1

LIVING LEGAL ETHICS

By: Justice Efren N. de la Cruz

Adelita S. Villamor v. Atty. Ely Gallad A. Jumao-as, A.C. No. 8111, December 9, 2020
(Violation of the CPR, Canon 15, Rule 15.03 on representing conflicting interests)

xxx

Simply put, in determining whether a lawyer is guilty of violating the rules on

conflict of interest under the CPR, it is essential to determine whether: (1) "a lawyer is
duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time,
to oppose that claim for the other client;" (2) "the acceptance of a new relation
would prevent the full discharge of a lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty
to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance of that duty;" and (3) "a lawyer would be called upon in the new relation
to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their
connection or previous employment." (Hormilla v. Salunat)

xxx

In this case, there can be no denying that a lawyer-client relationship existed between
Villamor and respondent despite the absence of any express or written agreement or
arrangement as to attorney's fees. Atty. Jumao-as' argument that it was Retubado who
engaged his legal services and that his participation was limited only to the incorporation of
the lending company, is misplaced. It must be stressed that in the course of the
incorporation,
respondent directly dealt with Villamor as owner of the company; conversely, Villamor
definitely made consultations with respondent on legal matters pertaining to the
incorporation and operation of the lending business. In tum, respondent learned of confidential
information from Villamor. In fine, a lawyer-client relationship existed between Villamor
and respondent. On the
other hand, respondent expressly admitted that Yu was also his client.

Thus, when respondent sent a demand letter to Villamor on behalf of Yu, he was clearly
representing conflicting interests. Suffice it to state that Villamor and Yu have inconsistent
interests. If respondent would argue for the rights of Yu, he would in effect directly oppose the
interests of Villamor. In short, he would be representing inconsistent and opposing interests
which is not allowed.

The rule prohibiting representing conflicting interests was fashioned to prevent situations
wherein a lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of
his present or former clients. In the same way, a lawyer may be allowed to represent a
client . only if the former client consents to it after consultation. The rule is grounded in the
fiduciary obligation of loyalty. The nature of the relationship, is, therefore, one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree.

Michelle A. Buenaventura v. Atty. Danny B. Gile, AC No. 7416, December 9, 2020

(Violation of the CPR,: Canon 16, Rule 16.04, Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 7, Rule 7.03, and
the Lawyer’s Oath))

The acts committed by Atty. Gille showed that he fell far short of the exacting standards
expected of him under the CPR.

First, respondent presented a spurious title of a property which was offered as a collateral in
order to obtain loan from Michelle. It is a clear act of deception which brought disgrace and
 2

dishonor to the legal profession. He took advantage of his knowledge of the law to gain undue
benefit for himself at the expense of Michelle. Atty. Gille thus failed to exercise good faith in
his dealings with a client.
Second, respondent failed to pay his debt despite repeated demands which likewise constitutes
dishonest and deceitful conduct. Prompt payment of financial obligations is one of the duties of
a lawyer. This is in accord with his mandate to faithfully perform at all times his duties to
society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients.

Lastly, it is even more appalling that the check issued by respondent was later dishonored for
having been drawn against a closed account. In Cuizon v. Macalino, the Court ruled that the
issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed
account shows a lawyer's unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him. It manifests a
lawyer's lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public
confidence, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action.

Thus, the act of Atty. Gille in issuing the check without sufficient funds reflects his moral
unfitness and skewed character.

Interestingly, Atty. Gille remained silent all throughout the administrative proceedings despite
the serious charge against him. It is contrary to human nature not to defend one's person
when faced with a serious accusation which could possibly end in one's ruination as a
professional.

As it turns out, Atty. Gille's reticence was a deliberate refusal to participate in the administrative
proceedings and to file his answer for no valid reason and despite due notices. In Domingo v.
Sacdalan, the Court emphasized that a member of the Bar must give due respect to the
IBP which is the national organization of all the members of the legal profession xxx.
Atty. Gille, as a member of the IBP and an officer of the Court, should have known that the
orders of the IBP must be complied with promptly and completely as it has been
designated by the Court to investigate complaints against erring lawyers like him. 27 By
defying the IBP's Orders and processes without any valid reason, he thereby utterly violated his
oath "to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein."

In re: OMB-C-C-13-0104, Atty. Socrates G. Maranan v. Francisco Domagoso vs. Atty.

Socrates G. Maranon, A.C. No. 12877, December 7, 2020 (Violation of 2004 Notarial Rule)

The act of notarization is not an ordinary routine but is imbued with substantive public
interest.
A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of which
are the acknowledgment and affirmation of documents or instruments. In the performance of
these notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal
affixed on documents. The notarial seal converts a document from a private to a public
instrument, after which it may be presented as evidence without need for proof of its
genuineness and due execution.

A notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Thus, a notary
public should observe utmost care in performing his duties to preserve public confidence in
the integrity of notarized documents.

A notarial seal is a mark, image or impression on a document which would indicate that the
notary public has officially signed it.

xxx

Further, the 2004 Notarial Rules is explicit on the duties and obligations of the notary public,
which include the duty to secure and safeguard his notarial seal so that no unauthorized
persons can have access thereto, viz.: “Section 2 (c)When not in use, the official seal shall be
 3

kept safe and secure and shall be accessible only to the notary public or the person duly
authorized by him.”

xxx

Instead of offering any plausible explanation as to how the consultancy contracts came to be
stamped with his notarial seal, Atty. Maranan merely insisted that he never notarized nor
authored said contracts, that his signatures therein were forgeries, and that said contracts were
not included in his notarial reports. No justifiable explanation was given to prove that he had
performed this mandatory duties as a notary public as set forth under the 2004 Notarial Rules,
which include the duty to safeguard his notarial seal to prevent possible tampering or misuse
thereof. Clearly, Atty. Maranan had been remiss in his obligation as a notary public. Had he been
more vigilant in the performance of his notarial duties, his notarial seal would not have been
affixed in the subject contracts. Indubitably, this failure on the part of Atty. Maranan
constitutes a transgression of the 2004 Notarial Rules, for which he must be held
administratively liable.

Alberto Lopez v. Atty. Rosendo C. Ramos, AC No. 12081, November 11, 2020
(Violation of the CPR, Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02; 2004 Notarial Rule)

Aside from the duty of the notary public to ascertain the identity of the affiant and the
voluntariness of the declaration, it is also incumbent upon him to guard against any illegal or
immoral arrangement or at least refrain from being a party to its consummation. Rule IV, Section
4(a) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice prohibits notaries public from performing any
notarial act for transactions similar to the subject deeds of sale, xxx “if: (a) the notary knows
or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral.”

Despite knowledge of the illegal purpose of evading the payment of proper taxes due,
respondent proceeded to notarize the second deed of sale. Instead of accommodating the request
of his client, Benjamin, respondent, being a member of the legal profession, should have stood
his ground and not yielded to the request of his client. Respondent should have been more
prudent and unfaltering in his solemn oath neither to do falsehood nor consent to the doing of
any. As a lawyer, respondent is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and
confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal profession.

When respondent gave the second deed of sale the same registration, page and book numbers as
the first, respondent violated Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice xxx.

Eduardo B. Manalang v. Atty. Cristina Benosa Buendia, AC No. 12079, November 10, 2020
(Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the CPR)

The duty of a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect
for law and legal processes 36 demands that he or she shall "not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." xxx

As members of the legal profession, lawyers are bound to respect and uphold the law at all
times. They must be honest with their dealings, especially with respect to their clients. xxx

This Court will not hesitate to mete out the grave penalty of disbarment if a lawyer is
found guilty of misrepresentation and deception of his or her client.

Madria v. Rivera has analogous circumstances to this case. In Madria, petitioner obtained
the legal services of respondent to help her with the annulment of her marriage. Respondent
guaranteed he can obtain the decree of annulment without petitioner appearing in court.
Months later, respondent informed petitioner that her petition had been granted and
provided her a copy of the decision and a certificate of finality. Petitioner's husband in that case,
 4

however, filed a complaint against her for allegedly fabricating the decision for the annulment
of her marriage. It was then that petitioner learned that the decision and the certificate of
finality were fabricated. Upon inquiring with the court, she found that her petition for
annulment was actually dismissed and the signature in the alleged decision presented by
respondent was forged.

In Madria, this Court disbarred respondent and explained that his act "not only violates the
court and its processes, but also betrays the trust and confidence reposed in him by his
client[.]" Therefore, disbarment was meted out for his failure to maintain and uphold the
integrity of the Law Profession. xxx

Similarly, in Billanes v. Latido, this Court disbarred a lawyer for similar misrepresentation
and deceitful acts.

In Billanes, petitioner engaged the services of respondent for the annulment of his marriage
with his estranged Filipino wife. About a month later, respondent informed petitioner that the
annulment case had been filed and that the judge had rendered a decision in his favor.
Respondent even showed a copy of the decision to the petitioner.

Believing his marriage was annulled, petitioner married an Australian national and applied for an
Australian visa, attaching the purported decision supporting the annulment of his first
marriage. The Australian Embassy, however, informed petitioner that the decision was
fraudulent and its submission will result in the denial of his visa application. Petitioner then
inquired with the court which supposedly rendered the decision. However, that court issued a
certification stating that his annulment case was never filed and the documents furnished
to him were fake. With these circumstances, respondent was disbarred. xxx

In Tan v. Diamante, the Court found the lawyer therein administratively liable for
violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR as it was established that he, among others,
falsified a court order. In that case, the Court deemed the lawyer's acts to be "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." Thus, the Court
disbarred the lawyer.

Similarly, in Taday v. Apoya, Jr., promulgated just last July 3, 2018, the Court
disbarred the erring lawyer for authoring a fake court decision regarding his
client's annulment case, which was considered as a violation also of Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the CPR. In justifying the imposition of the penalty of disbarment, the
Court held that the lawyer "committed unlawful, dishonest, immoral[,] and
deceitful conduct, and lessened the confidence of the public in the legal system.
Instead of being an advocate of justice, he became a perpetrator of injustice. His
reprehensible acts do not merit him to remain in the rolls of the legal profession.
Thus, the ultimate penalty of disbarment must be imposed upon him." (Citations
omitted)

Here, it is clear that respondent violated her sworn duties under the Lawyer's Oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibility when she deliberately misled and deceived her client by
fabricating a court decision.

Respondent denies that she was engaged as counsel for complainant's nullity case and alleges
she only acted as an intermediary. Yet, respondent failed to present any evidence to support
her argument that it was indeed Atty. Tabbu whose services were engaged.

As to the payment for the services, respondent argues that she only received such
payments, again, as an intermediary. However, the acknowledgement receipts did not show
that she received them on behalf of Atty. Tabbu. Moreover, respondent never rebutted the
 5

assertion of complainant that no nullity case was filed yet she claims to have updated
complainant on its status as relayed by Atty. Tabbu.

Verily, respondent handled the case of complainant. Her denials, assertions, and
inconsistencies failed to support her case and overcome the substantial evidence presented
against her which shows how she failed to uphold the duties required from a lawyer.

Respondent· was· dishonest in the performance of her duties and in dealing with her client.
She claims that she took care of the client's case when, in truth, she never acted on it.
Worse, she deceived the client by saying that his nullity case was already resolved, handing
him a fabricated decision and Certificate of Finality. Clearly, she was the lawyer of the
complainant and her excuse of being an innocent intermediary appears to be a mere afterthought.

Furthermore, respondent was negligent in handling the client's case. In many instances, she
deliberately failed to update complainant with the status of the case despite complainant's
calls and text messages. She even asked that complainant put his trust and confidence in her
despite knowing that the nullity case was never filed.

When a lawyer fails to provide legal services to his or her client, such as failure to file the
case, the legal fees paid must be returned to the latter.

Rommel N. Reyes Atty. Gerald Z. Gubatan, A.C. No. 12839. November 3, 2020
(Violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.04 and Canon 7 of the CPR)

The relationship between lawyers and their clients is inherently imbued with trust and confidence
- and as true as any natural tendency goes, this trust and confidence is susceptible to abuse.
The rule prohibiting lawyers from borrowing from their clients is intended to prevent the
lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over the client as the rule presumes that the client
is disadvantaged by the lawyer's ability to use all legal maneuverings to renege on his obligation.

In this case, as correctly found by the IBP, there is no doubt that Atty. Gubatan obtained several
loans from Reyes and the Corporation, which are evidenced by promissory notes and an
acknowledgment/agreement. These loans appear to have been contracted during the existence of
a lawyer-client relationship among the parties, when Atty. Gubatan was employed by the
Corporation and retained as legal consultant and special assistant to the president.
Consequently, Atty. Gubatan clearly violated (Canon 16 and Rule 16.04) of the CPR xxx.

Further, in borrowing money from Reyes and the Corporation and refusing to pay the same, Atty.
Gubatan abused the trust and confidence reposed in him by his clients. In doing so, he failed to
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, also in contravention of Canon 7 of
the CPR xxx

Atty. Gubatan himself does not deny the existence of these loans and the fact that they remain
unpaid. In his defense, he claims that when the instruments of indebtedness were signed,
he and Reyes agreed that the amounts stated therein would be set off against his
compensation and professional fees for services rendered to Reyes and the Corporation. These
contentions are unmeritorious. xxx

Moreover, no subsequent agreement was shown that the sums sought to be collected by the
Complainant from the Respondent will be set-off with his acclaimed compensation for his
professional services. Additionally, the very act of the Complainant in filing two (2) cases for
Collection of a Sum of Money with Damages against the Respondent counters the
allegations of extension and off-setting of credit. In this regard, the Court notes that when he
testified in the collection case before the MTC, Reyes admitted that he did not pay Atty.
Gubatan for legal services rendered to him and the Company. He claimed that Atty.
Gubatan volunteered his legal services without payment in view of the many favors he extended
 6

to the latter. This is belied by Atty. Gubatan, who claims that he should be paid for the
services he had rendered to Reyes and the Corporation.

Indeed, a lawyer is entitled to protection against any attempt on the part of a client to escape
payment for legal services. However, any disagreement as regards professional fees is not a
matter that a lawyer could simply take into his own hands, for there are proper legal steps to be
followed in order to recover his just due. Lawyers are not entitled to unilaterally appropriate
their
clients' money for themselves by the mere fact that the clients owe them attorney's fees.
Hence, regardless of the veracity of his claim of non-payment of professional fees, Atty.
Gubatan is not justified in refusing to pay his debts to Reyes and the Corporation. In any event,
the disposition of the instant administrative case is without prejudice to any action that
Atty.
Gubatan may institute to collect his professional fees.

xxx

As a final point, the Court notes that the IBP Board was correct in not including an order for the
return of the money borrowed by Atty. Gubatan from Reyes and the Corporation since these
loans were contracted in his private capacity. In Tria-Samonte v. Obias (2001), the Court
held that the "findings during administrative-disciplinary proceedings have no bearing on the
liabilities of the parties involved which are purely civil in nature - meaning, those liabilities
which have no intrinsic link to the lawyer's professional engagement - as the same should be
threshed out in a proper proceeding of such nature."

In any case, the return of the money herein is already the subject of two complaints filed
by Reyes and the Corporation against Atty. Gubatan for collection of sum of money with
damages.

Atty. Antonio B. Manzano v. Atty. Carlos P. Rivera, AC No. 12173, November 3, 2020
(Violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the CPR, the Lawyer’s Oath and the Notarial
Law)

xxx

Atty. Rivera's act of making it appear that he was a duly commissioned notary public is in
blatant disregard of the Lawyer's Oath to obey the laws, i.e. the Notarial Law, and to do no
falsehood. It likewise constitutes a transgression of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR) xxx.

Not only did Atty. Rivera violate Rule 1.01 of Canon 1; he also transgressed Canon 7
of the CPR, which mandates that every lawyer shall "uphold at all times the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession," and Rule 7.03 which provides: “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 mam1er to the discredit of the legal profession.”

xxx

Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded that their possession of good moral character is a
continuing condition to preserve their membership in the Bar in good standing. The continued
possession of good moral character is a requisite condition for remaining in the practice of law.

xxx

It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality.
The legal profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard
the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted
 7

positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of morality. We
explained in Barrientos v. Daarol that, "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."

xxx

Moreover, Atty. Rivera's conduct during the course of the administrative proceedings manifests a
blatant disregard to his oath "to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein." He failed to comply with the directives of the Investigating
Commissioner to submit his Answer and Position Paper without justifiable reason. He ignored
the scheduled mandatory conferences despite receipt of notices. These acts depict his
deliberate defiance to the lawful orders of the IBP, of which he is a member.

More importantly, as an officer of the Court, Atty. Rivera ought to have known that the orders of
the IBP must be complied with promptly and completely since it is designated by the Court to
investigate complaints against erring lawyers like him.

Professional Services, Inc. v. Atty. Socrates R. Rivera, AC No. 11241, November 3, 2020
(Violation of the CPR: Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 16, Rule 16.04, and Canon 17)

The Court has always stressed that, "the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly
fiduciary and ascribes to a lawyer a great degree of fidelity and good faith." Thus, when
they receive money from a client for a particular purpose, they are bound to render an accounting
of how the money was spent for the said purpose; and, in case the money was not used for the
intended purpose, they must immediately return the money to the client. Failure of a
lawyer to return the money entrusted to him by his/her client upon demand creates a presumption
that he/she has appropriated the same for his/her own use.

In this case, Atty. Rivera undoubtedly fell short of such standard when he performed a series of
fraudulent acts against the complainant. In fact, what Atty. Rivera did to the complainant
demonstrates the complete opposite of how a lawyer should approach and treat a client. Atty.
Rivera made the complainant believe that collection cases would be filed to recover money from
persons who had obligations to pay complainant. However, after receipt of the funds intended as
filing fees, Atty. Rivera duped the complainant as he did not spend the amount as
intended and instead, appropriated the funds for his own benefit. He resorted to false pretenses
and misrepresentations to deceive the complainant into parting with its money. Atty. Rivera
even had the audacity to use fake stamps of courts of justice and other government offices to
give his dishonest scheme an appearance of truth and credibility. Atty. Rivera succeeded in
deceiving his client and besmirching the reputation of the courts.

xxx

We note that this is not the first time Atty. Rivera has been found guilty of deceit and grave
misconduct. The Court is aware of his previous administrative cases which show his
propensity to deceive his clients and disregard the CPR. In Petela v. Rivera (AC No. 10408,
October 16, 2019), Atty. Rivera was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
year for allowing a non-lawyer to file an unauthorized civil complaint and to cause the
annotation of a notice of lis pendens, which acts were found not only to be dishonest and
deceitful, but at the same time an act intended to deceive a court of law. And just recently, in
A.C. No. 9114, Reyes v. Rivera (October 6, 2020), we disbarred Atty. Rivera and ordered his
name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys for his reprehensible acts of misrepresenting to have filed
a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and furnishing his client with a fake decision
despite due receipt of professional fees.
 8

Considering that Atty. Rivera had already been meted the penalty of disbarment in A.C.
No. 9114, our pronouncement in Valmonte v. Quesada, Jr. finds relevance:

However, considering that the Court had already imposed upon respondent the ultimate
penalty of disbarment for his gross misconduct and willful disobedience of the
lawful orders of the court in an earlier complaint for disbarment filed against him
in Zarcilla v. Quesada, Jr., the penalty of [another disbarment] can no longer be
imposed upon him. The reason is obvious: "[o]nce a lawyer is disbarred, there is no
penalty that could be imposed regarding his privilege to practice law."

But while the Court can no longer impose the penalty upon the disbarred lawyer,
it can still give the corresponding penalty only for the sole purpose of recording it in his
personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), which should be taken into
consideration in the event that the disbarred lawyer subsequently files a petition to lift
his disbarment.

In addition, the Court may also impose a fine upon a disbarred lawyer found to
have committed an offense prior to his/her disbarment as the Court does not lose its
exclusive jurisdiction over other offenses committed by a disbarred lawyer while
he/she was still a member of the Law Profession. In fact, by imposing a fine, the
Court is able "to assert its authority and competence to discipline all acts and
actuations committed by the members of the Legal Profession." (Citations omitted).

In fine, for the sole purpose of recording it in Atty. Rivera's personal file in the OBC, we
hereby adopt the findings of the IBP and approve its recommendation to disbar Atty.
Rivera. In addition, we hereby impose upon him a fine in the amount of Pl00,000.00.

Roger B. Dap-og v. Atty. Luel C. Mendez, AC No. 12017, October 14, 2020
(Violation of Canon 1 of the CPR)

As aptly found by the IBP, the denial of Atty. Mendez, while attested by his own witnesses,
could not overcome the positive declaration of Roger and his witnesses. In particular, the
affidavit of Atty. Ladaga (which corroborated Roger’s version) deserves much weight there
being no proof of personal interest or bias against respondent. xxx

The foregoing narration corroborates Roger's account, and validates as well his claim that he
suffered injuries as reflected in his Medical Certificate and the fact too that he had the incident
reported in a Police Blotter. Both the said certificate and blotter were prepared by disinterested
parties. Absent any evidence that these documents were prepared in bad faith or are
otherwise
defective in any manner, the presumption that these documents were independently
prepared in good faith and should thus be given weight, stands. xxx

The foregoing pieces of evidence when taken as a whole would clearly exhibit that physical
blows were indeed inflicted upon Roger's person by respondent and his group, contrary to
respondent's denial. Instead of procuring evidence to rebut Roger's evidence, such as the
alleged Closed Circuit Television footage mentioned by respondent but never submitted, the
latter merely enumerated his supposed achievements that he himself admitted to be irrelevant
to the instant case.

We must remind respondent that this Court applies the law based on the ultimate facts culled
from the evidence presented by both parties, regardless of the parties' perceived
achievements. In fact, a stricter and more rigid standard of conduct must be observed by
lawyers, such as respondent, given that the legal profession is innately imbued with the duty
to administer justice.

Wilfredo Caballero v. Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana, AC No. 10699, October 21, 2020
 9

(Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR)

In the present case, respondent and complainant entered into a Deed of Transfer of Right over
complainant's house and lot wherein he obligated himself to assume the remaining financial
obligations of the complainant to the GSIS. Notwithstanding their agreement, and in spite of
complainant's repeated reminders and requests, respondent reneged on his obligation and
failed to settle the remaining programmed installments in favor of GSIS, eventually leading
to the rescission of the Deed of Transfer of Right and massive financial liabilities on the part
of the complainant.

xxxx

This is not respondent's first infraction as a member of the Bar. In Lising v. Sampana
(March 3, 2014), respondent was found to have commtted an unethical and illegal act relative to
his double sale of a parcel of land, in violation of Canon 1 of the Code o Professional
Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year with a warning that
repetition of a similar
act shall be dealt with more severely.

Less than a year later, in Nery v. Sampana, respondent was again penalized by the Court
when he, despite having received a “one package fee" from a client for an annulment case and
an adoption case, was found to have failed to file the petition for adoption and misinformed
his client about the status of the petition. He even kept the money given him, in violation of the
mandate of the Code of Professional Responsibility to deliver the client's funds upon
demand. He was then suspended from the practice of law for three (3) years, with a stern
warning that a repetition of a simi1ar act shall be dealt with more severely.

Considering hi previous infractions, respondent should have adhered to the tenets of his
profession with exceptional vigilance. He did not. On the contrary, his recent transgression is
indicative of his propensity to commit unethical and improper acts that diminish the public's
trust and confidence in lawyers in general. Respondent proved himself undeserving of
membership in the Philippine Bar. His disbarment is consequently warranted.

Antonio T. Aguinaldo v. Atty. Isaiah C. Asuncion, Jr., AC No. 12086, October 7, 2020
(Violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR)

Given the facts of this case, Atty. Asuncion employed trickery by luring the Aguinaldo into
agreeing to buy the subject property. Respondent should not have led the complainant to believe
that the subject parcel of land was still owned by his mother when in truth and in fact, it was
already sold to another buyer. Atty. Asuncion failed to disclose the fact that the property is
already
owned by the Posadas family. This was substantiated by the fact that the respondent failed to
produce documents to prove his title/ownership of the property when it was required by the
complainant. As a lawyer, the respondent was duty-bound to observe fairness and candor in
his dealing with the complainant.

Further, the respondent willfully refused to return the earnest money given by the complainant,
notwithstanding the fact that the transaction did not materialize. Atty. Asuncion's integrity was
placed in serious doubt when the earnest money was paid by Aguinaldo in advance. It started
motivating the respondent's every move to seemingly evade the pending transaction back then.
xxx.

Lourdes E. Elanga and Nilo Elanga, etc. v. Atty. Rutillo B. Pasok, AC No. 12030,
September 29, 2020 (Violation of the CPR Canon 1, Rules 1.01, 1.02 and 1.03, Canon 16
and Rule 16.03)
 10

xxx Atty. Pasok allowed the mortgage and even notarized the document evidencing the same
despite knowing the pendency of Civil Case No. 204 and that the copy of the title of the
subject lot was in the Elangas' possession. Purportedly, Lourdes and Nilo were likewise
not made aware of the mortgage as they alleged that the signature of Lourdes was
forged. Furthermore, Atty. Pasok allowed Francisco to receive Lourdes's share from the
proceeds of the mortgage despite knowing that Francisco and Lourdes were opposing parties in
the civil case. To make matters worse, the Agreement provided that Atty. Pasok received
P23,782.00 as part of the proceeds of the mortgage transaction. Undeniably, Atty. Pasok's
receipt of part of the proceeds of the mortgage is highly irregular. Additionally, the
Agreement was signed only by the plaintiffs
and Atty. Pasok. Lourdes's signature is noticeably absent as supposedly, her brother
Francisco, would receive her share. Yet, there was no proof presented showing that Lourdes
actually agreed to this arrangement.

Moreover, in the same Agreement, Atty. Pasok also received P162,178.03 from the
proceeds of the mortgage supposedly for delivery and deposit to DBP to facilitate the release of
the owner's copy of the title of the subject lot. This is questionable given that the said amount
should be given to the Elangas and not to DBP since the Elangas already redeemed the subject
lot from DBP. Curiously, though, according to Catalina Erazo Dela Gracia (one of Atty. Pasok's
clients), in her Affidavit dated October 15, 2015, they (the plaintiffs} gave the said
amount to the Sheriff to tum over to Lourdes and Nilo. Since the Elangas refused to receive
the same, the money was returned to Catalina and not to Atty. Pasok as alleged by Lourdes
and Nilo. Nevertheless, regardless of who actually received the money, it was improper for
Atty. Pasok to be among the recipients of the proceeds of the mortgage.

To stress, Atty. Pasok notarized the document evidencing the Real Estate Mortgage and
received part of the proceeds thereof as expressly stated in the Agreement, specifically in the
amounts of P162,178.03 and P23,782.00. By notarizing the mortgage document and
subsequently receiving part of the proceeds thereof, Atty. Pasok violated Rule 4, Section 3 of
the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice which xxx. Otherwise stated, Atty. Pasok was disqualified
from notarizing the Real Estate Mortgage document since he will directly or indirectly gain
from the mortgage's proceeds, as he in fact did thereafter.

xxx

"[T]he quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in a disbarment case is substantial
evidence or that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. The complainant has the burden of proving his
allegations against respondents." In the case at bench, the Elangas proved with substantial
evidence that Atty. Pasok committed several infractions pertaining to his participation in relevant
documents concerning the opposing parties not only as a retained counsel but also as a notary
public, and which involved monetary considerations which he improperly received. (Boldface
ours.)

xxx

Considering the totality of the circumstances in the present case, We find it apt to modify
the recommendation of the OBC by increasing the penalty of suspension to five ( 5) years
from the practice of law upon Atty. Pasok effective upon receipt of this Resolution for
violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rules 1.01, 1.02 and 1.03, Canon 1, Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of
the CPR, and Section 3, Rule 4 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as well as
revocation of his current notarial commission, if any, and disqualification from being
commissioned as notary public for five ( 5) years.

Marcelina Zamora v. Atty. Marilyn V. Gallanosa, AC No. 10738, September 14, 2020
Violation of Rules 2.03 and 8.02, Canon 17 and Rule 18.03 of the CPR
 11

Time and again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and not a
business; lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares. To
allow lawyers to advertise their talents or skills is to commercialize the practice of law,
degrade the profession in the public's estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render
that high character of service to which every member of the bar is called. Thus, lawyers in
making known their legal services must do so in a dignified manner. They are prohibited
from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers.

Rule 2.03 of the CPR explicitly states that " [a] lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business." Thus, "ambulance chasing," or the solicitation of
almost any kind of business by an attorney, personally or through an agent, in order to gain
employment, is proscribed.

In this case, respondent admitted having met complainant (albeit under different
circumstances as claimed by complainant), advised the latter to see her in her office so they
can discuss her husband's labor case, and prepared the position paper for the case, all of
which constitute practice of law. Case law states that the "practice of law" means any
activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. Thus, to engage in the practice of law is to perform
acts which are usually performed by members of the legal profession requiring the use of legal
knowledge or skill, and embraces, among others: (a) the preparation of pleadings and other
papers incident to actions and special proceedings; ( b) the management of such actions and
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts; and (c) advising clients, and all
actions taken for them in matters connected with the law, where the work done involves
the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions.

A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first moment respondent
discussed with complainant the labor case of her husband and advised her as to what legal
course of action should be pursued therein. By respondent's acquiescence with the consultation
and her drafting of the position paper which was thereafter submitted in the case, a
professional employment was established between her and complainant. To constitute
professional employment, it is not essential that the client employed the attorney
professionally on any previous occasion, or that any retainer be paid, promised, or charged. The
fact that one is, at the end of the day, not inclined to handle the client's case, or that no
formal professional engagement follows the consultation, or no contract whatsoever was
executed by the parties to memorialize the relationship is hardly of consequence. To
establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and
received in any matter pertinent to his
profession.

Corollarily, the Court finds that respondent is likewise guilty of violation of Rule 8.02 of
the CPR. Settled is the rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyer's client nor induce
the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his
services. It is undisputed that respondent was aware of the professional relationship
between the PAO and complainant/her husband with respect to the labor case, yet, she
assumed the drafting of a new position paper, especially to replace the one originally filed
by the PAO.

There being a lawyer-client relationship existing between the parties, respondent was duty-
bound to file the appeal she had agreed to prepare in the case at the soonest possible time, in
order to protect the client's interest. Her failure to do so made her liable for transgressing
Canon 17 which enjoins lawyers to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on them, as
well as Rule 18.03 of the CPR which prohibits lawyers from neglecting legal matters entrusted
to them.

Nena Ybanez Zerna v. Atty. Manoo M. Zerna, AC No. 8700, September 8, 2020
 12

Violation of the CPR, specifically, Rule 1.01, Canon 7, Rule 7.03

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all lawyers to possess good moral
character at the time of their application for admission to the Bar, and requires them to maintain
such character until their retirement from the practice of law. xxx

xxx

In the present case, complainant alleged that respondent carried on a number of adulterous and
illicit relations throughout their marriage, eventually abandoning her and their children to
openly cohabit with one paramour. Through pieces of documentary evidence in the form
of email messages and photos, among others, as well as the corroborating affidavits of her
witnesses, complainant was able to establish respondent's illicit relations with other women,
particularly Evelyn, through substantial evidence which is necessary to justify the imposition of
administrative penalties on a member of the Bar.

On the other hand, respondent's main defense against complainant's asseverations was that his
marriage with complainant was void ab initio, a defense that is untenable as respondent, a
lawyer, should know that Article of The Family Code, which was already in effect at the time of
respondent's marriage to complainant, states that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may
not be invoked for purposes of remarriage unless there is a final judgment declaring such
previous marriage void. Thus, under the law, even if respondent's defense that his
marriage to complainant was void ab initio because there was no valid marriage license were
true, their marriage is still deemed valid unless declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding.

As against complainant's overwhelming and detailed allegations of his marital indiscretions,

respondent only offered self-serving denials. Basic is the principle that denials are weak
especially if unsupported by evidence. Thus, it bears emphasis that aside from respondent's claim
that complainant was not the hapless and pitiful wife she claimed to be and that complainant's
allegations of his infidelities were purely brought about by misplaced and unfounded
jealousy, respondent did not present countervailing evidence to substantiate his bare
allegations.

xxx

There can be no doubt that it is morally reprehensible for a married person to maintain
intimate relations with another person of the opposite sex other than his or her spouse. All the
more reprehensible is respondent's act of leaving his wife and three children to maintain an
illicit relationship with another woman with little to no attempt on his part to be discreet about
his liaison. Such acts of engaging in illicit relationships with other women during the subsistence
of his marriage to the complainant constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting the
imposition appropriate sanctions.

With regard to the penalty to be imposed, this Court finds the recommended penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for three (3) years too light given the infraction
committed by respondent. In numerous occasions, this Court has revoked the licenses of
members of the Bar who were proven to have not only failed to retain good moral character in
their professional and personal lives, but have also made a mockery of the institution of
marriage by maintaining illicit affairs.

In Toledo v. Toledo(1963), the Court disbarred respondent Jesus B. Toledo for having
abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with another woman who had borne him a child.

In Narag v. Narag (1998), respondent Dominador M. Narag was disbarred after he abandoned
his family to live with a 22-year-old who was his former student and with whom he begot two
(2) children.
 13

In Dantes v. Dantes (2004), the Court imposed the penalty of disbarment on the respondent
lawyer Crispin G. Dantes who maintained illicit relationships with two different women
during the subsistence of his marriage to the complainant.