JUAN DULALIA, JR. v. ATTY. PABLO C.

CRUZ
(2007)
The primary duty of lawyers is to be well-informed of the existing laws, o keep abreast with legal developments,
recent enactments, and jurisprudence, and be conversant with basic legal principles.
Susan Soriano Dulalia (Susan), wife of Juan, applied for a permit in the Municipal Government to build a high
rise building in Bulacan. The permit was not released due to the opposition of Atty. Cruz who sent a letter to the
Municipal Engineers office, claiming that the building impedes the airspace of their property which is adjacent
to the Dulalias property. Juan Dulalia (Juan) filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo Cruz (Cruz)
for immoral conduct.
Juan also claimed that Cruzs illicit relationship with a woman while still married is in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Cruz invokes good faith, claiming to have had the impression that the applicable
provision at the time was Article 83 of the Civil Code, for while Article 256 of the Family Code provides that
the Code shall have retroactive application, there is a qualification.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Cruz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
Cruzs claim that he was not aware that the Family Code already took effect on August 3, 1988 as he was in the
United States from 1986 and stayed there until he came back to the Philippines together with his second wife on
October 9, 1990 does not lie, as ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
Immoral conduct which is proscribed under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as opposed to
grossly immoral conduct, connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the
opinion of good and respectable members of the community. Gross immoral conduct on the other hand must be
so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
the law and legal processes. This duty carries with it the obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and
to keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be
conversant with basic legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to
discharge competently and diligently their obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may become
susceptible to committing mistakes.
The Court therefore concludes that Atty. Pablo C. Cruz is guilty of violating Rule 1.01 and Canon 5 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and is suspended from the practice of law for one year.