Spouses Rafols v. Barrios A.C. No.

4973, March 15, 2010

Facts:  Dismissed Judge Dizon Jr. extorted money from the complainant for the favorable outcome of their case
under the Judge’s sala. The said Judge was introduced to the complainant by their lawyer respondent. In a
resolution the Court approved the recommendations, and directed the Office of the Bar Confidant to
investigate the actuations of the respondent, and to render its report and recommendation thereon. in the
proceedings of the OBC, only the respondent appeared. Denying the charges against him, he sought the
dismissal of the complaint and re-affirmed the contents of his comment. Despite notice, the complainants did
not appear before the OBC. However, the complainants and the respondent had testified during the
administrative hearing involving Judge Dizon, Jr. before Court of Appeals Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr. In its
Report and Recommendation of the OBC opined that the administrative case against the respondent could not
be dismissed on the ground of failure to prosecute due to the complainants’ failure to appear in the scheduled
hearing despite due notice. Based on the facts already established and identified, as rendered in the decision
against the dismissed Judge Teodoro A. Dizon, the OBC rejected the respondent’s denial of any knowledge of
the transaction between his clients and the judge.

Issue: Whether the OBC erred in finding the Respondent violating his oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

Held: No, the court find  the recommendation of the OBC to be fully and competently supported by the
evidence adduced by the complainants and their witnesses, but we impose the supreme penalty of disbarment,
which we believe is the proper penalty. To begin with, the respondent’s denial of knowledge of the transaction
between the complainants and Judge Dizon, Jr. was not only implausible, but also unsubstantiated. It was the
respondent himself who had introduced the complainants to the judge. His act of introducing the complainants
to the judge strongly implied that the respondent was aware of the illegal purpose of the judge in wanting to
talk with the respondent’s clients.

Secondly, the respondent’s insistence that he did not see the complainants’ act of handing the money to the
judge is unbelievable. In his comment, the respondent even admitted having himself received the ₱80,000.00
from the complainants, and having kept ₱30,000.00 of that amount pursuant to the instruction of the judge as
a token of the friendship between him and the judge. The admission proved that the respondent had known all
along of the illegal transaction between the judge and the complainants, and belied his feigned lack of
knowledge of the delivery of the money to the judge.

Thirdly, his attempt to explain that the complainants had given the money to the judge as a loan, far from
softening our strong impression of the respondent’s liability, confirmed his awareness of the gross impropriety
of the transaction. Being the complainants’ attorney in the civil case being heard before the judge, the
respondent could not but know that for the judge to borrow money from his clients was highly irregular and
outrightly unethical. If he was innocent of wrongdoing, as he claimed, he should have desisted from having any
part in the transaction. Yet, he did not, which rendered his explanation unbelievable. Compounding the
unworthiness of his explanation was his admission of having retained ₱30,000.00 of the “borrowed” money
upon the judge’s instruction.
And, lastly, the OBC has pointed out that the respondent’s act of requesting the NBI Regional Office in Davao
City to investigate was an afterthought on his part. We agree with the OBC, for the respondent obviously acted
in order to anticipate the complainants’ moves against him and the judge. To be sure, the respondent sensed
that the complainants would not simply forgive and forget the mulcting they had suffered at the hands of the
judge and their own attorney from the time that the complainants assured him that they were no longer
interested to get back their money despite their being very angry at the judge’s greed.

Overall, the respondent’ denials were worthless and unavailing in the face of the uncontradicted evidence
showing that he had not only personally arranged the meeting between Manuel and Judge Dizon, Jr., but had
also communicated to the complainants the judge’s illegal reason for the meeting. It is axiomatic that any
denial, to be accepted as a viable defense in any proceeding, must be substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence. This need derives from the nature of a denial as evidence of a negative and self-serving character,
weightless in law and insufficient to overcome the testimony of credible witnesses on affirmative matters.

The conclusion that the respondent and the disgraced Judge Dizon, Jr. were conspirators against the former’s
own clients, whom he was sworn to protect and to serve with utmost fidelity and morality, is inevitable for the
Court to make in this administrative case. And, being conspirators, they both deserve the highest penalty. The
disbarment of the respondent is in order, because such sanction is on par with the dismissal of Judge Dizon, Jr.

CASE DIGEST: ATTY. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR. V. ATTY. EDWIN Z. FERRER, SR. (A.C.
No. 5768; March 26, 2010).

FACTS: On January 11, 2001 complainant Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a complaint-affidavit with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) seeking the disbarment,
suspension from the practice of law, or imposition of appropriate disciplinary action against respondent Atty.
Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. for filing a reply with opposition to motion to dismiss that contained abusive, offensive and
improper language which insinuated that Atty. Barandon presented a falsified document in court. The said
document purported to be a notarized document executed at a date when Atty. Barandon was not yet a lawyer.

Moreover, on December 19, 2000, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened Atty. Barandon saying, “Laban
kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa
Camarines Norte, angabogadonarito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwina kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo
taga-rito” at the Municipal Trial Court in Daet before the start of a hearing.

The Court had warned Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case against repeating his unethical act; yet he faces a
disbarment charge for sexual harassment of an office secretary of the IBP Chapter in Camarines Norte; a
related criminal case for acts of lasciviousness; and criminal cases for libel and grave threats that Atty.
Barandon filed against him.

On October 10, 2001 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP-CBD submitted to this Court
a Report, recommending the suspension for two years of Atty. Ferrer. The Investigating Commissioner found
enough evidence on record to prove Atty. Ferrer’s violation of Canons 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He attributed to Atty. Barandon, as counsel in Civil Case 7040, the falsification of the plaintiff’s
affidavit despite the absence of evidence that the document had in fact been falsified and that Atty. Barandon
was a party to it. The Investigating Commissioner also found that Atty. Ferrer uttered the threatening remarks
imputed to him in the presence of other counsels, court personnel, and litigants before the start of hearing. On
June 29, 2002 the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution adopting and approving the Investigating
Commissioner’s recommendation but reduced the penalty of suspension to only one year.

ISSUE: DID THE IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS AND THE IBP INVESTIGATING

COMMISSIONER ERR IN FINDING RESPONDENT GUILTY OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM
AND IF THE PENALTY IMPOSED WAS JUSTIFIED?

HELD: The Supreme Court examined the records of this case and finds no reason to disagree with the findings
and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors and the Investigating Commissioner.

The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and
morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy,
fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence shows that he imputed to Atty. Barandon
the falsification of an affidavit without evidence that the document had indeed been falsified. Moreover, Atty.
Ferrer could have aired his charge of falsification in a proper forum and without using offensive and abusive
language against a fellow lawyer. The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their
pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal system.

Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which enjoins lawyers to
uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at all times. Several disinterested persons confirmed
Atty. Ferrer’s drunken invectives at Atty. Barandon shortly before the start of a court hearing and Atty. Ferrer
failed to show convincing evidence denying the said charge against him.

All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are mandated to maintain the
dignity of the legal profession, hence they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Atty. Ferrer’s display
of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct in the performance of his duties both as a lawyer
and officer of the court, before the public and the court, was a patent transgression of the very ethics that
lawyers are sworn to uphold. Consequently, the penalty of suspension of one from the practice of law is deemed
just and proper.

Judge Rene B. Baculi, Complainant, vs. Atty. Melchor A. Battung, Respondent

Supreme Court Second Division

A.C. No. 8920, September 28, 2011

Facts:
Judge Baculi, Presiding Judge of Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Tuguegarao City, filed a complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Battung. He claimed that on July 24, 2008, during the hearing on the motion for reconsideration
of Civil Case No. 2502, the respondent was shouting while arguing his motion. Judge Baculi advised him to tone down his
voice but instead, the respondent shouted at the top of his voice. When warned that he would be cited for direct
contempt, the respondent shouted, “Then cite me!”Judge Baculi cited him for direct contempt and imposed a fine of
P100.00. The respondent then left.

While other cases were being heard, the respondent re-entered the courtroom and shouted, “Judge, I will file gross
ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!” Judge Baculi ocited him for direct contempt of court for the second time.

After his hearings, respondent again shouted in a threatening tone, “Judge, I will file gross ignorance against you! I am
not afraid of you!” He kept on shouting, “I am not afraid of you!” and challenged the judge to a fight. Staff and lawyers
escorted him out of the building.

Judge Baculi later found out that after the respondent left the courtroom, Atty. Battung continued shouting and punched
a table at the Office of the Clerk of Court.

Issue:

Did Atty. Battung violate Cannons 11 and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Ruling:

IBP Commissioner found that the respondent failed to observe Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that
requires a lawyer to observe and maintain respect due the courts and judicial officers. The respondent also violated Rule
11.03 of Canon 11 that provides that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior
before the courts. The respondent’s argument that Judge Baculi provoked him to shout should not be given due
consideration since the respondent should not have shouted at the presiding judge; by doing so, he created the
impression that disrespect of a judge could be tolerated. De la Rama recommended that the respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for six (6) months.

The Supreme Court held that litigants and counsels, particularly the latter because of their position and avowed duty to
the courts, cannot be allowed to publicly ridicule, demean and disrespect a judge, and the court that he represents.

A lawyer who insults a judge inside a courtroom completely disregards the latter’s role, stature and position in our
justice system. When the respondent publicly berated and brazenly threatened Judge Baculi that he would file a case for
gross ignorance of the law against the latter, the respondent effectively acted in a manner tending to erode the public
confidence in Judge Baculi’s competence and in his ability to decide cases. Incompetence is a matter that, even if true,
must be handled with sensitivity in the manner provided under the Rules of Court; an objecting or complaining lawyer
cannot act in a manner that puts the courts in a bad light and bring the justice system into disrepute.

Atty. Battung was ordered suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year with a warning that a repetition of a
similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

ESPINOSA vs. ATTY. OMAÑA (DIGEST)

September 17, 2019 by ATA
SUMMARY:
Respondent Atty. Omaña drafted and notarized a document entitled Kasunduan ng Paghihiwalay signed by spouses
Rodolfo Espinosa and Elena Marantal. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended that she be suspended for
one year from the practice of law and for two years as a notary public. The IBP approved the recommendation. The
Supreme Court affirmed.

DOCTRINES:
This Court has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void. The
Court has also ruled that a notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by
encouraging the separation of the spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership, which is exactly what
Omaña did in this case.

FACTS:

In 1997, Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal sought Omaña’s legal advice on whether they could legally live separately
and dissolve their marriage.

Omaña then prepared a document entitled Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay. Marantal and Espinosa, fully convinced of the
validity of the contract dissolving their marriage, started implementing its terms and conditions. However, Marantal
eventually took custody of all their children and took possession of most of the property they acquired during their union.

Espinosa sought the advice of his fellow employee, complainant Glindo, a law graduate, who informed him that the
contract executed by Omaña was not valid.

Espinosa and Glindo then hired the services of a lawyer to file a complaint against Omaña before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).

IBP-CBD stated that Espinosa’s desistance did not put an end to the proceedings. The IBP-CBD found that Omaña
violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

The IBP-CBD recommended that Omaña be suspended for one year from the practice of law and for two years as a notary
public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation of the IBP-CBD.

ISSUE:

WON Atty. Omaña violated the Canon of Professional Responsibility in the notarization of Marantal and
Espinosa’s Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay. (YES)

RATIO:

This Court has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void.

The Court has also ruled that a notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by
encouraging the separation of the spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership, which is exactly what
Omaña did in this case.

In Selanova v. Judge Mendoza, he Court cited a number of cases where the lawyer was sanctioned for notarizing similar
documents as the contract in this case, such as:

– notarizing a document between the spouses which permitted the husband to take a concubine and allowed the wife to
live with another man, without opposition from each other;

– ratifying a document entitled “Legal Separation” where the couple agreed to be separated from each other mutually and
voluntarily, renouncing their rights and obligations, authorizing each other to remarry, and renouncing any action that they
might have against each other;

– preparing a document authorizing a married couple who had been separated for nine years to marry again, renouncing
the right of action which each may have against the other; and
– preparing a document declaring the conjugal partnership dissolved.

We cannot accept Omaña’s allegation that it was her part-time office staff who notarized the contract. We agree with the
IBP-CBD that Omaña herself notarized the contract. Even if it were true that it was her part-time staff who notarized the
contract, it only showed Omaña’s negligence in doing her notarial duties

DISPOSITIVE:

We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP-CBD.

PASCUA

Attorney; misconduct.  With his admission that he drafted and notarized another instrument that did not state
the true consideration of the sale so as to reduce the capital gains and other taxes due on the transaction,
respondent cannot escape liability for making an untruthful statement in a public document for an unlawful
purpose.  As the second deed indicated an amount much lower than the actual price paid for the property sold,
respondent abetted in depriving the Government of the right to collect the correct taxes due.  Not only did
respondent assist the contracting parties in an activity aimed at defiance of the law, he likewise displayed lack
of respect for and made a mockery of the solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment.  By notarizing such
illegal and fraudulent document, he is entitling it full faith and credit upon its face, which it obviously does not
deserve considering its nature and purpose.  Respondent’s actions violated not only Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the
Code of Responsibility, but pertinent sections of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice as well.  Thus, respondent
is meted the penalty of revocation of notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law for a period
of two years.  Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla v. Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua.  A.C. No. 6655.  October 11, 2011.

BANSIG VS CELERA

Facts:

 Bansig, sister of bunagan narrated that, respondent and Gracemarie R. Bunagan, entered into a contract of
marriage. However, notwithstanding respondent’s marriage with Bunagan, respondent contracted another
marriage with a certain Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba, as evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the certificate of
marriage Bansig stressed that the marriage between respondent and Bunagan was still valid and in full legal
existence when he contracted his second marriage with Alba, and that the first marriage had never been
annulled or rendered void by any lawful authority.

 Bansig alleged that respondent’s act of contracting marriage with Alba, while his marriage is still subsisting,
constitutes grossly immoral and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar, which renders him unfit to
continue his membership in the Bar.

Issue:

 whether respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation of justice

Ruling:
 For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these Marriage Certificates bearing the name of respondent are
competent and convincing evidence to prove that he committed bigamy, which renders him unfit to continue as
a member of the Bar

 The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the
activities of the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should
he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

 Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. He
made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a
second marriage while his first marriage is subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for
disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.

STEPHAN BRUNET AND VIRGINIA ROMANILLOS BRUNET, COMPLAINANTS, 

VS.

ATTY. RONALD L. GUAREN, RESPONDENT.

Facts:

Complainants alleged that  they engaged the services of Atty. Guaren for the titling of a residential lot they acquired in
Bonbon, Nueva Caseres; that Atty. Guaren asked for a fee of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) including expenses
relative to its proceeding; that it was agreed that full payment of the fee shall be made after the delivery of the title; that
Atty. Guaren asked for an advance fee of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) which they gave; that Atty. Guaren took all
the pertinent documents relative to the titling of their lot-certified true copy of the tax declaration, original copy of the
deed of exchange, sketch plan, deed of donation, survey plan, and original copy of the waiver; that on March 10, 1997,
Atty. Guaren asked for additional payment of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) which they dutifully gave; that from 1997
to 2001, they always reminded Atty. Guaren about the case and each time he would say that the titling was in progress;
that they became bothered by the slow progress of the case so they demanded the return of the money they paid; and that
respondent agreed to return the same provided that the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) be deducted to answer
for his professional fees.

Complainants further alleged that despite the existence of an attorney-client relationship between them, Atty. Guaren
made a special appearance against them in a case pending before the Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court, Oslob, Cebu
(MCTC).

Issue:

Whether or not resondent violated the code of professional responsibility

Ruling:

The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary
consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and
to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal
interests or what they owe to themselves.

Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:

CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
in him.

CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

In the present case, Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted the amount of P7,000.00 as partial payment of his acceptance
fee. He, however, failed to perform his obligation to file the case for the titling of complainants’ lot despite the lapse of 5
years. Atty. Guaren breached his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence when he neglected a legal matter
entrusted to him.

DIZON VS. NORLITATAZA

REYES, J.:

This concerns an administrative complaint[1] for disbarment against Atty. Norlita De Taza (Atty. De Taza) for the
latter's demand for and receipt of exorbitant sums of money from her client purportedly to expedite the
proceedings of their case which was pending before the Court.

The Facts
Amado Dizon (complainant) alleged that sometime in February 2005, he, along with his siblings engaged the
services of Romero De Taza Cruz and Associates to represent them in the case of Eliza T. Castaneda, et al. v.
Heirs of Spouses Martin and Lucia Dizon with G.R. No. 174552.[2]

The complainant claimed that sometime in February 2007, Atty. De Taza demanded the sum of Seventy-Five
Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) from him to expedite the proceedings before the Court. This amount was over
and above the parties' stipulated retainer fee as evidenced by a contract.[3]

According to the complainant, unknown to him at that time was that, a month earlier or in January 2007, Atty.
De Taza had already demanded and received a total of Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos (P800,000.00) from
his sibling Aurora Dizon, for the same reason that Atty. De Taza proffered to him, which was to expedite the
proceedings of their case before the Court. Handwritten receipts[4] signed by one Atty. Norlita De Taza were
submitted by the complainant, which state:

15 Jan. 2007

Receipt

That the amount received P300,000 shall be used to expedite the case which, in turn shall result in the
following:

1. Decision favorable to plaintiff w/in 2 mos. from receipt of said amount;

2. Back rentals up to present should be returned, if the same should not be included in the Decision, the
P300,000.00 shall be returned.
Signed
Atty. Norlita De Taza[5]

18 Jan. 2007

Receipt

The amount of P500,000 has been advanced as part of expense [sic] to expedite the process before the
courts. The said amount has been advanced by Ms. Aurora Dizon and the same should be reimbursed to her
by her siblings upon winning the case with finality.

Signed
Atty. Norlita De Taza[6]

On October 24, 2007, the complainant went to this Court in Padre Faura, Manila and learned that the Court
had already denied the petition on November 20, 2006, contrary to Atty. De Taza's representations that the
case was still pending. He tried to communicate with Atty. De Taza, but she could no longer be found.[7]

Thereafter, on November 6, 2007, the complainant instituted a complaint for disbarment[8] against Atty. De
Taza. He also attached several affidavits and documents[9] from other individuals who attested that Atty. De
Taza issued bouncing checks and/or failed to pay off her debts to them. A certain Ana Lynda Pineda executed
an affidavit[10] which was attached to the complaint, alleging that Atty. De Taza issued 11 checks[11] in her favor
amounting to ?481,400.00, which were all dishonored by the bank. Demand letters sent to her went unheeded.

Likewise, Darwin Tiamzon, a creditor of Atty. De Taza, whose affidavit[12] was attached to the complaint,
averred that Atty. De Taza issued a check[13] for P50,000.00 as payment for her loan. Said check was
dishonored by the bank for being drawn against a closed account.

Furthermore, a certain Eleanor Sarmiento submitted an affidavit,[14] stating that Atty. De Taza owes her
p29,560.39 and failed to pay the said amount despite repeated demands.

On November 14, 2007, the complainant through a letter[15] informed the Court that Atty. De Taza is planning to
leave the country as she was joining her husband in the United States of America (U.S.A.).

In a Resolution[16] dated December 10, 2007, Atty. De Taza was required by the Court to file a Comment.
However, the copy of the Resolution was returned unserved with the postal carrier's notation "RTS (Return to
Sender)-Moved". The Court then resolved by virtue of the Resolution[17] dated July 2, 2008, to send a copy to
Atty. De Taza's office address at Romero De Taza Cruz and Associates. Said copy was also returned
unserved with the notation "RTS-not connected."

It was then required in the Resolution[18] dated October 8, 2008 that the complainant inform the Court of Atty.
De Taza's new address, which the complainant faithfully complied with by giving Atty. De Taza's new address
in the U.S.A. The Court, in its Resolution[19] dated January 26, 2009, directed the Clerk of Court to resend a
copy of the Resolution dated December 10, 2007 with a copy of the complaint to Atty. De Taza using the
latter's U.S.A. address.

Like the previous occasions, the copy of the Resolution dated December 10, 2007 with the complaint was
returned; this time, with the postal carrier's notation "RTS-Unclaimed". The Court in its Resolution [20] dated
September 9, 2009, held that the said copy of the Resolution was deemed served and resolved to consider
Atty. De Taza as having waived the filing of her comment. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.

A Notice of Mandatory Conference[21] was sent to the parties, in which they failed to appear. Thus, the parties
were directed to file their respective position papers. The complainant, in a letter[22] addressed to the IBP,
averred that he was already residing abroad and maintained that he had already submitted his documentary
evidence at the time of the filing of his complaint. Atty. De Taza, for her part, did not file any position paper.
In its Report and Recommendation[23] dated January 4, 2011, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
recommended that Atty. De Taza be suspended for a period of two years from the practice of law.

The IBP Board of Governors modified the Commission on Bar Discipline's recommendation in a
Resolution[24] dated January 3, 2013, viz:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with

modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case,
herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation fully supported by the
evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondent's demand of [?]800,000.00
to expedite the case pending in the Supreme Court when, in fact, the case had long been dismissed, Atty.
Norlita De Taza is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year.[25] (Emphasis supplied)

The Issue

WHETHER ATTY. DE TAZA SHOULD BE HELD ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE FOR ISSUING BOUNCING
CHECKS, DEMANDING AND/OR RECEIVING MONEY FROM HER CLIENTS UNDER THE GUISE OF
HAVING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT EXPEDITED.

Ruling

The Court acknowledges the fact that Atty. De Taza was not able to refute the accusations against her.
Numerous attempts were made to afford her an opportunity to defend herself from the complainant's
allegations, but all these efforts were only met with silence. Whether her transfer of residence was an
unscrupulous move on her part to evade her creditors, only she would certainly know. But as far as the Court is
concerned, all means were exhausted to give Atty. De Taza an avenue to oppose the complainant's charges.
Her failure and/or refusal to file a comment will not be a hindrance for the Court to mete out an appropriate
sanction.

The Court has time and again ruled that disciplinary proceedings are investigations by the Court to ascertain
whether a lawyer is fit to be one. There is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. As this Court held
in Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Atty. Naldoza,[26] citing In the Matter of the Proceedings for
Disciplinary Action Against Atty. Almacen, et al. v. Yaptinchay:[27]

"Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not
involve a trial of an action or a suit, but are rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its
officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, [they are] in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly,
there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. [They] may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public
interest is [their] primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still
a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court
merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in
view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by
purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have prove[n] themselves no longer worthy to be
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. x x x.[28] (Italics supplied)

"In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required."[29] Based on the documentary
evidence submitted by the complainant, it appears that Atty. De Taza manifested a propensity for borrowing
money, issuing bouncing checks and incurring debts which she left unpaid without any reason. The
complainant even submitted a document evidencing Atty. De Taza's involvement in an estafa and violation
of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) No. 22 case filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor in Angeles City (I.S. 07-J-
2815-36) for drawing checks against a closed account, among other complaint-affidavits executed by her other
creditors. Such conduct, while already off-putting when attributed to an ordinary person, is much more
abhorrent when the same is exhibited by a member of the Bar. As a lawyer, Atty. De Taza must remember that
she is not only a symbol but also an instrument of justice, equity and fairness.

"We have held that 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."[30]

Atty. De Taza's actuations towards the complainant and his siblings were even worse as she had the gall to
make it appear to the complainant that the proceedings before the Court can be expedited and ruled in their
favor in exchange for an exorbitant amount of money. Said scheme was employed by Atty. De Taza just to milk
more money from her clients. Without a doubt, Atty. De Taza's actions are reprehensible and her greed more
than apparent when she even used the name of the Court to defraud her client.

When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an
accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for that particular purpose. And if he does not use
the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to his client.[31] In this case,
the purpose for which Atty. De Taza demanded money is baseless and non-existent. Thus, her demand should
not have even been made in the first place.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides for the disbarment or suspension of a lawyer for
any of the following: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5)
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyer's oath; (7) willful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court; and (8) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority to do so.
[32]

The Court in Victoria C. Heenan v. Atty. Erlinda Espejo[33] suspended the respondent from the practice of law
for two years when the latter issued checks which were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. In A-1
Financial Services, Inc. v. Valerio,[34] the same penalty was meted out by this Court to the erring lawyer who
issued worthless checks to pay off her loan.

Additionally, in Anacta v. Resurreccion,[35] the Court held that suspension from the practice of law for four years
was the appropriate sanction for a lawyer who defrauded his client into paying P42,000.00 to him for the
purported filing of a petition for annulment of marriage. The respondent therein presented to his client a copy of
the petition with stamped receipt from the trial court when in reality, no such petition was filed.

In Celaje v. Atty. Soriano,[36] the respondent therein demanded P14,000.00 from the complainant to be put up
as Injunction bond and asked for additional sums of money on other occasions, supposedly to pay the judge
who was handling the case. When the complainant verified this with the judge, the judge denied the
respondent's allegations. The complainant later learned that the bond was also unnecessary, as the
application for a writ was already denied by the trial court. Due to the foregoing, the Court suspended the
respondent from the practice of law for two years.

"Law is a noble profession, and the privilege to practice it is bestowed only upon individuals who are
competent intellectually, academically and, equally important, morally. Because they are vanguards of the law
and the legal system, lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their
clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach."[37] "The Judiciary has
been besieged enough with accusations of corruption and malpractice. For a member of the legal profession to
further stoke the embers of mistrust on the judicial system with such irresponsible representations is
reprehensible and cannot be tolerated."[38]

All told, the Court holds that there is no reason to deviate from the report and recommendation of the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline which is to suspend Atty. De Taza from the practice of law for two years.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Norlita De Taza is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO
YEARS with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more
severely.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts of the land, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as well as
the Office of the Bar Confidant for their information and guidance, and let it be entered in Atty. Norlita De
Taza's record in this Court.

SO ORDERED.

JOSE ALLAN TAN v. PEDRO S. DIAMANTE, AC. No. 7766, 2014-08-05

Facts:
On April 2, 2003, complainant, claiming to be a recognized illegitimate son of the late Luis Tan, secured the
services of respondent in order to pursue a case for partition of property against the heirs of the late spouses
Luis and Natividad Valencia-Tan.[2] After accepting the engagement, respondent filed the corresponding
complaint[3] before the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 46 (RTC), docketed as Civil Case No. 03-
11947. The complaint was eventually dismissed by the RTC in an
Order[4] dated July 25, 2007 for lack of cause of action and insufficiency of evidence.[5] While respondent was
notified of such dismissal as early as August 14, 2007,[6] complainant learned of the same only on
August 24, 2007 when he visited the former's office.[7] On such occasion, respondent allegedly asked for the
amount of P10,000.00 for the payment of appeal fees and other costs, but since complainant could not
produce the said amount at that time,... respondent, instead, asked and was given the amount of P500.00
purportedly as payment of the reservation fee for the filing of a notice of appeal before the RTC.[8] On
September 12, 2007, Tan handed the amount of P10,000.00 to respondent, who on even date,... filed a notice
of appeal[9] before the RTC
In an Order[11] dated September 18, 2007, the RTC dismissed complainant's appeal for having been filed
beyond the reglementary period provided for by law. Respondent, however, did not disclose such fact and,
instead, showed complainant an Order[12] dated November 9, 2007 purportedly issued by the RTC (November
9, 2007 Order) directing the submission of the results of a DNA testing to prove his filiation to the late Luis Tan,
within 15 days from receipt of the notice. Considering the technical requirements... for such kind of testing,
complainant proceeded to the RTC and requested for an extension of the deadline for its submission. It was
then that he discovered that the November 9, 2007 Order was spurious, as certified by the RTC's Clerk of
Court.[13]
Complainant also found out that, contrary to the representations of respondent, his appeal had long been
dismissed.[14] Aggrieved, he filed the instant administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent.
In his Comments/Compliance[15] dated September 4, 2009, respondent alleged that it was complainant's
failure to timely produce the amount of P1,400.00 to pay for the appeal fees that resulted in the late filing of his
appeal. According to him, he informed... complainant of the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal, but the
latter insisted in pursuing the same. He also claimed to have assisted complainant "not for money or malice"
but being a desperate litigant, he was blamed for the court's unfavorable decision.[16]
Issues:
The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating
the CPR.
Ruling:
After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court concurs with the IBP's findings, subject to the modification of
the recommended penalty to be imposed upon respondent.
Under Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR, it is the lawyer's duty to keep his client constantly updated on the
developments of his case as it is crucial in maintaining the latter's confidence, to wit:
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 client's request for information.
As an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform his client of whatever important information he
may have acquired affecting his client's case. He should notify his client of any adverse decision to enable his
client to decide whether to seek an appellate... review thereof. Keeping the client informed of the developments
of the case will minimize misunderstanding and loss of trust and confidence in the attorney. The lawyer should
not leave the client in the dark on how the lawyer is defending the client's interests.[22] In this connection, the
lawyer must constantly keep in mind that his actions, omissions, or nonfeasance would be binding upon his
client. Concomitantly, the lawyer is expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure,
and a client who deals... with him has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and
competence but also a whole-hearted fealty to the client's cause.[23]
In the case at bar, records reveal that as of August 14, 2007, respondent already knew of the dismissal of
complainant's partition case before the RTC. Despite this fact, he never bothered to inform complainant of
such dismissal as the latter only knew of the same on August 24,... 2007 when he visited the former's office.
To add insult to injury, respondent was inexcusably negligent in filing complainant's appeal only on September
12, 2007, or way beyond the reglementary period therefor, thus resulting in its outright dismissal. Clearly,
respondent failed... to exercise such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly
possess and exercise in such matters of professional employment.[24]
Worse, respondent attempted to conceal the dismissal of complainant's appeal by fabricating the November 9,
2007 Order which purportedly required a DNA testing to make it appear that complainant's appeal had been
given due course, when in truth, the same had long been denied. In... so doing, respondent engaged in an
unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct that caused undue prejudice and unnecessary expenses on the part
of complainant. Accordingly, respondent clearly violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, which provides:
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.
As officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of
morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing,[25] failing in which whether in his personal or private capacity, he
becomes unworthy to... continue his practice of law.[26] A lawyer's inexcusable neglect to serve his client's
interests with utmost diligence and competence as well as his engaging in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful
conduct in order to conceal such neglect should never be... countenanced, and thus, administratively
sanctioned.
As already discussed, respondent committed acts of falsification in order to misrepresent to his client, i.e.,
complainant, that he still had an available remedy in his case, when in reality, his case had long been
dismissed for failure to timely file an appeal, thus,... causing undue prejudice to the latter. To the Court,
respondent's acts are so reprehensible, and his violations of the CPR are so flagrant, exhibiting his moral
unfitness and inability to discharge his duties as a member of the bar. His actions erode rather than enhance
the... public perception of the legal profession. Therefore, in view of the totality of his violations, as well as the
damage and prejudice caused to his client, respondent deserves the ultimate punishment of disbarment.
WHEREFORE, respondent Pedro S. Diamante is hereby DISBARRED for Gross Misconduct and violations of
Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and his name is
ordered STRICKEN OFF from the roll of attorneys.

Case Digest: Estrella R. Sanchez, Complainant, v. Atty. Nicolas C. Torres, M.D., Respondent | A.C. No. 10240, 25
November 2014
December 19, 2017

Estrella R. Sanchez, Complainant, v. Atty. Nicolas C. Torres, M.D., Respondent

A.C. No. 10240, 25 November 2014

Facts:
      On 08 February 2007, complainant lend PhP 2,200,000.00 to the respondent. The respondent issued to checks
amounting to PhP 2,200,000.00 to the complainant and promised to pay the loan within a month with interest. After
a month’s time, the respondent failed to pay the complainant. The respondent told the complainant to deposit the
checks and assured her that the checks will be honored. On 2 May 2008, complainant to deposit the checks to her
account, but the same were returned due to ‘Account Closed.’

      Despite repeated demands for the last three years, the complainant has yet to pay his obligations  since the
complainant sought legal assistance. Formal demand letters were sent by the complainant’s lawyer which the
respondent received on 14 August 2008 and 17 November 2008, respectively, and the same proved futile as the
respondent failed and refused to pay his obligation. Nonetheless, the respondent, in his letter dated 9 May 2009,
promised to pay anew his loan in cash on or before 15 May 2009 as replacement for the two checks he previously
issued. But no payment was made. Hence, the instant complaint was filed on 28 November 2011 at the IBP-CBD. It
ordered the respondent to file an answer. After giving ample time for the respondent to answer to no avail, the IBP-
CBD issued its report and recommendation dated 15 June 2012, finding the respondent guilty of willful dishonesty and
unethical conduct for failure to pay just debt and for issuing checks without sufficient funds. The respondent was
recommended to be sanctioned with suspension from practice of law for at least two years. The IBP-Board of
Governors adopted and approved the IBP-CBD’s report and recommendation, and further ordered the return of loan
amounting to PhP 2,200,000.00 to the complainant with legal interest.

Issue:
      Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Held:
      The Supreme Court find the respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR.

      With regards to the return of the amount of PhP 2,200,000.00 to the complainant, the Supreme Court did not
sustain it because in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still
fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar.

      It was noted that the respondent was already disbarred in CF Sharp Crew Management v. Nicolas C. Torres for
violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR. The penalty of suspension or disbarment
can no longer be imposed. To resolve the instant case before the Court, the respondent was found guilty of gross
misconduct and violation of the CPR. The respondent is hereby suspended for two years from the practice of law.

ATTY. ILUMINADA M. VAFLOR-FABROA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. OSCAR PAGUINTO,

RESPONDENT.

An Information for Estafa[1] was filed on June 21, 2001 against Atty. Iluminada M. Vaflor-Fabroa
(complainant) along with others based on a joint affidavit-complaint which Atty. Oscar Paguinto
(respondent) prepared and notarized. As the joint affidavit-complaint did not indicate the
involvement of complainant, complainant filed a Motion to Quash the Information which the trial
court granted.[2] Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration of the quashal of the Information was
denied[3]

Respondent also filed six other criminal complaints against complainant for violation of Article 31
of Republic Act No. 6938 (Cooperative Code of the Philippines) before the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor, but he eventually filed a Motion to Withdraw them. [4]

On October 10, 2001, complainant, who was Chairperson of the General Mariano Alvarez Service
Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), received a Notice of Special General Assembly of GEMASCO on
October 14, 2001 to consider the removal of four members of the Board of Directors (the
Board), including her and the General Manager.[5] The notice was signed by respondent.

At the October 14, 2001 Special General Assembly presided by respondent and PNP Sr. Supt.
Angelito L. Gerangco (Gerangco), who were not members of the then current Board, [6] Gerango,
complainant's predecessor, as Chair of the GEMASCO board, declared himself Chair, appointed
others to replace the removed directors, and appointed respondent as Board Secretary.

On October 15, 2001, respondent and his group took over the GEMASCO office and its premises,
the pumphouses, water facilities, and operations. On even date, respondent sent letter-notices
to complainant and the four removed directors informing them of their removal from the Board
and as members of GEMASCO, and advising them to cease and desist from further discharging
the duties of their positions.[7]

Complainant thus filed on October 16, 2001 with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA)-
Calamba a complaint for annulment of the proceedings taken during the October 14, 2001
Special General Assembly.

The CDA Acting Regional Director (RD), by Resolution of February 21, 2002, declared the
questioned general assembly null and void for having been conducted in violation of GEMASCO's
By-Laws and the Cooperative Code of the Philippines.[8] The RD's Resolution of February 21,
2002 was later vacated for lack of jurisdiction[9] of CDA.

In her present complainant[10] against respondent for disbarment, complainant alleged that

respondent:

X X X PROMOTED OR SUED A GROUNDLESS, FALSE OR UNLAWFUL SUIT, AND GAVE AID AND
CONSENT TO THE SAME[11]

X X X DISOBEYED LAWS OF THE LAND, PROMOTE[D] DISRESPECT FOR LAW AND THE LEGAL
PROFESSION[12]

X X X DID NOT CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUE AND ENGAGED IN HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING
COUNSEL[13]

X X X VIOLATED CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE
BOUNDS OF THE LAW[14]

X X X RUINED AND DAMAGED NOT ONLY THE GEN. MARIANO ALVAREZ SERVICES
COOPERATIVE, INC. (GEMASCO, INC.) BUT THE ENTIRE WATER-CONSUMING COMMUNITY AS
WELL[15]

Despite the Court's grant,[16] on respondent's motion,[17] of extension of time to file Comment,
respondent never filed any comment. The Court thus required him to show cause why he should
not be disciplinarily dealt with,[18] but just the same he failed to comply.[19]

The Court thus referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report, and recommendation.[20]

It appears that during the mandatory conference before the IBP, complainant proposed the
following issues:

1. Whether or not the acts of respondent constitute violations of the Code of

Professional Responsibility, particularly the following:

1.1 Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
[processes].
1.2 Canon 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward his professional colleagues,
and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
1.3 Canon 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
1.4 Canon 19 - A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.
1.5 Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the
period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.

2.
3. Whether or not the above acts of respondent constitute violations of his lawyer's
oath, particularly the following:

2.1 support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein
2.2 will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court
2.3 will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
same
2.4 will delay no man for money or malice

4.
5. Whether or not the above acts of [respondent] complained of are grounds for
disbarment or suspension of attorneys by the Supreme Court as provided for in
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. [21]

Respondent's counsel who represented him during the conference proposed the issue of
whether, on the basis of the allegations of the complaint, misconduct was committed by
respondent.[22]

After the conclusion of the conference, both parties were ordered to submit position papers.
[23]
 Complainant filed hers,[24] but respondent, despite grant, on his motion, of extension of time,
did not file any position paper.

In her Report and Recommendation,[25] Investigating Commissioner Lolita A. Quisumbing found

respondent guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath as well as Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Noting that respondent had already been previously
suspended for six months, the Commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended for
two years.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) Board of Governors opted for the dismissal of the
complaint, however, for lack of merit.[26]

On Motion for Reconsideration,[27] the IBP-CBD Board of Governors recommended that

respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months.

The Court finds that by conniving with Gerangco in taking over the Board of Directors and the
GEMASCO facilities, respondent violated the provisions of the Cooperative Code of the
Philippines and the GEMASCO By-Laws. He also violated the Lawyer's Oath, which provides that
a lawyer shall support the Constitution and obey the laws.

When respondent caused the filing of baseless criminal complaints against complainant, he
violated the Lawyer's Oath that a lawyer shall "not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid or consent to the same."

When, after obtaining an extension of time to file comment on the complaint, respondent failed
to file any and ignored this Court's subsequent show cause order, he violated Rule 12.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that "A lawyer shall not, after obtaining
extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting
the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so." Sebastian v. Bajar[28] teaches:

x x x Respondent's cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court
constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondent's conduct indicates a high
degree of irresponsibility. A Court's Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere request, nor
should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively". Respondent's obstinate refusal
to comply with the Court's orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also
underscores her disrespect of the Court's lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.

Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and respondent's deference is
underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to
punishment for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is
imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect
to their processes.[29] (Citations omitted).

The Court notes that respondent had previously been suspended from the practice of law for six
months for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, [30] he having been found to have
received an acceptance fee and misled the client into believing that he had filed a case for her
when he had not.[31] It appears, however, that respondent has not reformed his ways. A more
severe penalty this time is thus called for.

WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto, is SUSPENDED for two years from the

practice of law for violation of Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath, effective immediately.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to
respondent's personal record as an attorney; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and all courts
in the country for their information and guidance.