Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Group 1
Group 1
FACTS:
The spouses Erlinda Dalman and Narciso Melendrez charged Reynerio I.
Decena, a member of the Philippine Bar, with malpractice and breach of trust.
The complainant spouses alleged, among others, that respondent had, by
means of fraud and deceit, taken advantage of their precarious financial
situation and his knowledge of the law to their prejudice, succeeded in
divesting them of their only residential lot in Pagadian City; that respondent,
who was their counsel in an estafa case against one Reynaldo Pineda, had
compromised that case without their authority. The respondent denied all the
charges against him. The administrative complaint was referred to the Office of
the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. The
Solicitor General after investigation finds that the complainant is correct.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent’s overall acts constitute malpractice and
breach of trust therefore may be disbarred?
LAW APPLICABLE
CANON 1: A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
CANON 17:A lawyer owes fidelity t the cause of his client and shall be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
CANON 18:A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case
and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information.
Lawyer's Oath
CASE HISTORY:
The Solicitor General submitted his Report and Recommendation in this
case. In that report, after setting out the facts and proceedings held in the
present case, the Solicitor General presented recommended that Atty. Reynerio
I. Decena be suspended from the practice of law for a period of five (5) years.
RULING:
The following acts of the respondents are :
1.making it appear on the 5 August 1975 real estate mortgage that
the amount loaned to complainants was P5,000.00 instead of
P4,000.00;
OPINION:
The ruling of the Supreme Court is correct and just because as lawyer he
must possess all the qualities that are specifically provided in the Code of
Professional Responsibility or at least all his acts be bound by the law.
FACTS:
A Complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Wilson Cham against
respondent Atty. Eva Paita-Moya, who he alleged committed deceit in
occupying a leased apartment unit and, thereafter, vacating the same without
paying the rentals due. Respondent entered into a Contract of Lease with
Greenville Realty and Development Corp represented by complainant as its
President and General Manager, involving a residential apartment unit owned
by GRDC located at Kalayaan Avenue, Quezon City, for a consideration
of P8,000.00 per month for a term of one year.
LAW APPLICABLE:
"CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes.
"Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct."
CASE HISTORY:
Investigating Commissioner Acerey C. Pacheco submitted his Report and
Recommendation. Recommending the imposition of the penalty of three-month
suspension on respondent for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility,
RULING:
Having incurred just debts, respondent had the moral duty and legal
responsibility to settle them when they became due. Respondent should have
complied with just contractual obligations, and acted fairly and adhered to
high ethical standards to preserve the court’s integrity, since she is an
employee thereof. Indeed, when respondent backtracked on her duty to pay her
debts, such act already constituted a ground for administrative sanction.
"CANON 1- A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
"Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct."
OPINION:
The ruling of the Supreme Court is proper because a lawyer has a moral
obligation and legal duty to settle them when it become due. Lawyers must at
all time faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to the court and to
their clients which includes paying their financial obligation on time.
FLORDELIZA A. MADRIA, Complainant
vs
ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA, Respondent
March 7, 2017 - A.C. No. 11256
FACTS:
Flordeliza Madria with her daughter and nephew, Vanessa and Jason,
consulted Atty. Rivera in his law office to inquire about the process of
annulling her marriage with her husband, Juan C. Madria. After giving the
details of her marriage relevant to the annulment, Atty. Rivera said that she
had a strong case and could obtain for her a decree of annulment. He told her
too that her legal services would cost 25,000 and as such Flordeliza made
installments and was told to wait for the resolution of her complaint as she did
not need to appear before the court. Vanessa made follow ups and was
informed that her petition had been granted, thus she went to Atty. Rivera’s
office and received a copy of the decision. According to Flordeliza, she was
asked to allow five months to lapse after the release of the decision before she
could safely claim the status of “single.”
She used single in her voter’s ID as well as when she renewed her
passport. However, she became a subject of an investigation by the NBI
because her former partner Andrew Grainge filed a complaint that she
fabricated the decision of annulment; and it is only then that she knew that the
ISSUE:
May Atty. Rivera be disbarred on the ground of deceit and violation of the
lawyer’s oath?
LAW APPLICABLE:
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court - Attorneys removed or
suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may
be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for
any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to
a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice.
CASE HISTORY:
IBP concluded that Atty. Rivera violated his Lawyer's Oath; and
recommended his suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years.
But the The IBP Board of Governors, albeit adopting the findings of
Commissioner Villanueva-Maala, modified the recommendation of suspension
from the practice of law for two years to disbarment.
RULING:
Falsifying or simulating the court papers amounted to deceit, malpractice
or misconduct in office, any of which was already a ground sufficient for
disbarment under Section 27, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. The moral
standards of the Legal Profession expected the respondent to act with the
highest degree of professionalism, decency, and nobility in the course of their
practice of law. Moreover, he was already previously charged with
unprofessional misconduct for notarizing documents without a notarial
The law requires the lawyer to be true to his client, and by choosing to
ignore his fiduciary responsibility for the sake of getting money committed a
further violation of his oath by which he swore not to "delay any man's cause
for money or malice," and to "conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best
of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to
his clients." He compounded this violation by taking advantage of his legal
knowledge to promote his own selfish motives.
OPINION:
A lawyer who causes the simulation of court documents not only violates
the court and its processes, but also betrays the trust and confidence reposed
in him by his client and must be disbarred to maintain the integrity of the Law
Profession. He was given a chance to change when he committed an act
previous to this case, however, he still continued to do such unethical act. The
punishment of disbarment is the proper penalty in this case as he blatantly
disregarded the Court.
FACTS:
Zacarias Manigbas, a member of the bar, was charged with alleged acts
of falsification in violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, in that in
the jurat of certain documents that as notary public, he made it appear that
said documents were subscribed, sworn to and signed by Pablo de la Cruz
before him and in his presence, in Lucena City, when in truth they were signed
in Manila and not in his presence.
ISSUE:
LAW APPLICABLE:
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court - Attorneys removed or
suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may
be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for
any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to
a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice.
CASE HISTORY:
The matter was referred to the OSG and Manigbas was given opportunity
to defend himself.
RULING:
There is no showing that respondent was in league with the bank officers
who may have perpetrated a scheme in issuing fraudulent loans in violation of
the charter of the Rural Bank of Lucena so as to warrant the finding that he
had himself committed falsification. His participation in the accomplishment of
the documents relative to the loan supposedly applied for by Pablo de la Cruz
which is that of merely notarizing said documents is not inconsistent with lack
of knowledge on his part of the fraud which was apparently perpetrated by
other parties so as to make him equally liable or guilty of such fraud. At least
the evidence fails to link respondent to whatever fraudulent transactions may
have been indulged in by the Bank.The Solicitor General holds the view that
the respondent "is chargeable only with failure to exercise utmost care in the
performance of his functions as a Notary Public. Manigbas was only warned to
be more careful in the future performance of his duties.
OPINION:
Disbarment is a serious case which is filed against a lawyer, and it
should not be taken lightly and be granted outrightly. Absent any showing that
the lawyer conspired with other people to commit fraud, then he cannot be
liable for their acts and as such be disbarred. In this case there is only failure
to exercise utmost care in his performance of his functions as a notary public.
FACTS:
This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant
Socorro T. Co against Atty. Godofredo N. Bernardino charging him with
unprofessional and unethical conduct indicating moral deficiency and
unfitness to stay in the profession of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent’s act constitutes as a ground for
disbarment
1
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1
0
LAW: Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
CASE HISTORY:
On 3 March 1993 the Court referred this administrative case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation.
RULING:
Rule 1.01, Chapter 1, entitled The Lawyer and Society of the Code of
Professional Responsibility requires that "a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." "Conduct," as used in this
Rule, is not limited to conduct exhibited in connection with the performance of
professional duties.
OPINION:
I concur. Atty. Bernardino’s acts are clearly impressed with intent to
commit fraud and deceit, which can be clearly seen initially when he
introduced himself as an official from Bureau of Customs. Moreover, it is the
lawyer’s duty to uphold the law at all times, and he failed to discharge such
duty when he issued bouncing checks for his debt and attempted to evade
payment again through an unconsummated mortgage.
1
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1
1
A.C. No. 8667
INOCENCIO I. BALISTOY vs ATTY. FLORENCIO A. BRON
February 3, 2016
FACTS:
On March 5, 2003, Atty. Bron filed a Motion to Dismiss. Paul and Peter
executed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping for the
motion, exhibiting Community Tax Certificate (CTC) No. 12249877, issued on
January 9, 2003 in Quezon City, for Paul, and CTC No. 1385810, issued on
January 29, 2003, in Manila, for Peter. On January 20, 2004, Atty. Bron filed
an Answer for the defendants who exhibited CTC No. 12249877 for Paul and
CTC No. 12249883 for Peter, both CTCs issued on January 9, 2003, in Manila.
Meantime, Balistoy discovered that the CTCs exhibited by Paul and Peter
had already expired and that the CTC Paul used for the answer had the same
number as the CTC he showed for the motion to dismiss, but the place of issue
was changed from Manila to Quezon City.
Balistoy went to the Office of the Treasurer of the City of Manila and the
Bureau of Internal Revenue in Quezon City to verify the discrepancies in the
CTCs of Paul and Peter and found out that CTC No. 12249877 "was not among
those allotted by the BIR to the City of Manila in the year 2003." It was also
certified that the CTC was issued to the Provincial Treasurer of Pampanga, on
October 2, 2002.
The RTC issued an order, declaring the defendants were deemed to have
waived their right to present evidence due to their failure to attend the hearing
on September 6, 2006.
1
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1
2
On June 20, 2007, Atty. Bron moved for a resetting of the hearing on the
ground that Paul, who was scheduled to testify on that day and who had just
arrived from Malaysia with a fever, was placed under quarantine. Atty. Bron
submitted a medical certificate dated June 18, 2007, stating that Paul had a
fever and was under the care of a Dr. Pierette Y. Kaw.
ISSUE:
LAW/PRINCIPLE:
In Siao Aba, et al. v. Atty. Salvador De Guzman, Jr., et al., the Court
stressed that, "In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant, and for the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case
against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and
satisfactory proof."
CASE HISTORY:
In a resolution dated January 13, 2011, the Court referred the complaint
to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.
On July 28, 2014, the Court referred the case to the OBC for evaluation,
report and recommendation.
On April 28, 2015, the OBC submitted its report, recommending that the
disbarment case be dismissed for "insufficient evidence proving Respondent’s
participation in the fraudulent or deceitful acts.
RULING:
1
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1
3
No. The petition is without merit. The court concurs with the
conclusion of Comm. Cachapero and the OBC that the presentation of the Wee
brothers’ "tampered" CTCs for the pleadings in the civil case, and Paul’s
medical certificates in compliance with a court order, do not warrant Atty.
Bron’s disbarment. There is nothing in the records that clearly indicates that
Atty. Bron had knowledge of his clients’ fraudulent and deceitful acts with
respect to their CTCs, or having known of their defects, he had done nothing to
correct their invalidity. The same observation applies to the submission of
Paul’s medical certificates to the RTC.
The Court finds no evidence that Atty. Bron had a hand in the
falsification of the Wee Brothers’ CTCs or Paul’s medical certificates, although
the court has reservations over his claim that he did not have the opportunity
to determine their genuineness. In sum, Balistoy failed to discharge the burden
of proof in his bid to disbar Atty. Bron.
OPINION:
I concur with the finding of the court that there was no sufficient
evidence to establish Atty. Bron’s misconduct. He also deserved to be
reprimanded or even a more severe punishment, considering that he was able
to overlook his clients’ fraudulent acts not only once but thrice. Such acts
could have possibly resulted to more serious consequences.
1
LEGAL ETHICS REVIEW – GROUP 1
4