Tan vs.

Sabandal

FACTS:

Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations. He was not allowed to take the Lawyer’s
Oath because of pending administrative complaints filed against him regarding instances when he
called himself “attorney” knowing full well that he was not yet admitted to the Bar. Evidence sufficiently
show that respondent had held himself out as an attorney in the agrarian, civil and criminal cases and he
was paid for his “legal services”
He then filed a petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar and to be allowed to sign the Roll
of Attorneys. In a resolution promulgated on November 29, 1983 respondent petition was denied.
Respondent asks for forgiveness, understanding and benevolence and promises that, if given a chance
to be a member of the Bar, he would always be faithful to the lawyer’s oath and conduct himself in an
upright manner.

Issue:

Whether or not Sabandal should be allowed to practice law

HELD:

No.

The practice of law is not a matter of right. It is a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are
not only learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral character. The Supreme
Court and the Philippine Bar have always tried to maintain a high standard for the legal profession, both
in academic preparation and legal training as well as in honesty and fair dealing. The Court and the
licensed lawyers themselves are vitally interested in keeping this high standard; and one of the ways of
achieving this end is to admit to the practice of this noble profession only those persons who are known
to be honest and to possess good moral character. Although the term "good moral character" admits of
broad dimensions, it has been defined as "including at least common honesty”. It has also been held
that no moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness or candor

The court ruled that in the development of the case, they find Sabandal to have concealed the
civil case brought against him in the course of his series of petitions to be allowed to take oath together
with the testimonies attesting to his good moral character without any mention of the pending case
against him. The court finds this as manipulative and gross dishonesty on the part of the respondent.
Although there were testimonials on his good moral characters those were made without any
knowledge of the case against him. The commission of his offense itself is devoid of honesty. With the
practice of law a matter of privilege and not as a right, they find respondent unfit to be a member of the
law profession therefore it recalled the court resolution of allowing the respondent to take oath. 
Case # 30: Cynthia Advincula v. Atty. Ernesto M. Macabata (A.C. No. 7204 )

Facts:

Cynthia Advincula filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Ernesto Macabata, charging the
latter with grossly immoral conduct. Advincula sought legal advice from the latter about the
possibility of filing a complaint against Queensway Travel and Tours for not settling their
accounts as demanded.

Atty. Macabata offered Advincula a ride on two ocassions. On February 10, 2005, he sent
Advincula home and gave her a kiss on the cheek and embraced her very tightly. On March
2005, Atty. Macabata allegedly kissed Advincula forcefully while his other hand was holding her
breast.

The two texted each other after the said incident, which were used by Advincula as the
evidence of guilt against the latter.

Atty. Macabata admitted that he kissed Advincula on two ocassions because Advincula offered
her lips to him. He also argued that the corner of Cooper Street and Roosevelt Avenue in
Quezon City, where he dropped her off was a busy street, makes it impossible to commit the
acts imputed to him.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Macabata committed grossly immoral acts that would warrant his
disbarment or suspension from the practice of law

Ruling:

No, the acts of Atty. Macabata would not suffice to warrant a disbarment or suspension from the
practice of law. The term "grossly immoral" is referred to acts, (1) so corrupt as to constitute a
criminal act or; (2) so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or; (3) committed
under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.

Although Atty. Macabata had admittedly kissed Advincula, it is not sufficient as to warrant a
grossly immoral act. Also, Advincula failed to present substantial evidence against Atty.
Macabata, proving the latter showed grossly immoral conduct.

However, the Court found Atty. Macabata guilty of an isolated act of misconduct of a lesser
nature. Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides 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.

Wherefore, the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Macabata is hereby dismissed. However,
he is hereby reprimanded to be more prudent and cautious in his dealing with his clients with a
stern warning that a more severe sanction will be imposed on him for any repetition of the same
or similar offense in the future.
ATTY. REYES v. ATTY. CHIONG JR.
(A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003)

FACTS:
Complainant Atty. Reyes filed a case for disbarment against respondent Atty Chiong because of
the latter’s violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility dealing with
the idea that lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity and civility. Chiong’s client did not
appear upon the court when Prosecutor Salonga issued a subpoena for their preliminary
investigation, the Prosecutor filed a criminal complaint for estafa against said client. After which
Chiong made an urgent motion to quash the warrant concomitant with his filing for a civil
complaint and collection for a sum of money and damages against Atty. Reyes, Xu (the
complainant’s client) and the Prosecutor. Upon their confrontation, no settlement was reached.
Chiong argues that there was no disrespect impleading Atty. Reyes as co-defendant in
Civil Case No. 4884 and no basis to conclude that the suit was groundless. He argues that he
impleaded the Prosecutor because the criminal investigation had irregularities due to the action of
the Prosecutor to file estafa case despite the pendency for his client’s motion for an opportunity to
submit counter affidavit and evidence.

ISSUE:
Did respondent violate Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
Yes, it was recommended by the IBP that defendant’s purpose of filing for the collection suit with
damages was to be able to obtain leverage against the estafa case of his client. Clearly there was
no need to implead complainant and Prosecutor Salonga because they never had any participation
in the business transactions between Pan and Xu, clearly it was for the mere harassment of the two.
Chiong was suspended for two (2) years from the practice of law and was implemented immediately.
Torres vs Javier

FACTS:

Atty. Ireneo L. Torres and Mrs. Natividad Celestino charged Atty. Jose Concepcion

Javier for malpractice, gross misconduct in office as an attorney and/or violation of the
lawyer’s oath for employing statements and remarks on his pleadings which are false,
unsubstantiated, with malicious imputation, abusive, offensive and improper with the
character of an attorney as a quasi-judicial officer.

Atty. Javier professes that he was angry while he was preparing his pleadings

considering that his wife was included to the burglary exposed in the present case. Also,
he invokes that those statements he made are privileged communication, it forming part
of a judicial proceeding.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Javier is administratively liable for the alleged offensive statements

he made in his pleadings

HELD:

It is well entrenched in Philippine jurisprudence that for reasons of public policy,

utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings, including all kinds of pleadings,
petitions and motions, are absolutely privileged so long as they are pertinent and
relevant to the subject inquiry, however false or malicious they may be. A matter,
however, to which the privilege does not extend must be so palpably wanting in relation
to the subject matter of the controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its
irrelevancy or impropriety. That matter alleged in a pleading need not be in every case
material to the issues presented by the pleadings. It must, however, be legitimately
related thereto, or so pertinent to the subject of the controversy that it may become the
subject of inquiry in the course of the trial.

Clearly, Atty. Javier’s primordial reason for the offensive remark stated in his pleadings
was his emotional reaction in view of the fact that herein Complainant was in a legal
dispute with his wife. This excuse cannot be sustained; that the Atty. Javier is
representing his wife is not at all an excuse.

In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer’s language must be dignified
and choice of language is important in the preparation of pleadings. In the assertion of
his client’s rights, a lawyer — even one gifted with superior intellect — is enjoined to rein
up his temper.

Thus, the inclusion of the derogatory statements by respondent was actuated by his

giving vent to his ill-feelings towards Atty. Torres, a purpose to which the mantle
of absolute immunity does not extend
Barandos vs Ferrer

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. for filing a reply with opposition to motion to dismiss that contained abusive,
offensive and improper language which insinuated that Atty. Barandon presented a
falsified document in court. The said document purported to be a notarized document
executed at a date when Atty. Barandon was not yet a lawyer.

Moreover, on December 19, 2000, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened Atty.
Barandon saying, “Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng
pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte, angabogadonarito
ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwina kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito” at
the Municipal Trial Court in Daet before the start of a hearing.

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 that Atty. Barandon filed
against him. On June 29, 2002 the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution adopting
and approving the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation but reduced the
penalty of suspension to only one year.

Issue: RESPONDENT GUILTY OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM AND IF THE

PENALTY IMPOSED WAS JUSTIFIED?

Ruling:

No, 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.

Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence shows that he
imputed to Atty. Barandon the falsification of an affidavit without evidence that the
document had indeed been falsified. 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. The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified
language in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal system.
Belo Case
Facts:

Complainant is the Medical Director and principal stockholder of the Belo Medical
Group, Inc. On the other hand, respondent is the lawyer of a certain Ms. Josefina
"Josie" Norcio, who filed criminal cases against complainant for an allegedly botched
surgical procedure on her buttocks in 2002 and 2005, purportedly causing infection and
making her ill in 2009.

In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on his Facebook account, a popular online
social networking site, insulting and verbally abusing complainant.

The complaint further alleged that respondent posted remarks on his Facebook account
that were intended to destroy and ruin BMGI's medical personnel, as well as the entire
medical practice of around 300 employees for no fair or justifiable cause.

Moreover, respondent, through his Facebook account, posted remarks that allegedly
threatened complainant with criminal conviction, without factual basis and without proof.

Finally, complainant averred that the attacks against her were made with the object to
extort money from her, as apparent from the following reply made by respondent on a
comment on his Facebook post.

Asserting that the said posts, written in vulgar and obscene language, were designed to
inspire public hatred, destroy her reputation, and to close BMGI and all its clinics, as
well as to extort the amount of P200 Million from her as evident from his demand
letter dated August 26, 2009, complainant lodged the instant complaint for disbarment
against respondent.

Issue: The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not respondent should be
held administratively liable based on the allegations of the verified complaint.

Ruling:

Yes respondent's inappropriate and obscene language, and his act of publicly insulting
and undermining the reputation of complainant through the subject Facebook posts are,
therefore, in complete and utter violation of the following provisions in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at
complainant and BMGI, respondent disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound
to observe proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or private life. He overlooked
the fact that he must behave in a manner befitting of an officer of the court, that is,
respectful, firm, and decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and rudely; he used
words unbecoming of an officer of the law, and conducted himself in an aggressive way
by hurling insults and maligning complainant's and BMGI's reputation.
Facts:
In an Information filed on March 4, 1981, the City Fiscal's Office of Cebu City accused Atty. Raul H.
Sesbreno of the crime of libel based on alleged defamatory statements found in a pleading now pending
litigation. 2. On March 5, 1981, the accused filed a motion to quash. The main thrust of the motion is
that on the face itself of the information, it is obvious that the allegedly libelous statements imputing
that Atty. Ramon B. Ceniza is an irresponsible person, cannot be trusted, like Judas, a liar and
irresponsible childish prankster are contained in a pleading filed in court and, therefore, covered by the
Doctrine of Privileged Communications; hence, no civil or criminal liability can arise therefrom.

Issue: W/N the acts of the counsel violated the standard set out in the CPR?

Ruling:

NO,

Clients, not lawyers, are the litigants. Whatever may be the ill-feeling existing between clients, it
should not be allowed to influence counsel in their conduct and demeanor toward each other or
toward suitors in the case. All personalities between counsel should be scrupulously avoided. In the
trial of a case it is indecent to allude to the personal history or the personal peculiarities and
Idiosyncracies of counsel on the other side. Personal colloquies between counsel which cause delay
and promote unseemly wrangling should also be carefully avoided (Canon 17, Canons of
Professional Ethics). Lawyers owe respect not only to the courts and their clients, but also to other
members of the Bar.

In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language should likewise be dignified
(In re Climaco, 55 SCRA 107, 121). Choice of language is a very important requirement in the
preparation of pleadings (Rule 8, Sec. 1; Rule 9, Sec. 5; Rule 7 Sec. 5, Revised Rules of Court).
Appropriately, in the assertion of their client's rights, lawyers — even those gifted with superior
intellect — are enjoined to rein up their tempers. Greater care and circumspetion must be exercised
in the preparation of their pleadings and to refrain from using abrasive and offensive language