Case Digest Assignment

MAE ANTONNETTE B.
BALILI
Basic Legal and Judicial Ethics Case Digest Assignment
1. BAUTISTA V. GONZALES, ADM. MATTER NO. 1625
February 12, 1990
ANGEL L. BAUTISTA, complainant, vs. ATTY. RAMON A. GONZALES, respondent.
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Canon III, Sec. 3 (Lawyer-client relationship), 6
(Fiduciary duty of a lawyer), and 51 (Prohibition against acquiring interest in object of
litigation or transaction)
FACTS: Complainant, Angel Bautista, filed against Respondent, Ramon Gonzales, charges of
malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation of lawyer's oath. Respondent filed a motion
to dismiss on the ground that the long delay violated his constitutional right to due process and
speedy disposition of cases. The Sol gen replied in a comment that the delay was due to the
"numerous requests for postponement of scheduled hearings filed by both parties and the
motions for extension of time to file their respective memoranda.”
Finally, the Sol Gen submitted his report with the recommendation that Atty. Ramon Gonzales
be suspended for six (6) months on the ground that Gonzales committed the following acts of
misconduct:
a. transferring to himself one-half of the properties of his clients during the pendency of the
case where the properties were involved;
b. concealing from complainant the fact that the property subject of their land development
agreement had already been sold at a public auction prior to the execution of said
agreement; and
c. misleading the court by submitting alleged true copies of a document where two
signatories who had not signed the original (or even the xerox copy) were made to appear
as having fixed their signatures.
Respondent prayed to refer the case to the IBP for investigation and disposition pursuant to Rule
139-B.
ISSUES:
I. WON the court is mandated to refer the case to the IBP.
II. WON Gonzales committed the acts of malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and
violation of lawyer's oath as alleged by the Complainant.
HELD:
I. NO. Reference to the IBP of complaints against lawyers is not mandatory upon the
Court. Under Sections 13 and 14 of Rule 139-B, the Supreme Court may conduct
disciplinary proceedings without the intervention of the IBP by referring cases for
investigation to the Solicitor General or to any officer of the Supreme Court or judge
of a lower court. In such a case, the report and recommendation of the investigating
official shall be reviewed directly by the Supreme Court. The Court shall base its final
action on the case on the report and recommendation submitted by the investigating
official and the evidence presented by the parties during the investigation.
MAE ANTONNETTE B. BALILI
There is no need for further investigation since the Office of the Solicitor General
already made a thorough and comprehensive investigation of the case. To refer the
case to the IBP, as prayed for by the respondent, will not only result in duplication of
the proceedings conducted by the Solicitor General but also to further delay in the
disposition of the present case which has lasted for more than 13 years already.
II. YES. The first Canon of the CPR states that "a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal process". Moreover,
Rule 138, Sec. 3 of the Revised Rules of Court requires every lawyer to take an oath
to "obey the laws [of the Republic of the Philippines] as well as the legal orders of the
duly constituted authorities therein." And for any violation of this oath, a lawyer may
be suspended or disbarred by the Supreme Court [Rule 138, Sec. 27, Revised Rules of
Court].
In the instant case, respondent, having violated Art. 1491 of the Civil Code, must be
held accountable both to his client and to society. It should be noted 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.
The Court held 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.
2. GUEVARRA VS. EALA, A.C. NO. 7136
August 1, 2007
JOSELANO GUEVARRA, complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA, respondent.
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Canon II, Sec. 1 (Proper Conduct) and 2
(Dignified Conduct)
FACTS: In March 2002, a disbarment complaint was filed against Atty. Jose Emmanuel
M. Eala which alleged Eala of grossly immoral conduct and a clear violation of the lawyer's oath.
The complainant was the spouse of one Irene Moje. Complainant claimed that Irene had received
multiple calls and messages from the respondent, expressing affection and arranging meetings.
He also noticed Irene frequently coming home late or not at all, offering explanations that often
didn't add up.
In February or March 2001, the complainant witnessed Irene and the respondent together on two
occasions, leading to a confrontation and Irene leaving their home. On Irene's birthday in April
2001, the complainant unexpectedly attended her celebration and found her and the respondent
celebrating together. This caused him considerable embarrassment and frustration, and Irene
subsequently moved out, taking her personal belongings with her.
The complainant later observed Irene and the respondent's cars frequently parked at a specific
address, where Irene had apparently been residing since April 2001. Furthermore, it was
discovered that Irene was pregnant after she and the Respondent was seen by mutual friends.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Eala be disbarred on the ground of having adulterous relationship.
HELD: YES. 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’ depends on the
surrounding circumstances.’ The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer
and a married woman who is not his wife. Sexual relations outside marriage is considered
disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the
marital vows protected by the Constitution.
The court held that the respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or
deceitful conduct," and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a
lawyer from engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.”
3. SORIANO V. DIZON, A.C. NO. 6792
January 25, 2006
ROBERTO SORIANO, complainant, vs. Atty. MANUEL DIZON, respondent.
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Canon II, Sec. 1 (Proper Conduct), and Canon VI,
Sec. 33 (Serious offenses)
FACTS: Attorney Dizon, who was intoxicated, was driving when a taxi driver named Soriano
overtook his car. This angered Dizon, and he followed the taxi, confronted Soriano, and grabbed
his shirt. In an attempt to defend himself, Soriano forced open his car door, causing Dizon to fall.
Soriano then tried to help Dizon up, but Dizon became even more furious, punching Soriano in
the chest. After Dizon fell again, he stood up, retrieved a revolver from his car, and shot Soriano
in the neck as Soriano was returning Dizon's fallen eyeglasses. Soriano was taken to the hospital
and narrowly survived thanks to timely medical attention.
Dizon was eventually convicted of frustrated homicide, but was granted probation, conditioned
of payment of civil liabilities. However, according to Soriano, Dizon still has yet to fulfill his
obligation to pay such liability. Soriano then filed a complaint for disbarment against Dizon
before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline to which the Commission recommended Dizon’s
disbarment for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and for violating Rule
1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR.
ISSUE: WON the crime of frustrated homicide which involved moral turpitude should result to
Dizon’s disbarment.
HELD: YES. Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, conviction for a crime
involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment or suspension. By such conviction, a lawyer
is deemed to have become unfit to uphold the administration of justice and to be no longer
possessed of good moral character.
In the instant case, respondent was found guilty of frustrated homicide. The court believed that
there was clearly moral turpitude, and the respondent was definitely the aggressor, as he pursued
and shot complainant when the latter least expected it. Under the circumstances, those were
reasonable actions clearly intended to fend off the lawyer's assault. The Court further considered
the trial court's finding of treachery as a further indication of the skewed morals of respondent.
The appalling vindictiveness, treachery, and brazen dishonesty of the Respondent in this case
clearly showed his unworthiness to continue as a member of the bar. Dizon was disbarred and his
name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
4. SAMALA V. ATTY. VALENCIA, A.C. NO. 5439
January 22, 2007
CLARITA J. SAMALA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. LUCIANO D. VALENCIA, Respondent
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Canon III, Sec. 18 (Prohibition against conflict- of-
interest representation; former clients), Canon II, Sec. 2 (Dignified Conduct), and Sec. 1
(Proper Conduct)
FACTS: Complainant, Clarita J. Samala, filed a disbarment case against Atty. Luciano D.
Valencia on the following grounds:
a. Serving as counsel for opposing parties on two different occasions.
b. Knowingly deceiving the court by presenting false documentary evidence.
c. Filing numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees.
(Dismissed for lack of sufficient basis)
d. Having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children with Teresita
Lagmay
ISSUE: WON Atty. Valencia violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: YES. Atty. Valencia was suspended from the practice of law for three years.
a. On serving as counsel for contending parties - Valencia violated Canon 21 (CIII, Sec
18) which states that “a lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client
even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.”
A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former client when
the subject matter of the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the
subject matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client.
b. On knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence - Valencia
failed to comply with Canon 10 (CIII, Sec 2) which provides that “a lawyer shall not do
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall be misled or allow the court
to be misled by any artifice.”
c. (Dismissed for lack of sufficient basis)
d. On having a reputation for being immoral by siring illegitimate children - Under Canon
1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, “a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct.”
During the hearing, respondent did not show any remorse. He even justified his
transgression by saying that he does not have any relationship with Lagmay and despite
the fact that he sired three children by the latter, he does not consider them as his second
family.
Immoral conduct has been defined as that "conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and
which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community.
5. KARA-AN V. ATTY. PINEDA, A.C. NO. 4306
March 28, 2007
REMBERTO C. KARA-AN, complainant,vs.ATTY. REYNALDO A. PINEDA, respondent.
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Canon III, Sec. 2 (The responsible and
accountable lawyer)
FACTS: The petitioner filed a complaint for Injunction and Damages against one Amado
M. Bulauitan. The counsel for the defendant, Respondent Pineda, failed to appear in several
hearings before the court.
The petitioner filed for a disbarment against the respondent for failing to appear before the RTC
despite his agreement to set the hearing of the injunction case on the said date (Aug. 1, 1994).
The respondent posited that the complaint is a mere harassment to discourage him from pursuing
cases against the complainant.
The court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which recommended
that the prayer for disbarment be denied, but the respondent be reprimanded for his failure to
explain the cause of his absence in the hearing and his failure to appear in several hearings.
ISSUE: WON Respondent Pineda's conduct of not appearing in several hearings warrant the
imposition of supreme sanction of disbarment.
HELD: NO. The complainant failed to establish by clear and convincing proof that the
respondent’s failure to appear in the hearing on August 1, 1994 before the RTC was made
oppressively or with ill-motives as to qualify the same to gross misconduct, willful disobedience
or improper conduct tending to obstruct the administration of justice.
Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, hence the power to disbar must be
exercised with great caution, only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of
misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer.
In this case, the evidence adduced by the complainant is insufficient to warrant the imposition of
the supreme sanction of disbarment. However, it is worthy to note that respondent indeed fell
short of his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice which Respondent
was reprimanded with stern warning.
6. TABANG V. GACOTT, A.C.NO. 6490
July 9, 2013
LILIA TABANG AND CONCEPCION TABANG, complainants, vs. ATTY. GLENN
C. GACOTT, respondent.
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Canon II, Sec. 1 (Proper Conduct)
FACTS: This case involves a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Glenn Gacott
for engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct in violation of Rule 1.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Petitioner Tabang decided to sell her 7 parcels of land which were all under names of fictitious
owners, in which case the respondent Atty. Glenn Gacott offered to help sell the land and
borrowed the Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) of those parcels.
After a year, the complainant confronted the respondent about the TCTs of the parcels and
respondent said that he lost all 7 titles. Respondent advised them to file petitions in court for
reissuance of titles. The public prosecutor, suspicious of the signatures affixed in the Special
Power of Attorney (SPA), asked for the summons of the owners of the land.
This led to Tabang's voluntary dismissal of the case and the filing of a new set of petitions
wherein she changed the owners' signatures to make it look more varied. Upon learning of the
new set of petitions, the respondent executed several documents, and announced the selling of
the parcels with him representing as the owner of the said parcels. Eventually, he successfully
sold the seven parcels.
In a report by Commissioner Limpingco, the respondent was found liable for gross violation of
Rule 1.01 and Rule 12.04 of the CPR and was recommended to be disbarred and his name
stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
ISSUE: WON Respondent violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR, thus warranting disbarment.
HELD: YES. It was clear that respondent committed gross misconduct, dishonesty, and deceit
in violation of Rule 1.01 of the CPR when he executed the revocations of SPAs and affidavits of
recovery and in arrogating for himself the ownership of the 7 subject parcels.
The complainant’s own compliance does not negate, or even mitigate, the repugnancy of
respondent’s offense. Quite the contrary, his offense was made even graver.
Perverting what was expected of him, Respondent deliberately and cunningly took advantage of
his knowledge and skill of the law to prejudice and torment other individuals. Not only did he
countenance illicit action, he instigated it. Not only did he acquiesce to injustice, he orchestrated
it.
The court imposed upon the respondent the supreme penalty of disbarment.
7. REYES V. GAA, 246 SCRA 64
July 14, 1995
WELLINGTON REYES, complainant, vs. ATTY. SALVADOR M. GAA, respondent.
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Canon II, Sec 30. (No financial interest in
transactions; no gifts)
FACTS: Complainant, Wellington Reyes, reported to the National Bureau of Investigation

(NBI) that he had been the victim of extortion by Respondent, Atty. Salvador Gaa, an Assistant
City Fiscal of Manila, who was investigating a complaint for estafa filed by Complainant’s
business rival. The Complainant had given the respondent P500 in March 1971, and a total of
another P500 after three other occasions.
The NBI agents then apprehended Respondent in an entrapment operation set up by them.
ISSUE: WON the Respondent should be disbarred for misconduct and willful violation of his
oath as an attorney.
HELD: YES. The extortion committed by Respondent constitutes misconduct as a public
official, which also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. The lawyer’s oath imposes
upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The lawyer's oath is a source
of his obligations, and its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other
disciplinary action (Agpalo, Legal Ethics 66-67 [1983]).
Violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019, ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES
ACT:
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit,
for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the
Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to
intervene under the law.
8. GEESLIN V. NAVARRO, 185 SCRA 230
May 9, 1990
E. CONRAD and VIRGINIA BEWLEY GEESLIN, complainants, vs. ATTY. FELIPE C.
NAVARRO, respondent.
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Canon II, Sec. 11, Falsification is a serious offense
under Canon VI, Sec. 33
FACTS: Administrative Case No. 2033 arose from a letter-complaint, dated March 13, 1979,
filed by the spouses E. Conrad and Virginia Geeslin with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
charging respondent Navarro with deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct in office, and blatant
violation of the Attorney's Oath. Atty. Navarro insisted that the Complainants were no longer
owners of the land subject in this case, and he falsely alleged that to his personal knowledge the
title to the land is in the name of one Leopoldo Cojuangco. This false allegation was made
despite the final decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, declaring the transfer of the lot
to Leopoldo Cojuangco was fraudulent and had been effected thru falsification; and ordering the
cancellation of the title issued to Cojuangco and the reversion of the title to the spouses E.
Conrad and Virginia Geeslin.
The Solicitor-General acting on the letter-complaint submitted its finding and recommendation
that Atty. Navarro indeed committed deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct in office and
blatant violation of the Lawyer’s Oath for deliberately misrepresenting the facts and the law
while acting as counsel for the defendants in the case E. Conrad and Virgiana Geeslin vs.
Leopoldo Cojuangco et al.
During the hearing set by the Solicitor General, Atty. Navarro did not deny the allegations in
the complaint, his only defense was he gave his entire devotion to the interest of his clients and
that he did his bounden duty in defense of their rights and exerted his utmost learning and ability.
ISSUE: WON such acts constitute sufficient grounds for disbarment.
HELD: YES. In the present case, respondent Navarro knew and is aware of the decision
rendered by the lower courts but despite these pronouncements and his awareness thereof, he
proceeded to sell properties of other persons. Respondent also defied the courts when he
continued to appear as counsel to different cases despite his temporary suspension to practice
law.
Such acts of respondent are evidential of flouting resistance to lawful orders of constituted
authority and illustrate his incorrigible despiciency for an attorney's duty to society. Verily,
respondent has proven himself unworthy of the trust and confidence reposed in him by law and
by this Court, through his deliberate rejection of his oath as an officer of the court.
The court imposed upon the respondent the supreme penalty of disbarment.\
9. PEOPLE V. TUANDA, 181 SCRA 692
January 30, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, complainant, vs. ATTY. FE T. TUANDA, respondent.
(Dignified Conduct)
FACTS: Respondent received from one Herminia A. Marquez several pieces of jewelry, with a
total stated value of P36,000.00, for sale on a commission basis, with the condition that the
respondent would turn over the sales proceeds and return the unsold items to Ms. Marquez.
Instead of returning the unsold pieces of jewelry, received by respondent from one Herminia A.
Marquez for sale on a commission basis, respondent Atty. Fe Tuanda issued three checks
amounting to P26,500.00. Upon presentment for payment, all checks were dishonored by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds. Notwithstanding receipt of the notice of dishonor,
respondent made no arrangement with the bank and made no effort to settle her obligations to
Ms. Marquez.
Consequently, four (4) informations were filed against respondent with the Regional Trial Court
of Manila: (a) one for estafa, docketed as Criminal Case No. 85-38358; and (b) three (3) for
violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
ISSUE: WON respondent should be suspended from the practice of law.

HELD: YES. The Supreme Court stated that the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that “the
offense of which respondent is found guilty involved moral turpitude.” The Court added that
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is a serious criminal offense which seriously affects public interest and
public order.
The court said: “We should add that the crimes of which the 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." Conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude might not (as in the instant case, violation of B.P. Blg. 22 does not)
relate to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer; however, it certainly relates to and affects the
good moral character of a person convicted of such offense.”
Batas Pambansa Blg 22 (BP 22), ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND
ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT
10. IN RE: ABESAMIS, 102 PHIL. 1182
July 10, 1997
IN RE: CONTEMPT PROCEEDING vs. ATTY. DAMASO S. FLORES, respondent.
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Canon VI, Sec. 19, (Indirect Contempt)
FACTS: Atty. Damaso S. Flores filed criminal and administrative cases against Judge Abesamis
alleging him of partiality, evident bad faith and gross negligence as well as of serious
misconduct, inefficiency and ignorance of the law for deliberately delaying action on his motions
to obtain possession of the cockpit. For lack of merit, the case was dismissed.
In some time of November 1989, Judge Abesamis issued a writ of execution ordering restoration
of the said cockpit to him, Flores, but Ligon opposed to the restoration on the ground of
supervening event which should be discussed by the trial court. Judge Abesamis ruled in favor to
Ligon. This ruling was eventually affirmed by the CA and SC.
In 1993, Flores then again filed complaints against Judge Abesamis but then dismissed due to
lack of merits. In 1995, he once more filed in the Office of the Ombudsman against on the same
judge. He accused Judge Abesamis of transgressing the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Flores was found guilty of contempt of court.
HELD: YES. Atty. Flores knew that Judge Abesamis cannot restore the cockpit to him due to
the issued TRO by CA. He already knew that the specific orders of the respondent have been
sustained by higher courts.
Atty. Flores abused the processes of the court and his initiation of the complaint was forum
shopping of the most blatant sort, a clear attempt to re-litigate issues already passed upon and
definitively resolved by this court.
Thus, he was found guilty of contempt of court and was ordered to pay fine of P1,000.
11. MEDINA V. BAUTISTA, 12 SCRA 1
September 26, 1964
MARCOS MEDINA, complainant, vs. LORETO U. BAUTISTA, respondent.
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Canon II, Sec 1. (Proper Conduct)
FACTS: Marcos Medina, complainant, charged Atty. Loreto Bautista, respondent, of

malpractice and deceitful conduct. Sometime in 1953, Maria Ragsac Cabel filed a complaint for
reconveyance of a parcel of land against the complainant, Marcos Medina.
The complainant is seeking for a compromise for this case in which Cabel told him to talk to her
lawyer who is Atty. Loreto Bautista. Medina went to see Bautista and the latter demanded
P500.00 as a consideration for amicable settlement yet the complainant had no readily available
cash, he asked for installment payment on which the latter agreed. The respondent then prepared
a motion for an extension of time to file Medina’s answer in the case.
One month after, the complainant received an order declaring him in default. The respondent
prepared two fictitious documents in the sense that the consideration either was never in fact
received. The respondent taking advantage of the ignorance of his client Maria Cabel, asked her
to sign the document that states she sold the property in consideration of the sum of P8000.00.
The respondent received P800.00 from his client as to be deposited in court for the repurchase of
the property but instead he misappropriated it.
ISSUE: WON Loreto Bautista should be disbarred and stricken out from the roll of attorneys for
misconduct and malpractice.
HELD: YES. The acts of a lawyer in (1) preparing fictitious deeds of sale, (2) pretending to
arrange an amicable settlement of the case, (3) asking his client to sign a document wherein it
was made to appear that she received money when in truth she did not receive said amount, and
(4) receiving money from his client for deposit in court to repurchase property but instead he
misappropriated the money, are held to constitute malpractice and conduct unbecoming a
member of the bar.
Rule 138, Sec. 27 of the Rules of Court provides that the crime of estafa is one which involves
moral turpitude. Hence, Atty. Bautista was disbarred, and his name was stricken off from the roll
of attorneys.
12. IN RE: DELOS ANGELES, 106 PHIL.1
August 7, 1959
In Re: Dalmacio De Los Angeles, Petitioner
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Canon VI, Sec. 33 (Serious Offenses)
FACTS: Atty. Dalmacio de los Angeles was convicted of a crime of attempted bribery in a final
decision of Court of Appeals and was sentenced to 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of destierro and
to pay a fine of P2,300.00, with subsidiary destierro in case of insolvency.
He appealed to the sympathy and mercy of this Court considering that he has 6 children who are
still dependent to his support. He made manifest to this Court that if he ever committed what is
attributed to him, it was merely due to an error of judgment which he honestly and sincerely
deplores.
ISSUE: WON Dalmacio de los Angeles should be disbarred and stricken out from the roll of
attorneys for bribery.
HELD: YES. Bribery is a felony involving moral turpitude. Hence, even if this Court
sympathizes with the plight of respondent, the court is constrained to decree the disbarment of
Atty. Dalmacio de los Angeles as ordained by section 25 of Rule 127.
13. IN RE: PERALTA, 101 PHIL. 313
April 30, 1957
In Re Charges of LILIAN F. VILLASANTA for Immorality, vs. HILARION
M. PERALTA, respondent.
FACTS: The complaint seeks to disqualify the respondent, a 1954 successful bar candidate,
from being admitted to the bar.
Hilarion Peralta courted Lilian Villasanta who fell in love with him. Peralta procured the
preparation of a fake marriage contract which was then a blank document. He made Lilian sign
the blank document on March 8, 1951.
A week later, the document was brought back by the respondent to the complainant, signed by
the Justice of the Peace and the Civil Registrar of San Manuel, Tarlac, and by two witnesses.
From thereon, they then both lived together as husband and wife.
Soon thereafter, the complainant later found out that Hilarion Peralta was already married to one
Rizalina E. Valdez in Rizal, Nueva Ecija. She then filed the criminal action for a violation of
Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan and the present
complaint for immorality in this court.
ISSUE: WON Hilarion Peralta should be disbarred and stricken out from the roll of attorneys
for lack of good moral character.
HELD: YES. The respondent made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution
demanding respect and dignity, moreover his violation of Art. 350 of the Revised Penal Code
involves moral turpitude.
Peralta’s act in contracting the second marriage and even his mere act of making love to another
woman while his first wife is still alive and their marriage still valid and existing is contrary to
honesty, justice, decency and morality. Thus, the court ruled that Peralta lacked good moral
character and was thereby disqualified from being admitted to the bar.
14. LEYNES V. VELOSO, 82 SCRA 325
April 13, 1978
FELIX LEYNES, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE PEDRO D. VELOSO of General
Nakar, Quezon, respondent.
FACTS: Respondent, Pedro Veloso, a 60-year old judge, was denounced for having an illicit
relationship with a concubine under scandalous circumstances in a house located at the poblacion
of the municipality where he is the municipal judge.
He admitted having a mistress and two children by her but prayed for dismissal of the charge
against him because one of the complainants had withdrawn his complaint and his legal wife had
condoned his acts of concubinage as shown by her affidavit.
ISSUE: WON Judge Veloso should be disbarred for grossly immoral conduct and his conviction
of concubinage, a crime involving moral turpitude.
HELD: YES. The Supreme Court ruled that the moral stigma connected with the offense done is
intolerable especially when it is committed by a judge. Respondent was removed from the
service and his application for disability retirement denied.
The condonation of Veloso’s wife of his immorality does not preclude disciplinary action by
reason of his highly unconventional and censurable behavior being the town magistrate. In
addition, Withdrawal by complainant of his administrative charge does not render the case moot
because the Supreme Court may motu proprio investigate a judge for his continuing grossly
immoral conduct.
15. IN RE: AVANCEÑA, 20 SCRA 1012
August 15, 1967
In Re - Attorney Jose Avancena, respondent.
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Canon II, Sec. 11 (False representations or
statements; duty to correct), and Canon VI, Sec. 33 (Serious offenses)
FACTS: Atty. Jose Avancena was charged with falsification of a public document and found
guilty by the Court of the First Instance of Manila. The trial’s court decision noted that he had
taken advantage of his profession as a lawyer to commit the crime and recommend his
disbarment.
After trial, he was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty
of two years to six years of prision correccional, to pay a fine of P5,000.00, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
On September 25, 1963, the President of the Philippines extended conditional pardon to Jose
Avanceña.
On October 1, 1963, Jose Avanceña was discharged from confinement.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Avancena should be disbarred from the practice of law on the ground of his
conviction for falsification of a public document.
HELD: YES. The Court found that he had committed the crime of falsification of a public
document against his clients with grave abuse of confidence and had been found guilty thereof
by final judgment of a competent jurisdiction. His acts constituted deceit, malpractice, or
misconduct in office as an attorney, which are grounds for removal from office under Section
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, especially when involving conviction by final judgment of
a crime involving moral turpitude.
The fact that Avanceña was granted conditional pardon did not bar his disbarment, as it only
partially relieved him of the penal consequences of his act.
The Supreme Court declared Jose Avancena disbarred from the practice of law, and struck his
name from the roll of attorneys.
16. OLBES V. DECIEMBRE, 457 SCRA 341
April 27, 2005
Spouses FRANKLIN and LOURDES OLBES, complainants, vs. Atty. VICTOR V.
DECIEMBRE, respondent.
FACTS: This is a Petition for the disbarment of Atty. Victor V. Deciembre, filed by Spouses
Franklin and Lourdes Olbes.
On July 1, 1999, Lourdes Obles renewed her loan from Rodela Loans, Inc., in the amount of P10
000, through respondent, Atty. Victor Deciembre. She issued five PNB blank checks to
Deciembre as security for the loan. Two months after, Lourdes paid P14 874.37 for the loan plus
surcharges, penalties, and interests.
However, Deciembre had already filled up the four blank checks for P50 000 each. Deciembre
then filed a criminal suit against the spouses for Estafa and violation of BP 22.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Deciembre violated the provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD: YES. It was clear that the Code of Professional Responsibility was seriously violated by
his malevolent act of filling up the blank checks by indicating amounts that had not been agreed
upon at all and despite Deciembre’s full knowledge that the loan supposed to be secured by the
checks had already been paid. His was a brazen act of falsification of a commercial document,
resorted to for his material gain.
Deciembre was found guilty of gross misconduct and violation of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and was hereby indefinitely SUSPENDED from the
practice of law.
17. TAN TEK BENG V. DAVID, AC NO. 1261
December 29,1983
TAN TEK BENG, complainant, vs. TIMOTEO A. DAVID, respondent.
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Canon II, Sec. 17 (Non-solicitation and
impermissible advertisement)
FACTS: Tan Tek Beng is a non-lawyer while David is a lawyer. David drafted a contract signed
by him and Tan Tek Beng stating among others that “On all commissions and attorney’s fees that
we shall receive from our clients, we shall divide fifty-fifty.” In the same contract, David also
agreed not to deal directly with their clints.
The business relationship between David and Tan Tek Beng did not last since there were mutual
accusations of doublecross. Tan Tek Beng accused David of not complying with the agreement
and denounced the latter to then Presidential Assistant Ronaldo Zamora, to the Office of Civil
Relations at Camp Crame, and to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: WON David should be subjected to disciplinary action for not giving Tan
Tek Beng, one-half of the attorney's fees received by David from the clients supplied by Tan Tek
Beng, in relation to their agreement.
HELD: NO. The agreement was void because it was tantamount to malpractice which is "the
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers”. Hence, David cannot be subjected to disciplinary action for not performing
his obligations as required by the contract.
However, David was reprimanded for being guilty of Malpractice. The practice of law is a
profession, not a business. The commercialization of law practice is condemned in certain
canons of professional ethics.
"Unprofessional conduct in an attorney is that which violates the rules or ethical code of his
profession, or which is unbecoming a member of that profession" The court censured lawyer
David for having entered and acted upon such void and unethical agreement.
18. ATTY. KHAN V. ATTY. SIMBILLO, AC NO. 5299
August 19, 2003
ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information
Office, complainant, vs. ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, respondent.
FACTS: Atty. Simbillo posted in an issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, an advertisement
which reads: - ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist. Posting as a potential customer, Ms.
Espeleta, a staff member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court, called up the
number and was later on debriefed by Mrs. Simbillo stating that her husband can guarantee a
court decree within four to six months and that her husband charges P48,000, of which, half is
payable at the time of filing and the other half upon the rendering of the decision. Similar
advertisements were posted prior to the latest one in Manila Bulletin and The Philippine Star.
Atty. Ismael Khan Jr., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office,
filed a complaint for improper advertising and solicitation of legal services against Atty.
Simbillo, in violation of Rule 2.03 and 3.01 of the CPR and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of
Court. In response, Atty. Simbillo raised that such advertising and solicitation per se are not
prohibited and that such practices should be allowed in this day and age. Atty. Simbillo prayed
that he be exonerated from all the charges against him and that the court promulgate a ruling that
advertisement of legal services offered by a lawyer is not contrary to law, public policy and
public order as long as it is dignified.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Simbillo is guilty of illegal advertising and solicitation of legal business.
HELD: YES. The practice of law is not a business but is a profession in which duty to public
service, and not money, is the primary consideration. The act of advertising as a self-styled
“Annulment of Marriage Specialist” erodes and undermines the stability and sanctity of the legal
profession.
In assuring prospective clients that an annulment may be obtained in four to six months from the
time of the filing of the case, Atrty. Simbillo encourages people, who might have otherwise been
disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to avail and consider
annulment.
Atty. Simbillo was found guilty was suspended from the practice of law for one year.
19. IN RE: TAGORDA, 53 PHIL. 37
March 23, 1929
In re LUIS B. TAGORDA
FACTS: Luis B. Tagorda was an attorney who was elected as the Third Member of the
Provincial Board of Isabela. He admitted that prior to his election, he made use of a card written
in Spanish and Ilocano, which contains a list of tasks he may undertake as a notary public, and a
lawyer, as well as general invitation to consult with him for free.
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 acts of advertisement constituted malpractice.
HELD: YES. The court believes that the most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even
for a young lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well-
merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust.
Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No.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 1917. Canon 27 of the said
document provides that a well-merited reputation serves as a lawyer’s most effective form of
advertisement.
Atty. Tagorda was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one month.
20. ULEP V. LEGAL CLINIC, 223 SCRA 378
June 17, 1993
MAURICIO C. ULEP vs. LEGAL CLINIC INC
FACTS: Respondent Legal Clinic Inc. released advertisements of their legal services by means
of presenting the services they offered and the rates therein, the advertisement included visa,
marriage, and divorce services. Petitioner hereafter filed a petition in court to order the
respondent to cease and desist from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor which
results to negative and unethical connotations that is demeaning and destructive to the practice of
law.
The respondent argued that they are not advertising legal services, hence they cannot be
subjected to such a petition.
ISSUE: WON the respondent violated legal and judicial ethics through their advertisement.
HELD: YES. The court ruled that the advertisement was a flagrant violation by the respondent
of the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solicitation of business from the public.
Rule 138, Sec. 27, provides that the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. The court believes
that the best advertisement possible, is the establishment of a well-merited reputation and fidelity
to trust.
PRIMARY CHARACTERISTICS WHICH DISTINGUISH THE LEGAL PROFESSION

FROM BUSINESS
1. A duty of public service.
2. A relation, as an ― "officer of the court", to the administration of justice involving
thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability.
3. A relation to clients with the highest degree of fiduciary
4. A relation to the colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness and
unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their
practice or dealing directly with their clients.
Supplementary:
Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed
by the canon, of brief biographical and informative data is likewise allowable.
1. Such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of the lawyer's name
and the names of his professional associates; addresses, telephone numbers, cable
addresses; branches of law practiced; date and place of birth and
admission to the bar; schools attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other
educational distinctions; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal authorships;
legal teaching positions; membership and offices in bar associations and committees
thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other
reputable law lists; the names and addresses of references; and, with their written
consent, the names of clients regularly represented.
2. The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot
be a mere supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical
which is published principally for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may
not properly publish his brief biographical and informative data in a daily
paper, magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit
his name to be published in a law list the conduct, management, or contents of
which are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower
dignity or standing of the profession.
3. The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card may contain
only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm which he is connected with,
address, telephone number and special branch of law practiced. The publication of a
simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership,
associates, firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the profession, is
not objectionable. He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but not
under a designation of special branch of law.
21. SAMONTE V. GATDULA, AM NO. 99-1292, FEBRUARY 26, 1999
February 26, 1999
JULIETA BORROMEO SAMONTE, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROLANDO R. GATDULA,
Branch Clerk of Court, respondent.
FACTS: Complaint filed by Julieta Borromeo Samonte charges Atty. Rolando R. Gatdula, RTC,
Branch 220, Quezon City with grave misconduct consisting in the alleged engaging in the private
practice of law which is in conflict with his official functions as Branch Clerk of Court.
The complainant claimed that the respondent attempted to persuade her to change her lawyer if
she wanted the execution of the judgment to move forward, and even gave her his calling card,
which she attached to her affidavit-complaint, bearing the name "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon,
Dimailig, and Celera Law Offices" with address at 220 Mariwasa Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd.,
Cubao, Quezon City.
When asked for a response, the respondent stated that the complainant had shown him the calling
card and had asked him if he could take on the case. In his own defense, the respondent angrily
denied the complainant's allegation. He did not dispute, however, that his name was on the
calling card or that it had been produced without his permission or consent.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Gatdula committed an act of solicitation.
HELD: YES. A public official is prohibited from engaging private practice which is in conflict
or tend to conflict with his/her official function. Atty. Gatdula was guilty of infraction. The
Complainant failed to appear at the hearings and substantiate her allegations that it was the
respondent Atty. Who gave her calling card of “Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera
Law Offices” and tried to convince her to change counsels.
Despite of the denial of the Respondent of the complaint, he admitted that his name appears on
the calling card attached to the complaint. Therefore, the fact remains that his name is included in
the calling card which may therefore tend to show that he had dealings with said office which
showed an act of solicitation.
Thus, Gatdula was reprimanded and ordered to cause the exclusion of his name in the firm in the
private practice of law.
22. CRUZ V. SALVA, GR NO. L-12871
July 25, 1959
TIMOTEO V. CRUZ, petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO G. H. SALVA, respondent.
FACTS: This case revolves around the legal action of Timoteo Cruz against Francisco Salva,
the City Fiscal of Pasay City. Cruz sought a petition for certiorari and prohibition, along with a
preliminary injunction, to halt Salva's ongoing preliminary investigation related to the 1953
murder of Manuel Monroy. The case's key elements include the murder conviction of several
individuals, a reinvestigation ordered by President Magsaysay, a subsequent request by the
defense for Salva to conduct a reinvestigation based on newly obtained evidence, and the
subsequent subpoena of Timoteo Cruz due to his implication in the case.
As Fiscal Salva conferred with the Office of the Solicitor General, a Conference was held
publicly with the Secretary of Justice wherein reporters were invited at the session hall of
municipal court and Timoteo Cruz was subpoenaed by Fiscal Salva represented by Atty. Baizas.
ISSUE: WON the wide sensationalism and publicity that Salva drew into this case was a
violation of Rule 3.04 Canon 3 of the old CPR (Canon II, Sec. 17 of the CPRA).
HELD: YES. The court ruled that the excessive sensationalism and publicity during the
investigation was unnecessary, especially when the purpose was merely to acquaint evidence and
question the accused.
The investigation took place in a session hall with a large crowd of reporters, and Fiscal Salva
even encouraged reporters to interfere by allowing them to ask questions. Fortunately, the press
declined this offer. However, the subsequent publications, narrations, and comments resulting
from this public investigation greatly disturbed the court.
Fiscal Salva committed a grievous error and poor judgment when he allowed, even encouraged,
the reinvestigation to be conducted with much fanfare, publicity and sensationalism. The court
issued public censure and reprehension to Fiscal Salva for contempt of court and for violating
rules against excessive publicity and sensationalism.
23. DULALIA JR. V. CRUZ, AC NO. 6854
April 27, 2007
JUAN DULALIA, JR., complainant, vs. ATTY. PABLO C. CRUZ, respondent.
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Canon III, Sec. 24 (Active involvement in legal
education)
FACTS: Complainant’s wife, Susan Dulalia, filed an application for building permit for the
construction of a warehouse but to no avail, the permit was not issued, and Complainant thought
it was because of a personal grudge against his wife who objected on the marriage of her first
cousin, Imelda Soriano and Respondent while his first marriage with Carolina Agaton was still
subsisting.
Juan Dulalia accused Atty. Cruz of violating Rules 1.01, 6.02 and 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The respondent admits to the second marriage but invoked good
faith claiming that he had the impression that the applicable provision at that time was Article 83
of the Civil Code (Void and Voidable Marriages).
ISSUE: WON Atty. Cruz violated Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: YES. The respondent did not deny he contracted marriage with Imelda Soriano. His
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 made the respondent believe that he would not incur penalty.
However, the Court negates the act of contracting a second marriage while the first marriage was
still in place as being contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality. Respondent's claim that
he was not aware that the Family Code already took effect has no bearing, as "ignorance of the
law excuses no one from compliance therewith.”
Atty. Cruz was found guilty of violating Canon 5 (now Canon III, Sec. 24) of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is suspended from the practice of law for one year.
24. PEOPLE V. GACOTT, 242 SCRA 514
July 13, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR.,
Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 47, Puerto Princesa City, ARNE STROM and GRACE REYES,
respondents.
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Art. VIII, Sec. 11
FACTS: A complaint for violation of the Anti-Dummy Law (C.A. No. 108) was filed by Asst.
City Prosecutor Perfecto E. Pe against respondents Strom and Reyes. The accused, Judge Gacott,
filed a Motion to Quash/Dismiss the criminal case on the ground that the power to prosecute is
exclusively vested in the Anti-Dummy Board, and that the City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa
has no power or authority to file the same.
The Supreme Court annulled the order of Respondent, Judge Gacott, in dismissing Criminal Case
No. 11529. It was shown that Respondent committed an adjudicatory error and judicial
incompetence in the said criminal case. Respondent was also consequently reprimanded and
fined Php 10,000 for gross ignorance of the law in contemplation to the annulment of the order.
The judgment was made by the Second Division of the Supreme Court.
Respondent Judge Gacott then filed a motion for reconsideration and a supplemental motion for
reconsideration.
ISSUE: WON the Second Division of the SC has the competence to administratively discipline
respondent judge.
HELD: YES. Sec. 11, Art. VIII of the Constitution shows that there are two situations in
performing the power to discipline judges. (1) “the SC en banc shall have the power to discipline
judges of lower courts,” a declaration of the grant of that disciplinary power to the Court en banc,
and (2) that the Court en banc can “order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members
who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted therein,” the
administrative case must be deliberated upon and decided by the full Court itself.
Pursuant to the first clause which confers administrative disciplinary power to the Court en banc,
a decision en banc is needed only where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge,
officer or employee of the Judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any of
them for a period of more than 1 year or a fine exceeding P10,
000.00 or both.
Thus, the supplemental motions for reconsideration by the Respondent were denied.
25. IN RE: DEL ROSARIO, 52 PHIL. 399
December 7, 1928
In re: FELIPE DEL ROSARIO
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Admission to the Bar; Practice of Law
FACTS: Felipe del Rosario was a candidate in the bar examination who failed for the second
time in 1925. He presented himself for the succeeding bar examination in 1926 and again failed
to obtain the required rating. Then on March 29, 1927, he authorized the filing of a motion for
the revision of his papers for 1925 based on an alleged mistake in the computation of his grades.
The court, acting in good faith, granted this motion, and admitted Felipe del Rosario to the bar.
After the investigation of bar examination matters conducted by the city fiscal, a criminal charge
was lodged in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Juan Villaflor, a former employee of
the court, and Felipe del Rosario for falsifying documents to make it appear that he passed the
1925 bar exams.
The two were subsequently charged with falsification. Villaflor pleaded guilty to the information
and was sentenced correspondingly. Del Rosario pleaded not guilty, and at the conclusion of the
trial was acquitted for lack of evidence.
ISSUE: WON Felipe Del Rosario should be allowed to practice law.
HELD: NO. The court believed that it would be a disgrace to the Judiciary to receive one whose
integrity is questionable as an officer of the court, to clothe him with all the prestige of its
confidence, and then to permit him to hold himself out as a duly authorized member of the bar.
The practice of the law is not an absolute right to be granted everyone who demands it; it is a
privilege to be extended or withheld in the exercise of a sound discretion. The facts of the case
shows that Del Rosario has no legal right to his attorney's certificate and to admit Felipe del
Rosario again to the bar examination would be tantamount to a declaration of professional purity
which is impossible.
Felipe del Rosario was ordered to surrender his certificate of attorney and will be forever
prohibited from taking the bar examination.
26. IN RE: BASA, 41 PHIL. 275
December 7, 1920
In re CARLOS S. BASA.
FACTS: Carlos Basa is a young lawyer about 29 years old, admitted to the bars of California
and the Philippines. Basa was charged with the crime of abduction with consent in the Court of
First Instance - Manila. Basa was found guilty and was sentenced to be imprisoned for a period
of two years, eleven months and eleven days of prision correcional.
The Solicitor General (Sol Gen) prayed for the disbarment of BASA on the ground of moral
turpitude.
ISSUE: WON the crime of abduction with consent, as punished by article 446 of the Penal
Code, involves moral turpitude.
HELD: YES. The Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 21, provides that "A member of the bar may be
removed or suspended from his office of lawyer by the Supreme Court by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude "
"Moral turpitude," it has been said, "includes everything which is done contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals." (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, cited by numerous courts.)
The inherent nature of abduction with consent is against good morals and the accepted rule of
right conduct. Hence, beginning on the day that Carlos Basa will be discharged from prison, he
will be suspended from his office of lawyer for one year.
27. ARCIGA V. MANIWANG, 106 SCRA 591

August 14, 1981
MAGDALENA T. ARCIGA, complainant, vs. SEGUNDINO D. MANIWANG, respondent.
FACTS: Complainant Magdalena T. Arciga filed a complaint for disbarment against lawyer
Segundino D. Maniwang on the ground of grossly immoral conduct because Maniwang refused
to fulfill his promise of marriage to her.
The complainant and the respondent have cohabitated since they were still a medical technology
student (Arciga) and a law student (Maniwang). Their relationship resulted in a child. Maniwang
repeatedly assured Arciga that he would marry her once he passed the Bar Exams, but once he
did, Maniwang married another woman.
Maniwang admitted to the facts of the complaint but argued that the breach of his promise was
because of Arciga’s shady past. The Solicitor General recommended the dismissal of the case on
the ground that such cohabitation and renegade on the promise to marry do not warrant the
disbarment of Maniwang.
ISSUE: WON Maniwang's sexual congress with Arciga who was not his wife nor without the
benefit of marriage be characterized as "grossly immoral conduct”.
HELD: NO. Good moral character is a sine qua non for both the admission to the bar and
retaining membership in the legal profession. A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral
conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude."
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".
In the case at bar, the court found that respondent's refusal to marry the complainant was not as
corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment.
Supplementary:
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.
Cases when lawyer was disbarred for “grossly immoral conduct”:
1. Almirez vs. Lopez, Administrative Case No. 481, February 28, 1969 - lawyer had sexual
intercourse under the promise of marriage, refused to fulfill the promise, and urged the
pregnant woman to take pills and have an abortion
2. Cabrera vs. Agustin - lawyer lied about former marriage and deceived the woman into a
fake marriage
3. Toledo vs. Toledo - lawyer abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with another woman
which later bore him a child
4. Bolivar vs. Simbol - lawyer lived off the bounty of a woman who financed his law
schooling and personal necessities under the promise of marriage, but married another
woman after he finished his studies
5. among other cases…
28. ROYONG V. OBLENA, 7 SCRA 871
April 30, 1963
JOSEFINA ROYONG, complainant, vs. ATTY. ARISTON OBLENA, respondent.
FACTS: Josefina Royong charged Respondent, Ariston Oblena, a member of the Philippine Bar,
with rape. The Solicitor General immediately conducted an investigation and found out that there
was no rape, the carnal knowledge between complainant and respondent seems to be consensual
sex.
However, even if Respondent did not commit the alleged rape, he was nevertheless guilty of
other misconduct. The Solicitor General made another complaint charging the Respondent of
falsely and deliberately alleging in his application for admission to the bar that he is a person of
good moral character, of living adulterously with Briccia Angeles at the same time maintaining
illicit relations with the 18-year-old Josefina Royong.
Thus, rendering him unfit to practice law, praying that this Court render judgment ordering the
permanent removal of the respondent as lawyer and judge. Respondent filed his answer denying
all the allegations in the complainant and praying that he be not disbarred.
ISSUE: WON the illicit relationship of respondent, Ariston Oblena, with Royong and the
adulterous cohabitation with Briccia Angeles warrants disbarment.
HELD: YES. It is significant to note that “the continued possession of a fair private and
professional character or a good moral character is a requisite condition for the rightful
continuance in the practice of law for one who has been admitted, and its loss requires the
suspension or disbarment even though the statutes do not specify that as ground for disbarment.”
The moral turpitude for which an attorney may be disbarred may consist of misconduct in either
his professional or non-professional activities. Thus, the respondent’s conduct though unrelated
to his office and in no way directly bearing on his profession, has nevertheless rendered him
unfit and unworthy of his privileges of a lawyer.
Atty. Ariston Oblena was disbarred, and his name removed from the roll of Attorneys.
29. ALFONSO V. JUANSON, 228 SCRA 239
April 25, 2007
Dr. Norbert L. Alfonso, Complainant, v. Judge Modesto C. Juanson, Branch 30 RTC Manila,
Respondent.
FACTS: The complainant, Dr. Alfonso, charged the Respondent, Judge Juanson with
immorality and violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics on the ground of having an illicit affair
with Sol Dinglasan Alfonso, the complainant’s wife.
The complainant received several calls from the Respondent Judge’s wife verifying the affair of
Sol and the Respondent. The complainant has Sol’s love letters to the respondent, provided to
him by the respondent’s wife. When confronted by the complainant, Sol denied the affair at first
but later admitted her illicit affair with the Respondent Judge. Sol also admitted having five
counts of sexual intercourse with the judge and that she went to Hongkong was with the
Respondent.
In defense of Judge Juanson, he claims that he first met the complainant’s wife when engaged in
his professional services in connection with the criminal charges filed by her office. He added
that it was impossible for him to be in a sexual affair with Sol because he has been suffering
from two debilitating diseases that hinders him from doing such sexual acts. He has been taking
insulin since 1987. As per him he “could hardly make it” and that he has “no erection
whatsoever”.
ISSUE: WON Judge Juanson’s alleged sexual affair is a ground for his dismissal from the
Judiciary.
HELD: NO. It was clear that the Respondent Judge and Sol had special relationship and began
before Sol and Dr. Alfonso’s marriage. However, the prosecution lacked the evidence to prove
that the affair continued after Judge Juanson’s appointment to Judiciary. Sol’s admission to her
husband that she indeed had a carnal knowledge with the respondent judge did not specify the
dates of the commission of the said acts. Hence, Sol’s admission cannot be used against Judge
Juanson on the ground of res inter alios acta rule (something transacted between other
parties).
However, considering their prior special relationship, their meetings could only bring the court to
suspicion of either continuance or concomitant relationship which casts impropriety upon his
conduct.
It has been said that a magistrate of the law must comport himself at all times in such manner
that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that
looks up to him as the epitome of integrity and justice. Thus, Respondent Judge was sentenced to
pay a fine of two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) and warned that a repetition of the same or similar
acts shall be dealt with more severely.
30. TOLEDO V. TOLEDO, 7 SCRA 757
April 27, 1963
PAZ ARELLANO TOLEDO, complainant, vs. ATTY. JESUS B. TOLEDO, respondent.
(Dignified Conduct)
FACTS: This is a disbarment proceeding initiated by Paz Arellano Toledo against Jesus
B. Toledo, a member of the Bar. The complainant alleged that she and the respondent were
married in 1946, but after he became a lawyer, he abandoned her and cohabited with another
woman who had borne him a child. The complaint was filed with the court, and the respondent
was directed to answer.
The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, who found sufficient grounds to
proceed. The Solicitor General filed a complaint charging the respondent with abandonment of
his wife and immorality for cohabiting with another woman and having a child with her.
The complainant testified that she and the respondent were married but separated after he
became indifferent towards her. The respondent cohabited with another woman and had a child
with her. Witnesses Marina Payot and Lino Domingo corroborated the complainant's claims.
They testified about the respondent's relationship with another woman and described her
physical appearance.
The respondent admitted that he was married to the complainant but contested the allegations of
cohabitation with another woman. However, the court found the testimony of the witnesses
credible, and their accounts were unrebutted.
ISSUE: WON Jesus Toledo should be disbarred on the ground of abandonment and cohabiting
with another woman.
HELD: YES. The respondent, by abandoning his lawful wife and cohabiting with another
woman who had borne him a child, has failed to maintain the highest degree of morality
expected and required of a member of the Bar.
The respondent Atty. Jesus Toledo is disbarred from the practice of law.
31. OBUSAN V. OBUSAN, 128 SCRA 485
April 2, 1984
PRECIOSA R. OBUSAN, complainant, vs. GENEROSO B. OBUSAN, JR., respondent.
(Dignified Conduct)
FACTS: Respondent Generoso Obusan, Jr., was acquainted with Natividad Estabillo who
presented to be a widow while working in the Peoples Homesite and Housing Corporation. Their
relationship bore a child named John.
It was later known that Natividad’s marriage was still subsisting. Four days after the birth of
John, Generoso married the Petitioner, Preciosa, and lived together for more than a year.
Respondent then took a vacation in Camarines Norte but he has never returned. Preciosa looked
for him and discovered that he was living and cohabiting with Natividad in Quezon City. The
housemaid, neighbors and several other persons known to Natividad and Obusan testified and
confirmed their relationship.
Generoso answered that his relationship with Natividad was terminated when he married
Preciosa, and he only goes to Quezon City to provide financial support to Jun-Jun. He also
denied the testimonies of the maid, the plumber and several other persons and contended that he
does not live together with Natividad.
He also contended that he only left the conjugal home for he cannot contain the nagging of his
wife and her interference with his professional obligations.
ISSUE: WON Generoso Obusan, Jr. should be for cohabiting with another woman not his wife.
HELD: YES. Generoso failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required
of a member of the bar.
Respondent was not able to overcome the evidence of his wife that he was guilty of grossly
immoral conduct. Abandoning one's wife and resuming carnal relations with a former paramour,
a married woman, fails within "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."
Thus, Generoso was disbarred for abandoning his lawful wife and cohabiting with another
woman who had borne him a child.
32. DIZON V. CABUCANA, JR., A.C. NO. 10185
March 12, 2014
LICERIO DIZON, Complainant, vs. ATTY. MARCELINO CABUCANA, JR., Respondent.
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Canon II, Sec. 1 (Proper Conduct)
FACTS: Complainant, Licerio Dizon, alleged that he was one of the “would-be-buyers” of a
parcel of land owned by the heirs of the late Florentino Callangan in a Civil Case filed before the
MTC. On that case, a compromise agreement was executed by the parties before respondent,
Atty. Mercelino Cabucana, Jr.
At the hearing, the signatories regarding the compromise agreement therein testified that they
signed the instrument in the court room of MTCC but not in the presence of Atty. Cabucana as
Notary Public; hence, there was delay in the decision of the case which caused damage and
injury to the complainant. They also alleged that Atty. Cabucana violated the Notarial Law by
notarizing in the absence of most of the signatories and uttered grave threats against him after the
hearing of the said case.
Hence, he filed a petition against Atty. Cabucana, before the IBP, praying for the disbarment of
the latter for falsification of public document.
In his answer, Atty. Cabucana averred that the complaint was intended to harass him for he was
the private prosecutor on a criminal case against Dizon and lack of cause of action for he was
only a “would be” buyer.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Cabucana violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR.
HELD: YES. As a notary public, Atty. Cabucana should not notarize a document unless the
person who signs it is the same person executing it and personally appearing before him to attest
to the truth of its contents. This is to enable him to verify the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free and voluntary act and
deed.
The court suspended Cabucana from the practice of law for three months and prohibited him
from being commissioned as a notary public for two years.
33. IN RE: SANTIAGO, 70 PHIL.661
June 21, 1940
In re ATTY. ROQUE SANTIAGO, respondent.
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Canon II, Sec. 25 (Responsibility of a Solo
Practitioner) and Canon IV, Sec. 1 (Competent, efficient, and conscientious service)
FACTS: This is an administrative case initiated by the Solicitor-General against Roque

Santiago, the respondent, for malpractice. The case stemmed from the actions of the respondent
in advising Ernesto Baniquit, who had been living separately from his wife, Soledad Colares, for
nine years and intended to enter into a second marriage.
The respondent assured Baniquit that he could legally separate from his wife and remarry. He
instructed Baniquit to bring his wife to his office, where he promptly prepared a document
(Exhibit A) stating that the husband and wife authorized each other to marry again, renouncing
any right of action against the other party for contracting another marriage. After the document's
execution and acknowledgment, the respondent reassured the couple that they were now
considered single and could marry again without any trouble. Baniquit, relying on Exhibit A,
entered into a second marriage on June 11, 1939.
The respondent did not dispute his involvement in preparing Exhibit A but defended himself by
claiming that he had initially believed that a seven-year separation would allow either spouse to
contract a second marriage. However, he later realized his mistake and promptly summoned the
parties to his office on June 30, 1939, where they signed a deed of cancellation.
ISSUE: WON the invalid execution of a contract of separation of marriage by the Respondent
constitute malpractice of law.
HELD: YES. In the present case, respondent was either ignorant of the applicable provision of
the law or carelessly negligent in giving the complainant legal advice. Drastic action should lead
to his disbarment, and this is the opinion of some members of the court.
However, appreciated the fact that immediately after discovering his mistakes, respondent
endeavored to correct it by making the parties sign another document cancelling the previous
one.
The respondent Roque Santiago is found guilty of malpractice and is hereby suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one year.
34. IN RE: TERRELL, G.R. NO. 1203
May 15,1903
In the matter of the suspension of HOWARD D. TERRELL from the practice of law.
FACTS: A suspension of attorney-at-law Howard D. Terell was filed in the Court of First
Instance – Manila for assisting in the organization of the "Centro Bellas Artes" Club, after he had
been notified that the said organization was made for the purpose of evading the law then in
force in said city and for acting as attorney for said club during the time of and after its
organization.
These charges according to the CFI of Manila were held true and thereupon made an order
suspending him from his office as a lawyer in the Philippine Islands, and directed the clerk of the
court to transmit to this court a certified copy of the order of suspension. Aside from that, he was
also charged for estafa in a separate case.
ISSUE: WON Atty. Terell should be suspended from the practice of law.
HELD: YES. The promoting of organizations, with knowledge of their objects, for the purpose
of violating or evading the laws against crime constitutes such misconduct on the part of an
attorney, an officer of the court, as amounts to malpractice or gross misconduct in his office, and
for which he may be removed or suspended. (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 21.) The assisting of
a client in a scheme which the attorney knows to be dishonest, or the conniving at a violation of
law, are acts which justify disbarment.
In this case, Terrell was acquitted on the charge of estafa. Therefore, the crimes he committed
were not criminal in nature. Terrell was suspended from the practice of law for a term of one
year.
35. MILLARE V. MONTERO, 246 SCRA 1
July 13, 1995
RODOLFO MILLARE, petitioner, vs. ATTY. EUSTAQUIO Z. MONTERO, respondent.
Applicable Law or Legal Ethics Principle: Canon II, Sec. 23 (Instituting multiple cases; forum
shopping), and Canon IV, Sec. 4 (Diligence in all undertakings)
FACTS: This is a disbarment case referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation. The IBP Board of Governors found the respondent guilty of malpractice and
recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law.
The case revolves around the respondent's actions in representing a client, Elsa Dy Co, who had
lost a case in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). Despite the judgment becoming final and
executory, the respondent filed multiple actions and appeals in an attempt to delay its execution,
including filing a defective and dilatory petition for annulment of decisions with the Court of
Appeals (CA). Respondent filed a total of six appeals, complaints or petitions to frustrate the
execution of the MTC judgment in Civil Case No. 844. The respondent's actions were seen as an
abuse of the legal process, an ethical violation, and an attempt to frustrate justice.
The IBP Board of Governors upheld these findings and recommended the one-year suspension
of the respondent. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, stating that the respondent's actions
violated legal ethics and hindered the administration of justice.
ISSUES:
I. WON Montero is guilty of forum shopping and hence, should be suspended.
II. WON Montero is guilty of abusing procedural rules to defeat ends of substantial
justice.
HELD:
I. YES. Judging from the number of actions filed by respondent to forestall the
execution of the same judgment, respondent is also guilty of forum shopping.
II. YES. The respondent was found to have knowingly and willfully abused their legal
rights in an attempt to obtain a favorable judgment. These efforts, which included
filing numerous pleadings and actions, were all unsuccessful and amounted to a
violation of the duty of a lawyer to only initiate just actions and present defenses that
have a legitimate basis in law. The respondent's actions were deemed to have
undermined the integrity of the judicial process and disregarded ethical standards by
intentionally obstructing the rights of a party who had received a favorable judgment.
This conduct was seen as an abuse of procedural rules with the aim of defeating the
ends of substantial justice.

Case Digest Assignment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest Assignment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest Assignment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MAE ANTONNETTE B.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Valencia violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

FACTS: Complainant, Wellington Reyes, reported to the National Bureau of Investigation

ISSUE: WON respondent should be suspended from the practice of law.

FACTS: Marcos Medina, complainant, charged Atty. Loreto Bautista, respondent, of

PRIMARY CHARACTERISTICS WHICH DISTINGUISH THE LEGAL PROFESSION

27. ARCIGA V. MANIWANG, 106 SCRA 591

FACTS: This is an administrative case initiated by the Solicitor-General against Roque

You might also like