In re LUIS B.

TAGORDA,
Duran & Lim for respondent.
Attorney-General Jaranilla and Provincial Fiscal Jose for the Government.
March 23, 1929
MALCOLM, J.:

CASE DOCTRINE:

1. Section 21 of the code of civil procedure as amended by act no. 2828, and canons 27 and 28
of the code of ethics adopted by the American bar association and the Philippine bar
association construed and applied; solicitation of cases by an attorney as ground for disbarment
or suspension.
2. The law is a profession and not a business. Under the Canons of Professional Ethics,
solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or
interview not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional.

FACTS:

Luis Tagorda was a member of the provincial board of Isabela. Previous to the last election, he
admits that he made use of a card written in Spanish containing the fact that he was a candidate
for third member of the Province of Isabela & offering services as notary public (such as free
consultation, execution of deed of sale, etc.). He also admits that he wrote a letter addressed to
a lieutenant of a barrio if his home municipality saying that he will continue his practice of law
and for the lieutenant to make known to the people of his desire to serve as lawyer & notary
public (including his services to handle land registration cases for P3/every registration).

ISSUE:

Whether or not the acts of Luis B. Tagorda violated Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

RULING:

Yes. The acts of Luis B. Tagorda violated Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Tagorda is
in a way advertising his services and is contrary to the Canons of Professional Ethics.

Section 21 of the code of civil procedure as amended by act no. 2828, and canons 27 and 28 of
the code of ethics adopted by the American bar association and the Philippine bar association
construed and applied; solicitation of cases by an attorney as ground for disbarment or
suspension. Canons 27 and 28 of the Code of Ethics provide that solicitation of business by
circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interview not warranted by
personal relations, is unprofessional as well as volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in
rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it his duty to do so.

In view of all the circumstances of this case, the judgment of the court is that the respondent
Luis B. Tagorda be and is hereby suspended from the practice as an attorney-at-law for the
period of one month from April 1, 1929.
 THE DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS, complainant,
vs.
ESTANISLAO R. BAYOT, respondent.
Office of the Solicitor General De la Costa and Solicitor Feria for complainant.
Francisco Claravall for respondent.
A.C. No. L-1117
March 20, 1944

OZAETA, J.:

CASE DOCTRINE:

The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

FACTS:

The respondent, who is an attorney-at-law, is charged with malpractice for having published an
advertisement in the Sunday Tribune of June 13, 1943.

Appearing in his own behalf, respondent at first denied having published the said advertisement;
but subsequently, thru his attorney, he admitted having caused its publication and prayed for
"the indulgence and mercy" of the Court, promising "not to repeat such professional misconduct
in the future and to abide himself to the strict ethical rules of the law profession." In further
mitigation he alleged that the said advertisement was published only once in the Tribune and
that he never had any case at law by reason thereof.

Upon that plea the case was submitted to the Court for decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent, Estanislao Bayot, is guilty of malpractice.

RULING:

Yes. The respondent, Estanislao Bayot, is guilty of malpractice. Section 25 of Rule 127
expressly provides among other things that “the practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.” The
advertisement he caused to be published is a brazen solicitation of business from the public. It
is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his
marketable skills. The Supreme Court again emphasized that best advertisement for a lawyer is
the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust.

Considering his plea for leniency and his promise not to repeat the misconduct, the Court is of
the opinion and so decided that the respondent should be, as he hereby is, reprimanded.
 ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public
Information Office, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, Respondent.
A.C. No. 5299
August 19, 2003

YNARES-SANTIAGO

CASE DOCTRINE:

1. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture and law advocacy is not a
capital that necessarily yields profits; Elements distinguishing the legal profession from a
business.

2. Solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed for solicitation to be proper, it must
be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession.

FACTS:

Respondent Atty. Rizalino Simbillo advertised in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Manila Bulletin,
and The Philippine star his legal services for annulment cases. Upon investigation, Atty. Ismael
G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information
Office, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for improper
advertising and solicitation of his legal services.

The respondent prayed that he be exonerated from all the charges against him and that the
Court promulgate a ruling that advertisement of legal services offered by a lawyer is not contrary
to law, public policy and public order as long as it is dignified

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline passed Resolution finding respondent guilty of violation
of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of
the Rules of Court, and suspended him from the practice of law for one (1) year with the
warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Rizalino Simbillo’s acts violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

Yes. Atty. Rizalino Simbillo’s acts violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rules 2.03
and 3.01 of the Code states that a lawyer is prohibited from performing acts designed to solicit
legal business and that he is not permitted to use self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim
regarding his qualifications or legal services.

The respondent admits that he caused the publication of the advertisements. He advertised
himself as a self-styled "Annulment of Marriage Specialist," he wittingly or unwittingly erodes
and undermines not only the stability but also the sanctity of an institution still considered
sacrosanct despite the contemporary climate of permissiveness in our society. The solicitation
of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be
compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a modest and decorous
manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO is found GUILTY

of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138,
Section 27 of the Rules of Court. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR
effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of
the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
 BLANDINA GAMBOA HILADO, petitioner,
vs.
JOSE GUTIERREZ DAVID, VICENTE J. FRANCISCO, JACOB ASSAD and SELIM JACOB
ASSAD, respondents.
Delgado, Dizon and Flores for petitioner.
Vicente J. Francisco for respondents.
G.R. No. L-961
September 21, 1949

TUASON, J.:

CASE DOCTRINE:

1. To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client should have employed
the attorney professionally on any previous occasion.
2. The mere relation of attorney and client ought to preclude the attorney from accepting the
opposite party's retainer in the same litigation regardless of what information was received by
him from his first client.
3. Information so received is sacred to the employment to which it pertains, and to permit it to be
used in the interest of another, or, worse still, in the interest of the adverse party, is to strike at
the element of confidence which lies at the basis of, and affords the essential security in, the
relation of attorney and client.

FACTS:

Petitioner, Mrs. Blandina Hilado filed an action against Selim Jacob Assad to annul the sale of
several house & lot between Assad and her now deceased husband, during the Japanese
occupation. Assad’s counse is Atty. Francisco while the petitioner’s counsels are Attorneys
Delgado, Dizon, Flores and Rodrigo. Atty. Dizon in the name of his firm, wrote Atty. Francisco to
discontinue representing Assad because Mrs. Hilado consulted her about the case and even
turned over some documents to Atty. Francisco. The respondent even wrote a legal
opinion/letter addressed to Mrs. Hilado regarding the same case, which states that Atty.
Francisco will not represent Mrs. Hilado in the case and he thinks that the action against Assad
will not prosper.

The respondent contended that he refused to become her counsel because he thinks that the
action will not prosper. Later, the firm’s stenographer showed Atty. Francisco a letter allegedly
dictated by Atty. Agrava which explains to Mrs. Hilado why they refuse to take the case. Atty.
Francisco allegedly signed the letter without reading it. Later on, Assad went to Atty. Francisco’s
office and he accepted the retainer fee afterwards.

The Court of Appeals, through the ponencia of Honorable Jose Gutierrez David dismissed the
complaint.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the plaintiff and the respondent attained the point of creating the relation of
attorney and client.

RULING:
Yes, there was an attorney-client relationship because the purpose of Mrs. Hilado was to obtain
Atty. Francisco’s personal service as a lawyer. To constitute professional employment it is not
essential that the client should have employed the attorney professionally on any previous
occasion. It is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for

Formality is not an essential element of the employment of an attorney. An acceptance of the

relation is implied on the part of the attorney from his acting in behalf of his client in pursuance
of a request by the latter.

Atty. Francisco’s firm did give Mrs. Hilado a formal professional advice from which, as
heretofore demonstrated, emerged the relation of attorney and client.

The Court ruled therefore that the motion for disqualification should be allowed. It is so ordered,
without costs.

Note:

RETAINING FEE —"A retaining fee is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or counsel to insure
and secure his future services, and induce him to act for the client. It is intended to remunerate
counsel for being deprived, by being services to the other and of receiving pay from him, and
the payment of such fee, in the absence of an express understanding to the contrary, is neither
made nor received in payment of the services contemplated; its payment has no relation to the
obligation of the client to pay his attorney for the services which he has retained him to perform.
 DONALD DEE petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and AMELITO MUTUC, respondents.
G.R. No. 77439
August 24, 1989
REGALADO, J.:

CASE DOCTRINE:
1. A lawyer is entitled to have and receive the just and reasonable compensation for services
rendered.
2. Court cannot disturb factual finding by the trial court and the Court of Appeals that there was
a lawyer-client relationship between petitioner and private respondent Mutuc.
3. Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney, the
contract may be express or implied.
FACTS:
Petitioner assails the resolution of respondent court, dated February 12,1987, reinstating its
decision promulgated on May 9, 1986 wherein it affirmed the decision of the court holding that
the services rendered by private respondent was on a professional, and not on a gratis et
amore basis and ordering petitioner to pay private respondent the sum of P50,000.00 as the
balance of the latter's legal fee therefor.

Donald Dee and his father went to the residence of Atty. Amelito Mutuc to seek his advice
regarding the problem of the alleged indebtedness of petitioner's brother, Dewey Dee, to
Caesar's Palace out of fear for the safety of Dewey. His services were reportedly contracted for
P100,000. After several calls and trips to Vegas, it turned out that Ramon Sy was actually the
one who owed the casino-hotel and that Dewey merely signed for the bills. After Atty. Mutuc
convinced Ramon Sy to own and pay for it, the issue with Caesar’s Palace was solved.

Now, Mutuc demanded for the 50 thousand balance from the petitioner but they ignored the
letters sent by respondent. Hence, the respondent filed a complaint against Dee. The petitioner
contended that there is no existence of any professional relationship of attorney and client
between him and private respondent. Dee insists that such visit was merely an informal one and
that private respondent had not been specifically contracted to handle the problem. As for the
P50,000.00, he argued that it was merely "pocket money" solicited by the former for his trips to
Las Vegas and the said amount of P50,000.00 was already sufficient remuneration for his
strictly voluntary services.

The Regional Trial Court ordered the petitioner to pay private respondent the sum of
P50,000.00 with interest and the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner filed
for certiorari to review the resolution of the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Mutuc is entitled to receive a reasonable compensation for rendering legal
services.
RULING:
Yes, Dee must pay. Both the lower court and the appellate court concur in their findings that
there was a lawyer-client relationship between petitioner and private respondent Mutuc. A
lawyer is entitled to have and receive the just and reasonable compensation for services
rendered at the special instance and request of his client and as long as he is honestly and in
good faith trying to serve and represent the interests of his client, the latter is bound to pay his
just fees.
Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney; the
contract may be express or implied. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and
assistance of an attorney is sought and received
There is no question that professional services were actually rendered by private respondent to
petitioner and his family. Through his efforts, the account of petitioner’s brother, Dewey Dee,
with Caesar’s Palace was assumed by Ramon Sy and petitioner and his family were further
freed from the apprehension that Dewey might be harmed or even killed by the so-called mafia.
WHEREFORE, the resolution of respondent Court of Appeals, dated February 12, 1987,
reinstating its original decision of May 9, 1986 is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against
petitioner.
 VERONICA S. SANTIAGO, BENJAMIN Q. HONTIVEROS, MR. SOCORRO F. MANAS, and
TRINIDAD NORDISTA, complainants,
vs.
ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS, respondent.
A.C. No. 4103
September 7, 1995
DAVIDE JR., J.:
CASE DOCTRINE:
1. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence,
regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.
2. A lawyer’s negligence in not filing an answer on time is not excused by his claim that the case
was in fact a “losing cause,” for if indeed he was so convinced of the futility of any defense
therein, he should have seasonably informed his clients thereof.
3. For the inexcusable negligence of a lawyer in failing to file an answer for his clients, he is
reprimanded.
FACTS:
The complainants, former clients of the respondent, pray that the latter be disbarred for
malpractice, neglect, and other offenses. They alleged that because of the respondent’s neglect
and malpractice of law that they lost their case by not answering to the Civil complaint against
them in the sala of Judge Teresita Capulong.

Previously, Santiago, Hontiveros, Manas, and Nordista, members of Far Eastern University
Faculty Association (FEUFA), were alleged to have illegally expelled Paulino Salvador from the
union. The latter filed a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) which
ruled in favor of Salvador. Subsequently, Salvador filed with the RTC a complaint against the
complainants for actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

The respondent as a former counsel of the complainants filed a motion to dismiss the case on
grounds of res judicata and lack of jurisdiction. Later, he filed a supplemental motion to dismiss.
Judge Capulong granted the motion but was later re- instated upon Salvador’s motion for
reconsideration and required the complainants herein to file their answer within the non-
extendable period of fifteen days from notice. The respondent failed to file the complainant’s
answer for which reason the latter were declared in default and judgment was rendered against
them on the basis of the plaintiff's evidence, which was received ex-parte.

The respondent impliedly invoking forgetfulness occasioned by a large volume and pressure of
legal work and prays for the dismissal of this complaint for utter lack of merit, since his failure to
file the answer was cured and, even granting for the sake of argument that such failure
amounted to negligence, it cannot warrant his disbarment or suspension from the practice of the
law profession.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent, Atty. Amado Rojas, is liable for inexcusable negligence.
RULING:
Yes, the respondent is liable for negligence because the pressure and large volume of legal
work provide no excuse for the respondent's inability to exercise due diligence in the
performance of his duty to file an answer. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full
attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts
it for a fee or for free.
All told, the respondent committed a breach of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which requires him to serve his clients, the complainants herein, with diligence
and, more specifically, Rule 18.03 thereof which provides: "A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable."
The respondent’s negligence is not excused by his claim that the case of his clients was in fact
a “losing cause” for the complainants since the claims therein for damages were based on the
final decision of the Med-Arbiter declaring the complainants’ act of expelling Salvador from the
union to be illegal. If indeed the respondent was so convinced of the futility of any defense
therein, he should have seasonably informed the complainants thereof. Rule 15.05, Canon 15 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly provides: A lawyer, when advising his client,
shall give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client's case,
neither overstating nor understanding the prospects of the case.
WHEREFORE, ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS is hereby REPRIMANDED and ADMONISHED to be,
henceforth, more careful in the performance of his duty to his clients.
 UY CHUNG SENG and CHING UY SENG, complainants,
vs.
ATTY. JOSE C. MAGAT, respondent.
Romulo Rivera for complainants.
Jose C. Magat in his own behalf.
A.M. No. L-2018
December 10, 1982
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

CASE DOCTRINE:
1. Dismissal of criminal case does not necessarily exonerate a lawyer for professional
misconduct.
2. Assisting a client in a scheme a lawyer knows to be dishonest (threat to report a person for
tax evasion if he does not come across) justifies disbarment of an attorney.

FACTS:

On March 27, 1979, Uy Chung Guan Seng and Ching Uy Seng filed a verified Complaint for
Disbarment against respondent Atty. Jose C. Magat alleging that the respondent threatening to
report him to the government authorities if he would not get in touch with him and his clients with
respect to a bunch of documents and papers stolen pertaining to Complainants' business.

Atty. Magat demanded P500,000.00 for the return of the documents mentioned in the letter.
This amount was reduced to P300,000.00, with the request, however, that an advance payment
of P30,000.00 be made to show good faith; upon paying the balance, all the documents will be
returned. It turned out that the person introduced as Felicisimo Cruz is Rodolfo Salita the driver
of complainant Robert Ching, admitting participation in the robbery committed at the latter's
office in which papers and documents pertaining to their business, among other things, were
taken. Rodolfo Salita's companions were Jesus Salita and his brother-in-law Robert Rajotte.
The NBI arrested the three while in Atty. Magat’s office.

Respondent Atty. Magat admits that he wrote and sent the letter. He, however, denies that he
demanded the amounts mentioned by the witnesses for the complainants because what he did
was merely to convey the demands of his clients.

Solicitor General prays that respondent be disbarred, that his name be stricken off the roll of
attorneys; and that his certificate of admission to the bar be recalled.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the dismissal of the criminal complaint against respondent Atty. Jose Magat
would exonerate him of professional misconduct.

RULING:

No. The dismissal of the criminal complaint does not exonerate him of professional misconduct.
The dismissal of the criminal complaint for Light Threats against respondent by the City Fiscal’s
Office (Exhibits “2”, “2-A”, “2-B” and “3”, pp. 81-84, Record) will not preclude the fact that
respondent has not exhibited honesty nor shown trustworthiness in the discharge of his duties
as a member of the Bar.

Upon the oral and documentary evidence, we find the charges substantiated and the Report
and Recommendation of the Solicitor General thorough and well founded.

The proper disciplinary action against respondent is disbarment for malpractice and gross
misconduct. He has shown himself unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which the
law confers upon him. “The assisting of a client in a scheme which the attorney knows to be
dishonest, or the conniving at a violation of law, are acts which justify disbarment. (In Re Terrel,
2 Phil. 266, 267-268).”

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose C. Magat is hereby disbarred; his name is ordered
stricken off the Rollo of attorneys; and his Certificate of Admission to the Bar is hereby recalled.
 JOSELANO GUEVARRA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA, respondent.
A.C. No. 7136
August 1, 2007

PER CURIAM:

CASE DOCTRINE:

1. The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman
who is not his wife—it is immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly.
2. A lawyer, in carrying on an extra-marital affair with a married woman prior to the judicial
declaration that her marriage was null and void, and despite such lawyer himself being
married, showed disrespect for an institution held sacred by the law—he betrayed his
unfitness to be a lawyer.

FACTS:

Joselano Guevarra filed on March 4, 2002 a Complaint for Disbarment1 before the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a.
Noli Eala for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath."

He first met respondent in January 2000 when his then-fiancee Irene Moje introduced
respondent to him as her friend who was married to Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three
children. After marriage, Irene had been receiving from respondent cellphone calls, as well as
messages some of which read "I love you," "I miss you," or "Meet you at Megamall."
Complainant also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the
morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from work. He also learned still
later that when his friends saw Irene on or about together with respondent during a concert, she
was pregnant.

Respondent admitted having sent the I LOVE YOU card on which the above-quoted letter was
handwritten. Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint due to the pendency of a civil case
filed by complainant for the annulment of his marriage to Irene, and a criminal complaint for adu
e.

The Commissioner thus recommended19 that respondent be disbarred for violating Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP Board of Governors, however,
annulled and set aside the Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and accordingly
dismissed the case for lack of merit.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala is guilty of gross immoral conduct and unmitigated
violation of the lawyer’s oath, and should be disbarred.

RULING:
Yes. Respondent Atty. Eala is disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of
office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1. 01 and Canon 7, Rule 7. 03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Respondent Eala never denied the fact that he knew Moje to be married to complainant.
Without doubt, the adulterous relationship between respondent and Irene has been sufficiently
proven by more than clearly preponderant evidence. This speaks all too eloquently of the
unlawful and damning nature of the adulterous acts of the respondents.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Resolution by the Board of Governors of the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Respondent, Atty. Jose
Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office,
and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
 DR. ELMAR O. PEREZ, Complainant,
v. ATTY. TRISTAN A. CATINDIG AND ATTY. KAREN E. BAYDO, Respondents.

A.C. No. 5816, March 10, 2015

CASE DOCTRINE:

1. A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct showing any fault or
deficiency in his moral character, honestly, probity, or good demeanor.
2. 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.
3. Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so
unprincipled 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.

FACTS:

Dr. Elmar O. Perez filed an administrative complaint for disbarment with the Office of the Bar
Confidant on August 27, 2002 against Atty. Tristan A. Catindig and Atty. Karen E. Baydo for
gross immorality and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Perez and catindig were friends in the 60s but they lost touch. In the 80s, Catindig started
courting Perez and confessed that he was married to Lily Corazon Gomez but he only did it
because Gomez got pregnant. During their relationship, Catindig promised a divorce which
happened in the Dominican Republic. He married Perez in Virginia and they both had a child,
Tristan Frederic. Years later, Dr. Perez came to know that her marriage to Atty. Catindig is a
nullity since the divorce decree that was obtained from the Dominican Republic is not
recognized by Philippine laws. When she confronted Atty. Catindig about it, the latter allegedly
assured Dr. Perez that he would legalize their union once he obtains a declaration of nullity of
his marriage to Gomez under the laws of the Philippines. He also promised to legally adopt their
son.
Atty. Catindig abandoned Dr. Perez and their son; he moved to an upscale condominium in
Salcedo Village, Makati City where Atty. Karen Baydo was frequently seen. Atty. Catindig
claimed that Dr. Perez knew that their marriage was not valid since his previous marriage to
Gomez was still subsisting. He denied that Atty. Baydo was the reason that he left Dr. Perez,
claiming that his relationship with Dr. Perez started to fall apart as early as 1997. He asserted
that Atty. Baydo joined his law firm only in September 1999; and that while he was attracted to
her, Atty. Baydo did not reciprocate and in fact rejected him. He likewise pointed out that Atty.
Baydo resigned from his firm in January 2001. Likewise, Atty. Baydo denied the affair.

The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report and recommendation within 90 days from notice. Respondents Atty. Catindig and Atty.
Baydo filed their position papers on October 17, 200325 and October 20, 2003,26 respectively.
Dr. Perez filed her position paper27 on October 24, 2003.
The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-CBD recommended the disbarment of Atty. Catindig
for gross immorality, violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommended that the charge against Atty. Baydo be dismissed for dearth of
evidence

The IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution, which adopted and approved the
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner denied Atty. Catindig�s motion for
reconsideration.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondents committed gross immorality, which would warrant their
disbarment.

RULING:

Yes. The Court agrees with the findings and recommendations of the Investigating
Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that a lawyer may be removed or
suspended from the practice of law, inter alia, for grossly immoral conduct. Contracting a
marriage during the subsistence of a previous one amounts to a grossly immoral conduct. The
facts gathered from the evidence adduced by the parties and, ironically, from Atty. Catindig’s
own admission, indeed establish a pattern of conduct that is grossly immoral; it is not only
corrupt and unprincipled, but reprehensible to a high degree.

The Court likewise agrees with the Investigating Commissioner that there is a dearth of
evidence to prove the claimed amorous relationship between the respondents.

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the Court resolves to ADOPT the
recommendations of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
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.

A copy of the decision was entered into the records of Atty. Tristan A. Catindig in the Office of
the Bar Confidant and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. The
charge of gross immorality against Atty. Karen E. Baydo is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
evidence.

Note:

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlib

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 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.

EUGENIO J. PUYAT,
petitioner,
vs.
HON. SIXTO T. J. DE GUZMAN, JR., as Associate Commissioner of the Securities & Exchange
Commission, respondent.
G.R. No. L-51122
March 25, 1982

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.

CASE DOCTRINE:

An assemblyman cannot indirectly fail to follow the Constitutional prohibition not to appear as
counsel before an administrative tribunal like the SEC by buying a nominal amount of share of
one of the shareholders after his appearance as counsel therein was contested.

FACTS:

This suit for certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction is poised against the Order of
respondent Associate Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
granting Assemblyman Estanislao A. Fernandez leave to intervene in SEC Case No. 1747.

May 14,1979. An election for the eleven Directors of the International Pipe Industries
Corporation (IPI) a private corporation, was held. The Puyat Group would be in control of the
Board and of the management of IPI. The Acero Group claimed that the stockholders' votes
were not properly counted. The Puyat Group claims that at conferences of the parties with
respondent SEC Commissioner de Guzman, orally entered his appearance as counsel for
respondent Acero to which the Puyat Group objected on Constitutional grounds. Section 11,
Article VIII, of the 1973 Constitution, then in force, provided that no Assemblyman could "appear
as counsel before any administrative body", and SEC was an administrative body.

Assemblyman Fernandez had purchased 10 shares of IPI for P200.00 upon request of
respondent Acero. Following the notarization of Assemblyman Fernandez’ purchase, he filed a
motion for intervention in the SEC case as the owner of 10 IPI shares alleging legal interest in
the matter in litigation. The SEC granted leave to intervene on the basis of Fernandez’
ownership of the said 10 shares.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, in intervening in the SEC Case, Assemblyman Fernandez is, in effect,
appearing as counsel, albeit indirectly, before an administrative body in contravention of the
Constitutional
provision.

RULING:
Yes. Under the given facts and circumstances, the Court are constrained to find that there has
been an indirect "appearance as counsel before an administrative body" and, that is a
circumvention of the Constitutional prohibition. Section 11, Article VIII, of the 1973 Constitution,
then in force, provided that no Assemblyman could "appear as counsel before any
administrative body", and SEC was an administrative body.

A ruling upholding the "intervention" would make the constitutional provision ineffective. All an
Assemblyman need do, is to acquire a minimal participation in the "interest" of the client and
then "intervene" in the proceedings. That which the Constitution directly prohibits may not be
done by
indirection or by a general legislative act which is intended to accomplish the objects specifically
or impliedly prohibited.

WHEREFORE, respondent Commissioner’s Order granting Atty. Estanislao A. Fernandez leave

to intervene in SEC Case No. 1747 is hereby reversed and set aside. The temporary
Restraining Order heretofore issued is hereby made permanent. No costs.
 ALBERTO FERNANDEZ, ISABELO ONGTENGCO, ACHILLES BARTOLOME, AND ST.
LUKES MEDICAL CENTER, complainants,
vs.
ATTORNEY BENJAMIN M. GRECIA, respondent.

A.C. No. 3694

June 17, 1993
Per Curiam,

CASE DOCTRINE:

1. A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is “like the court itself, an instrument or agency to
advance the ends of justice”.
2. An incorrigible practitioner of “dirty tricks,” would be ill-suited to discharge the role of “an
instrument to advance the ends of justice.”

FACTS:

The late Fe Linda Aves was seven (7) months pregnant when she was admitted as a patient at
St. Luke's Hospital on December 20, 1990. She complained of dizziness, hypertension, and
abdominal pains with vaginal bleeding and diagnosed her problem as mild pre-eclampsia. On
Christmas day, Mrs. Aves was discharged from the hospital but one day later she was rushed
back to hospital and died the next day with her unborn child.

Attorney Damaso B. Aves, along with his three minor children, brought an action for damages
against the hospital and the attending physicians of his wife. Their counsel, respondent Attorney
Benjamin Grecia, filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela. the medical
records of Fe Linda Aves were produced in court by St. Luke's, as requested by Attorney
Grecia. The records were entrusted to the Acting Branch Clerk of Court, Avelina Robles.
Between 8:30-9:00 o' clock in the morning, upon arriving in court for another hearing of the
case, Attorney Grecia borrowed from Mrs. Robles the folder containing the medical records of
Mrs. Aves. While leafing through the folder, Grecia surreptitiously tore off two (2) pages of the
medical records, pages "72" and "73" missing. He later passed it to his driver named “Sid”.

On August 20, 1991, Doctors Alberto Fernandez, Isabelo Ongtengco and Achilles Bartolome
and the St. Luke's Medical Center filed a disbarment complaint against Attorney Benjamin M.
Grecia. The respondent is charged with dishonesty and grave misconduct in connection with the
theft of some pages from a medical chart which was material evidence in a damage suit filed by
his clients against the aforenamed doctors and St. Luke's.

On November 12, 1987, he was disbarred for his immoral complicity or "unholy alliance" with a
judge in Quezon City to rip off banks and Chinese business firms which had the misfortune to
be sued in the latter's court.
Three years later, the Court reinstated him in the profession. Only eight months later, he was
back before the court facing another charge of dishonesty and unethical practice.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the misconduct of Respondent Atty. Benjamin M. Grecia warrants disbarment.

RULING:

Yes. The Court is convinced that the charge against Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia is true. He
violated Rule 1.01, canon 1 and canon 7 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility.

On the basis of the evidence presented before Judge Bernad, the Court is convinced that the
charge against Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia is true. By stealing two pages from Linda Aves’
medical chart and passing them on to his driver, he violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Rules of
Professional Responsibility as well as Canon 7 thereof.

An incorrigible practitioner of “dirty tricks,” like Grecia would be ill-suited to discharge the role of
“an instrument to advance the ends of justice.” By descending to the level of a common thief,
respondent Grecia has demeaned and disgraced the legal profession. He has demonstrated his
moral unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable fraternity of lawyers. He has forfeited
his membership in the BAR.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Attorney Benjamin Grecia guilty of grave misconduct,
dishonesty, and grossly unethical behavior as a lawyer. Considering that this is his second
offense against the canons of the profession, the Court resolved to impose upon him once more
the supreme penalty of DISBARMENT. His license to practice law in the Philippines is hereby
CANCELLED and the Bar Confidant is ordered to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys.
 ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT
vs ATTY. CRESENCIO P. CO UNTIAN, JR.,

A.C. No. 5900

April 10, 2019
REYES, J. JR.,

CASE DOCTRINE:

1. Any errant behavior on the part of the lawyer, whether in a public or private capacity,
which tends to show deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor,
is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment.

FACTS:

An Anonymous Complaint dated May 14, 2002 was filed against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian,
Jr. for his alleged sexual harassment of students of Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro City.

IN a letter, the "law practitioner" sent copies of the complaint-affidavits of the victims of sexual
harassment and the Resolution of the Committee on Decorum and Investigation for
respondent's unwelcome advances, sexual harassment with public humiliation to Antoinette
Toyco, Christina Sagarbarria and Lea Dal.

The Committee on Decorum recommended that respondent's teaching contract not be renewed
on account of the accusations of sexual harassment against him. It explained that respondent
was guilty of violating Xavier's anti-sexual harassment guidelines. The Committee on Decorum
noted that respondent's unwanted sexual advances or innuendos caused distress to the
complaining students as it created a hostile or offensive environment.

Respondent lamented that the complaints for sexual harassment was made by disgruntled
students who failed their classes for the 2001-2002 school year and contended that his actions
were only to inject humor during class and purely without malice.

In his Report and Recommendation, IBP Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag recommended

that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years. the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines-Board of Governors affirmed with modification the recommendation of
Commissioner Hababag. It resolved to disbar respondent on the ground of gross immoral
conduct but, reduced the penalty to two years suspension upon respondent’s motion for
reconsideration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent’s sexually laced conduct is sufficient to warrant suspension or
disbarment.

RULING:

Yes. His lewd actions warrant suspension or disbarment notwithstanding the IBP-BOG decision
that respondent was not guilty of violating R.A. No. 7877 because there was no evidence to
show that he demanded or requested sexual favors from the complainants. Nevertheless, it
found respondent's action unacceptable and conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal
profession.

A reading of respondent's Answer would show that he substantially admitted the accusations
against him, although providing a justification for them. Clearly, respondent abused the power
and authority he possessed over the complainants. His sexually laced conduct had created a
hostile and offensive environment which deeply prejudiced his students.

Any errant behavior on the part of the lawyer, whether in a public or private capacity, which
tends to show deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to
warrant suspension or disbarment.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr. is SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for five (5) years and ten (10) years from teaching law in any school effective upon the
finality of this Resolution, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act
will be dealt with more severely.
 RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE THE LAWYER’S OATH
Bar Matter No. 712
March 19, 1997

CASE DOCTRINE:
1. The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the strict intellectual
and moral qualifications required of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and
efficient administration of justice.
2. Every lawyer shall at all times weigh his actions according to the lawyer’s oath and the
code of professional responsibility.

FACTS:
Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar examinations held in 1993. The Court however
deferred his oath-taking due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In
Homicide which arose from the death of a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites sometime in
September 1991.
The trial court granted herein petitioner’s application for probation. Petitioner filed before this
Court a petition to be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath based on the order of his discharge from
probation. To be regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral character imposed
upon those seeking admission to the bar, petitioner submitted no less than fifteen (15)
certifications/letters and submitted evidence that a scholarship foundation had been established
in honor of Raul Camaligan, the hazing victim, through joint efforts of the latter’s family and the
eight (8) accused in the criminal case.
In Atty. Camaligan’s comment, Raul’s father, as a Christian, he has forgiven petitioner and his
co-accused for the death of his son. However, he is not in a position to say whether petitioner is
now morally fit for admission to the bar. He therefore submits the matter to the sound discretion
of the Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner Al Caparros Argosino may be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.

RULING:
Yes. After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to allow petitioner Al Caparros
Argosino to take the lawyer’s oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal profession
recognizing that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber. On the contrary, the various
certifications show that he is a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and public
service.
Atty. Camaligan’s statement before the Court manifesting his having forgiven the accused is no
less than praiseworthy and commendable. The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has
exerted all efforts to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan.
The Court stressed to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer’s oath is NOT a mere ceremony or formality
for practicing law. Every lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh his actions according to the sworn
promises he makes when taking the lawyer’s oath.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, petitioner Al Caparros Argosino is hereby ALLOWED to take the
lawyer’s oath on a date to be set by the Court, to sign the Roll of Attorneys and, thereafter, to
practice the legal profession.
 VICTORIANO P. RESURRECCION, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. CIRIACO C. SAYSON, respondent.

A.C. No. 1037

December 14, 1998

CASE DOCTRINE:

1. Lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their
clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
2. Lawyers must uphold and respect the law at all times. They are sacredly bound to
uphold the law and must live by it. Lawyers who violate their oath and engage in
deceitful conduct have no place in the legal profession.
3. Estafa, a crime involving moral turpitude, is considered contrary to justice, honesty,
and good morals.

FACTS:

Victoriano P. Resurreccion filed a complaint- affidavit to Respondent Atty. Ciriaco C. Sayson

with acts constituting "malpractice, deceit and gross misconduct in his office and a violation of
his duties and oath as a lawyer."

The complaint arose from a homicide through reckless imprudence case, in which
Resurreccion was the defendant and Sayson was the counsel for the offended party.
Resurreccion alleged that he gave P2,500 to Sayson as part of an amicable settlement, but
Sayson never gave the money to his client. As a result, Resurreccion had to pay another
P2,500 to settle the case. Despite demands for the return of the money, Sayson failed to
comply. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) conducted an investigation, and
Commissioner Jesulito A. Manalo recommended that Sayson be disbarred. The IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved the recommendation, leading to Sayson's disbarment.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent Atty. Ciriaco Sayson, convicted of Estafa, be disbarred from the
practice of law.

RULING:
Yes. The Court agrees with Commissioner Manalo's findings and conclusion, as approved and
adopted by the IBP Board of Governors. Atty. Ciriaco C. Sayson must be disbarred.

Acts of moral turpitude such as estafa or falsification renders one unfit to be a member of the
legal profession. The Court notes that even if respondent's culpability for estafa has been
indubitably established, there is no indication that he has served sentence, returned to
complainant what was due him or showed any remorse for what he did. The 27-year delay in
the resolution of this case was, to a large extent, caused by his failure to appear before the
Office of the Solicitor General and to inform the IBP of his change of address, a failure that also
indicated his lack of regard for the very serious charges brought against him. Respondent
Sayson, by his conduct, has shown that he is not worthy to remain a member of the bar.

The court held that good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the
legal profession, but it must also remain extant in order to maintain one's good standing in that
exclusive and honored fraternity. Lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in
their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner
beyond reproach.

WHEREFORE, Respondent Ciriaco C. Sayson is hereby DISBARRED. The Clerk of Court is

directed to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys.
 ACHERNAR B. TABUZO, Complainant,
v. ATTY. JOSE ALFONSO M. GOMOS, Respondent.
A.C. No. 12005
July 23, 2018
GESMUNDO, J.
CASE DOCTRINE:
1. Commissioners may be held administratively liable only in relation to their functions as
IBP officers — not as government officials.
2. The filing of baseless and unfounded administrative complaints against fellow lawyers is
antithetical to conducting oneself with courtesy, fairness and candor.
3. Considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of
the Bar, the Supreme Court (SC) has consistently held that preponderant evidence is
necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty on a member of the Bar.
FACTS:
The controversy stemmed from an administrative complaint filed by Lucille G. Sillo against
complainant before the IBP, which was assigned to respondent for investigation and report. The
respondent issued a Report and Recommendation4 recommending that complainant be
reprimanded for the impropriety of talking to Sillo, without her counsel, prior to the calling of their
case for mediation conference, and for the abusive, offensive or improper language used in the
pleadings she filed in the said case. The report and recommendation was adopted and
approved by the IBP Board of Governors.
The complainant filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Gomos who
was then a Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), for: (1) violation the
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on
Bar Discipline, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court and Republic Act 6713; (2) violation Canon[s] 1
and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Guidelines; (3) Gross Ignorance of the Law; and
(4) Nonfeasance in deliberately refusing to institute disciplinary action for serious violations of
duties.
The respondent denied the allegations and contended that they were not only false and an
unfortunate misappreciation of the laws, facts and circumstances but also an act of harassment.
He countered that it was complainant who caused the delay of the resolution of the case
because of the numerous motions and pleadings she filed.
In its Report and Recommendation, the Commission recommended the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of merit. The Board adopted the Commission's report and recommendation
dismissing the complaint.
Complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the Board. On 2018, the
IBP transmitted before the Court the records of the case for final disposition.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether respondent may be held administratively liable in the same manner as judges
and other government officials.
2. Whether respondent may be held administratively liable for rendering an alleged adverse
judgment in his capacity as an investigating commissioner of the IBP.
RULING:
No. IBP Commissioners cannot be held liable for violation of Sec. 15(1),43 Art. VIII of the
Constitution because they are neither members of the Judiciary in the context of the
Constitution or statutory provisions organizing lower collegiate and trial courts nor quasi-judicial
officers in the context of applicable laws creating quasi-judicial agencies.
IBP Commissioners cannot be held administratively liable for malfeasance, misfeasance and
non-feasance in the framework of administrative law because they cannot strictly be considered
as being "employed" with the government or of any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
including government-owned or controlled corporations. IBP Commissioners may be held
administratively liable only in relation to their functions
Moreover, the instant affidavit complaint contains a smorgasbord of violations ascribed to the
respondent which the complainant had inaccurately and miserably failed to substantiate. Worse,
the complaint's pointless perplexity was compounded by convoluted allegations which made it
laborious for the Court to make coherent sense. Accordingly, the Court deems it proper to
sternly warn the complainant and her collaborating counsel, Atty. Barboza, to refrain from filing
and maintaining baseless administrative suits against fellow lawyers under pain of
administrative sanctions.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Court AGREES with the Report and
Recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Committee on Bar Discipline
adopted by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Board of Governors, and DISMISSES the
administrative complaint filed against Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Gomos.Furthermore, the Court
STERNLY WARNS Atty. Achernar B. Tabuzo and her collaborating counsel Atty. Gaudencio A.
Barboza, Jr. to REFRAIN from abusing the disciplinary proceedings thru filing and maintaining
frivolous administrative complaints against fellow members of the Bar. A repetition of the same
or commission of similar acts will be dealt with more severely
 MARITES E. FREEMAN, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ZENAIDA P. REYES, Respondent.
A.C. No. 6246
November 15, 2011

RENATO C. CORONA

CASE DOCTRINE:

1. Lawyers who misappropriate the funds entrusted to them are in gross violation of
professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.
2. Money of the client or collected for the client, or other trust property coming into the
possession of the lawyer, should be reported and accounted for promptly and should
not, under any circumstances, be commingled with his own or be used by him.
3. The dismissal of a criminal case does not preclude the continuance of a separate and
independent action for administrative liability since a criminal case is different from an
administrative case.

FACTS:

Marites E. Freeman, filed an administrative complaints seeking the disbarment of respondent

Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes, for gross dishonesty in obtaining money from her, without rendering
proper legal services, and appropriating the proceeds of the insurance policies of her deceased
husband. Complainant also seeks recovery of all the amounts she had given to respondent and
the insurance proceeds, and prays for payment of moral and exemplary damages.

Freeman alleged that her husband Robert Keith Freeman, a British national, died in London
on October 18, 1998. She and her son, Frank Lawrence applied for visas, to enable them to
attend the wake and funeral, but their visa applications were denied. Freeman engaged the
legal services of Reyes to assist her. eyes solicited various sums from the complainant,
allegedly for purposes do defraying expenses in connection with the engagement. Reyes
admitted having received money from complainant but failed to render an accounting. Atty.
Reyes also told Freeman that she had to adhere to the nefarious culture of giving “grease
money” or lagay to the British Embassy personnel.

The Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for the maximum period allowed under the law, and that she be ordered to turn over to
complainant the amounts she received from the London insurance companies. The IBP Board
of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner,
with modification that respondent be disbarred.
ISSUE:

Whether or not Respondent Atty. Reyes should be disbarred due to the alleged gross
dishonesty for having appropriated the insurance proceeds of the complainant’s deceased
husband.

RULING:

Yes. The Court agrees with the observation of the Investigating Commissioner and the
recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.

The object of a disbarment proceeding is not so much to punish the individual attorney himself,
as to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the court and the public from the
misconduct of officers of the court, and to remove from the profession of law persons whose
disregard for their oath of office have proved them unfit to continue discharging the trust
reposed in them as members of the bar.

Respondent never attempted to reconcile the discrepancy, or give a satisfactory explanation, as

to why she failed to render an accounting. When a lawyer receives money from the client for a
particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the
money was spent for a particular purpose.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Zenaida P. Reyes is found guilty of gross misconduct and
DISBARRED from the practice of law. Let her name be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. This
Decision is immediately executory.
 MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA, Complainant,
v. ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON, Respondent.
A.C. No. 9608
November 27, 2012

CASE DOCTRINE:

1. Lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. Lawyers are at all times subject to the
watchful public eye and community approbation.
2. A lawyer may be disbarred for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and
good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
3. A case of suspension or disbarment is sui generis.

FACTS:

Complainant Maria Victoria B. Ventura filed on July 29, 2004 a Complaint for Disbarment or
Suspension before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline
against respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson for "grossly immoral conduct."

In the complainant’s supplemental-Complaint dated 10 May 2002 stating therein that the crime
of RAPE was committed against her sometime in December, 2001 and on 19 March 2002 when
she was merely thirteen (13) years of age by Respondent Atty. Samson, then thirty eight (38)
years old, married to Teresita B. Samson. In his Counter-Affidavit, the Respondent admitted that
sexual intercourse indeed transpired between the herein Complainant Ventura and himself. but
alleged that the complainant even accepting the fees he had given after the intercourse.
Respondent also alleged that the complainant was of loose morals and that complaint was only
concocted so that the complainant can extort money from him.

The case dismissed the rape charge for finding existence

of probable cause for the crime to be qualified seduction
The case dismissed the rape charge for finding existence
of probable cause for the crime to be qualified seduction
The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Agusan Del Sur, Philippines issued a resolution
dismissing the charge of rape for insufficiency of evidence and finding the existence of probable
cause for the crime of qualified seduction. Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration which
was denied. Complainant filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice. However, the
DOJ sustained the findings of the prosecutor.
Then, on December 14, 2006, complainant and her mother appeared before the public
prosecutor and executed their respective Affidavits of Desistance. The Board of Governors of
the IBP issued a resolution stating that respondent be suspended for five years from the
practice of law with Stern Warning that repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be
dealt with more severely.

However, complainant moves to reconsider the IBP Resolution. She contends that respondent
committed grossly immoral conduct by forcing himself to have sexual intercourse with a minor
and by betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity. She prays that the penalty of disbarment be
imposed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the acts of Respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson warrant a penalty of disbarment.

RULING:

Yes. Respondent clearly committed a disgraceful, grossly immoral and highly reprehensible act.

From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the admissions of respondent
himself, we find that respondents act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the daughter of his
former employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction.

Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by enticing a very young woman with money showed
his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the dignity of the human person and the ethics of
his profession. Such conduct is a transgression of the standards of morality required of the legal
profession and should be disciplined accordingly.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court 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.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson is hereby DISBARRED for Gross Immoral
Conduct, Violation of his oath of office, and Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Note:

 Complainants Affidavit of Desistance cannot have the effect of abating the instant
proceedings in view of the public service character of the practice of law and the nature
of disbarment proceedings as a public interest concern.

 A case of suspension or disbarment is sui generis and not meant to grant relief to a
complainant as in a civil case, but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal
profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts. A
disbarment case is not an investigation into the acts of respondent but on his conduct as
an officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.
 EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., complainant,
vs.
ATTY. LEO J. PALMA, respondent.
Adm. Case No. 2474
September 15, 2004

PER CURIAM:

CASE DOCTRINE:

1. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal but is
rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers.
2. it must be stressed that the law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy of standards
among its members. This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be
an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.

FACTS:

Respondent Palma was employed by the petitioner as his personal counsel. Respondent’s
excellence in managing petitioner’s legal affairs, prompted the petitioner to introduce the
respondent to his family. Since the respondent gained the trust of the petitioner and his family,
their relationship became intimate. Respondent then was allowed to tutor the 22-year-old
daughter, Maria Luisa Cojuangco.

The respondent, courted Lisa during tutoring sessions, then misrepresented himself and
married Lisa in Hongkong. Complainant was shocked, knowing fully well that the respondent is
married and has three children.

Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. filed with this Court the instant complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Leo J. Palma, alleging as grounds "deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, violation of
his oath as a lawyer and grossly immoral conduct."

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action. He argued that
he cannot be punished since there is no allegation that he acted with “wanton recklessness,
lack of skill or ignorance of the law” in serving the complainant’s interest. Anent the charge of
grossly immoral conduct, he stressed that he married the complainant’s daughter with “utmost
sincerity and good faith.”
Investigating Commissioner submitted a Report and Recommendation finding respondent guilty
of grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer. She recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years. The IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved the above Report and Recommendation, but it reduced
respondent’s penalty to only one year suspension.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent’s acts constitute gross immoral conduct so as to warrant his
disbarment from the legal profession.

RULING:

Yes. Respondent’s act constitutes grossly immoral conduct, a ground for disbarment under
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. He exhibited a deplorable lack of that
degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar.

The ringing truth in this case is that respondent married Lisa while he has a subsisting marriage
with Elizabeth Hermosisima. He made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution
demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage is contrary to honesty,
justice, decency and morality.

As inscribed in Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, is that they "shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

WHEREFORE, respondent Leo J. Palma is found GUILTY of grossly immoral conduct and
violation of his oath as a lawyer, and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.
 RAUL H. SEBREÑO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 161390
April 16, 2008

NACHURA, J.

CASE DOCTRINE:

1. When the judgment debt was fully satisfied, petitioner could have enforced his lien either
against his clients or against the judgment debtor.
2. Lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not merchants. Law advocacy
is not capital that yields profits.

FACTS:

Mrs. Rosario Sen and other camineros4 hired the petitioner to prosecute Civil Cases evidenced
by an agreement. Petitioner registered his charging/retaining lien based on the Agreement.
The camineros, represented by the petitioner, and the province of Cebu, through then Gov.
Gullas, forged a Compromise Agreement that the respondent Province of Cebu agrees to
immediately appropriate and pay full backwages and salaries as awarded by the trial court, That
the amounts payable to the employees concerned represented by Atty. Raul H. Sesbreño is
subject to said lawyer’s charging and retaining liens, the Province of Cebu is agreeable to
paying an advance of P5,000.00 to each employee payable through their counsel, Atty.
Sebreño. Instead of complying with the court order directing partial payment, the province of
Cebu directly paid the camineros the full amount of their adjudicated claims.

petitioner filed the complaint for Damages (Thru Breach of Contract) and Attorney’s
Fees against the Province of Cebu as well as against his former clients. He alleged that by
directly paying the camineros the amounts due them, the respondents induced the camineros to
violate their written contract for attorney’s fees. On appeal, the CA reversed the trial court’s
decision and dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondents are liable for damages for breach of contract.

RULING:
No. The Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the appellate court’s conclusion. We would
like to stress at this point that the compromise agreement had been validly entered into by the
respondents and the camineros.

In this case, the petitioner had withdrawn his complaint against the camineros with whom he
had a contract for legal services. The withdrawal was premised on a settlement, which indicates
that his former clients already paid their obligations. Having been paid by his clients in
accordance with the agreement, his claim against the respondents, therefore, has no leg to
stand on.

Considering that petitioner’s claim of higher attorney’s fees is baseless and considering further
that he had settled his case as against his former clients, we cannot sustain his right to
damages for breach of contract against the respondents, even on the basis of Articles 1191 or
1311. Lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not merchants. Law advocacy
is not capital that yields profits.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Court
of Appeals dated July 23, 2003 and its Resolution dated January 12, 2004 in CA-G.R. CV No.
43287 are AFFIRMED.
 PATRICK A. CARONAN, Complainant
vs.
RICHARD A. CARONAN a.k.a. "ATTY. PATRICK A. CARONAN," Respondent
A.C. No. 11316
July 12, 2016

Per Curiam,

CASE DOCTRINE:

1. Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, no applicant for admission to the Bar
Examination shall be admitted unless he had pursued and satisfactorily completed a pre-
law course.

FACTS:

Patrick A. Caronan filed a complaint- affidavit before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), against respondent "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan,"
whose real name is allegedly Richard A. Caronan for purportedly assuming complainant's
identity and falsely representing that the former has the required educational qualifications to
take the Bar Examinations and be admitted to the practice of law.

Complainant and respondent are siblings, with the latter being the older one. Respondent
enrolled at St. Mary's University's College of Law in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya and took the
Bar Examinations using the complainants name and record from the University of Makati.

Sometime in May 2009, complainant was ordered to report to the head office of PSC in
Mandaluyong City because of respondent's involvement in a case for qualified theft and estafa
filed by Mr. Joseph G. Agtarap (Agtarap), who was one of the principal sponsors at
respondent's wedding. The complainant took it upon himself to inform other people that he is
the real "Patrick A. Caronan". Further, he learned that respondent is involved in a series of
misconduct including, among others, his arrest for gun-running activities, illegal possession of
explosives, and violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22.

Due to the controversies involving respondent's use of the name "Patrick A. Caronan,"
complainant developed a fear for his own safety and security, resigned from his job, and filed
the present Complaint-Affidavit to stop respondent's alleged use of the former's name and
identity, and illegal practice of law.
In his Answer, respondent denied all the allegations against him and invoked res judicata as a
defense. On the scheduled mandatory conference, both parties failed to appear twice. They
also failed to file their respective position papers.

The finding of the IBP Commissioner held the respondent guilty of illegally and falsely assuming
complainant's name, identity, and academic records as failed to controvert all the allegations
against him and did not present any proof to prove his identity. Investigating Commissioner
recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be dropped and stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys and the name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being admitted as a member of
the Bar. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner's
recommendation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the IBP erred in ordering that:

1. the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys; and
2. the name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being admitted to the Bar.

RULING:

No. After a thorough evaluation of the records, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the
findings and recommendations of the IBP.

To the Court's mind, the foregoing indubitably confirm that respondent falsely
used complainant's name, identity, and school records to gain admission to the Bar.
Since complainant - the real "Patrick A. Caronan" - never took the Bar Examinations,
the IBP correctly recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the
Roll of Attorneys.
To the Court's mind, the foregoing indubitably confirm that respondent falsely
used complainant's name, identity, and school records to gain admission to the Bar.
Since complainant - the real "Patrick A. Caronan" - never took the Bar Examinations,
the IBP correctly recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the
Roll of Attorneys.
To the Court's mind, the foregoing indubitably confirm that respondent falsely used
complainant's name, identity, and school records to gain admission to the Bar. Since
complainant - the real "Patrick A. Caronan" - never took the Bar Examinations, the IBP correctly
recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.

Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, no applicant for admission to the Bar
Examination shall be admitted unless he had pursued and satisfactorily completed a pre-law
course. Therefore, Respondent made a mockery of the legal profession by pretending to have
the necessary qualifications to be a lawyer.

WHEREFORE, respondent Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. “Atty. Patrick A. Caronan” is found

GUILTY of falsely assuming the name, identity, and academic records of complainant Patrick A.
Caronan to obtain a law degree and take the Bar Examinations. Accordingly, without prejudice
to the filing of appropriate civil and/or criminal cases, the Court hereby resolves that: (1) the
name “Patrick A. Caronan” is ordered DROPPED and STRICKEN OFF the Roll of Attorneys; (2)
respondent is PROHIBITED from engaging in the practice of law or making any representations
as a lawyer; (3) respondent is BARRED from being admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar
in the future; (4) the Identification Cards issued by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to
respondent under the name “Atty. Patrick A. Caronan” and the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education Certificates issued in such name are CANCELLED and/or REVOKED; and (5) the
Office of the Court Administrator is ordered to CIRCULATE notices and POST in the bulletin
boards of all courts of the country a photograph of respondent with his real name, “Richard A.
Caronan,” with a warning that he is not a member of the Philippine Bar and a statement of his
false assumption of the name and identity of “Patrick A. Caronan.”

EDUARDO B. MANALANG, COMPLAINANT,

V. ATTY. CRISTINA BENOSA BUENDIA, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 12079
November 10, 2020

PER CURIAM
CASE DOCTRINE:
1. The Supreme Court’s (SC’s) authority to discipline the members of the legal profession
arises from its constitutional prerogative to regulate the practice of law.
2. The Supreme Court (SC) will not hesitate to mete out the grave penalty of disbarment if
a lawyer is found guilty of misrepresentation and deception of his or her client.
3. CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law of and legal processes.
FACTS:
Eduardo B. Manalang filed a complaint against Atty. Cristina Benosa Buendia for allegedly
deceiving complainant in connection with the latter's petition for nullity of his marriage.
Complainant acquired the services of Atty. Buendia for the declaration of nullity of his marriage.
Notwithstanding the complainant’s hesitation, Atty. Buendia assured him the the process will be
entirely legal. Later on, Manalang was notified that there were problems in expediting the
resolution of the case. Thus, Manalang tried to follow- up on the case and Atty. Buendia never
answered his calls. He even visited the latter’s office three times but to no avail.
Later on, Atty Buendia informed Manalang that the annulment case was finally resolved and the
decision was already available. However, the complainant was unconvinced because he was
never furnished a copy of the decision.
As the complainant was observing the decision, he notice that there were fabricated details
regarding his marriage, such as physical violence allegedly inflicted on him. He also noticed that
the facts are not consistent to his narration to the respondent. The complainant found out that
there was absolutely no case filed for the dissolution of his marriage.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent Atty. Cristina Buendia should be disbarred for her
misrepresentations and for deceiving his client.
RULING:
Yes. Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal profession, has ultimate disciplinary power over
attorneys. This authority to discipline its members is not only a right, but a bounden duty as well.
Respondent violated her sworn duties under the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) when she deliberately misled and deceived her client by fabricating a
court’s decision.
In dealing with client, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer
shall uphold the law and promote respect for law and the legal processes. Any act or omission
that is contrary to, prohibited or unauthorized by, in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the
law is unlawful.
For her failure to uphold the standards required in the legal profession, respondent no longer
deserves to be a member of the bar. Not only did she fail to observe the duties of competence
and diligence required from lawyers, she also continuously deceived her client in utter disregard
of the duties and obligations required from a member of the legal profession.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent Atty. Cristina Benosa Buendia GUILTY of violating
Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is hereby
DISBARRED from the practice of law and her name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Respondent is ORDERED to return to complainant Eduardo B. Manalang, within 30 days from
notice, the sum of P270,000.00 with an interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from
the date of the promulgation of this Resolution until fully paid.51 Respondent is further
DIRECTED to submit to this Court proof of her payment within 10 days therefrom.

Note:

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES. Rule 1.01 – A
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. 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. Rule 1.03 – A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause. Rule 1.04 – A lawyer shall
encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. The
duty of a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for
law and legal processes demands that he or she shall “not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.”
AURORA R. LADIM, ANGELITO A. ARDIENTE and DANILO S. DELA CRUZ, complainants
Vs.
ATTY. PERLA D. RAMIREZ, respondent.

A.C. No. 10372

February 21, 2023

CASE DOCTRINE:
1. The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege, a privilege clothed with public interest.
To enjoy the privilege of practicing law as officers of the Court lawyers must adhere to the rigid
standards of mental fitness and above all, they should always uphold the dignity of each and
every person by observing the basic principles of decency and respect for others.
2. The lifting of a lawyer's suspension is not automatic upon the expiration of the period of
suspension and an order from the Court lifting the suspension at the end of the period is
necessary in order to enable him [or her] to resume the practice of his [or her] profession.
3. On this point, this Court underscores that a lawyer, as an officer of the Court, should uphold
the dignity and authority of the Court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown
by a lawyer's obedience to court orders and processes.

FACTS:
In 2007, complainants Aurora R. Ladim, Angelito A. Ardiente and Danilo S. Dela Cruz
employees of Lirio Apartments Condominium in Makati City, filed a complaint for disbarment
against Atty. Ramirez for her unruly and offensive behavior towards residents and employees of
the condominium, which stemmed from various incidents from 1990 to 2007.
The tenants alleged that Atty. Ramirez kept asking "impertinent personal questions," knocking
on their doors, and using offensive language. Another tenant complained that Atty. Ramirez
kept entering units undergoing repairs "because of her fear that people[were] damaging the
building." The "keys hanging [on] the door" of one unit were lost the day she entered the unit.
The latest incident involved Atty. Ramirez shouting at the condominium employees and using
offensive language. She accused the maintenance personnel of destroying the building and the
security guards of trying to destroy her car. She also started shouting that the condominium
residents were prostitutes. The condominium employees tried to pacify her, even calling her
brother, Dr. Nicholas Ramirez, to intervene. Since 2004, Atty. Ramirez has refused to pay any
of her association dues.
Atty. Ramirez submitted a position paper before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
where she neither admitted nor denied the allegations. Nonetheless, she sought refuge in her
long years of service as a State Prosecutor.
The IBP Commissioner concluded that respondent may have mental issues thus he simply
recommended that Atty. Ramirez be reprimanded for her conduct. However, in a Resolution10
dated July 30, 2014, this Court found Atty. Ramirez liable for violation of Canon 7.03 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. For this reason, she was suspended from the practice of
law for six months, with a stem warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be
dealt with more severely.12 Atty. Ramirez received a copy of the Resolution dated July 30, 2014
on September 5, 2014.
The OBC recommended that Atty. Ramirez's request for the lifting of her suspension be denied
because she refused to file a sworn statement to prove that she did not practice law during her
suspension. The court denied Atty. Ramirez's prayer to lift her suspension until she has
complied with the submission.
On March 15, 2017, at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Atty. Ramirez went to the OBC to
follow-up on the status of her request on the lifting of her suspension order. Atty. Layusa
entertained Atty. Ramirez, but the latter, acted disrespectfully and arrogantly. The next day, the
OBC submitted an Incident Report signed by Atty. Layusa and staff of the OBC who were
present during the said incident.
The court required Atty. Ramirez to comment on the Incident Report dated March 16, 2017,
within 10 days from notice. She, however, did not file a comment instead, submitted a letter
requesting for the lifting of her suspension.
The OBC, in a Report and Recommendation dated July 16, 2019, recommended the following
actions: 1) the respondent's request for lifting of the order of suspension should be denied; and
2) the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and her name be stricken from the roll of
Attorney.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law.

RULING:

Yes. This Court adopts the July 16, 2019 Report and Recommendation and imposes the penalty
of disbarment upon Atty. Perla Ramirez. Lamentably, Atty. Ramirez did not comply with the
guidelines aforesaid.
Verily, Atty. Ramirez's six-month period of suspension had lapsed. Nevertheless, the lifting of a
lawyer's suspension is not automatic because the suspended lawyer should first prove that he
or she desisted from the practice of law during the period of suspension by filing a sworn
statement with the court, with copies furnished to his or her local IBP chapter and the executive
judge where he or she has pending cases or has appeared as counsel. Indeed, it is such sworn
statement which shall be considered as proof of the lawyer's compliance with the order of
suspension.
To enjoy the privilege of practicing law as officers of the Court lawyers must adhere to the rigid
standards of mental fitness and above all, they should always uphold the dignity of each and
every person by observing the basic principles of decency and respect for others.
ACCORDINGLY, this Court finds and declares respondent Atty. Perla D. Ramirez GUILTY of
violating the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8, and Rule 11.03 of
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is DISBARRED from the practice of
law and her name is ordered STRICKEN off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
Note:

Jurisprudence requires that a lawyer who has been suspended from the practice of law should
first request for the lifting of the order of suspension, conformably with the following guidelines:
1) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the Court
shall render a decision imposing the penalty;
2) Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon receipt
thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion for reconsideration thereof. The
denial of said motion shall render the decision final and executory;
3) Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn Statement with
the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she has desisted
from the practice of law and has not appeared in any court during the period of his or her
suspension;
4) Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the [Integrated Bar
of the Philippines] and to the Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has pending
cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared as counsel;
5) The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondent's compliance with the order
of suspension; and
6) Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath shall be a
ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted.

One of the rules which lawyers vowed to uphold are the canons governing their conduct towards
the legal profession and the courts which are embodied in the Code. On this matter, the Code
pertinently states:
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY
OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED
BAR.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in the 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 o f the legal profession.
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND
CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING
TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
CANON 11 -A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE
COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY
OTHERS.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.
To maintain public confidence in the law, Canon 7 of the Code requires lawyers to conduct
themselves in a manner that upholds the integrity and dignity of the profession and to shun
50
actions that would adversely reflect on their fitness to practice law. Likewise, Canon 8 of the
same code mandates lawyers to act with courteousness, fairness and candor in their dealings
with colleagues.51 Moreover, Canon 11 of the Code enjoins lawyers to observe and maintain
the respect due to the courts and judicial officers by abstaining from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior before the courts.
 55
Public interest is the primary objective in any disciplinary proceedings against lawyers and
this Court investigates the conduct of lawyers to determine whether they are still fit to continue
56
in the practice of law.
Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. - A member
of the bar may be removed 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 the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience
of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an Attorney for a
party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose
of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
"possession of good moral character is not only a prerequisite to admission to the bar, but also
a continuing requirement to the practice of law."

RE: DISTURBING SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS OF LAWYERS/LAW PROFESSORS of Atty. Noel

V. Antay, Jr., Atty. Ernesto A. Tabujara III, Atty. Israel P. Calderon, Atty. Morgan Rosales
Nicanor, and Atty. Joseph Marion Pefia Navarrete
A.M. No. 21-06-20-SC
GESMUNDO

CASE DOCTRINE:

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.

FACTS:

In a faceboook post, Atty. Antay, Tabujara III, Atty. Calderon, Atty. Nicanor, and Atty, Navarrete
exchange of comments online. Atty. Antay, Jr. was the one who initiated the Facebook thread
by stating that he had successfully prosecuted a case for estafa against a member of the
LGBTQIA+ community. It disrespects the judiciary and the members of the LGBTQIA+
community. Though no names were mentioned, the comments were made in a degrading and
shameful manner.
By its Report and Recommendation, the OBC recommended that the lawyers concerned be
admonished.

ISSUE:

l) Wether or not the erring lawyers invoke their right to privacy as a shield against administrative
liability,
2) Whether or not the acts committed by Attys. Antay, Jr., Tabujara III, Calderon, Nicanor and
Navarrete online violates the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
1. No. The lawyers' right to privacy, especially when it comes to their social media account,
is limited. They cannot use this right as a shield against any liability. At best, the right to
privacy has limited application to online activities of lawyers. Facebook - it is first
necessary that said user manifests the intention to keep certain posts private, through
the employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. Thus,
restricting the privacy of one's Facebook posts to "Friends" does not guarantee absolute
protection from the prying eyes of another user who does not belong to one's circle of
friends.
2. Yes. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds each of respondents guilty of breaching
Rule 7.03 ofthe CPR. 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 ofthe legal profession.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court RESOLVES to:

I) REPRIMAND Atty. Morgan Rosales Nicanor, Atty. Joseph Marion Pefia Navarrete, Atty. Noel
V. Antay, Jr. and Atty. Israel P. Calderon for violation of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be
dealt with more severely; and
2) IMPOSE A FINE in the amount ofPHP 25,000.00 on Atty. Ernesto A. Tabujara III for violation
of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with STERN WARNING that a repetition
ofthe same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
 RAMON C. GONZALEZ, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ARNEL C. ALCARAZ, respondent.
A.C. No. 5321
September 27, 2006
PANGANIBAN, C.
CASE DOCTRINE:
Disciplinary proceedings are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not
involve a trial of an action or a suit, but are rather investigation[s] by the Court into the conduct
of its officers.
FACTS:
Ramon C. Gonzalez filed a complaint against Atty. Arnel C. Alcaraz with grave misconduct,
abuse of authority, and acts unbecoming a lawyer.
Complainant while he was driving along the South Superhighway, was cut across by respondent
by overtaking him and almost hit his car. They chased each other during the pass through the
highway until the PNCC guards made an arrest to the respondent. He shot the complainant’s
car and allegedly driving a luxury car that is not verified. Respondent denied the narration of
facts stated in complainant's Complaint-Affidavit as 'self-serving, a misrepresentation of facts
and obviously tainted. Respondent also claims that the acts complained of in the present case
were not connected with the practice of the legal profession and the fact that he was a lawyer is
merely coincidental, immaterial and irrelevant.
In the IBP Report and Recommendation, the investigating commissioner recommended the
dismissal of the criminal and other administrative charges filed by complainant. The board of
governors of the IBP adopted the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the IBP erred in its dismissal of the criminal and administrative cases of the
respondent.
RULING:
Yes. The Court disagrees with the findings and recommendation of the IBP. The dismissal of
the criminal cases against respondent did not erase the occurrence of the shooting incident,
which he himself does not deny. A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
The rule that administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. Untenable is
respondent's argument that the acts complained of cannot be the subject of a complaint for
disbarment, because they were done in his private capacity. The vengeful and violent behavior
exhibited by respondent in what should have been a simple traffic altercation reveals his conceit
and delusions of self-importance. By firing his gun openly in a congested highway and exposing
complainant and the general public to danger, he showed his utter lack of a sense of
responsibility, as well as of respect for law and order. WHEREFORE, Atty. Arnel C. Alcaraz is
found GUILTY of gross misconduct and is hereby SUSPENDED for one year from the practice
of law, effective upon his receipt of this Decision. He is warned that a repetition of the same or a
similar act will be dealt with more severely.

SEPTEMBER 20 AC44108 Piong vs. Lorenzo

SUSPENSION AND DISBARMENT

Rule 139-B as amended by BM 1695- the nature and characteristic of disciplinary of lawyers is
Sui Generis.
1. Sui Generis- they belong to a class of their own. A disbarment case is sui generis for it is
neither purely civil nor purely criminal but is rather an investigation by the court into the
conduct of its officers.

 A case of suspension or disbarment is sui generis and not meant to grant relief to
a complainant as in a civil case, but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal
profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the
courts. A disbarment case is not an investigation into the acts of respondent but
on his conduct as an officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a member
of the Bar.
 Civil Action- filed to grant relief to a complainant (Ejection of lease na ayaw magevacute
or a squatter)
 Disciplinary action- to cleanse the legal profession of an erring member, rank of
undesirable members to protect the public
 Legal profession as a whole is maintaining the good image and reputation of
lawyers. Aside from the privilege there is misconduct na aakibat.
 Moto Propriero- The court merely calls a member of the bar to account actuations.
 The court has given the authority to regulate the profession
 CPRA is quite intrusive to the privacy, demanding
 Law students are expected to know the law
 Supreme Court, any interested person or particular complainant affected by the actions
  The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients, not
necessary that the person complaining suffered injury, as long as there is proof.
Pwedeng naoffend lang.
 Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interests.

Burden of Proof in Disbarment or suspension proceedings

 Always pressed on the shoulder of the complainant (you have to show proof
before the SC)
 As a rule, a lawyer enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocence until the contrary is
proved.
 Proofs required: substantial evidence (this particular lawyer is committing this action that
is against CPRA or lawyer’s oath)

Prescription of Action

 Particular period you can only file a case

 Usually within 4 years from said action, if naglapse na then madidismiss na sya
 For disciplinary actions against lawyers, the SC ruled that it should 2 years from the date
of discovery of the professional misconduct. (Isenhardt v. Real, A.C. No. 8254 (2012)

CHARACTERISTICS:

 Investigation is not interrupted by reason of the desistance, failure of the complainant to

prosecute, if nagdalawang isip, because the case of Sui Generis, it will not render the
case MOOT.
 During the proceeding, it will be private and confidential to enable the court to make
investigation free from extraneous interference or undue influence and to deter the press
from publishing without authority to reserve the reputation of lawyers. But upon the final
order, it will be published. The publication is for the education of law students.
 In cases of double jeopardy, proscription, it has no application to disbarment
proceedings.
 Whetever has been decided on during the proceeding, you cannot use the particular
case against a lawyer to another action. You cannot base your case sa disbarmemt
action.
 The disbarment proceeding does not violate the due process course. The proceeding
itself when instituted in proper cases is due process itself.
 Monetary claims cannot be granted in this case except if the basis of case is restitution
or return of money in a course of client and lawyer relationship.

GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION

 Depends on the severity of the deceit or malpractice
 Deceit- false representation which deceives another so that she will act upon it.
(Alcantara v. CA, G.R. No. 147259 (2003)
 Malpractice- ordinary refers to failure of an attorney to use skill, prudence and capacity
possessed in the performance of cause. ([Tan Tek Beng v. David, A.C. No. 1261)
 Grossly immoral conduct, crime of moral turpitude, violation of the lawyer’s oath, willful
disobedience of SC order, appearing as a counsel without the authority to do so.

STATUTORY GROUBDS
  1491 New Civil Code- lawyers purchase client’s property in litigation
 Art 208 revised penal code- Maliciously breach of duty
 Art 209 Revised penal- having received confidential information should undertake the
client of his cause.

Are the grounds exclusive? (Quingwa v. Puno, A.C. No. 389)

- NO. The enumeration is not limited to suspend or disbar a lawyer

MISCONDUCT
 A lawyer may be disbarred for misrepresentation in the practice even tho passed the
bar.

 It may be instituted by SC, IBP- BOG, OR UPON referral of the board of SC

 You can filed directly to the SC when the cases involves justice, or SC, Sandigan Bayan,
lower courts. If filed in IBP shall be forwarded to SC.
 Clear and concise facts and supporting documents

DISCIPLINARY MEASURES TO LAWYERS

 Warning- an act of putting one on his guard against an impending danger or penalties
 Admonish- pinagsabihan lang
 Reprimand- imposed on a minor infraction of the lawyer’s duty to the court.
 Suspension- temporary withholding of a lawyers right to practice his profession for a
definite period of time or until lifted.
 Censure- Official reprimand
 Disbarment- act of SC in withdrawing from attorney the privilege of practicing law and
stricken from ROA
 Interim Suspension- Hanggang sa magorder na yung court, suspended lang muna si
lawyer
 Sanction to allow a lawyer to [practice law under conditions
 Assessment of cause, limitation upon practice, appointment of a receiver, lawyer will
again take the Bar or professional responsibility examination, lawyer should attend
continuing educational courses, consistent with the purpose of sanctions.

INDEFINITELY SUSPENDEND
 They can still be readmitted or resume pag nalift na an suspension or nagexpire ang
period of suspension. The lawyers should file sworn statement of the court through the
office of the bar confidant stating that he did not appear to any court and did the
requirements required by the court.
 Sworn statement shall be considered as form of compliance

DISBARRED
 Despite disbarment, they can still be considered for reinstatement. (Cui v. Cui, G.R. No.
L-18727)
Considerations
 The applicants character and standing prior his disbarment
 Nature of the misconduct
 His conduct subsequent to disbarment
Effect of reinstatement
 Must comply to the special conditions to the applicant including enrolling in 4th year
classes