You are on page 1of 3

LEO A. LEGASPI, JR. Legal Ethics Barrios vs. Martinez A.C. No. 4585.

November 12, 2004 FACTS: Respondent Atty. Francisco Martinez was convicted for violation of BP 22 dated March 1996. Complainant Michael Barrios filed an action for disbarment against the respondent for having convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and submitted Courts Resolution and Entry of Judgement related to BP 22 case. The respondent was requested to file comments in several occasions but fail to comply until the court declared the respondent guilty of contempt dated February 1999 and ordered his imprisonment until he complied with aforesaid resolution. April 1999, the respondent was arrested by NBI but was subsequently released after having shown proof of compliance with the resolutions of 17 February 1997 and 27 April 1998 by remitting the amount of P2,000 and submitting his long overdue Comment. On September 1997, a certain Robert Visbal of the Provincial Prosecution Office of Tacloban City submitted a letter to the First Division Clerk of Court alleging that respondent Martinez also stood charged in another estafa case before the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, Branch 9, as he offered his legal sevice to the victims of the Doa Paz tragedy in 1987 and failed to remit compensation for the intended victims, for which the Regional Trial Court of Basey, Samar, Branch 30 rendered a decision against him, his appeal thereto having been dismissed by the Court of Appeals. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent was guilty of crime involving moral turpitude HELD: Yes. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. Respondent lawyers propensity to disregard or ignore orders of the Honorable Supreme Court for which he was fined twice, arrested and imprisoned reflects an utter lack of good moral character Respondents conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude (estafa and/or violation of BP Blg. 22) clearly shows his unfitness to protect the administration of justice and therefore justifies the imposition of sanctions against him. Atty. Francisco P. Martinez is was DISBARRED and his name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

Ui vs. Bonifacio A.C. No. 3319. June 8, 2000 FACTS: Mrs. Leslie Ui filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio on the ground of immorality, for allegedly carrying an illicit relationship with her husband Mr. Carlos Ui. In the proceeding before the IBP Commisison on Bar Discipline, the respondent attached a photocopy of marriage certificate that she and Mr. Ui got married in 1995. The respondent claims that she entered the relationship with Mr. Ui in good faith and cannot be considered as willful, flagrant, or shameless nor can it suggest moral indifference. She fell in love with Mr. Ui whom she believed to be single and upon discovery of his true civil status, she cut all her ties with him. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Bonifacios conducted herself in an immoral manner that deserves disbarrement from the practice of law. HELD: No. Att. Bonifacios relationship with Mr. Ui was clothed as it was what she believed was valid a marriage. The deceit was on the part of Mr. Ui when he introduced himself as a bachelor. Atty. Bonifacios act of immediately distancing herself from Mr. Ui upon discovery of true status belies just that the alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession. The complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio for alleged immorality is dismissed. However, she is was given a Stern Warning that a more severe sanction will be imposed on her for any repetition of the same or similar offense in the future. Figueroa vs. Barranco SBC Case No. 519. July 31, 1997 FACTS: Patricia Figueroa petitioned that respondent Simeon Barranco, Jr. be denied for taking his oath and admission to the legal profession for gross immorality. Complainant and respondent were both childhood sweethearts and bore a child out of wedlock. The respondent promised the complainant of marriage several times which he did not fulfill and the respondent married another woman. The court referred the case to the IBP and the IBP recommended the dismissal of the case and allowed the respondent to take his oath. ISSUE: Whether the acts of the respondent is a conduct of gross immorality that deserves non-inclusion into the legal profession HELD: No. To justify suspension and disbarment, that act complained of must not only immoral, but grossly immoral.

Respondents engagement in pre marital sex with the complainant is consensual and promise to marry her but did not fulfill, suggest a doubtful moral character on his part, but cannot be considered as grossly immoral conduct. Respondent was allowed to take his oath. Cordova vs. Cordova FACTS: Salvacion Cordova filed an administrative case against her husband Atty. Laurence Cordova for immorality and acts of unbecoming a member of the bar. The court referred the case to IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation, report and recommendation. Findings of the commission reported that the respondent was engaged in an extramarital affair to two women on a separate occasion and also abandoned his legitimate family. The commission also required the complainant to submit her evidences but she always request for rescheduling of the hearing which never took place because of her non appearance. On one occasion, the complainant sent a telegraph message to the commission that she and the respondent have reconciled. None of them appeared when the commission required their presence to explain the telegraphic message to formalize the dismissal of the complaint. ISSUE: Whether or not the reconciliation and non pursuant of the case would have dismiss the case against the respondent. HELD: No. the reconciliation between the complainant and the respondent is not an excuse and does not wipe away the misconduct and immoral behavior of the respondent. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community. The court suspended indefinitely the respondent from the practice of law until further order from the court. The court will consider lifting the suspension when the respondent submits proof that he has continued the support for his legitimate family and given up his immoral course of conduct.

You might also like