VERONICA S. SANTIAGO, BENJAMIN Q. HONTIVEROS, MR. SOCORRO F.

MANAS, and TRINIDAD

NORDISTA, complainants, 
vs.
ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS, respondent

Atty. Amado Fojas tantamount to malpractice and negligence in the performance of his duty obligation to us, to
defend us in the aforesaid case. That the said attorney without informing us the reason why and riding high on the
trust and confidence we repose on him either abandoned, failed to act accordingly, or seriously neglected to
answer the civil complaint against us in the sala of Judge Teresita Capulong Case No. 3526-V-91 Val. Metro
Manila so that we were deduced [sic] in default.

The core issue that presents itself is whether the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary
action, in failing to file for the complainants an answer in Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 for which reason the latter were
declared in default and judgment was rendered against them on the basis of the plaintiff's evidence, which was
received ex-parte.

It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become his
client. He has the right to decline employment, 1 subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him. 2 He must serve the client with competence and diligence, 3 and champion the latter's
cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. 4 Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client,
warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the
end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. 5 This simply means that his
client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may
expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.

Certainly, "overzealousness" on the one hand and "volume and pressure of legal work" on the other are two distinct and
separate causes or grounds.

Whether it be the first or the second ground, the fact remains that the respondent did not comply with his duty to file an
answer in Civil Case No. 3526-V-91. was compounded by his erroneous belief that the trial court committed such error or
grave abuse of discretion and by his continued refusal to file His lack of diligence an answer even after he received the
Court of Appeals' decision in the certiorari case. There is no showing whatsoever that he further assailed the said decision
before this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to prove his claim of overzealousness to
challenge the trial court's order. Neither was it shown that he alleged in his motion to lift the order of default that the
complainants had a meritorious defense. 10 And, in his appeal from the judgment by default, he did not even raise as one
of the errors of the trial court either the impropriety of the order of default or the court's grave abuse of discretion in
denying his motion to lift that order.

Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the respondent's inability to exercise due diligence in the
performance of his duty to file an answer. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and
competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.

We do not therefore hesitate to rule that the respondent is not free from any blame for the sad fate of the complainants. He
is liable for inexcusable negligence.

WHEREFORE, ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS is hereby REPRIMANDED and ADMONISHED to be, henceforth, more
careful in the performance of his duty to his clients.

SO ORDERED

SIMON D. PAZ, complainant, 
vs.
ATTY. PEPITO A. SANCHEZ, respondent
This is a disbarment complaint filed by Simon D. Paz ("complainant") against Atty. Pepito A. Sanchez ("respondent") for
representing conflicting interests and violation of the lawyer's oath.

The Facts

In his complaint dated 23 July 2003, complainant stated that sometime in 1995, complainant and his partners, Alfredo
Uyecio and Petronila Catap, engaged the services of respondent to assist them purchase, as well as document the
purchase, of several parcels of land from tenant-farmers in Pampanga. Respondent was also tasked to defend
complainant's claim on the properties against the claim of a certain George Lizares ("Lizares").

The complaint arose because respondent, allegedly after the termination of his services in May 2000, filed a complaint
before the Department of Agrarian Reform Board ("DARAB case") in behalf of one Isidro Dizon ("Dizon") for annulment
of Transfer Certificate Title No. 420127-R ("TCT No. 420127-R") in the name of complainant and his
partners.1 Complainant explained that Dizon's property, covered by Emancipation Patent No. 00708554/Transfer
Certificate Title No. 25214 ("TCT No. 25214"), was among those properties purchased by complainant with respondent's
assistance.

 Complainant pointed out that respondent should be punished for forum shopping and preparing a false certification of
non-forum shopping because respondent failed to disclose complainant's pending petition before the DARAB.
Complainant also charged respondent with violation of the lawyer's oath because, "with malice and full knowledge of the
real facts," respondent filed groundless and false suits against complainant, his partners and Sycamore

Commissioner San Juan's Report and Recommendation finding respondent guilty of violating the prohibition against
representing conflicting interests.

Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts." Lawyers are deemed to represent
conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is their duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires
them to oppose.15 The proscription against representation of conflicting interest applies to a situation where the opposing
parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action.16

By respondent's own admission, when he filed the DARAB case on Dizon's behalf against complainant, both
complainant and Dizon were respondent's clients at that time. Respondent was representing complainant in the cases
against Lizares where respondent was duty-bound to defend complainant's title over the properties against the claims of
Lizares. While it is not clear from the records that the Lizares cases included Dizon's property, it is undisputed that
respondent acted as complainant's counsel in the Lizares cases. At the same time, respondent was also representing Dizon
before the DARAB for cancellation of lis pendens17 involving Dizon's property, which cancellation was needed for
complainant to purchase the Dizon property.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Pepito A. Sanchez GUILTY of violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The Court SUSPENDS respondent from the practice of law for ONE
YEAR and WARNS respondent that the commission of a similar act in the future will merit a more severe penalty.

SELWYN F. LAO, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROBERT W. MEDEL, respondent.

The Complaint arose from the [respondents] persistent refusal to make good on four (4) RCBC checks totaling [t]wenty
[t]wo [t]housand (P22,000.00) [p]esos. These dishonored checks were issued by defendant in replacement for previous
checks issued to the complainant. Based on the exchange of letters between the parties, it appears that [respondent], in a
letter dated June 19, 2001, had committed to forthwith effect immediate settlement of my outstanding obligation
of P22,000.00 with Engr. Lao, at the earliest possible time, preferably, on or before the end of June 2000. Again, in a
letter dated July 3, 2000, the [respondent] made a request for a final extension of only ten (10) days from June 30, 2000
(or not later than July 10, 2000), within which to effect payment of P22,000.00 to Engr. Lao. Needless to say, the
initiation of this present complaint proves that contrary to his written promises, Atty. Medel never made good on his
dishonored checks. Neither has he paid his indebtedness.[2]

Applying the afore-cited legal provision to the facts obtaining in the present case, it is clear that the offense with which
the respondent is being charged by the complainant, is merely a violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22, for
brevity), which is a special law, and is not punishable under the Revised Penal Code (RPC, for brevity). It is self-evident
therefore, that the offense is not in the same category as a violation of Article 315, paragraph 2, (d), RPC, which is issuing
a post-dated check or a check in payment of an obligation, with insufficient funds in the drawee bank, through false
pretenses or fraudulent acts, executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, which is a crime
involving moral turpitude;

Commissioner Cunanan found respondent guilty of violating the attorneys oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The former explained that, contrary to the latters claim, violation of BP 22 was a crime that involved
moral turpitude. Further, he observed that [w]hile no criminal case may have been instituted against [respondent], it is
beyond cavil that indeed, [the latter] committed not one (1) but four counts of violation of BP 22.[8] The refusal [by
respondent] to pay his indebtedness, his broken promises, his arrogant attitude towards complainants counsel and the
[commission sufficiently] warrant the imposition of sanctions against him.[9] Thus, the investigating commissioner
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law.
Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to
maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing.[11] In so doing,
the peoples faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured.
However, he reneged on his obligation despite sufficient time afforded him. Worse, he refused to recognize any
wrongdoing and transferred the blame to complainant, on the contorted reasoning that the latter had refused to accept the
formers plan of payment. It must be pointed out that complainant had no obligation to accept it, considering respondents
previous failure to comply with earlier payment plans for the same debt

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all members of the bar to obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law. Rule 1.01 of the Code specifically provides that [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. In Co v. Bernardino,[14] the Court considered the issuance of worthless checks as
a violation of this Rule and an act constituting gross misconduct. It explained thus:

The evidence on record clearly shows respondent's propensity to issue bad checks. This gross misconduct on his part,
though not related to his professional duties as a member of the bar, puts his moral character in serious doubt. The
Commission, however, does not find him a hopeless case in the light of the fact that he eventually paid his obligation to
the complainant, albeit very much delayed.

While it is true that there was no attorney-client relationship between complainant and respondent as the transaction
between them did not require the professional legal services of respondent, nevertheless respondent's abject conduct
merits condemnation from this Court.

We likewise take notice of the high-handed manner in which respondent dealt with Commissioner Cunanan during the
July 4, 2002 hearing, when the former was expected to settle his obligation with complainant. We cannot countenance the
discourtesy of respondent. He should be reminded that the IBP has disciplinary authority over him by virtue of his
membership therein

WHEREFORE, Atty. Robert W. Medel is found guilty of gross misconduct and is hereby SUSPENDED for one
year from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this Decision.He is warned that a repetition of the same or a
similar act will be dealt with more severely.
EDISON G. CHENG, complainant, vs. ATTY. ALEXANDER M. AGRAVANTE, respondent.

In the case at bar, respondents through counsel were duly served with a copy of the decision (Vol. 1, pp. 67-70) of Labor
Arbiter Newton R. Sancho, dated 18 June 1998, declaring complainant illegally dismissed from employment and
awarding him with separation pay and backwages in the total sum of P130,000.00 on September 8, 1998, Tuesday, said
date being indicated in the mailed decisions registry return receipt which is attached to the records (Vol. 1, p.
75). Consequently, respondents had ten (10) calendar days but not later than September 18, 1998, Friday to perfect their
appeal therefrom. However, the records similarly bear that this present appeal was filed belatedly by way of mail on 22
September 1998. It is necessary to state these facts candidly given the inaccurate certification by respondents counsel that
he received the decision being assailed on September 10, 1998.

Witness for the complainant

Balandra then called the office of Atty. Agravante to ask if she can submit the bond on Monday, September 21,
1998. She was told to stay on the line while the secretary consulted with one of the other lawyers in the office. When the
secretary came back, she informed Balandra that she could submit the bond on Monday, September 21, 1998 as long as it
reached the law office before 5:00 p.m.[5]

Rule 10.01 ---A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow
the court to be misled by any artifice.

In the case at bar, Agravante lied when he said he received the Labor Arbiters decision on September 10, 1998 in
order to make it appear that his Memorandum of Appeal was filed on time.
It cannot be stressed enough how important it is for a lawyer as an officer of the court to observe honesty at all times,
especially before the courts.[16] A lawyer must be a disciple of truth,[17] and Agravante has clearly failed to live up to this
duty.
Moreover, the Code of Professional Responsibility states that:

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

x x x x x x x x x

Rule 18.03 --- A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable.

A lawyer owes entire devotion in protecting the interest of his client, warmth and zeal in the defense of his rights. He
must use all his learning and ability to the end that nothing can be taken or withheld from his client except in accordance
with the law. He must present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law in support of his clients cause,
regardless of his own personal views. In the full discharge of his duties to his client, the lawyer should not be afraid of the
possibility that he may displease the judge or the general public.[18]
In this case, respondents filing of the Memorandum of Appeal four (4) days after the deadline proves that his efforts
fell short of the diligence required of a lawyer. His failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period constitutes
negligence and malpractice proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provide that a lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.[19]
Agravantes insistence that it was not his place to file an appeal without express instructions from his client to do so is
not persuasive. He could easily withdraw the appeal if his client should later decide not to pursue the same.[20]
Furthermore, the belated filing of the Memorandum of Appeal cannot in any way mitigate respondents liability; on the
contrary, it shows ignorance on his part. As a lawyer, he ought to know that his Memorandum of Appeal, having been
filed beyond the reglementary period, would surely be struck down for late filing.[21]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Alexander M. Agravante is SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for a period of one (1) year and is FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). He is STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely

IRENE RAYOS-OMBAC, complainant, vs. ATTY. ORLANDO A. RAYOS, respondent.

This case stemmed from a petition for disbarment filed with this Court by Mrs. Irene Rayos-Ombac against her
nephew, Atty. Orlando A. Rayos, a legal practitioner in Metro Manila, for "his failure to adhere to the standards of mental
and moral fitness set up for members of the bar."[1]
Respondent then advised complainant to deposit the money with Union Bank where he was working. He also urged
her to deposit the money in his name to prevent the other heirs of her husband from tracing the same.
Complainant heeded the advice of respondent. On January 22, 1985, respondent deposited the amount
of P588,000.00 with Union Bank under the name of his wife in trust for seven beneficiaries, including his son. The
maturity date of the time deposit was May 22, 1985.
On May 21, 1985, complainant made a demand on respondent to return the P588,000.00 plus interest. Respondent
told her that he has renewed the deposit for another month and promised to return the whole amount including interest on
June 25, 1985. Respondent, however, failed to return the money on June 25, 1985.
Respondent, nonetheless, asserted that he was not duty-bound to fund the check because under paragraph 2 of the
memorandum of agreement, he only guaranteed that the checks shall be "backed up with sufficient funds on a best efforts
basis." This prompted the other relatives of respondent and complainant to intervene in the brewing dispute between the
two. They begged respondent to pay his obligation to complainant. Heeding their plea, respondent replaced UCPB Check
No. 487974 with two new checks, one for P64,800.00 and another for P35,200.00. Complainant was able to encash the
first check but not the second because it was dishonored by the drawee bank. The remaining checks, UCPB Check No.
487975 and UCPB Check No. 487976, were likewise dishonored by the drawee bank for lack of funds

On November 15, 1985, complainant filed a complaint for estafa against respondent and a corresponding information
was filed against him by the provincial fiscal.
First, in February 1985, respondent filed a criminal case for estafa against complainant. It appears that respondent has
previously told the tenants of a parcel of land owned by complainant that she had promised to sell them the land and that
she had authorized him to negotiate with them. He obtained from the tenants advance payment for the lots they were
occupying. Respondent then prepared a special power of attorney[3] authorizing him to sell the land and asked complainant
to sign it. Complainant, however, refused to sign because she did not intend to make respondent her attorney-in-
fact. Hence, the tenants sued respondent for estafa. Respondent, in turn, sued complainant for estafa for allegedly reneging
on her promise to sell the land.
Thus, in June 1986, complainant filed with this Court a complaint to disbar respondent on two grounds: (1) that
respondent employed clever scheme to defraud complainant, and (2) that respondent filed frivolous cases against
complainant to harass her.
Respondent subsequently filed a complaint for disbarment against complainant's counsel, Atty. Abelardo Viray. The
complaint cited four causes of action: (1) assisting client to commit tax fraud; (2) use of unorthodox collection
method; (3) ignorance of the law; and (4) subornation of perjury.[6]
We deny the motion of respondent.
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:

"A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

Rule 1.03 of the same Code, on the other hand, provides:

"A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause."
Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as his oath as an attorney when he deceived his 85-
year old aunt into entrusting to him all her money, and later refused to return the same despite demand. Respondent's
wicked deed was aggravated by the series of unfounded suits he filed against complainant to compel her to withdraw the
disbarment case she filed against him. Indeed, respondent's deceitful conduct makes him unworthy of membership in the
legal profession. The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that he shall be of good moral character. This qualification
is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain
one's good standing in the profession.
[14]
 Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of
complainant or his withdrawal of the charges. In the instant case, it has been sufficiently proved that respondent has
engaged in deceitful conduct, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent is hereby DISBARRED. Let a copy of this decision be attached to respondent's
record in the Bar Confidant's Office and furnished the IBP and all our courts.

FERNANDO C. CRUZ AND AMELIA CRUZ, complainants, vs. ATTY. ERNESTO C.

JACINTO, respondents. Jurisä

The evidence of the complainants show that sometime in June 1990, Atty. Ernesto Jacinto, lawyer of the
couple in an unrelated case, requested the Cruz spouses for a loan in behalf of a certain Concepcion G.
Padilla, who he claimed to be an old friend as she was allegedly in need of money. The loan requested
was for PhP 285,000.00 payable after 100 days for PhP 360,000 to be secured by a real estate mortgage
on a parcel of land located at Quezon City. Scä juris

The spouses, believing and trusting the representations of their lawyer that Padilla was a good risk,
authorized him to start preparing all the necessary documents relative to the registration of the Real Estate
Mortgage to secure the payment of the loan in favor of the Cruz spouses.

Upon maturity of the loan on 15 October 1990, the spouses demanded payment from Concepcion G.
Padilla by going to the address given by the respondent but there proved to be no person by that name
living therein. When the complainants verified the genuineness of TCT No. 127275 with Register of
Deeds of Quezon City, it was certified by the said office to be a fake and spurious title. Further efforts to
locate the debtor-mortgagor likewise proved futile. 

In their sworn affidavits given before the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the spouses claim that
they relied much on the reassurances made by Atty. Jacinto as to Concepcion G. Padillas credit,
considering that he was their lawyer. It was also their trust and confidence in Atty. Jacinto that made them
decide to forego meeting the debtor-mortgagor.

It is every lawyers sworn duty to obey the laws of the land to promote respect for law and legal processes.
The Code of Professional Responsibility command that he shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. (Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility) Jjä lex

In the instant case, there was a clear yet unrebutted allegation in the complaint that the Respondent had
ordered his secretary and housemaid to falsify the signatures of the notary public and the Deputy Register
of Deeds respectively to make it appear that the real estate mortgage contract was duly registered and thus
binding.

While it may be true that the complaint for Estafa thru Falsification filed against the Respondent had been
dismissed, the dismissal was because of the complainants voluntary desistance and not a finding of
innocence. It neither confirms nor denies Respondents non-culpability. Furthermore, it is well-settled that
disciplinary proceedings are "sui generis", the primary object of which is not so much to punish the
individual attorney himself, as to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the court and the
public from the misconduct of lawyers, and to remove from the professions persons whose disregard of
their oath have proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the bar.
 Thus, disciplinary cases may still proceed despite the dismissal of civil and/or criminal cases against a
lawyer

As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction must be
characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. However, the measure of good faith which an attorney
is required to exercise in his dealings with this client is a much higher standard than is required in
business dealings where the parties trade at arms length. Business transactions between an attorney and
his client are disfavored and discouraged by the policy of the law. Hence, courts carefully watch these
transactions to be sure that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his client

Respondent utterly failed to perform his duties and responsibilities faithfully and well as to protect the rights and interests
of his clients and by his deceitful actuations constituting violations of the Code of Professional Responsibilities must be
subjected to disciplinary measures for his own good, as well as for the good of the entire membership of the Bar as a
whole.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby adopts the resolution of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines and orders respondent Atty. Ernesto C. Jacinto suspended from the practice of law for
six (6) months with the warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more
severely

ATTY. AUGUSTO G. NAVARRO, for and in behalf of PAN-ASIA INTERNATIONAL COMMODITIES,

INC., complainant, vs. ATTY. ROSENDO MENESES III, respondent.
respondent received the sum of P50,000.00 from Arthur Bretaa, the accused in said case, to be given to therein
offended party, a certain Gleason, as consideration for an out-of-court settlement and with the understanding that a motion
to dismiss the case would be filed by respondent Meneses.
Despite subsequent repeated requests, respondent failed to present to his client the receipt acknowledging that Gleason
received said amount. A verification made with the Regional Trial Court of Makati revealed that no motion to dismiss or
any pleading in connection therewith had been filed, and the supposed amicable settlement was not finalized and
concluded.Despite repeated demands in writing or by telephone for an explanation, as well as the turnover of all
documents pertaining to the aforementioned case, respondent Meneses deliberately ignored the pleas of herein
complainant

In said motion, respondent argued that Atty. Navarro had no legal personality to sue him for and in behalf of Pan-Asia
International Commodities, Inc. because his legal services were retained by Frankwell Management and Consultant, Inc.;
that Navarro had not represented Pan-Asia International Commodities, Inc. in any case nor had been authorized by its
board ofdirectors to file this disbarment case against respondent; that the retainer agreement between him and Frankwell
Management and Consultant, Inc. had been terminated as of December 31, 1993 according to the verbal advice of its
Administrative Officer Estrellita Valdez; that the case of Arthur Bretaa was not part of their retainer agreement, and
Bretaa was not an employee of Frankwell Management and Consultant, Inc. which retained him as its legal counsel; and
that the settlement of said case cannot be concluded because the same was archived and accused Bretaa is presently out of
the country

On February 4, 1997, the Commission on Bar Discipline, through its Investigating Commissioner Victor C.
Fernandez, submitted its Report and Recommendation[14] to the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. The Commission ruled that the refusal and/or failure of respondent to account for the sum of P50,000.00 he
received from complainant for the settlement of the aforestated case of Lai Chan Kow and Arthur Bretaa proves beyond
any shadow of a doubt that he misappropriated the same, hence he deserved to be penalized.
 Such conduct on the part of respondent indicating his unfitness for the confidence and trust reposed on him, or
showing such lack of personal honesty or of good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence,
constitutes a ground for disciplinary action extending to disbarment.[18]
Respondent Meneses misconduct constitute a gross violation of his oath as a lawyer which, inter alia, imposes upon every
lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. He blatantly disregarded Rule 16.01 of Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for
or from his client. Respondent was merely holding in trust the money he received from his client to used as consideration
for amicable settlement of a case he was handling. Since the amicable settlement did no materialize, he was necessarily
under obligation to immediate return the money, as there is no showing that he has a lien over it. As a lawyer, he should
be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to him in his professional capacity, because a high degree of fidelity
and good faith on his part is exacted

The argument of respondent that complainant has no legal personality to sue him is unavailing. Section 1 Rule 139-B of
the Rules of Court provides that proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by
the Supreme Court motu propio or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines upon the verified complainant of any
person. The right to institute a disbarment proceeding is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person
complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the
only basis for judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charge. 

Besides, if the purpose was to extenuate the liability of respondent, the only possible and equivalent rule is in
malversation cases holding that the restitution of the peculated funds would be analogous to voluntary surrender if it was
immediately and voluntarily made before the case was instituted.[26] The evidently is not the situation here. Also the
implementation of the penalty provided in the resolution will involve a cumbersome process since, in order to arrive at the
final action to be taken by this Court, it will have to wait for a verified report on whether or not respondent complied with
the condition subsequent.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Rosendo Meneses III is hereby DISBARRED. Let a copy of this decision be attached to
respondents personal records in this Court and furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, together with all courts in
the county

ROMANA R. MALIGSA, complainant, vs. ATTY. ARSENIO FER CABANTING, respondent.

ATTY. ARSENIO FER CABANTING is charged by Romana R. Maligsa in a verified affidavit-complaint for disbarment
with conduct unbecoming a lawyer for certifying under oath a Deed of Quitclaim dated 5 May 1992[1] over a piece of
property subject of a pending civil case

the evidence clearly discloses that on 5 May 1992 a Deed of Quitclaim was purportedly executed by one Irene Maligsa in
favor of Juanito V. Abaoag over a parcel of land located in Cablong, Pozorrubio, Pangasinan.[3]

The complainant alleges that the Deed of Quitclaim could not have been executed and notarized on 5 May 1992 because
the affiant Irene Maligsa died on 21 April 1992 or sixteen (16) days earlier.[4] Moreover, Irene Maligsa could not have
signed the document because she "never knew how to write as she uses the thumb mark in every transaction she entered

Furthermore, the Acknowledgment contained in the questioned document specifically provides "BEFORE ME

personally appeared IRENE MALIGSA x x x x" [7] Clearly, the party acknowledging must personally appear before the
Notary Public or any other person authorized to take such acknowledgment of instruments or documents.
In the case before us, it would have been physically and legally impossible for the affiant Irene Maligsa to have executed
the alleged Deed of Quitclaim on 5 May 1992 and to have personally subscribed to its authenticity and validity before
respondent notary public on the same date, affiant having died on 21 April 1992

Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and protection
of the interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon
the public and the courts and the administrative offices generally.[10] Notarization of a private document converts the
document into a public one making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.
As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining to
his office, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost
respect of the legal solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. Simply put, such responsibility is
incumbent upon respondent and failing therein, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional
indiscretion. By his effrontery of notarizing a fictitious or spurious document, he has made a mockery of the legal
solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment.
A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which
shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer
of the court. [11] Considering the serious nature of the instant offense and in light of his prior misconduct hereinbefore
mentioned for which he was penalized with a six (6) month suspension from the practice of law, with a warning that
repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely, the contumacious behavior of respondent in the
instant case which grossly degrades the legal profession indeed warrants the imposition of a much graver penalty.
ATTY. ARSENIO FER CABANTING guilty of grave misconduct rendering him unworthy of his continued
membership in the legal profession; consequently, he is ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name
stricken off the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately.

CRISTINO G. CALUB, complainant, vs. ATTY. ARBRAHAM A. SULLER, respondents

What is before the Court is a complaint for disbarment against respondent premised on grossly immoral conduct for
having raped his neighbor's wife.

As the respondent was a friend of the family and a neighbor, the complainant's wife let him in. Thereafter,
respondent began touching her in different parts of her body. When she protested, respondent threatened her and forced
her to have sexual intercourse with him. At that moment, complainant returned home to get money to pay for real estate
taxes. When he entered the house, he saw his wife and respondent having sexual intercourse on the bed. [1] She was kicking
respondent with one foot while the latter pressed on her arms and other leg, preventing her from defending herself
The testimonies of witnesses in the criminal complaint, particularly that of the complainant suffice to show that
respondent acted in a grossly reprehensible manner in having carnal knowledge of his neighbor's wife without her consent
in her very home.

"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, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy
to continue as an officer of the court."[12]

WHEREFORE, respondent Abraham A. Suller is DISBARRED from the practise of law. Let his name be stricken off
the Roll of Attorneys.

PIKE P. ARRIETA, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOEL A. LLOSA, respondent.

Complainant Pike P. Arrieta prays for the disbarment of Atty. Joel A. Llosa for certifying under oath a Deed of
Absolute Sale.
Particularly, complainant avers that respondent notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 24, 1993[1] making it
appear that some of the vendors in said Deed namely, Edelina T. Bonilla, Jesus T. Bonilla and Leonardo P. Toledano were
parties and signatories thereto when in truth and in fact, all three were already dead prior to the execution of the said Deed
of Absolute Sale. Jesus T. Bonilla died on August 22, 1992[2] while Leonardo P. Toledano died on November 1, 1992.
[3]
 Edelina T. Bonilla allegedly died on or about June 11, 1992.
 In the Acknowledgment of the Deed of Sale, respondent certified: BEFORE ME, this 24th day of March, 1993 at
Dumaguete City, Philippines, personally appeared x x x Jesus Bonilla; x x x Leonardo Toledano; x x x.[5] Respondent
claims that as a Notary Public, he asked the signatories whether the signatures appearing above their respective names
were theirs, and whether they voluntarily executed the Deed of Absolute Sale. In order to ascertain their identities,
respondent asked for their respective residence certificates.
Yet, respondent certified to this effect. By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute
Sale, from being a private document into a public document. By certifying the Deed, respondent, in effect

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. On the contrary, it is invested with substantial public
interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization of a private
document converts the document into a public one making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.
[6]
 A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason, notaries public must
observe with the utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the
public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.[7]
Pursuant to the foregoing, it is primarily required of lawyers to obey the Constitution and laws of the land. [11] They
must refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.[12]
ACCORDINGLY, this Court finds respondent Atty. Joel A. Llosa guilty of misconduct. Consequently, he is
ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective immediately, with a warning that another
infraction would be dealt with more severely

DOMINGO R. MARCELO, Petitioner, v. ATTY. ADRIANO S. JAVIER, SR., Respondent.

Vicente Peñala for Petitioner.

In a verified letter-complaint 1 dated May 19, 1988, complainant Domingo R. Marcelo charges respondent Atty. Adriano
S. Javier, Sr. with conduct unbecoming of a lawyer in connection with a transaction over complainant’s residential lot as
security for a loan. Pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court and the resolution of the Court en banc of April 12,
1988, the present administrative case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar
Discipline for investigation, report and recommendation.

The said letter-complaint, along with complainant’s affidavit 2 required in the order dated April 5, 1989 of the said IBP
commission, set forth complainant’s material allegations on his plaint. It appears that on November 13, 1984 complainant
mortgaged his unregistered land consisting of 1,045 square meters located at Cambaog, Bustos, Bulacan to mortgagee Sy
Hun Tek as security for a loan in the alleged amount of P80,000.00 payable on November 15, 1985 with legal interest,
with the deed of mortgage having been prepared and notarized by respondent as the family lawyer of the mortgagee

Upon complainant’s default on two months’ installments on the loan, respondent went to the house of complainant at a
time when the latter was sick and asked him to sign some papers which respondent told complainant were merely to
confirm the latter’s obligation to Sy Hun Tek. Relying thereon and because of his confidence in respondent, complainant
signed the papers without being given copies thereof.

A few weeks thereafter, complainant learned that the mortgaged property had been foreclosed and sold to one Enrico
Perez, a resident of the place where the land is situated. There was no public auction nor the posting of appropriate notices
thereof as prescribed by law. Moreover, the sale of the mortgaged property by Sy Hun Tek to Perez was within the
redemption period.

RURAL BANK OF SILAY, INC., complainant, vs. ATTY. ERNESTO H. PILLA, respondent.

Rural Bank of Silay. Inc. (complainant) filed with this Court the instant complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Ernesto H. Pilla (respondent) alleging deceit and gross misconduct on the part of the latter.The complaint alleges as
follows:
the respondent executed a Real Estate Mortgage in favor of the complainant over a parcel of land located in the
Municipality of Sagay, Negros Occidental, That together with the aforesaid Real Estate Mortgage the respondent
submitted a Special Power of Attorney by virtue of which he was purportedly authorized and empowered by the registered
owners Pedro Torres and Oscar D. Granada to mortgage the aforesaid parcel of land in favor of the complainant
complainant subsequently and much later learned that the respondent was not at all authorized and empowered by the
registered owner Oscar D. Granada to mortgage the aforesaid parcel of land when it was joined as a defendant in a
complaint filed by the aforesaid Oscar D. Grananda for removal of cloud on title with preliminary injunction and damages
Court found that the Special Power of Attorney, Annex B, was indeed forged and falsified because the spouses Oscar D.
Grananda and Lolita L. Granada have not signed the same and wherein the Court also made the finding that the defendant,
considering that he has benefited from the said falsified document, is presumed to have a hand in the preparation of the
same. 

That the foregoing acts of the respondent in presenting to the complainant Bank a forged and falsified Power of Attorney
for the purpose of obtaining a loan is a betrayal of his oath as a lawyer to do falsehood to no man and by his conduct
herein has forfeited his right to continue further in the practice of law

There is no showing that respondent, despite the adverse decision, returned or offered to return the money he took from
the complainant bank. The bank then instituted this disbarment proceeding against the respondent.[3]

The IBP found from the above facts that respondent violated his oath as a lawyer to do no falsehood, thus:

The trial court stressed that:

Although there is no showing that Atty. Ernesto H. Pilla has actually falsified the signatures of the spouses, Atty. Oscar D.
Granada, yet considering that he actually benefited from the said falsified documents, he is presumed to have a hand on
the same

why did he not explain before the trial court or before this office the circumstances on how he obtained the same. He did
not even bother to identify his alleged client who provided him the forged Special Power of Attorney. Instead, respondent
is banking on his defense that the complainant bank has not introduced any evidence to prove that he forged the Special
Power of Attorney.

since respondent actually benefited from the falsified document, he is presumed to have a hand in the falsification of the
same. Respondent miserably failed to rebut this presumption with his barefaced denial that he had no knowledge of the
forgery. The Court cannot give credence to respondents negative assertion that he did not know that the special power of
attorney issued in his favor was falsified. As a lawyer, respondent knows or ought to know that parties to a public
document must personally appear before the notary public to attest that the same is their own free act and deed. In utter
disregard of this requirement, respondent caused the special power of attorney to be notarized without the parties
appearing before the notary public

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds respondent Atty. Ernesto H. Pilla guilty of misconduct. He is suspended
from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years effective from receipt of this Resolution, with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar offense will be more severely dealt with.
MARILOU SEBASTIAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. DOROTHEO CALIS, respondent.
For unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct as well as violation of his oath as lawyer, respondent Atty.
Dorotheo Calis faces disbarment.
Complainant (Marilou Sebastian) alleged that sometime in November, 1992, she was referred to the respondent who
promised to process all necessary documents required for complainants trip to the USA for a fee of One Hundred Fifty
Thousand Pesos

Realizing that she will be travelling with spurious documents, the complainant demanded the return of her money,
however she was assured by respondent that there was nothing to worry about for he has been engaged in the business for
quite sometime; with the promise that her money will be refunded if something goes wrong

On September 9, 1994 the complainant was deported back to the Philippines and respondent fetched her from the airport
and brought her to his residence at 872-A Tres Marias Street, Sampaloc, Manila.Respondent took complainants passport
with a promise that he will secure new travel documents for complainant. Since complainant opted not to pursue with her
travel, she demanded for the return of her money in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00).
In May 1997 the complainant again tried to see the respondent however she found out that the respondent had transferred
to an unknown residence apparently with intentions to evade responsibility.

We likewise concur with the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution, that herein respondent is guilty of gross
misconduct by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct contrary to Canon 1, Rule 101 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Respondent deceived the complainant by assuring her that he could give her visa and
travel documents; that despite spurious documents nothing untoward would happen; that he guarantees her arrival in the
USA and even promised to refund her the fees and expenses already paid, in case something went wrong. All for material
gain.

Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a
lawyer. They are unacceptable practices. A lawyers relationship with others should be characterized by the highest degree
of good faith, fairness and candor. This is the essence of the lawyers oath. The lawyers oath is not mere facile words, drift
and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable. [6] The nature of the office of an attorney requires
that he should be a person of good moral character. [7] This requisite is not only a condition precedent to admission to the
practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law

Here, it is worth noting that the adamant refusal of respondent to comply with the orders of the IBP and his total
disregard of the summons issued by the IBP are contemptuous acts reflective of unprofessional conduct. Thus, we find no
hesitation in removing respondent Dorotheo Calis from the Roll of Attorneys for his unethical, unscrupulous and
unconscionable conduct toward complainant.
WHEREFORE, respondent Dorotheo Calis is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered stricken from the Roll
of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be FURNISHED to the IBP and the Bar Confidant to be spread on the personal
records of respondent. Respondent is likewise ordered to pay to the complainant immediately the amount of One Hundred
Fourteen Thousand (P114,000.00) Pesos representing the amount he collected from her.