Section 33.

Serious O enses
d. Gross negligence in the performance of duty, or conduct that is reckless and inexcusable, which results in the client being
deprived of his or her day in court

Pontiano vs. Gappi, A.C. No. 13118. June 28, 2022

An administrative complaint was led before the integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by the respondent against Atty. Fabian A.
Gappi (respondent). The respondent failed to attend a single scheduled hearing of the illegal dismissal case. Prior to 11 March
2014, which was the deadline for the submission of their position paper, complainants went to respondent's o ce to inquire about
the status of their position paper. Respondent, however, merely told them, "Ako na ang bahala." Respondent did not submit any
position paper on 11 March 2014. Thus, on the same day, complainants went to respondent's o ce again and asked that he
withdraw as counsel for them. Respondent then prepared a document that would supposedly formalize his withdrawal as counsel
and handed the same to complainants for their signature. Upon reading the document, however, complainants discovered that the
same speaks not of the withdrawal of respondent as counsel but rather the withdrawal by complainants of their illegal dismissal
complaint. Hence, complainants did not sign the document Because of respondent's failure to le a position paper for
complainants, the illegal dismissal complaint was dismissed by the LA.

Issue: WON the respondent committed gross negligence in performance of his duty as the complainants counsel.

Ruling:
Yes, CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 provides that Diligence is the attention and care
required of a person in a given situation and is the opposite of negligence. It is axiomatic in the practice of law that the price of
success is eternal diligence to the cause of the client. By failing to attend the scheduled hearing of his clients, [respondent failed to
employ his best e orts in the protection of his clients' interests. Due to [respondent's lack of diligence in the performance of his
duties as legal counsel, his clients gravely su ered and resulted to the dismissal of their case. Therefore, the failure of the
respondent to appear to scheduled hearings despite him being reminded by his own client to appear in the same constitutes
neglect in performance of his duties. Hence, the respondent is guilty of violations of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon 11, and Rule
18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3)
years.

e. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude

IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ATTY. DIOSDADO Q. GUTIERREZ, A.C. No. L-363. July 31, 1962

Respondent Diosdado Q. Gutierrez is a member of the Philippine Bar, he was convicted of the murder of Filemon Samaco, former
municipal mayor of Calapan, and together with his co-conspirators was sentenced to the penalty of death. Upon review by this
Court the judgment of conviction was a rmed on June 30, 1956 (G. R. No. L-7101), but the penalty was changed to reclusión
perpetua. After serving a portion of the sentence respondent was granted a conditional pardon by the President on August 19,
1958. The unexecuted portion of the prison term was remitted "on condition that he shall not again violate any of the penal laws of
the Philippines." On October 9, 1958 the widow of the deceased Filemon Samaco, victim in the murder case, led a veri ed
complaint before this Court praying that respondent be removed from the roll of lawyers pursuant to Rule 127, section 5.

Issue: WON the respondent be disbarred by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.

Ruling:
Yes, Under section 5 of Rule 127 a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his o ce as attorney by the Supreme
Court by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Murder is, without doubt, such a crime. The term "moral
turpitude" includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. Despite the given pardon, the
respondent Gutierrez must be judged upon the fact of his conviction for murder without regard to the pardon he invokes in
defense. The crime was quali ed by treachery and aggravated by its having been committed in band, by taking advantage of his
o cial position (respondent being municipal mayor at the time) and with the use of a motor vehicle. People v. Diosdado Gutierrez,
supra. The degree of moral turpitude involved is such as to justify his being purged from the profession. Therefore, respondent
Diosdado Q. Gutierrez is ordered disbarred and his name stricken from the roll of lawyers.

f. Grossly immoral conduct, or an act that is so corrupt or false as to constitute a criminal act, or so immoral as to be reprehensible
to a high degree
Arciga vs. Maniwang, A.M. No. 1608 August 14, 1981

Magdalena T. Arciga in her complaint of February 24, 1976 asked for the disbarment of lawyer Segundino D. Maniwang.
Magdalena and Segundino got acquainted at Cebu City. Magdalena was then a medical technology student in the Cebu Institute
of Medicine while Segundino was a law student in the San Jose Recoletos College. They became sweethearts but when
Magdalena refused to have a tryst with Segundino in a motel, Segundino stopped visiting her. Their paths crossed again during a
Valentine's Day party in the following month. They renewed their relationship. Sexual intercourse between the two happened in that
ffi
ff
ff
fi
fi
ffi
ff
ffi
ffi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
 same night. Thereafter, they had repeated acts of cohabitation. Segundino started telling his acquaintances that he and Magdalena
were secretly married. Eventually, Magdalena got pregnant and was promised marriage by Segundino. Segundino even convinced
Magdalena's father to have the church wedding deferred until after he had passed the bar examinations. He secured his birth
certi cate preparatory to applying for a marriage license. Time passed and Segundino passed the Bar but told Magdalena that
their marriage could not take place because he had married Erlinda Ang.

Issue: WON Maniwang be disbarred on the ground of grossly immoral conduct.

Ruling:
No, A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude". A
member of the bar should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity. In the case at bar, the respondent's refusal to
marry the complainant was not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment. Hence, the complaint for disbarment against
the respondent is hereby dismissed.

s. Unlawful discrimination under Canon V

NO CASE

t. Sale, distribution, possession and/or use of illegal drugs or substances

NO CASE

Section 34. Less Serious O enses

Section 34 (c) Violation of Supreme Court rules and issuances in relation to Bar Matters and administrative disciplinary
proceedings, including willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders of the Supreme Court and the IBP

Laurel vs. Delute, A.C. No. 12298, September 01, 2020

Complainant engaged the services of respondent as counsel in a dispute against Azucena Laurel-Velez (Azucena) involving a
parcel of land that complainant inherited from his father (subject land). Sometime in 2003, respondent fetched complainant and his
wife from their home to sign certain documents. Due to his lack of educational background, complainant wanted to bring his
daughter (who is a college graduate) during the meeting to assist them, but respondent refused. Upon arriving at their destination,
respondent represented to complainant and his wife that Azucena were to pay them partial rental payments for the land in the
amount of P300,000.00, and in connection therewith, presented to them documents to sign. Initially, complainant refused to sign
the documents as he did not understand its contents (which were written in English), but due to respondent's prodding, he
eventually did. After signing the documents and before parting ways with complainant and his wife, respondent allegedly took
P100,000.00 out of the P300,000.00 given by Azucena. Later on, complainant found out that, contrary to respondent's earlier
representations, the documents which he signed were a compromised agreement.

Issue: WON respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts he committed against complainant.

Ruling:
Yes, Canon 1 provides that lawyers shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes. Based on jurisprudence, the foregoing postulates instruct that "as o cers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain
not only a high standard of legal pro ciency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing."Clearly, respondent fell short
of these ethical standards when he deceived and strong-armed complainant and his wife into signing documents which e ectively
waived their rights and interests over the land that complainant inherited from his father. Moreover, The Investigating Commissioner
found that respondent failed to conduct himself as a lawyer "with all good delity" to his client when he failed to explain to
complainant and his wife the true import of the documents that he made them sign. Worse, it appears that respondent willfully
manipulated complainant and his wife into signing the Compromise Agreement, considering the bene t he will gain from it, i.e., the
grant of a right of way in his favor, not to mention the P100,000.00 that he took from the P300,000.00 given to complainant. In
addition, the Investigating Commissioner opined that respondent's administrative liability is further aggravated when he ignored the
processes of the IBP in connection with the instant administrative complaint. Therefore, respondent is disbarred from the practice
of law and his name ordered stricken o the Roll of Attorneys.

Section 34 (d) Simple dishonesty

NO CASE

Section 35. Light O enses

a. Violation of IBP rules and issuances governing membership in the IBP
fi
ff
ff
fi
ff
fi
ffi
fi
ff
 In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILION (IBP Administrative Case No.
MDD-1)

On November 29, 1975, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors unanimously adopted Resolution No. 75-65
in Administrative Case No. MDD-1 (In the Matter of the Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edillon) recommending to
the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for "stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues"
to the IBP since the latter's constitution notwithstanding due notice. The core of the respondent's arguments is that the above
provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled, as a pre-condition to
maintaining his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a
consequence of this compelled nancial support of the said organization to which he is admittedly personally antagonistic, he is
being deprived of the rights to liberty and property guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the respondent concludes, the
above provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and e ect.

Issue: WON the respondent be disbarred for his refusal to pay his membership dues.

Ruling:
Yes, An "Integrated Bar" is a State-organized Bar, to which every lawyer must belong, as distinguished from bar associations
organized by individual lawyers themselves, membership in which is voluntary. Integration of the Bar is essentially a process by
which every member of the Bar is a orded an opportunity to do his share in carrying out the objectives of the Bar as well as
obliged to bear his portion of its responsibilities. Organized by or under the direction of the State, an integrated Bar is an o cial
national body of which all lawyers are required to be members. They are, therefore, subject to all the rules prescribed for the
governance of the Bar, including the requirement of payment of a reasonable annual fee for the e ective discharge of the purposes
of the Bar, and adherence to a code of professional ethics or professional responsibility breach of which constitutes su cient
reason for investigation by the Bar and, upon proper cause appearing, a recommendation for discipline or disbarment of the
o ending member. It must be stressed that all legislation directing the integration of the Bar have been uniformly and universally
sustained as a valid exercise of the police power over an important profession. The practice of law is not a vested right but a
privilege, a privilege moreover clothed with public interest because a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also
to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State
— the administration of justice — as an o cer of the court. When, therefore, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6397 authorizing
the Supreme Court to "adopt rules of court to e ect the integration of the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see t," it
did so in the exercise of the paramount police power of the State. The Act's avowal is to "raise the standards of the legal
profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more e ectively." Hence,
it is the unanimous sense of the Court that the respondent Marcial A. Edillon should be as he is hereby disbarred, and his name is
hereby ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys of the Court.
ff
fi
ff
ffi
ff
ff
ff
ff
ffi
fi
ffi