer the complaint lapsed without respondent submitting his
comment. An order was issued requiring the parties to attend the hearing of the case but
the respondent failed to appear. A notice of hearing was sent to respondent but again he
failed to attend the proceeding. After giving the respondent enough opportunity to face
the charges against him, which the latter did not avail, the case was submitted for
resolution.

ISSUE: Whether or not failure to obey the notices from IBP investigators is unethical.

RULING: YES. It is the duty of a lawyer as an officer of the court to uphold the dignity
and authority of the court. It is his foremost responsibility to observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers. The highest form of respect to the
judicial authority is shown by a lawyer’s obedience to court orders and processes.

• Balaoing vs. Calderon, A.M. No. RTJ 90-580, 27 April 1993

FACTS: Atty. Balaoing, the complainant, filed several administrative complaints against
different judges of Olongapo City, Zambales. Balaoing charges the judges with grave
misconduct for their alleged failure and refusal to issue corresponding writs of execution,
grave abuse of authority, and malicious delay in the administration of justice, which were
all dismissed for lack of merit. The complainant Balaoing was severely censured by the
Court en banc for having instituted a patently unfounded and frivolous action against the
judges.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Balaoing committed an unethical conduct under Canon 11
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING: YES. The High Court ruled that the complainant Attorney went out of bounds
when he filed his baseless and frivolous administrative complaints against respondent
Judges Calderon and Maliwanag, with no other plain and clear purpose than to harass
respondent Judges, and thus, exact retribution on them for rendering adverse judgments
against him and his clients. Furthermore, complainant's actions were violative of Canon
11, Rule 11.03 and 11.04 of Code of Professional Responsibility which serve to regulate
a lawyer’s conduct. Therefore, complainant Balaoing was proved to be unfit to hold the
license to practice law.

• Toledo vs. Abalos, A.C. No. 5141, 29 September 1999

FACTS: Atty. Erlinda Abalos obtained a loan of P20,000.00 from Priscila Toledo, payable
within six months from date, plus interest of 5% per month. She executed a Promissory
NoteTo guarantee the payment of said obligation. After the lapse of six months, and

10
DUMLAO, Cheyenne Hope Assignment in Legal Profession Atty. Jun Cadugo

despite repeated demands, respondent failed to pay her obligation. Afraid that she will
not recover her money, Ms. Toledo sought the help of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), which referred the matter to the Commission on Bar Discipline.

She was issued an order directing Atty. Abalos to file her Answer to the letter-complaint
of Ms. Toledo. Despite receipt of said order, respondent did not answer the complaint.
Investigating Commissioner issued an order setting the case for hearing Despite due
notices, respondent failed to appear. Accordingly, complainant was allowed to present
her evidence ex-parte after which, the case was considered submitted for resolution.
Respondent received this order as shown by the registry return. However, she again did
not do anything with regard to it.

ISSUE: Whether or not Abalos may be held administratively liable.

RULING: YES. The general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and
the court may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him, for misconduct in his
nonprofessional or private capacity. It was, however, still necessary for respondent to
acknowledge the orders of the Commission in deference to its authority over her as a
member of the IBP. Her wanton disregard of its lawful orders subjects her to disciplinary
sanction. Thus, her suspension from the practice of law is warranted. She is therefore
suspended for one month.

• In re: Suspension from the Practice of Law in the territory of Guan Atty. Leon
Maquera, B.M. No. 793, July 30, 2004

FACTS: In a letter dated August 20, 1996, the District Court of Guam informed this Court
of the suspension of Atty. Leon G. Maquera from the practice of law in Guam for two (2)
years pursuant to the Decision rendered by the Superior Court of Guam on May 7, 1996
in a disciplinary case filed by the Guam Bar Ethics Committee against Maquera. In a
Memorandum dated February 20, 1997, Bar Confidant Atty. Versoza recommended that
the Court obtain copies of the record of Maquera’s case since the documents transmitted
by the Guam District Court do not contain the factual and legal bases for Maquera’s
suspension and are thus insufficient to enable her to determine whether Maquera’s acts
or omissions which resulted in his suspension in Guam are likewise violative of his oath
as a member of the Philippine Bar. On October 9, 2003, the IBP submitted to the Court
its Report and Recommendation and its Resolution, indefinitely suspending Maquera
from the practice of law within the Philippines until and unless he updates and pay his
IBP membership dues in full. The IBP found that Maquera was admitted to the Philippine
Bar on February 28, 1958. On October 18, 1974, he was admitted to the practice of law
in the territory of Guam. He was suspended from the practice of law in Guam for
misconduct, as he acquired his client’s property as payment for his legal services, then
sold it and as a consequence obtained an unreasonably high fee for handling his client’s
case. On the basis of the Decision of the Superior Court of Guam, the IBP concluded that
although the said court found Maquera liable for misconduct, “there is no evidence to
establish that Maquera committed a breach of ethics in the Philippines.” However, the
IBP still resolved to suspend him indefinitely for his failure to pay his annual dues as

11
DUMLAO, Cheyenne Hope Assignment in Legal Profession Atty. Jun Cadugo

member of the IBP since 1977, which failure is, in turn, a ground for removal of the name
of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys under Section 10, Rule 139-A of the
Revised Rules of Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not a member of the Philippine Bar who was disbarred or suspended
from the practice of law in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an
attorney be meted the same sanction as a member of the Philippine Bar for the same
infraction committed in the foreign jurisdiction.

RULING: The power of the Court to disbar or suspend a lawyer for acts or omissions
committed in a foreign jurisdiction is found in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules
of Court, as amended by Supreme Court Resolution dated February 13, 1992, which
states: Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds
therefor. – A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney
by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such
office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party to a case without
authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. The disbarment or
suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other disciplinatory
agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a
ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the
acts hereinabove enumerated. The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or
disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or
suspension (Emphasis supplied). The Court must therefore determine whether
Maquera’s acts, namely: acquiring by assignment Castro’s right of redemption over the
property subject of the civil case where Maquera appeared as counsel for him; exercising
the right of redemption; and, subsequently selling the property for a huge profit, violate
Philippine law or the standards of ethical behavior for members of the Philippine Bar and
thus constitute grounds for his suspension or disbarment in this jurisdiction. Maquera’s
acts in Guam which resulted in his two (2) year suspension from the practice of law in
that jurisdiction are also valid grounds for his suspension from the practice of law in the
Philippines. Such acts are violative of a lawyer’s sworn duty to act with fidelity towards
his clients.

• What is the basic tenet of due process?

The constitutional requirement that when the government acts in a way that denies a
citizen of a life, liberty, or property interest, the person must be given notice, the
opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral decision maker.

• Quantum of Proof in disbarment proceedings?

In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant to establish

respondent attorney’s liability by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. The

12
DUMLAO, Cheyenne Hope Assignment in Legal Profession Atty. Jun Cadugo

quantum of proof required is clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests
upon the client.

• Cambaliza vs. Cristal-Tenorio A.C. Case No. 6290, July 14, 2004

FACTS: Complainant Ana Marie Cambaliza, a former employee of respondent Atty. Ana
Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio in her law office, charged the latter with deceit, grossly immoral
conduct, and malpractice or other gross misconduct in office. On malpractice or other
gross misconduct in office, the complainant alleged that the respondent cooperated in the
illegal practice of law by her husband, who is not a member of the Philippine Bar and two
other allegations. The respondent averred that this disbarment complaint was filed by the
complainant just to get even with her. The complainant later filed a Motion to Withdraw
Complaint as she is no longer interested in pursuing the case. This motion was not acted
upon by the IBP and the case was pursued. The IBP found the respondent guilty of
assisting in unauthorized practice of law.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Cristal-Tenorio violated the Code of Professional

Responsibility.

RULING: YES. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.
A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to misrepresent himself as a lawyer and
to practice law is guilty of violating Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which read as follows:

Canon 9 – A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of
law.

Rule 9.01 – A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any
task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.

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.

13