Toledo vs. Abalos [A.C. No. 5141.

September 29, 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. To guarantee the payment of said
obligation, respondent executed a Promissory Note. After the lapse of six months, and
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.

[T]he Commission 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 about it.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Abalos may be disciplined by the IB

HELD:

YES. Respondent suspended for one (1) month.

RATIO:

According to the Supreme Court, 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 non-professional 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.

Vitug vs. Rongcal [A.C. No. 6313. September 07, 2006]

FACTS:

[T]he administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Catherine Joie P. Vitug (complainant)
against Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal (respondent) was brought to the Supreme Court upon
dissatisfaction with the recommendation of IBP Investigating Commissioner of six (6) month
suspension from the practice of law.

Complainant and respondent first met when the former was looking for a lawyer to assist her
in suing Arnulfo Aquino, the biological father of her minor daughter, for support. After several
meetings, complainant and respondent had started sexual relationship. Complainant claimed
that she was deceived by the respondent on promise of support and on the signing of
Affidavit of Disclaimer. Respondent denied luring her with sweet words and empty promises,
as he later ended his relationship with complainant, and strongly refuted her allegation that
she did not know what the said Affidavit is all about. Complainant further charged
respondent of misappropriating part of the money obtained from Aquino as it was intended
for her daughter. Respondent admitted that there was actually a difference in amount but
somewhat lesser than that alleged by the complainant, but his presumption was that he can
keep the same as part of attorney’s fees.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Rongcal’s immorality will warrant suspension or disbarment from
practice of law.

HELD:

NO. Respondent was only imposed fine of P15,000.00.

RATIO:

The Supreme Court heeded the stern injunction on decreeing disbarment where any lesser
penalty, such as temporary suspension, would accomplish the end desired. [F]rom the very
beginning of this case, respondent had expressed remorse over his indiscretion and had in
fact ended the brief illicit relationship years ago. These were signs that his was not a
character of such severe depravity and thus should be taken as mitigating circumstances in
his favor. Considering further that this was his first offense, a fine of P15,000.00 would
suffice, without prejudice to the outcome of the aspect of this case involving the alleged
misappropriation of funds of the client.

VILLANUEVA v STA. ANA

CBD Case No. 251
–
July 11, 1995
Per Curiam

Complainant:
Adelina T. Villanueva
Respondent:
Atty. Teresita Sta. Ana
Facts:
In April 1992, Villanueva went to Sta. Ana to have documents notarized.

Upon learning of Villanueva’s plans to procure a loan from a bank or lending institution, Sta.
Ana
offered her services as attorney on the condition that Villanueva would put up land collateral
and
provide a “guaranty deposit” of Php 150,000.

Villanueva accepted and subsequently entrusted Php 144,000 and various documents
(special power of attorney, deed of sale, tax declaration, land title, etc.) to Sta. Ana.

Sta. Ana later requested an additional amount of money for procedural matters. With
that,Villanueva decided to forego the loan and requested that Sta. Ana return all money
given.

Sta. Ana not only failed to comply with the request but also began to avoid Villanueva.

Villanueva sought assistance from the Office of the Vice President, which referred the matter
tothe National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

The NBI subpoenaed Sta. Ana twice but she failed to appear both times. It then
recommended thatSta. Ana be criminally charged with estafa and that disbarment
proceedings be taken against her. Ittransmitted the matter to the Commission on Bar
Discipline (Commission) of the IBP.

Through the course of the proceedings, the Commission discovered criminal charges filed
againstSta. Ana:
estafa, falsification of public documents
and
violations of

RA 3019

(Anti-Graft andCorrupt Practices Act

). After Sta. Ana’s failure to appear, the Commission recommended that
she be disbarred for being totally unfit to be a member of the legal profession.
Issue + Held:
1.
W/N Sta. Ana should be disbarred
–

YES

Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to an admission to the legal
profession. It must remain extant to maintain one’s good standing in such an exclusive and
honored profession.
o

The
Code of Professional Responsibility
mandates the following:

Rule 1.01
–
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral ordeceitful conduct.

Canon 16
–
A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his clientthat may come into his
possession.

Rule 16.01
–
A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected orreceived for or from the client.
o

Sta. Ana was given all opportunity to defend and even just explain herself. However,
shefailed to refute the charges filed against her. The Court has no choice but to accept
thefindings and recommendations of the Commission.
Ruling:
Sta. Ana is DISBARRED. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike out her name from the Roll
of Attorneys

In Re INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES [49 SCRA 22, January 9, 1973]

FACTS:
[T]he Commission on Bar Integration submitted its Report with the “earnest
recommendation” — on the basis of the said Report and the proceedings had in
Administrative Case No. 526 of the Court, and “consistently with the views and counsel
received from its [the Commission’s] Board of Consultants, as well as the overwhelming
nationwide sentiment of the Philippine Bench and Bar” — that “(the) Honorable (Supreme)
Court ordain the integration of the Philippine Bar as soon as possible through the adoption
and promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule.” The petition in Adm. Case No. 526 formally
prays the Court to order the integration of the Philippine Bar, after due hearing, giving
recognition as far as possible and practicable to existing provincial and other local Bar
associations.

ISSUES:

(1) Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine Bar?

(2) Would the integration of the Bar be constitutional?

(3) Should the Court ordain the integration of the Bar at this time?

HELD:

YES. On all issues.

RATIO:

[T]he Court is of the view that it may integrate the Philippine Bar in the exercise of its power,
under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, “to promulgate rules concerning x x x the
admission to the practice of law.”

The Court is fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of all the arguments
adduced in Adm. Case No. 526 and the authoritative materials and the mass of factual data
contained in the exhaustive Report of the Commission on Bar Integration, that the integration
of the Philippine Bar is “perfectly constitutional and legally unobjectionable,” within the
context of contemporary conditions in the Philippines, has become an imperative means to
raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable
the Bar to discharge its public responsibility fully and effectively.

[T]he Court, by virtue of the power vested in it by Section 13 of Article VIII of the
Constitution, ordained the integration of the Bar of the Philippines effective January 16,
1973.

Santos, Jr. vs. Atty. Llamas, AC 4749

FACTS:
Atty. Francisco Llamas was complained of not paying his IBP dues.He was also cited in the
complaint as not paying his professional tax or PTR as it was intermittently indicated in his
pleadings filed in court. It was also an alleged falsity when he included his “IBP-Rizal
259060” where in fact he was not in good standing. Petitioner cited that Atty. Llamas was
dismissed as Pasay City Judge. But later revealed that the decision was reversed and he
was subsequently promoted as RTC Judge of Makati. He also had criminal case involving
estafabut was appealed pending in the Court of Appeals. In the numerous violations of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, he expressed willingness to settle the IBP dues and
plea for a more temperate application of the law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Llamas is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

YES. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, or until he has
paid his IBP dues.

RATIO:

Even if he had “limited” practice of law, it does not relieve him of the duties such as payment
of IBP dues. Rule 139-A provides:

Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. — Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this
Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of
membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a
ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility:

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any court; nor
shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.

JOSE M. CASTILLO, Complainant, v. ATTY. SABINO PADILLA, JR., Respondent.

Jose M. Castillo for complainant.

Anselmo M. Carlos for Respondent.

SYLLABUS
1. JUDICIAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; DUTIES. — Among the duties of an attorney are: (1) to
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice; and (2) to abstain from all
offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party
or witness unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. The Canons
of Professional Ethics likewise exhort lawyers to avoid all personalities between counsel.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; USE OF INTEMPERATE LANGUAGE UNCALLED FOR IN THE CASE AT
BAR; PENALTY. — Whether directed at the person of complainant or his manner of offering
evidence, the remark "bobo" or "Ay, que bobo" was offensive and uncalled for. Respondent
had no right to interrupt complainant which such cutting remark while the latter was
addressing the court. In so doing, he exhibited lack of respect not only to a fellow lawyer but
also to the court. By the use of intemperate language, respondent failed to measure up to
the norm of conduct required of a member of the legal profession, which all the more
deserves reproach because this is not the first time that respondent has employed offensive
language in the course of judicial proceedings. He has previously been admonished to
refrain from engaging in offensive personalities and warned to be more circumspect in the
preparation of his pleadings. Respondent is hereby reprimanded for his misbehavior. He is
directed to observe proper decorum and restraint and warned that a repetition of the offense
will be dealt with more severely.

RESOLUTION

PLANA, J.:

Atty. Jose M. Castillo, complainant, seeks the suspension of respondent from the practice of
law for the use of insulting language in the course of judicial proceedings.chanrobles.com :
virtual law library

As the material facts are not in dispute, we have deemed the case submitted for resolution
on the basis of the pleadings of the parties.

Complainant was the counsel for the defendants (and at the same time, one of the
defendants) in Criminal Case No. 13331 for forcible entry before the Metropolitan Trial Court
of Caloocan. Respondent was counsel for the plaintiff. At the hearing of the case on
November 19, 1981, while complainant was formally offering his evidence, he heard
respondent say "bobo." When complainant turned toward respondent, he saw the latter
looking at him (complainant) menacingly. Embarrassed and humiliated in the presence of
many people, complainant was unable to proceed with his offer of evidence. The court
proceedings had to be suspended.

While admitting the utterance, respondent denied having directed the same at the
complainant, claiming that what he said was "Ay, que bobo", referring to "the manner
complainant was trying to inject wholly irrelevant and highly offensive matters into the
record" while in the process of making an offer of evidence. The statement of Atty. Castillo
referred to by respondent was:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . The only reason why Atty. Jose Castillo was included in the present complaint for
ejectment was because defendant Erlinda Castillo wife of this representation called up this
representation at his house and crying over the phone, claiming that Atty. Sabino Padilla
was harassing her and immediately, this representation like any good husband would do in
the defense of his wife immediately went to the school and confronted Atty. Sabino Padilla,
Jr. with a talk and asked for a yes or no answer if he harassed the wife of this representation
and if yes, right then and there l would sock his face."cralaw virtua1aw library

Among the duties of an attorney are: (1) to observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts of justice; and (2) to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact
prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness unless required by the justice of
the cause with which he is charged. (Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 20 (b) and (f). The
Canons of Professional Ethics likewise exhort lawyers to avoid all personalities between
counsel. (Canon 17.)

Whether directed at the person of complainant or his manner of offering evidence, the
remark "bobo" or "Ay, que bobo" was offensive and uncalled for. Respondent had no right to
interrupt complainant which such cutting remark while the latter was addressing the court. In
so doing, he exhibited lack of respect not only to a fellow lawyer but also to the court. By the
use of intemperate language, respondent failed to measure up to the norm of conduct
required of a member of the legal profession, which all the more deserves reproach because
this is not the first time that respondent has employed offensive language in the course of
judicial proceedings. He has previously been admonished to refrain from engaging in
offensive personalities and warned to be more circumspect in the preparation of his
pleadings. (CA-G.R. No. 09753-SP, Court of Appeals; Civil Case No. C-7790 CFI of
Caloocan.)

The Court, however, notes that in the case at bar, respondent’s actuation was triggered by
complainant’s own manifest hostility and provocative remarks. Complainant is therefore not
entirely free from blame when respondent unleashed his irritation through the use of
improper words.

WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby reprimanded for his misbehavior. He is directed to

observe proper decorum and restraint and warned that a repetition of the offense will be
dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles

Yared v. IlardeFACTS: Estrella Yared, substituted by Carmen Tiongco because the former
is nodead, and !ose Tiongco ere o""osing "arties to a "ro"erty in litigation. Carmendirectly
#led a $otion for %econsideration to the Su"reme Court because !udgeIlarde of the %TC
ordered the cancellation of annotation of notices of lis "endens. The Su"reme Court noticed
and commented that Carmen has failed to com"ly iththe "rinci"le of &udicial hierarchy and
that she should have #led the "etition in theCA #rst. 'oever, the Su"reme Court also noticed
the im"ro"er and unethicallanguage em"loyed by !ose Tiangco, ho as also a counsel for the
"rivateres"ondents, in his "leadings and motions #led both in SC and loer court. 'edescribed
the counsel of the "etitioner, Atty. $arciana (eguma, )a rambunctiousreastler*ty"e female of +
ho does not ear a dress hich is not red, and hostam"edes into the court room li-e a mad fury
and ho s"ea-s slang English toconceal her faulty grammar. !ose Tiongco alleged that Atty.
(eguma does that )to"lease and tenderi/e and seeten toards her on self the readily
availableCarmelo Tiongco, an unmarried mesti/o ho lives ith Carmen. 'e furtherdescribed
Atty. (eguma as )an unmarried maiden of certain age and a )love*cra/ed female A"ache ho is
ready to s-in the defendant alive for not being abastard and a )horned s"inster and
man*hungry virago and female bull of anAma/on. 'e also stated that Atty. (eguma is using
0A1 as a )marriage bureau forher on bene#t.ISS2E3S: 435 !ose Tiongco, being also one of
the counsels of the defendants,violated the Code of 0rofessional %es"onsibility'E6(: Yes. 4ith
the language that he em"loyed, he obviously violated Canon 7*A%ule 7.89 hich states that a
layer shall not, in his "rofessional dealings, uselanguages hich is abusive, oensive, or
otherise im"ro"er. 'e also violated %ule99.8; hich says that a layer shall abstain from
scandalous, oensive, ormenacing language before the courts. The SC also cited %omero vs
<alle, )althoughalloed some latitude of remar-s or comment in furtherance of the cause
heu"holds, his arguments, both ritten or oral, should be gracious to both court ando""osing
counsel and be of such ords as may be "ro"erly addressed by onegentleman to another. !ose
Tiongco as merely arned. 5ote: In the #rst "art ofthe case, even the title of the case, it as not
mentioned hether !ose Tiongco is alayer or not. Then, there=s one sentence hich addressed
him )Atty. !ose Tiongco