RAMOS V.

IMBANG
FACTS
In 1992, the complainant Diana
Ramos
sought
the
assistance
of
respondent Atty. Jose R. Imbang in filing
civil and criminal actions against the
spouses
Roque
and
Elenita
Jovellanos. She gave respondent P8,500
as attorney's fees but the latter issued a
receipt for P5,000 only.
The complainant tried to attend the
scheduled hearings of her cases against
the Jovellanoses. Oddly, respondent never
allowed her to enter the courtroom and
always told her to wait outside. He would
then come out after several hours to
inform her that the hearing had been
cancelled and rescheduled. This happened
six times and for each appearance in
court, respondent charged her P350.
After
six
consecutive
postponements, the complainant became
suspicious. She personally inquired about
the status of her cases in the trial courts
of Bian and San Pedro, Laguna. She was
shocked to learn that respondent never
filed any case against the Jovellanoses and
that he was in fact employed in the Public
Attorney's Office (PAO).
HELD

Attorney Imbang is disbarred and

his name stricken from the roll of
attorneys.
Lawyers are expected to conduct
themselves
with
honesty
and
integrity. More specifically, lawyers in
government service are expected to be
more conscientious of their actuations as
they are subject to public scrutiny. They
are not only members of the bar but also
public servants who owe utmost fidelity to
public service.
Government employees are expected to
devote themselves completely to public

service. For this reason, the private

practice
of
profession
is
prohibited. Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees provides:
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and
Transactions. -- In addition to acts and
omissions
of
public
officials
and
employees
now
prescribed
in
the
Constitution and existing laws, the
following constitute prohibited acts and
transactions of any public official and
employee and are hereby declared
unlawful:
xxx
xxx
xxx
(b) Outside employment and other
activities related thereto, public officials
and employees during their incumbency
shall not:
xxx
xxx
xxx
(1) Engage in the private practice
of profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided that such
practice will not conflict with their official
function.
Thus, lawyers in government
service cannot handle private cases for
they are expected to devote themselves
full-time to the work of their respective
offices.
In
this
instance,
respondent
received P5,000 from the complainant and
issued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he
was still connected with the PAO.
Acceptance of money from a client
establishes
an
attorney-client
relationship. Respondent's admission that
he accepted money from the complainant
and the receipt confirmed the presence of
an attorney-client relationship between
him and the complainant. Moreover, the
receipt showed that he accepted the
complainant's case while he was still a
government lawyer. Respondent clearly
violated the prohibition on private practice
of profession.

Aggravating
respondent's
wrongdoing was his receipt of attorney's
fees. The PAO was created for the purpose
of providing free legal assistance to
indigent litigants. Section 14(3), Chapter
5, Title III, Book V of the Revised
Administrative Code provides:
Sec. 14. xxx
The PAO shall be the principal law
office of the Government in extending free
legal assistance to indigent persons in
criminal, civil, labor, administrative and
other quasi-judicial cases.
As a PAO lawyer, respondent
should not have accepted attorney's fees
from the complainant as this was
inconsistent
with
the
office's
mission. Respondent
violated
the
prohibition against accepting legal fees
other than his salary.
Every lawyer is obligated to uphold
the law. This undertaking includes the
observance of the above-mentioned
prohibitions
blatantly
violated
by
respondent when he accepted the
complainant's
cases
and
received
attorney's fees in consideration of his legal
services.
Consequently,
respondent's
acceptance of the cases was also a breach
of Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility because the prohibition on
the
private
practice
of
profession
disqualified him from acting as the
complainant's counsel.
Aside
from
disregarding
the
prohibitions against handling private cases
and accepting attorney's fees, respondent
also
surreptitiously
deceived
the
complainant. Not only did he fail to file a
complaint against the Jovellanoses (which
in the first place he should not have done),
respondent also led the complainant to
believe that he really filed an action
against the Jovellanoses. He even made it
appear that the cases were being tried
and asked the complainant to pay his

appearance fees for hearings that never

took place. These acts constituted
dishonesty, a violation of the lawyer's oath
not to do any falsehood.
Respondent's conduct in office fell
short of the integrity and good moral
character required of all lawyers, specially
one occupying a public office. Lawyers in
public office are expected not only to
refrain from any act or omission which
tend to lessen the trust and confidence of
the citizenry in government but also
uphold the dignity of the legal profession
at all times and observe a high standard of
honesty and fair dealing. A government
lawyer is a keeper of public faith and is
burdened with a high degree of social
responsibility, higher than his brethren in
private practice.
There is, however, insufficient basis
to find respondent guilty of violating Rule
16.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Respondent did not hold
the money for the benefit of the
complainant but accepted it as his
attorney's fees. He neither held the
amount in trust for the complainant (such
as an amount delivered by the sheriff in
satisfaction of a judgment obligation in
favor of the client) nor was it given to him
for a specific purpose (such as amounts
given
for
filing
fees
and
bail
bond). Nevertheless, respondent should
return the P5,000 as he, a government
lawyer, was not entitled to attorney's fees
and not allowed to accept them.
OMAR P. ALI vs ATTY. MOSIB A.
BUBONG
Facts: It appears that this disbarment
proceeding
is an
off-shoot
of the
administrative
caseearlier
filed
by
complainant against respondent. In said
case, which was initiallyinvestigated
by the Land Registration Authority (LRA),
complainant
charged
respondent

withillegal
exaction;
indiscriminate
issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. T-2821 inthe names of Lawan
Bauduli Datu, Mona Abdullah, Ambobae
Bauduli
Datu, Matabae
BauduliDatu,
Mooamadali Bauduli Datu, and Amenola
Bauduli
Datu;
and manipulating
the criminalcomplaint filed against Hadji
Serad Bauduli Datu and others for
violation of the Anti-Squatting Law. It appears
from the records that the Baudali Datus are
relatives of respondent.Issue: did atty.
Bubong violate Canon 6 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?Held: yes , he
did.In the case at bar, respondents grave
misconduct, as established by the Office
of thePresident and subsequently affirmed
by this Court, deals with his qualification
as a lawyer.By taking advantage of his
office as the Register of Deeds of Marawi
City
and
employing
hisk n o w l e d g e o f t h e r u l e s g o v e
rning land registration for the
b e n e fi t o f h i s r e l a t i v e s , respon
dent had clearly demonstrated his
unfi tness not only to perform the
functions of a c i v i l s e r v a n t b u t a l s o
to re tain his
membership in
t h e b a r. Ru l e 6 . 0 2 o f t h e C o d e
o f Professional Responsibility is explicit on
this matter. It reads:Rule 6.02 A lawyer
in the government service shall not use
his public position to promoteor advance
his private interests, nor allow the latter to
interfere
with
his
public duties.Respondents
conduct
manifestly undermined the peoples
confidence in the public office heused to
occupy and cast doubt on the integrity of
the legal profession. The ill-conceived
useof his knowledge of the intricacies of
the law calls for nothing less than the
withdrawal of hisprivilege to practice law.As
for the letter sent by Bainar Ali, the
deceased
complainants
daughter,
requesting forthe withdrawal of this case,

we cannot possibly favorably act on the

same as proceedings of this nature
cannot be interrupted
or terminated by reason of desistanc
e, settlement,c o m p r o m i s e , r e s t i t u t
ion, withdrawal of the charges or
f a i l u r e o f t h e c o m p l a i n a n t t o prose
cute the same. As we have previously
explained in the case of
Irene Rayos-Ombac v. Atty. Orlando A.
Rayos
A case of suspension or disbarment
may proceed regardless of interest or lack
of
interestof
the
complainant. What
matters is whether, on the basis of the
facts borne out by therecord, the charge of
deceit and grossly immoral conduct has
been duly proven. This rule ispremised on
the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A
proceeding for suspension ordisbarment is
not in any sense a civil action where the
complainant is a plaintiff and therespondent
lawyer
is
a
defendant. Disciplinary
proceedings involve no private interest
andafford
no
redress
for
private
grievance. They are undertaken and
prosecuted
solely
for
thepublic
welfare. They are undertaken for the
purpose of preserving courts of justice
from theofficial ministration of persons
unfit to practice in them. The attorney is
called to answer tothe court for his
conduct as an officer of the court. The
complainant or the person whocalled the
attention of the court to the attorneys
alleged misconduct is in no sense a party
and has generally no interest in the
outcome except as all good citizens may
have
in the
proper
administrative
of justice

PCGG V. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS

General Bank and Trust Company

(GENBANK)
encountered
financial
difficulties. Later on, Central Bank issued a
resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent.
Former Solicitor General Estelito P.
Mendoza filed a petition with the then
Court of First Instance praying for the
assistance and supervision of the court in
GENBANK's liquidation.
After
EDSA
1,
Pres.
Aquino
established the PCGG for the purpose of
recovering ill gotten wealth. The PCGG, on
July
17,
1987,
filed
with
the
Sandiganbayan a complaint for 'reversion,
reconveyance, restitution, accounting and
damages against respondents Tan, et al.
so PCGG issued several writs of
sequestration on properties allegedly
acquired by the above-named persons by
taking
advantage
of
their
close
relationship and influence with former
President Marcos. These respondents were
represented by Mendoza.
PCGG filed motions to disqualify
respondent Mendoza as counsel for
respondents. The motions alleged that
respondent Mendoza, as then Solicitor
General and counsel to Central Bank,
'actively intervened in the liquidation of
GENBANK,
which
was
subsequently
acquired by respondents Tan, et al. and
became Allied Banking Corporation.
The motions to disqualify invoked
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Rule 6.03 prohibits former
government lawyers from accepting
'engagement
or
employment
in
connection with any matter in which he
had intervened while in said service.
ISSUE
W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility applies to
respondent Mendoza?
HELD

NO, IT DOES NOT APPLY. The matter

or the act of respondent Mendoza as
Solicitor General involved in the case at
bar is 'advising the Central Bank, on how
to proceed with the said bank's liquidation
and even filing the petition for its
liquidation with the CFI of . In fine, the
Court should resolve whether his act of
advising the Central Bank on the legal
procedure to liquidate GENBANK is
included within the concept of 'matter
under Rule 6.03.
The 'matter where he got himself
involved was in informing Central Bank on
the procedure provided by law to liquidate
GENBANK thru the courts and in filing the
necessary petition. The subject 'matter of
Sp. Proc. No. 107812, therefore, is not the
same nor is related to but is different from
the subject 'matter in Civil Case No. 0096
which is about the sequestration of the
shares of respondents Tan, et al.
The jurisdiction of the PCGG does
not include the dissolution and liquidation
of banks. It goes without saying that Code
6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility cannot apply to respondent
Mendoza because his alleged intervention
while a Solicitor General in Sp. Proc. No.
107812 is an intervention on a matter
different from the matter involved in Civil
Case No. 0096.
Secondly,
the
supposed
intervention of Mendoza in the liquidation
case is not significant and substantial. We
note that the petition filed merely seeks
the assistance of the court in the
liquidation of GENBANK. The principal role
of the court in this type of proceedings is
to assist the Central Bank in determining
claims of creditors against the GENBANK.
Also,
The
disqualification
of
respondent Mendoza has long been a
dead issue. For a fact, the recycled
motion for disqualification in the case at
bar was filed more than four years after

the filing of the petitions for certiorari,

prohibition and injunction with the
Supreme Court which were subsequently
remanded to the Sandiganbayan. At the
very least, the circumstances under which
the motion to disqualify in the case at bar
were refiled put petitioner's motive as
highly suspect.
It is also submitted that the Court
should apply Rule 6.03 in all its strictness
for it correctly disfavors lawyers who
'switch sides. It is claimed that 'switching
sides' carries the danger that former
government employee may compromise
confidential official information in the
process. But this concern does not cast a
shadow in the case at bar. As aforediscussed, the act of respondent Mendoza
in informing the Central Bank on the
procedure how to liquidate GENBANK is a
different matter from the subject matter of
Civil Case No. 0005 which is about the
sequestration of the shares of respondents
Tan, et al., in Allied Bank. There is no
switching sides for there were no sides.
CAMACHO V. PAGULAYAN
FACTS

AMA Computer College (AMACC)

had a pending case in the RTC for
expelling some students due to having
published
objectionable
features
or
articles in the school paper. Thereafter,
Atty. Camacho who is the counsel for the
expelled students filed a complaint against
Atty. Pangulayan, counsel for AMACC, for
violation of Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Ethics which provides that "A
lawyer
should
not
in
any
way
communicate
upon
the
subject
of
controversy with a party represented by
counsel, much less should he undertake to
negotiate or compromise the matter with
him, but should only deal with his counsel.

It is incumbent upon the lawyer most

particularly to avoid everything that may
tend to mislead a party not represented by
counsel and he should not undertake to
advise him as to law." The complaint was
based on the fact that Atty. Pangulayan
procured and effected from the expelled
students and their parents compromise
agreements in which the students waived
all kinds of claims they may have against
AMACC and to terminate all civil, criminal
and administrative proceedings filed
against it. The compromise agreements
were procured by Atty. Pangulayan without
the consent and knowledge of Atty.
Camacho given that he was already the
counsel for the students at that time. It
was averred that the acts of Atty.
Pangulayan was unbecoming of any
member of the legal profession warranting
either disbarment or suspension from the
practice of law.

Such failure of Atty. Pangulayan,

whether by design or oversight, is an
inexcusable violation of the canons of
professional ethics and in utter disregard
of a duty owing to a colleague. Atty.
Pangulayan in this case fell short of the
demands required of him as a lawyer and
as a member of the Bar.
*In relation to our topic (not stated
in case), such act of Atty. Pangulayan is
also in violation of Canon 8.02 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which states
that "A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer, however,
it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or
favor, to give proper advice and
assistance to those seeking relief against
unfaithful or neglectful counsel."

ISSUE

Tolentino, with the help of Labiano,

was pirating the clients of Labiano by
offering, in some instances, a 50K loan.

Whether or not Atty. Pangulayan

violated Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Ethics
HELD
YES! Atty. Pangulayan is suspended
for 3 months from the practice of law for
having ciolated the Code of Professional
Ethics.
In this case, when the compromise
agreements were formalized and effected
by Atty. Pangulayan, Atty. Camacho was
already the retained counsel for the
students in the pending case filed by the
students against AMACC and Atty.
Pangulayan had full knowledge of such
fact. However, Atty. Pangulayan still
proceeded to negotiate with the students
and the parents without at least
communicating the matter with their
lawyer even being aware that the students
were being represented by counsel.

LINSANGAN V. TOLENTINO
FACTS

ISSUE

Is it an encroachment on the
professional practice of Labiano, thereby
violating rule 8.02 which provides that, A
lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
encroach
upon
the
professional
employment of another lawyer,?
HELD

Yes.
Settled is the rule that a lawyer
should not steal another lawyers client
nor induce the latter to retain him by a
promise of better service, good result, or
reduced fees for his service. In this case,
promise of a loan.
JOHNNY NG V. ALAR

FACTS
The case stemmed from a labor
case filed by the employees of the Ng
Company against its employers. The
employees alleged that they did not
receive their service incentive leave pay
from their employers due to the latters
claim that the employees conducted a
strike at the Companys premises which
hampered its ingress and egress. The case
was referred to the labor arbiter and the
latter found that the employees have been
paid their service incentive leave pay. The
employees appealed to NLRC but the
latter affirmed the labor arbiters decision.
In reaction to this, respondent filed a
Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to
Inhibit (MRMI) where respondent used
scandalous, offensive, and menacing
languages to support his complaint. He
said that the labor arbiter was cross-eyed
in making his findings of fact and that
Commissioner Dinopol acted in the same
manner with malice thrown in when he
adopted the findings of the labor arbiter.
That the retiring commissioners of NLRC
circumvent the law and jurisprudence
when the money claim involved in the
case
is
substantial.
According
to
respondent, such acts constitute grave
abuse of discretion.
Because of the MRMI, complainant
filed a disbarment case with IBPs
Commission on Bar Discipline against
respondent wherein it was alleged that the
latter violated certain codes and rules of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Specifically, respondent allegedly violated
Canons 8 and 11 wherein a lawyer is
prohibited
from
using
scandalous,
oppressive, offensive, and malicious
language against an opposing counsel and
before the courts.
In his defense, respondent argues
that he did not violate any of the canons
found in the Code because 1) the NLRC is

not among the courts referred to in the

rules; 2) the Commissioners therein are
not judges; and 3) the complainants in
labor cases are entitled to some latitude of
righteous anger. Attached to respondents
counter-complaint is an affidavit made by
the union president Batan alleging that
the lawyers of the complainant are the
ones who violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility when they filed multiple
suits arising from the same cause of
action and when they deliberately
lessened the number of complainants in
the labor case.
The findings of the Commission on
Bar discipline led the IBP to conclude that
respondent is guilty of violating Canons 8
and 11, while the lawyers of the
complainant did not violate any canons of
the
Code.
It
recommended
that
respondent be reprimanded with a stern
warning that severe penalties will be
imposed in case a similar conduct will be
committed again.

dignity of the legal profession. The use of

unnecessary language is proscribed if we
are to promote high esteem in the courts
and trust in judicial administration.
However, the penalty of reprimand
with stern warning imposed by the IBP
Board of Governors is not proportionate to
respondents violation of the Canons of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Thus, he deserves a stiffer penalty of fine
in the amount of P5,000.00.
Anent the Counter-Complaint filed
against the lawyers of complainant, the
Court finds no reason to disturb the
following findings and recommendation of
the
Investigating
Commissioner,
as
approved by the IBP Board of Governors,
to wit:
The Counter-complainant Batan
failed to submit any position paper to
substantiate its claims despite sufficient
opportunity to do so.

ISSUE

A.C.
No.
FACTS

W/N respondent violated Canons 8

and 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD
YES.
Respondent
has
clearly
violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. His actions
erode the publics perception of the legal
profession. The MRMI contains insults and
diatribes against the NLRC, attacking both
its moral and intellectual integrity, replete
with implied accusations of partiality,
impropriety
and
lack
of
diligence.
Respondent used improper and offensive
language in his pleadings that does not
admit any justification.
Though a lawyer's language may
be forceful and emphatic, it should always
be dignified and respectful, befitting the

Huyssen vs. Gutierrez

6707,

March

24,

2006

Respondent Atty. Gutierrez, a Bureau of

Immigration and Deportation officer,
received US$20,000 from complainant
Huyssen. Accused of falsely representing
that it was needed in complainants
application for visa and failing to return
the
same,
respondent
denied
misappropriating
the
said
amount,
claiming that he gave it to a certain Atty.
Mendoza who assisted complainant and
children in their application for visa. He
failed however to substantiate such
denial.
Atty. Gutierrez had many alibis on why the

money could not immediately be returned

to the complainant, and promised her
several times that he would repay her out
of his personal funds. He even issued
personal post-dated checks on this, but
which
later
bounced.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondents conduct
violated
the
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility and merits the penalty of
disbarment?
RULING
Yes, the respondent should be disbarred.
The defense of denial proferred by
respondent is not convincing. It is settled
that denial, which is inherently a weak
defense, to be believed must be
buttressed by a strong evidence of nonculpability. The evidence, respondents
letters to the complainant, shows that he
made it appear that the US$20,000 was
officially deposited with the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation. If this is
true, how come only Petty Cash Vouchers
were issued by respondent to complainant
to prove his receipt of the said sum and
official receipts therefore were never
issued by the said Bureau? Also, why
would respondent issue his personal
checks to cover the return of the money to
complainant if said amount was really
officially deposited with the Bureau of
Immigration?
All
these
actions
of
respondent point to the inescapable
conclusion that respondent received the

money from complainant and appropriated

the
same
for
his
personal
use.
Lawyers in government service in the
discharge of their official task have more
restrictions than lawyers in private
practice. Want of moral integrity is to be
more severely condemned in a lawyer who
holds
a
responsible
public
office.
Considering that respondent was able to
perpetrate the fraud by taking advantage
of his position with the Board of Special
Inquiry of the Bureau of Immigration and

A lawyer must at all times conduct

himself, especially in his dealings with his
clients and the public at large, with
honesty and integrity in a manner beyond
reproach. More importantly, possession of
good moral character must be continuous
as a requirement to the enjoyment of the
privilege of law practice; otherwise, the
loss thereof is a ground for the revocation
of
such
privilege.
As a lawyer, who was also a public officer,
respondent miserably failed to cope with
the strict demands and high standards of
the legal profession. Section 27 Rule 138
of the Revised Rules of Court mandates
that a lawyer may be disbarred or
suspended for, among other acts, gross
misconduct
in
office.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Gutierrez is hereby
DISBARRED from the practice of law and

Deportation, makes it more reprehensible

as it has caused damage to the reputation
and integrity of said office. It is submitted
that respondent has violated Rule 6.02 of
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
which
reads:

shows moral turpitude. Respondent's acts

are more despicable, for not only did he
misappropriate the money of complainant;
worse, he had the gall to prepare receipts
with the letterhead of the BID and issued
checks to cover up his misdeeds.

"A lawyer in the government service shall

not use his public position to promote or
advance his private interests, nor allow
the latter to interfere with his public
duties."

Time and again, we have declared that the

practice of law is a noble profession. It is a
special privilege bestowed only upon
those who are competent intellectually,
academically
and
morally.

Also, the act of issuing a bouncing check

ordered to return the amount he received

from the complainant with legal interest
from his receipt of the money until
payment. The case shall be referred to the
Office of the Ombudsman for criminal
prosecution for violation of Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Acts and to the
Department of Justice for appropriate
administrative action.
PNB v ATTY CEDO

Facts: PNB filed a complaint against Atty.

Cedo for violation of Rule 6.02 that
states: A lawyer shall not, after
leaving
govt.
service,
accept
engagement or employment in
connection with any matter which
he had intervened with in said
service. Cedo was the former Asst.

Vice-President
of
the
management Group of PNB.

Asset

During Cedos stint with

PNB, he became involved in 2
transactions: 1.) sale of steel sheets
to Ms. Ong and 2.) intervened in the
handling of a loan of spouses
Almeda. When a civil action arose
because of #1, Cedo, after leaving
the bank appeared as one of the
counsel of Ms. Ong. Also, when #2
was involved in a civil action, the
Almedas were represented by the
law firm Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo &
Associates of which Cedo was a
Senior Partner.
Cedo claims that he did not
participate in the litigation of Ms.
Ongs case. He also claims that even
if it was his law firm handling the

Almeda case, the case was being

handled by Atty. Ferrer.

Issue: W/N violated Rule 6.02.

Held: Cedo violated Rule 6.02.
In the complexity of what is
said in the course of dealings
between the atty. and the client,
inquiry of the nature suggested
would lead to the revelation, in
advance of the trial, of
other
matters that might only further
prejudice the complainant cause.
Whatever may be said as to w/n the
atty. utilized against his former client
information given to him in a
professional capacity, the mere fact
that their previous relationship
should have precluded him from
appearing as counsel for the other
side.
It is unprofessional to
represent conflicting interests,
except by express consent of all
the parties concerned after the
disclosure of facts. A lawyer
represents conflicting interests
when, in behalf of one client, it
is his duty to contend for that
which duty to another client
requires him to oppose.
SANTOS v LLAMAS

Facts: This

is

complaint

for

the court about his standing in the IBP by

misrepresentation and non-payment of bar

using the same IBP O.R. number in his

membership dues filed against respondent

pleadings

Atty. Francisco R. Llamas It appears that

therefore

of

at

least

liable

for

six

years

his

and

actions.

Atty. Llamas, who for a number of years

now, has not indicated the proper PTR and

Held:

IBP OR Nos. and data in his pleadings. If at

(1) NO. Rule 139-A requires that every

all, he only indicated IBP Rizal 259060

member of the Integrated Bar shall pay

but he has been using this for at least 3

annual dues and default thereof for six

years

months

already.

On

the

other

hand,

shall

warrant

suspension

of

respondent, who is now of age, averred

membership and if nonpayment covers a

that since 1992, he has engaged in law

period of 1-year, default shall be a ground

practice without having paid his IBP dues.

for removal of the delinquents name from

He likewise admits that, as appearing in

the Roll of Attorneys. It does not matter

the pleadings submitted by complainant to

whether

this Court, he indicated "IBP-Rizal 259060"

engaged in limited practice of law.

in the pleadings he filed in court, at least

Moreover, While it is true that R.A. No.

for the years 1995, 1996, and 1997, thus

7432, grants senior citizens "exemption

misrepresenting that such was his IBP

from the payment of individual income

chapter membership and receipt number

taxes: provided, that their annual taxable

for the years in which those pleadings

income does not exceed the poverty level

were filed. He claims, however, that he is

as determined by the National Economic

only engaged in a "limited" practice and

and Development Authority (NEDA) for

that he believes in good faith that he is

that year," the exemptionhowever does

exempt from the payment of taxes, such

not include payment of membership or

as income tax, under R.A. No. 7432, as a

association

senior

citizen

since

or

not

respondent

is

only

dues.

1992.
(2)YES. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in

Issues:

his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting

(1) Whether respondent is exempt from

to the public and the courts that he had

paying his yearly dues to the Integrated

paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter,

Bar

respondent is guilty of violating the Code

of

the

Philippines.

of
(2) Whether the respondent has misled

Professional

Responsibility

which

provides: Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not

engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful

conduct.

His

act

is

also

violation of Rule 10.01 which provides

that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any in court;
nor mislead or allow the court to be misled
by

any

artifice.

had started to refuse recognizing the child

and giving her any form of support. After
due hearing, the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline found Atty. Castillo guilty of
gross immoral conduct and recommends
that he be meted the penalty of indefinite
suspension from the practice of law.
ISSUE:

and his misrepresentation in the pleadings

Whether or not the penalty

imposed is proper.

he filed in court indeed merit the most

HELD:

Respondent's failure to pay his IBP dues

severe

penalty.

However,

in

view

of

respondent's advanced age, his express

willingness to pay his dues and plea for a
more temperate application of the law, we
believe the penalty of one year suspension
from the practice of law or until he has
paid his IBP dues, whichever is later, is
appropriate.
ZAGUIRRE V CASTILLO
FACTS:
Complainant and respondent had
their illicit relationship while the latter was
preparing to take the bar examinations.
After the admission of the respondent to
the Philippine Bar, complainant learned
that he was already married. Respondent,
who by now is a lawyer, executed an
affidavit, admitting his relationship with
the complainant and recognizing the
unborn child she was carrying as his. After
the birth of the baby, however, respondent

YES. Respondent violated Rule

1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of
the same Code.
The conduct must not only be
immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it
must be so corrupt as to constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree or
committed under such scandalous or
revolting circumstances as to shock the
common sense of decency.
Siring a child with a woman other
than his wife is a conduct way below the
standards of morality required of every
lawyer. Moreover, the attempt of
respondent to renege on his notarized
statement recognizing and undertaking to
support his child by Carmelita
demonstrates a certain unscrupulousness
on his part which is highly censurable,
unbecoming a member of a noble

profession, tantamount to selfstultification.

The rule is settled that a lawyer
may be suspended or disbarred for any
misconduct, even if it pertains to his
private activities, as long as it shows him
to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity or good demeanor.
MALIGAYA VS DORONILLA
FACTS: Atty. Doronilla stood as counsel for
several military officers. During ahearing,
he said we had an agreement that if we
withdraw the case against him(Maligaya)
he will also withdraw all the cases. Do with
that understanding, he evenretired and he
is now receiving pension. Atty. Doronilla
was then charge of misleading the court
through misrepresentation of facts
resulting in obstruction of justice
ISSUE: WON Atty. Doronilla guilt of
purposely stating a falsehood in violation
of canon 10 of the code of professional
responsibility.
RULING: by stating untruthfully in open
court, Att. Doronilla breached
peremptorytenets of ethical conduct. Not
only violated the lawyers oath to do no
falsehood,nor consent to the doing of an in
court, but also his acts infringed on
everylawyers duty to never seek to
mislead the judge or any judicial officer by
anartifice or false statement of fact or law.
He was suspended from practice of law
fortwo months