TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. JOVITA B. LAMSIS , vs. JUDE F. 1

SALES, SR., Process Server,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 10,
La Trinidad, Benguet
[A.M. No. P-17-3772. January 10,
2018.] (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-
3999-P)

2. ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT
3
AGAINST EMELIANO C. CAMAY,
JR., UTILITY WORKER I, BRANCH
61, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BOGO CITY, CEBU
[A.M. No. P-17-3659. March 20,
2018.]

3. JILDO A. GUBATON vs. ATTY. 6

AUGUSTUS SERAFIN D. AMADOR
[A.C. No. 8962. July 9, 2018.]

4. OLIVER FABUGAIS vs ATTY. 8

BERARDO C. FAUNDO JR. ,
[A.C. No. 10145. June 11, 2018.]

5. PAULINO LIM vs. ATTY. 11

SOCRATES R. RIVERA
[A.C. No. 12156. June 20, 2018.]

6. ALFRED LEHNERT vs. ATTY. 13

DENNIS L. DIÑ O
[A.C. No. 12174. August 28, 2018.]

7. CONSOLIDATED CASES 14
AAA vs. ATTY. ANTONIO N. DE
LOS REYES [A.C. No. 10021.
September 18, 2018.] & AAA, , vs.
ATTY. ANTONIO N. DE LOS REYES
[A.C. No. 10022. September 18,
2018.]
 1
JOVITA B. LAMSIS vs. JUDE F. SALES, SR., Process Server, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 10, La Trinidad, Benguet, 
[A.M. No. P-17-3772, January 10, 2018.]
FACTS:
In an undated Complaint, Jovita narrated that she is an employee of
Sparrow Integrated Services, Inc., assigned as a janitress in the Hall of
Justice, Benguet from 2004 up to the present. On October 6, 2012, she
arrived at the RTC for her Saturday duty. While she was removing the
garbage from the trash bin located at the second floor of the HOJ she saw
respondent walking towards her, holding his private organ and showing it
to her. Shocked, she called respondent "bastos" and nervously ran to the
first floor to seek help. She claimed that it took her two days to muster the
courage to disclose her ordeal to her co-worker and later to the Vice
Executive Judge. She asserted that respondent's indecent act towards her
constitutes sexual harassment and prayed for his preventive suspension
pending investigation
The OCA recommended that the administrative complaint against
respondent for sexual harassment be dismissed for being premature and
that the entire records of the complaint be referred to the Committee on
Decorum and Investigation (CODI) for its corresponding action in
accordance with A.M. 03-03-13-SC. 
In a Resolution , the Court adopted the OCA's recommendation.
Hence, in a Memorandum, the OCA referred the administrative complaint
to the Chairperson of the CODI, for corresponding action as
recommended.
The Report recommended the dismissal of the complaint for sexual
harassment against respondent, without prejudice to him being charged
of disgraceful and immoral conduct.  The CODI found Jovita's allegations
as true, noting that respondent had been convicted of Unjust Vexation for
the same act, but ruled that respondent cannot be held liable for sexual
harassment due to the lack of the element of moral ascendancy over
Jovita. This notwithstanding, it found that respondent's actuation was
reprehensible and constituted disgraceful and immoral conduct in
violation of the Civil Service Rules.
In a Memorandum dated September 29, 2017, the OCA
recommended that: (a) the administrative complaint against respondent
be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; and (b) respondent be
found guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct, this being his second
offense of the same nature; that he be dismissed from the service, with
forfeiture of his retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, if any,
and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government
service. 
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of disgraceful and immoral
conduct.
RULING:
Yes. Immoral conduct has been defined as conduct that is willful,
flagrant or shameless, showing moral indifference to the opinion of the
good and respectable members of the community, and includes conduct
inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency,
depravity and dissoluteness.  Section 1 of the Civil Service Commission
Memorandum Circular No. 15, Series of 2010 particularly defines
disgraceful and immoral conduct as a willful act that violates the basic
norm of decency, morality and decorum abhorred and condemned by the
society.
In this case, the OCA's findings that respondent deliberately exposed
his private organ to Jovita and exhibited "gross sexual innuendo" are well
supported by the records. In this relation, the Court notes that respondent
was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Unjust Vexation for the
same acts by the Municipal Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet in a
Decision  dated May 14, 2014, which conviction was subsequently
affirmed, on appeal, by the Regional Trial Court, La Trinidad, Benguet,
Branch 63.
A final word. "It cannot be overstressed that the image of a court of
justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel
who work thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel."  Court
employees should be circumspect on how they conduct themselves in their
professional and private affairs in order to preserve the good name and
integrity of courts of justice.  Respondent's actuation in this case is
reprehensible and has no place in any decent society, more so in the
premises of the HOJ that deserves respect from its employees even during
unofficial hours. This is a clearly offensive and indecent behavior which the
Court cannot countenance. Respondent was DISMISSED from the service
effective immediately, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits.
 2
ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST EMELIANO C. CAMAY, JR., UTILITY
WORKER I, BRANCH 61, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BOGO CITY, CEBU.
[A.M. No. P-17-3659. March 20, 2018.]
FACTS:
By letter dated February 18, 2003, an anonymous complainant
charged Emeliano C. Camay, Jr., the Utility Worker 1 of Branch 61 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Bogo City, Cebu with various serious offenses.
The complainant alleged that Camay, a married man, had been cohabiting
with a woman who was not his wife, and they had a son by the name of
Junmar; that he had been serving as the contact person of a surety
company in the posting of surety bonds in the RTC; that for every 10 bonds
processed, he would receive the proceeds for the 11th bond; that he had
allowed a representative of the surety company to wait at his table, beside
the desk of the clerk of court; that he was the owner of a big house, a
motorcycle, and an iPhone; that he had demanded P20,000.00 for the
entertainment of the Presiding Judge Antonio D. Marigomen; and that he
had a collection of pictures of naked girls in his phone that he showed to
anyone interested in engaging in sexual activity for money.
The complaint was referred to Executive Judge Teresita Abarquez-
Galandia of the RTC in Mandaue City for discreet investigation.
The files of Camay in the Office of Administrative Services of the Office
of the Court Administrator (OCA) showed that Camay was married to Mary
Joy Y. Santiago; that his Personal Data Sheet (PDS), BIR form No. 2305 and
SALN for 2003 carried the notation of "married/but separated in fact"
regarding his civil status; that he had left blank the space for the name of
his spouse in the forms for 2002; that he declared as a dependent child in
his undated BIR Form No. 2305 one "Jumar Guevarra Camay," who was
born on July 25, 2001; and that his PDS and SALN for various periods from
2005 to 2011 revealed a Jumar Camay, born on July 25, 2002, as one of his
children below 18 years of age.
 
It appeared in Camay's SALNs for 2001, 2003 and 2004 that he had a
house worth between P40,000.00 and P60,000.00 in Taytayan Hills, Bogo
City but without any indication on the date of his acquisition; that in 2009,
he declared his acquisition in that year of a house and lot worth
P350,000.00 in Taytayan; that in his 2011 SALN, he declared the same
property to be worth at P500,000.00; that he did not declare any real
property in his SALNs for 2002, 2007 and 2008; that he also declared in his
SALN dated April 20, 2012 a motorcycle worth P45,000.00 acquired in
2002, and another one worth P68,900.00 acquired in 2012; that his SALNs
showed that he did not have any other source of income like business
interests or financial connections; and that his monthly salary was his only
source of income.
The OCA, agreeing with the report and recommendation of Judge
Galanida, recommended that Camay be found and declared guilty of
disgraceful and immoral conduct punishable under Section 46, Rule 10 of
the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) for
cohabiting with a woman who was not his wife, and having a child with her;
that he be also held to have violated Section 8, in relation to Section 11, of
Republic Act No. 6713 for failing to properly disclose his real property in
several of his SALNs; and that on the matter of bail bond fixing, he be found
to have facilitated or secured bail bonds in violation of Administrative
Circular No. 5, series of 1988.
ISSUE:
Whether Camay may be found guilty of immorality, disgraceful
conduct and bail bond fixing
RULING:
Yes. On the issue of immorality, Camay admitted to cohabiting with a
woman who was not his wife and to having a child with her despite his
marriage to his wife not having been legally severed. As such, the finding of
the OCA that Camay was guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct is
upheld. In Anonymous v. Radam, the Court declared that "if the father of the
child born out of wedlock is himself married to a woman other than the
mother, there is a cause for administrative sanction against either the
father or the mother. In such a case, the 'disgraceful and immoral conduct'
consists of having extramarital relations with a married person." 
Furthermore, we uphold the recommendation of the OCA on Camay's
surety bail fixing activities. Prosecutor Moralde attested that it was public
knowledge in the RTC that Camay was the man to approach if any party
wanted to post surety bail because he could facilitate the reduction of the
recommended amounts of the bail; and that Camay transacted in behalf of
the Plaridel Surety and Insurance Company, the only surety company
authorized to transact in Branch 61 of the RTC. Notwithstanding the lack of
direct evidence proving his having acquired financial gain from the bond
transactions, the fact that he had assisted and facilitated the processing of
the bail requirements for parties with cases in the RTC constituted
substantial evidence of such financial gain on his part. 
Finally, the finding that Camay did not consistently declare his true
assets and actual net worth in his SALNs is upheld. He declared the house
and lot located in Taytayan Hills in his SALNs for 2001, 2003, and 2004 but
did not indicate the date of acquisition of such property. He again
intermittently declared the property in 2009 and 2011. He did not declare
the property in 2002, 2007, 2008 and 2010. His omissions violated the
letter and spirit of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713, which requires all
public officials and employees to accomplish and submit a declaration of
assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests, including
information on real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed
value and current fair market value. 
Lastly every person who serves in the Judiciary should heed the
following reminder issued in Office of the Court Administrator v. Juan: 
xxx Court employees, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk,
being public servants in an office dispensing justice, should always act with
a high degree of professionalism and responsibility. Their conduct must not
only be characterized by propriety and decorum, but must also be in
accordance with the law and court regulations. No position demands
greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than an office
in the judiciary. Court employees should be models of uprightness,
fairness and honesty to maintain the people's respect and faith in the
judiciary. They should avoid any act or conduct that would diminish
public trust and confidence in the courts. Indeed, those connected
with dispensing justice bear a heavy burden of responsibility.
 3
JILDO A. GUBATON vs. ATTY. AUGUSTUS SERAFIN D. AMADOR
[A.C. No. 8962. July 9, 2018.]
FACTS:
Atty. Augustus Serafin D. Amador, a former Assistant Prosecutor at
the City Prosecutor’s Office in Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, was allegedly
having an illicit romantic relationship with Jildo Gubaton’s wife, Ma.
Bernadette R. Tenorio-Gubaton, since 2005 up to the present.
Gubaton averred that his house helper said that a certain “Fiscal
Amador” often visits Bernadette and would spend nights at their house in
Bernadette’s bedroom. When Gubaton called Bernadette's dental clinic to
verify the information, the secretary confirmed that Atty. Amador and
Bernadette have been carrying on an illicit affair.
Further, complainant discovered birth-control pills and condoms in
their house, in Bernadette's dental clinic, and in her handbag. When he
confronted her about it, she merely denied ownership thereof. He also
alleged that Bernadette wrote love letters/notes to respondent, where one
of these letters had the word "fiscal" on it.
Gubaton likewise alleged that he personally saw respondent and
Bernadette together in various places in Malaybalay City. At one instance,
he saw them kissing while inside a vehicle; when he approached to
confront them, respondent ran away.
Atty. Amador denied all the allegation and claimed to be merely
acquainted with Bernadette.
The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) dismissed of the affidavit-complaint for insufficiency of
evidence but reversed the Report and Recommendation and instead,
suspended Atty. Amador.

ISSUE: Whether grounds exist to hold respondent administratively liable.

RULING:
The Court concurs with the conclusion of the IBP Board of Governors
that respondent should be held administratively liable with modification,
however, as regards the penalty to be imposed.
The statements of complainant seeing respondent and Bernadette
together on various intimate occasions, corroborated with an affidavit of a
witness confirming the illicit relationship, forms a substantial evidence
against Atty. Amador.
 The Court finds that substantial evidence — which only entail
"evidence to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable,
might conceivably opine otherwise" — exist to prove complainant's
accusation of gross immorality against respondent.
Based on jurisprudence, extramarital affairs of lawyers are regarded
as offensive to the sanctity of marriage, the family, and the community.
When lawyers are engaged in wrongful relationships that blemish their
ethics and morality, the usual recourse is for the erring attorney's
suspension from the practice of law, if not disbarment. This is because
possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a
continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain
membership in the legal profession.
Under the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Canon 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity
of the legal profession, and support the activities of the integrated
bar.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.

The penalty for maintaining an illicit relationship may either be

suspension or disbarment, depending on the circumstances of the case. In
case of suspension, the period would range from one year to indefinite
suspension. Under the given circumstances, the Court sees it to impose on
respondent a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year.
 4
OLIVER FABUGAIS vs. ATTY. BERARDO C. FAUNDO JR.
[A.C. No. 10145. June 11, 2018.]
Facts
Complainant Oliver Fabugais filed a complaint against Atty. Berardo C.
Faundo, Jr., for gross misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer for
having allegedly engaged in illicit and immoral relations with his wife,
Annaliza Lizel B. Fabugais.
Marie Nicole Fabugais, daughter of complainant, alleged that sometime
in October 2006, she, along with her mother, Annaliza, stayed in a house in
Ipil, Zamboanga-Sibugay, that belonged to respondent lawyer, whom Marie
Nicole referred to as "Tito Attorney." Marie Nicole said that when night-
time fell, respondent lawyer slept in the same bed with her and her mother
and that she saw respondent lawyer embracing her mother while they
were sleeping. Marie Nicole further recounted that the next morning, while
she was watching television along with her mother, respondent lawyer
who just had a shower, and clad only in a towel or "tapis," suddenly entered
the room; that she along with her Ate Mimi and her Ate Ada, were told to
step outside the room, while her mother and respondent lawyer remained
inside the room.
Because of these developments, complainant filed a case for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage with Annaliza, with prayer for the
custody of their minor children. In said case, respondent lawyer entered his
appearance as collaborating counsel for Annaliza.
Respondent lawyer denied that he had any immoral relations with
Annaliza. He claimed that he was merely assisting Annaliza in her
tempestuous court battle with complainant for custody of her children.
Respondent lawyer asserted that when Marie Nicole's maternal
grandmother sought out his help in this case, he told them that they could
hide in his parents' house in Ipil. Respondent lawyer claimed that the
cordial relationship he had with Annaliza could be traced to her being the
stepdaughter of his late uncle, and also to her having been his former
student. Respondent lawyer insisted that he was incapable of committing
the misconduct imputed to him for three simple reasons, to wit: because he
is a good father to his three children, because he is a respected civic leader,
and because he had never been the subject even of a complaint with the
police. He claimed that complainant filed the instant complaint simply "to
harass him from practicing his legitimate profession, and for no other
reason.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent lawyer guilty
of violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
recommended his suspension from the practice of law for one (1) month. It
found respondent lawyer to have acted inappropriately with Annaliza
which created the appearance of immorality, viz:
  “In this case, while sexual immorality was not established,
respondent should be held to account for his inappropriate behavior which
created the image or appearance of immorality especially in the presence of
a minor girl. Respondent's act of lying in bed with another married woman,
while he himself is a married man, in the presence of the woman's daughter
could raise suspicions, as in fact it did.”
The IBP-BOG in its Resolution adopted and approved the findings and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. Complainant however
passed away in 2011 and counsel for complainant filed a notice for
withdrawal. Notwithstanding this notice, IBP-BOG denied respondent
lawyer’s motion for reconsideration.
Issue:
Did respondent lawyer in fact commit acts that are grossly immoral, or
acts that amount to serious moral depravity, that would warrant or call for
his disbarment or suspension from the practice of law?
Ruling:
Yes. The Court rejects respondent lawyer's highly implausible defense
that the complainant filed the instant case for no other reason but simply
"to harass him from practicing his legitimate profession". There is
absolutely nothing in the record to support it.
 
"Immoral conduct" has been defined as that conduct which is so
willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good
and respectable members of the community. This Court has held that for
such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be "grossly
immoral, that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal
act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
In the present case, going by the eyewitness testimony of
complainant's daughter Marie Nicole, raw or explicit sexual immorality
between respondent lawyer and complainant's wife was not established as
a matter of fact.
That said, it can in no wise or manner be argued that respondent
lawyer's behavior was par for the course for members of the legal
profession. Lawyers are mandated to do honor to the bar at all times and to
help maintain the respect of the community for the legal profession under
all circumstances. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides:
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 of the Code of Professional Responsibility further provides: 
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.
The acts complained of in this case might not be grossly or starkly
immoral in its rawness or coarseness, but they were without doubt
condemnable. Respondent lawyer who made avowals to being a
respectable father to three children, and also to being a respected leader of
his community apparently had no qualms or scruples about being seen
sleeping in his own bed with another man's wife, his arms entwined in
tender embrace with the latter. Respondent lawyer's claim that he was
inspired by nothing but the best of intentions in inviting another married
man's wife and her 10-years old daughter to sleep with him in the same
bed so that the three of them could enjoy a good night's rest in his air-
conditioned chamber, reeks with racy, ribald humor.
Regarding the issue of withdrawal of complaint, the SC noted that
disciplinary proceedings are sui generis. They are intended and undertaken
primarily to look into the conduct or behavior of lawyers, to determine
whether they are still fit to exercise the privileges of the legal profession,
and to hold them accountable for any misconduct or misbehavior which
deviates from the mandated norms and standards of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
In the context of the circumstances obtaining in this case, and hewing
to jurisprudential precedence, and considering furthermore that this is
respondent lawyer's first offense, this Court believes that a one-month
suspension from the practice of law, as recommended by the IBP, would
suffice.
 5
PAULINO LIM vs. ATTY. SOCRATES R. RIVERA
[A.C. NO. 12156 JUNE 20, 2018.]
FACTS:
An administrative complaint was filed by Paulino Lim against
respondent Atty. Socrates Rivera for issuing a worthless check as a
guarantee for the payment of respondent’s loan.
Sometime in June 2014, complainant met respondent in the hallway of
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City where they became acquainted after
striking a conversation with each other. In July 2014, respondent borrowed
from complainant the amount of P75,000, which the former needed
immediately. Complainant did not think twice in lending money to
respondent and issuing in his favor BDO Check for P75,000.00, especially
since the latter issued a guarantee check from Union Bank to ensure
payment of the loan. Subsequently, respondent made several other loans in
the amounts of P150,000.00, P10,000.00, and another P10,000.00, for
which he no longer issued any guarantee checks. Complainant claimed to
have been taken by respondent's sweet talk and promises of payment
considering the millions he expects to receive as contingent fee in one of his
cases. 
However, when complainant deposited the Union Bank Check, it was
dishonored for the reason “Account Closed.” Thereafter, respondent would
not take or return complainant’s calls or text messages thereby completely
avoiding complainant.
After complainant’s lawyer wrote a demand letter for the payment of
respondent’s indebtedness in the aggregate amount of P245,000 to no
avail, complainant filed an administrative case before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP). IBP directed respondent to submit his answer to the
complaint otherwise the case shall be heard ex parte. However, respondent
filed no answer. A Notice of Mandatory Conference/Hearing was sent to
respondent, but he did not appear. 
In a report and recommendation by the IBP Investigating
Commissioner (IC) dated November 24, 2016, respondent was found
administratively liable and recommended that he be meted the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for one year. The IBP IC declared that
respondent’s act of issuing a worthless check was a violation of Rule 1.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which requires that “a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.”
ISSUE:
 Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for
the issuance of a worthless check in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
RULING:
Yes. The Court concurs with the findings and adopts the
recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.
It is undisputed that respondent had obtained a loan from complainant
for which he issued a post-dated check that was eventually dishonored and
had failed to settle his obligation despite repeated demands. It has been
consistently held that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the
issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a
lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law.
 
They must always faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar,
the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of financial
obligations. They must conduct themselves in a manner that reflects the
values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Thus, the IBP IC correctly ruled that
respondent's act of issuing a worthless check was a violation of Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the CPR, which explicitly states: 
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.
Indisputably, respondent has fallen short of the exacting standards
expected of him as a vanguard of the legal profession. His transgressions
showed him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which
his license and the law confer to him, for which he must suffer the
consequence.
 
 6
ALFRED LEHNERT vs. ATTY. DENNIS L. DIÑO
[A.C. No. 12174 August 28, 2018.]
FACTS:
Complainant Alfred Lehnert filed an administrative complaint against
Atty. Diñ o before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on November
11, 2015, praying that respondent be permanently disbarred for violating
the lawyer’s oath as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility when
he committed two violations of BP Blg. 22.
A warrant of arrest was issued for Atty. Diñ o but they were unable to
locate him at his residential addresses or even at his office in Intramuros,
Manila. Thus, considering that Atty. Diñ o was hiding to evade arrest,
Lehnert prayed for his immediate disbarment. 
In a Notice of Mandatory Conference dated March 4, 2016, Atty. Diñ o
and Lehnert were directed to submit their respective mandatory
conference brief and to appear to the Commission on Bar Discipline but the
respondent did not appear or submit any briefs.
The Investigating Commissioner (IC) found Atty. Diñ o guilty of
violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by
issuing to Lehnert post-dated checks which were subsequently dishonored,
thus recommending that respondent be suspended from the practice of law
for two years. 
The Board of Governors of the IBP passed a resolution adopting the
findings and recommendation of the IC imposing the respondent’s penalty
of suspension of two years from the practice of law. 
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility and should be held administratively liable.
RULING:
Yes. The Court agrees with the findings of the Board of Governors and
sustains its recommended penalty. 
The issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct and
violates Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
mandates all members of the bar "to obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law." Issuance of worthless checks also violates Rule 1.01 of the
Code, which mandates that "a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
In light of the foregoing, this Court 3nds the recommended penalty of
two (2)- year suspension from the practice of law proper.
 7
AAA v. ATTY. ANTONIO N. DE LOS REYES (Consolidated case: A.C. No.
10021 & 10022 Sep. 18, 2018)
FACTS:
AAA was hired as secretary to Atty. De Los Reyes. Atty. De Los Reyes
would consistently offer AAA a ride home. AAA began to feel uncomfortable
when Atty. De Los Reyes became overly possessive and demanding. At one
instance, when AAA refused Atty. De los Reyes’ offer to take her home, he
got angry and shouted “putangina mo.” AAA was forced inside his vehicle
where he slapped her twice when she became hysterical. AAA later
reported the incident to the police but did not file a formal report or
complaint against him as she thought that it would be futile.
In 1999, Atty. De Los Reyes exploited his knowledge to force AAA to
continue working for him as his secretary. He moved in on her steadily,
making it plain to all that she was his property, isolating her from the other
people in the office who did not want to cross him, dominating and
humiliating her. AAA became his sex slave who was at his beck and call at
all times for all kinds of sexual services ranging from hand-jobs in his
vehicle to sexual intercourse in his office. She could not even refuse him
without risking physical, verbal and emotional abuse, and constant fear of
losing her job.
In 2004, AAA filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for the
continued harassment of Atty. De Los Reyes to her and her colleagues.
Atty. De Los Reyes denied all the allegation and even if it were true
the grounds for disbarment based on sexual harassment has already
prescribed.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. De Los Reyes should be disbarred on the grounds of sexual
harassment and gross immoral conduct.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court found Atty. De Los Reyes guilty of gross immoral
conduct and violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
The pertinent provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility
read:
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
 Rule 1.01. — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the
integrated bar.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 7.03. — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
It was held in Valdez v. Dabon that, the possession of good moral
character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to
warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership in the legal
profession. Any errant behavior, be it in their public or private life, may
subject them to suspension or disbarment. Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court expressly states that members of the Bar may be disbarred
or suspended for any deceit, grossly immoral conduct, or violation of their
oath.
In Ventura v. Samson, we explained that immoral conduct involves
acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral
indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the
community. It is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act,
or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when
committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock
the community's sense of decency.
Atty. De Los Reyes is guilty of "sextortion" which is the abuse of his
position or authority to obtain sexual favors from his subordinate, the
complainant, his unwilling victim who was not in a position to resist
respondent's demands for fear of losing her means of livelihood. All these
deplorable acts of respondent Atty. De Los Reyes puts the legal profession
in disrepute and places the integrity of the administration of justice in peril,
thus warranting disciplinary action from the Court.
In the present case, respondent’s actions show that he lacks the
degree of morality required of him as a member of the legal profession,
thus warranting the penalty of disbarment.