Case Digest
Case Digest
FACTS: The complainant sought the services of the Public Attorneys Office in Batangas City
for his unlawful detainer civil case filed against him and his wife. The respondent was
assigned to handle the case. When the court, ordered the parties to submit their affidavits
and position papers within ten days from receipt of the order, respondent failed to submit
the required affidavits and position paper, as may be gleaned from the Decision dated
March 19, 1992 of the MCTC where it was noted that only the plaintiffs submitted their
affidavits and position papers. Nonetheless, the court dismissed the complaint for unlawful
detainer principally on the ground that the plaintiffs are not the real parties-in-interest.
Plaintiffs appealed the Decision and the RTC directed the parties to file their respective
memoranda. Once again, respondent failed the complainant and his wife. As observed by
the RTC in its Decision dated September 7, 1992, respondent did not file the memorandum
for his clients, thereby prompting the court to consider the case as submitted for decision.
In its Decision, the RTC reversed the decision appealed from as it held that plaintiffs are
the co-owners of the property in dispute and as such are parties-in-interest. It also found
that the verbal lease agreement was on a month-to-month basis and perforce terminable by
the plaintiffs at the end of any given month upon proper notice to the defendants. It also
made a finding that defendants incurred rentals in arrears.
Having lost the unlawful detainer case, on January 12, 1993 complainant filed the
present administrative complaint against the respondent for professional delinquency
consisting of his failure to file the required pleadings in behalf of the complainant and his
spouse. Respondent denies that he committed professional misconduct in violation of his
oath, stressing that he was not the original counsel of complainant and his spouse. He
further avers that when he agreed to represent complainant at the continuation of the
preliminary conference in the main case, it was for the sole purpose of asking leave of court
to file an amended answer because he was made to believe by the complainant that a non-
lawyer prepared the answer. Upon discovering that the answer was in fact the work of a
lawyer, forthwith he asked the court to relieve him as complainants counsel, but he was
denied. He adds that he agreed to file the position paper for the complainant upon the
latters undertaking to provide him with the documents which support the position that
plaintiffs are not the owners of the property in dispute. As complainant had reneged on his
promise, he claims that he deemed it more prudent not to file any position paper, as it
would be a repetition of the answer. He offers the same reason for not filing the
memorandum on appeal with the RTC. Finally, respondent asserts that he fully explained his
stand as regards Civil Case No. 34-MCTC-T to the complainant
HELD: Yes, the court ruled that the facts and circumstances in this case indubitably show
respondents failure to live up to his duties as lawyer in consonance with the strictures of the
lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, thereby warranting his suspension
from the practice of law. At various stages of unlawful detainer case, respondent was remiss
in his performance of his duty as a counsel.
For his failure to inform the court, respondent violated Canon 12-A lawyer shall
exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
of justice.
Respondent likewise failed to demonstrate the candor he owed his client. Canon
17 provides that (A) lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him. When complainant received the RTC decision, he
talked to respondent about it.[46] However, respondent denied knowledge of the decision
despite his receipt thereof as early as September 14, 1992. Obviously, he tried to evade
responsibility for his negligence. In doing so, respondent was untruthful to complainant and
effectively betrayed the trust placed in him by the latter.
On top of all these is respondent’s employment as a lawyer of the Public Attorneys
Office, which is tasked to provide free legal assistance for indigents and low-income persons
so as to promote the rule of law in the protection of the rights of the citizenry and the
efficient and speedy administration of justice. Against this backdrop, respondent should
have been more judicious in the performance of his professional obligations. Lawyers in the
government are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public service.
Furthermore, a lawyer from the government is not exempt from observing the degree of
diligence required in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 6 of the Code provides
that the canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official
tasks.
2, Isidra Barrientos vs. Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro
A.C. No. 6408. August 31, 2004
FACTS: In September 2000, the lawyer issued several Equitable PCI Bank Checks in favor of
Barrientos and Mercado for the payment of a pre-existing debt. The checks bounced due to
insufficient funds, thus, charges for violation of B.P. 22 were filed. The lawyer asked for
deferment of the criminal charges to pay her debt several times, but failed to pay the full
amount, even after a complaint for disbarment was filed against her.
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The failure to pay just debts and the
issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be
sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are the instruments for the
administration of justice and the vanguards of our legal system. They are expected o
maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity
and fair dealings so that the people’s faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured.
They must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to
their clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations. They must conduct
themselves in a manner that reflects the values and norms of the legal profession as
embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. The issuance of checks, which were
later, dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account, indicates a lawyer’s
unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on her. It shows a lack of personal honesty
and good moral character as to render her unworthy of public confidence. The issuance of a
series of worthless checks also shows the remorseless attitude of respondent, unmindful to
the deleterious effects of such act to the public interest and public order. It also manifests a
lawyer’s low regard to her commitment to the oath she has taken when she joined her
peers, seriously and irreparably tarnishing the image of the profession she should hold in
high esteem.
3. JOVITA BUSTAMANTE-ALEJANDRO vs. ATTYS. WARFREDO TOMAS ALEJANDRO and
MARICRIS A. VILLARIN
A.C. No. 4256. February 13, 2004
FACTS: According to Mrs. Alejandro, his husband, Atty. Alejandro abandoned her and their
children to live with his mistress, Atty. Villarin. That they have been publicly representing
themselves as husband and wife, and that the mistress gave birth to one child. Birth
certificate of the said child was presented in evidence and the mistress identified herself
therein as Ma. Cristina V. Alejandro, having married to Atty. Alejandro on May 1, 1990 in
Alicia, Isabela.
However, there is no evidence on record which would establish beyond doubt that
respondent Atty. Alejandro indeed contracted a second marriage with Atty. Villarin while his
marriage to herein complainant was subsisting.
Complainant alleged that she filed this administrative complaint when she learned
that her husband has been nominated as a regional trial court judge. She insists that he is
not fit to be a judge considering that he, and co-respondent Atty. Villarin, do not even
possess the basic integrity to remain as members of the Philippine Bar.
ISSUE: Whether or not a lawyer may be disbarred on the ground of grossly immoral conduct
considering that there is no sufficient evidence to prove that he contracted a second
marriage while the first one is still subsisting.
RULING: Yes. Although the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove that he
contracted a subsequent bigamous marriage with her, the fact remains that respondent
Atty. Alejandro exhibited by his conduct a deplorable lack of that degree of morality
required of him as a member of the Bar. It has already been held in long line of cases that
disbarment proceedings is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife and
maintains an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne him a child. Atty.
Alejandro, for his gross immorality, is DISBARRED from the practice of law. And the
complaint against the paramour, Atty. Villarin is REFERRED BACK to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for further appropriate proceedings.
4. LINDA VDA. DE ESPINO, complainant, vs. ATTY. PEPITO C. PRESQUITO, respondent.
A.M. No. AC 4762 dated June 28, 2004
FACTS: Mrs. Linda Vda. de Espino filed a letter-complaint with the Court Administrator
Alfredo Benipayo for "having employed fraud, trickery and dishonest means in refusing to
honor and pay [her] late husband Virgilio Espino, when he was still alive, the sum of
P763,060.00" against Atty Pepito C.Presquito (respondent). Mr. Espino and the respondent
entered into an agreement for a purchase of land by the latter from the former. The price of
the land was P 1,437,410.00, payable on a staggered basis and by installments. Respondent
issues post-dated checks as payment. Respondent then entered into a joint venture or
partnership agreement with Mrs. Guadalupe Ares for the subdivision of the land into home-
size lots and its development, with a portion of the land retained by respondent for his own
use. The land was eventually titled in the name of respondent and Mrs. Ares, and subdivided
into 35 to 36 lots. The 8 post-dated checks issued by respondent were all dishonored. Mr.
Espino made repeated demands for payment from respondent but the latter refused. Mr.
Espino died in December 1996. His widow, complainant, then tried to collect from
respondent the value of the eight checks. When complainant’s numerous pleas remained
unheeded, she filed the complaint in June 1997.Respondent denied any wrongdoing, and
said that the allegations that he had employed "fraud, trickery and dishonest means" with
the late Mr. Espino were totally false and baseless. Respondents claim that he and Mr.
Espino, agreed that Mr Espino will not encash the checks until the right of way problem has
been resolved. In addition, respondent claims that the balance would be offset with the cost
he incurred when he defended Mr. Espino’s son in a criminal case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent failed to act with candor and fairness towards the
complainant.
HELD: Complainant’s testimony and exhibits have clearly established that: (1) there was an
agreement between respondent and complainant’s late husband for the sale of the latter’s
land; (2) respondent had issued the eight checks in connection with said agreement; (3)
these checks were dishonored and remain unpaid; and (4) the land sold had an existing
road-right of- way. The responded failed to prove that he had legal cause to refuse payment,
or that he was entitled to legal compensation. Respondent’s failure to present evidence is a
breach of Rule 12.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Having no legal defense to
refuse payment of the 8 dishonored checks, respondent’s indifference to complainant’s
entreaties for payment was conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar and an officer of
the court. Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by his unlawful,
dishonest and deceitful conduct towards complainant and her late husband, first by allowing
the 8 checks he issued to bounce, then by ignoring the repeated demands for payment until
complainant was forced to file this complaint, and finally by deliberately delaying the
disposition of this case with dilatory tactics.
5. Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala
A.C. No. 7136. August 1, 2007
FACTS: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli
Eala for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer’s oath. In the
Complaint, Guevarra first met the respondent in January 2000 when his then fiancée Irene
Moje introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to Marianne Tantoco
with whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed that from
January to March 2001, Irene had been receiving from respondent Cellphone calls, as well as
messages some which read “I love you,” “I miss you,” or “Meet you at Megamall.” He also
noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the morning of the
following day, and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked her whereabouts,
she replied that she slept at her parent’s house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with
her work.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Respondent together on two
occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned
the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001 complainant went uninvited to Irene’s birthday
celebration at which he saw her and the respondent celebrating with her family and friends.
Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately. Following that
incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all her personal belongings.
Complainant later found a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2007, the day of his wedding
to Irene, Complainant soon saw respondent’s car and that of Irene constantly parked at No.
71-B11 Street, New Manila where as he was later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was
already residing. He also learned still later that when his friends saw Irene on about January
18, 2002 together with respondent during a concert, she was pregnant.
ISSUE: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the reason for the disbarment
of Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala.
HELD: Lawyer’s oath stated that a lawyer should support the Constitution and obey the laws,
Meaning he shall not make use of deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct, grossly
immoral conduct, or be convicted in any crime involving moral turpitude. In the case at bar
Atty. Eala was accused of Concubinage, under ART. 334 of the Revised Penal Code, “ Any
husband who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse,
under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her
in any other place, shall be punished by prison correctional in its minimum and medium
period. Section 2 of ART. XV states “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the state. Respondent’s grossly immoral
conduct runs afoul of the constitution and the laws that he as a lawyer has sworn to uphold.
Hence the court declared Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala DISBARRED for grossly immoral
conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
6. ROSARIO T. MECARAL , complainant, vs. ATTY. DANILO S. VELASQUEZ, respondent.
A.C. No. 8392. April 23, 2010, (Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2175),
FACTS: On June 29, 2010, Complainant was hired as a secretary of Atty. Velasquez who later
became his common-law wife. Mecaral was later brought to Upper San Agustin in Caibiran,
Biliran where he left her with a religious group known as the Faith Healers Association of the
Philippines. Later, Mecaral returned home and upon knowing, Velasquez brought her back
to San Agustin where, on his instruction, his followers tortured, brainwashed and injected
her with drugs. Her mother, Delia Tambis Vda. De Mecaral (Delia), having received
information that she was weak, pale and walking barefoot along the mountainous area of
Caibiran caused the rescue operation of Mecaral. Thus, Mecaral filed a disbarment
complaint against respondent and charged the latter with bigamy for contracting a second
marriage to Leny H. Azur on August 2, 1996, despite the subsistence of his marriage to his
first wife, Ma. Shirley G. Yunzal.
ISSUE: Whether respondent is guilty of grossly immoral and acts which constitute gross
misconduct.
RULING: Investigating Commissioner of the CBD found that [respondents] acts of converting
his secretary into a mistress; contracting two marriages with Shirley and Leny, are grossly
immoral which no civilized society in the world can countenance. The subsequent detention
and torture of the complainant is gross misconduct that only a beast may be able to do.
Certainly, the respondent had violated Canon 1 and Canon 7 Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the
state upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications
required bylaw for the conferment of such privilege. When a lawyers moral character is
assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, it
behooves him to meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the
investigating body and this Court, that he is morally fit to keep his name in the Roll of
Attorneys. Respondent has not discharged the burden. He never attended the hearings
before the IBP to rebut the charges brought against him, suggesting that they are true.
Despite his letter dated March 28, 2008 manifesting that he would come up with his defense
in a verified pleading, he never did.
WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez, is DISBARRED, and his name
ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. This Decision is immediately executory and
ordered to be part of the records of respondent in theOffice of theBar Confidant, Supreme
Court of the Philippines.
Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal process.
Canon 7 - 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 scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
7. WILSON CHAM, complainant, vs.ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA, respondent.
A.C. No. 7494. June 27, 2008
FACTS: According to the Complaint, on 1 October 1998, respondent entered into a Contract
of Lease with Greenville Realty and Development Corp. (GRDC), represented by complainant
as its President and General Manager, in a residential apartment unit owned by GRDC
located at No. 61-C Kalayaan Avenue, Quezon City, for a consideration of P8,000.00 per
month for a term of one year.
Upon the expiration of said lease contract, respondent informed the complainant
that she would no longer renew the same but requested an extension of her stay at the
apartment unit until 30 June 2000 with a commitment that she would be paying the monthly
rental during the extension period. Complainant approved such request but increased the
rental rate to P8,650.00 per month for the period beginning 1 October 1999 until 30 June
2000.
Respondent stayed at the leased premises up to October 2000 without paying her
rentals from July to October 2000. She also failed to settle her electric bills for the months of
September and October 2000. The Statement of Account as of 15 October 2000 shows that
respondent’s total accountability is P71,007.88.
Sometime in October 2000, a report reached complainant’s office that respondent
had secretly vacated the apartment unit, bringing along with her the door keys. Also,
respondent did not heed complainant’s repeated written demands for payment of her
obligations despite due receipt of the same.
In her Answer, respondent alleged that she had religiously paid her monthly rentals
and had not vacated the apartment unit surreptitiously. She also averred that she
transferred to another place because she was given notice by the complainant to vacate the
premises to give way for the repair and renovation of the same, but which never happened
until presently. Respondent actually wanted to ask that complainant to account for her
deposit for the apartment unit, but she could not do so since she did not know
complainant’s address or contact number. For the same reason, she could not turn over to
the complainant the door keys to the vacated apartment unit.
RULING: The Court Ruled that any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his or her professional or
private capacity is a ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment
because good character is an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law
and for the continuance of such privilege. The Court has held that the deliberate failure to
pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a
lawyer may be sanctioned with one year’s suspension from the practice of law, or a
suspension of six months upon partial payment of the obligation.
Accordingly, administrative sanction is warranted by respondent’s gross misconduct.
The case at bar merely involves the respondent’s deliberate failure to pay her just debts,
without her issuing a worthless check, which would have been a more serious offense. The
Investigating Commissioner of the IBP recommended that she be suspended from the
practice of law for three months, a penalty which this Court finds sufficient.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Eva Paita-Moya is found guilty of gross misconduct and is
hereby SUSPENDED for one month from the practice of law, effective upon her receipt of
this Decision. She is warned that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with
more severely.
8. ALFREDO B. ROA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JUAN R. MORENO, Respondent.
A.C. No. 8382. April 21, 2010
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent still fit to be allowed to be a member of the bar.
HELD: Respondent’s refusal to return to complainant the money paid for the lot is
unbecoming a member of the bar and an officer of the court. By his conduct, respondent
failed to live up to the strict standard of professionalism required by the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Respondent’s acts violated the trust and respect complainant
reposed in him as a member of the Bar and an officer of the court.
That said, we deem that the penalty of three-month suspension recommended by
the IBP is insufficient to atone for respondents misconduct in this case. We consider a
penalty of two-year suspension more appropriate considering the circumstances of this
case.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Juan R. Moreno GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him
from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years effective upon finality of this
Resolution.
The innocent public who deal in good faith with the likes of respondent are not without
recourse in law. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. 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, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for
any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
Conduct, as used in the Rule, is not confined to the performance of lawyers professional
duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or
private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to
continue as an officer of the court.
9. MARJORIE F. SAMANIEGO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ANDREW V. FERRER, Respondent.
A.C. no. 7022. June 18, 2008
FACTS: Early in 1996, Ms. Samaniego was referred to Atty. Ferrer as a potential client. Atty.
Ferrer agreed to handle her cases and soon their lawyer-client relationship became intimate.
Ms. Samaniego said Atty. Ferrer courted her and she fell in love with him. He said she flirted
with him and he succumbed to her temptations. Thereafter, they lived together as "husband
and wife" from 1996 to 1997, and on March 12, 1997, their daughter was born. The affair
ended in 2000 and since then he failed to give support to their daughter.
Before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, Ms. Samaniego presented their
daughter's birth and baptismal certificates, and the photographs taken during the baptism.
She testified that she knew that Atty. Ferrer was in a relationship but did not think he was
already married. She also testified that she was willing to compromise, but he failed to pay
for their daughter's education as agreed upon. Atty. Ferrer refused to appear during the
hearing since he did not want to see Ms. Samaniego.
In his position paper, Atty. Ferrer manifested his willingness to support their
daughter. He also admitted his indiscretion; however, he prayed that the IBP consider Ms.
Samaniego's complicity as she was acquainted with his wife and children. He further
reasoned that he found it unconscionable to abandon his wife and 10 children to cohabit
with Ms. Samaniego.
ISSUE: Whether or not the penalty imposed upon respondent is an adequate sanction for his
grossly immoral conduct.
HELD: Yes, the court finds the penalty recommended by the IBP and office of the Bar
Confidant as adequate sanction for the grossly immoral conduct of respondent.
Atty. Ferrer admitted his extra-marital affair; in his words, his indiscretion which
ended in 2000. We have considered such illicit relation as a disgraceful and immoral conduct
subject to disciplinary action. The penalty for such immoral conduct is disbarment, or
indefinite17 or definite18 suspension, depending on the circumstances of the case.
Recently, in Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Jr., we ruled that suspension from the practice
of law for two years was an adequate penalty imposed on the lawyer who was found guilty
of gross immorality. In said case, we considered the absence of aggravating circumstances
such as an adulterous relationship coupled with refusal to support his family; or maintaining
illicit relationships with at least two women during the subsistence of his marriage; or
abandoning his legal wife and cohabiting with other women.
However, in this case, we find no similar aggravating circumstances. Thus we find
the penalty recommended by the IBP and Office of the Bar Confidant as adequate sanction
for the grossly immoral conduct of respondent.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Andrew V. Ferrer GUILTY of gross immorality
and, as recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar
Confidant, SUSPEND him from the practice of law for six (6) months effective upon notice
hereof, with WARNING that the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
LAWS APPLIED:
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 shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.
10. MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON,
Respondent.
A.C. NO. 9608. NOVEMBER 27, 2012.
FACTS: Complainant narrated in her Sworn Statement, narrated that sometime in December
2001, at around midnight, she was sleeping in the maids room at respondents house when
respondent entered and went on top of her. Respondent kissed her lips, sucked her breast,
and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. She struggled to free herself and
shouted, but respondent covered her mouth and nobody could hear as nobody was in the
house. She felt pain and found blood stain in her panty. She stated that another incident
happened on March 19, 2002 at respondents poultry farm in Alegria, San Francisco, Agusan
del Sur. Respondent asked her to go with him to the farm. He brought her to an old shanty
where he sexually abused her. Thereafter, respondent gave her five hundred pesos and
warned her not to tell anyone what had happened or he would kill her and her mother.
The respondent, in his counter –affidavit, admitted that sexual intercourse indeed
transpired between him and the complainant but it was a mutual agreement because the he
gave money to the complainant. Therefore, the act does not constitute grossly immoral
conduct.
The complainant and her mother appeared before the public prosecutor and
executed their respective affidavits of Desistance. Complainant stated that what happened
between respondent and her in March 2002 was based on mutual understanding. Thus, she
was withdrawing the complaint she filed against respondent before the RTC as well as the
one she filed before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. Accordingly, the criminal case
against respondent was dismissed.
HELD: The possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a
continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership in the
legal profession. It is the bounden duty of members of the bar to observe the highest degree
of morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar. Consequently, any errant behavior
on the part of a lawyer, be it in the lawyers public or private activities, which tends to show
said lawyer deficient in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to
warrant suspension or disbarment.
From the undisputed facts gathered from the evidence and the admissions of
respondent himself, we find that respondents act of engaging in sex with a young lass, the
daughter of his former employee, constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction.
Respondent not only admitted he had sexual intercourse with complainant but also showed
no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he did nothing wrong because she allegedly
agreed and he even gave her money. Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman
other than his wife manifests his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his
own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he procured the act by enticing a very
young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the
dignity of the human person and the ethics of his profession.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson is hereby DISBARRED for Gross
Immoral Conduct, Violation of his oath of office, and Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
11.
11. JUANITA MANAOIS, Complainant, vs. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE, respondent.
Adm. Case No. 5364. August 20,2008.
FACT: Complainant is a government employee working as a mail sorter at the Manila Central
Post Office. Sometime in 1998, she applied for a loan of P20,000 from Rodella Loans, Inc.,
through respondent. As security for the loan, respondent required her to issue and deliver
to him blank checks that he would fill out according to their agreed monthly installments.
Notwithstanding the full payment of the loan, respondent allegedly failed to return the
remaining blank checks. Respondent told complainant that the loan had not yet been paid
and that the payments had been credited to the interest on the loan. Respondent
threatened complainant with a lawsuit in the event of nonpayment. Respondent allegedly
filled out the blank checks with different amounts and made it appear that complainant had
them exchanged them for cash in the total amount of P287,500.00 for use in her business
venture. Using these checks as basis, respondent filed several cases against complainant for
estafa and for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the City Prosecutors Office of
Quezon City and Pasig City.
Complainant contended that no man of respondents stature would be too foolish to
extend a P287,500.00 loan to a mere mail sorter earning barely P6,000.00 a month on the
bare assurance that her postdated checks would be encashed on their due dates.
The respondent countered that complainant’s allegations are devoid of any truth
and merit. He maintained that it was in fact complainant who deceived him by not honoring
her commitment under the transactions. Those transactions had allegedly been covered by
the postdated checks, which were subsequently dishonored due to ACCOUNT CLOSED. Thus,
he filed the criminal cases against her. He also claimed that the checks had already been
fully filled out when complainant affixed her signature thereon in his presence. Respondent
further asserted that he had given complainant the amount of money indicated in the
checks because he was convinced, based on their previous transactions, that complainant
had capacity to pay.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of Canon
1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes conducted hearings on the matter. In his Report
and Recommendation, he found complainants version of the facts more credible than that
of respondent and, accordingly, found respondent guilty of tampering with the checks of
complainant. He likewise noted that this is not just an isolated case as several of
complainant’s officemates had also fallen prey to respondents cunning scheme.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Victor V. Deciembre is found guilty of gross misconduct and
violation of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED
indefinitely from the practice of law.
ISSUE: Whether Cezar violated his oath under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
HELD: YES. Respondent was guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct when he concealed this
lack of right from complainants. He did not inform the complainants that he did not yet paid
in full the price of the subject townhouse unit and lot, and, therefore, he had no right to sell,
transfer or assign said property at the time of the execution of Deed of Assignment. His
acceptance of P937,500, despite knowing he was not entitled to it, made matters worse for
him.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be
disbarred or suspended on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other
gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order
of a superior court; and (7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority.
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “A lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” “Conduct,” as used in this
rule, does not refer exclusively to the performance of a lawyer’s professional duties. This
Court has made clear in a long line of cases that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for
misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting
in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an
officer of the court.
13. JOHNSON LEE and SONNY MORENO, complainants, vs. HON. RENATO E. ABASTILLAS,
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 50, Bacolod City, Respondent.
FACTS:
Judge Renato E. Abastillas was the presiding judge of the Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and
10011, where Johnson Lee and Bonny Moreno are defendants. Judge Abastillas solicited the
amount of PhP 50,000.00 from Atty. Chua to secure a favorable decision on the said criminal
cases, which he communicated to his clients (Lee and Moreno). Johnson Lee then financed
the PhP20, 000.00 as a down payment and was delivered by Atty, Chua to Judge Abastillas.
Lee and a certain Johnny Uy had 3 meetings with Judge Abastillas to discuss the merits of the
case and the payment of $5,000.00. Lee even recorded the telephone conversation he had
with the respondent judge. After some waiting and obviously realizing that Judge Abastillas
was giving the accused a runaround, not having done anything relative to the criminal
proceedings to indicate that he would perform his part of the bargain, Johnson Lee appeared
before the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to oppose Judge Abastillas’ application for transfer
to Manila as RTC Judge on the ground of his lack of good moral character. On the other hand,
Atty. Chua was charged administratively for allowing himself to be used as a conduit for
illegal and immoral act.
ISSUE(s):
1. WON Judge Abastillas has violated the Code of Judicial Conduct for accepting bribe?
2. WON Atty. Chua has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility?
HELD: Yes. The Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge should be the embodiment of
competence, integrity and independence (Rule 1.01). He should administer justice impartially
and without delay (Rule 1.02). He should so behave at all times as to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary (Rule 2.01).It is peculiarly essential
that the system for establishing and dispensing justice be developed to a high degree of
proficiency, to gain the absolute confidence of the public in the integrity and impartiality of
its administration, because appearance is as important as reality, so much so that a judge,
like Cesar’s wife, must not only be pure but beyond suspicion. The actuations of Judge
Abastillas transgressed against the high standard of moral ethics required of judges. Judge
Renato E. Abastillas was then dismissed from office, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits
and accrued leave credits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or
instrumentality of government, including government owned or controlled corporations.
Undoubtedly, Atty. Chua is guilty of violating Rule 1.01, canon 1, of the Code of
Professional Responsibility in view of his admission that he allegedly delivered P20,000.00 as
bribe money to Judge Abastillas, thereby allowing himself to be used as a conduit for an
illegal and immoral act. Rule 1.01 provides that “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Under the circumstances, and in addition to Atty.
Chua’s profound expression of remorse, the Court do not find it difficult to mitigate his
liability considering his willingness to come forward, at the risk of being administratively
penalized himself, to expose what is considered illegal and immoral acts perpetrated by the
very ones tasked with the sacred duty to uphold the law and dispense justice. Atty. Enrique S.
Chua is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a similar act or acts or violation committed by
him in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit
or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if
it will admit of a fair settlement.
(Rule 1.01) – A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence.
(Rule 1.02) - Administer justice impartially and without delay.
(Rule 2.01) - Behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary.
14. CATHERINE JOIE P. VITUG, complainant, vs. ATTY. DIOSDADO M. RONGCAL,
respondent.
A.C. NO. 6313. SEPTEMBER 7,2006
FACTS: Catherine Joie P. Vitug sought the service of respondent Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal
who was introduced to her by her former classmate. Complainant asked Atty. Rongcal to
represent her in the support case she was going to file against her former lover, Arnulfo
Aquino. Soon after, herein complainant and respondent started having sexual relationship
with each other. According to Vitug, respondent also gave her sweet inducements such as
the promise of a job, financial security for her daughter, and his services as counsel for the
prospective claim for support against Aquino.
On 9 February 2001, respondent allegedly convinced complainant to sign an Affidavit
of Disclaimer, which the latter signed without reading the said affidavit. On 14 February
2001, respondent allegedly advised complainant that Aquino gave him P150,000.00 cash and
P58,000.00 in two (2) postdated checks to answer for the medical expenses of her daughter.
Instead of turning them over to her, respondent handed her his personal check in the
amount of P150,000.00 and promised to give her the balance of P58,000.00 soon thereafter.
However, sometime in April or May 2001, respondent informed her that he could not give
her the said amount because he used it for his political campaign as he was then running for
the position of Provincial Board Member of the 2nd District of Pampanga
Complainant argues that respondent's acts constitute a violation of his oath as a
lawyer. She filed an administrative case against Rongcal, which was referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. It was then recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for six (6) months and that he be ordered to return to complainant
the amount of P58,000.00 within two months. The same was approved by the IBP Board of
Governors. Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Set Case for
Clarificatory Questioning with the IBP and a Motion to Reopen/Remand Case for Clarificatory
Questioning with the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not respondent be disbarred for immorality
(2) Whether or not respondent’s act of preparing and notarizing the Affidavit, a document
disadvantageous to his client, is a violation of the Code.
HELD:
(1) NO. One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess
good moral character. Said requirement persists as a continuing condition for the enjoyment
of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of
such privilege. The Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment the act
complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one
that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as
to be reprehensible to a high degree. On sexual relation and on respondent’s subsequent
marriage, by his own admission, respondent is obviously guilty of immorality in violation of
Rule 1.01 of the Code which states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. The Court find credence in respondent's assertion that it was
impossible for her not to have known of his subsisting marriage, complainant’s allegations of
deceit were not established by clear preponderant evidence required in disbarment cases.
(2) NO. It was not unlawful for respondent to assist his client in entering into a settlement
with Aquino after explaining all available options to her. The law encourages the amicable
settlement not only of pending cases but also of disputes which might otherwise be filed in
court. Rule 1.04, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that: A lawyer shall
encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
As complainant voluntarily and intelligently agreed to a settlement with Aquino, she cannot
later blame her counsel when she experiences a change of heart. Suspicion, no matter how
strong, is not enough in the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the
presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duty in accordance with his
oath.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal GUILTY of
immorality and impose on him a FINE of P15,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of
the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
The charge of misappropriation of funds of the client is REMANDED to the IBP for further
investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of this
Decision.
15. EDUARDO A. ABELLA, complainant, vs. RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR., respondent.
ADM. CASE NO. 7332. JUNE 18, 2013
FACTS: Complainant obtained a favorable judgment from the Court of Appeals involving a
Labor Case. Complainant then filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution before the
Regional Arbitration Branch, which the respondent was the Labor Arbiter. After the lapse of
five (5) months, complainant’s motion remained unacted, prompting him to file a Second
Motion for Execution. However, still, there was no action until the complainant agreed to
give respondent a portion of the monetary award thereof after the latter asked from the
former how much would be his share. Thereafter, respondent issued a writ of execution but
the employer of the complainant moved to quash the said writ. Eventually, issued a new writ
of execution wherein complainant’s monetary awards were reduced to the effect that it
modifies the DECISION of the CA. Complainant now filed the instant disbarment complaint
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), averring that respondent violated the Code
of Professional Responsibility for (a) soliciting money from complainant in exchange for a
favorable resolution; and (b) issuing a wrong decision to give benefit and advantage to PT&T,
complainant’s employer.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality for his violation of Rules 1.01
and 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code.
HELD: YES. The above-cited rules, which are contained under Chapter 1 of the Code,
delineate the lawyer’s responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the overriding prohibition
against lawyers from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct;
Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers from encouraging any suit or proceeding or delaying any man’s
cause for any corrupt motive or interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to
lawyers in government service, enjoining them from using one’s public position to: (1)
promote private interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interests to
interfere with public duties. It is well to note that a lawyer who holds a government office
may be disciplined as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a
violation of his oath as a lawyer.
The infractions of the respondent constitute gross misconduct. Jurisprudence illumines
that immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a
moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community.
It treads the line of grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of decency. On the
other hand, gross misconduct constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of
some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment."
In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that when a lawyer is
found guilty of gross immoral conduct or gross misconduct, he may be suspended or
disbarred. However, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that he had already been
disbarred in a previous administrative case, entitled Sps. Rafols, Jr. v. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr.,
which therefore precludes the Court from duplicitously decreeing the same. In view of the
foregoing, the Court deems it proper to, instead, impose a fine in the amount of P40,000.00
in order to penalize respondent’s transgressions as discussed herein and to equally deter the
commission of the same or similar acts in the future.
16. BEL-AIR TRANSIT SERVICE CORPORATION (DOLLAR RENT-A-CAR), complainant, vs.
ATTY. ESTEBAN Y. MENDOZA, Respondent.
Adm. Case No.6107. January 31, 2005.
FACTS: The complainant narrated that, on September 19, 2001, the respondent rented a car
from it, for the amount of P5,549.00. The respondent signed the contract. The respondent
rented another car from the complainant on September 28, 2001, This second contract was
also personally signed by the respondent. The statements of account were, thereafter, sent
to the respondent at his office and business address at Martinez & Mendoza Law Office.
Despite repeated demands for payment, the respondent refused to pay his account, which
constrained the complainant to send a formal and final demand for payment through
counsel. This formal demand was, likewise, ignored by the respondent, further compelling
the complainant to resort to filing a complaint for recovery of money on March 12, 2003
before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 65.
According to the complainant, the respondent’s refusal to pay for the complainants
car rental services constitutes deceit and grossly immoral and unethical conduct, which
violates the Canons of Professional Ethics and Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code on
Human Relations. The complainant further alleged that this is a sufficient ground for the
respondent’s disbarment, considering that the respondent even ignored the complainants
repeated demands for payment.
In his Comment, the respondent denied the allegations against him. He averred that
it was the law firm of Martinez & Mendoza which engaged the services of the complainant,
and that all the trips undertaken were for an out-of-town engagement in Lucena City. It was
the Manager of the complainant requesting for the latters services.
The respondent alleged that the driver assigned to him by the complainant during
the 2 trips did not exercise extraordinary diligence. He averred that they almost figured in an
accident, and when he inquired as to why the said driver was not cautious with his driving,
the latter replied that he had does not have enough sleep, prompting the respondent to
contact the complainant to complain as to why the latter was providing drivers to their law
firm who had not had enough sleep. No one from the complainant’s staff could provide him
with a decent answer, merely Pasensiya na. The respondent then demanded a meeting with
the complainant’s president in order to resolve the matter, but despite repeated requests,
the latter refused to meet with him.
HELD: In this case, the respondent refused to pay for the services of the complainant,
constraining the latter to file charges in order to collect what was due to it under the
contracts, in which the respondent himself was the signatory. Moreover, as pointed out by
IBP Commissioner Dulay, the respondents claim that he almost twice figured in accidents
due to the negligent drivers employed by the complainant and that he intended to question
the company’s billings (which he also posited was a valid excuse for non-payment), appears
to have been concocted as a mere afterthought.
Verily, the respondent is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar, and
should be admonished for his actuations.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Esteban Y. Mendoza is hereby ADMONISHED to be
more circumspect in his financial obligations and his dealings with the public. He is STERNLY
WARNED that similar conduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
17. MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner, vs. THE LEGAL CLINIC, respondent.
BAR MATTER NO. 553. JUNE 17, 1993
FACTS: In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to
Nogales was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the
services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic
because of the latter’s advertisements, which contain the following:
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
8:30am – 6:00pm
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic
beginning Monday to Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota
Res. & Special Retiree’s Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees.
Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled “Rx for Legal Problems” in
Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed
of specialists that can take care of a client’s problem no matter how complicated it is even if
it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he and
his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are “specialists” in various fields, could take care of it.
The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems,
labor, litigation and family law. A battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys backs up
these specialists.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in
the US, which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the
advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is
allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not
allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include
various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple
documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are
undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers
engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being
offered by Legal Clinic, which constitute practice of law, cannot be performed by paralegals.
Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true,
honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the
legal profession condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot,
without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner
similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem
to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law,
which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best
advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and
efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and
catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service, which is
right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and
to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able
service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated
the following as allowed forms of advertisement:
LAWS APPLIED:
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit
legal business.
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE,
HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Rule 3.01 - 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 qualifications
or legal services.
18. ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public
Information Office, complainant, vs. ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, respondent.
A.C. NO. 5299. AUGUST 19,2003.
FACTS: A paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer was published which reads:
“Annulment of Marriage Specialist [contact number]”. Espeleta, a staff of the Supreme
Court, called up the number but it was Mrs. Simbillo who answered. She claims that her
husband, Atty. Simbillo was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a
court decree within 4-6mos provided the case will not involve separation of property and
custody of children. It appears that similar advertisements were also published. An
administrative complaint was filed which was referred to the IBP for investigation and
recommendation. The IBP resolved to suspend Atty. Simbillo for 1year. Note that although
the name of Atty. Simbillo did not appear in the advertisement, he admitted the acts
imputed against him but argued that he should not be charged. He said that it was time to
lift the absolute prohibition against advertisement because the interest of the public isn’t
served in any way by the prohibition.
ISSUE: Whether or not Simbillo violated Rule 2.03 & Rule 3.01.
HELD: Yes! The practice of law is not a business --- it is a profession in which the primary
duty is public service and money. Gaining livelihood is a secondary consideration while duty
to public service and administration of justice should be primary. Lawyers should
subordinate their primary interest. Worse, advertising himself as an “annulment of marriage
specialist” he erodes and undermines the sanctity of an institution still considered as
sacrosanct --- he in fact encourages people otherwise disinclined to dissolve their marriage
bond. Solicitation of business is not altogether proscribed but for it to be proper it must be
compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. Note that the law list where the lawyer’s
name appears must be a reputable law list only for that purpose --- a lawyer may not
properly publish in a daily paper, magazine…etc., nor may a lawyer permit his name to be
published the contents of which are likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar.
LAWS APPLIED:
FACTS: In the position paper submitted by the complainant on August 1, 2005, he averred
that he was employed by the respondent as financial consultant to assist the respondent in a
number of corporate rehabilitation cases. Complainant claimed that they had a verbal
agreement whereby he would be entitled to ₱50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court
in the cases they would handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their
clients. Notwithstanding, 18 Stay Orders that was issued by the courts as a result of his work
and the respondent being able to rake in millions from the cases that they were working on
together, the latter did not pay the amount due to him. He also alleged that respondent
engaged in unlawful solicitation of cases by setting up two financial consultancy firms as
fronts for his legal services. On the third charge of gross immorality, complainant accused
respondent of committing two counts of bigamy for having married two other women while
his first marriage was subsisting.
In his defense, respondent denied charges against him and asserted that the
complainant was not an employee of his law firm but rather an employee of Jesi and Jane
Management, Inc., one of the financial consultancy firms. Respondent alleged that
complainant was unprofessional and incompetent in performing his job and that there was
no verbal agreement between them regarding the payment of fees and the sharing of
professional fees paid by his clients. He proffered documents showing that the salary of
complainant had been paid. Respondent also denied committing any unlawful solicitation. To
support his contention, respondent attached a Joint Venture Agreement and an affidavit
executed by the Vice-President for operations of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc. On the
charge of gross immorality, respondent assailed the Affidavit of a dismissed messenger of
Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., as having no probative value, since the affiant himself had
retracted it. Respondent did not specifically address the allegations regarding his alleged
bigamous marriages with two other women
On January 9, 2006, complainant filed a Motion to Admit Copies of 3 Marriage
Contracts of respondent wherein he attached the certified true copies of the Marriage
Contracts referred to in the Certification issued by the NSO.
On January 16, 2006, respondent submitted his Opposition to the Motion to Admit
filed by complainant, claiming that he was not given the opportunity to controvert them. He
disclosed that criminal cases for bigamy were filed against him by the complainant before the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. He also informed the Commission that he filed
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the first two marriage contracts. In both petitions, he
claimed that he had recently discovered that there were Marriage Contracts in the records of
the NSO bearing his name and allegedly executed with Rowena Piñon and Pilar Lozano on
different occasions.
The Commission scheduled a clarificatory hearing on 20 November 2007.
Respondent moved for the suspension of the resolution of the administrative case against
him, pending outcome of petition for nullification he filed with RTC, but was denied. The
Commission resolved that the administrative case against him be submitted for resolution.
On February 27, 2008, the Commission promulgated its Report and Recommendation
addressing the specific charges against respondent. The first charge, for dishonesty for the
nonpayment of certain shares in the fees, was dismissed for lack of merit. On the second
charge, the Commission found respondent to have violated the rule on the solicitation of
client for having advertised his legal services and unlawfully solicited cases. It recommended
that he be reprimanded for the violation. As for the third charge, the Commission found
respondent to be guilty of gross immorality for violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Due to the
gravity of the acts of respondent, the Commission recommended that he be disbarred, and
that his name be stricken off the roll of attorneys.
ISSUES:
3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct for having married thrice.
Rule 15.08 of the Code mandates that the lawyer is mandated to inform the client whether
the former is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity. This duty is a must in those
occupations related to the practice of law. In this case, it is confusing for the client if it is not
clear whether respondent is offering consultancy or legal services.
Considering, however, that complainant has not proven the degree of prevalence of this
practice by respondent, the Supreme Court affirm the recommendation to reprimand the
latter for violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code.
What has been clearly established here is the fact that respondent entered into marriage
twice while his first marriage was still subsisting. In Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, 56
we held thus:
[W]e have in a number of cases disciplined members of the Bar whom we found guilty of
misconduct which demonstrated a lack of that good moral character required of them not
only as a condition precedent for their admission to the Bar but, likewise, for their continued
membership therein. No distinction has been made as to whether the misconduct was
committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer
may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
another. He is expected to be competent, honorable and reliable at all times since he who
cannot apply and abide by the laws in his private affairs, can hardly be expected to do so in
his professional dealings nor lead others in doing so. Professional honesty and honor are not
to be expected as the accompaniment of dishonesty and dishonor in other relations. The
administration of justice, in which the lawyer plays an important role being an officer of the
court, demands a high degree of intellectual and moral competency on his part so that the
courts and clients may rightly repose confidence in him.
The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the IBP to disbar respondent and
ordered that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
EN BANC
RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE REVISED RULES ON THE CONTINUING
LEGAL EDUCATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
Considering the Rules on the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
for members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), recommended by the IBP,
endorsed by the Philippine Judicial Academy, and reviewed and passed upon by the
Supreme Court Committee on Legal Education, the Court hereby resolves to approve,
as it hereby approves, the following Revised Rules for proper implementation:
Rule 1. PURPOSE
SECTION 1. Commencement of the MCLE. Within two (2) months from the
approval of these Rules by the Supreme Court En Banc, the MCLE Committee shall
be constituted and shall commence the implementation of the Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE) program in accordance with these Rules.
SEC. 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE. Members of the IBP not exempt
under Rule 7 shall complete every three (3) years at least thirty-six (36) hours of
continuing legal education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36
hours:
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics equivalent to six (6) credit
units.
(b) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills equivalent to
four (4) credit units.
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute
resolution equivalent to five (5) credit units.
(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and procedural
laws, and jurisprudence equivalent to nine (9) credit units.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral
advocacy equivalent to four (4) credit units.
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and international
conventions equivalent to two (2) credit units.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be
prescribed by the MCLE Committee equivalent to six (6) credit units.
Rule 7. EXEMPTIONS
SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following members of the
Bar are exempt from the MCLE requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and
Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and
retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar
Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial
Academy program of continuing judicial education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the
Department of Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government
Corporate Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman
and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching
experience for at least ten (10) years in accredited law schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and
Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
SEC. 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE. The following Members of the
Bar are likewise exempt:
(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.
(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of
Governors.
SEC. 3. Good cause for exemption from or modification of requirement A
member may file a verified request setting forth good cause for exemption (such as
physical disability, illness, post graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.)
from compliance with or modification of any of the requirements, including an
extension of time for compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be established by
the MCLE Committee.
SEC. 4. Change of status. The compliance period shall begin on the first day of
the month in which a member ceases to be exempt under Sections 1, 2, or 3 of this
Rule and shall end on the same day as that of all other members in the same
Compliance Group.
SEC. 5. Proof of exemption. Applications for exemption from or modification of
the MCLE requirement shall be under oath and supported by documents.
(1) This activity has been approved BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE in the amount of ________ hours
of which ______ hours will apply in (legal ethics, etc.), as appropriate to the content of the activity;
(2) The activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by these Rules
and such regulations as may be prescribed by the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all participants identifying the time, date,
location, subject matter and length of the activity.
(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all approved continuing legal education
activity by THE MCLE COMMITTEE, members of the IBP Board of Governors, or
designees of the Committee and IBP staff Board for purposes of monitoring compliance with
these Rules.
(e) The provider shall indicate in promotional materials, the nature of the activity, the time
devoted to each topic and identity of the instructors. The provider shall make available to each
participant a copy of THE MCLE COMMITTEE-approved Education Activity Evaluation
Form.
(f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education Activity Evaluation Forms for a period
of not less than one (1) year after the activity, copy furnished the MCLE COMMITTEE.
(g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized activity under this program or issues a
spurious certificate in violation of these Rules shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.
SECTION 1. Compliance card. -- Each member shall secure from the MCLE
Committee a Compliance Card before the end of his compliance period. He shall
complete the card by attesting under oath that he has complied with the education
requirement or that he is exempt, specifying the nature of the exemption. Such
Compliance Card must be returned to the Committee not later than the day after the
end of the members compliance period.
SEC. 2. Member record keeping requirement. -- Each member shall maintain
sufficient record of compliance or exemption, copy furnished the MCLE Committee.
The record required to be provided to the members by the provider pursuant to
Section 3 of Rule 9 should be a sufficient record of attendance at a participatory
activity. A record of non-participatory activity shall also be maintained by the
member, as referred to in Section 3 of Rule 5.
Members given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non-Compliance Notice may use this period to
attain the adequate number of credit units for compliance. Credit units earned during this period
may only be counted toward compliance with the prior compliance period requirement
unless units in excess of the requirement are earned, in which case the excess may be counted
toward meeting the current compliance period requirement.
(a) the time spent and the extent of the service rendered
or required;
(b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
(c) The importance of the subject matter;
(d) The skill demanded;
(e) The probability of losing other employment as a
result of acceptance of the proffered case;
(f) The customary charges for similar services and the
schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs;
(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the
benefits resulting to the client from the service;
(h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional
or established; and
(j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in case of referral, with
the consent of the client, be entitled to a division of
fees in proportion to the work performed and
responsibility assumed.
Rule 20.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the full
knowledge and consent of the client, accept any fee,
reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or forwarding
allowance or other compensation whatsoever related to his
professional employment from anyone other than the
client.
Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with
clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to
judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or
fraud.