Cheryl E. Vasco-Tamaray, Complainant, v. Atty. Deborah Z.

Daquis, Respondent
A.C. No 10868, 26 January 2016

Facts:
    Complainant filed a complaint affidavit before the IBP on 30 July 2007, alleging the
respondent filed, on her behalf, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage without
her consent and forged her signature on the Petition. She also alleged that the
respondent signed the said Petition as “Counsel for the Petitioner.” referring to the
complainant. The complainant stated the respondent was not her counsel but that of her
husband, Leomarte Regala Tamaray.

Issue:
    Whether or not the respondent violated the canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).

Held:
    By pretending to be the counsel of the complainant, the respondent violated Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR. For allowing the use of petition with the forged signature of
the complainant, the respondent violated Rule 7.03, Canon 7 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10
of the CPR.

    Other acts of the respondent that violated Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the CPR are as
follows: engaging in a scuffle inside court chambers; openly doubting paternity of the
complainant’s son; hurling incentives at a Clerk of Court; harassing occupants of a
property; using intemperate language; and engaging in an extramarital affair.

    The Supreme Court fin the respondent guilty of violating the following provisions of
the CPR: Rule 1.01, Canon 1; Rule 7.03, Canon 7; Rule 10.01, Canon 10; and Canon
17. Violation against Rule 15.03, Canon 15 by the respondent was dismissed. The
respondent was disbarred and her name removed from the Roll of Attorneys.
 A-1 Financial Services, Inc. v. Valerio
A.C. No. 8390, July 2, 2010.
Peralta, J.

FACTS:
A-1 Financial Services, Inc., a financing corporation, granted the loan application of
Atty. Laarni Valerio amounting to P50,000.00. To secure the payment of the loan
obligation, respondent issued a postdated check, dated April 1, 2002, with the amount
of P50,000.00. However, upon presentation at the bank for payment on its maturity
date, the check was dishonored due to insufficient funds. As of the filing of the instant
case, despite repeated demands to pay her obligation, respondent failed to pay the
whole amount of her obligation.
ISSUE:
WON a disciplinary action must be taken upon.
RULING:
Yes. Atty. Valerio, respondent, is guilty of gross misconduct and in violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility Canon 1 because, aside from issuing worthless checks
and failing to pay her debts, she has also shown wanton disregard of the IBP’s and
Court Orders in the course of the proceedings.
 ARCATOMY S. GUARIN, Complainant, vs. ATTY. CHRISTINE A.C. LIMPIN,
Respondent. A.C. No. 10576; January 14, 2015

FACTS
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Arcatomy S. Guarin against Atty. Christine
Antenor-Cruz Limpin for allegedly filing a false General Information Sheet (GIS) with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The complainant averred that Atty. Limpin
listed him as the Chairman of the Board of Directors (BOD) and President of Legacy
Card, Inc. (LCI), when she knew that he had already resigned and had never held any
share nor was he elected as chairperson of the BOD or had been President of LCI. The
respondent admitted that she filed the GIS with SEC listing Guarin as stockholder, the
Chairman of the BOD and President of LCI. But she contended that she made it with
good faith. The IBP found Atty. Limpin violated Rules 1.02 and 1.01 of Canon of the
CPR. It was found that only de los Angeles had the authority to appoint directors of the
company. Atty. Limpin was aware that this procedures was not legally permissible.
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. Limpin violated Rules 1.02 and 1.01 of Canon of the CPR.
RULING:
Yes. There was no evidence to support the allegation that Guarin was in fact a
stockholder. Also, Atty. Limpin’s defense of good faith is untenable because in the
certification, it contained a stipulation that she made a due verification of the statement
contained therein. Hence, Atty. Limpin committed an infraction which did not conform to
her oath as a lawyer in accord with Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR. Further, she
violated Rule 1.02 of the CPR in allowing herself to be swayed by the illegal business
practice of Mr. de los Reyes, wherein he appoints the members of the BOD and officers
of the corporation despite the rules enunciated in the Corporation Code with respect to
the election of such officers.

WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Christine A.C. Limpin GUILTY of violation of

Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent Atty. Christine A.C. Limpin from the practice of
law for SIX (6) MONTHS effective upon finality of this Decision, with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
 Abella vs. Barrios, Jr., A.C. No. 7332, June 18, 2013

FACTS:

Complainant obtained a favorable judgment from the Court of Appeals involving a Labor Case.
Complainant then filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution before the Regional
Arbitration Branch which the respondent was the Labor Arbiter. After the lapse of five (5)
months, complainant’s motion remained unacted, prompting him to file a Second Motion for
Execution. However, still, there was no action until the complainant agreed to give respondent a
portion of the monetary award thereof after the latter asked from the former how much would be
his share. Thereafter, respondent issued a writ of execution but the employer of the complainant
moved to quash the said writ. Eventually, issued a new writ of execution wherein complainant’s
monetary awards were reduced to the effect that it modifies the DECISION of the CA.
Complainant now filed the instant disbarment complaint before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), averring that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility for
(a) soliciting money from complainant in exchange for a favorable resolution; and (b) issuing a
wrong decision to give benefit and advantage to PT&T, complainant’s employer.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality for his violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.03,
Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code.

HELD:

YES. The above-cited rules, which are contained under Chapter 1 of the Code, delineate the
lawyer’s responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the overriding prohibition against lawyers
from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct; Rule 1.03 proscribes
lawyers from encouraging any suit or proceeding or delaying any man’s cause for any corrupt
motive or interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to lawyers in government
service, enjoining them from using one’s public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2)
advance private interests; or (3) allow private interests to interfere with public duties. It is well to
note that a lawyer who holds a government office may be disciplined as a member of the Bar
only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. The infractions of
the respondent constitute gross misconduct. Jurisprudence illumines that immoral conduct
involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the
opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community. It treads the line of
grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the community’s senseof decency. On the other hand, gross
misconduct constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a
wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment." In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court states that when a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct or gross
 misconduct, hemay be suspended or disbarred.However, the Court takes judicial notice of the
fact that he had already been disbarred in a previous administrative case, entitled Sps. Rafols,
Jr. v. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr., which therefore precludes theCourt from duplicitously decreeing
the same. In view of the foregoing, the Courtdeems it proper to, instead, impose a fine in the
amount of P40,000.00 in order to penalize respondent’s transgressions as discussed herein and
to equally deter the commission of the same or similar acts in the future.
 Barrios vs Martinez
Slide number 2
https://www.slideshare.net/homeworkping3/146810941-legalethicscasedigest120docx