Ruben Andaya (Complainant) vs Atty.

Aladin Tumanda (Respondent)

Atty. Tumanda borrowed to the complainant an amount of 500,000 Pesos and in in exchange he

gave the respondent a post-date check of the same amount. However, when complainant went to

deposit the check, he found out that the account was closed. Thus, through his counsel, send a

demand letter to the respondent which he complied, pleasing the complainant as he offered his

Mercedes Benz even proceeded to hand him the deed of sale of the said vehicle. Respondent

however failed to give the Certificate of Registration to the complainant on the pretense of

having forgot to bring it. And he did not turnover the vehicle completely as he stated he still

needed it to run his business ventures, only to later found out by the complainant that he sold the

same vehicle to another person hence complainant charged respondent with estafa and violation

of Batas Pambansa 22, and the court ruled that issuing a worthless check is in violation of Canon

1 of the CPR and due to his deceitfulness ad lack of honesty he was suspended from the practice

of law for three years.

Joselano Guevarra (Complainant) vs Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala or Noli Eala (Respondent)

Complainant Joselano filed a case against Respondent Noli Eala for grossly immoral conduct

and unmitigated violation of the lawyer’s oath. Complainant was first introduced to the

respondent by complainant’s then-fiancé Irene Moje under the guise that they where friends to

note that Noli Eala was already married to Marrianne Tantoco whom the respondent have three

children with.

Joselano was then married to irene on October 7,2000 then a few months later, complainant

found out that Irene and Noli Eala where exchanging sweet messages for context they said “I

love you”. “I miss you” or “Meet you at Megamall”. He also noticed Irene habitually coming

home late or early morning followed by her absence for long period of time claiming she was

staying at her parents’ house Later he found the Noli Eala and Irene on two different occasions

he confronted them on the second occasion which led to Irene leaving the conjugal house, When

Irene’s birthday came the complainant was not invited but even so he went, he was embarrassed,

humiliated and furious that Irene and Noli where celebrating the festivities without him.

Following the incident Irene went to their conjugal house and took all of her belongings, and

complainant then found out that Irene and Noli leaving under the same roof, and after a few

months a friend of Joselano told him they saw them in a concert wherein Irene was pregnant.

Atty. Noli Eala was accused of concubinage, under ART.334 of the Revised Penal Code and for

his grossly immoral misconduct runs afoul of the constitution the court declared Atty. Noli Eala

disbarred for grossly immoral conduct and violation of Canon 1 and 7 of CPR
Maria Victoria Ventura vs Atty. Danilo S. Samson

Maria Victoria filed a complaint for disbarment or suspension against Atty. Samson for grossly

immoral misconduct, Ventura stated that on December of 2001, when she was sleeping at the

respondent’s residence, the respondent came into her room in the maid’s quarters proceeded to

went on top of her and did her way with her. On another occasion on march of 2002 at the

respondent’s poultry farm, Samson asked her to join him to the farm where she proceeded to

sexually abuse her in an old shanty and giving her 500 pesos and threatening her to not tell

anyone or she and her mother will be killed. Atty samson defended himself stating that what they

did was consensual and mutual understanding and there was just compensation hence the 500

pesos, hence the criminal case against him was dismissed however the SC ruled that the act of

Atty. Samson constitute to grossly immoral act and in violation of Canon 1 and Canon 6 of the

CPR. Hence the respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson was disbarred.

NENA YBAÑEZ ZERNA VS. ATTY. MANOLO M. ZERNA

Defendant Atty. Manolo Zerna is a retired judge who allegedly had multiple affairs from

different women. Her wife and complainant Nena Zerna whom he begot three children with filed

a complaint against Atty. Zerna regarding the said affairs and failure of supporting the family

and was liable to physical and emotional abuse to Nena Zerna and their children. it was only

when he took up law several years after they contracted marriage that he realized his union with

complainant was void ab initio for lack of a valid marriage license, as complainant allegedly

forged his signature and obtained a marriage license even without his personal appearance

Respondent added that complainant never supported him either financially or emotionally as

a dutiful wife should. He denied the accusation that he failed to give support to his children, and

that he abandoned his family. He, likewise, denied complainant's allegations of concubinage,

claiming that these were brought about by complainant's misplaced and unfounded jealousy. the

Court agrees with the finding of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline and IBP Board of

Governors that the complainant has presented enough evidence to substantiate her claim that

respondent Atty. Manolo M. Zerna is guilty of gross immorality and may, therefore, be

removed or suspended by the Supreme Court for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar.