Case 1 : CANON 1

BENITA S BALINO VS. CELESTINO M. DE LEON

AC NO. 104

FACTS:

The Solicitor General has filed a complaint against respondent De Leon and Velayo, duly qualified members of the
bar in active practice, alleging that since December 1948 respondent de leon, still married to Vetudes Marquez, lived
as husband and wife with Regina Balinon. On February 4, 1948 the respondent executed a sworn statement before
respondent velayo, stating that there is an existence of contract of separation executed and perfected between him
and his wife. Respondent Velayo signed the same in violation of his oath of office as attornet and notary public
despite the unlawful and immoral purposes of the foregoing affidavit.

De Leon contends that while the affidavit may be illicit, it is not an agreement but a mere innocent unilateral
declaration of facts. Velayo, alleges on the other hand, that his participation was limited to the task of notarizing the
affidavit, as a matter of courtesy to a brother lawyer and without knowing the contents

ISSUE: WON the respondents acts merit a disciplinary action

HELD:

Yes De Leon was suspended from the practice of law which Velayo was reprimanded. The affidavit signed and
prepared by respondent De Leon permits himself to commit the crime of concubinage. His contention that the
affidavit is only a unilateral delacrationof facts is of no moment, since it undoubtedly enabled respondent De Leon to
attain his purpose of winning over Regina Balinon with some degree of permanence. Velayo, on the ither hand, did
nothing except to affix his signature to the affidavit in question as a notary public. It is a duty of a notary public to at
least guard against illegal and immoral arrangement. Velayo was negligent In just affixing the signature to the
affidavit, although his fault is mitigated by the fact that he had relied on the good faith of his co –respondent.

PEOPLE VS TUANDA

RULE 1.01:A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct

The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that she be a person of good moral character. This qualification
is not only a condition precedent to an admission to the practice of law ; it is continued possession is alaso essential
for remaining in the practice of law.

FACTS:

Respondent Fe Tuanda. A member of the Philippine Bar, asks this court to life the suspension from the practice of
law imposed upon her by a decision of the CA. In 183, Atty Tuanda received from one Herminia A. Marquez pieces of
jewelry with a total value of P36,000 for sale on commission basis. In 1984, instead of returning the unsold pieces of
jewelry worth P26250, she issued 3 checks. These checks were dishonored by the drawee bank, Trades Royal Bank,
for insufficiency of funds.
Notwithstanding receipt of the notice of dishonor, Tuanda made no effort to settle her obligation. Criminal cases were
filed, wherein she was acquitted of estafa but was found guilty of violation of BP22 (The Anti Bouncing Check Law).
The appellate court confirmed the decision of the trial court and imposed further suspension against Tuanda in the
practice of law, on the ground that the offense involves moral turpitude.

ISSUE: Should the suspension order be lifted?

HELD: NO, the CA correctly ruled that the offense which she is found guilty involved moral turpitude. Sections 27 and
28 of Rule 138 provided that A member of the IBP may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the
SC of any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.

Herein, BP22 violation is a serious criminal offense which deleteriously affects the public interest and public order.
The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcend the private interest of parties directly involved in the
transaction and touch the interest of the community at large. The crimes of which respondent was convicted also
import deceit and violation of her attorney’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility under both of which she
was bound to “obey the laws of the land”

QUINGWA VS PUNO A.C NO 389 FEB 28, 1967

FACTS:

Complainant Flora Quingwa and respondent Puno were engaged to be married. The said respondent invited the
complainant to attend a movie but in their way the respondent told the complainant that they will take refreshment
before going to the Lyric Theater. Then, they proceeded to the SILVER Moon Hotel at Manila. Before they entered
the hotel room, complainant was reluctant to submit herself to respondent but respondent insisted claiming that he
was going to marry her anyway. Thereafter, 2 sexual intercourse ensued. After that day, respondent wanted to have
more sexual intimacy towards the complainant to which the later refused. Complainant then asserted the respondent
to marry her but no wedding happened. Complainant gave birth to their son.

Complainant then filed a verified complaint charging Respondent, a member of the Bar, with gross immorality and
misconduct. The respondent denied all the material allegations of the complainant. The case was referred to the
SOLGEN for investigation, report and recommendation. After the investigation, the SOLGEN found that the acts of
the respondent having carnal knowledge with the complaint through a promise to marriage which he did not fulfill and
has refused to fulfill up to the present constitute a conduct which shows that respondent is devoid of the highest
degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of and must be possessed by member of the Bar.
SOLGEN recommended the disbarment of the respondent.

ISSUE: WON the respondent committed gross immorality and misconduct thereby causing his disbarment.

HELD: Yes, One of the requirements for the admission to the BAR is that the applicant must produce before the
Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character. If that qualification is a condition precedent to aa
license or privilege to enter upon the practice of law, it is essential during the continuance of the practice and the
exercise of privilege. When his integrity is challenged by evidence, it is not enough that he denies that he took
complainant to the Silver Moon Hotel and had sexual intercourse with her but he did not present evidence to show
where he was on that date.

With respect to the special defense raised by respondent that gross immorality and misconduct is not a
ground for disbarment, the SC ruled that the enumeration of the grounds for disbarment is not exclusive.
Furthermore, as a matter of fact, grossly immoral conduct is now grounds for suspension or disbarment. Under the
circumstances, the SC was convinced that the respondent has committed a grossly immoral act and has, thus
disregarded and violated the fundamental ethics of his profession. Wherefore, respondent Armando Puno is hereby
disbarred and, as a consequence, his name is ordered stricken off from the Roll.

ATTY ISMAEL KHAN VS ATTY RIZALINO SIMBILLO

FACTS:
The administrative complaint arose from the paid advertisement that appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of Philippine
Daily Inquirer which read: Annulment of Marriage Specialist 532-4333/521-2667. Ms. Ma. Theresa Espeleta, a staff
member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court, took notice of the advertisement and inquired by
pretending as an interested party. After such inquiry, confirming that Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is actually promoting
himself as an expert in handling annulment cases and is guaranteeing a court decree within four to six months with a
fee of P48,000 to be paid in installment basis, further research was conducted by the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA). The research revealed other similar advertisements published in two other newspapers –
August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The Philippine Star. Atty. Ismael Khan,
Jr., afterwards, in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation in violation of Rule
2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
The IBP, taking cognizance of the referral to investigate, report and recommend, found the respondent guilty.
Respondent, then, filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari

ISSUE: WON ATTY SIMBILLO IS GUILTY OF VIOLATING RULE 2.03 AND RULE 3.01 OF CPR

HELD: Yes. The Court agreed with the IBP’s resolution, holding that the practice of law is not a business but a
profession in which duty to public service and not money is the primary consideration. By advertising himself as an
“Annulment Specialist,” he undermined the stability and sanctity of marriage —encouraging people who might have
otherwise been disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so. In addition,
although solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible
with the dignity of the legal profession which the petitioner failed to do. Therefore, the Court suspended the petitioner
from the practice of law for one year and sternly warned him that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be
dealt with more severely

LINSANGAN VS TOLENTINO
AC NO 6672

FACTS: There was a complaint for disbarment filed by LINSANGAN against Atty. TOLENTINO for solicitation of
clients and encroachment of professional services.LINSANGAN alleged that TOLENTINO, with the help of a
paralegal, LABIANO, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation. TOLENTINO promised them financial
assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them
and sent them text messages. LINSANGAN presented an affidavit attesting that LABIANO tried to prevail upon a
client to sever his lawyer-client relations with LINSANGAN and utilize TOLENTINO's services instead, in exchange
for a loan of ₱50,000. LINSANGAN also attached TOLENTINO's calling card. TOLENTINO denied knowing
LABIANO and authorizing the printing and circulation of the said calling card. The complaint was referred to the
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP. The CBD recommended that TOLENTINO be reprimanded as it
found that he had encroached on the professional practice of LINSANGAN, violating Rule 8.02 and other canons of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and contravened the rule against soliciting cases for gain, personally or
through paid agents or brokers as stated in Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court

ISSUE: WON Tolentino’s actions warrant disbarment

HELD: SC adopts the findings of the IBP on the unethical conduct of TOLENTINO but modifies the recommended
penalty. he means employed by TOLENTINO in furtherance of the said misconduct constituted distinct violations of
ethical rules. Canon 3, CPR provides: – A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or statement of facts. – The practice of law is a profession and not a business. To
allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the
publics estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character of service to which every member of
the bar is called.

A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business and Lawyers are
prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers. Such
actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause. – This rule proscribes ambulance chasing (the
solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain
employment as a measure to protect the community from barratry and champers.

TOLENTINO clearly solicited employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR and Section
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers independence of mind so that the
free exercise of his judgment may not be adversely affected. It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he
is handling as well as his entire devotion and fidelity to the clients cause. Any act of solicitation constitutes
malpractice which calls for the exercise of the Courts disciplinary powers. Lawyers are only allowed to announce their
services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards. Professional calling cards may only
contain the following details: lawyers name; name of the law firm with which he is connected; address; telephone
number and special branch of law practiced.

IN RE: LUIS B TAGORDA 23 MARCH 1929

Doctrine: The most worth and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially with his
brother lawyers, id the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust.

FACTS: Luis Tagorda was an attorney who was elected as the 3rd member of the Provincial Board of Isabela. He
admits that prior to his election, he made us of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano, which contains a list of task he
may undertake as a notary public, and a lawyer, as well as a general invitation to consult with him for free. Togardo
also admits that after he was elected into office, he wrote a letter to one of his hometown barrio lieutenants. The letter
basically informed the recipient of Tagorda’s intention to continue residing in Echague, despite having to attend board
sessions in Illagan in order that he may continue to serve his hometown as a notary public and lawyer. The letter
subtly offered information regarding Tgorda’s office hours, together with an express request that the recipient spread
the word as to his willingness to accept land registration cases for a fee of 3.00 per title. The government, through the
provincial fiscal of Isabela, together with the Attorney-General, brought this matter to the attention of the Court.

ISSUE: WON Tagorda’s actions constitute malpractice

HELD: Yes, Section 21 of the Code of Civil Porcedure, as amended by Act Ni. 2828 expressly provides that the
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally, or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice. This is in accord with the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted by the Philippine Bar
Association in 197. Canon 27 of the said document provides that lawyers must not advertise or solicit their legal
practice, directly or indirectly, a well-merited reputation serves as a lawyer’s most effective form of advertisement.

ATTY DULALIA VS PABLO CRUZ

FACTS:

Atty Pablo Cruz, Municipal Legal Officer of Meycauayan Bulacan, respondent, is charged by Juan Dulalia Jr.
complainant, of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant’s wife Susan Dulalia filed an
application for building permit for the construction of a warehouse. Despite compliance with all the requirements for
the purpose, she failed to secure a permit, she attributing the same to the opposition of respondents who wrote a
letter to Carlos Abacan, Municipal Engineer and concurrent Building Official of Meycauayan saying hat unbearable
nuisances that the construction creates and its adverse effects particularly the imminent danger and damage to their
properties, health and safety of the neighbors adjoining the site. By complainant’s claim, respondent opposed the
application for the building permit because of personal grudge against his wife Susan who objected to respondent’s
marrying her first cousin Imelda Soriano while respondent’s marriage with Carolina Agaton is still subsisting.

Respondent married Imelda Soriano at the Clark Country Nevada, when the family code of the Philippines had
already taken effect. He invoke good faith, however, he claiming to have had the impression that the applicable
provision at the time was Article 83 of the Civil Code. For while Article 256 of the Family Code provides that the Code
shall have retroactive application, there is a qualification there under that it should not prejudice or impair vested or
acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. In respondent’s case, he being out of the country
since 1986, he can be given the benefit of the doubt on his claim that Article 83 of the Civil Code was the applicable
provision when he contracted the second marriage abroad. From 1985 when allegedly his first wife abandoned him,
an allegation which was not refuted, until his marriage in 1989 with Imelda Soriano, there is no showing that he was
romantically involved with any woman. And it is undisputed that his first wide has remained an absentee even during
the pendency of this case. Respondent’s misimpression that it was the Civil Code provisions which applied at the
time he contracted his second marriage and the seemingly unmindful attitude of his residential community towards
his second marriage notwithstanding respondent may not go scot free.

ISSUE: WON RESPONDENT VIOLATED CANON 5 OF THE CODE OF RESPONSIBILITY

HELD: Yes, respondent’s claim that he was not aware that the family code because he was in the United States does
not lie as “ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith” it must be emphasized that the primary
duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. They are
expected o be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law. This duty carries with it the
obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast, with the legal developments, recent
enactments and jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles. Unless they
faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge competently and diligently their obligations as
member of the bar. Worse, the may become susceptible of committing mistakes. A lawyer who contracted a
second marriage while the first marriage is still subsisting is liable for violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR). Immoral conduct which is proscribed under Rule 1.01 of the CPR as
opposed to grossly immoral conduct connotes “conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and
the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. Gross immoral conduct on the other hand must
be so corrupt and false as to constitute act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.

SANTIAGO VS RAFANAN