CASE 2 Clarion Realty and Development Corporation (Clarion) is a corporation where Mark

Jimenez owned substantial number shares of stock.

Canon 2
Later, Mark Jimenez filed an estafa case against the complainant for her alleged
FACTS participation in the fraudulent means in selling his properties. Instead of remitting all the
proceeds of the sale to Mark Jimenez, complainant and her co-respondents misappropriated
and converted the funds for their personal use and benefit.

Mark Jimenez and the complainant were former lovers. Caroline Jimenez filed a complaint
against respondent Atty. Edgar Francisco for allegedly violating the rule on privileged
communication between attorney and client when the respondent submitted an affidavit in
support of the estafa case. According to the complainant, she usually conferred with the
respondent regarding the legal implications of Clarion’s transactions.

More significantly, the principal documents relative to the sale and transfer of Clarion’s
property were all prepared and drafted by the respondent or the members of his law office.

On the other hand, respondent countered that he was not the complainant’s lawyer as he
was the lawyer of Mark Jimenez and of the Clarion. He also argued that he might have
assisted the complainant in some matters, but these were all under the notion that Mark
Jimenez had given him authority to do so. While he admitted that the legal documentation
for the transfer of shares and the sale of the Forbes property were prepared by him and
notarized by the members of his law firm, he averred that these acts were performed in his
capacity as the corporate secretary and legal counsel of Clarion, and not as a lawyer of
complainant.

He also opined that the complainant failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence,
that a lawyer-client relationship existed between them so as to make operational the rule on
privileged communication. Respondent was found guilty by the Commission on Bar
Discipline’s Investigating Commissioner of violating the rule on privileged communication
and engaged in an act that constituted representation of conflicting interests in violation of
Canons 15 and 21 of the CPR.

For this, he was recommended to be suspended for one (1) year from the practice of law.
On appeal, the IBP Board of Governors affirmed in toto the assailed ruling and denied the
Motion for Reconsideration filed later by the respondent
ISSUES W/N Respondent violate the rule on privileged communication between him and the
complainant
RULING No, because there was no lawyer-client relationship. The factors in determining the
existence of lawyer-client privilege are the following: (1) there exists an attorney-client
relationship, or a prospective attorney-client relationship, and it is by reason of this
relationship that the client made the communication; (2) the client made the communication
in confidence; and (3) the legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his professional
capacity. (Mercado v. Vitriolo)

The Court ruled that based on the records of the case, there was no indication that the
“advice” regarding the sale of the Forbes property was given to the respondent in
confidence. Neither was there a demonstration of what the complainant had communicated
to the respondent nor a recital of circumstances under which the confidential
communication was relayed.

All that the complainant alleged in her complaint was that “she sought the legal advice from
respondent in various occasions.” Considering that complainant also failed to attend the
hearings at the IBP, there was no testimony as to the specific confidential information
allegedly divulged by the respondent without her consent. It is therefore difficult, if not
impossible, to determine if there was any violation of the rule on privileged
communication. It is not enough to merely assert the attorney-client privilege as the
complainant has the burden of proving that it exists and applies.

However, while she failed to prove this, the respondent’s actions were found to have
constituted malpractice and gross misconduct in his office as attorney when he actively and
passively allowed Clarion to make untruthful representations to the SEC and in other public
 documents. For this, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law for six (6)
months.

CASE 3

FACTS The petitioner, the respondent’s legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a
supplemental affidavit for disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido
and Atty. Romana P. Valencia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on
Discipline, charging them with gross immorality, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The complaint arose after the petitioner caught wind through her daughter that her
husband was having an affair with a woman other than his wife and already had a child
with her; and the same information was confirmed when one of her daughters saw that
her husband walking in a Robinsons mall with the other respondent, Atty. Valencia, with
their child in tow.

First, the respondents filed a Motion for Suspension of Proceedings in view of the
criminal complaint for concubinage Maelotisea filed against them, and the Petition for
Declaration of Nullity (of marriage) Atty. Garrido filed to nullify his marriage to
Maelotisea. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline denied this motion for lack of merit.
Second, the respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaints after the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City declared the marriage between Atty. Garrido and Maelotisea
"an absolute nullity." Since Maelotisea was never the legal wife of Atty. Garrido, the
respondents argued that she had no personality to file her complaints against them.

The respondents also alleged that they had not committed any immoral act since they
married when Atty. Garrido was already a widower, and the acts complained of were
committed before his admission to the bar. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline also
denied this motion. Third, Maelotisea filed a motion for the dismissal of the complaints
she filed against the respondents, arguing that she wanted to maintain friendly relations
with Atty. Garrido, who is the father of her six (6) children.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline likewise denied this motion. After a much
further investigation into the matter, the time and effort given yielded results telling her
that Atty. Valencia and her legal husband had been married in Hong Kong. Moreover, on
June 1993, her husband left their conjugal home and joined Atty. Ramona Paguida
Valencia at their residence, and has since failed to render much needed financial support.
In their defense, they postulated that they were not lawyers as of yet when they
committed the supposed immorality, so as such, they were not guilty of a violation of
Canon1, Rule 1.01.
ISSUES Whether or not Atty. Garrido’s and Valencia’s actions constitute a violation of Canon 1,
Rule1.01 and thus a good enough cause for their disbarment, despite the offense being
supposedly committed when they were not lawyers.
RULING Yes. Membership in the Bar is a privilege, and as a privilege bestowed by law through
the Supreme Court, membership in the Bar can be withdrawn where circumstances show
the lawyer’s lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers, be they academic or
moral.

In the present case, the Court had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty. Angel
E. Garrido and Atty. Rowena P. Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which commands that a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Furthermore, The contention of respondent that they were not yet lawyers when they got
married shall not afford them exemption from sanctions; good moral character was
already required as a condition precedent to admission to the Bar. As a lawyer, a person
whom the community looked up to, Atty. Garrido a nd Valencia wereshouldered with
the expectation that they would set a good example in promoting obedience to the
Constitution and the laws.
 When they violated the law and distorted it to cater to his own personal needs and selfish
motives, not only did their actions discredit the legal profession. Such actions by
themselves, without even including the fact of Garrido’s abandonment of paternal
responsibility, to the detriment of his children by the petitioner; or the fact that Valencia
married Garrido despite knowing of his other marriages to two other women including
the petitioner, are clear indications of a lack of moral values not consistent with the
proper conduct of practicing lawyers within the country. As such, their disbarment is
affirmed.

Case 4.Ceniza vs.Ceniza

FACTS The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received the complainant's letter-complaint
denouncing the immoral conduct committed by her husband, a member of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
The complainant stated that she and the respondent were married on November 12,
1989 at the Sacred Heart Parish in Cebu City; that in time they had two children,
Marie Agnes (Agnes) and Christopher Chuck;[4] that on April 21, 2008, he told her
that he would be attending a seminar in Manila, but because she had some business
to attend to in General Santos City, he seemingly agreed to her request to forego with
his trip to Manila, and that upon her return from General Santos City on April 26,
2008, however, he had already moved out of their home, taking along with him his
car and personal belongings.
On May 23, 2008, the complainant went to the Mandaue City Hall where the
respondent worked as a legal officer in order to inquire about his situation. 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 (Anna). On the next day, the
complainant, accompanied by her daughter and a nephew, went to the address
provided by the staff to verify the information. They were able to meet Anna's sister
who informed them that she had moved out of their address; that Anna and her
second husband, Atty. Eliseo Ceniza, Jr., the herein respondent, had been living
together in Aldea Subdivision; and that in the evening of said date the complainant
and her daughter proceeded to the new address where they found and confronted the
respondent, who simply denied having committed any wrongdoing.
On July 9, 2008, the respondent commenced a civil action seeking the declaration of
nullity of his marriage with the complainant
On August 11, 2008, the respondent visited the complainant at work and requested
her to agree to the nullification of their marriage. She refused and instead pleaded
with him to avoid displaying his paramour in public. Her pleas notwithstanding, he
continued with the illicit relationship.
On November 18, 2008, the complainant brought a complaint for immorality against
the respondent in the Office of the Ombudsman
On April 2, 2009, the complainant sent a letter to President Macapagal-Arroyo
alleging therein that her husband had abandoned her and their children in order to
live with another woman.On May 18, 2009, the Presidential Action Center of the
Office of the President forwarded the complainant's letter to President Macapagal-
Arroyo to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC).[6] In due course, the OBC
directed the respondent to comment on the complaint against him.
On October 26, 2009, the respondent filed his comment,[7] wherein he denied
having engaged in immoral conduct and maintained that Anna had only been a
business partner. He insisted that he had moved in with his parents after leaving their
family home; and that he had left the complainant because her behavior had become
unbearable.
the Office of the Ombudsman issued its decision... in which it found the respondent
guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct for having an extramarital affair with a
 woman in violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees
ISSUES whether or not respondent is guilty of immorality in his relationship with Anna Fe
Binoya.
RULING We disagree with the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors for the
dismissal of the charge of immorality.
For sure, the finding of insufficient evidence against the respondent was
unwarranted. He had not even put forward anything of substance in his defense. He
had been content with merely denying the imputed wrongdoing, but his denial did
not disprove the substantial evidence adduced against him. He had been sufficiently
shown to have abandoned his legitimate spouse and family in order to live with a
married woman.
The findings made by the Office of the Ombudsman in the administrative case
brought against the respondent more than sufficed to show his immorality, thereby
showing his failure to live up to the legal and ethical obligations of a lawyer.
Vis-à-vis complainant's overwhelming allegations, respondent offered only self-
serving denials.
complainant was able to build her case against respondent. As afore-discussed,
complainant presented evidence to support her claims. There were documentary
evidence and affidavits proving, to the best of her ability, her accusations against
respondent."
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. 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 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.[21] That the illicit partner is himself or herself
married compounds the immorality.
The Court will exercise its disciplining authority only if the case against the
respondent is established by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. Given the
serious and far-reaching consequences of disbarment, only a clearly preponderant
showing can warrant the imposition of the harsh penalty of disbarment.
In view of the foregoing, the respondent's immoral conduct violated Rule 1.01 and
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY. ELISEO B.
CENIZA, JR. 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.

Case 5. Agoy v. Atty. Rivera

FACTS In her Complaint-Affidavit, complainant alleged that she was invited as maid of
honor in her best friend's wedding on December 9, 2007 at the United States of
America. To facilitate the issuance of her United States (US) visa, complainant
sought the services of respondent who... represented himself as an immigration
lawyer. Thus, on November 17, 2007, they entered into a Contract of Legal
Services (Contract),[2] whereby respondent undertook to facilitate and secure the
 release of a US immigrant visa in complainant's favor prior to... the scheduled
wedding. In consideration therefor, complainant paid respondent the amount of
P350,000.00 as downpayment and undertook to pay the balance of P350,000.00
after the issuance of the US visa.[3] The parties likewise stipulated that should...
n his Comment[6] dated December 5, 2008, respondent claimed that his failure to
comply with his obligation under the Contract was due to the false pretenses of a
certain Rico Pineda (Pineda), who he had believed to be a consul for the US
Embassy and to... whom he delivered the amount given by the complainant.
Respondent elaborated that he had a business relationship with Pineda on the
matter of facilitating the issuance of US visas to his friends and family, including
himself. He happened to disclose this to a certain Joseph
Peralta, who in turn referred his friend, the complainant, whose previous US visa
application had been denied, resulting in the execution of the Contract.
Respondent claimed that Pineda reneged on his commitments and could no
longer be located but, nonetheless, assumed the... responsibility to return the said
amount to complainant.[7] To buttress his claims, respondent attached pictures
supposedly of his friends and family with Pineda as well as electronic mail
messages (e-mails) purportedly coming from the latter.[8]
The Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of engaging in deceitful
conduct for: (a) misrepresenting himself as an immigration lawyer; (b) failing to
deliver the services he contracted; and (c) being remiss in returning complainant's
downpayment... of P350,000.00. The Investigating Commissioner did not lend
credence to respondent's defense anent his purported transactions with Pineda
considering that the latter's identity was not proven and in light of respondent's
self-serving evidence, i.e., photographs and... e-mails, which were bereft of any
probative value.[11]
ISSUES whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the
CPR.
RULING In the instant case, respondent misrepresented himself as an immigration lawyer,
which resulted to complainant seeking his assistance to facilitate the issuance of
her US visa and paying him the amount of P350,000.00 as downpayment for his
legal services. In truth, however,... respondent has no specialization in
immigration law but merely had a contact allegedly with Pineda, a purported US
consul, who supposedly processes US visa applications for him. However,
respondent failed to prove Pineda's identity considering that the photographs and
e-mails he... submitted were all self-serving and thus, as correctly observed by
the Investigating Commissioner, bereft of any probative value and consequently
cannot be given any credence. Undoubtedly, respondent's deception is not only
unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the... legal profession; it reveals a
basic moral flaw that makes him unfit to practice law.[15]
Corollary to such deception, respondent likewise failed to perform his obligations
under the Contract, which is to facilitate and secure the issuance of a US visa in
favor of complainant. This constitutes a flagrant violation of Rule 18.03, Canon
18 of the CPR, to wit:
CANON 18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE
AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Under Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, once a lawyer takes up the cause of his
client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such
client's cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or
for free. He owes fidelity to... such cause and must always be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed upon him.[16] Therefore, a lawyer's neglect of a legal
matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which
he must be held administratively... liable,[17] as in this case.
erily, the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and
prescribes on a lawyer a great fidelity and good faith.[18] The highly fiduciary
nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the
money or... property collected or received for or from his client.[19] Thus, a
lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his
client, as in this case, gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the
same for his own use in... violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such
act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics.[20]
Atty. Luis P. Rivera (respondent) is found guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon
1, Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from
the... practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon the finality of
this Decision, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts
will be dealt with more severely.
o return to complainant Chamelyn A. Agot the legal fees he received from the
latter in the amount of P350,000.00 within ninety (90) days from the finality of
this Decision. Failure to comply with the foregoing directive will warrant the...
imposition of a more severe penalty.