Karl Jason C. Josol P.A.L.E. CASE DIGESTS Pros.

Edmund Turqueza Northwestern University Laoag College of Law

Julieta B. Narag vs. Atty. Dominador M. Narag, A.C. No. 3405 June 29, 1998

FACTS:
Atty. Dominador M. Narag, is a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan
and a prominent member of the legal profession when in 1989, his wife, Mrs. Julieta B. Narag
filed an an administrative complaint for disbarment against him whom she accused of having
violated Canons 1 and 6, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Ethics for Lawyers. The complaint narrated
that as a full-time college instructor in St. Louis College of Tuguegarao in 1984, Atty. Narag
maintained an illicit relationship with one of his students, Ms. Gina Espita. It was further noted
that Atty. Narag has abandoned his family to live with this younger woman, his former student
and that he has even caused her employment at the DTI Central Office in Makati City. Said case
was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. However, on June 26, 1990 Mrs. Narag retracted her statement and reasoned
that they were mere fabrications.
On November 25, 1991 Mrs. Narag together with her seven children as co-signatories,
again appealed for the disbarment of her husband Atty. Narag to which she explained that she
had earlier dropped the case because of Atty. Narag’s continuous threats against her. Atty.
Narag denied the allegations that he had threatened, harassed or intimidated his wife. He
alleged that she had voluntarily executed her Affidavit of Desistance and Motion to Dismiss,
even appearing before the investigating officer and testifying under oath. In addition, he
professed his love for his wife and his children and denied abandoning his family to live with his
paramour. However, he described his wife as a person emotionally disturbed. To prove the
alleged propensity of his wife to file false charges, respondent Atty Narag presented as evidence
the list of the complaints she had filed against him and Gina Espita. He averred further that: 1)
all the alleged love letters and envelopes, picture are inadmissible in evidence; 2) He never had
or is having any illicit relationship with her anywhere, at any time; 3) he never abandoned his
family; 4) his wife, Julieta B. Narag is an unbearably jealous, violent, vindictive, scandalous,
virulent and merciless wife since the beginning of the marriage; 5) Dominador, Jr., executed his
affidavit freely, voluntarily, and absolutely without force or intimidation.
On July 18, 1997, the investigating officer submitted his report, recommending the
indefinite suspension of Atty. Narag from the practice of law. The IBP found the respondent
subject to disciplinary action as a member of the legal profession. Additionally, the IBP adopted
and approved the investigating commissioner's recommendation for the indefinite suspension
of the respondent. Subsequently the complaint sought the disbarment of her husband in a
Manifestation/Comment. The IBP granted this stiffer penalty and, in its Resolution dated
November 30, 1997, denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE/S:
a) Whether there was indeed a commission of alleged abandonment of
respondent's own family and [whether he was] living with his paramour, Gina
Espita;

b) Whether the denial under oath that his illegitimate children with Gina Espita (Aurelle
Dominic and Kyle Dominador) as appearing on paragraph 1(g) of respondent's Comment
vis-a-vis his handwritten love letters, the due execution and contents of which, although
 Karl Jason C. Josol P.A.L.E. CASE DIGESTS Pros. Edmund Turqueza Northwestern University Laoag College of Law

he objected to their admissibility for being allegedly forgeries, were never denied by him
on the witness stand much less presented and offered proof to support otherwise.

HELD:
After a careful scrutiny of the records of the proceedings and the evidence presented by
the parties, we find that the conduct of respondent warrants the imposition of the penalty of
disbarment. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: The Code of Professional
Responsibility provides:

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

CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Thus, good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a
continuing qualification for all members of the bar. Hence, when a lawyer is found guilty of
gross immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred. Immoral conduct has been defined
as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion
of good and respectable members of the community. Furthermore, 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.
 Karl Jason C. Josol P.A.L.E. CASE DIGESTS Pros. Edmund Turqueza Northwestern University Laoag College of Law

ATTY. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON JR. VS. ATTY. EDWIN Z. FERRER, SR.

AC NO. 5768 MARCH 26, 2010

FACTS:
On January 11, 2001 complainant Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a
complaint-affidavit with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP-CBD) seeking the disbarment, suspension from the practice of law, or imposition of
appropriate disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. on the basis of the
following grounds: a) Atty. Ferrer filed a reply which contained abusive, offensive, and improper
language; b) Atty. Ferrer filed a fabricated charge against Atty. Barandon for alleged falsification
of public document; c) Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened Atty. Barandon, at the
courtroom of Municipal Trial Court Daet before the start of hearing; d) The Court had warned
Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case against repeating his unethical act; yet he faces a
disbarment charge for sexual harassment of an office secretary of the IBP Chapter in Camarines
Norte; a related criminal case for acts of lasciviousness; and criminal cases for libel and grave
threats.
On October 10, 2001 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP-CBD
submitted to this Court a Report, recommending the suspension for two years of Atty. Ferrer.
The Investigating Commissioner found enough evidence on record to prove Atty. Ferrer’s
violation of Canons 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He attributed to
Atty. Barandon, as counsel in Civil Case 7040, the falsification of the plaintiff’s affidavit despite
the absence of evidence that the document had in fact been falsified and that Atty. Barandon
was a party to it. The Investigating Commissioner also found that Atty. Ferrer uttered the
threatening remarks imputed to him in the presence of other counsels, court personnel, and
litigants before the start of hearing. On June 29, 2002 the IBP Board of Governors passed
Resolution XV-2002-225,6 adopting and approving the Investigating Commissioner’s
recommendation but reduced the penalty of suspension to only one year. Atty. Ferrer filed a
motion for reconsideration but the Board denied it in its Resolution7 of October 19, 2002 on the
ground that it had already endorsed the matter to the Supreme Court. On February 5, 2003,
however, the Court referred back the case to the IBP for resolution of Atty. Ferrer’s motion for
reconsideration.8 On May 22, 2008 the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
Report and Recommendation9 of the Investigating Commissioner that denied Atty. Ferrer’s
motion for reconsideration.
On February 17, 2009, Atty. Ferrer filed a Comment on Board of Governors’ IBP Notice of
Resolution No. XVIII-2008.11 On August 12, 2009 the Court resolved to treat Atty. Ferrer’s
comment as a petition for review under Rule 139 of the Revised Rules of Court. Atty. Barandon
filed his comment, reiterating his arguments before the IBP. Further, he presented certified
copies of orders issued by courts in Camarines Norte that warned Atty. Ferrer against appearing
in court drunk.

ISSUE/S:

1. Whether or not the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP Investigating Commissioner
erred in finding respondent Atty. Ferrer guilty of the charges against him; and

2. If in the affirmative, whether or not the penalty imposed on him is justified.

 Karl Jason C. Josol P.A.L.E. CASE DIGESTS Pros. Edmund Turqueza Northwestern University Laoag College of Law

HELD:
We have examined the records of this case and find no reason to disagree with the
findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors and the Investigating
Commissioner. The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards
of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to
administrative liability. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers
to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers and
avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Specifically, in Rule 8.01, the Code provides:
Rule 8.01. – A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to this
Canon. The evidence shows that he imputed to Atty. Barandon the falsification of the Salaysay
Affidavit of the plaintiff in Civil Case 7040. He made this imputation with pure malice for he had
no evidence that the affidavit had been falsified and that Atty. Barandon authored the same.
Moreover, Atty. Ferrer could have aired his charge of falsification in a proper forum and without
using offensive and abusive language against a fellow lawyer.
Contrary to Atty. Ferrer’s allegation, the Court finds that he has been accorded due
process. The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard
and submit any evidence one may have in support of one’s defense.18 So long as the parties are
given the opportunity to explain their side, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily
complied with.19 Here, the IBP Investigating Commissioner gave Atty. Ferrer all the
opportunities to file countless pleadings and refute all the allegations of Atty. Barandon.
All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are
mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence they must conduct themselves
honorably and fairly.20 Atty. Ferrer’s display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and
misconduct in the performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before
the public and the court, was a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to
uphold.

ATTY. ANTONIO B. MANZANO VS. ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA, AC No. 12173, 11-03-20
 Karl Jason C. Josol P.A.L.E. CASE DIGESTS Pros. Edmund Turqueza Northwestern University Laoag College of Law

FACTS:

On August 19, 2014, Lupo G. Tan, Rema Tan-Manzano, and Sonia G. Tan, represented by Atty.
Manzano, filed a complaint for action publiciana against Pedro Pando, Rene Bloza, Arcelie
Bayaca and Marlon Urata before the Regional Trial Court of Ballesteros, Cagayan. The Sheriff
failed to personally serve a copy of the complaint and its annexes against defendants Bayaca
and Urata. Thereafter on October 14, 2014, the defendants, through their counsel, Atty.
Rivera, prepared and notarized their Answer and filed the same before the RTC and it
appeared to have been signed by Pando and Bloza. Interestingly, it also bore the signatures of
Bayaca and Urata. It was later discovered that Atty. Rivera was not commissioned as a notary
public at the time he notarized the Answer in 2014.

On June 30, 2015, the City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict Atty. Rivera and his
co-respondents for Falsification of Public Documents under par. 1, Article 172 in relation to
par. 2, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. Thereafter, Atty. Manzano filed the instant
Petition for disbarment against Atty. Rivera for Malpractice, Dishonesty, and Falsification of
Public Document. He maintained that Atty. Rivera admitted in his Counter-Affidavit that he
prepared the Answer and notarized its Verification without the presence of Bayaca and Urata.
Worse, Atty. Rivera was not in fact commissioned as a notary public in 2014 in Tuguegarao
City .

Atty. Rivera was then recommended for suspension from the practice of law for a period of
three years, and be barred from being commissioned as notary public for the same period.
The IBP Board of Governors affirmed the findings of the Investigating Commissioner but
modified the recommended penalty to suspension from the law practice for three years and
perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. No motion for
reconsideration has been filed by either party.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Rivera is administratively liable for committing the acts
complained of.

HELD:
The Court adopted the findings of the IBP and approve its recommended penalty to suspend
Atty. Rivera from the practice of law for a period of three years and to perpetually disqualify
him from being commissioned as a notary public. Notaries public ought to observe with
utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
We have repeatedly emphasized that notarization is not a mere empty, meaningless,
routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are
qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. In other words, to protect substantive
public interest, those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing
upon the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general.

Corollarily, Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is clear that only a person who is
commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first day
of January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the
notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court. Hence, a violation
thereof should therefore not be dealt with lightly to preserve the integrity of notarization.
 Karl Jason C. Josol P.A.L.E. CASE DIGESTS Pros. Edmund Turqueza Northwestern University Laoag College of Law

In the case at bench, it was sufficiently proven that Atty. Rivera was not commissioned as a
notary public at the time he notarized the Answer and said act of making it appear that he
was a duly commissioned notary public is in blatant disregard of the Lawyer's Oath to obey
the laws, i.e. the Notarial Law, and to do no falsehood.It likewise constitutes a transgression
of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which states that: "A
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

Not only did Atty. Rivera violate Rule 1.01 of Canon 1; he also transgressed Canon 7 of the
CPR, which mandates that every lawyer shall "uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession," and Rule 7.03 which provides:
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession.

IN RE: OMB-C-C-13-0104 ATTY. SOCRATES G. MARANAN V. FRANCISCO DOMAGOSO

 Karl Jason C. Josol P.A.L.E. CASE DIGESTS Pros. Edmund Turqueza Northwestern University Laoag College of Law

VS. ATTY. SOCRATES G. MARANAN, A.C. No. 12877 12-07-20

FACTS:
Atty. Maranan filed a criminal complaint before the Ombudsman against then Vice
Mayor Francisco "Isko Moreno" Domagoso of the City of Manila, charging him with
Falsification of Public Documents and violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 for
having signed, in behalf of the Manila City Government, consultancy contracts with persons
who were either deceased or out of the country for extended periods of time. In defense,
Domagoso claimed, among others, that he signed the consultancy contracts upon the
assurance of his former Secretary, Abraham Cabochan, that everything was in order, and
pointed out that it was Atty. Maranan who actually notarized the subject contracts. After due
proceedings, the Ombudsman dismissed the charges against Domagoso and referred the
matter to the IBP for determination of Atty. Maranan's administrative liability for having
notarized the consultancy contracts.
For his part, Atty. Maranan denied having authored or notarized the consultancy contracts, as
shown by the wide disparity between his alleged signatures in the said contracts and his
signatures appearing in the facsimile of signatures submitted. Moreover, he averred that the
consultancy contracts do not appear in any of his monthly notarial reports that he regularly
submitted to the RTC.
IBP Board of Governors resolved to reverse the recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner and found that there was substantial evidence to prove that Atty. Maranan
violated the 2004 Notarial Rules. Indeed, even if the signatures above his name as notary
public in the consultancy contracts do not appear to be his, Atty. Maranan cannot sever
himself from the supposed notarized documents as the same bore his notarial seal. Thus, the
IBP Board of Governors recommended that: (a) Atty. Maranan be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months; (b) he be disqualified from being commissioned
as a notary public for a period of two (2) years; and (c) his current notarial commission be
immediately revoked. Aggrieved, Atty. Maranan moved for reconsideration, which was
denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not grounds exist to hold Atty. Maranan administratively liable

HELD:
The Court concurs with the IBP-BOG findings that Atty. Maranan should be held
administratively liable in this case. In this case, Atty. Maranan denied having authored or
notarized the consultancy contracts and claimed that his signatures therein as notary public
were forged. Although the IBP observed that Atty. Maranan's signatures in the subject
contracts were strikingly dissimilar to his specimen signatures on file before the Notarial
Section of the RTC, and while it may likewise be true that said contracts were not included in
the notarial reports he submitted thereto, he cannot claim full deniability and be exculpated
from administrative liability because the contracts bore his notarial seal.
Instead of offering any plausible explanation as to how the Consultancy contracts came to be
stamped with his notarial seal, Atty. Maranan merely insisted that he never notarized nor
authored said contracts, that his signatures therein were forgeries, and that said contracts
were not included in his notarial reports. No justifiable explanation was given to prove that
he had performed his mandatory duties as a notary public as set forth under the 2004
Notarial Rules, which include the duty to safeguard his notarial seal to prevent possible
tampering or misuse thereof. Clearly, Atty. Maranan had been remiss in his obligation as a
notary public. Had he been more vigilant in the performance of his notarial duties, his
 Karl Jason C. Josol P.A.L.E. CASE DIGESTS Pros. Edmund Turqueza Northwestern University Laoag College of Law

notarial seal would not have been affixed in the subject contracts. Indubitably, this failure on
the part of Atty. Maranan constitutes a transgression of the 2004 Notarial Rules, for which he
must be held administratively liable.

The act of notarization is not an ordinary routine but is imbued with substantive public
interest. A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of
which are the acknowledgment and affirmation of documents or instruments. In the
performance of these notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the significance of
the notarial seal affixed on documents. A notarial seal is a mark, image or impression on a
document which would indicate that the notary public has officially signed it. Section 2, Rule
VII of the 2004 Notarial Rules states that every notary public shall have his own notarial seal,
which shall have the name of the city or province and the word "Philippines," and his own
name on the margin and the roll of attorney's number on its face.

MICHELLE A. BUENAVENTURA VS. ATTY. DANY B. GILLE, A.C. No. 7446, 12-09-20
 Karl Jason C. Josol P.A.L.E. CASE DIGESTS Pros. Edmund Turqueza Northwestern University Laoag College of Law

FACTS:
Sometime in 2006, Michelle consulted Atty. Gille about a property mortgaged to her
and offered thus his legal services to Michelle for P25,000.00 and thereafter prepared an
adverse claim on her behalf. Subsequently, Atty. Gille borrowed P300,000.00 from Michelle to
which he gave TCT No. N-272977 allegedly covering a 1,000-square meter Quezon City lot
worth P20 Million as a collateral. However, Michelle later found from the Register of Deeds
(RD) Quezon City that the TCT was a forgery issued by a syndicate prompting her to demand
from Atty. Gille the return of the borrowed amount. Respondent executed a promissory note
acknowledging having issued a postdated check but was later dishonored due to "Account
Closed". As a result, Michelled filed a criminal complaint for Estafa against Atty. Gille and
likewise filed the instant Petition for his suspension or disbarment for the alleged deceit and
gross immoral conduct in violation of his Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).
Accordingly, Atty. Gille was given a non-extendible period of 10 days to submit his answer and
verified position papers to which he failed to do so. Thus, the Investigating Commissioner
found Atty. Gille liable for Gross Misconduct for issuing a postdated check that was
subsequently dishonored and for presenting a fraudulent certificate of title to obtain money
from Michelle. He recommended that Atty. Gille be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of two (2) years and ordered to return the loaned amount of P300,000.00 to Michelle.
Thenceforth, the IBP Board of Governors (BOG) adopted the findings of the Investigating
Commissioner with the modification that Atty. Gille should also pay legal interest on the
P300,000.00 reckoned from the time the demand was made.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Gille is guilty of Gross Misconduct

HELD:
The Court adopts the findings of the IBP with modification as to the recommended
penalty. For the Court to exercise its disciplinary power, the burden of proof in a disbarment
proceeding rests upon the complainant who must establish with substantial evidence that the
lawyer committed acts or omissions which reflect his or her unfitness to be a member of the
Bar.
A thorough review of the evidence in the case shows that the required degree of proof has
been established by the complainant. Atty. Gille violated Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR,
which prohibits a lawyer from borrowing money from his client unless the client's interests
are fully protected, to wit:

CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONIES AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENTS
THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

Rule 16.04 — A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client's interests are
fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer
lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary
expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.
It is undisputed that Atty. Gille secured a loan from Michelle. The mere act of borrowing
money from his client is considered unethical and an abuse of the latter's confidence reposed
upon him. In doing so, Atty. Gille took advantage of his influence over his client
Michelle.Further, Michelle was at a disadvantage because of respondent's ability to use all the
legal maneuverings to evade his obligation. Indeed, the act of borrowing money from a client
 Karl Jason C. Josol P.A.L.E. CASE DIGESTS Pros. Edmund Turqueza Northwestern University Laoag College of Law

by a lawyer is highly uncalled for and therefore a ground for disciplinary action. It degrades a
client's trust and confidence in his or her lawyer. This trust and confidence must be upheld at
all times in accordance with a lawyer's duty to his or her client.

ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA vs. ATTY. YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE

A.C. No. 7269, November 23, 2011

FACTS:
Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana was the counsel for Irene Bides, the plaintiff in Civil Case No.
SCA-2481 before the RTC of Pasig City while Atty. Yolando F. Busmente was the counsel for the
defendant Imelda B. Ulaso. In her disbarment complaint against Atty. Yolando, Atty.
Noe-Lacsamana alleged that Ulaso’s deed of sale over a certain property was annulled, which
resulted in the filing of an ejectment case before the MTC of San Juan, where Busmente
appeared as counsel. Another case for falsification was filed against Ulaso where Busmente
also appeared as counsel. Noe-Lacsamana alleged that one Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa would
accompany Ulaso in court, projecting herself as Busmente’s collaborating counsel. In
response, Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa was a law graduate and was his paralegal
assistant and that her employment with him ended in 2000 but Dela Rosa was able to
continue misrepresenting herself as a lawyer with the help of Regine Macasieb, Busmente’s
former secretary. However, Dela Rosa’s continued representation of Ulaso until 2005 belied
Busmente’s allegation that Dela Rosa was able to illegally practice law using his office address
without his knowledge and only due to Dela Rosa’s connivance with Macasieb. As regards
Busmente’s allegation that his signature on the Answer was forged, the IBP-CBD gave
Busmente the opportunity to coordinate with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to
prove that his signature was forged but he failed to submit any report.
Thus, the the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation of the
IBP-CBD, with modification by reducing the period of Busmente’s suspension to six months. In
return, Busmente filed a motion for reconsideration and submitted a report from the NBI
stating that the signature in the Answer, when compared with standard/sample signatures
submitted to its office, showed that they were not written by one and the same person.
However, in its 14 May 2011 Resolution, the IBP Board of Governors denied Busmente’s
motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Busmente is guilty of directly or indirectly assisting Dela Rosa in her illegal
practice of law that warrants his suspension from the practice of law
HELD:
Yes. The Court agrees with the IBP in finding that Dela Rosa, who is not a member of
the Bar, misrepresented herself as Busmente’s collaborating counsel in Civil Case No. 9284.
The IBP has further established that Busmente’s office continued to receive all the notices of
Civil Case No. 9284. The 7 December 2004 Order of Judge Elvira DC. Panganiban in Civil Case
No. 9284 showed that Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa was still representing Ulaso in the case. In
that Order, Judge Panganiban set the preliminary conference of Civil Case No. 9284 on 8
February 2005. The Court explained that It would have been impossible for Dela Rosa to
continue representing Ulaso in the case, considering Busmente’s claim that Macasieb already
resigned, if Dela Rosa had no access to the files in Busmente’s office. In this regard the Court
agree with the findings of the IBP-CBD that there was sufficient evidence to prove that
 Karl Jason C. Josol P.A.L.E. CASE DIGESTS Pros. Edmund Turqueza Northwestern University Laoag College of Law

Busmente was guilty of violation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility thus
recommeding Busmente’s suspension from the practice of law for six months.
Thus, the Court explained re: on the unauthorized practice of law that: “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 not subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves
upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the
profession enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of,
or to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate.
And, the law makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a layman
in the unauthorized practice of law.”

ERLINDA FOSTER VS. ATTY. JAIME V. AGTANG, A.C. No. 10579, December 10, 2014

FACTS:
Erlinda Foster engaged the services of Atty. Jaime V. Agtang for the Civil Case No.
14791-65, entitled Erlinda Foster v. Tierra Realty and Development Corporation in connection
with her legal problem regarding a deed of absolute sale she entered into with Tierra Realty,
which respondent had notarized . The respondent attorney extracted various amounts from
the complainant, to wit: a) P100,000.00 loan payable in three months with zero interest but
denied as “no loan”; b) exorbitant filing fees amounting to P150,000.00 which was later found
out to be only P22,410.00 as per court records; c) P50,000.00 alleged payment to the judge for
favorable decision; d) P2,500.00 as alleged payment for a wine gift to the judge; e) P22,000.00
“emergency/urgency money”. On February 2, 2011, complainant decided to terminate the
services of respondent as her counsel after finding out that respondent had been acquainted
with Tierra Realty since December 2007
In response, Atty Agtang admitted the fact that he notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale
subject of complainant's case. He likewise admitted acting as counsel for complainant for
which he claimed to have received P10,000.00 as acceptance fee and P5,000.00 for incidental
fees. Anent the other amounts of money he received form complaiant, he denied having
received them at all. Thenceforth, IBP-BOG recommended the suspension of the respondent
to return to complainant: 1) his loan of P122,000.00; and 2) the balance of the filing fee
amounting to P127,590.00.In its March 23, 2014 Resolution, the IBP-BOG denied respondent's
motion for reconsideration but modified the penalty of his suspension from the practice of
law by reducing it from one (1) year to three (3) months. Respondent was likewise ordered to
return the balance of the filing fee received from complainant amounting to P127,590.00. No
petition for review was filed with the Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Atty. Jaime V. Agtang violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).
 Karl Jason C. Josol P.A.L.E. CASE DIGESTS Pros. Edmund Turqueza Northwestern University Laoag College of Law

RULING:
The Court sustains the findings and recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner with respect to respondent's violation of Rules 1 and 16 of the CPR. The Court,
however, modifies the conclusion on his alleged violation of Rule 15, on representing
conflicting interests. The Court also differs on the penalty.Rule 1.0, Canon 1 of the CPR,
provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct." It is well-established that a lawyer's conduct is "not confined to the performance of
his professional duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his
professional or private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in
moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to
continue as an officer of the court."

In this case, respondent is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct, both in his
professional and private capacity. As a lawyer, he clearly misled complainant into believing
that the filing fees for her case were worth more than the prescribed amount in the rules, due
to feigned reasons such as the high value of the land involved and the extra expenses to be
incurred by court employees. In other words, he resorted to overpricing, an act customarily
related to depravity and dishonesty. He demanded the amount of P150,000.00 as filing fee,
when in truth, the same amounted only to P22,410.00. His defense that it was complainant
who suggested that amount deserves no iota of credence. For one, it is highly improbable
that complainant, who was then plagued with the rigors of litigation, would propose such
amount that would further burden her financial resources. Assuming that the complainant
was more than willing to shell out an exorbitant amount just to initiate her complaint with
the trial court, still, respondent should not have accepted the excessive amount. As a lawyer,
he is not only expected to be knowledgeable in the matter of filing fees, but he is likewise
duty-bound to disclose to his client the actual amount due, consistent with the values of
honesty and good faith expected of all members of the legal profession.

ATTY. OSCAR L. EMBIDO vs. ATTY. SALVADOR N. PE, JR., A.C. No. 6732, October 22, 2013

FACTS:
In 2004, the siblings Mary Rose Quioyo, Dy Quioyo and Shirly Quioyo approached the
services of the respondent herein Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr. for a sum of P60,000.00 to
fraudulently cause or pen a non-existent decision in this purported Special Proceedings Case
No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna. It was
later found out that this was used by Shirley Quioyo for a court proceedings in UK where she
worked as an Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW. This was discovered by the Clerk of Court when
the UK Solicitor Mr. Ballam Delaney Hunt, requested a copy of the same and attached a
machine copy of said decision in the court of Judge Rafael O. Penuela and upon comparison
that the Special Proceedings Case No.84 on record is originally labeled as Special Proceedings
No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rolando Austria,
 Karl Jason C. Josol P.A.L.E. CASE DIGESTS Pros. Edmund Turqueza Northwestern University Laoag College of Law

whose petitioner was one Serena Catin Austria. This prompted Judge Penuela to refer the
matter to the NBI for investigation.
After conducting its investigation, the NBI forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman for
Visayas the records of the investigation, with a recommendation that the respondent be
prosecuted for falsification of public document under Article 171, 1 and 2, of the Revised
Penal Code, and for violation of Section 3(a) of Republic Act 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act).
As required by the court, the responded submitted his counter-affidavit where he denied in
the involvement of the same and insisted that Dy Quioyo had sought his opinion on Shirley's
petition for the annulment of her marriage giving advice on the pertinent laws involved and
the different grounds for the annulment of marriage; and that in June 2004, Dy Quioyo had
gone back to him to present a copy of what appeared to be a court decision having obtained
such in Recto Avenue in Manila thereby admitting to him said falsification.
Subsequently, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved, with modification, the
report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner by suspending the respondent
from the practice of law for six years and thereafter denied the respondent’s motion for
reconsideration. The IBP Board of Governors then forwarded the case to the Court in
accordance with Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr is guilty of grave misconduct for falsifying a
court decision in consideration of a sum of money

HELD:
Yes. Indeed, the respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for falsifying a court
decision in consideration of a sum of money. The respondent's main defense consisted in
blanket denial of the imputation. He insisted that he had had no hand in the falsification, and
claimed that the falsification had been the handiwork of Dy Quioyo. He implied that Dy
Quioyo had resorted to the shady characters in Recto Avenue in Manila to resolve the
problems he had encountered as an OFW, hinting that Dy Quioyo had a history of employing
unscrupulous means to achieve his ends.
However, the respondent's denial and his implication against Dy Quioyo in the illicit
generation of the falsified decision are not persuasive. Dy Quioyo's categorical declaration on
the respondent's personal responsibility for the falsified decision, which by nature was
positive evidence, was not overcome by the respondent's blanket denial, which by nature was
negative evidence.[23] Also, the imputation of wrongdoing against Dy Quioyo lacked credible
specifics and did not command credence. It is worthy to note, too, that the respondent filed
his counter-affidavit only after the Court, through the en banc resolution of May 10, 2005,
had required him to comment.[24] The belatedness of his response exposed his blanket
denial as nothing more than an afterthought.
In light of the established circumstances, the respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for
having authored the falsification of the decision in a non-existent court proceeding. Canon 7
of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that all lawyers should uphold at all times
the dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession. Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession." Lawyers are further required by Rule 1.01 of
 Karl Jason C. Josol P.A.L.E. CASE DIGESTS Pros. Edmund Turqueza Northwestern University Laoag College of Law

the Code of Professional Responsibility not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral
or deceitful conduct.
Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or fraudulent transactions
can justify a lawyer's disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.[25] Specifically, the
deliberate falsification of the court decision by the respondent was an act that reflected a
high degree of moral turpitude on his part. Worse, the act made a mockery of the
administration of justice in this country, given the purpose of the falsification, which was to
mislead a foreign tribunal on the personal status of a person. He thereby became unworthy of
continuing as a member of the Bar.
 Karl Jason C. Josol P.A.L.E. CASE DIGESTS Pros. Edmund Turqueza Northwestern University Laoag College of Law

EDUARDO B. MANALANG VS. ATTY. CRISTINA BENOSA BUENDIA, A.C. No. 12079, 11-10-20

FACTS:
Sometime in 2011, Manalang engaged the services of Atty. Buendia for the declaration
of nullity of his marriage which was agreed to cost ₱275,000.00 as legal fees. However,
Manalang later learned that Atty. Salazar was actually the one handling his case and that said
case was filed in Ballesteros, Cagayan. Atty. Buendia explained that they will get results by
November 6, 2012 and promised that she will update Manalang within 15 days, but never did.
Manalang tried to contact Atty. Buendia from September 2012 to April 2013 but to no avail.
Then in April 15, 2013 that Atty. Buendia informed Manlanag that the annulment case was
finally resolved and the decision was already available and likewise demanded ₱ 50,000.00 for
NSO processing. However, Manalang observed that it contained fabricated details regarding his
marriage and noticed that the facts therein were different from what he had narrated which
made him doubt the veracity of the documents. Manalang then proceeded to Ballesteros,
Cagayan and there he learned that there was "absolutely no case filed for the dissolution of his
marriage" which prompted him to file a Complaint against Atty. Buendia before the IBP.
Atty Buendia responded that: a) she disavowed giving a copy of the decision; b) updated
Manalang of the status of his case, but only as relayed to her by Atty. Tabbu; c) denied
demanding an additional P50,000.00 for the registration of the nullity in the National Statistics
Office; d) averred that no payments accrued to her as the amount formed part of the payment
for Atty. Tabbu; e) asserted that Manalang long knew that a different lawyer was handling the
case. Subsequently the IBP Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Buendia violated Canon
1, Rule 1.01, and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04, of the CPR to which the IBP-BOG (Board of
Governors) adopted and recommended the same i.e. Atty. Buendia's disbarment for her "failure
to file a case of annulment of marriage despite receipt of acceptance fee from her client in the
amount of ₱ 270,000.00." and for her production of a spurious decision with certificate of
finality from the court." Atty. Buendia moved for reconsideration, but it was denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Atty. Buendia should be disbarred for her
misrepresentations and for deceiving her client.

HELD:
Yes. This Court will not hesitate to mete out the grave penalty of disbarment if a lawyer
is found guilty of misrepresentation and deception of his or her client. This Court's authority to
discipline the members of the legal profession arises from its constitutional prerogative to
regulate the practice of law. Moreover, the "power to discipline attorneys, who are officers of
the court, is an inherent and incidental power in courts of record, and one which is essential to
an orderly discharge of judicial functions. In this case, it is clear that respondent violated her
sworn duties under the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility when she
deliberately misled and deceived her client by fabricating a court decision. Verily, respondent
handled the case of complainant. Her denials, assertions, and inconsistencies failed to support
her case and overcome the substantial evidence presented against her which shows how she
failed to uphold the duties required from a lawyer. Respondent was dishonest in the
performance of her duties and in dealing with her client. She claims that she took care of the
client's case when, in truth, she never acted on it. Worse, she deceived the client by saying that
his nullity case was already resolved, handing him a fabricated decision and Certificate of
 Karl Jason C. Josol P.A.L.E. CASE DIGESTS Pros. Edmund Turqueza Northwestern University Laoag College of Law

Finality. Clearly, she was the lawyer of the complainant and her excuse of being an innocent
intermediary appears to be a mere afterthought.
Furthermore, respondent was negligent in handling the client's case. In many instances,
she deliberately failed to update complainant with the status of the case despite complainant's
calls and text messages. She even asked that complainant put his trust and confidence in her
despite knowing that the nullity case was never filed. Thus, the respondent must return the
total amount of ₱270,000.00 paid by the complainant. For her failure to uphold the standards
required in the legal profession, respondent no longer deserves to be a member of the bar. Not
only did she fail to observe the duties of competence and diligence required from lawyers, she
also continuously deceived her client in utter disregard of the duties and obligations required
from a member of the legal profession.