MARIA ELENA MORENO VS. ATTY. ERNESTO ARANETA A.C. No. 1109.

April 27, 2005 Facts: Ernesto Araneta issued two checks to Elena Moreno for his indebtedness which amounts to P11, 000.00, the checks were dishonored. It was dishonored because the account against which is drawn is closed. Thereafter the case was forwarded to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. The Commission recommended the suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months. On 15 October 2002, IBP Director for Bar Discipline Victor C. Fernandez, transmitted the records of this case back to this Court pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 12(b) of the Rules of Court. Thereafter, the Office of the Bar Confidant filed a Report regarding various aspects of the case. The Report further made mention of a Resolution from this Court indefinitely suspending the respondent for having been convicted by final judgment of estafa through falsification of a commercial document. Issue: Whether or not Araneta should be disbarred due to the issuance of checks drawn against a closed account. Held: The Court held that the act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment, is a manifestation of moral turpitude. In Co v. Bernardino and Lao v. Medel, we held that for issuing worthless checks, a lawyer may be sanctioned with one years suspension from the practice of law, or a suspension of six months upon partial payment of the obligation. In the instant case, however, herein respondent has, apparently been found guilty by final judgment of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document, a crime involving moral turpitude, for which he has been indefinitely suspended. Considering that he had previously committed a similarly fraudulent act, and that this case likewise involves moral turpitude, we are constrained to impose a more severe penalty. In fact, we have long held that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude. As we said in In The Matter of Disbarment Proceedings v. Narciso N. Jaramillo, the review of respondent's conviction no longer rests upon us. The judgment not only has become final but has been executed. No elaborate argument is necessary to hold the respondent unworthy of the privilege bestowed on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it to say that, by his conviction, the respondent has proved himself unfit to protect the administration of justice. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. MECARAL V. VELASQUEZ (April 23, 2010, A.C. No. 8392 [ Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2175], Per Curiam,June 29, 2010)Complainant was hired as a secretary by the atty. Velasquez who later became his common-law wife. Mecaral was later brought to Upper San Agustin in Caibiran, Biliran where he left her with a religious group known as the Faith Healers Association of the Philippines. Later, Mecaral returned home and upon knowing, Velasquez brought her back to San Agustin where, on his instruction, his followers tortured, brainwashed and injected her with drugs. Her mother, Delia Tambis Vda. De Mecaral (Delia),having received information that she was weak, pale and walking barefoot along the i the mountainous area of Caibiran caused the rescue operation of Mecaral. Thus, Mecaral filed a disbarment complaint against respondent and charged the latter with bigamy for contracting a second marriage to Leny H.Azur on August 2, 1996, despite the subsistence of his marriage to his first wife, Ma. Shirley G. Yunzal. Issue: whether respondent is guilty of grossly immoral and acts which constitute gross misconduct

Held: WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez, is DISBARRED, and his name ORDEREDSTRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. This Decision is immediately executory and ordered to be part of the records of respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines. Ruling: Investigating Commissioner of the CBD found that [respondents] acts of converting his secretary into a mistress; contracting two marriages with Shirley and Leny, are grossly immoral which no civilized society in the world can countenance. The subsequent detention and torture of the complainant is gross misconduct [which] only a beast may be able to do. Certainly, the respondent had violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the state upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. When a lawyer s moral character is assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, it behooves him to meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the investigating body and this Court, that he is morally fit to keep his name in the Roll of Attorneys. Respondent has not discharged the burden. He never attended the hearings before the IBP to rebut the charges brought against him, suggesting that they are true. Despite his letter dated March 28, 2008manifesting that he would come up with his defense in a verified pleading he never did. TERESITA D. SANTECO v. ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE A.C. 5834, 22 February 2011, EN BANC ( Per Curiam) An administrative complaint was filed by Teresita D. Santeco against respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance for mishandling Civil Case No. 97-275, which was filed before the RTC of Makati City. The result of such administrative complaint was the suspension of Avance from the practice of law for five years and ordered to return P3,900 to her client after she was found guilty of gross misconduct for abandoning her client in bad faith and persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders directed at h e r w i t h o u t a n y explanation for doing so. However, while still suspended, Avance appeared in three cases as Atty. Liezl Tanglao as stated ina letter-report of Judge Consuelo Amog-Bocar, presiding Judge of the RTC of Iba, Zambales. In a resolution,the Court ordered Avance to comment on said letter-report. However, she failed to do so. The Court thenreiterated its order. Again, despite receipt of the two resolutions, she still failed to comply.Thus, the Court issued a resolution finding Avance guilty of indirect contempt and ordering her topay a fine amounting to P30,000. It also sternly warned her that a repetition of the same or similar infractions will be dealt with more severely. Despite due notice, she failed to pay the fine. ISSUE: Whether or not the action or inaction of Atty. Avance is a ground for her disbarment HELD:A lawyer who willfully disobeys the lawful order of t h e c o u r t d e s e r v e s t h e ultimate penalty of disbarment. It held that respondents conduct evidently fell short of what is expected of her as an officer of thecourt as she obviously possesses a habit of defying this Courts orders. She willfully disobeyed this Court when she continued her law practice despite the fiveyear suspension order against her and evenmisrepresented herself to be another person in order to evade said penalty. Thereafter, when she was twiceordered to comment on her continued law practice while still suspended, nothing was heard from her despite receipt of two Resolutions form this Court. Neither did she pay the P30,000 fine imposed in theResolution.In repeatedly disobeying this Courts orders, respondent proved herself unworthy of membership inthe Philippine Bar. Worse, she remains indifferent to the need to reform herself. Clearly, she is unfit todischarge the duties of an officer of the court and deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment. MARTIN LAHM III AND JAMES P. CONCEPCION VS. LABORARBITER JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR, JR.

Facts:On September 5, 2006 a certain David Edward Toze filed a complaint for illegalSsdismissal before the Labor Arbitration Branch of the NLRC against the members of theBoard of Trustees of the International School, Manila which was raffled to the sala of the respondent. Impleaded as among the party-respondents are the complainants in the instantcase. Subsequently Toze filed a Verified Motion for the Issuance of a TRO and/or PreliminaryInjunction Against the Respondents. The latters counsel ask for extension of time to oppose and make a comment to the motion for the Issuance of TRO/Pre. Inj. Thereafter,respondent issued an order which directed the parties to maintain the status quo ante. Thecomplainant sought for a reconsideration. Meanwhile, Toze was reinstated and assumedhis former position as Superintendent. The Illegal Dismissal case was not resolvedinstead respondent issued an order requiring the parties to appear in his office to thresh out Tozes claim of moral and exemplary damages. Hence, the complainants filed a complainant for the disbarment of the respondent for alleged gross misconduct and violation of lawyers oath. Respondent Mayor argues that the complaint should be dismissed for being premature and a subterfurge in order tocompel him to inhibit in resolving the said illegal dismissal case. Based on finding, theInvestigating Commissioner recommended respondent to be suspended for a period of six months which was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution. Respondent sought to reconsider but it was denied, hence, this appeal. Issue : Whether nor not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of lawyers oath Ruling:The SC agreed with the resolution of IBP Board of Governors that the respondent should besanctioned. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that a lawyer may be removed orsuspended from the practice of law, inter alia , for gross misconduct and violation of the lawyers oath. A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations.Hence, the Code of Professional Responsibilitywas not meant to govern the conduct of privatepractitioners alone, but of all lawyers including those in government service . This is clear fromCanon 6 of said Code. Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity tothe public service. Thus, they should be more sensitive in the performance of their professionalobligations, as their conduct is subject to the everconstant scrutiny of the public. Here, the respondent, being part of the quasi-judicial system of our government, performsofficial functions that are akin to those of judges. Accordingly, the present controversy may beapproximated to administrative cases of judges whose decisions, including the manner of rendering the same, were made subject of administrative cases.When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to know and to simply apply it.Anything less would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. In the case at bench,respondent is found guilty of gross ignorance of the law.The role of the labor arbiters, with regard to the issuance of writs of preliminary injunctionsand/or writ of preliminary injunction, at present, is limited to reception of evidence as may bedelegated by the NLRC(.Section 4, Rule X of the 2005 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC).Wherefore, respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, with aWarning that commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in thedisposition of a more severe penalty.

Lazaro "The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindicative principle, with great caution and only for the most weighty reasons."

Facts: This is a disbarment complaint filed by Rodica against the respondent Atty. Lazaro on grounds of gross and serious misconduct, deceit, malpractice, grossly immoral conduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. On May 5, 2011, William Strong was arrested and detained by the Bureau of Immigration for allegedly being involved in an international gang and conspiracy in Brazil on fraud involving the creation of hundreds of dollars in illegal securities. Strong requested his friend Philip Apostol to look for a lawyer. Apostol recommended the Lazaro Law Office represented by Atty. Manuel Lazaro and his associates who initially declined but later accepted to handle the deportation case. Strong initiated giving the information that his deportation case may be due to the complaint filed by his live-in partner Jasper Rodica before the RTC against the Hillview Marketing Corporation for recovery and possession and

damages involving a property they have in Boracay which is represented by Atty. Tan. Rodica was represented by Atty. Ibutnande in this case. Apparently, Rodica claimed that Atty. Manuel met with Atty. Tan to discuss the settlement package on the deportation case they filed against Strong on the condition that Rodica withdraws her complaint from the RTC of Cebu. On May 25, 2011 the Bureau of Immigration rendered a judgment deporting Strong to leave the country. On June 6, 2011 Rodica filed before the RTC a motion to withdraw her complaint against Hillview. Rodica now alleges that after Strong was deported and withdrawing the case before the RTC, she was deceived by Atty Manuel et al for over settlement of 7 million which was allegedly extorted from her after misrepresenting that the withdrawal of the case before the RTC is only a part of the settlement package. It appears on the record that Atty. Espejo, an associate of the Lazaro Law office helped in drafting the Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw Motion for Reconsideration after Rodica pleaded him to prepare the motion and was requested further to indicate the name of the Lazaro Law Office including the name of Atty. Manuel and Atty. Michelle to give more weight on the pleading. Rodica promised Atty. Espejo to talk to Atty. Manuel about it. The case before the RTC was actually dismissed on March 29, 2011 for failure to show cause of action but a motion for reconsideration was filed by Rodica. Issue: Whether or not the allegations of Rodica merit the disbarment of the respondents. Ruling The court ruled that Rodica failed to overcome the presumption of innocence of the respondents. As a general rule, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to clearly prove the allegations made against them. The required quantum of proof is preponderance of evidence which is an evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. On her claim to have paid 7 million to Atty. Manuel et al, she failed to substantiate such claim despite showing off withdrawals from her bank account certain amount of money after failing to prove that the said amount was paid to the respondents. Moreover, the court held that Rodica is not a client of Lazaro Law Office. They merely handled the deportation case of Strong. As for Atty. Espejo, the court found him to have aided Rodica for misrepresenting before the court that she was aided by the Lazaro Law Office when in fact she is not. Atty. Espejo explained that Rodica assured him to talk to Atty. Manuel and Atty. Michelle about including their name on the pleading but she did not do so. Atty. Espejo should have known better that Atty. Ibutnande was the counsel on record on the case before the RTC and therefore it is not his duty to prepare said pleading. He also should have known that all pleadings before the court are acted based on merit or the lack of it and not by the name of the law firm. However, the court give due recognition on the fact that Atty. Espejo expressed remorse on his conduct and made a sincere apology to the RTC for wrongly employing the name of the Lazaro Law Office and that he was newly admitted to the Bar in 2010, the court find it proper to give him a warning to become more prudent on his actuation in the practice of his profession. The complaint for disbarment was dismissed.