Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digest
Case Digest
Dantes purportedly en
gaged in illicit relationships with two women, one after the other, and had illegiti
Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000 mate children with them. From the time respondents illicit affairs started, he failed
to give regular support to his wife and their children, thus forcing her to work abr
Facts: oad to provide for their children’s needs.
Complainant Lesli Ui found out that her husband Carlos Ui was carrying out an Atty. Dantes admitted the fact of marriage with her and the birth of their children,
illicit relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he begot two but alleged that they have mutually agreed to separate eighteen years before after
children. Hence, a complaint for disbarment was filed by complainant against his wife had abandoned him in their residence. He further asserted that Mrs. Dante
respondent before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the s filed the case just to force him to remit 70% of his monthly salary to her.
Philippines on the ground of immorality, more particularly, for carrying on an illicit
relationship with the complainant’s husband. It is respondent’s contention that her Mrs. Dantes then presented documentary evidence consisting of the birth certificat
relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit because they were married abroad and that es of Ray Darwin, Darling, and Christian Dave, all surnamed Dantes, and the affid
after June 1988, when respondent discovered Carlos Ui’s true civil status, she cut avits of his husband and his paramour to prove the fact that he sired three illegitim
off all her ties with him. Respondent averred that Carlos Ui never lived with her. ate children out of his illicit affairs with two different women.
Issue: ISSUE:
Whether or not she has conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she whether or not having an illicit relationship during the the subsistence of marriahe
deserves to be barred from the practice of law. warrants the disbarment of a lawyer.
Held: RULING:
The complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio, for alleged
immorality, was dismissed. Yes.
All the facts taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that respondent was The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawf
imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her ul, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Immoral conduct has been defined as t
relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what respondent believed was a hat conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to t
valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For immorality connotes conduct he opinion of good and respectable members of the community.To be the basis of
that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and disciplinary action, the lawyers conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly im
respectable members of the community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant moral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipl
disciplinary action, the same must be “grossly immoral,” that is, it must be so ed as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or r
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be evolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.
reprehensible to a high degree. Undoubtedly, respondents acts of engaging in illicit relationships with two differe
nt women during the subsistence of his marriage to the complainant constitutes gr
ossly immoral conduct warranting the imposition appropriate sanctions. Complain
2.) EMMA T. DANTES vs. ATTY. CRISPIN G. DANTES A.C. ants testimony, taken in conjunction with the documentary evidence, sufficiently e
No. 6486. September 22, 2004 stablished respondents commission of marital infidelity and immorality.
Held/Ratio: Citing John Bates vs. The State Bar of Arizona, Atty. Nogales said that it should be
1. YES. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2828 allowed based on this American Jurisprudence. According to him, there is nothing
expressly provides that the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, wrong with making known the legal services his Legal Clinic has to offer.
either personally, or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. This is
in accord with the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted by the Philippine Bar Issue:
Association in 1917. Canon 27 of the said document provides that a well-merited
reputation serves as a lawyer”s most effective form of advertisement. Whether or not such advertisement may be allowed.
5.) Ulep vs. Legal Clinic A.C. No. L-533 Court Ruling:
Topics: The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals, which is undoubtedly beyond
the domain of the paralegals. As stated in a previous jurisprudence, practice of law
“A lawyer, making known his legal services shall only use true, honest, fair, is only reserved for the members of the Philippine bar, and not to paralegals. As
dignified and objective information or statement of facts.”—Canon 3, Code of with the Legal Clinic’s advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility
Professional Responsibility provides that “a lawyer in making known his legal services must use only honest,
fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts.
“A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his A lawyer cannot advertise his talents in a manner that a merchant advertise his
qualifications for legal services.”—Rule 3.01, Code of Professional Responsibility goods. The Legal Clinic promotes divorce, secret marriages, bigamous marriages
which are undoubtedly contrary to law.
Facts of the Case: The only allowed form of advertisements would be:
(1.) Citing your involvement in a reputable law list,
In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according (2.) An ordinary professional card (
to Nogales, was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot 3.) Phone directory listing without designation to a lawyer’s specialization.
afford the services of big law firms.
ISSUE/S:
8.)Evangeline Leda vs. Atty. Trebonian Tabang, A.C. No. 2505, WON Tabang committed gross misrepresentation of his status
February 21 1992
HELD:
FACTS:
Yes. Tabang committed gross misrepresentation of his status.
Tabang and Leda contracted marriage at Iloilo and was
solemnized under Article 76 of the Civil Code as marriage of exceptional RATIO:
Tabang‘s declaration in his application for Admission to the 1981
Bar Examinations that he was "single" was a gross misrepresentation of a
material fact made in utter bad faith, for which he should be made
answerable. Rule 7.01, Canon 7, Chapter II of the Code of Professional
Responsibility explicitly provides: "A lawyer shall be answerable for
knowingly making a false statement or suppression of a material fact in
connection with his application for admission to the bar." That false
statement, if it had been known, would have disqualified him outright from
taking the Bar Examinations as it indubitably exhibits lack of good moral
character.