helped Garrido build a home for the
3. Garrido v. Garrido
A.C. No. 6593, 4 February 2010
FACTS:
Maelotisea Sipin Garrido (COMPLAINANT) filed a
complaint-affidavit for disbarment against the
respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido (Atty.
Garrido) and Atty. Romana P.Valencia (Atty.
Valencia) before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Committee on Discipline
charging them with gross immorality.
Complainant alleges that she is the legal wife of
Atty. Garrido; they have 6 children and he left
their conjugal home to cohabit with Atty.
Valencia with whom he has 1 child. Because of
this, she and her children had suffered financial
constraints and mental anguish because of the
immoral acts of the respondents.
Atty. Garrido denied these charges. He said all
of his marriages and misdeeds happened before
his admission to the bar. (Same with Valencia.)
He said the complainant was not his legal wife
because he had previously been married before
he married her. That after his first wife died, he
and the complainant cohabited but later parted
ways and that's when he had a relationship with
Atty. Valencia. That he had been supporting his
second family and children because all of his
children graduated college. That the
complainant is not a proper party to this case
because she is not the legal wife (bigamous
marriage between Garrido and complainant.)
Garrido also raised as a defense that the
accusation against him for gross immorality had
been prescribed under the IBP rules. (wala na gi
expound.)
NOTE: A decision from a lower court was
adduced as a defense by Garrido wherein his
bigamous marriage with the complainant was
declared VOID. Hence, his defense is that the
complainant had no cause of action against him
because she wasn’t his legal wife to begin with.
Atty. Valencia claimed that the complainant
knew of her relationship with Atty. Garrido and
she had maintained her silence. She even
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 1
complainants family. That because of her
silence, she has no cause of action.
NOTE: Complainant filed an affidavit of
desistance because she wanted the case to be
dismissed out of compassion for the
respondents.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
recommended disbarment for Garrido and the
case against Valencia dismissed for lack of
merit.
Atty. Garrido now seeks relief with this Court
through the present petition for review. He
submits that under the circumstances, he did
not commit any gross immorality that would
warrant his disbarment. He also argues that the
offenses charged have prescribed under the IBP
rules.
ISSUE:
WON to disbar the respondents.
RULING:
Yes. Disbarment against Garrido and Valencia.
ON THE DEFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION AND
DOUBLE JEOPARDY: Laws dealing with double
jeopardy or with procedure – such as the
verification of pleadings and prejudicial
questions, or in this case, prescription of
offenses or the filing of affidavits of desistance
by the complainant – do not apply in the
determination of a lawyer’s qualifications and
fitness for membership in the Bar.
ACTS BEFORE ADMISSION TO THE BAR:
Article VIII Section 5(5) of the Constitution
recognizes the disciplinary authority of the
Court over the members of the Bar to be merely
incidental to the Court's exclusive power to
admit applicants to the practice of law. Section
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which
expressly states that a member of the bar may
be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for, among
others, any deceit, grossly immoral conduct, or
violation of the oath that he is required to take
before admission to the practice of law. It is not
important that the acts complained of were
committed before Atty. Garrido was admitted to
the practice of law. As we explained in Zaguirre
v. Castillo, the possession of good moral
character is both a condition precedent and a
continuing requirement to warrant admission to
the bar and to retain membership in the legal
profession.
EFFECT OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF
DESISTANCE: The complainant in a Second,
disbarment case is not a direct party whose
interest in the outcome of the charge is wholly
his or her own; effectively, his or her
participation is that of a witness who brought
the matter to the attention of the Court.
Maelotisea’s affidavit of desistance cannot have
the effect of discontinuing or abating the
disbarment proceedings. Maelotisea is more of
a witness than a complainant in these
proceedings. Her affidavits of withdrawal only
after she had presented her evidence; her
evidence are now available for the Court’s
examination and consideration, and their merits
are not affected by her desistance. Mealotisea
filed her affidavit of desistance, not to disown or
refute the evidence she had submitted, but
solely becuase of compassion.
FOR ATTY. GARRIDO: He violated ethical rules
of the profession, specifically, Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which
commands that he "shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct"; Canon 7 of the same Code, which
demands that "[a] lawyer shall at all times
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession"; Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides that,
"[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."
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.
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 2
Immoral conduct is gross 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
sense of decency.
Admissions of Atty. Garrido established a
pattern of gross immoral conduct that warrants
his disbarment. First, he admitted that he left
his first wife and had romantic relationships with
other women because he was studying law.
He married the complainant
notwithstanding subsistence of his first
marriage. Third, he engaged in an extramarital
affair with Valencia while his two marriages
were still in place. Sixth, he knew his succeeding
marriages were not valid and misused his legal
knowledge knowing that his marriage with the
complainant was VOID from the outset because
it was bigamous. Seventh, he married Valencia
in Hongkong in an attempt to accord legitimacy
to their union while he had another marriage in
place in the philippines. Eighth, he admitted he
had two families, one with a complainant and
another with Valencia and he had children with
both women for a period of 10 years.
As a lawyer, he violated his lawyer’s oath,
Section 20(a) of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,
and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, all of which commonly require
him to obey the laws of the land. In marrying
Maelotisea, he committed the crime of bigamy,
as he entered this second marriage while his
first marriage with Constancia was subsisting.
He openly admitted his bigamy when he filed his
petition to nullify his marriage to Maelotisea.
FOR ATTY. VALENCIA: violated Canon 7 and
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, as her behavior demeaned the
dignity of and discredited the legal profession.
She simply failed in her duty as a lawyer to
adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of
morality. In Barrientos v. Daarol, we held that
lawyers, as officers of the court, must not only
be of good moral character but must also be
seen to be of good moral character and must
lead lives in accordance with the highest moral
standards of the community. Atty. Valencia
failed to live up to these standards before she
was admitted to the bar and after she became a
member of the legal profession.
Atty. Valencia already knew that Atty. Garrido
was a married man (either to Constancia or to
Maelotisea), and that he already had a family.
As Atty. Garrido’s admitted confidante, she was
under the moral duty to give him proper advice;
instead, she entered into a romantic relationship
with him for about six (6) years during the
subsistence of his two marriages. In 1978, she
married Atty. Garrido with the knowledge that
he had an outstanding second marriage. These
circumstances, to our mind, support the
conclusion that she lacked good moral
character. Atty. Valencia contends that Atty.
Garrido’s marriage with Maelotisea was null and
void but she should have said no to Atty.
Garrido from the very start because in fact he is
a twice-married man with both marriages
subsisting at that time. The records show that
Atty. Valencia consented to be married in
Hongkong, not within the country. Given that
this marriage transpired before the declaration
of the nullity of Atty. Garrido’s second marriage,
we can only call this Hongkong marriage a
clandestine marriage, contrary to the Filipino
tradition of celebrating a marriage together with
family. Atty. Valencia afterwards opted to retain
and use her surname instead of using the
surname of her "husband." Atty. Valencia, too,
did not appear to mind that her husband did not
live and cohabit with her under one roof, but
with his second wife and the family of this
marriage.
CONCLUSION
Membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened
with conditions. As a privilege bestowed by law
through the Supreme Court, membership in the
Bar can be withdrawn where circumstances
concretely show the lawyer’s lack of the
essential qualifications required of lawyers.
The totality of the evidence on hand that the
present case is one of them. The records show
the parties’ pattern of grave and immoral
misconduct that demonstrates their lack of
mental and emotional fitness and moral
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 3
character to qualify them for the responsibilities
and duties imposed on lawyers as professionals
and as officers of the court.
FALLO
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court
resolves to:
(1) DISBAR Atty. Angel E. Garrido from the
practice of law for gross immorality, violation of
the Lawyer’s Oath; and violation of Rule 1.01,
Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility; and
(2) DISBAR Atty. Romana P. Valencia from the
practice of law for gross immorality, violation of
Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
4. Heenan v. Espejo
A.C. No. 10050, 3 December 2013
Doctrine:
A lawyer may be disciplined not only for
malpractice and dishonesty in his profession but
also for gross misconduct outside of his
professional capacity. While the Court may not
ordinarily discipline a lawyer for misconduct
committed in his non- professional or private
capacity, the Court may be justified in
suspending or removing him as an attorney
where his misconduct outside of the lawyer's
professional dealings is so gross in character as
to show him morally unfit and unworthy of the
privilege which his licenses and the law confers.
FACTS:
Atty. Erlinda Espejo borrowed money from
Victoria Heenan through the latter’s godmother
Corazon. Victoria went to the house of Corazon
for a meeting with Atty. Espejo where they
discussed the terms of the loan. Since Atty.
Espejo was introduced to her as her
godmother's lawyer, Victoria found no reason to
distrust the former thus Victoria agreed to
accommodate Espejo.To secure the payment of
the loan, Atty. Espejo simultaneously issued and
turned over to Victoria a c h e c k 1 dated
February 2, 2009 for two hundred seventy-five
thousand pesos (PhP275,000) covering the loan
amount and agreed interest.
Atty. Espejo requested Victoria to delay the
deposit of the check for the reason that she was
still waiting for the release of the proceeds of a
bank loan to fund the check. She did not
however, receive any words from the Atty.
Atty. Espejo subsequently issued another two
check (50,000 and 275,000) which were also
dishonored. This prompted Victoria to file a case
of BP 22 against Atty. Espejo. But, the Atty.
disregarded the notices and subpoenas issued
by the prosecutor’s office and never heeded to
the continuous demands of Victoria.
Victoria, thereafter also filed an administrative
case against Atty. Espejo in the CBD.
The CBD, through Director for Bar Discipline
Alicia A. Risos-Vidal, issued an Order directing
Atty. Espejo to submit her Answer to Victoria's
administrative complaint failing which would
render her in default. The warning,
notwithstanding, Atty. Espejo did not submit
any Answer.
On May 5, 2010, IBP Commissioner Rebecca
Villanueva-Malala (Commissioner Villanueva-
Malala) notified the parties to appear for a
mandatory conference set on June 2, 2010. The
notice stated that non-appearance of either of
the parties shall be deemed a waiver of her right
to participate in further proceedings
IBP recommended the suspension of Atty.
Espejo for a period of 5 years, and eventually
lowered it down to 2 years.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Espejo should be suspended from
practice of law by virtue of violation of Canon 1
of the CPR.
RULING:
Yes.
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 4
Atty. Espejo did not deny obtaining a loan from
Victoria or traverse allegations that she issued
unfunded checks to pay her obligation. It has
already been settled that the deliberate failure
to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless
checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a
lawyer may be sanctioned.Verily, lawyers must
at all times faithfully perform their duties to
society, to the bar, to the courts and to their
clients. In Tomlin II v. Moya II, We explained
that the prompt payment of financial obligations
is one of the duties of a lawyer
The fact that Atty. Espejo obtained the loan and
issued the worthless checks in her private
capacity and not as an attorney of Victoria is of
no moment. As We have held in several cases,
a lawyer may be disciplined not only for
malpractice and dishonesty in his profession but
also for gross misconduct outside of his
professional capacity. While the Court may not
ordinarily discipline a lawyer for misconduct
committed in his non- professional or private
capacity, the Court may be justified in
suspending or removing him as an attorney
where his misconduct outside of the lawyer's
professional dealings is so gross in character as
to show him morally unfit and unworthy of the
privilege which his licenses and the law confer.
Further, the misconduct of Atty. Espejo is
aggravated by her unjustified refusal to obey
the orders of the IBP directing her to file an
answer to the complaint of Victoria and to
appear at the scheduled mandatory conference.
This constitutes blatant disrespect for the IBP
which amounts to conduct unbecoming a
lawyer. In Almendarez, Jr. v. Langit, We held
that a lawyer must maintain respect not only for
the courts, but also for judicial officers and other
duly constituted authorities, including the IBP:
Undoubtedly, Atty. Espejo's issuance of
worthless checks and her blatant refusal to heed
the directives of the Quezon City Prosecutor's
Office and the IBP contravene Canon 1, Rule
1.01; Canon 7, Rule 7.03; and Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provide:
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.
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 re ects on his tness
to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.
CANON 11 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND
MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS
AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICES AND SHOULD
INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
We find the penalty of suspension from the
practice of law for two (2) years, as
recommended by the IBP, commensurate under
the circumstances. D
Fallo:
WHEREFORE, We find Atty. Erlinda B. Espejo
GUILTY of gross misconduct and of violating
Canons 1, 7 and 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. We SUSPEND respondent from
the practice of law for two (2) years, effective
immediately.
5. Perez v. Catindig
A.C. No. 5816, 10 March 2015
FACTS:
1. Dr. Perez and Atty. Catindig had been friends
when they were both students at UP, but lost
touch after their graduation. Later in 1983, their
paths crossed and Atty. Catindig courted Dr.
Perez.
2. Catindig admitted to Perez that he was
already wed to Lily Gomez (Gomez), in 1968 at
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 5
a Methodist Church in Ermita, Manila, and a
Catholic wedding in Quezon City, with 4
children. However, he was in the process of
obtaining a divorce in a foreign country to
dissolve his marriage to Gomez, and that he
would eventually marry Perez once the divorce
had been decreed.
3. In 1984, Catindig and Gomez obtained a
divorce decree from the Dominican Republic.
Catindig assured that the said divorce decree
was lawful and valid.
4. On July 14, 1984, Catindig married Perez in
Virginia, USA. Thay had a son.
5. Years later, Dr. Perez came to know that her
marriage to Catindig is a nullity since the
divorce decree obtained from the Dominican
Republic is not recognized by Philippine laws.
6. When she confronted Atty. Catindig about it,
the latter promised to obtain a declaration of
nullity of his marriage to Gomez and legally
adopt their son.
7. In 2001, Perez received an anonymous letter
in the mail informing her of Atty. Catindig's
scandalous affair with Atty. Baydo, and
sometime later came upon a love letter written
and signed by Catindig, professing his love to
Baydo, promising to marry her once his
impediment is removed.
8. On October 31, 2001, Atty. Catindig
abandoned Dr. Perez and their son.
9. Hence a complaint for disbarment was filed
by Perez against Attys. TRISTAN A. CATINDIG
and KAREN E. BAYDO
->Atty. Catindig claimed that Dr. Perez knew of
the fact that the divorce decreed by the
Dominican Republic court does not have any
effect in the Philippines. Notwithstanding, Perez
demanded that he marry her. He denied that
Atty. Baydo was the reason that he left Dr.
Perez. Atty. Baydo did not reciprocate and in
fact rejected him.
->For her part, Atty. Baydo denied that she had
an affair with Atty. Catindig. She claimed she
rejected Atty. Catindig's romantic overtures
since he was married and that he was too old
for her. She said that despite being turned
down, Atty. Catindig still pursued her, which
was the reason why she resigned from his law
firm.
Findings of the IBP Investigating Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful,
Commissioner flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral
Recommended the disbarment of Atty. Catindig indifference to the opinion of the upright and
while the charge against Atty. Baydo be respectable members of the community.
dismissed for dearth of evidence.
Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt
Findings of the IBP Board of Governors
as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled
Approved the recommendation of the
as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when
Investigating Commissioner.Atty. Catindig
committed under such scandalous or revolting
sought a reconsideration, but it was denied.
circumstances as to shock the community's
sense of decency.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent Attys. Catindig and The Court makes these distinctions, as the
Baydo committed gross immorality, which supreme penalty of disbarment arising
would warrant their disbarment. from conduct requires grossly immoral, not
RULING: simply immoral, conduct.

The Court agrees with the recommendations of Contracting a marriage during the
the IBP. subsistence of a previous one amounts to a
grossly immoral conduct.
The Code of Professional Responsibility
provides: Atty. Catindig was validly married to
Gomez twice. Curiously, 15 years into his first
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer marriage and four children after, Atty. Catindig
shall not engage in unlawful, claimed that his first marriage was then already
dishonest, immoral or falling apart due to Gomez' serious intimacy
deceitful conduct. problems.

Canon 7 — A lawyer Atty. Catindig was so enchanted with Dr. Perez

shall at all times uphold the that a year after pursuing her, Catindig had a de
integrity and dignity of the facto separation from Gomez, dissolved their
legal profession and support CPG, obtained a divorce decree from a court in
the activities of the the Dominican Republic, and married Dr. Perez
Integrated Bar. in the USA all in the same year.

Rule 7.03 — A lawyer Atty. Catindig knew that the divorce decree he
shall not engage in conduct obtained from the court in the Dominican
that adversely reflects on his Republic was not recognized in our jurisdiction
fitness to practice law, nor as he and Gomez were both Filipino citizens at
should he, whether in public that time. Notwithstanding, he still married Dr.
or private life, behave in a Perez. This is a blatant and purposeful
scandalous manner to the disregard of our laws on marriage.
discredit of the legal
profession. Catindig married Dr. Perez in the USA
for the added security of avoiding any charge of
Section 27, Rule 138 bigamy by entering into the subsequent
of the Rules of Court provides marriage outside Philippine jurisdiction.
that a lawyer may be
removed or suspended from Further, after 17 years of cohabiting
the practice of law, inter with Dr. Perez, Atty. Catindig left her and their
alia,for grossly immoral son. It was only at that time that he finally
conduct. decided to properly seek the nullity of his first
marriage to Gomez. Apparently, he was then

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 6

already entranced with the much younger Atty.
Baydo.
While the fact that Atty. Catindig
decided to separate from Dr. Perez to pursue
Atty. Baydo, in itself, cannot be considered a
grossly immoral conduct, such fact forms part
of the pattern showing his propensity
towards immoral conduct. Lest it be
misunderstood, the Court's finding of gross
immoral conduct is hinged not on Atty.
Catindig's desertion of Dr. Perez, but on his
contracting of a subsequent marriage during the
subsistence of his previous marriage to Gomez.
HSEIA
TAtty. Catindig made a mockery out of
the institution of marriage. Catindig's
subsequent marriage during the subsistence of
his previous one definitely manifests a
deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage
and the marital vows protected by the
Constitution and affirmed by our laws.
There is insufficient evidence to prove the
affair between the respondents.
The presentation of the anonymous
letter does not prove the veracity of the
allegations therein. Similarly, the supposed love
letter, if at all, only proves that Atty. Catindig
wrote Atty. Baydo a love letter. It does not
prove that Atty. Baydo is indeed in a
relationship with Atty. Catindig.
Atty. Tristan A. Catindig is found
GUILTY of gross immorality and of violating the
Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of
law.
The charge of gross immorality against
Atty. Karen E. Baydo is hereby DISMISSED for
lack of evidence.
6. Vasco-Tamaray v. Daquis
A.C. No. 10868, 26 January 2016
FACTS:
Complainant filed a Complaint-Affidavit before
the IBP, alleging that respondent Atty. Daquis
filed, on her behalf, a Petition for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage without her consent and
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 7
forged her signature on the Petition. She also
alleged that Atty. Daquis signed the Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage as "counsel for
petitioner," referring to Vasco-Tamaray.
Complainant stated that Atty. Daquis was not
her counsel but that of her husband. To support
her allegation, she attached the affidavit of
Marites Guerrero. The Affidavit states that:
1. It was complainant’s husband,
Leomarte, who introduced us
(complainant and I) to Atty. Daquis as
his lawyer.
2. Leomarte told Cheryl (complainant) that
the reason for that meeting and the
presence of Atty. Daquis was because
he had decided to file a case to annul
his marriage with Cheryl.
3. Atty. Daquis convinced Cheryl not to
oppose Leomarte’s decision to have
their marriage annulled.
Complainant stated that when she obtained a
copy of the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage, it appeared therein that such was
allegedly signed and filed by her. Complainant
states that she did not file the Petition, that her
signature was forged by Atty. Daquis, and that
her purported community tax certi ficate
appearing on the jurat was not hers because she
never resided in Muntinlupa City. She further
alleged that she had never received any court
process.
Atty. Daquis filed an Answer countering that her
client was indeed complainant vasco-Tamaray
and not complainant’s husband.
CBD recommended the dismissal of the
Complaint because Vasco-Tamaray failed to
prove her allegations. Complainant should have
questioned the Petition or informed the
prosecutor that she never filed any petition.
IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved
the Report and Recommendation of the CBD.
ISSUE:
1. WON respondent may be held liable for
pretending to be counsel for
complainant.
 2. WON respondent can be held liable
when she allowed the use of a forged
signature on a petition she prepared
and notarized.
3. WON respondent can be held liable for
failure to protect the interests of her
(real) client, Leomarte (husband of
complainant Vasco-Tamaray).
4. WON respondent violated Canon 15,
Rule 15.03 when she entered her
appearance as counsel for complainant
even though she was engaged as
counsel by Leomarte.
RULING:
1. YES. By pretending to be counsel for
complainant, respondent violated Canon 1, Rule
1.01 of the CPR and failed to uphold her duty of
doing no falsehood nor consent to the doing of
any falsehood in court as stated in the Lawyer’s
Oath.
Respondent merely denied complainant’s
allegations that she was Leomarte’s counsel and
was unable to rebut the other allegations
against her. She did not refute the statement in
Guerrero;s Affidavit that Leomarte introduced
her as his lawyer. There is no explanation how
she was referred to complainant or how they
were introduced.
It seems Leomarte Tamaray intended to le the
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.
However, respondent made it appear that
complainant, not her client Leomarte Tamaray,
was the petitioner. There is a probability that
respondent did not want Leomarte Tamaray to
be the petitioner because he would have to
admit that he entered into a bigamous
marriage, the admission of which may subject
him to criminal liability.
Complainant cannot be faulted for her failure to
inform the prosecutor that she did not file any
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
because during the meeting on March 5, 2007,
complainant had no knowledge that the Petition
was led in her name.
When respondent filed a Petition as counsel for
complainant when the truth was otherwise, she
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 8
committed a falsehood against the trial court
and complainant.
2. YES. Respondent violated Canon 7, Rule 7.03
and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 when she allowed the
use of a forged signature on a petition she
prepared and notarized.
The Petition for Nullity was signed by a certain
“CVasco”. In her Complaint-Affidavit against
respondent, complainant used a signature that
spelled out as CTamaray”. A comparison of the
signatures appearing on the Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and on
complainant's identi cation cards show a
difference in the stroke of the letters "c" and "o."
Hence, it seems that complainant's signature on
the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
was forged.
While there is no evidence to prove that
respondent forged complainant's signature, the
fact remains that respondent allowed a forged
signature to be used on a petition she prepared
and notarized. In doing so, respondent violated
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01.
Furthermore, allowing the use of a forged
signature on a petition led before a court is
tantamount to consenting to the commission of
a falsehood before courts, in violation of Canon
10.
3. YES. Respondent violated Canon 17 because
she failed to protect the interests of her client
when she represented complainant, who is the
opposing party of her client Leomarte Tamaray,
in the same case.
4. NO.
The rule prohibiting con ict of interest was
fashioned to prevent situations wherein a
lawyer would be representing a client whose
interest is directly adverse to any of his present
or former clients. The rule is grounded in the
fiduciary obligation of loyalty. It behooves
lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's
con dence, but also to avoid the appearance of
treachery and double-dealing, for only then can
litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets
to their lawyers, which is paramount in the
administration of justice. The nature of that
relationship is, therefore, one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree.
There is con flict of interest when a lawyer
represents inconsistent interests of two or more
opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in
behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to
ght for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to
oppose it for the other client. Also, there is
conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new
retainer will require the attorney to perform an
act which will injuriously affect his rst client in
any matter in which he represents him and also
whether he will be called upon in his new
relation to use against his rst client any
knowledge acquired through their connection.
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is
whether the acceptance of a new relation will
prevent an attorney from the full discharge of
his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his
client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double dealing in the performance thereof.
Respondent was engaged by Leomarte Tamaray
to be his counsel. When the Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage was fi led,
respondent signed the Petition as counsel for
complainant. If respondent was indeed engaged
as counsel by complainant, then there is conflict
of interest, in violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03.
However, there is nothing on record to show
that respondent was engaged as counsel by
complainant.
7. Nulada v. Paulma
A.C. No. 8172, 12 April 2016
FACTS:
Respondent (Atty. Orlando Paulma) was
convicted of BP22 for issuing a worthless check
against a bank account with insufficient funds to
the complainant for Php650k. Before the
conviction, the complainant also filed an
administrative complaint through the office of
the bar confidant against Atty. Paulma. Atty.
Paulma denied that he committed dishonesty,
that he issued the check merely to
accommodate a friend in whose favor he
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 9
obtained the loan stressing that he did not
personally benefit from the proceeds. When his
friend died, he had no means to pay the amount
in the check. He alleged that the complainant
threatened him and then he was forced to use
his check for the advantage of the complainant.
The IBP Commission of Bar Discipline
recommended that Atty. Paulma be suspended
from the practice of law for 6 months and was
later changed by the IBP Board of Governors
and recommended 2 years.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Paulma should be administratively
disciplined for having found guilty of a crime
involving moral turpitude.
RULING:
YES. Sustains the findings of the IBP-CBD and
BOG.
Respondent's conviction for violation of BP 22,
a crime involving moral turpitude, had been
indubitably established. Such conviction has, in
fact, already become final. Consequently,
respondent violated the lawyer's oath, as well
as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, as aptly found
by the IBP and, thus, must be subjected to
disciplinary action.
It should be emphasized that membership in the
legal profession is a privilege burdened with
conditions. A lawyer is required to observe the
law and be mindful of his or her actions whether
acting in a public or private capacity. Any
transgression of this duty on his part would not
only diminish his reputation as a lawyer but
would also erode the public's faith in the legal
profession as a whole.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
provides:
“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 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.”
Canon 1 of the CPR mandates all members of
the bar "to obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law x x x." Rule 1.01
thereof specifically provides that "[a] lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct." By taking the lawyer's
oath, a lawyer becomes a guardian of the law
and an indispensable instrument for the orderly
administration of justice. As such, he can be
disciplined for any conduct, in his professional
or private capacity, which renders him unfit to
continue to be an officer of the court.
In Enriquez v. De Vera, “[BP] 22 has been
enacted in order to safeguard the interest of the
banking system and the legitimate public
checking account users. The gravamen of the
offense defined and punished by [BP] 22 [x x x]
is the act of making and issuing a worthless
check, or any check that is dishonored upon its
presentment for payment and putting it in
circulation; Being a lawyer, respondent was well
aware of the objectives and coverage of [BP]
22. If he did not, he was nonetheless presumed
to know them, for the law was penal in character
and application. His issuance of the unfunded
check involved herein knowingly violated [BP]
22, and exhibited his indifference towards the
pernicious effect of his illegal act to public
interest and public order. He thereby swept
aside his Lawyer's Oath that enjoined him to
support the Constitution and obey the laws.”
The issuance of worthless checks in violation of
BP Blg. 22 indicates a lawyer's unfitness for the
trust and confidence reposed on him, shows
such lack of personal honesty and good moral
character as to render him unworthy of public
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 10
confidence, and constitutes a ground for
disciplinary action.
NOTE: The case cites a lot of jurisprudence
wherein a lawyer is suspended for 2 years from
the practice of law because they were all
convicted of BP22.
FALLO
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Orlando S.
Paulma is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for a period of two (2) years, effective
upon his receipt of this Resolution. He is warned
that a repetition of the same or similar act will
be dealt with more severely.
8. Advincula v. Advincula
A.C. No. 9226, 14 June 2016
Doctrine:
To be the basis of disciplinary action, such
conduct must not only be immoral, but
grossly immoral, that is, it must be so corrupt
as to virtually 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.
FACTS:
In her complaint, Dr. Advincula has averred
that Atty. Advincula committed unlawful and
immoral acts while Atty. Advincula was still
married to her, he had extra-marital sexual
relations with Ma. Judith Ortiz Gonzaga (Ms.
Gonzaga). That the extra-marital relations bore
a child in the name of Ma. Alexandria Gonzaga
Advincula (Alexandria), that Atty. Advincula
failed to give financial support to their own
children, namely: Ma. Samantha Paulina, Ma.
Andrea Lana, and Jose Leandro, despite his
having sufficient financial resources.
Atty. Advincula also subsequently entered into
another marriage with Gonzaga.
In his answer, Atty. Denied that he married
Gonzaga. that he strived to reunite his
legitimate family, resulting in a reconciliation
that begot their third child, Jose Leandro; that
Dr. Advincula once again decided to live with her
parents, bringing all of their children along; that
nevertheless, he continued to provide nancial
support to his family and visited the children
regularly; that Dr. Advincula intimated to him
that she had planned to take up nursing in order
to work as a nurse abroad because her medical
practice here was not lucrative; that he
supported his wife's nursing school expenses;
that Dr. Advincula left for the United States of
America (USA) to work as a nurse.
that during the same period he was also busy
with his law studies; that Dr. Advincula
proposed that he and their children migrate to
the USA but he opposed the proposal because
he would not be able to practice his profession
there; that Dr. Advincula stated that if he did
not want to join her, then she would just get the
children to live with her; that when Dr.
Advincula came home for a vacation he was not
able to accompany her due to his extremely
busy schedule as Chief Legal Staff of the
General Prosecution Division of the National
Bureau of Investigation.
IBP-CBD recommendation:
In the light of the foregoing disquisition, having,
in effect, Respondent's own admission of having
committed an extra-marital affair and fathering
a child, it is respectfully recommended that he
be suspended from the practice of law for at
least one month with the additional admonition
that should he repeat the same, a more severe
penalty would be imposed.
It would be unjust to impose upon him the
extreme penalty of disbarment. What he did
was not grossly immoral
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Advincula violated Canon 1 of CPR
and thus warrants his suspension.
RULING:
Yes. The good moral conduct or character must
be possessed by lawyers at the time of their
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 11
application for admission to the Bar, and must
be maintained until retirement from the practice
of law. In this regard, the Code of Professional
Responsibility states:
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
xxx xxx xxx
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.
xxx xxx xxx
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.
Accordingly, it is expected that every lawyer,
being an officer of the Court, must not only be
in fact of good moral character, but must also
be seen to be of good moral character and
leading lives in accordance with the highest
moral standards of the community.
More specifically, a member of the Bar and
officer of the Court is required not only to refrain
from adulterous relationships or keeping
mistresses but also to conduct himself as to
avoid scandalizing the public by creating the
belief that he is outing those moral standards.
If the practice of law is to remain an honorable
profession and attain its basic ideals, whoever is
enrolled in its ranks should not only master its
tenets and principles but should also, in their
lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. The
requirement of good moral character is of much
greater import, as far as the general public is
concerned, than the possession of legal
learning, immoral conduct has been described
as conduct that is so willful, flagrant, or
shameless as to show indifference to the opinion
of good and respectable members of the
community.
To be the basis of disciplinary action, such Tumbaga secured another form and finally,
conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly the Certificate of Live Birth was registered.
immoral, that is, it must be so corrupt as to
Thereafter, Teoxon rarely visited
virtually constitute a criminal act or so
them. To make ends meet, Tumbaga
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
decided to work in a law office in Naga City
degree or committed under such scandalous or
but Teoxon compelled her to resign,
revolting circumstances as to shock the
assuring her that he would take care of her
common sense of decency.
financial needs. But Teoxon reneged on his
promise of support.
Fallo:
Tumbaga moved out of the
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS AND DECLARES Apartment.
ATTY. LEONARDO C. ADVINCULA GUILTY of
Respondent raided Tumbaga’s new
immorality; and SUSPENDS him from the
residence, accompanied by three SWAT
practice of law for a period of THREE MONTHS
members and his wife. Respondent
EFFECTIVE UPON NOTICE HEREOF, with a
threatened to hurt complainant with the
STERN WARNING that a more severe penalty
bolo and the lead pipe that he was carrying
shall be imposed should he commit the same
if she will not return the personal belongings
offense or a similar offense; DIRECTS ATTY.
that he left in their previous apartment unit.
ADVINCULA to report the date of his receipt of
the Decision to this Court; and ORDERS the
Tumbaga filed a complaint against Teoxon for
Chief of the Personnel Division of the National
gross immorality, deceitful and fraudulent
Bureau of Investigation to implement the
conduct, and gross misconduct.
suspension from office of ATTY. ADVINCULA and
to report on his compliance in order to
Teeoxon's Answer
determine the date of commencement of his
suspension from the practice of law.
In his answer, Respondent denied
being the father of Billy John since Tumbaga
9. Tumbaga v. Teoxon
supposedly had several live-in
A.C. No. 5573, 21 November 2017
partners.Respondent denied that he lived
together with complainant and claimed that
FACTS:
Tumbaga falsified his signature in the
GIZALE O. TUMBAGA met ATTY. Certificate of Live Birth of Billy John so he
MANUEL P. TEOXON, the then City Legal filed a complaint for its cancellation.
Officer of Naga City, from whom Tumbaga
The Proceedings before the IBP
sought legal advice. After the consultation,
Commission on Bar Discipline
Teoxon visited her often at her residence
and brought gifts for her son, Al Greg.
Respondent maintained an illicit
In one of his visits, respondent affair with complainant and that he should
assured complainant's mother that although be meted the penalty of suspension for a
he was already married to Luzviminda period of two (2) years.
Balang, his marriage was a sham because
The IBP Board of Governors approved
their marriage contract was not registered.
the above recommendation and increased
Tumbaga moved in with respondent the recommended period of suspension to
and became pregnant. After the birth of three (3) years.
their son, Billy John, Tumbaga secured a
They denied the motion for reconsideration.
Certificate of Live Birth and gave it to
respondent to sign. He hesitantly signed it
and volunteered to file it but failed to do so. ISSUE:

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 12

Whether respondent committed gross There is indeed substantial evidence that
immorality by maintaining an extramarital affair respondent maintained an extramarital affair
with complainant. with complainant.

One of the key pieces of evidence that the IBP

RULING:
considered is the Decision of the MTCC of
Yes. The Court agrees with the conclusion of Naga City for replevin.
the IBP.
The following elucidation by the MTCC is quite
The good moral character must be telling:
possessed by lawyers at the time of
The [MTCC] is not
their application for admission to the
persuaded by his allegation
Bar, and must be maintained until
that he left his bag with
retirement from the practice of law. In
[complainant] because he
this regard, the Code of Professional
was in a hurry in going to
Responsibility states:
Manila. He boldly declared
Rule 1.01 — A that he has three
lawyer shall not engage in residences in Naga City and
unlawful, dishonest, of all places, he had to leave
immoral or deceitful his shirt and underwear
conduct. with a lady whom he had
visited "only twice."
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
CANON 7 — A
lawyer shall at all times However, as far as
uphold the integrity and the [furniture] is
dignity of the legal concerned, like the brass
profession, and support the bed, sala set, dining table
activities of the Integrated and plastic drawer, the
Bar. [MTCC] is not persuaded by
[respondent's] claim that
xxx xxx xxx
he meant to be paid by
Rule 7.03 — A [complainant] for it.
lawyer shall not engage in [Respondent] is a lawyer
conduct that adversely and although he is not
reflects on his fitness to engage[d] in the buying
practice law, nor should he, and selling of [furniture] he
whether in public or private should have known that if
life, behave in a scandalous he really intended to be
manner to the discredit of paid back for it, he should
the legal profession. have asked [complainant]
to [sign] a promissory note
A member of the Bar and officer of
or even a memorandum. As
the Court is required not only to
it is, he failed to show any
refrain from adulterous
evidence of such an
relationships or keeping
undertaking. That it was a
mistresses but also to conduct
gift of love is more like it.
himself as to avoid scandalizing
the public by creating the belief The Court finds no reason to
that he is flouting those moral mistrust the observations and findings of
standards. the MTCC. Incidentally, it was respondent
himself who brought to light the existence

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 13

 of the MTCC decision in the replevin case respondent, Yap gave Buri the possession of the
when he attached the same to his answer unit upon completion of the P1,000,000.00
thus, he cannot belatedly plead that the despite outstanding balance and even without
decision be disregarded after the findings the necessary Deed of Absolute Sale.
therein were used against him.
However, when Yap asked for the balance, Buri
As to the affidavit of support, Atty.
said she would pay it on a monthly instalment
submitted photocopies of his credit card and
of P5,000 until fully paid. When Yap disagreed,
ATM card that allegedly showed his
Buri said she would just cancel the sale.
customary signatures. However, the court
Thereafter, Buri also started threatening her
likewise compared the signatures to
through text messages, and then later on filed
respondent's signatures in his pleadings
a case for estafa against her.
before the IBP and other documents
submitted in evidence and we find that the
In the criminal case, Buri alleged that when she
signatures appear to be likewise dissimilar,
found out that the sale was made without the
which suggests respondent uses several
consent of Yap’s husband, Yap cancelled the
different signatures. Thus, respondent's
sale and promised to return the P1,000,000.00.
claim of forgery is unconvincing.
However, she failed and refused to return the
As to the Certificate of Live Birth of money. Nevertheless, this case was dismissed.
Billy John, the issue should be threshed out
in the proper proceeding. When ordered to submit her answer, Buri failed
to comply. She did not even appear during the
In light of the foregoing, the Court
mandatory conference.
finds that respondent should be held liable
for having illicit relations with complainant.
The IBP- CBD recommended Buri’s suspension
Considering respondent's blatant attempts
from the practice of law for a period of three (3)
to deceive the courts and the IBP regarding
months, and ordered to pay the balance of
his true relationship with complainant, we
P200,000.00. Respondent was found guilty
agree with the IBP Board of Governors that
violating Canon 1 of the CPR.
the proper penalty in this instance is a
three-year suspension from the practice of
The IBP-BOG modified the recommendation of
law.
the IBP- Commissioner, and increased the
10. Yap v. Buri suspension period from three (3) months to one
A.C. No. 11156 [Formerly CBD Case No. 12- (1) year, and the order to pay P200,000.00 is
3680), 19 March 2018
deleted.

FACTS:
ISSUE:
WON respondent is administratively liable.
Complainant filed an administrative complaint
against respondent, for refusing to pay her
RULING:
monetary obligation and for filing a criminal
YES.
case of Estafa against her based on false
accusations.
The Supreme Court affirmed the
recommendation of the IBP-BOG, and found
Complainant was the seller in a contract of sale
respondent guilty of violating the Code of
of a condominium unit, while respondent was
Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically
the buyer. The total amount of agreed price was
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7
P1,200,000.00, however, P200,000 remains
of the CPR.
unpaid.
Respondent insisted that she would just pay the
SC ruled that Buri’s refusal to file an answer,
balance on instalment, without specifying the
attend the hearing, or to submit her position
amount. Because complainant trusted the

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 14

paper, despite due notice, is indicative of an
implied admission of the charges levelled
against her.
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the
practice of law is imbued with public interest.
That Buri’s act involved a private dealing with
Yap is immaterial. Her repeated failure to file
answer and position paper and to appear at the
mandatory conference aggravates her
misconduct.
The Court likewise upholds the deletion of the
payment of P200,000 because the same is not
intrinsically linked to Buri’s professional
engagement. Disciplinary proceedings should
only revolve around the determination of the
respondent lawyer’s administrative and not his
civil liability.
Thus, the Court ruled that when the claim
involves money owed by the lawyer to his client
in view of a separate and distinct transaction
and not by virtue of a lawyer- client relationship,
the same should be threshed out in a separate
civil action.
11. Fabugais v. Faundo
A.C. No. 10145, 11 June 2018
FACTS:
A complaint for gross misconduct and conduct
unbecoming of a lawyer against Respondent
(Atty. Berardo Faundo, Jr.) for having allegedly
engaged in ang illicit and immoral relation with
the complainant's wife.
The complaint is based on the affidavit of the
complainant’s 10 y/o daughter. She said that
together with her mother and two other women
stayed in the house of the respondent. That the
respondent would sleep in the same bed with
her and her mother and would embrace her
mother while sleeping. That one morning, the
respondent, clad only in a “tapis” went inside
their room and told her and the other women to
go outside and her mother remained inside the
room with the respondent.
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 15
Complainant also filed a case for declaration of
nullity of marriage with his wife and the
respondent was his wife’s counsel.
Complainant alleges that the respondent
harassed him while he was riding a motorcycle,
the respondent was then also driving in tandem
in another motorcycle and kept shouting at him,
challenged him to a fistfight and threatened to
kill him. Complainant also alleged that the
respondent chased his sister on another
occasion.
Respondent asserted that the motorcycle
incident happened but it was the complainant
who was aggressive. He denied any immoral
relation with the complainant’s wife and that the
said wife only stayed in the said house (which
was actually the respondent's parents house)
because the wife sought his help and so he
offered the house as a hiding place. He said he
is incapable of committing misconduct because
he is a good father and a respected civic leader
and has never been a subject of a complaint.
That the complaint is intended to harass him
and no other reason.
The IBP-CBD and BOG recommended a
suspension for 1 month.
NOTE: When the Complainant died, his counsel
filed a motion for withdrawal considering that
the complainant’s heirs could not be found and
it cannot be gleaned that the heir’s want to
proceed with the complaint.
ISSUE:
Did the respondent lawyer in fact commit acts
that are grossly immoral, or acts that amount to
serious moral depravity, that would warrant or
call for his disbarment or suspension from the
practice of law?
RULING:
Yes but the condemnable acts only warrant a
SUSPENSION.
ON THE ISSUE OF DEATH OF
COMPLAINANT: this case can proceed in spite
of complainant's death and the apparent lack of
interest on the part of complainant's heirs.
Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui
generis in nature; they are intended and
undertaken primarily to look into the conduct or
behavior of lawyers, to determine whether they
are still fit to exercise the privileges of the legal
profession, and to hold them accountable for
any misconduct or misbehavior which deviates
from the mandated norms and standards of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, all of which
are needful and necessary to the preservation
of the integrity of the legal profession.
ON THE ACCUSATION OF THE CHASING
INCIDENT: This Court agrees with the IBP's
findings that the evidence presented by
complainant upon this point was insufficient to
establish the fact that respondent lawyer had
committed the alleged acts against the
complainant.
ON THE ACCUSATION OF IMMORAL ACTS:
"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. This Court has held that for such
conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same
must be "grossly immoral, that is, it must be so
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act
or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a
high degree."
Going by the eyewitness testimony of
complainant's daughter Marie Nicole, raw or
explicit sexual immorality between respondent
lawyer and complainant's wife was not
established as a matter of fact.
HOWEVER, The acts complained of in this case
might not be grossly or starkly immoral in its
rawness or coarseness, but they were without
doubt condemnable. Respondent lawyer who
made avowals to being a respectable father to
three children, and also to being a respected
leader of his community apparently had no
qualms or scruples about being seen sleeping in
his own bed with another man's wife.
Lawyers are mandated to do honor to the bar at
all times and to help maintain the respect of the
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 16
community for the legal profession under all
circumstances. Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides:
“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 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility further provides:
“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.”
We believe that Marie Nicole must have been a
bit disappointed with what she saw and
observed about the manners, predilections and
propensities of her "Tito Attorney." (“Tito
Attorney” was how the daughter of complainant
called the respondent) In fact, a close
examination of Marie Nicole's testimony cannot
fail to show that in Marie Nicole's young mind,
it was clearly not right, appropriate or proper for
her "Tito Attorney" to be sharing the same bed
with her and her mother, and for her mother to
remain alone in the same room with her "Tito
Attorney," while this "Tito Attorney" was
dressing up.
ON THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION: This
Court moreover realizes only too well that the
power to disbar or suspend members of the bar
ought always to be exercised not in a spirit of
spite, hostility or vindictiveness, but on the
preservative and corrective principle, with a
view to safeguarding the purity of the legal
profession. In the context of the circumstances
obtaining in this case, and hewing to
jurisprudential precedence, and considering
furthermore that this is respondent lawyer's
first offense, this Court believes that a one-
month suspension from the practice of law, as
recommended by the IBP, would suffice.
FALLO
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent
lawyer Atty. Berardo C. Faundo, Jr. is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1)
month, reckoned from receipt of a copy or this
Decision. He is hereby WARNED to be more
careful and more circumspect in all his actions,
and to be mindful of the kind of example be
holds up, especially to impressionable young
people, lest he brings upon himself a direr fate
the second time around.
12. Gubaton v. Amador
A.C. No. 8962, 9 July 2018
Doctrine:
Extramarital affairs of lawyers are regarded as
offensive to the sanctity of marriage, the family,
and the community. When lawyers are engaged
in wrongful relationships that blemish their
ethics and morality, the usual recourse is for the
erring attorney's suspension from the practice
of law, if not disbarment. This is because
possession of good moral character is both a
condition precedent and a continuing
requirement to warrant admission to the Bar
and to retain membership in the legal
profession.
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that respondent, a former
Assistant Prosecutor at the City Prosecutor's
Office in Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, was having
an illicit romantic relationship with his wife, Ma.
Bernadette R. Tenorio-Gubaton (Bernadette),
since 2005 up to the present.
The house helper also told him that respondent
spends nights at their house and stays with
Bernadette in their bedroom. When complainant
called Bernadette's dental clinic to verify the
information, it was the secretary who took his
call. Upon inquiry, the latter confirmed that
respondent and Bernadette have been carrying
on an illicit affair
Since then, Bernadette has refused to sleep with
him. Further, complainant discovered some
birth-control pills and condoms in their house,
in Bernadette's dental clinic, and in her
handbag. When he confronted her about it, she
merely denied ownership thereof. He also
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 17
alleged that Bernadette wrote love letters/notes
to respondent, as in fact, one of these letters
had the word "fiscal" on it.
Complainant likewise alleged that he personally
saw respondent and Bernadette together in
various places in Malaybalay City. At one
instance, he saw them kissing while inside a
vehicle; when he approached to confront them,
respondent ran away.
The illicit affair of respondent and Bernadette
was known to other people as well.
Complainant's sister, Nila Canoy, told him
about it during phone calls while he was still in
the USA, as narrated in her affidavit. Likewise,
Carlos Delgado (Delgado), Chief of Barangay
Public Safety Office in Poblacion, Malaybalay
City, and one Edgar Navarez (Navarez), an
employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR).
Respondent denied all the allegations against
him. He claimed that he was merely acquainted
with Bernadette and they would only see each
other on various occasions and social
gatherings. He also denied the incident where
complainant allegedly saw him and Bernadette
kissing inside a vehicle.
IBP’s Report and Recommendation
The IBP Board of Governors reversed the June
27, 2012 Report and Recommendation, and
instead, suspended respondent from the
practice of law for a period of two (2) years.
ISSUE:
The sole issue for the Court's consideration is
whether or not grounds exist to hold respondent
administratively liable.
RULING:
Yes. The Court concurs with the conclusion of
the IBP Board of Governors that respondent
should be held administratively liable with
modification, however, as regards the penalty
to be imposed.
It is fundamental that the quantum of proof in
administrative cases is substantial evidence.
Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion, even if other
minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably
opine otherwise.
As per complainant's own account, he actually
saw respondent and Bernadette together on
various intimate occasions. In fact, he
attempted to confront them at one time when
he saw them kissing inside a vehicle, although
respondent was able to evade him. The Court is
inclined to believe that complainant's
imputations against respondent are credible,
considering that he had no ill motive to accuse
respondent of such a serious charge — much
more a personal scandal involving his own wife
— unless the same were indeed true.
Respondent only proffered a bare denial of the
imputed affair. He insists that he was merely
acquainted with Bernadette and that they would
only see each other during social gatherings or
by pure accident.
All told, the Court finds that substantial
evidence — which only entail "evidence to
support a conclusion, even if other minds,
equally reasonable, might conceivably opine
otherwise" — exist to prove complainant's
accusation of gross immorality against
respondent.
Extramarital affairs of lawyers are regarded as
offensive to the sanctity of marriage, the family,
and the community. When lawyers are engaged
in wrongful relationships that blemish their
ethics and morality, the usual recourse is for the
erring attorney's suspension from the practice
of law, if not disbarment. This is because
possession of good moral character is both a
condition precedent and a continuing
requirement to warrant admission to the Bar
and to retain membership in the legal
profession.
Under the Code of Professional Responsibility:
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 18
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 refects 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.
The penalty for maintaining an illicit relationship
may either be suspension or disbarment,
depending on the circumstances of the case. In
case of suspension, the period would range from
one year to indefinite suspension. Under the
given circumstances, the Court sees fit to
impose on respondent a penalty of suspension
from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
year.
FALLO:
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Augustus
Serafin D. Amador is found guilty of gross
immorality. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of one (1) year,
and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.
13. AAA v. De los Reyes
A.C. No. 10021, 18 September 2018
FACTS:
Sometime in February 1997, [AAA] was hired as
secretary to [respondent Atty. De Los Reyes],
then Vice-President of the Legal and
Administrative Group of NHMFC.
[AAA] later learned that it was [respondent
Atty. De Los Reyes] who facilitated her rapid
promotion to her position.
In 1997, [respondent Atty. De Los Reyes]
offered to take [AAA] home in his company
issued service vehicle. From then on it became
a daily routine between them.
In 1998, [AAA] began to feel very
uncomfortable with the situation when she
realized that De Los Reyes] was becoming
overly possessive and demanding to the extent
that she could not refuse his offer to bring her
home and her telephone calls were being
monitored.
Much as she wanted to pursue her plan to
resign, [AAA's] financial position at that time,
left her with no choice but to continue working
as De Los Reyes'] secretary. De Los Reyes]
knew that [AAA] was the sole breadwinner of
her family, as her father had deserted them
when she was but 8 years old, leaving her to
care for her sick mother, a two-year-old niece
and two sisters who were still in school.
De Los Reyes] exploited his knowledge to force
[AAA] to continue working for him as his
secretary. From then on, she became his sex
slave who was at his beck and call at all times
for all kinds of sexual services ranging from
hand-jobs in his vehicle to sexual intercourse in
his office. She could not even refuse him without
risking physical, verbal and emotional abuse. He
even threatened to fire her best friend and office
mate which compelled [AAA] to seek him out
and plead with him to spare her friends.
[AAA] felt so helpless and frustrated that she
thought of committing suicide on countless
occasions.
AAA filed a Complaint-Affidavit dated November
19, 2004, with the Commission on Bar Discipline
(CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP).
In his defense, respondent Atty. De Los Reyes
denied AAA's allegations. The complaints failed
to state the ultimate facts or particulars,
approximate dates, and other details of the
sexual acts or advances that he allegedly
committed, in violation of his right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the
accusations against him.
The Findings of the IBP: The IBP Board of
Governors recommended indefinite suspension.
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 19
ISSUE: Whether Atty. De Los Reyes
committed sexual harassment and gross
immoral conduct.
RULING:
YES. We adopt the findings and conclusions of
the Investigating Commissioner, as sustained
by the IBP Board of Governors.
The pertinent provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility read:
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.
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.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 7.03. — 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.
The possession of good moral character is
both a condition precedent to warrant
admission to the bar and a continuing
requirement to retain membership in the legal
profession.
A perusal of the Transcript of Stenographic
Notes (TSN) taken during the June 30, 2006
hearing of the instant case shows AAA's
straightforward testimony of her ordeal at the
hands of respondent Atty. De Los Reyes: AS
Atty. [Angelito] Lo [Counsel for
respondent Atty. De Los Reyes]:
Q. You said that you were being raped
twice a week by the respondent?
AAA: Yes, sir.
COMM. FUNA: Twice a week for how
many weeks?
AAA: I guess it's from 1999 to more penalty of indefinite suspension from the
or less 2000. practice of law not commensurate with the
gravity of the acts committed by respondent
….…
Atty. De Los Reyes.
COMM. FUNA: So when you go to
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent
work, you know that you will be raped.
Atty. Antonio N. De Los Reyes GUILTY of
..
gross immoral conduct and violation of Rule
AAA: Because I have to fend [for] my 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the
whole family. My mother is sick. I don't Code of Professional Responsibility, and is
have a father. I have my other siblings hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.
to support, I have my niece. It's really
hard for me but . . . (Witness crying)
14. Ceniza v. Ceniza
COMM. FUNA: Would you go to this
A.C. No. 8335, 10 April 2019
office . . . (interrupted)

ATTY. AMBROSIO: Sir, why are you FACTS:

laughing?
COMM. FUNA: . . . if you know that
you will be raped?
COMM. FUNA: Tomorrow, you know
that you will be raped. . . (Comm. Funa
and Atty. Ambrosio talking at the same
time) cDHAES
ATTY. AMBROSIO: [She's] telling you
wala siyang choice. That's the whole
essence of sexual harassment because
a woman is forced to continue working
or to continue in this particular position
because she has no choice. If she
doesn't consent to his sexual advances,
she gets fired or she gets demoted or
she will get a deduction in her pay. See,
that's plain and simple sexual
harassment. This is . . . (unintelligible)
I do not understand. You're all laughing
here. This is a woman crying telling you
. . . there's injustice being done to this
woman.
Clearly, the above-quoted excerpt from the
TSN dated June 30, 2006, shows that
respondent Atty. De Los Reyes is guilty of
"sextortion" which is the abuse of his position
to obtain sexual favors from his subordinate,
his unwilling victim who was not in a position
to resist respondent's demands for fear of
losing her means of livelihood.
While we agree with the findings of the IBP,
we, however, consider the recommended
Complainant is married with respondent.
Respondent suddenly moved out of their home,
taking along with him his car and personal
belongings.
Complainant went to Mandaue City Hall where
respondent worked as a legal officer. She
learned from members of his staff that they had
suspected him of carrying on an extra-marital
affair with one Anna Fe Flores Binoya.
Complainant went to the address provided by
the staff to verify the information. She was able
to meet Anna’s sister who informed them that
she had moved out of their address; and that
Anna and her second husband, Atty. Eliseo
Ceniza, Jr., the herein respondent, had been
living together in Aldea Subdivision.
Complainant brought a complaint for immorality
against the respondent in the Office of the
Ombudsman.
Respondent fi led his comment, wherein he
denied having engaged in immoral conduct and
maintained that Anna had only been a business
partner.
Office of the OMB found the respondent
respondent guilty of disgraceful and immoral
conduct for having an extra-marital affair with a
woman in violation of the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public O fficials and
Employee. He was meted the penalty of
suspension from the service for 6 months.

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 20


IBP-CBD dismissed complainant’s case.
ISSUE:
1. WON respondent should be disciplined
for the actions attributed to him by the
complainant.
2. WON complainant was able to overcome
the burden of proof.
RULING:
1. YES.
Complainant proffered photos proving her claim
that respondent frequents Binoya's house, as
well as, proofs that the place which her husband
visits was indeed owned by Binoya.
Against complainant's overwhelming
allegations, respondent offered only self-serving
denials. Respondent did not even attempt to
present countervailing evidence to substantiate
his bare allegations.
No less than respondent's own daughter, Marie
Agnes, spoke her piece about the nature of her
father's association with Binoya. His daughter is
a budding teenager and has already attained a
certain level of maturity to understand the
dynamics of the relationship of her parents.
Moreover, the photographs and declarations of
Galvan and Jadraque negate respondent's
assertion that he merely visits Binoya as a
business associate. His vehicles were seen in
front of Binoya's house for long periods of time
and in some days, on overnight stays. He was
also seen in Binoya's house half-naked while
having a meal. Under the prevailing
circumstances, these cannot be deemed as
actuations of a business partner or the usual
business meetings as respondent insists.
It is true that complainant was unable to
present photograph/s of respondent and Binoya
together. Still, from the foregoing, she has
given several pieces of evidence which yield the
unmistakable conclusion that respondent and
Binoya are having an illicit affair. Under the
present scheme of things, these circumstances
meet the requirement of substantial evidence in
administrative proceedings. In the extant case,
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 21
there is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion that respondent and Binoya are
engaged in an illicit relationship.
The members of the legal profession must
conform to the highest standards of morality
because the Code of Professional Responsibility
mandated them under Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03.
There is no question that a married person's
abandonment of his or her spouse in order to
live and cohabit with another constitutes
immorality. As a basis of disciplinary action,
such immoral conduct, or immorality must be so
corrupt as to virtually 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. That the
illicit partner is himself or herself married
compounds the immorality.
2. YES.
Given the serious and far-reaching
consequences of disbarment, only a clearly
preponderant showing can warrant the
imposition of the harsh penalty of disbarment.
Herein, the complainant presented clearly
preponderant evidence showing that the
respondent, while being lawfully married to her,
had maintained an illicit relationship with a
married woman. It is of no moment that she
presented no direct evidence of the illicit
relationship between him and his mistress; or
that her proof of his immorality was
circumstantial. The lack of direct evidence
should not obstruct the adjudication of a
dispute, for circumstantial evidence may be
available for the purpose. . As the records amply
indicated, the circumstantial evidence adduced
herein compelled the conclusion that he had
abandoned the complainant and their children in
order to cohabit with his married mistress.
Time and again, the Court has pointed out that
when the integrity or morality of a member of
the Bar is challenged, it is not enough that he or
she denies the charge, for he or she must meet
the issue and overcome the evidence presented
on the charge. The respondent failed in this
regard.
That the immoral conduct of the respondent
pertained to his private life did not diminish the
gravity of his ethical violation. It is expected
that every lawyer, being an o cer of the Court,
must not only be in fact of good moral
character, but must also be seen to be of good
moral character and leading lives in accordance
with the highest moral standards of the
community. If the practice of law is to remain
an honorable profession and attain its basic
ideals, whoever is enrolled in its ranks should
not only master its tenets and principles but
should also, in their lives, accord continuing
delity to them.
In view of the foregoing, the respondent's
immoral conduct violated Rule 1.01 and Rule
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
By his scandalous and highly immoral conduct,
therefore, the respondent showed that he did
not possess the requisite good moral character
needed for the continued practice of law. He
deserves the extreme penalty of disbarment.
15. Venzon v. Peleo III
A.C. No. 9354, 20 August 2019
FACTS
Respondent Atty. Amador B. Peleo III is charged
with violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and Section
3(D) of Republic Act 9262 (RA 9262) or the Anti-
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act
of 2004 for his alleged refusal to provide child
support to his son, a minor.
Complainant alleged that she met respondent in
his capacity as her counsel for her petition for
declaration of nullity of her marriage. After the
annulment, she and respondent were in a
serious relationship and they had a child.
After a few year, respondent would no longer
visit her and the child in the home they
purchased and stopped giving them support.
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 22
On two occasions, she and respondents drew an
undertaking that the respondent would give her
a house and lot and will provide monthly
support and will shoulder the education of their
child.
(the 2nd occasion was when she sought the help
of the IBP.)
She also alleged that aside from failing to give
support, respondent falsified in their child’s birth
certificate that they were married when in fact
they were not, since he was legally married to
someone else. When they got serious, he told
her that he would server marital ties with his
wife by filing a petition. However, the said case
was dismissed because of failure of respondent
to prosecute.
He has also been having illicit affairs with many
other women, and he sired another child with
one of them.
He also fraudulently secured a Senior citizen
card although he was only 45 y/o so that he can
avail of the discounts.
IBP-CBD recommended that the respondent be
suspended for two years but the IBP-BOG
resolved to disbar him.
ISSUE:
WON to disbar or suspend?
RULING:
DISBAR because respondent committed gross
immoral acts. (6 counts)
Respondent is charged with violation of Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, forbidding lawyers from
engaging in un-lawful, dishonest, or deceitful
conduct. The specific acts he allegedly
committed are as follows:
1. Maintaining a sexual relation with
complainant when his marriage with his spouse
had not been terminated.
2. Maintaining several other faithless relations
with other women while in permanent relations
with his spouse and complainant.
3. Misusing the legal process of filing a petition
for nullity of marriage to convince complainant
that he was truly determined to end his
marriage with his wife.
4. Falsifying entries in his son's birth certificate.
5. Failing to give child support.
6. Seriously disrespecting the authority and
dignity of the IBP when he disregarded an
agreement brokered by the IBP between him
and complainant.
7. Deceiving the government and private
businesses by availing of the Senior Citizens'
card to which he was not entitled.
The SC is not deciding respondent's professional
fitness on the basis of a single and one-off
private event in his life. What we have here is
the confluence of respondent's acts which
already spill beyond what happens inside the
privacy of one's intimate space. For
respondent's acts here do not just concern him
as a private individual. They have crossed the
line between what essentially belongs to an
individual's right to privacy on one hand, and a
pattern of conduct symptomatic of a clear
disregard for the rights of others by misapplying
his knowledge of the law and his profession as
a lawyer, on the other.
First. Respondent maintained sexual relation
with complainant and several other faithless
contemporaneous relations while his marriage
with his lawful spouse was still subsisting. In
previous SC cases, respondent lawyers were
ordered disbarred for engaging in illicit relations
with women, albeit, they were still lawfully
married to their respective spouses.
Second. Respondent misused the legal process
by filing a petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage without any serious intention to
prosecute it. He clearly did it only as a ploy to
convince complainant that he was truly decided
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 23
to end his marriage with his lawful wife. As
officers of the court, they ought to foster respect
for court procedures and processes and be the
frontline of defense against those who wittingly
and willingly misuse and/or abuse them.
Hence, Respondent is guilty of violating Canon
10, Rule 10.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, viz:
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR,
FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT
xxx
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of
procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat
the ends of justice.
Third. Respondent falsified the place and date of
marriage entries in the birth certificate of his
son. Falsification is a crime. Falsification of a
public document aggravates this crime. Time
and again, lawyers have been reminded of the
oath they took, upon admission to the legal
profession, to do no falsehood.
Fourth. Respondent has repeatedly failed to
give child support to his son, a minor. This is
contrary to law. Under the Family Code, he as a
parent is obliged to support and provide
everything indispensable for his son's
sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical
attendance, education, and transportation.
Fifth. Respondent seriously disrespected the
IBP's authority and dignity when he disregarded
an agreement brokered by the IBP between him
and complainant. He defied the undertaking
which he voluntarily made before an officer of
the IBP.
Canon 7 of the CPR mandates:
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.
Sixth. Respondent has been deceiving the
government and private businesses by
continuously availing of the Senior Citizens'
discount when he is not legally entitled thereto.
He admitted that he applied for, and was issued,
a Senior Citizen card. He has been using it to
enjoy twenty percent (20%) discount on specific
goods and services.
CONCLUSION
By these six (6) counts of unlawful, immoral,
dishonest, or deceitful conduct, respondent has
lost his fitness to continue as a member of the
Bar. He is ordered disbarred.
16. Chan v. Carrera
A.C. No. 10439, 3 September 2019
Doctrine:
The Court enunciated that any lawyer guilty of
gross misconduct should be suspended or
disbarred even if the misconduct relates to his
or her personal life for as long as the misconduct
evinces his or her lack of moral character,
honesty, probity or good demeanor
FACTS:
Chan was a trainee at Max’s restaurant when he
met Atty. Carrera. In the complaint, it was
stated that the Chan thought Carrera was a
widower.
The two had a relationship, traveled together,
bore a child and “played husband and wife” for
almost 3 years and only separating when their
relationship turned sour.
The affair was duly established, also the fact
that they lived together and bore a child. Chan
filed the case when she allegedly knew that
Carrerera was not really a widow.
Atty. Carrera continued his infractions and being
a womanizer. He constantly shamed Chan in
public and demeaned her character. Chan
nonetheless helped Carrera during his time of
need. When his business suffered from
irreversible losses, she worked hard as his
paralegal and referred him clients. Because of
her help, he was able to recover his losses, save
his school from closing, and was even able to
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 24
purchase more properties. Still, Carrera refused
to give up his womanizing. This time, when
Chan confronted Carrera about it, he got
furious, asked her to leave their home, to return
the car he gave her, and forbade her from
working as his paralegal. He also consistently
humiliated her such that when she would visit
his office to ask for financial support for their
son, he would utter invective words first before
giving her money.
Contrary to the claims of Chan, moreover,
Carrera maintains that there is no truth to the
assertion that he told her that he was a
widower. She knew from the very beginning
that he was married and that his wife was
incapacitated and con ned at Estrella's Half-
way House due to her "schizophrenia." She also
knew that he was living in his house with the
children he had with said wife. In the end,
Carrera insisted that his only "sin" was that he
was so sympathetic and charitable to Chan who
was never satisfied with his generosity and with
whom he fell deeply in love with. On the
contrary, he was nothing but respectable having
been a member of the Academe for more than
20 years, a Director and Treasurer of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Pangasinan
Chapter, and a member of the bar in good
standing since his admission in 1980. As such,
he asked for compassion given that his
infraction did not amount to the kind of
"grossly immoral conduct" he was accused
of engaging in.
Board of Governor’s Recommendation:
The BOG issued another Resolution affirming its
previous resolution, but with the modification
that Carrera is suspended from the practice of
law for one (1) year (CBD recommendation)
instead of three (3) years.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Carrerra’s actions warrant the
penalty of suspension.
RULING:
No. Not merely suspension but disbarment.
In view of the circumstances of the instant case,
the Court finds that the actuations of Carrera
warrant the penalty of disbarment from the
practice of law and not merely suspension
therefrom as found by the BOG.
Court denied the issue on withdrawal (side
issue—which the wife allegedly withdrew the
complaint but SC said under the Rules of Court
"no investigation shall be interrupted or
terminated by reason of the desistance,
settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal
of the charges, or failure of the complainant to
prosecute the same."
But at any rate, even if we sustain Chan's
contention that the English translation
exaggerated the allegations she raised in her
Tagalog complaint, both parties never denied,
and even expressly admitted, that they freely
engaged in an extra-marital affair. They
cohabited under one roof from September 2006
to August 2009, or practically for a period of
three (3) years, despite the fact that they were
still legally married to their respective spouses.
They also produced a child who they named
after Carrera. This fact, standing alone, suffices
to hold Carrera administratively liable for
grossly immoral conduct. No amount of
exaggeration can change the attending
circumstances of the instant case.
At this juncture, We reproduce the provisions of
Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility below:
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that adversely refects 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.
Time and again, the Court has ruled that a
married person's abandonment of his or her
spouse in order to live and cohabit with another
constitutes immorality. The offense may even
be criminal — either as concubinage or as
adultery. Immoral conduct, or immorality, is
that which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless
as to show indifference to the opinion of good
and respectable members of the community. As
a basis of disciplinary action, such immoral
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 25
conduct, or immorality must be so corrupt as to
virtually 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. That the illicit
partner is himself or herself married compounds
the immorality.
The facts of the present case are beyond
dispute. Both Chan and Carrera acknowledged
their undeniable love affair, with the latter
designating the same as a "chemistry of two
consensual adults
It is this clear and outright admission that is the
basis for Carrera's disbarment. His endless
accomplishments listed in his curriculum vitae
cannot render him innocent of the charges
against him. On the contrary, the Court wonders
how despite all these achievements in his
professional career, Carrera allowed himself to
falter in such a highly scandalous manner. His
level of knowledge and experience should have
alerted him of his duty to keep with the
standards of morality imposed on every lawyer.
To recall, he even proposed to Chan his services
in annulling her marriage. Hence, all of this
could have been avoided had he made an effort
to make things right. In Amalia R. Ceniza v.
Atty. Ceniza, Jr., the Court enunciated that any
lawyer guilty of gross misconduct should be
suspended or disbarred even if the misconduct
relates to his or her personal life for as long as
the misconduct evinces his or her lack of moral
character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.
Every lawyer is expected to be honorable and
reliable at all times, for a person who cannot
abide by the laws in his private life cannot be
expected to do so in his professional dealings.
Fallo:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DECLARES
respondent Atty. Rebene C. Carrera guilty of
Gross Immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 and
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, DISBARS him from the practice
of law effective upon receipt of this Decision,
and ORDERS his name stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys.
17. Reyes v. Rivera his only means of communicating with him
A.C. No. 9114, 6 October 2020 was through Jesma. He had already instructed
Jesma Uesa (Jesma), a common friend of both
FACTS: parties, to inform the complainant that the
decision he received was spurious.
Sometime in 2003, complainant JOSE R.
REYES sought the assistance of Atty. Rivera Report and Recommendation of the
in filing a case for dissolution of marriage. Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Atty. Rivera agreed to handle the case for a
Atty. Rivera is guilty of Gross Misconduct and
fee of P150,000.00 to be paid on installment
breach of lawyer-client relations.
basis. Rivera demanded P20,000.00 as
Commissioner Funa recommended that Atty.
acceptance fee and P10,000.00 to cover the
Rivera be suspended indefinitely from the
filing fees and other expenses to which Reyes
practice of law due to the gravity of his
paid.
offense.
Reyes was furnished a copy of the Petition for
IBP Board of Governors (BOG) approved the
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, which
recommendation of Commissioner Funa.
appeared to have been filed before Branch
215 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City. Reyes paid
Atty. Rivera an additional amount of ISSUE:
P70,000.00.
Whether Atty. Rivera is guilty of Gross
Atty. Rivera instructed the complainant to
Misconduct
prepare the remaining balance of P50,000.00
payable upon the receipt of the Decision of the
RULING:
case.

During the last quarter of 2004, Atty. Rivera
furnished Reyes with an August 9, 2004
Decision rendered by the Presiding Judge of
Branch 206 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City,
granting complainant's Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.
However, Reyes had doubts regarding the
authenticity of the said Decision since he
never attended a single hearing of the case.
Moreover, Reyes was suspicious since the
petition was supposedly filed before Branch
215 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City, while the
Decision was rendered by Branch 206 of the
said RTC.
This prompted Reyes to verify the
genuineness of the Decision. Reyes learned
that no Civil Case was filed before Branch 215
of the RTC of Muntinlupa City. Worse,
complainant was shocked when he discovered
that Branch 215 does not in fact exist.
Further, no such case was filed with Branch
206 as certified by the Office of the Clerk of
Court of Muntinlupa City.
In his Answer, Atty. Rivera claimed that he
lost complainant's contact number and that
YES. The Court approves the recommendations
of the IBP to disbar Atty. Rivera.
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL
UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY
THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.
RULE 1.01. — A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.01 of the CPR commands that "as
officers of the court, lawyers are bound to
maintain not only a high standard of legal
proficiency, but also of morality, honesty,
integrity, and fair dealing."
Atty. Rivera misrepresented to the
complainant that a Petition for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage was filed before Branch
215 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City when none
was in fact filed.
He even simulated the stamp of the Office of
the Clerk of Court of the RTC to make it
appear that it received the petition. To make
matters worse, Atty. Rivera blatantly

ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 26

furnished complainant with a fake court
decision purportedly penned by the Presiding
Judge of Branch 206 of the RTC of Muntinlupa
City which granted complainant's petition.
These acts are disrespectful, disgraceful, and
dishonorable to the legal profession and
clearly displayed Atty. Rivera's disgusting
moral unfitness to practice law.
Hence, Atty. Socrates R. Rivera is found
GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, he is hereby DISBARRED from
the practice of law and his name is ordered
stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys,
effective immediately.
Further, Atty. Socrates R. Rivera is ORDERED
to return to the legal fees he received which
shall earn legal interest at 6%.
18. Dap-og vs. Mendez
A.C. No. 12017, 14 October 2020
FACTS:
Complainant Roger was at the compound of the
CENRO, DENR to accompany his brother Ruben
to attend a hearing/conference in a case. One of
the respondents in such case was Roger’s wife,
Gemma. Protestants therein were represented
by Atty. Mendez while Atty. Ladaga was
Gemma’s counsel.
CBD recommends the suspension of respondent
from the practice of law for 3 months. IBP Board
of Governors increased the penalty of
suspension to 1 year.
Complainant’s version:
Atty. Mendez approached Roger’s table at the
CENRO Canteen and asked for his name. Atty.
Mendez suddenly called him a demon. Atty.
Mendez tried to grab Roger from across the
table. He also managed to scratch Roger’s neck.
Atty. Mendez then slapped Roger’s left cheek.
Respondent also pursued him and managed to
land some punches on him. During the
commotion, respondent’s group also hurled
invectives and accusations against Roger.
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 27
Afterwards, Roger went to the MAtina Police
Station to have the incident recorded in their
blotter. He also proceeded to the Southern
Philippines Medical Center for a medical
examination. Roger suffered bruises for several
days and his right shoulder was fractured. Roger
then filed a complaint for Less Serious Physical
Injuries, Grave Slander and Grave Threat
against Atty. Mendez.
Respondent’s version:
It was Roger who shouted invectives at them.
Respondent alleged that the tension between
his client, on one hand, and Roger on the other,
escalated into a shouting match. Atty. Mendez
claimed that while there was an exchange of
vindictive words and heated argument, Roger
was never threatened or physically harmed.
ISSUE:
WON respondent is guilty of violating the
Lawyer’s OAth and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the
CPR.
RULING:
YES. The records of this case show without a
shadow of doubt that Atty. Mendez exhibited
Gross Misconduct unbecoming of an officer of
the court.
While the parties presented two different
versions of the incident, we find Roger's version
to be more credible as the same is supported by
substantial evidence. The affidavit of Atty.
Ladaga deserves much weight there being no
proof of personal interest or bias against
respondent.
The narration of the events by Atty. Ladaga
corroborates Roger's account, and validates as
well his claim that he suffered injuries as
reflected in his Medical Certificate and the fact
too that he had the incident reported in a Police
Blotter. Both the said certificate and blotter
were prepared by disinterested parties. Absent
any evidence that these documents were
prepared in bad faith or are otherwise defective
in any manner, the presumption that these
documents were independently prepared in
good faith and should thus be given weight,
stands. The foregoing pieces of evidence when
taken as a whole would clearly exhibit that
physical blows were indeed inflicted upon
Roger's person by respondent and his group,
contrary to respondent's denial.
As applied in this case, Atty. Mendez clearly did
not meet the lofty standards reposed on
lawyers. There is no excuse for respondent's
unlawful and dishonorable behavior. Even
assuming for the sake of argument that
respondent's allegations against Roger were
true, that the latter swindled the former's
clients, no person should take the law into his
own hands.
In imposing the penalty of suspension on Atty.
Mendez, we take note of the fact that
respondent's mauling of Roger, coupled with the
use of verbal insults and threats, happened in
broad daylight and in front of other people,
including respondent's fellow lawyer Atty.
Ladaga. Respondent in this case not only hurled
offensive language, accusations, and threats at
Roger, Atty. Mendez also "took matters into his
own hands" when he physically assaulted the
latter in a humiliating fashion. Thus, we agree
with the IBP's recommendation to suspend Atty.
Mendez from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year.
19. Lopez v. Ramos
A.C. No. 12081, 24 November 2020
FACTS
This admin case stemmed from a complaint-
affidavit filed on 2014 by Alberto Lopez (Lopez)
before the IBP charging Atty. Rosendo Ramos
with violation of Canon 1 of the CPR by willfully
aiding the parties to the sale of a parcel of land,
in evading payment of proper amount of taxes
and for gross negligence in his duty as a notary
public in notarizing and registering a forged
deed of sale.
Lopez alleged that he was the buyer of a land
covered under a TCT in the name of AUREA
MUNAR MASANGKAY. He disccovered that the
TCT had been cancelled and a new one was
issued in the name of PLACIDA RONQUILLO. A
criminal case for falsification of public document
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 28
was filed by Aurea Magsankay against Ronquillo
and Respondent. But respondent was dropped
from the information. The CA decided that there
was falsification in the signature of Aurea.
Lopez filed a complaint-affidavit to the IBP by
averring that respondent prepared two deeds of
sale over the same property (different
considerations: one for 130K and another for
30k) to minimize the payment of capital gains
tax. Respondent was grossly negligent in his
duty as notary when he did not attempt to
identify the imposter who signed as Aurea and
only asked for her community tax certificate.
The witnesses of the said deeds of sale also
signed in different ways in both documents, this
should have elicited respondent’s suspicion.
Respondent raised as arguments the following:
on the two deeds of sale - he only prepared one
document the one with 130k and that the
evidence attached by complainant was only
certifiied photocopies of the documents,
considering they are only seocndary evidence,
they cannot be admitted until the original is
shown to be unavailable.
on the CTC of Aurea - at the time the deeds were
executed, a CTC was enough requirement for
identification (executed 1989).
IBP-CBD recommended the respondent be
disqualified from being a notary public for 2
years and suspended from the practice of law
for 6mons. IBP-BOG sustains the same.
ISSUE:
WON respondent committed acts contrary to his
duties as a member of the bar and notary public.
RULING:
YES.
AS NOTARY PUBLIC: he was grossly negligent in
his duties for failure to ascertain the identity of
the seller (Aurea) and the witnesses who signed
in different ways in both documents.
AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF TWO DEEDS OF
SALE: In the falsification case, the respondent’s
secretary testified that she on the same
occasion, prepared, notarise and witnesses the
execution of the two deeds of sale for the same
property, where the other deed would contain a
lower consideration than the actual price paid,
and the purpose of it was to minimize the
payment of CGT. Respondent made an
untruthful statement in a public document for
an unlawful purpose. Respondent violated rule
1.02, canon 1 of the CPR.
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
xxx
When respondent notarized an illegal and
fraudulent document, he is entitling full faith
and credit upon the face of the document which
is does not deserve. The act of notarization is
imbued with substantive public interest where a
private doc will be converted into a public doc,
which results in the document’s admissibility in
evidence without further proof of its
authenticity.
Aside from the duty of the notary public to
ascertain the identity of the affiant and the
voluntariness of the declaration, it is also
incumbent upon him to guard against any illegal
or immoral arrangement or at least refrain from
being a party to its consummation.
Rule IV, Section 4 (a) of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice prohibits notaries public from
performing any notarial act for transactions
similar to the subject deeds of sale, to wit:
SEC. 4. Refusal to Notarize. — A notary public
shall not perform any notarial act described in
these Rules for any person requesting such an
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 29
act even if he tenders the appropriate fee
specified by these Rules if:
(a) the notary knows or has good reason to
believe that the notarial act or transaction is
unlawful or immoral;
xxx
Despite knowledge of the illegal purpose of
evading the payment of proper taxes due,
respondent proceeded to notarize the second
deed of sale. Instead of accommodating the
request of his client, Benjamin, respondent,
being a member of the legal profession, should
have stood his ground and not yielded to the
request of his client.
When respondent gave the second deed of sale
the same registration, page and book numbers
as the first, respondent violated Section 2, Rule
VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, to wit:
SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. —
xxx xxx xxx
(e) The notary public shall give to each
instrument or document executed, sworn to,
or acknowledged before him a number
corresponding to the one in his register, and
shall also state on the instrument or
document the page/s of his register on
which the same is recorded. No blank line
shall be left between entries.
Thus, with respect to respondent's suspension
from the practice of law, we hold that
respondent's failure to faithfully comply with the
rules on notarial practice, and his violation of his
oath as lawyer when he prepared and notarized
the second deed for the purpose of avoiding the
payment of the correct amount of taxes, shall
be meted with a penalty of a two (2)-year
suspension from the practice of law. The said
penalty is proper and commensurate to the
infraction committed by respondent.
FALLO
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. ROSENDO C.
RAMOS is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for a period of two (2) years. In addition,
his present notarial commission, if any, is
hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from
reappointment as a notary public for a period of
two (2) years. He is STERNLY WARNED that any
similar act or infraction in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.
20. Kimteng, et al. v. Young
G.R. No. 210554, 5 August 2015
Doctrine:
The use of a deceased partner's name in a law
firm's name was allowed upon the effectivity of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, with the
requirement that "the firm indicates in all its
communications that said partner is deceased."
On the other hand, this court has ruled that the
use of the name of a person who is not
authorized to practice law constitutes contempt
of court.
FACTS:
Petitioners are the majority stockholders of
Ruby Industrial Corporation the court ordered
the liquidation of RubyIndustrial Corp (RIC) and
transferred the case to the appropriate RTC
branch to supervise the liquidation
Walter Young (Atty. Young), Jovito Gambol
(Atty. Gambol) and Dan Reynald Magat
(Atty.Magat),
practicing under the firm “Young Revilla
Gambol & Magat”
YRGM) appeared in the liquidation proceedings
as counsels for the liquidator
The Petitioners filed an Opposition against the
appearance of YRGM on the ground that
Revillawas disbarred in 2009 the firm replied
to the Opposition stating that they had
retained Revilla’s name in the firm name as
an act of charity
Petitioners anchored their argument that the
use of a disbarred lawyer’s name in the firm
name is tantamount to contempt of court.
Atty. Young and Atty. Magat reasoned out and
explained that they did not intend to deceive the
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 30
public; in addition, they stated that the non-
deletion of Revilla’s name in the firm name is no
more misleadingg than including the names of
dead or retired partners’ names in the law firm
name
Respondents point out that the Balgos Law Firm
is derailing the liquidation of RIC because Balgos
resents that its nominee was not elected as
liquidator
Respondents also raise the issue of forum
shopping because the petitioners allegedly filed
a disbarment Complaint against them and one
of the grounds for disbarment cited by
petitioners
was the use of Revilla’s name in their firm name
Private Respondent Atty. Gambol filed a
separate Comment, arguing that from the time
Revilla was disbarred, he no longer practiced
law. Gambol also stated that he is a junior
member of the firm and has no power and
authority to decide who should be removed from
the firm’s name. He also added that in all the
cases he handled after Revilla’s disbarment, he
omitted Revilla’s name from the firm name in
the pleadings that he signed
ISSUE:
WON the private respondents (Young and
Magat) should be help in contempt of court for
the continued use of the respondent Revilla’s
name in the firm when the latter has been
indisputably discharged.
RULING:
YES.
Canon 3, Rule 3.02.
In the choice of a firm name, no false,
misleading or assumed name shall be used. The
continued use of the name of a deceased
partner is permissible provided that the firm
indicates in all its communications that said
partner is deceased.
Rule 71, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure provides:
Section 3.
Indirect contempt to be punished after charge
and hearing.
After charge in writing has been filed, and an
opportunity given to the respondent to
comment thereon within such period as may be
fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or
counsel, a person guilty of any of the following
acts may be punished for indirect contempt:
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or
indirectly, to imped, obstruct, or degrade the
administration of justice;(e) Assuming to be an
attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as
such without authority
The court has defined contempt of court as: a
willful disregard or disobedience of a public
authority; a disobedience to the rules or orders
of a legislative or judicial body. In this case, the
respondents committed acts that are considered
indirect contempt under said Section.
In addition, they also disregarded the Code of
Professional Responsibility when they retained
the name of respondent Revilla in their firm
name
Respondents argue that the use of respondent
Revilla's name is "no more misleading than
including the names of dead or retired partners
in a law firm's name."
II.
Maintaining a disbarred lawyer's name in the
firm name is different from using a deceased
partner's name in the firm name. Canon 3, Rule
3.02 allows the use of a deceased partner's
name as long as there is an indication that the
partner is deceased. This ensures that the public
is not misled. On the other hand, the retention
of a disbarred lawyer's name in the firm name
may mislead the public into believing that the
lawyer is still authorized to practice law.
The use of a deceased partner's name in a law
firm's name was allowed upon the effectivity of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, with the
requirement that "the firm indicates in all its
communications that said partner is deceased."
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 31
On the other hand, this court has ruled that the
use of the name of a person who is not
authorized to practice law constitutes contempt
of court.
From the time respondent Revilla was disbarred
in 2009, it appears that no efforts were exerted
to remove his name from the firm name. Thus,
respondents Atty. Young and Atty. Magat are
held liable for contempt of court.
Rule 71, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure provides for the imposable penalties
for indirect contempt:
SEC. 7. Punishment for indirect contempt. — If
the respondent is adjudged guilty of indirect
contempt committed against a Regional Trial
Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, he
may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty
thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding
six (6) months, or both. If he is adjudged guilty
of contempt committed against a lower court,
he may be punished by a ne not exceeding
five thousand pesos or imprisonment not
exceeding one (1) month, or both. If the
contempt consists in the violation of a writ of
injunction, temporary restraining order or
status quo order, he may also be ordered to
make complete restitution to the party injured
by such violation of the property involved or
such amount as may be alleged and proved.
The writ of execution, as in ordinary civil
actions, shall issue for the enforcement of a
judgment imposing a fine unless the court
otherwise provides. (Emphasis supplied)
In view of Rule 71, Section 7, a fine of
P30,000.00 each is imposed on respondents
Atty. Young and Atty. Magat.
In San Luis v. Pineda, this court has held that
"[n]eedless to say, [the] practice of law by one
who is disbarred constitutes contempt of court."
Fallo:
WHEREFORE, respondents Atty. Walter T.
Young and Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat are
found in contempt of court for using a disbarred
lawyer's name in their firm name and are meted
a fine of P30,000.00 each.
The Complaint against Atty. Jovito Gambol is
DISMISSED. This is without prejudice to any
disciplinary liabilities of respondents Atty.
Walter T. Young, Atty. Dan Reynald R. Magat,
and Judge Ofelia L. Calo.
21. Palencia v. Linsangan
A.C. No. 10557 [Formerly CBD Case No. 07-
1962], 10 July 2018
FACTS:
JERRY M. PALENCIA was an OFW seafarer
who was seriously injured during work when
he fell into the elevator shaft of the vessel M/T
"Panos G" flying a Cyprus flag.
Palencia was disharged and flown to the
Philippines to continue his medical treatment
and rehabilitation. While confined at the
hospital, one "Moises” and Jesherel,
paralegals in respondents' law office,
approached complainant. They convinced him
to engage the services of respondents' law
office to file a suit against his employers for
indemnity.
After several visits from the paralegals and
respondent Atty. Linsangan, Palencia engaged
the legal services of respondents and Gurbani
& Co., a law firm based in Singapore, and
agreed to pay attorney's fees of 35% of any
recovery or settlement obtained for both.
Complainant, through the efforts of
respondents, was paid by his employer the
following amounts: US$60,000.00 as
indemnity and US$20,000.00 under their
collective bargaining agreement. From these
amounts, respondents charged complainant
attorney's fees of 35%.
Respondents and Gurbani & Co. also filed a
tort case against the owners of "Panos G"
before the High Court of Singapore and
engaged the services of a law firm based in
Cyprus, to draft a written opinion on the
issues involving Cyprus law. They also
engaged the services of retired Justice
Gancayco for his expert opinion.
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 32
Negotiations led to a settlement award in
favor of complainant in the amount of
US$95,000.00. Gurbani & Co. remitted to
respondents the amount of US$59,608.40.
From this amount, respondents deducted: (1)
US$5,000.00 as payment to Justice
Gancayco; (2) their attorney's fees equivalent
to 35%; and (3) other expenses, leaving the
net amount of US$18,132.43 for complainant.
Respondents tendered the amount to
complainant, which the latter refused. The
following civil actions ensued between
complainant and respondents:
(1) On September 12, 2005, respondents
filed an action for preliminary mandatory
injunction to compel complainant to receive
the amount tendered. DISMISSED.
(2) On September 22, 2005, complainant
filed with the RTC of Ligao City an action for
accounting, remittance of settlement
amounts and damages (Civil Case No. 2401
or accounting case). RTC ruled in favor of
complainant On appeal, the CA reduced the
rate of attorney's fees to 10%. This Court
affirmed the CA Decision.
(3) On March 28, 2007, complainant also filed
the subject letter-complaint with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) that
corresponding disciplinary action be imposed
upon respondents for committing unethical
acts.
Report and Recommendation of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Respondents violated the canons of the Code
of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and
recommended that all respondents be
suspended from the practice of law for a
period of one year.
ISSUE:
Whether Respondents are guilty of malpractice.
RULING:
We adopt the findings of the IBP on the
unethical conduct of respondents Attys. Pedro L.
Linsangan and, Gerard M. Linsangan. We,
however, absolve respondent Atty. Glenda M.
Linsangan-Binoya for lack of any evidence as to
her participation in the acts complained of.
The practice of law is a profession and not a
business. A lawyer in making known his legal
services must do so in a dignified manner. The
CPR explicitly states that "[a] lawyer shall not
do any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business."
Corollary to this duty is for lawyers not to
encourage any suit or proceeding for any
corrupt motive or interest. Thus, "ambulance
chasing" is proscribed. 41
Here, no less than their former paralegal
Jesherel admitted that respondent Atty.
Linsangan came with her to Manila Doctors
Hospital several times to convince
complainant to hire their services.
In employing paralegals to encourage
complainant to file a lawsuit against his
employers, respondents indirectly
solicited legal business and encouraged
the filing of suit. These constitute
malpractice.
The relationship between a lawyer and his
client is highly fiduciary. This relationship
holds a lawyer to a great degree of fidelity and
good faith especially in handling money or
property of his clients. Thus, Canon 16 and
its rules remind a lawyer to:
(1) hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into
his possession;
(2) deliver the funds and property
of his client when due or upon demand
subject to his retaining lien; and
(3) account for all money or
property collected or received for or from
his client.
Money collected by a lawyer on a judgment
rendered in favor of his client constitutes trust
funds and must be immediately paid over to
the client. A lawyer is under absolute duty to
give his client a full, detailed, and accurate
account of all money and property which has
been received and handled by him, and must
ATTY. LOOD | LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW | USC | 2021 | 33
justify all transactions and dealings
concerning them. And while he is in
possession of the client's funds, he should not
commingle it with his private property or use
it for his personal purposes without his client's
consent.
Here, we find that while respondents gave
prompt notice to complainant of their receipt
of the money, they were amiss in their duties
to give accurate accounting and to return the
money due.
The Attorney-Client Contract between the
parties states: "We hereby voluntarily agree
and bind ourselves to pay Atty. Pedro L.
Linsangan and his collaborating Singapore
counsels, the sum equivalent to thirty-five
[35%] percent of any recovery or settlement
obtained." Clearly, the stipulated rate referred
to the combined professional fees of both
respondents and their collaborating Singapore
counsel, Gurbani & Co. Nevertheless,
respondents proceeded to deduct separate
fees on top of the amount already deducted
by Gurbani & Co.
Worse, respondents allegedly kept the money
inside the firm's vault for two years until they
were made aware of the disciplinary complaint
against them before the IBP-CBD.
While we find respondents Attys. Pedro
Linsangan and Gerard Linsangan to have
violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, Canon 3, Canon 16,
Rule 16.01, and Rule 16.03 of the CPR, the
records do not support respondent Atty.
Glenda Linsangan-Binoya's participation in
their unethical activities.
Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondents Attys.
Pedro Linsangan and Gerard Linsangan from
the practice of law for TWO YEARS 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.
The complaint against Atty. Glenda M.
Linsangan-Binoya is DISMISSED.