Case Digest Belga Baby Genesis

Foundation University
College of Law and Jurisprudence
BASIC LEGAL AND

JUDICIAL ETHICS
Case Digest
Submitted to:
Atty. Christine Toting
Submitted by:
Baby Genesis S. Belga

1.MANUEL L. LEE v ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO, A.C. No. 5281
FACTS:
- Manuel L. Lee charged respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago with violation of the Notarial Law
and the Ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a spurious last will and testament.
- In his complaint, complainant averred that his father, the decedent Vicente Lee, Sr., never
executed the contested will. Furthermore, the spurious will contained the forged signatures of
Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo, the purported witnesses to its execution.
- Respondent claimed that the complaint against him contained false allegations and was filed
simply to harass him because the criminal case filed by complainant against him in the Office of
the Ombudsman “did not prosper.”
- IBP’s investigating commissioner found respondent guilty of violation of pertinent provisions of
the old Notarial Law as found in the Revised Administrative Code. The violation constituted an
infringement of legal ethics, particularly Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violates the old Notarial Law and the ethics of the legal
profession.
RULING:
YES, respondent violated (1) the Lawyer’s Oath; (2) Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; (3) Canon 1
and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; (4) Art. 806 of the Civil Code and (5) the
provisions of the old Notarial Law.
A notarial will, as the contested will in this case, is required by law to be subscribed at the end
thereof by the testator himself. In addition, it should be attested and subscribed by three or more
credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The will in question was attested
by only two witnesses.
The Civil Code requires that a will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator
and the witnesses. A cursory examination of the acknowledgment of the will in question shows that this
particular requirement was neither strictly nor substantially complied with. There was the conspicuous
absence of a notation of the residence certificates of the notarial witnesses Noynay and Grajo in the
acknowledgment. Similarly, the notation of the testator’s old residence certificate in the same
acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law. These omissions by respondent invalidated the will.
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. A breach of these conditions justifies
disciplinary action against the erring lawyer. Notaries public must observe with utmost care and utmost
fidelity the basic requirements in the performance of their duties, otherwise, the confidence of the
public in the integrity of notarized deeds will be undermined.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby found guilty of professional misconduct. He is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year and his notarial commission REVOKED. Because he has
not lived up to the trustworthiness expected of him as a notary public and as an officer of the court, he
is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public.
2. DOLORES C. BELLEZA VS. ATTY. ALAN S. MACASA, A.C. NO. 7815, JULY 23, 2009
FACTS:
- On November 10 2004, Dolores C. Belleza (complainant) went to see Atty. Alan S. Macasa
(respondent) that was referred by their mutual friend, Joe Chua. Complainant wanted to avail
of respondent’s legal services in connection with the case of her son, Francis John Belleza, who
was arrested by Bacolod City policemen for alleged violation of RA 9165. Respondent agreed to
handle the case for P30,000.
- The following day, complainant made a partial payment of P15,000 to respondent through their
mutual friend Chua. On November 17 2004, she gave P10,000. She paid the balance of P5,000
on November 19 2004. Respondent did not issue any receipt.
- On November 21 2004, complainant paid P18,000 to respondent for the purpose posting a
bond to secure the provisional liberty of her son. Respondent did not issue any receipt. The next
day, complainant went to court and found out that respond did not remit the amount to the
court.
- Complainant then demanded to return the P18,000 from respondent on several occasions but
respondent ignored her. Respondent failed to act on the case complainant’s son and
complainant was forced to avail of the services of PAO.
- Thereafter, complainant filed a verified complaint for disbarment against respondent in the
Negros Occidental chapter of the IBP with affidavit of Chua attached.
ISSUE: Whether or not, Atty. Alan S. Macasa violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
RULING:
Yes, Atty. Alan S. Macasa was found not only guilty of dishonesty but also of professional misconduct for
prejudicing Francis John Belleza’s right to counsel and to bail under Sections 13 and 14(2), Article III of
the Constitution.When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose, he
should promptly account to the client how the money was spent. His failure either to render an
accounting or to return the money constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He also is guilty of violating Canons 1,7, 17, 18, and 19 and rules 12.03,
16.02, 16.03 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent is hereby ordered to
return to complainant the amounts of
P30,000 and P18,000 with interest 12% per annum from the date of promulgation of the decision until
full payment and directed to submit to the Court proof of payment of the amount within ten days from
payment. Failure to do so will subject him to criminal prosecution.
Therefore, Atty. Alan S. Macasa is hereby disbarred from the practice of law effective immediately.
3. CAYETANO VS. MONSOD, 201 SCRA 210, SEPT. 3, 1991
FACTS:
- Christian Monsod (respondent) was nominated by former President Corazon C. Aquino to

the position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter received by the Secretariat of the
Commission on Appointments on April 25 1991. Renato Cayetano (petitioner) opposed the
nomination because the respondent allegedly did not possess the required qualification of
having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
- On June 5 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of
- Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC. He took his oath of office and assumed office
- as Chairman of the COMELEC on June 18 1991.
- -Petitioner filed an instant petition for certiorari and Prohibition praying that said
- confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the
- COMELEC be declared null and void.
- Atty. Christian Monsod has been a member of the Philippine Bar since 1960. He has
- been paying his dues as a member of the IBP since its inception in 1972-1973 and he
- has been paying his professional license fees as a lawyer for more than ten years.
ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod is qualified to be COMELEC Chairperson?
RULING:
Yes, Atty Christian Monsod is qualified to be the Chairman of the COMELEC.
In the case of Philippine Lawyer Association v. Agrava, the practice of law is not limited to the conduct
of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to
actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients
before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. Practice of law means any activity, in or out of
court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. Atty
Monsod worked in the World Bank Group (1963-1970) as an operations officer which involved getting
acquainted with the laws of member-countries negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic, and
project work of the Bank. In 1970, he worked with Meralco Group as chief executive officer of an
investment bank and subsequently of a business conglomerate. In 1986, he rendered services to various
companies as a legal and economic consultant or chief executive officer. As former Secretary General
(1986) and National Chairman (1987) of NAMFREL, his work involved being knowledgeable in election
law.
Therefore, this petition is dismissed.

4. MAURICIO ULEP VS LEGAL CLINIC, INC., B.M. NO. 553, JUNE 17, 1993
FACTS:
- Mauricio C. Ulep (petitioner) prays to the court to order the The Legal Clinic, Inc
(respondent) to cease and desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same
tenor as that of annexes “A” and “B” in the petition, and to perpetually prohibit
persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law
profession other than those allowed by law.
- The said advertisements, according to the petitioners, are champterous, unethical,
demeaning of the law profession , and destructive of the confidence of the community
in the integrity of the members of the bar. As a member of the legal profession, the
petitioner is ashamed and offended by said advertisements, hence the reliefs sought in
his petition.
- Respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisement at its instance, but
claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of “legal support
services” through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic
ISSUE: Whether or not the services offered by The Legal Clinic, Inc. as advertised by it constitutes
practice of law.
RULING:
The use of name “Legal Clinic” gives the impression that respondent corporation is being operated by
lawyers and that it renders legal services. The term connotes lawyers just as the term “medical clinic”
connotes doctors. It thus becomes irrelevant whether respondent is merely offering “legal support
services” as claimed by it, or whether it offers legal services as any lawyer actively engaged in law
practice does. It becomes unnecessary to make a distinction between “legal services” and “legal support
services”, as the respondent would have it. The advertisements in question leave no room for doubt in
the minds of the reading public that legal services are being offered by lawyers, whether true or not.
Accordingly, the Court resolved to restrain and enjoin The Legal Clinic, Inc. from issuing or causing the
publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form which is of the same or similar tenor and
purpose as annexes “A” and “B” of the petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity,
operation or transaction proscribed by law or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein.
5. MANUEL L. LEE v ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO, A.C. No. 5281
FACTS:
- Manuel L. Lee charged respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago with violation of the Notarial Law
and the Ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a spurious last will and testament.
- In his complaint, complainant averred that his father, the decedent Vicente Lee, Sr., never
executed the contested will. Furthermore, the spurious will contained the forged signatures of
Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo, the purported witnesses to its execution.
- Respondent claimed that the complaint against him contained false allegations and was filed
simply to harass him because the criminal case filed by complainant against him in the Office of
the Ombudsman “did not prosper.”
- IBP’s investigating commissioner found respondent guilty of violation of pertinent provisions of
the old Notarial Law as found in the Revised Administrative Code. The violation constituted an
infringement of legal ethics, particularly Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).
Issue: Whether or not the respondent violates the old Notarial Law and the ethics of the legal
profession.
RULING:
YES, respondent violated (1) the Lawyer’s Oath; (2) Rule 138 of the Rules of Court; (3) Canon 1
and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; (4) Art. 806 of the Civil Code and (5) the
provisions of the old Notarial Law.
A notarial will, as the contested will in this case, is required by law to be subscribed at the end
thereof by the testator himself. In addition, it should be attested and subscribed by three or more
credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The will in question was attested
by only two witnesses.
The Civil Code requires that a will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator
and the witnesses. A cursory examination of the acknowledgment of the will in question shows that this
particular requirement was neither strictly nor substantially complied with. There was the conspicuous
absence of a notation of the residence certificates of the notarial witnesses Noynay and Grajo in the
acknowledgment. Similarly, the notation of the testator’s old residence certificate in the same
acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law. These omissions by respondent invalidated the will.
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. A breach of these conditions justifies
disciplinary action against the erring lawyer. Notaries public must observe with utmost care and utmost
fidelity the basic requirements in the performance of their duties, otherwise, the confidence of the
public in the integrity of notarized deeds will be undermined.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby found guilty of professional misconduct. He is

hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year and his notarial commission REVOKED.
Because he has not lived up to the trustworthiness expected of him as a notary public and as an officer
of the court, he is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public.
6. DOMINADOR P. BURBE v ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA, Adm. Case No. 99-634
FACTS:
- Dominador P. Burbe filed a complaint against Attorney Alberto C. Magulta, accusing him of
failing to file a complaint against certain parties for breach of contract despite receiving
payment for legal services.
- Burbe claimed that he had given Attorney Magulta money for the filing fee, but the lawyer
did not file the case and instead used the money for his personal purposes.
- Attorney Magulta denied the allegations, arguing that no lawyer-client relationship existed
because Burbe never paid him for the services.
- He claimed that the money Burbe gave his office was intended as an acceptance fee, not a
filing fee.
- Attorney Magulta also contended that he had performed various legal tasks at Burbe's
request but was never compensated for them.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent committed misappropriation of the client’s funds?
RULING:
YES, in failing to apply to the filing fee the amount given by complainant -- as evidenced by the
receipt issued by the law office of respondent -- the latter violated the rule that lawyers must be
scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to them in their professional capacity. Rule 16.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility states that lawyers shall hold in trust all moneys of their clients
and properties that may come into their possession. He also violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (provides that lawyers should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them).
Respondent wants this Court to believe that no lawyer-client relationship existed between him
and complainant, because the latter never paid him for services rendered. We disagree. A lawyer-client
relationship was established from the very first moment complainant asked respondent for legal
advice regarding the former’s business. If a person, in respect to business affairs or troubles of any kind,
consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily
permits or acquiesces with the consultation, then the professional employment is established.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Alberto C. Magulta is found guilty of violating Rules 16.01 and 18.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Decision.
7. IN RE: LUIS B TAGORDA G.R. NO. 32329. 23 MARCH 1929
Facts:
- The respondent, Luis B. Tagorda, a practicing attorney and a member of the provincial board of
Isabela, admits that previous to the last general elections he made use of a card written in
Spanish and Ilocano, which, in translation, reads as follows:
- "LUIS B. TAGORDA "Attorney"Notary Public "CANDIDATE FOR THIRD MEMBER
- "Province of Isabela
- "(NOTE. — As notary public, he can execute for you a deed of sale for the purchase of land as
required by the cadastral o􏰂ce; can renew lost documents of your animals; can make your
application and 􏰂nal requisites for your homestead; and can execute any kind of a􏰂davit. As a
lawyer he can help you collect your loans although long overdue, as well as any complaint for or
against you. Come or write to him in his town Echague, Isabela. He offers free consultation, and
is willing to help and serve the poor.)"
- The respondent also admitted that he sent a letter to the barrio lieutenant stating that he
request lieutenant’s kind favor to transmit this information to the barrio people in any of the
meetings or social gatherings so that they may be informed of my desire to live and to serve
with you in his capacity as lawyer and notary public. If the people in the locality have not as yet
contracted the services of other lawyers in connection with the registration of their land titles,
that said respondent would be willing to handle the work in court and would charge only three
pesos for every registration.
Issue/s: Whether or not respondent Luis B. Tagorda should be disbarred for soliciting cases at law for
the purpose of gain.
Ruling: In 1919 at the instigation of the Philippine Bar Association, said codal section was amended by
Act No. 2828 by adding at the end thereof the following: "The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice."
The statue as amended conforms in principle to the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted by the
American Bar Association in 1908 and by the Philippine Bar Association in 1917. Canons 27 and 28 of the
Code of Ethics provide:
"27. ADVERTISING, DIRECT OR INDIRECT. — The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even
for a young lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well- merited
reputation for professional capacity and 􏰂delity to trust. This cannot be forced, but must be the
outcome of character and conduct. The publication or circulation of ordinary simple business cards,
being a matter of personal taste or local custom, and sometimes of convenience, is not per se improper.
But solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews
not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional. 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.
8. Atty Khan Jr. VS Simbillo AC No. 5299
FACTS:
- On the July 5 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper, a paid advertisement
appeared that said “ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specalist 532-4333/521-2667”. Ms Ma. Theresa
B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court, called the
number and pretended to be an interested party. She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo claimed that her
husband, Atty Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a
court decree within four to six months. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband charges
P48,000, half of which is payable at the time of filing and the other half after a decision has been
rendered. Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public Information
Office revealed that similar advertisements were published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of
Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The Philippine Star.
- On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan Jr., 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 service, in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rulesof Court. In his
answer, respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but argued that advertising and
solicitation per se are not prohibited acts. Thus, he 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Atty. Simbillo committed an act in violation of Rule 2.03and Rule 3.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138,Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling:
A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one may attain
the highest eminence without making much money; A relation as an "officer of the court" to the
administration of justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability; A relation to clients in the
highest degree of fiduciary; A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, an
unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice,
dealing directly with their clients. There is no question that the respondent committed the acts
complained of. He himself admits that he caused the publication of the advertisements. What adds to
the gravity of respondent’s acts is that in advertising 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 .Indeed, in assuring prospective clients that an annulment may be obtained in four to six months
from the time of the filing of the case, he in fact encourages people, who might have otherwise been
disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.
Therefore, respondent Atty. Simbillo committed an act in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138,Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
9. Adelino Ledesma v. Hon. Rafael C. Climaco G.R. No. L-23815 June 28, 1974
FACTS:
- On October 13, 1964, the petitioner Ledesma was appointed as an Election Registrar in Cadiz,
Negros Occidental. He was also a counsel de parte for one of the accused in a case pending in
the sala of Judge Climaco. Later he sought to withdraw as counsel due to the Commission on
Elections' full-time service policy, but the Judge not only denied his request but also appointed
him as counsel de oficio for two defendants. This designation was made because the petitioner,
who had assumed the position of Election Registrar on October 13, 1964, knew since October 2,
1964, that the trial would resume on the specified date. Aside from this the petitioner had
previously sought multiple postponements due to alleged indisposition which has caused delay
in the proceeding of a crime that was allegedly committed February 17, 1962.
- On November 3, 1964, the petitioner filed a motion to withdraw as counsel de oficio. However,
the Judge, in an order dated November 6, 1964, rejected this motion. With his motion for
reconsideration proving unsuccessful, the petitioner filed this certiorari proceeding.
ISSUE: Whether or not LEDESMA is allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio.
Ruling:
No, LEDESMA is not allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio.
In the case of People v. Daban the doctrine was stated: "There is need anew in this disciplinary
proceeding to lay stress on the fundamental postulate that membership in the bar carries with it a
responsibility to live up to its exacting standard. The law is a profession, not a trade or a craft. Those
enrolled in its ranks are called upon to aid in the performance of one of the basic purposes of the State,
the administration of justice. To avoid any frustration thereof, especially in the case of an indigent
defendant, a lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio. The fact that his services are rendered
without remuneration should not occasion a diminution in his zeal. Rather the contrary. This is not, of
course, to ignore that other pressing matters do compete for his attention. After all, he has his practice
to attend to. That circumstance possesses a high degree of relevance since a lawyer has to live; certainly
he cannot afford either to neglect his paying cases. Nonetheless, what is incumbent upon him as counsel
de oficio must be fulfilled."
It is therefore crucial to emphasize the foundational principle that being a member of the legal
profession entails a duty to uphold its exacting standards. The legal profession is not a business or a
mere skill; it is a noble calling. Those who belong to this profession are entrusted with a vital role in
fulfilling one of the fundamental purposes of the State, which is the dispensation of justice. To ensure
that justice is not denied, especially to an indigent defendant, a lawyer may be required to serve as
counsel de oficio. The fact that he provides his services without compensation should not diminish his
dedication. On the contrary, it should enhance it.
Thus, LEDESMA is not allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio.
11. SPOUSES OLBES VS. ATTY. VICTOR DECIEMBRE, A.C. NO. 5635, APRIL 27, 2005
FACTS:
Spouses Franklin and Lourdes Olbes filed a petition for the disbarment of Atty. Deciembre. Petitioners
charged respondent with willful and deliberate acts of dishonesty, falsification and conduct unbecoming
a member of the Bar. On July 1, 1999, through respondent, Mrs. Olbes renewed her application for a
loan from Rodela Loans, Inc., in the amount of P10,000. As security for the loan, she issued and
delivered to respondent five Philippine National Bank (PNB) blank checks, which served as collateral for
the approved loan as well as any other loans that might be obtained in the future. Lourdes paid
respondent the amount of P14,874.37 corresponding to the loan plus surcharges, penalties and
interests, for which the latter issued a receipt. Atty. Deciembre filled up four of the five blank checks in
the amount of P50,000 each, with different dates of maturity. Because the checks were dishonored
upon presentment, respondent initiated criminal suits against petitioners.
Issue: Whether the petitioner can be allowed to resume his practice of law in the Philippines after re-
acquiring his Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225.
Ruling: Yes, the petitioner can be allowed to resume his practice of law in the Philippines, subject to
certain conditions3. The Court held that Filipino citizenship is a continuing requirement for the practice
of law and that a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country and later re-acquires his
Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar4. However, the
right to resume the practice of law is not automatic. The petitioner must apply with the proper authority
for a license or permit to engage in such practice and comply with the conditions required for
membership in good standing in the bar, such as payment of dues, attendance to MCLE, and observance
of ethical standards. The Court granted the petitioner’s petition, subject to the condition that he shall
re-take the Lawyer’s Oath and pay appropriate fees6. The Court also directed the OBC to draft guidelines
for the re-acquisition of the privilege to resume the practice of law for the guidance of the Bench and
Bar7.
12. Spouses Franklin and Lourdes Olbes vs. Atty. Victor V. Deciembre A.C. No. 5365, April 27, 2005
Facts:
- This is a Petition for the disbarment of Atty. Victor V. Deciembre, filed by Spouses Franklin and
Lourdes Olbes. Petitioners charged respondent with willful and deliberate acts of dishonesty,
falsification and conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar.
- Through Atty. Victor v. Deciembre, Lourdes renewed her application for a loan from Rodela
Loans, Inc. As security for the loan, she issued and delivered to respondent five Philippine
National Bank blank checks which served as collateral for the approved loan as well
- as any other loans that might be obtained in the future. After some time,Lourdes paid
respondent the amount corresponding to the loan plus surcharges, penalties and interests.
Through Atty. Victor v. Deciembre, Lourdes
- renewed her application for a loan from Rodela Loans, Inc. As security for the loan, she issued
and delivered to respondent five Philippine National Bank blank checks which served as
collateral for the approved loan as well as any other loans that might be obtained in the future.
After some time, Lourdes paid respondent the amount corresponding to the loan plus
surcharges, penalties andinterests.Through respondent, Lourdes renewed on July 1, 1999 her
application for a loan from Rodela Loans, Inc., in the amount of P10,000. As security for the
loan, she issued and delivered to respondent five Philippine National Bank (PNB) blank checks,
which served as collateral for the approved loan as well as any other loans that might be
obtained in the future.
- Lourdes paid respondent the amount of P14,874.37 corresponding to the loan plus surcharges,
penalties and interests, for which the latter issued a receipt. Atty. Deciembre filled up four of the
five blank checks in the amount of P50,000 each, with different dates of maturity. Because the
checks were dishonored upon presentment, respondent initiated criminal suits against
petitioners.
Issue: Whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath.
Held: Yes, the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath for
dishonesty, falsification and conduct unbecoming a member of the bar. The respondent committed a
serious transgression of the Code by filling up the blank checks entrusted to him as security for a loan
with amounts that had not been agreed upon, despite his full knowledge that the loan had already been
paid. The respondent also showed disrespect to the judicial system by filing unfounded criminal charges
against his clients to obtain an improper advantage.
Penalty: The Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for two years. However,
considering that he had already been previously disbarred, this penalty could no longer be imposed. In
the event that he should apply for the lifting of his disbarment in another case, the penalty imposed in
this case should be considered in the resolution of the same.
13. ENRIQUE JAVIER DE ZUZUARREGUI VS. ANTHONY DE ZUZUARREGUI B.M. No. 2796
Facts:
On October 2, 2013, the OBC received a Letter1 dated September 15, 2013 from complainant,
thru his counsel, Atty. Nicholas A. Aquino, informing the Court that he was filing a complaint against
respondent, then an applicant for the 2013 Bar Examinations for being a person of questionable moral
character given the four criminal charges that the latter was facing before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Quezon City, namely:
(1) Criminal Case No. XV-03-INV-13D-03569 - Enrique de Zuzuarregui v. Anthony de Zuzuarregui, et al.,
for Estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC);
(2) Criminal Case No. XV-03-INV-13F-05581 - Enrique de Zuzuarregui v. Anthony de Zuzuarregui, et al.,
for Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents under Article 315 of the RPC;
(3) Criminal Case No. XV-INV-13G-06821 - Enrique de Zuzuarregui v. Anthony de Zuzuarregui, et al., for
Falsification of Public Documents and Use of Falsified Documents under Article 172 of the RPC; and
(4) Criminal Case No. XV-03-INV-13F-06052 - Enrique de Zuzuarregui v. Anthony de Zuzuarregui, et al.,
for Falsification of Public Documents under Article 172 of the RPC.
In view of the pending criminal cases against respondent, the Court provisionally allowed him to take
the 2013 Bar Examinations, subject to the condition that, should he pass, he shall not be allowed to take
the Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys until he is cleared of the charges against him.
Respondent thereafter passed the 2013 Bar Examinations. Consequently, he filed a Verified Petition to
Take the Lawyer's Oath4 dated April 24, 2014 before the OBC. In his petition, he claimed that the
pending criminal cases against him had already been dismissed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Quezon City as evidenced by the Orders of Dismissal5 attached thereto. To prove that he was morally fit
to become a lawyer, respondent also submitted the following certifications of good moral character
from:
(a) Atty. Ma Venarisse V. Verga of Lee Venturanza Verga Law Office;6
(b) Atty. Viviana Martin-Paguirigan, then Associate Dean of the Far Eastern University - Institute of Law;7
(c) Rev. Fr. Noel B. Magtaas, OSJ, then Provincial Superior of the Oblates of St. Joseph - Philippine
Province;8 and
(d) Attys. Gregorio S. Daproza and Voltaire P. Agas.
In its Resolution10 dated July 1, 2014, the Court required respondent to explain why he failed to disclose
the pendency of Criminal Case No. XV-INV-13G-06821.
On August 14, 2014, respondent submitted his Verified Compliance11 wherein he explained that he was
not able to declare Criminal Case No. XV-INV-13G-06821 in his application because, at the time of filing
of his Petition to Take the 2013 Bar Examinations on July 12, 2013, he was not yet aware of the
existence of the case. He further averred that he only received a copy of the subpoena12 in relation to
the case on August 15, 2013, or more than a month after he filed his application to take the bar
examinations.
Issue: Whether or not ANTHONY DE ZUZUARREGUI should be allowed to take the Lawyers oath.
Ruling: Yes, All criminal charges against him has been dismissed except for the most recent one filed in
2019. Section 2 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. — Every applicant for admission as a
member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral
character, and a resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory
evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have
been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.
Here in this case the dismissal of all the other criminal charges against respondent, coupled with
the various certifications of good moral character in his favor, is sufficient for the Court to conclude that
respondent possesses the moral qualifications required of lawyers.
Hence, Anthony de Zuzuarregui is allowed to take the Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of
Attorneys.
14.PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS MICHAEL A. MEDADO,B.M. No. 2540
Facts:
- Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines with the degree of Bachelor of Laws in
19791 and passed the same year's bar examinations with a general weighted average of 82.7.
- On 7 May 1980, he took the Attorney’s Oath at the Philippine International Convention Center
(PICC) together with the successful bar examinees.3 He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys on 13 May 1980,4 but he failed to do so on his scheduled date, allegedly because he
had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys5 given by the Bar Office when he went
home to his province for a vacation.
- Several years later, while rummaging through his old college files, Medado found the Notice to
Sign the Roll of Attorneys. It was then that he realized that he had not signed in the roll, and that
what he had signed at the entrance of the PICC was probably just an attendance record.
- In 2005, when Medado attended Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars, he
was required to provide his roll number in order for his MCLE compliances to be credited.
- Not having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to provide his roll number. About
seven years later, or on 6 February 2012, Medado filed the instant Petition, praying that he be
allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.
- The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) conducted a clarificatory conference on the matter on 21
September 201212 and submitted a Report and Recommendation to this Court on 4 February
2013. The OBC recommended that the instant petition be denied for petitioner’s gross
negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit.14 It explained that, based on his answers
during the clarificatory conference, petitioner could offer no valid justification for his negligence
in signing in the Roll of Attorneys. After a judicious review of the records, we grant Medado’s
prayer in the instant petition, subject to the payment of a fine and the imposition of a penalty
equivalent to suspension from the practice of law.
Issue: Whether or not Petitioner should be allowed to sign the roll of attorneys.
Ruling:
Yes. Petitioner should be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
For one, petitioner demonstrated good faith and good moral character when he finally filed the instant
Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys. We note that it was not a third party who called this Court’s
attention to petitioner’s omission; rather, it was Medado himself who acknowledged his own lapse,
albeit after the passage of more than 30 years.
For another, petitioner has not been subject to any action for disqualification from the practice of law,17
which is more than what we can say of other individuals who were successfully admitted as members of
the Philippine Bar. For this Court, this fact demonstrates that petitioner strove to adhere to the strict
requirements of the ethics of the profession, and that he has prima facie shown that he possesses the
character required to be a member of the Philippine Bar.
Finally, Medado appears to have been a competent and able legal practitioner, having held various
positions at the Laurel Law Office,18 Petron, Petrophil Corporation, the Philippine National Oil Company,
and the Energy Development Corporation.19
All these demonstrate Medado’s worth to become a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys is hereby GRANTED. Petitioner Michael
A. Medado is ALLOWED to sign in the Roll of Attorneys ONE (1) YEAR after receipt of this Resolution.
Petitioner is likewise ORDERED to pay a FINE of ₱32,000 for his unauthorized practice of law.
15. SOCORRO T. CO VS. ATTY. GODOFREDO N. BERNARDINO, A C. No. 3919 January 28, 1998
Facts:
- Complainant Socorro T. Co, a businesswoman, alleged that respondent Atty. Godofredo N.

Bernardino borrowed money from her and issued several postdated checks which were
dishonored for insufficiency of funds and closure of account.
- Respondent also failed to deliver the goods he promised to sell to her and another woman,
Emelinda Ortiz, using his influence in the Bureau of Customs.
- Complainant filed criminal and administrative complaints against respondent for violation of BP
Blg. 22 and unprofessional and unethical conduct.
Issue: Whether respondent should be disciplined for his misconduct in his non-professional or private
capacity.
Held: Yes, respondent should be suspended for one year from the practice of law for engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The Court held that although there was no attorney-client relationship between
complainant and respondent, the latter’s conduct showed him to be morally unfit and unworthy of the
privilege conferred by his license to practice law. The Court also noted that respondent eventually paid
his obligation to complainant, albeit very much delayed.
16. JUDGE ARIEL FLORENTINO R. DUMLAO, JR VS ATTY. MANUEL CAMACHO AC 10498, SEPTEMBER 4
2018
Facts: The complainant, Judge Dumlao, presided over a civil case where the respondent, Atty. Camacho,
was the counsel for the plaintiff. The respondent tried to fraternize with the complainant and
mentioned his alleged closeness to Supreme Court Justices and other influential persons. The
respondent also offered to share his attorney’s fees with the complainant in exchange for a favorable
ruling and threatened to file a disbarment case against him if he refused. The respondent also barged
into the complainant’s chambers and demanded that he order the court sheriff to sign a garnishment
order prepared by the respondent himself. The respondent also threatened the court sheriff with
dismissal if he did not comply.
Issue: Whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath.
Held: Yes, the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath for
influence peddling, attempted bribery, threatening court officers and disrespecting court processes. The
respondent failed to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers and
employed unfair and dishonest means to attain his client’s objectives. The respondent also showed
disrespect to the judicial system by implying that he can influence Supreme Court Justices to advocate
for his cause4.
Penalty: The Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for two (2) years56. However,
considering that he has already been previously disbarred, this penalty can no longer be imposed7. In
the event that he should apply for the lifting of his disbarment in another case, the penalty imposed in
this case should be considered in the resolution of the same.
17.MELODY R. NERY VS. ATTY. GLICERIO A. SAMPANA AC NO. 10196
Facts:
In her verified complaint filed on 18 June 2010, Nery alleged that in June 2008, she engaged
1
the services of Sampana for the annulment of her marriage and for her adoption by an alien adopter.
The petition for annulment was eventually granted, and Nery paid ₱200,000.00 to Sampana. As for
the adoption, Sampana asked Nery if she had an aunt, whom they could represent as the wife of her
alien adopter. Sampana then gave Nery a blurred copy of a marriage contract, which they would use
for her adoption. Thereafter, Nery paid Sampana ₱100,000.00, in installment: (a) ₱10,000.00 on 10
September 2008; (b) ₱50,000.00 on 2 October 2008; and (c) ₱40,000.00 on 17 November 2008.
Nery no longer asked for receipts since she trusted Sampana.
On 14 February 2009, Sampana sent a text message informing Nery that he already filed the petition
for adoption and it was already published. Sampana further informed Nery that they needed to
rehearse before the hearing. Subsequently, Sampana told Nery that the hearing was set on 5 March
2010 in Branch 11 of Malolos, Bulacan.
On 14 February 2009, Sampana sent a text message informing Nery that he already filed the petition
for adoption and it was already published. Sampana further informed Nery that they needed to
rehearse before the hearing. Subsequently, Sampana told Nery that the hearing was set on 5 March
2010 in Branch 11 of Malolos, Bulacan.
Issue: Whether Sampana is guilty of malpractice and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held: Yes, Sampana is guilty of malpractice and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He
unjustifiably failed to file the petition for adoption and fell short of his duty of due diligence and candor to his
client5. He also kept the money given to him, in violation of the Code’s mandate to deliver the client’s funds
upon demand6. He further misinformed Nery of the status of the petition, thereby neglecting the legal matter
entrusted to him.
CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with
his client.
CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client thatmay come into his
possession.
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. x x x.
CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.
CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
18.WILFREDO C. CABALLERO v ATTY. GLICERIO A. SAMPANA, A.C. No. 10699
FACTS:
- Wilfredo C. Caballero, an employee of the National Food Authority, was awarded a low-cost
housing unit by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). He secured a real estate
loan from the GSIS to finance the property.
- Due to financial constraints, Caballero transferred his rights over the housing unit to Atty.
Glicerio A. Sampana for P60,000.00. They executed a Deed of Transfer of Rights, which
stated that Sampana would take over the responsibility of paying the remaining monthly
amortizations.
- Caballero received letters from GSIS informing him that the loan's principal had increased
significantly as a result of default and arrears.
- The GSIS eventually canceled the Deed of Conditional Sale issued to Caballero due to non-
payment of arrears, demanding that he vacate the property and settle the debt.
- Sampana agreed to purchase the property with a down payment and installments. Caballero
executed an Affidavit of Waiver relinquishing his rights over the property.
- Despite the arrangements, Caballero's debt to GSIS continued to rise, and he received a final
demand to settle a substantial amount.
- Caballero filed an administrative complaint alleging that Sampana's actions had led to a
significant increase in his GSIS loan and put his retirement benefits in jeopardy.
- The IBP found Sampana guilty of gross misconduct, specifically for his willful and obstinate
refusal to fulfill the obligations he assumed when he entered into the Deed of Transfer of
Rights with Caballero.
ISSUE: Whether or not committed gross misconduct due to his blatant disregard for the commitments
he made when he signed the Deed of Transfer of Right with the complainant.
RULING: YES, the Court finds that respondent committed gross misconduct for his willful and obstinate
refusal to fulfill the obligations which he voluntarily assumed when he entered into the Deed of Transfer
of Right with complainant.
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
Considering his previous infractions, respondent should have adhered to the tenets of his
profession with exceptional vigilance. He did not. On the contrary, his recent transgression is indicative
of his propensity to commit unethical and improper acts that diminish the public's trust and confidence
in lawyers in general.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that a member of the Bar may be disbarred
or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other
gross misconduct in such office.
WHEREFORE, respondent Glicerio A. Sampana is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and is

hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.
19. ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG v ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA, A.C. No. 5581
Facts:
- Rose Bunagan-Bansig filed a Petition for Disbarment against Atty. Celera on January 8,
2002, alleging grossly immoral conduct. She claimed that Atty. Celera contracted a second
marriage with Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba while his first marriage with Gracemarie R. Bunagan
(Complainant’s sister) was still valid and subsisting. Certified xerox copies of the marriage
certificates were presented as evidence.
- Respondent claims that he has yet to receive a copy of the complaint then prayed that he be
furnished a copy of the complaint. It appeared that the given address of the respondent was
a vacant lot with debris of a demolished building.
- Atty. Celera repeatedly failed to respond to the complaint and directives to submit a
comment, despite numerous notices, summons and resolutions by the IBP and the Court.
The complaint dragged on for over a decade.
- The Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended a two-year suspension for Atty. Celera
based on the evidence presented.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the
dispensation of justice.
RULING: NO, considering respondent's propensity to disregard not only the laws of the land but
also the lawful orders of the Court, it only shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity
and good demeanor. He is, thus, unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
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.
He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. The
certified xerox copies of the marriage certificates bearing the name of respondent are competent and
convincing evidence to prove that he committed bigamy, which renders him unfit to continue as a
member of the Bar.
Respondent’s acts were deliberate, maneuvering the liberality of the Court in order to delay the
disposition of the case and to evade the consequences of his actions. Clearly, respondent's acts
constitute willful disobedience of the lawful orders of this Court.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, we find respondent ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA, guilty of
grossly immoral conduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders rendering him unworthy of
continuing membership in the legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law
and his name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
20.) IN RE FELIPE DEL ROSARIO, December 07, 1928
FACTS:
- Felipe del Rosario had failed the bar examination twice, in 1925 and 1926.
- In 1927, he filed a motion for the revision of his 1925 examination papers, alleging a mistake
in the computation of his grades. The court, acting in good faith, granted this motion, and
admitted Felipe del Rosario to the bar, but with two Justices dissenting.
- During a general investigation of bar examination matters by the city fiscal, a criminal charge
was filed against Juan Villaflor, a former court employee, and Felipe del Rosario. Villaflor
pleaded guilty and was sentenced, while Del Rosario pleaded not guilty and was acquitted
due to lack of evidence.
- The city fiscal recommended that Felipe del Rosario be ordered to surrender his certificate
of attorney and that he be forever prohibited from taking the bar examination.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent should surrender his certificate of attorney and be forever
prohibited from taking the bar examination.
RULING:
YES, it would be a disgrace to the Judiciary to receive one whose integrity is questionable as an
officer of the court, to clothe him with all the prestige of its confidence, and then to permit him to hold
himself out as a duly authorized member of the bar.
The conviction of Juan Villaflor in itself demonstrates that Felipe del Rosario has no legal right
to his attorney's certificate. While to admit Felipe del Rosario again to the bar examination would be
tantamount to a declaration of professional purity which we are totally unable to pronounce.
The practice of the law is not an absolute right to be granted everyone who demands it but is a
privilege to be extended or withheld in the exercise of a sound discretion.
The recommendation contained in the special report pertaining to Felipe del Rosario is
approved, and within a period of ten days from receipt of notice, the respondent shall surrender his
attorney's certificate to the clerk of this court.
21.DIONNIE RICAFORT v ATTY. RENE O. MEDINA, A.C. No. 5179
FACTS:
- Dionnie Ricafort filed a complaint alleging that on October 4, 1999, his tricycle sideswiped
Medina's car in Surigao City. Medina, a provincial board member, confronted Ricafort,
slapped him, and left the scene. This incident was said to have caused humiliation and
embarrassment to Ricafort.
- The complaint was supported by an affidavit from Ricafort and a traffic aide who witnessed
the incident and a letter from Mayor Arlencita E. Navarro, the League of Mayors President
of Surigao del Norte Chapter with signatures of 19 Mayors of different municipalities.
- Attorney Rene O. Medina denied slapping Ricafort. He claimed that the incident occurred
while he was taking his son to school, and it resulted from Ricafort's reckless driving, causing
Ricafort's tricycle to bump into his car. Medina stated that he pushed Ricafort in self-
defense but later asked if there was damage to the tricycle and if they should wait for a
traffic officer.
- Medina said that the filing of the case was instigated by the governor of the province since
he is associated with the political opponents of the governor. Medina added that there was
an amicable settlement in the barangay, and he no longer claimed any indemnity for the
damage caused on his car.
- The IBP found that the slapping incident did occur and recommended a 30-day suspension
for Attorney Rene O. Medina.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent Atty. Rene O. Medina should be held administratively liable.
RULING: YES, there is sufficient proof to establish that respondent slapped complainant. The slapping
incident was not only alleged by complainant in detail in his signed and notarized Affidavit;
complainant's Affidavit was also supported by the signed and notarized Affidavit of a traffic aide present
during the incident. It was even the traffic aide who informed complainant of respondent's plate
number.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
By itself, the act of humiliating another in public by slapping him or her on the face hints of a
character that disregards the human dignity of another. This arrogance is intolerable. It discredits the
legal profession, lawyers are granted the privilege to serve the public, not to bully them to submission.
WHEREFORE, Respondent Atty. Rene O. Medina is found to have violated Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3)
months.
22.DIONNIE RICAFORT v ATTY. RENE O. MEDINA, A.C. No. 5179
FACTS:
- Dionnie Ricafort filed a complaint alleging that on October 4, 1999, his tricycle sideswiped
Medina's car in Surigao City. Medina, a provincial board member, confronted Ricafort,
slapped him, and left the scene. This incident was said to have caused humiliation and
embarrassment to Ricafort.
- The complaint was supported by an affidavit from Ricafort and a traffic aide who witnessed
the incident and a letter from Mayor Arlencita E. Navarro, the League of Mayors President
of Surigao del Norte Chapter with signatures of 19 Mayors of different municipalities.
- Attorney Rene O. Medina denied slapping Ricafort. He claimed that the incident occurred
while he was taking his son to school, and it resulted from Ricafort's reckless driving, causing
Ricafort's tricycle to bump into his car. Medina stated that he pushed Ricafort in self-
defense but later asked if there was damage to the tricycle and if they should wait for a
traffic officer.
- Medina said that the filing of the case was instigated by the governor of the province since
he is associated with the political opponents of the governor. Medina added that there was
an amicable settlement in the barangay, and he no longer claimed any indemnity for the
damage caused on his car.
- The IBP found that the slapping incident did occur and recommended a 30-day suspension
for Attorney Rene O. Medina.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent Atty. Rene O. Medina should be held administratively liable.
Ruling:
YES, there is sufficient proof to establish that respondent slapped complainant. The slapping
incident was not only alleged by complainant in detail in his signed and notarized Affidavit;
complainant's Affidavit was also supported by the signed and notarized Affidavit of a traffic aide present
during the incident. It was even the traffic aide who informed complainant of respondent's plate
number.
law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
By itself, the act of humiliating another in public by slapping him or her on the face hints of a
character that disregards the human dignity of another. This arrogance is intolerable. It discredits the
legal profession, lawyers are granted the privilege to serve the public, not to bully them to submission.
WHEREFORE, Respondent Atty. Rene O. Medina is found to have violated Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3)
months.
23. AMALIA R. CENIZA v ATTY. ELISEO B. CENIZA, JR., A.C. No. 8335.
FACTS:
- Atty. Ceniza, a legal officer of Mandaue City Hall, left his legal wife and their children to live
with a married woman named Anna Fe Flores Binoya.
- The complaint provided evidence, which included photographs, testimonies from their
daughter and witnesses, and indications that Atty. Binoya and Ceniza are living together.
- The respondent filed his comment, wherein he denied having engaged in immoral conduct
and maintained that Anna had only been a business partner. He insisted that he had left the
complainant because her behavior had become unbearable.
- The respondent commenced a civil action seeking the declaration of nullity of his marriage
with the complainant, alleging her psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code.
- The Office of the Ombudsman found Atty. Ceniza guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct
based on evidence presented and suspended him for six months without pay. This decision
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
- The IBP Board of Governors dismissed the complaint, but the complainant appealed the
decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent should be disbarred for having extramarital affairs.
RULING:
YES, there is no question that a married person's abandonment of his or her spouse in order to
live and cohabit with another constitutes immorality. Herein, the complainant presented clearly
preponderant evidence showing that the respondent, while being lawfully married to her, had
maintained an illicit relationship with a married woman.
The members of the legal profession must conform to the highest standards of morality because
the Code of Professional Responsibility mandated them so, to wit:
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
Indeed, any lawyer guilty of gross misconduct should be suspended or disbarred even if the
misconduct relates to his or her personal life for as long as the misconduct evinces his or her lack of
moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY. ELISEO B. CENIZA, JR. guilty of
gross immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility;
DISBARS him from the practice of law effective upon receipt of this decision; and ORDERS his name
stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.
24.ATTY. LORENZO G. GADON VS. RAISSA ROBLES AC. NO. 13521
Facts:
-An administrative case of Atty. Larry Gadon after the video clip of him lashing out and uttering
profanities against Raissa Robles (Journalist). In Atty. Gadons contention he explained that his
behaviour in the video clip was provoked by Raissa Robles tweets:
- December 9, 2021, 6:56 PM:

Bongbong Marcos camp says, failure to file income taxes is NOTtax evasion. So, since the BIR
could not find A SINGLE COPY OF HISTAX DECLARATION FORMS as governor, how does he even
prove that he had paid. And isn't failure to pay taxes the very definition of "tax evasion"?
- December 9, 2021, 7:45 PM (in response to someone else's tweet):

But you see BIR has no record of payment at all. Either witholding (sic) or final taxes. W (sic) BIR
you are presumed not to have paid if your earnings reach higher than minimum and there is no
record of payment.
- True. We should all follow Bongbong Marcos' example of not filing our income taxes. Anyway,
it's not tax evasion
- If Bongbong Marcos wins, I'll do a Bongbong. Wont file my taxes Sixyears.
- What Bongbong Marcos is doing is fencing stolen goods on a grandscale. There is already a
Supreme Court decision that everything beyond what Ferdinand (sic) and Imelda Marcos
declared as their assets
- According to Atty. Gadon, Robles' tweets were false and libelous.Enraged by these purported
constant lies peddled by her, he recorded the subject video clip to stop and rebuke her. He
claimed that he uttered those words out of passion, in order to express his anger, disgust, and
displeasure against Robles.
- Hoy. Raissa Robles, puki ng ina mo, hindot ka. Putang ina mo. Ano 'ng pinagsasabi mong hindi
nagbayad si BBM ng taxes? May certification 'yan galing sa BIR.Puking ina mo! Hindot ka! Putang
ina mo, Raissa Robles! Magpakantot ka sa aso! Puking ina mo! Hindot ka! Putang ina mo!
- [Hoy, Raissa Robles, your mother's vulva, fuck you. Your mother is a whore. Why are you saying
that BBM did not pay his taxes? There is a certification from the BIR (that he did so). Your
mother's vulva! Fuck you! Your mother is a whore, RaissaRobles! Get yourself fucked by a dog!
Your mother's vulva! Fuck You! Your mother is a whore!
- Atty. Gadon, however, alleged that he did not post or upload the subject video clip in any social
media platform as he intended to directly send it to Robles, and only for her. On the contrary, he
argued that it was Robles who uploaded the video on social media in order to gain sympathy
from friends and supporters and to besmirch his name considering that he had just announced
his intention to run for Senator.
- Furthermore, The Court noted in the January 4, 2022 Resolution that this was not the first time that
Atty. Gadon has displayed similar behavior in public.Specifically, the Court noted the following incidents:
I) Atty. Gadon "Vowed to pulverize Muslim communities if they will not cooperate in the government's
bid to address [the] insurgency and rebellion problem in the region" and "expressed his readiness to
exterminate innocent children, women, men and old folks and bum down houses if they ignore his plea
to work together with the government.
2) He notoriously called former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno' s supporters bobo and flashed
them his middle finger outside the Court's compound in Baguio City, and even declared, "I don't care if I
am disbarred. I will still eat delicious food and live comfortably. I don't depend on income from
lawyering alone, unlike some IBP officials."
3) He also stated that he had no regrets in cursing at former Chief Justice Sereno' s supporters and
would personally ask the Court to disbar him by saying, "I was thinking off/ling a petition in the
Supreme Court to disbar me. If this bar thing is the only thing that will constrain me from getting back at
them, then I'd rather lose my license."
4) He allegedly committed acts of dishonesty, arrogance and rudeness during the impeachment
proceedings against [the] former Chief Justice Sereno at the House of
Representatives.
5) He maliciously imputed in a radio program that former President Benigno C. Aquino III died of
HIV.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Gadon should be disbarred
Ruling:
The Court finds that Atty. Gadon has shown himself to be unfit to be part of the legal profession.
Thus, the Court imposes on him the ultimatepenalty of disbarment. The Court has always maintained
that the practice of law is a privilege given to a few, and it is granted only to those of good moral
character.
In the January 4, 2022 Resolution, the Court found that Atty. Gadon's conduct violated
Rule 7.03 of the CPR, which reads:
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
The said rule was incorporated in a similar and mnended rule under the CPRA, and now
forms part of Section 2 of Canon II on Propriety, thus:
SECTION 2. Dignified conduct.~ A lawyer shall respect the law, the courts, tribunals, and other
government agencies, their officials, employees, and processes, and act with courtesy, civility.
fairness, and candor towards fellow members of the bar.
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on one's fitness to practice law. nor behave
in a scandalous manner, whether in public or private life. to the discredit of the legal profession.
SECTION 3. Safe environment; avoid all forms of abuse or harassment. - A lawyer shall not create or
promote an unsafe or hostile environment. both in private and public settings, whether online,
workplaces, educational or training institutions, or in recreational areas.
SECTION 4. Use of dignified, gender-fair, and child- and culturally-sensitive language. -A lawyer shall use
only dignified, genderfair, child- and culturally-sensitive language in all personal and professional
dealings.
25. JOCELYN DE LEON v ATTY. TYRONE PEDREÑA, A.C. No. 9401
FACTS:
- Jocelyn de Leon visited Atty. Tyrone Pedreña at the Public Attorney's Office in Parañaque
City to inquire about her case for support for her two minor children against her husband.
- Pedreña invited Jocelyn for lunch and ask her to just go back on February 1, 2006, because
the case was quite difficult, and he needed more time to study.
- After eating, Pedreña persistently convinced her to ride with him and he would just drop her
by the jeepney station, she acceded to his request so as not to offend him.
- Atty. Pedreña held the Jocelyn hand and tried to touch her, causing the Jocelyn to become
afraid and offended for his lack of respect.
- Despite Jocelyn’s resistance, Pedreña continued rubbing her left leg and grabbed her hand
and forced it to put on his penis. Atty. Pedreña made another move of pressing his finger
against Jocelyn’s private part.
- Sensing Jocelyn’s insistence to get off, Atty. Pedreña stopped the car and allowed her to
leave. Jocelyn had to return on February 1, 2006, with her five-year-old child to avoid
another incident.
- Atty. Pedreña denied the allegations, claiming that De Leon's accusations were
unsubstantiated, and he accused her of theft.
- After investigation, the IBP found Atty. Pedreña's defenses lacking credibility and
substantiated De Leon's allegations of sexual harassment.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Pedreña due to his inappropriate behavior toward the complainant is guilty
of reprehensible conduct that is unbecoming of a member of the Bar.
RULING:
YES, Atty. Tyrone Pedreña is guilty in violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
Complainant was able to prove her case against the Respondent. She was straightforward and
spontaneous in answering the questions and her account of the incident that happened was consistent.
On the other hand, Respondent's defenses are not credible and are replete with inconsistencies
and his actuations in the entire proceedings show lack of integrity.
WHEREFORE, the Court SUSPENDS ATTY. TYRONE PEDREÑA from the practice of law for two years
effective upon receipt of this decision, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar
acts will be dealt with more severely.
26.Spouses Manolo vs Atty. Ernesto Villagarcia, A.C. No. 8210, August 8, 2016
Facts:
- The complainants received a demand letter from the respondent, who was the lawyer of
their creditor, Mrs. Arcilla. The demand letter contained abusive, offensive, and libelous
language against the complainants, and also imputed crimes of estafa and bouncing checks
against them.
- The demand letter was also copy furnished to various offices and persons, which caused
damage to the complainants’ reputation and feelings. The complainants filed a verified
complaint for disbarment against the respondent for grave misconduct and unethical
conduct. The respondent failed to answer the complaint and to appear at the investigation
conducted by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
- The complainants argued that the respondent violated Rule 8.01 of the CPR by using
demeaning and immoderate language in his demand letter, which maligned and ridiculed
them to its recipients. They also argued that the respondent violated Section 3, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court by failing to answer the complaint and to attend the mandatory hearings
set by the IBP, which showed his disrespect to the court and his oath of office.
- The respondent did not present any argument in his defense as he failed to file any
comment or pleading and to appear at the investigation despite repeated notices and
directives from the IBP.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent should be held administratively liable based on the allegations of
the verified complaint.
Ruling: The Court found the respondent guilty of violation of Rule 8.01 of the CPR and suspended him
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month, effective upon his receipt of this Resolution. The
Court also sternly warned him that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.
Legal Principles Applied: Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which
states that a lawyer shall not use abusive, offensive, or improper language in his professional dealings;
Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which states that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for
any misconduct showing any fault or deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor; and relevant jurisprudence on the use of intemperate language and contempt of court by
lawyers.
Rationale for the Ruling: The Supreme Court First Division speaking though Associate Justice Estela M.
Perlas-Bernabe ruled that the respondent’s demand letter contained not only a demand for payment
but also words that maligned the complainants’ character and imputed crimes against them without any
basis
27. Supreme Court Resolution Dated 28 April 2003 in G.R. Nos. 145817 And 145822, A.C. No.6332,
April 17, 2012
Facts:
- Respondent Atty. Magdaleno M. Peña filed an urgent motion to inhibit Justice Antonio T. Carpio,
the ponente of two consolidated petitions involving respondent, on the ground of alleged
bribery and falsification of court documents. He attached to his motion copies of the court’s
agenda and internal resolution, which he claimed to have anonymously received by mail, to
support his accusation that Justice Carpio issued a resolution contrary to the agreed action of
the court.
- The prosecution argued that respondent Atty. Peña committed contempt of court and violated
his oath as a lawyer by making baseless and malicious allegations against Justice Carpio, without
any verifiable proof of specific misconduct. The prosecution also argued that respondent Atty.
Peña submitted a falsified internal court document, which he illegally obtained and improperly
used in his motion to inhibit, thereby showing his dishonesty and disrespect for the court.
- The defense argued that respondent Atty. Peña filed his motion to inhibit out of a sense of duty
to inform the court of any apparent irregularity that came to his knowledge, and not out of spite
or disrespect. The defense also argued that respondent Atty. Peña had no reason to doubt the
authenticity of the documents he received by mail, which he believed were official documents
of the court. The defense further argued that respondent Atty. Peña had no hand in securing
those documents, and that he was merely joking when he teased Atty. Singson about bribing
Justice Carpio.
Issue: The main issue is whether respondent Atty. Peña should be held administratively liable for making
gratuitous imputations of bribery and wrongdoing against a member of the court, and for submitting a
falsified internal court document.
Court’s Ruling: The court ruled that respondent Atty. Peña is guilty of contempt of court and gross
misconduct as a lawyer, and ordered his disbarment from the practice of law. The court also ordered
him to pay a fine of P40,000 for contempt of court.
Legal Principles Applied: The court applied the ethical standards demanded of lawyers, as embodied in
the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath, which require lawyers to observe and
maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers, to abstain from offensive or menacing language
or behavior before the court, and to refrain from attributing to a judge motives that are not supported
by the record or have no materiality to the case. The court also applied the rules on contempt of court
and disciplinary action against lawyers who violate their duties and responsibilities to the court.
Rationale for the Ruling: The court found that respondent Atty. Peña failed to show any satisfactory
explanation for his allegations against Justice Carpio, which were based on mere suspicions,
speculations, insinuations or even the plain silence of an opposing counsel. The court also found that
respondent Atty. Peña submitted a falsified internal court document, which was not a copy of any
existing document in the court’s records, and which he used to cast doubt on the integrity of Justice
Carpio and the court’s resolution. The court held that these acts constitute grave violations of the ethical
standards demanded of lawyers, as well as contemptuous acts against the dignity and authority of the
court.
28. Atty. Fernandez vs Hon. Bello, G.R. No. L-14277, April 30, 1960
Facts:
- The petitioner, a lawyer, instituted guardianship proceedings for the minors Federico and Pedro
Perreyras, whose sister Timotea Perreyras was appointed as guardian. The petitioner prepared and
notarized a deed of sale of a nipa land owned by the minors to pay their debts to Maximiano
Umangay and Ricardo Perreyras. The petitioner also received P400 from the guardian, P200 as
redemption price of the land and P200 as attorney’s fees for services rendered to the father of the
minors in a civil case. The respondent judge, who took over the court, found the petitioner guilty of
contempt of court for taking the money without previous approval from the court and for instituting
the guardianship proceedings only to collect his fees. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
with injunction to annul the orders of the respondent judge.
- The respondent judge argued that: (a) he had complied with the requirements of law by filing a
charge in writing and giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file a written answer; (b) he had
found sufficient evidence to prove that the petitioner had abused his relationship with the guardian
and had taken money from her without previous approval from the court; (c) he had ordered the
return of the money because he considered the petitioner below average standard of a lawyer; and
(d) he had warned the petitioner not to use improper terms in his pleadings.
- The petitioner argued that: (a) he was denied due process because no formal charge was filed
against him; (b) he acted in good faith and had terminated his relation with the guardian when he
received the money; (c) he instituted the guardianship proceedings only to help the minors as it was
less expensive than an intestate proceeding; (d) he was entitled to receive his fees for services
rendered to the father of the minors in a civil case; and (e) he used strong language in his motion for
reconsideration because he was provoked by the insulting remarks of the respondent judge.
Issue:
a. Whether the proceedings conducted by the respondent judge were irregular for lack of
formal charge
b. Whether the petitioner was guilty of contempt of court for taking the money from the
guardian
c. Whether the respondent judge erred in ordering the petitioner to return the money and in
effect denying him his right to collect his fees
d. Whether the petitioner used improper language in his motion for reconsideration.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court speaking through Justice Labrador modified the orders of the respondent
judge as follows: (a) it reversed the finding that the petitioner instituted the guardianship proceedings
only to collect his fees, as there was no evidence of bad faith on his part; (b) it affirmed the reprimand
for taking money from the guardian without previous approval from the court; © it modified the order
for refund of P200 by stating that it was without prejudice to petitioner’s right to demand payment for
his services rendered to the deceased father of the minors; and (d) it held that both the respondent
judge and the petitioner were to blame for using improper language in their orders and pleadings.
Legal Principles Applied: The legal principles applied are:
a. That there is no need for a formal information filed by a prosecuting officer to begin contempt
proceedings, as long as there is a charge in writing duly filed in court and an opportunity for
the person charged to be heard
b. That the property and effects of the wards are under the control and supervision of the court,
and that they could not be taken and expended without the latter’s permission;
c. That the court has no authority to deny a lawyer his just and lawful fees;
d. That a judge should use temperate language in his orders and avoid insulting remarks that
may provoke a lawyer.
Rationale for the Ruling: The Supreme Court based its ruling on the following reasons: (a) it held that
the guardianship proceedings were proper and beneficial to the minors, as they enabled them to sell
their nipa land and pay their debts; (b) it held that the petitioner, as a lawyer, should have known that
the property and effects of the wards were in custodia legis and could not be taken or expended without
court permission; © it held that the respondent judge had no law or authority to deny the petitioner his
just and lawful fees; and (d) it held that a judge should use temperate language4 and avoid insulting
remarks that may provoke a lawyer, and vice versa.
29.Atty Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr. vs Atty. Rizal P. Balbin, A.C. No. 7088, December 2018
Facts:
- The complainant, Atty. Roque was the counsel of the plaintiff in a civil case before the Metropolitan
Trial Court of Parañaque City, where he obtained a favorable judgment for his client. The
respondent, Atty. Balbin, was the counsel of the defendant who appealed the ruling. Instead of
pursuing legal remedies, the respondent resorted to harassing, intimidating, and blackmailing the
complainant with baseless administrative and criminal suits and media exposures in order to
pressure him to withdraw the case. The respondent also failed to file his comment on the
administrative complaint despite several orders from the Supreme Court and was fined and ordered
arrested.
- The complainant argued that the respondent violated his professional and ethical duties as a lawyer
by employing unfair and dishonest means to attain his client’s objectives and by showing contempt
and disregard for the orders of the Supreme Court. The complainant presented evidence of the
respondent’s phone calls, text messages, e-mails, and letters containing threats and insults against
him and his reputation.
- The respondent did not file any comment or answer to the administrative complaint despite being
given several opportunities to do so. He also ignored the notices of resolution, warrants of arrest,
and alias orders of arrest issued by the Supreme Court against him.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent should be administratively sanctioned for his acts of harassment,
intimidation, blackmail, and disrespect towards the complainant and the Supreme Court.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court speaking through Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen found the
respondent guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath and
suspended him from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. The respondent was also directed
to report to the Supreme Court the date of his receipt of the decision to determine when his suspension
will take effect.
Legal Principles Applied: Canon 8, Canon 11, Canon 12, Rule 12.03, Rule 12.04, Canon 19, and Rule
19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; Lawyer’s Oath
Rationale for the Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s acts of harassment,
intimidation, blackmail, and disrespect towards the complainant and the Supreme Court were
unbecoming of a member of the legal profession and showed his lack of courtesy, fairness, candor, zeal,
respect, and civility towards his professional colleagues and judicial officers. The Supreme Court also
held that the respondent’s failure to file his comment and comply with its orders indicated his high
degree of irresponsibility and utter disrespect to the judicial institution. The Supreme Court cited
previous cases where it imposed suspension from the practice of law for similar offenses committed by
lawyers and increased the penalty recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines from one (1)
year to two (2) years in view of the aggravating circumstances in this case.
30. Atty. Falcis vs Civil Registrar, G.R. No. 217910, September 3, 2019
Facts :
- Petitioner Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III, an openly gay man, filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition to declare Articles 1, 2, 46(4), and 55(6) of the Family Code as unconstitutional for
limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples and for denying same-sex couples the right to marry.
He claimed that these provisions violated his right to due process, equal protection, privacy, and
freedom of expression and religion. He also alleged that he suffered direct injury from the law’s
normative impact and that he represented the interests of the LGBTQI+ community. He
impleaded the Civil Registrar General as respondent. The LGBTS Christian Church, Inc. and some
individuals filed a petition-in-intervention to support petitioner’s cause. Several lawyers also
intervened to oppose the petition.
- Petitioner argued that Articles 1, 2, 46(4), and 55(6) of the Family Code are facially
unconstitutional for creating a suspect classification based on sexual orientation and gender
identity and expression (SOGIE) and for infringing on his fundamental rights. He contended that
he has standing to file the suit as an open and self-identified homosexual who has a personal
stake in the outcome of the case. He also invoked third-party standing to represent the LGBTQI+
community who are similarly situated and whose rights are affected by the law. He further
claimed that he resorted to Rule 65 as there was no other specific remedial vehicle to challenge
the constitutionality of a statute. He also asserted that he did not violate the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts as his petition involved issues of transcendental importance.
- Respondent Civil Registrar General argued that petitioner has no cause of action against him as
he did not perform any act that violated petitioner’s rights. He also maintained that petitioner
has no standing to file the suit as he did not suffer any direct injury from the enforcement of the
law. He also averred that petitioner availed of the wrong remedy as Rule 65 is not applicable to
questions of constitutionality. He also pointed out that petitioner violated the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts by directly filing his petition with the Supreme Court instead of lower courts.
The intervenors-oppositors likewise argued that Articles 1, 2, 46(4), and 55(6) of the Family Code
are constitutional and consistent with public policy, morality, and natural law.
Issue: The main issues raised were: (a) whether the petition presents an actual case or controversy that
is ripe for judicial determination; (b) whether petitioner has legal standing to file the suit; © whether
petitioner availed of the proper remedy and complied with the doctrine of hierarchy of courts; and (d)
whether Articles 1, 2, 46(4), and 55(6) of the Family Code are unconstitutional for discriminating against
same-sex couples.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court speaking through Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa dismissed the petition
for being procedurally infirm and for failing to raise an actual case or controversy that is ripe for judicial
determination. The Court held that petitioner has no legal standing to file the suit as he did not suffer
any direct injury from the enforcement of the law nor did he show any imminent threat to his rights. The
Court also ruled that petitioner availed of the wrong remedy as Rule 65 is not appropriate for raising
constitutional issues. The Court also found that petitioner violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts by
bypassing lower courts that have concurrent jurisdiction over his petition. The Court further held that
petitioner’s facial challenge to Articles 1, 2, 46(4), and 55(6) of the Family Code is not allowed as there is
no actual case or controversy involving these provisions. The Court also denied petitioner’s claim of
third-party standing as he failed to show a close relation to the LGBTQI+ community or any hindrance to
their ability to protect their own interests. The Court also rejected petitioner’s invocation of
transcendental importance as an exception to procedural rules as his petition involves factual issues that
are not ripe for adjudication.
Legal Principles Applied: The Court applied the principles of judicial review, justiciability, legal standing,
hierarchy of courts, facial challenge, third-party standing, transcendental importance, and legal ethics.
Rationale for the Ruling: The Court dismissed the petition based on its rationale that judicial review is a
power that must be exercised with utmost care and prudence as it involves undoing the acts of other
branches of government. The Court emphasized that judicial review requires an actual case or
controversy involving legal rights that are capable of judicial determination; a party with standing or
locus standi to raise the constitutional issue; the constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity and must be the very lis mota of the case; and the matter of constitutionality must not be
subject to factual disputes that are better resolved by lower courts. The Court also stressed that facial
challenges are generally disfavored and are only allowed in cases involving free speech, religious
freedom, and other fundamental right. The Court also reiterated that the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
is not a mere technicality but a constitutional imperative that ensures judicial efficiency and due
process. The Court also reminded petitioner and his co-counsels of their duty to observe the rules of
procedure and to act with competence and diligence in representing their cause.
31.)Bautista vs Atty. Gonzales, G.R. No. 1625, February 12, 1990
Facts:
Complainant Bautista filed a verified complaint for disbarment against respondent Gonzales, alleging
that the latter committed various acts of malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s
oath. The Solicitor General conducted an investigation and submitted a report and recommendation to
the Supreme Court.
Complainant Bautista argued that respondent Gonzales (a) accepted a case wherein he agreed to pay all
expenses for a contingent fee of 50% of the value of the property in litigation; (b) acted as counsel for
conflicting interests in two civil cases involving the same parties and subject matter; © transferred to
himself one-half of his clients’ properties which were involved in litigation; (d) induced complainant to
enter into a contract with him for the development of a land which he claimed to have acquired as
attorney’s fees from his clients, without disclosing that the land was already sold at a public auction; (e)
submitted falsified documents to the court and the fiscal’s office; (f) committed acts of treachery and
disloyalty to complainant who was his former client; (g) harassed complainant by filing several
complaints without legal basis; (h) deliberately misled the court and the fiscal’s office by making false
assertions of facts in his pleadings; and (i) filed petitions cleverly prepared to avoid telling the truth.
Respondent Gonzales denied the accusations against him and contended that (a) there was nothing
improper in entering into a contingent fee contract with his clients; (b) he accepted the case of Eusebio
Lopez, Jr., one of the defendants in another case where he represented his clients, with their knowledge
and consent; © he did not transfer to himself one-half of his clients’ properties but only received them
as payment for his legal services; (d) he did not conceal from complainant the fact that the land subject
of their contract was already sold at a public auction, since it was annotated at the back of the title; (e)
he did not submit falsified documents to the court and the fiscal’s office but only true copies of an
addendum to their contract which were signed by all parties concerned; (f) complainant was not his
former client but only requested him to appear provisionally in an anti-graft case filed by complainant
against another person; (g) he did not harass complainant by filing several complaints but only exercised
his legal rights; (h) he did not mislead the court and the fiscal’s office by making false assertions of facts
but only stated what he believed to be true based on evidence; and (i) he did not file petitions cleverly
prepared to avoid telling the truth but only presented his arguments in a logical manner.
Issues: Whether or not respondent Gonzales committed acts of misconduct which warrant disciplinary
action by the Supreme Court.
Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court found respondent Gonzales guilty of serious misconduct and
suspended him from the practice of law for six months.
Legal Principles Applied: Article 1491 of the Civil Code, which prohibits lawyers from acquiring their
client’s property or interest involved in litigation; Canons 6, 10, 15, 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which prescribe the ethical duties and responsibilities of lawyers to their clients, the
courts and society; Canon 42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, which prohibits lawyers from agreeing
to pay or bear the expenses of litigation for their clients; Rule 138, Secs. 3 and 27 of the Revised Rules of
Court, which require lawyers to obey the laws and uphold the Constitution and provide for their
suspension or disbarment for any violation of their oath.
Rationale for the Ruling: The Supreme Court held that respondent Gonzales violated Article 1491 of the
Civil Code by acquiring one-half of his clients’ properties which were involved in litigation; violated
Canon 42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics by agreeing to pay or bear the expenses of litigation for
his clients; violated Canons 10, 15 and 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to disclose
to complainant that the land subject of their contract was already sold at a public auction and by
submitting falsified documents to the court and the fiscal’s office; and violated Canons 16 and 17 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to observe honesty and fairness in his private dealings. The
Supreme Court considered these offenses as grave enough to warrant disciplinary action against
respondent Gonzales

Case Digest Belga Baby Genesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest Belga Baby Genesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foundation University

College of Law and Jurisprudence

BASIC LEGAL AND

Atty. Christine Toting

Baby Genesis S. Belga

1.MANUEL L. LEE v ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO, A.C. No. 5281

- Christian Monsod (respondent) was nominated by former President Corazon C. Aquino to

ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod is qualified to be COMELEC Chairperson?

Yes, Atty Christian Monsod is qualified to be the Chairman of the COMELEC.

Therefore, this petition is dismissed.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby found guilty of professional misconduct. He is

ISSUE: Whether or not LEDESMA is allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio.

No, LEDESMA is not allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio.

Thus, LEDESMA is not allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio.

(a) Atty. Ma Venarisse V. Verga of Lee Venturanza Verga Law Office;6

(d) Attys. Gregorio S. Daproza and Voltaire P. Agas.

14.PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS MICHAEL A. MEDADO,B.M. No. 2540

Yes. Petitioner should be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.

- Complainant Socorro T. Co, a businesswoman, alleged that respondent Atty. Godofredo N.

18.WILFREDO C. CABALLERO v ATTY. GLICERIO A. SAMPANA, A.C. No. 10699

WHEREFORE, respondent Glicerio A. Sampana is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and is

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

20.) IN RE FELIPE DEL ROSARIO, December 07, 1928

22.DIONNIE RICAFORT v ATTY. RENE O. MEDINA, A.C. No. 5179

24.ATTY. LORENZO G. GADON VS. RAISSA ROBLES AC. NO. 13521

- December 9, 2021, 6:56 PM:

- December 9, 2021, 7:45 PM (in response to someone else's tweet):

- If Bongbong Marcos wins, I'll do a Bongbong. Wont file my taxes Sixyears.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Gadon should be disbarred

25. JOCELYN DE LEON v ATTY. TYRONE PEDREÑA, A.C. No. 9401

Legal Principles Applied: The legal principles applied are:

You might also like