3.Bautista v. Gonzales, Adm. Matter No.

1625 1990

Facts

Atty. Gonzales was charged with malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and
violation of lawyer's oath. The complainant alleged that the respondent accepted a case
wherein he agreed with his clients, namely, Alfaro Fortunado, Nestor Fortunado and
Editha Fortunado to pay all expenses, including court fees, for a contingent fee of 50%
of the value of the property in litigation; acting as counsel for the Fortunados in Civil
Case wherein Eusebio Lopez, Jr. is one of the defendants and, without said case being
terminated, acting as counsel for Eusebio Lopez, Jr. in Civil Case; transferring to
himself one-half of the properties of the Fortunados, which properties are the subject of
the litigation in Civil Case; inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into
a contract with him for the development into a residential subdivision of the land
involved in Civil Case; submitting to the CFI of Quezon City falsified documents
purporting to be true copies of "Addendum to the Land Development Agreement and
submitting the same document to the Fiscal's Office of Quezon City, in connection with
the complaint for estafa filed by respondent against complainant; committing acts of
treachery and disloyalty to complainant who was his client; harassing the complainant
by filing several complaints without legal basis before the CFI and the Fiscal's Office of
Quezon City; deliberately misleading the CFI and the Fiscal's Office by making false
assertion of facts in his pleadings; and filing petitions "cleverly prepared that while he
does not intentionally tell a he, he does not tell the truth either."

Issue
Whether the respondent committed the acts of misconduct.

Ruling

Yes. Atty. Gonzales committed serious misconduct that suspends him for 6
mons.

The Court has held that the purchase by a lawyer of his client's property or interest in
litigation is a breach of professional ethics and constitutes malpractice. Furthermore, Art
1491 of the Civil Code states that a lawyer is disqualified from acquiring by purchase
the property and rights in litigation because of his fiduciary relationship with such
property and rights, as well as with the client. And it cannot be claimed that the new
CPR has failed to emphasize the nature and consequences of such relationship. Canon
17 states that "a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him." On the other hand, Canon 16 provides that "a
lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession." Hence, notwithstanding the absence of a specific provision on the matter
in the new Code, the Court, considering the above quoted provisions of the new Code in
relation to Art. 1491 of the Civil Code, as well as the prevailing jurisprudence, holds that
the purchase by a lawyer of his client's property in litigation constitutes a breach of
professional ethics for which a disciplinary action may be brought against him.
Rule 1.01

4.Arciga v. Maniwang AC 1608 1981

Facts

Arciga filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Maniwang on the ground of

grossly immoral conduct because he refused to fulfill his promise of marriage to her.

Magdalena and Segundino got acquainted sometime in October, 1970 at Cebu

City. Magdalena was then a medical technology student in the Cebu Institute of
Medicine while Segundino was a law student in the San Jose Recoletos College. They
became sweethearts but when Magdalena refused to have a tryst with Segundino in a
motel in January, 1971, Segundino stopped visiting her.

Their paths crossed again during a Valentine's Day party and renewed their
relationship. In one vacation, they had sexual congress. Segundino started telling his
acquaintances that he and Magdalena were secretly married. Segundo continued his
law studies in Davao City while Magdalena discovered she was pregnant. Segundino
continued sending letters to Magdalena wherein he expressed his love and concern for
the baby in Magdalena's womb. He reassured her time and again that he would marry
her once he passed the bar examinations. However, Segundo married Erlinda Ang.

Issue

Whether Atty Segundo committed grossly immoral conduct.

Ruling

No. Respondent's cohabitation with the complainant and his reneging on his
promise of marriage do not warrant his disbarment.

Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and
respectable members of the community" However, the Court found that respondent's
refusal to marry the complainant was not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant
disbarment. An applicant for admission to the bar should have good moral character.
There is an area where a lawyer's conduct may not be inconsonance with the canons of
the moral code but he is not subject to disciplinary action because his misbehavior or
deviation from the path of rectitude is not glaringly scandalous. It is in connection with a
lawyer's behavior to the opposite sex where the question of immorality usually arises.
Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of
marriage should be characterized as "grossly immoral conduct," will depend on the
surrounding circumstances.
5.Zaguirre v. Castillo AC 4921 2003

Facts

The complainant and respondent were officemate at NBI in 1996, where the
latter courted her and promised to marry her while representing himself to be single.
The relationship lasted in 2007 and during the affair, the respondent was preparing for
bar examination. However, in 1997, the complainant learned that the respondent was
already married when his wife went to the office and confronted her about the
relationship. On September 10, 1997, the respondent executed of affidavit of admitting
the unborn child but after the birth of the child, the respondent started to refuse
recognizing the child and support.

The respondent claims that he never courted the complainant and the relationship was
nothing but mutual lust and desire and never represented himself as single and the
affidavit he signed was to save the complainant of embarrassment as she was seeing
other men.

Issue

Whether Atty. Castillo is guilty of gross immoral conduct?

Ruling

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Alfredo Castillo guilty of gross
immoral conduct and recommends that he be meted the penalty of indefinite
suspension from the practice of law.

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Even as an ordinary lawyer, respondent has to conform to the strict standard of

conduct demanded of members of the profession. Certainly, fathering children by a
woman other than his lawful wife fails to meet these standards. Siring a child with a
woman other than his wife is a conduct way below the standards of morality required of
every lawyer.

This Court has repeatedly held: As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in
fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character
and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community.
More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to
refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also so
behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is
flouting those moral standards.
6.Mortel v. Aspiras 100 PHIL. 586, 592N (1956)

Facts

Josefina Mortel filed a Civil Case in the Manila CFI a complaint against Anacleto
and Cesar Aspiras.

A bachelor Anacleto courted her in Romblon province, and persuaded her to

come to manila for their wedding. Anacleto, repeated his assurances of marriage lived
with her as her husband; that subsequently, heeding plaintiff's insistence on the
wedding, Anacleto accompanied her to the City Hall to obtain a marriage license; that
there he introduced her son Cesar to her as a nephew, and then left them both in the
building, after saying that Cesar already knew what to do; that with the help of Atty.
Moises Espino both obtained a marriage license; that several days later plaintiff was
made to marry Cesar Aspiras in the presence of Anacleto, who led her to believe she
was really marrying him thru Cesar Aspiras as a proxy; that after such marriage
ceremony she continued to live with Anacleto as his wife never with Cesar, with whom
she never had amorous relations; and that she had a baby born January 24, 1954 of
defendant Anacleto Aspiras, who turned out to be married to another woman. Thence,
she asked annulment of her marriage to Cesar Aspiras, and for judgment requiring
defendants to pay her, jointly and severally, a monthly allowance of P150.00 and
damages in the total sum of P72,580.00.

Issue

Whether Atty Aspiras acts would be ground for disbarment.

Ruling

Yes. The Court striked his name from the Roll of Attorneys.

As stated by Mr. Justice Owen of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, One of the
requisite qualifications for one who holds the office of an attorney at law is that he or
she shall be good moral character, in so far as it relates to the discharge of the duties
and responsibilities of an attorney at law. This is a continuing qualification necessary to
entitle one to admission to the bar, and the loss of such qualification requires his
suspension. The respondent is a member of the bar of this court. The charges preferred
against him challenge his moral integrity. Just as it was the duty of this court to refuse
him admission in the first instance upon a showing that he lacked the necessary
qualification, so is its duty now to remove him upon like proof."

Perhaps mere moral transgression not amounting to crime will not disbar, as
some cases hold 6 and on this we do not decide. But respondent's moral deliquency
having been aggravated by a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage,
and by corrupting of his minor son or destruction of the latter's honor, the undersigned
all agree he is unfit to continue exercising the privileges and responsibilities of members
of the bar.