Zaldivar v.

Gonzales
Zaldivar was the governor of Antique. He was charged before the Sandiganbayan
for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Gonzales was the then
Tanodbayan who was investigating the case. Zaldivar then filed with the Supreme
Court a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the authority of
the Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases under the 1987 Constitution. The
Supreme Court, acting on the petition issued a Cease and Desist Order against
Gonzalez directing him to temporarily restrain from investigating and filing
informations against Zaldivar.
Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he filed criminal
informations against Zaldivar. Gonzalez even had a newspaper interview where he
proudly claims that he scored one on the Supreme Court; that the Supreme Courts
issuance of the TRO is a manifestation theta the rich and influential persons get
favorable actions from the Supreme Court, [while] it is difficult for an ordinary
litigant to get his petition to be given due course.
Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez. The Supreme Court
then ordered Gonzalez to explain his side. Gonzalez stated that the statements in
the newspapers were true; that he was only exercising his freedom of speech; that
he is entitled to criticize the rulings of the Court, to point out where he feels the
Court may have lapsed into error. He also said, even attaching notes, that not less
than six justices of the Supreme Court have approached him to ask him to go slow
on Zaldivar and to not embarrass the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzalez is guilty of contempt.
HELD: Yes. The statements made by respondent Gonzalez clearly constitute
contempt and call for the exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme
Court. His statements necessarily imply that the justices of the Supreme Court
betrayed their oath of office. Such statements constitute the grossest kind of
disrespect for the Supreme Court. Such statements very clearly debase and
degrade the Supreme Court and, through the Court, the entire system of
administration of justice in the country.
Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. What Gonzalez
seems unaware of is that freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional
freedoms, is not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be
adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public
interests. One of these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the
integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. There is no
antinomy between free expression and the integrity of the system of administering
justice.
Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer of the court, is also a Special
Prosecutor who owes duties of fidelity and respect to the Republic and to the
Supreme Court as the embodiment and the repository of the judicial power in the
government of the Republic. The responsibility of Gonzalez to uphold the dignity

and authority of the Supreme Court and not to promote distrust in the
administration of justice is heavier than that of a private practicing lawyer.
Gonzalez is also entitled to criticize the rulings of the court but his criticisms must
be bona fide. In the case at bar, his statements, particularly the one where he
alleged that members of the Supreme Court approached him, are of no relation to
the Zaldivar case.
The Supreme Court suspended Gonzalez indefinitely from the practice of law.
Laquindanum v. Quintana
Judge Laquindanum sent a letter to the Supreme Court requesting that
proper disciplinary action be imposed to Atty. Nestor Quintana for the following acts:
1. Notarizing documents outside of the area of his commission as notary public;
2. Allowing his wife to notarize documents in his absence;
3. Notarizing a document where one of the signatories therein was already dead
at that time.
Issues:
1. Whether or not a lawyer of good standing has the right to practice his
professionincluding notarial acts in the entire Philippines, as so claimed by
the respondent
2. Whether or not Atty. Quintana can transfer the blame to his wife for the
latters unauthorized practice of notarial acts
3. Whether or not a notary public can notarize documents where one of
thesignatories therein was already dead at that time
Held:
1. No. While it is true that lawyers in good standing are allowed to engage in
thepractice of law in the Philippines, however, not every lawyer even in good
standing can perform notarial functions without having been commissioned
as notary public. He must have submitted himself to the commissioning court
by filing his petition for issuance of his Notarial Practice.
2. No. A notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his
notarialregister. Respondent cannot take refuge claiming that it was his wifes
act and that he did not authorize his wife to notarize documents. He is
personallyaccountable for the activities in his office as well as the acts of his
personnel including his wife, who acts as his secretary.
3. No. Sec. 2, (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides
Aperson shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory
to the instrument or document (1) is not in the notarys presence personally
at the timeof the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary
public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
---------Ui v. Bonifacio
Leslie Ui filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio on
grounds of immoral conduct. Atty. Bonifacio allegedly is having an illicit relationship
with Carlos Ui,husband of Leslie Ui, whom they begot two children. According to

petitioner, Carlos Ui admitted to her about the relationship between them and Atty.
Bonifacio. This led Leslie Ui to confront said respondent to stop their illicit affair but
to no avail. According however to respondent, she is a victim in the situation. When
respondent met Carlos Ui, she had known him to be a bachelor but with children to
an estranged Chinese woman who is already in Amoy, China. Moreover, the two got
married in Hawaii, USA therefore legalizing their relationship. When respondent
knew of the real status of Carlos Ui, she stopped their relationship. Respondent
further claims that she and Carlos Ui never lived together as the latter lived with his
children to allow them to gradually accept the situation. Respondent however
presented a misrepresented copy of her marriage contract.
Ruling: The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to
enjoy the practice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It
is a privilege that can be revoked, subject to the mandate of due process, once a
lawyer violates his oath and the dictates of legal ethics. One of the conditions prior
to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character.
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. A lawyer may be disbarred
for "grossly immoral conduct,or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude". A member of the bar should have moral integrity in addition to
professional probity.In the case at bar, Atty. Bonifacio was not proven to have
conducted herself in a grossly immoral manner. Thus, the case is dismissed. But she
is reprimanded and given a stern warning with regards to the status of her marriage
contract with an inculcated date.
---------Figueroa vs. Barranco
Figueroa and Barranco were sweethearts since their teens. Their intimacy
eventually resulted to a son born out of wedlock. At this point (1964) Barranco
promised Figueroa that he would marry her when he passes the bar examinations.
After four takes, he finally passed but did not hold true to his promise of marriage.
In 1971, their relationship ended. Years later, he married another woman. When
Barranco was about to take his oath to enter the legal profession, Figueroa filed a
complaint relaying to the court what happened between her and Barranco. Until
1988, Barranco has filed three motions to dismiss because Figueroa still would not
prosecute and because for the past years, he has become elected in the
Sangguniang Bayan, has actively participated in various civic organizations and has
acquired a good standing within his community while the case was pending. The
court sought the opinion of the IBP which recommended that Barranco be allowed to
take his oath. Figueroa reappeared and intercepted the scheduled oath-taking of
Barranco which led to its delay.
Issue: Whether or not Barranco should be allowed to take his oath despite
the accusations of Figueroa.
Held: Yes. The maintenance of an intimate relationship between a man and a
woman, both of whom had no impediment to marry and voluntarily carried on with
the affair, does not amount to a grossly immoral conduct even if a child was born

out of the relationship. His previous acts may be said to be a question to his moral
character but none of these are so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act
or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. Her
allegations that she was forced to have sexual relations with him cannot lie as
evidenced by her continued cohabitation with him even after their child was born in
1964. The ignobleness of his treatment of Figueroa is sufficiently punished by the 26
years that he has been prevented from entering the profession he has worked so
hard for.
---------Guevarra v. Eala
Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Committe on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M.
Eala a.k.a Noli Eala for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the
lawyer's oath."
In his complaint, Mr. Guevarra alleged that his wife Irene Moje have been
maintaining an illicit affair with Atty. Eala during their marriage, and presented
certain facts proving such allegation. These includes a social card, the preparation
of which was admitted by the respondent and their (Atty. Eala and Ms. Moje) living
together in a house which was a few blocks aways from the church where Ms. Moje
had exchange marital vows with the complainant. Also alleged and proven was the
fact that the respondent was the father of the complainant's daughter. The
complainant further went on saying that Atty. Eala and his wife have been openly
flaunting their adulterous relationship.
For Mr. Guevarra, respondent's grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the
Constitution and the laws he, as a lawyer, has been sworn to uphold. In pursuing
obsessively his illicit love for the complainant's wife, Atty. Eala was charged to have
mocked the institution of marriage, betrayed his own family, broke up the
complainant's marriage, commits adultery with his wife, and degrades the legal
profession.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Committee on Bar Discipline found the
charge against sufficiently proven and recommended that Atty. Eala be disbarred for
violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP
Board of Governors, however, annulled and set aside the Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner and accordingly dismissed the case for lack of merit.
The complainant then went to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Where or not Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala be disbarred for "grossly immoral
conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath"?
RULING:
That the marriage between complainant and Irene was subsequently declared void
ab initio is immaterial. The acts complained of took place before the marriage was
declared null and void. As a lawyer, respondent should be aware that a man and a

woman deporting themselves as husband and wife are presumed, unless proven
otherwise, to have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. In carrying on an
extra-marital affair with Irene prior to the judicial declaration that her marriage with
complainant was null and void, and despite respondent himself being married, he
showed disrespect for an institution held sacred by the law. And he betrayed his
unfitness to be a lawyer.
Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral
conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and
Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
---------Vitug v. Roncal
Catherine Joie P. Vitug sought the service of respondent Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal
who was introduced to her by a common friend. Complainant asked Atty. Rongcal to
represent her in the support case she was going to file against her former lover,
Arnulfo Aquino. Soon after, herein complainant and respondent started having
sexual relationship with each other. According to Vitug, respondent also gave her
sweet inducements such as the promise of a job, financial security for her daughter,
and his services as counsel for the prospective claim for support against Aquino.
On 9 February 2001, respondent allegedly convinced complainant to sign an
Affidavit of Disclaimer which the latter signed without reading the said affidavit. It
was said that Aquino will give complainant a lump sum provided she would execute
an affidavit to the effect that Aquino is not the father of her daughter. Complainant
argues that respondent's acts constitute a violation of his oath as a lawyer. She filed
an administrative case against Rongcal which was referred to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines which recommended the suspension of Rongcal from the practice of
law.
ISSUE: WON respondent be disbarred for immorality.
RULING:
One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess
good moral character. Said requirement persists as a continuing condition for the
enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for
the revocation of such privilege.
ON SEXUAL RELATION AND ON RESPONDENTS SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE:
By his own admission, respondent is obviously guilty of immorality in violation of
Rule 1.01 of the Code which states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
We find credence in respondent's assertion that it was impossible for her not to
have known of his subsisting marriage.
We believe that complainants allegations of deceit were not established by clear
preponderant evidence required in disbarment cases. We are left with the most
logical conclusion that she freely and wittingly entered into an illicit and immoral

relationship with respondent sans any misrepresentation or deceit on his part.

ON THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED:
Complainant does not deny being a college graduate or that she knows and
understands English. The Affidavit is written in short and simple sentences that are
understandable even to a layman. The inevitable conclusion is that she signed the
Affidavit voluntarily and without any coercion whatsoever on the part of respondent.
It was not unlawful for respondent to assist his client in entering into a settlement
with Aquino after explaining all available options to her. The law encourages the
amicable settlement not only of pending cases but also of disputes which might
otherwise be filed in court.
This court finds Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal GUILTY of immorality and imposes on him
a FINE of P15,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar
acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
---------Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
Section 2 of R.A. No. 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder) as
amended by R.A. No. 7659 substantially provides that any public officer who
amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series
of overt or criminal acts in the aggregate amount or total value of at least fifty
million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder. Petitioner
Joseph Ejercito Estrada, being prosecuted under the said Act, assailed its
constitutionality, arguing inter alia, that it abolishes the element of mens rea in
crimes already punishable under The Revised Penal Code; and as such, a violation of
the fundamental rights of the accused to due process and to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of plunder as defined in R.A. No. 7080 is a malum
prohibitum.
HELD:
No. The Supreme Court held that plunder is malum in se which requires proof of
criminal intent. Moreover, the legislative declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is
a heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se. The predicate crimes in the case
of plunder involve acts which are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, and are
committed willfully, unlawfully and criminally by the offender, alleging his guilty
knowledge. Thus, the crime of plunder is a malum in se.
---------De Ysasi v. NLRC
De Ysasi and Jon De Ysasi III are father and sons respectively. The elder Ysasi owns a
hacienda in Negros Occidental. De Ysasi III is employed in the hacienda as the farm
administrator. In November 1982, De Ysasi III underwent surgery and so he missed
work. While hes nursing from his infections he was terminated, without due

process, by his father. De Ysasi III filed against his father for illegal dismissal before
the NLRC. His father invoked that his son actually abandoned his work.
ISSUE: Whether or not De Ysasi III abandoned his work.
HELD: No. His absence from work does not constitute abandonment. To constitute
abandonment, there must be a.) failure to report for work or absence without valid
or justifiable reason, and b.) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee
relationship, with the second element as the more determinative factor and being
manifested by some overt acts. No such intent was proven in this case.
The Supreme Court, in making its decision, noted that the lawyers for both camps
failed to exert all reasonable efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of
court and especially in consideration of the direct and immediate consanguineous
ties between their clients especially considering that the parties involved are father
and son. This case may have never reached the courts had there been an earnest
effort by the lawyers to have both parties find an off court settlement but records
show that no such effort was made. The useful function of a lawyer is not only to
conduct litigation but to avoid it whenever possible by advising settlement
or withholding suit. He is often called upon less for dramatic forensic exploits than
for wise counsel in every phase of life. He should be a mediator for concord and a
conciliator for compromise, rather than a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of
litigation.
Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that (a)
lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will
admit of a fair settlement. Both counsel fell short of what was expected of them,
despite their avowed duties as officers of the court. In the same manner, the labor
arbiter who handled this regrettable case has been less than faithful to the letter
and spirit of the Labor Code mandating that a labor arbiter shall exert all efforts
towards the amicable settlement of a labor dispute within his jurisdiction.
----------

Castaeda v. Ago

1955 Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against Ago to recover
certain machineries.
1957 judgment in favor of Castaneda and Henson
1961 SC affirmed the judgment; trial court issued writof execution; Agos
motion denied, levy was made on Agoshouse and lots; sheriff advertised the
sale, Ago moved tostop the auction; CA dismissed the petition; SC affirmed
dismissal
Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminaryinjunction to restrain sheriff
from enforcing the writ ofexecution; his motions were denied

1963 sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda andHenson; Ago failed to
redeem
1964 sheriff executed final deed of sale; CFI issuedwrit of possession to the
properties
1964 Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment renderedagainst him in the
replevin suit saying it was his personalobligation and that his wife share in
their conjugal housecould not legally be reached by the levy made; CFI of
QCissued writ of preliminary injunction restraining Castanedathe Registed of
Deeds and the sheriff from registering thefinal deed of sale; the battle on the
matter of lifting andrestoring the restraining order continued
1966 Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibitionto enjoin sheriff from
enforcing writ of possession; SCdismissed it; Agos filed a similar petition with
the CA whichalso dismissed thepetition; Agos appealed to SC which dismissed
the petition
Ago filed another petition for certiorari and prohibitionwith the CA which gave
due course to the petition andgranted preliminary injunction.

ISSUE: WON the Agos lawyer, encourage his clients to avoidcontroversy

HELD:
No. Despite the pendency in the trial court of thecomplaint for the annulment of the
sheriffs sale, justicedemands that the petitioners, long denied the fruits oftheir
victory in the replevin suit, must now enjoy them, for,the respondents Agos abetted
by their lawyer Atty. Luison,have misused legal remedies and prostituted the
judicialprocess to thwart the satisfaction of the judgment, to theextended prejudice
of the petitioners.
Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servantand his exalted position as
an officer of the court,
Atty.Luison has allowed himself to become an instigator ofcontroversy and a predato
r of conflict instead of amediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise,
avirtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation insteadof a true exponent of the
primacy of truth and moral justice.