Lunar, Heather PALE 2F

Canon 1

Admin matter Bonifacio 3319 2000; Immoral conduct

Facts:

A complaint for disbarment was filed against respondent Atty Iris Bonifacio before the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (the Commission). The Complainant, Leslie Ui, alleges that her
husband, Carlos Ui carried on an illicit affair with the respondent which spawned two children. The respondent
insists that her relationship with Carlos was not illicit since they were married in Hawaii and that she was led to
believe that he was estranged from his wife back in China. Once she was confronted by the complaint, that’s only
when she discovered his true civil status.

Both the complaint before the Integrated Bar and another charging the husband and the respondent before the
Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal with the crime of Concubinage were dismissed. The Resolution justified the
dismissal due to insufficiency of evidence to prove the allegation that respondent and Carlos Ui lived together as
husband and wife. The complainant prayed for Bonifacio’s disbarment in the Memorandum she submitted. She
avers that there was no way the respondent was unaware of his previous marriage since they met in the 1970’s
when he was a client at the bank the respondent’s mother worked.

The Commission on Bar Discipline submitted a report favorable to the respondent, believing her averment that
Carlos misrepresented himself as single. The recommendations on the report were then adopted the Board of
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Issue(s):

Whether or not the respondent has conducted herself in an immoral manner to warrant disbarment.

Ruling:

No. The Court declared that respondent was imprudent in managing her personal affairs however it is not
sufficient to disbar her from the practice of law. 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.

If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then the continued possession of good moral
character is also a requisite for retaining membership in the legal profession. Membership in the bar may be
terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good moral character. Immoral conduct has been defined as "that
conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good
and respectable members of the community." It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard
as to what is "grossly immoral conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer
unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior
to the straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment.

Circumstances appeared during their relationship that should have aroused respondent’s suspicion. Had she
exercised prudence, his deception would not have escaped her. However, the fact remains that her relationship
with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered
immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion
of good and respectable members of the community.

Respondent's act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just
that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral
standard of the legal profession. Complainant's bare assertions to the contrary deserve no credit. After all, the
Lunar, Heather PALE 2F

burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the Court will exercise its disciplinary powers only if she
establishes her case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence.

It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality. The legal profession
exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from
misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than
the highest degree of morality.
Lunar, Heather PALE 2F

Guevarra v Eala

Facts:

Complainant Guevarra filed a complaint against the respondent Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for
disbarment for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath." He alleged that the
respondent carried on an illicit affair with his wife Irene Moje who introduced them to each other when they were
still engaged. He saw sweet messages from Eala on his wife’s phone on noticed the frequent instances when she
came home very late at night. After confronting her on the matter, she abandons the conjugal house.

Guevarra’s complaint avers that “Respondent's adulterous conduct with the complainant's wife and his apparent
abandoning or neglecting of his own family, demonstrate his gross moral depravity, making him morally unfit to
keep his membership in the bar. He flaunted his aversion to the institution of marriage, calling it a "piece of
paper."

In his Answer, the respondent admits to sending on the very day of Irene’s wedding, the I LOVE YOU LETTER
Complainant found from Irene’s things. However, he denies flaunting the affair and insisting that they kept a low
profile. Because the affair was never carried under scandalous circumstances, he posits that such acts do not
demonstrate gross moral depravity. Furthermore, because Irene’s marriage with the Complainant was eventually
decalred null and void, he asserts that the set of facts where the adultery case filed against him was based has
been withdrawn.

Issue(s): Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage should
be characterized as 'grossly immoral conduct.'

Ruling:

Yes. The records of this administrative case substantiate the findings of the Investigating Commissioner, as well as
the IBP Board of Governors, i.e., that indeed respondent has been carrying on an illicit affair with a married
woman, a grossly immoral conduct and indicative of an extremely low regard for the fundamental ethics of his
profession. This detestable behavior renders him regrettably unfit and undeserving of the treasured honor and
privileges which his license confers upon him. Respondent in fact also violated the lawyer's oath he took before
admission to practice law. The Family Code (Executive Order No. 209), which echoes this constitutional provision,
obligates the husband and the wife "to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual
help and support.” Respondent also violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct," and Rule 7.03
of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law."

Keeping a low profile does not exonerate such acts from being branded as morally reprehensible and. Neither does
the subsequent nullification of Guevarra and Irene’s marriage is material because the illicit affair happened prior to
their separation. Sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate
disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.

As for complainant's withdrawal of his petition for review before the DOJ, respondent glaringly omitted to state
that before complainant filed his December 23, 2003 Motion to Withdraw his Petition for Review, the DOJ had
already promulgated a Resolution on September 22, 2003 reversing the dismissal by the Quezon City Prosecutor's
Office of complainant's complaint for adultery. It bears emphasis that adultery is a private offense which cannot be
prosecuted de oficio and thus leaves the DOJ no choice but to grant complainant's motion to withdraw his petition
for review. But even if respondent and Irene were to be acquitted of adultery after trial, if the Information for
adultery were filed in court, the same would not have been a bar to the present administrative complaint.
Lunar, Heather PALE 2F

Canons 2 & 3

Ulep vs The Legal Clinic, B.M. No. 533, June 17, 1933

Facts:

Petitioner Mauricio C. Ulep prays to the Court to order the respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., to cease and desist
from issuing advertisements and to perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining
to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law.” The petitioner avers that the
advertisements produced by the respondent were champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and
destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar. The respondent admits
the fact of publication of said advertisements at its instance, but claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law
but in the rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals with the use of modern computers and
electronic machines. Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised are legal services, the
act of advertising these services should be allowed supposedly in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van
O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona.

Issue(s):

Whether or not, the advertised services offered by the Legal Clinic, Inc., constitutes practice of law, the
advertisement of which is consequently in violation of the Code of Professional responsibility

Ruling:

Yes. While the respondent repeatedly denies that it offers legal services to the public, the advertisements in
question give the impression that respondent is offering legal services. The Petition in fact simply assumes this to
be so, as earlier mentioned, apparently because this is the effect that the advertisements have on the reading
public. The impression created by the advertisements in question can be traced, first of all, to the very name being
used by respondent — "The Legal Clinic, Inc." Such a name, it is respectfully submitted connotes the rendering of
legal services for legal problems, just like a medical clinic connotes medical services for medical problems. More
importantly, the term "Legal Clinic" connotes lawyers, as the term medical clinic connotes doctors.

The advertisement is covered in the term practice of law as defined in the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod. There is a
restricted concept and limited acceptance of paralegal services in the Philippines. It is allowed that some persons
not duly licensed to practice law are or have been permitted with a limited representation in behalf of another or
to render legal services, but such allowable services are limited in scope and extent by the law, rules or regulations
granting permission therefore. Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making
known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts.
Canon 3.01 adds that he is not supposed to use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. Nor shall he
pay or give something of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to
attract legal business (Canon 3.04).

The respondent’s defense with the case of Bates vs. State Bar applies only when there is an exception to the
prohibition against advertisements by lawyers, to publish a statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or the
availability upon request of a written schedule of fees or an estimate of the fee to be charged for the specific
services. No such exception is provided for, expressly or impliedly whether in our former Canons of Professional
Ethics or the present Code of Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case
contains a proviso that the exceptions stand therein are "not applicable in any state unless and until it is
implemented by such authority in that state.”
Lunar, Heather PALE 2F

The Canons of Professional Ethics, before the adoption of the CPR, had also warned that lawyers should not resort
to indirect advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or
procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in which the lawyer have been engaged of
concerning the manner of the conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance the lawyer's
position, and all other like self-laudation. There are existing exceptions under the law on the rule prohibiting the
advertisement of a lawyer’s services. However, taking into consideration the nature and contents of the
advertisements for which respondent is being taken to task, which even includes a quotation of the fees charged
by said respondent corporation for services rendered, the court found and held that the same definitely do not
and conclusively cannot fall under any of the exceptions.

The first of such exceptions is the publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of
conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data. "Such data must not be misleading and
may include only a statement of the lawyer’s name and the names of his professional associates; addresses,
telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of law practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar;
schools attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational distinction; public or quasi-public
offices; posts of honor; legal authorships; legal teaching positions; memberships and offices in bar associations and
committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law
lists; the names and addresses of references; and, with their written consent, the names of clients regularly
represented.." . . The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card may contain only a
statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number and
special branch of law practiced. The publication of a simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of
changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the profession, is
not objectionable. He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but not under a designation of
special branch of law.
Lunar, Heather PALE 2F

Canon 4

(1) Request of National Committee on Legal Aid to Exempt Legal Aid Clients from Paying Filing, Docket and Other
Fees, A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC, August 28, 2009;

Facts:

The Misamis Oriental Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) promulgated Resolution No. 24, series
of 2008. The resolution requested the IBP’s National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) seeks to exclude from the
payment of filing, docket and other fees of clients of the legal aid offices in the various IBP chapters.

Issue(s):

Whether the indigent clients of Public Attorneys’ Office (PAO) are automatically exempt from
the payment of docket and other fees for cases.

Ruling:

Yes. The Resolution was unanimously approved upon motion severally seconded and the Court lauded the Misamis
Oriental Chapter of the IBP for its effort to help improve the administration of justice, particularly, the access to
justice by the poor. In promulgating Resolution No. 24, the Misamis Oriental Chapter of the IBP has effectively
performed its duty to "participate in the development of the legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in law
reform and in the administration of justice." The legal aid service rendered by the NCLA and legal aid offices of IBP
chapters nationwide addresses only the right to adequate legal assistance. Recipients of the service of the NCLA
and legal aid offices of IBP chapters may enjoy free access to courts by exempting them from the payment of fees
assessed in connection with the filing of a complaint or action in court. With these twin initiatives, the guarantee
of Section 11, Article III of Constitution is advanced and access to justice is increased by bridging a significant gap
and removing a major roadblock.

The Court recognizes the right of access to justice as the most important pillar of legal empowerment of the
marginalized sectors of our society.

The "means and merit tests" appear to be reasonable determinants of eligibility for coverage under the legal aid
program of the IBP. Nonetheless, they may be improved to ensure that any exemption from the payment of legal
fees that may be granted to clients of the NCLA and the legal aid offices of the various IBP chapters will really
further the right of access to justice by the poor. This will guarantee that the exemption will neither be abused nor
trivialized. Towards this end, the following shall be observed by the NCLA and the legal aid offices in IBP chapters
nationwide in accepting clients and handling cases for the said clients:

A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC (IRR): Re: Rule on the Exemption From the Payment of Legal Fees of the Clients of
the National Committee on Legal Aid and of the Legal Aid Offices in the Local Chapters of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines

Rule on the Exemption From the Payment of Legal Fees of the Clients of the National Committee on
Legal Aid (NCLA) and of the Legal Aid Offices in the Local Chapters of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP)

Section 1. Tests for determining who may be clients of the NCLA and the legal aid offices in local IBP
chapters. – The NCLA or the chapter legal aid committee, as the case may be, shall pass upon requests for
legal aid by the combined application of the means and merit tests and the consideration of other
relevant factors provided for in the following sections.
Lunar, Heather PALE 2F

Section 2. Means test; exception. – (a) This test shall be based on the following criteria: (i) the applicant
and that of his immediate family must have a gross monthly income that does not exceed an amount
double the monthly minimum wage of an employee in the place where the applicant resides and (ii) he
does not own real property with a fair market value as stated in the current tax declaration of more than
Three Hundred Thousand (₱300,000.00) Pesos.

In this connection, the applicant shall execute an affidavit of indigency (printed at the back of the
application form) stating that he and his immediate family do not earn a gross income abovementioned,
nor own any real property with the fair value aforementioned, supported by an affidavit of a disinterested
person attesting to the truth of the applicant’s affidavit. The latest income tax return and/or current tax
declaration, if any, shall be attached to the applicant’s affidavit.

(b) The means test shall not be applicable to applicants who fall under the developmental legal aid
program such as overseas workers, fisherfolk, farmers, laborers, indigenous cultural communities,
women, children and other disadvantaged groups.

Section 3. Merit test. – A case shall be considered meritorious if an assessment of the law and evidence at
hand discloses that the legal service will be in aid of justice or in the furtherance thereof, taking into
consideration the interests of the party and those of society. A case fails this test if, after consideration of
the law and evidence presented by the applicant, it appears that it is intended merely to harass or injure
the opposite party or to work oppression or wrong.
Lunar, Heather PALE 2F

(2) Samonte vs Gatdula, A.M. No. P-99-1292, February 26, 1999.

Facts:

Julieta Borremeo Samonte, the Complainant, charges Rolando R. Gatdula with grave misconduct consisting in the
alleged engaging in the private practice of law which is in conflict with his official functions as Branch Clerk of
Court. The RTC branch where the respondent worked as a Clerk allegedly enjoined the execution of the decision in
favor of the complainant’s sister who was a plaintiff in an ejectment case pending with the MTC. Gatdula
attempted to convince her to change her lawyer and engage the services of the law office where he is associated
so that the execution of the judgment to proceed.

Respondent denied this and claimed that it was the complainant who showed him said calling card and asked him
if he could handle the case but to which he refused as he was not connected with the law firm, though he was
invited to join the firm. The case was set for hearing several times but the complainant nor her counsel did not
appear. Atty. Gatdula recited the antecedents in the ejectment case and the issuance of the restraining order by
the Regional Trial Court, and claimed that contrary to complainant Samonte's allegation that she was not notified
of the raffle and the hearing, the Notice of Hearing on the motion for the issuance of a Temporary Retraining
Order was duly served upon the parties, and that the application for injunctive relief was heard before the
temporary restraining order was issued. Respondent Gatdula claims that the complainant must have filed this
administrative charge because of her frustration in procuring the ejectment of the defendant lessee from the
premises. Respondent prays for the dismissal of the complainant against him.

Issue(s): Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in the private
practice of law while holding public office.

Ruling:

The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with the dispensation of justice from the presiding judge to the
lowliest clerk must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but above all else must be above
suspicion. The Court ruled that the inclusion or retention of respondent’s name in the professional card constitutes
an act of solicitation which is a violation of Section 7, subparagraph (b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials or Employees) otherwise known as "Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for the Public Officials and Employees" which declares it unlawful for a public official or employee to,
among others:

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law,
provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with official functions.

The respondent is guilty of a minor infraction. The complainant, by her failure to appear at the hearings, failed to
substantiate her allegation that it was the respondent who gave her calling card "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon,
Dimailig and Celera Law Offices" and that he tried to convince her to change counsels. We find however, that while
the respondent vehemently denies the complainant's allegations, he does not deny that his name appears on the
calling card attached to the complaint, which admittedly came into the hands of the complainant.

While respondent denied having assumed any position in said office, the fact remains that his name is included
therein which may therefore tend to show that he has dealings with said office. Thus, while he may not be actually
and directly employed with the firm, the fact that his name appears on the calling card as partner in the Baligod,
Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig & Celera Law Offices give the impression that he is connected therein and may
constitute an act of solicitation and private practice which is declared unlawful under Republic Act. No. 6713. It is
to be noted, however, that complainant failed to establish by convincing evidence that respondent actually offered
to her the services of their law office. Thus, the violation committed by respondent in having his name
included/retained in the calling card may only be considered as a minor infraction for which he must also be
administratively sanctioned.
Lunar, Heather PALE 2F