Leslie Ui v. Atty.
Iris Bonifacio record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health which
Facts:
1. A disbarment complaint was filed by complainant (Leslie Ui) before
the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP on the ground of
immorality, more particularly for carrying on an illicit relationship with
the complainant’s husband.
2. Complainant’s husband, Carlos Ui, was having a relationship with
respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio, a graduate of the UP and admitted
into the Bar in 1982. The two, Carlos and Iris, met sometime in 1983
and Iris had known him all along to be a bachelor, with the
knowledge however that Carlos had children by a Chinese woman in
Amoy, China from whom he had long been estranged. During one of
their trips, Carlos formalized his intention to marry Iris and they got
married in Hawaii in 1985. Their union resulted to two offspring
(1986 and 1988). In 1986, respondent left the country and stayed in
Honolulu, Hawaii and she would only return occasionally to the
Philippines to update her law practice and renew legal ties.
3. Meanwhile, complainant Leslie Ui is married to Carlos L. Ui last
January 24, 1971 and have four children (Leilani, Lianni, Lindsay and
Carl Cavin).
4. When complainant knew of the relationship between her husband
and Atty. Bonifacio, she visited respondent at her office and
introduced herself as the legal wife of Carlos in June 1988. During
the said visit of complainant, respondent admitted that she had
begotten a child from Carlos and that everything between them was
over. However, she discovered that the relationship between Carlos
and Iris continued despite what Bonifacio said during her (Leslie) first
visit. Again, in March 1989, she met again with respondent and
pleaded that she discontinues her relationship with her husband.
5. When respondent discovered Carlos’ true civil status on June 1988,
she cut off all her ties with him. By way of counterclaim by
respondent against the disbarment case filed by complainant, she
sought moral damages in the amount of Php 10 million.
6. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Integrated Bar,
complainant charged her husband and respondent with the crime of
concubinage. However, said charge was dismissed for insufficiency
of evidence to establish probable cause.
7. In the proceedings before the IBP, respondent attached a certificate
of marriage duly certified by the State Registrar as true copy of the
revealed that the date of marriage between Carlos and Iris was
October 22, 1987.
8. The Commission on Bar Discipline rendered a decision favourable to
respondent on the ground that the Commission failed to find any act
on the respondent’s part that can be considered as unprincipled or
disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. The Board of
Governors of the IBP had likewise adopted and approved the report
and recommendation of the Commission.
Ruling:
1. 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.
2. In the case at bar, it is the claim of respondent that when she met
Carlos she knew and believed him to be single. She fell in love with
him and they got married and had two children. Upon her knowledge
of the true civil status of Carlos, she left him. The facts of the case
lead the Court to believe that perhaps respondent would not have
found herself in such compromising situations had she exercised
prudence and been more vigilant in finding out more about Carlos’
personal background prior to her intimate involvement with him.
3. A member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to
refrain from adulterous relationships… but must also behave himself
as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is
flouting those moral standards. Respondent’s act of immediately
distancing herself from Carlos upon discovering his true civil status
belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no
intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal
profession.
4. It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the
highest standards of morality. The legal profession exacts from its
members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the
integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of
malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand
no less than the highest degree of morality.
5. not disbarred, but reprimanded for attaching a photocopy of her
marriage certificate with an altered date
 Dantes v. Dantes
Facts:
1. Emma Dantes sought the disbarment of her husband, Atty. Crispin
G. Dantes on the ground of immorality, abandonment, and violation
of professional ethics and law.
2. Respondent was purportedly engaged in illicit relationships with two
women, one after the other and had illegitimate children with them.
From the time respondent’s illicit affairs started, he failed to give
regular support to complainant and their children. Due to this,
complainant worked abroad as a domestic helper.
3. In his answer to the affidavit-complaint, respondent alleged that he
and complainant mutually agreed to separate 18 years before after
complainant abandoned him in their Balintawak residence and fled to
San Fernando, Pampanga. When she returned 18 years later, she
insisted that she be accommodated in the place where he and their
children were residing. Thus, he was forced to live alone in a rented
apartment. He likewise asserted that complainant filed this case to
force him to remit 70% of his monthly salary to her.
4. From the evidence presented by the complainant, it was established
that they got married on January 19, 1979 and lived with
respondent’s mother in Balintawak. At that time, respondent was
just a 4th year law student. To make ends meet, complainant
engaged in buy and sell business and relied on dole-outs from the
respondent’s mother. They have three children: Dandelo, Dante,
Daisy.
Ruling:
1. The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so wilful,
flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good
and respectable members of the community. To be the basis of
disciplinary action, the lawyer’s 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.
2. If the practice of law is to remain an honourable profession and attain
its basic ideals, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its
tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing
fidelity to them. The requirement of good moral character is of much
greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the
possession of legal learning.
3. It should be noted that the requirement of good moral character has
three ostensible purposes, namely: (a) to protect the public, (b) to
protect the public image of lawyers, (c) to protect prospective clients.
A writer added a fourth: to protect errant lawyers from themselves.
4. Respondent’s acts of engaging in illicit relationships with two
different women during the subsistence of his marriage to the
complainant constitute grossly immoral conduct warranting the
imposition of appropriate sanctions. Evidently, respondent had
breached the high and exacting moral standards set for members of
the law profession. He has made a mockery of marriage which is a
sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.
5. The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution and only in
a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and
character of the lawyer, as an officer of the Court and as a member
of the Bar. Where a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension,
could accomplish the end desired, disbarment should never be
decreed. However, in the present case, the seriousness of the
offense compels the Court to wield its power to disbar as it appears
to be the most appropriate penalty.
Tolentino v. Mendoza
Facts:
1. A disbarment complaint was filed against Atty. Norberto Mendoza, a
former municipal trial court judge, for grossly immoral conduct and
gross misconduct. According to complainant, respondent
abandoned his legal wife, Felicitas Valderia in favour of his
paramous Marilyn dela Fuente who is, in turn, married to one Tamos
Mindoro. Mendoza had likewise fathered two children by his
paramour and declared in their birth certificates that Mendoza and
his paramous were married on May 12, 1986 thus made to appear
that the children are legitimate. Meanwhile, in respondent’s
certificate of candidacy filed with the COMELEC during the 1995
 elections, he declared that his wife is Valderia however in 1998, he
declared to be separated.
2. The complainants are political opponents in Naujan, Oriental
Mindoro. According to respondent, the procured copies of the birth
certificates of his daughters were done illegally thus making them
inadmissible as evidence.
3. In February 27. 2004, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed a
resolution, Resolution No. XVI – 2004 – 123 which suspended
indefinitely the respondent from the practice of law until he would be
able to submit satisfactory proof that he is no longer cohabiting with
a woman who is not his wife and has abandoned such immoral
course of conduct.
Ruling:
1. Members of the Bar have been repeatedly reminded that possession
of good moral character is a continuing condition for membership in
the Bar in good standing. The moral delinquency that affects the
fitness of a member of the bar continue as such includes conduct
that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the
community, conduct, for instance, which makes “mockery of the
inviolable social institution of marriage.”
2. In the instant case, respondent has disregarded and made a
mockery of the fundamental institution of marriage. Respondent in
fact even so stated that he is separated from his wife. This fact and
statement without any further explanation from respondent only
contributes to the blot in his moral character which good moral
character we repeat is a continuing condition for a member to remain
in good standing. Under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral, or deceitful conduct. Respondent has violated this rule
against engaging in immoral conduct.
3. Atty. Norberto Mendoza is found guilty of immorality in violation of
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
suspended indefinitely from the practice of law until he submits
satisfactory proof that he has abandoned his immoral course of
conduct.
Moreno v. Araneta
Facts:
1. A disbarment complaint is filed against Atty. Ernesto Araneta for
deceit and non-payment of debts.
2. There are two causes of action filed by complainant. The first
involved Treasury Warrant No B-02997354 issued by the Land
Registration Commission in favour of Lira, Inc. and indorsed by
Araneta purportedly as president of the said corporation, to Moreno
in consideration of the amount of Php 2, 177. The complaint alleged
that almost a year later, the warrant was dishonoured.
3. The second cause involved Araneta’s non-payment of debts in the
amount of Php 11,000. The check, according to Moreno, belonged
to the Philippine Leasing Corporation which she managed when her
father passed away. Complainant alleged that borrowed Php 5,000
to show to his associates and another Php 6,000 for the same
purpose. Araneta issued two Bank of America checks in favour of
Moreno but said checks were dishonoured.
4. However, according to the respondent, it was Moreno who sought to
borrow Php 2,500 from him. And, he denied borrowing any amount
from Moreno.
5. In a decision by IBP Commissioner Concepcion Buencamino dated
December 28, 1988, that due to the act of respondent in issuing the
two checks which he gave to the complainant for her to show to her
creditors that money was coming her way, when there was none and
the respondent knew such fact was an act of connivance of the
respondent with the complainant to make use of these useless
commercial documents to deceive the public. He was subjected to
suspension of three months.
6. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report of Buencamino but
increased its recommended period of suspension from three months
to six months.
Ruling:
1. The issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct, as
the effect transcends the private interests of the parties directly
involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the parties
directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the
community at large. The mischief it creates is not only wrong to the
payee or holder, but also an injury to the public since the circulation
of valueless commercial papers can very well pollute the channels of
trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt
the welfare of society and the public interest.
 2. 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 also a manifestation of moral turpitude.
3. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty of 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.
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.
4. Atty. Ernesto Araneta is disbarred.
Cojuangco v. Palma
Facts:
1. Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. filed a disbarment complaint against Atty.
Leo Palma on the grounds of “deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct
in office, violation of his oath as a lawyer, and grossly immoral
conduct.”
2. He and Palma met sometime in the 1970s. complainant is a client of
Angara Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA) and
respondent was the lawyer assigned to handle his cases. Owing to
his growing business concerns, complainant decided to hire
respondent as his personal counsel.
3. There he met complainant’s 22-year old daughter, Maria Luisa, then
a student of Assumption. He married Maria Luisa in Hong Kong
dated June 22, 1982. Next day after the marriage, it was when
respondent informed complainant and assured him that everything is
legal. Complainant was shocked, knowing fully well that respondent
is a married man and has three children.
4. Accordingly, the complainant filed with the CFI of Pasay City a
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage between respondent and
Maria Luisa. This was granted by the court.
5. The Commission on Bar Discipline by the IBP recommended that he
be suspended from practice of law for a period of 3 years. This was
adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors but reduced
penalty to a year.
Ruling:
1. The law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy of standards
among its members. There is no distinction as to whether the
transgression is committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in
his private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his
personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
another. Thus, not only his professional activities but even his
private life, insofar as the latter may reflect unfavourably upon the
good name and prestige of the profession and the courts may at any
time be the subject of inquiry on the part of the proper authorities.
2. Undoubtedly, respondent’s act constitutes grossly immoral conduct,
a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court. He exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of
morality required of him as a member of the Bar. In particular, he
made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding
respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage is
contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality. Immoral conduct
is that conduct which is wilful, flagrant or shameless and which
shows a moral indifference to the opinion and of the good and
respectable members of the community. Measured against this
definition, respondent’s act is manifestly immoral. First, he
abandoned his lawful wife and three children. Second, he lured an
innocent young woman into marrying him. Third, he misrepresented
himself as a bachelor so he could contract marriage in a foreign land.
3. The interdict upon lawyers, as inscribed in Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, is that they “shall not engage in lawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
4. Palma is guilty of grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath
as a lawyer, and disbarred from the practice of law.
Barrios v. Martinez
Facts:
1. Atty. Francisco Martinez was found guilty by the RTC of Tacloban
City for violation of BP 22. The disbarment complaint was based on
moral turpitude.
2. Martinez failed to respond to the resolution of the Court dated
February 17, 1997. He was arrested in Tacloban City but was
 subsequently released after compliance with the resolution by
remitting the amount of Php 2,000 and submitting his comment.
3. Respondent claimed that he was unable to respond to the resolution
because he was undergoing medical treatment, that complainant
Michael Barrios passed away sometime in June 1997 and said
administrative complaint is an offshoot of a civil case which was
decided in respondent’s favour.
Ruling:
1. Under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the Bar
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the SC
for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office,
grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before admission to practice or for a wilful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly
or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority to do so.
2. In the present case, respondent has been guilty and convicted by
final judgment for violation of BP 22 for issuing worthless check in
the amount of Php 8,000.
3. 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 to 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.
4. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege, demanding a high
degree of good moral character, not only as a condition precedent to
admission but also as a continuing requirement of the practice of
law. Sadly, respondent falls short of the exacting standards
expected of him as a vanguard of the legal profession.
5. Martinez is disbarred and his name is ordered stricken from the roll
of attorneys.
In Re: Luis Tagorda
Facts:
1. Luis Tagorda is a practicing attorney and a provincial board of
Isabela. During the last general elections, he made use of a card
written in Spanish and Ilocano which advertised his services as a
lawyer.
2. In one instance, he advertised that he can execute a deed of sale for
the purchase of land as required by the cadastral office, can renew
lost documents of animals, can make application and final requisites
for the homestead and execute any kind of affidavit. He can also
help anyone in collecting loans. He was practicing in Echague,
Isabela. This was written in a card he distributed during the
elections.
Ruling:
1. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act 2828,
noted that the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
2. It becomes the court’s duty to condemn in no uncertain terms the
ugly practice of solicitation of cases by lawyers. It is destructive of
the honor of a great profession. It lowers the standards of that
profession. It works against the confidence of the community in the
integrity of the members of the Bar. It results in needless litigation
and in inciting to strife otherwise peacefully-inclined citizens.
3. The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for
disbarment or suspension.
4. Luis Tagorda is suspended from practice for a period of 1 month
from April 1, 1929.
Ulep v. The Legal Clinic
Facts:
1. The Legal Clinic posted an advertisement which states that for secret
marriage, one pays Php 560.00 for a valid marriage. Likewise,
information on divorce, absence, annulment and visa are accepted.
The contact details and address of the company are likewise
provided for.
2. According to petitioner, the advertisements are unethical, demeaning
of the law profession and destructive of the confidence of the
community in the integrity of the members of the Bar and that as a
member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the
said advertisements.
 3. According to respondent, the Legal Clinic does not engage in the
practice of law, rather engages in legal support services through
paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic
machines.
4. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Philippine Bar Association,
Philippine Lawyers’ Association, UP Women Lawyers’ Circle,
Women Lawyers Association of the Philippines and Federacion
International de Abogadas were required to submit their respective
position papers to the controversy.
5. IBP wised that the high court perpetually restrain respondent from
undertaking highly unethical activities in the field of law practice.
PBA claimed that only natural persons may engage in the practice of
law. PLA claimed that respondent is engaged in the practice of law
contrary to what respondent posits. UPWLC claimed that the public
should be protected from falling prey to those who advertise legal
services without being qualified to offer such service. WLAP claimed
that the Legal Clinic engaged in advertising its services to solicit
cases for the purpose of gain which are illegal and against the Code
of Professional Responsibility. FIA said that advertisements are
ethically objectionable because for one, no Philippine marriage can
be secret and two, failed to state limitation that only paralegal
services or legal services are available.
Ruling:
1. To practice law is to give advice or render any kind of service that
involves legal knowledge or skill.
2. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must
be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and
efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of
publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a
normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper.
3. The use of an ordinary simple professional card is permitted. The
card may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law
firm he is connected with, address, telephone number and special
branch of law practiced. Another exception to advertising is the
publication in reputable law lists in a manner consistent with the
standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical
and informative data.
4. The Legal Clinic is restrained and enjoined from issuing or causing
the publication or dissemination of similar advertisements being
brought into attention.
Khan v. Simbillo
Facts:
1. There is a newspaper advertisement which reads “Annulment of
Marriage specialist 532-4333/521-2667” dates August 2 and 6, 2000
at the Manila Bulletin, and August 5, 2000. Likewise same
advertisement appeared on PDI which prompted the case.
2. Staff member of the PIO of the SC (Ma. Theresa Espeleta) called the
number and she spoke to Mrs. Simbillo as pretended to be an
interested party. Mrs. Simbillo claimed that her husband Atty.
Rizalino Simbillo is an expert in handling annulment cases, that a
decision would be rendered with a period of 4 to 6 months provided
separation of property and custody of children are not involved and a
fee of Php 48, 000. Half of price is to be paid on filing of the case,
the other when judgment has been rendered.
3. Atty. Ismael Khan, acting in his capacity as Assistant Court
Administrator and Chief of PIO filed an administrative complaint
against Atty. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation of his
legal services.
Ruling:
1. Use of ordinary simple professional card and law list are exceptions
to the advertising prohibition.
2. Suspended for 1 year upon receipt of resolution. Sternly warned that
a repetition of same or similar offense will be dealt with more
severely.
BR Sebastian Enterprises v. CA
Facts:
1. Eulogio Reyes filed an action for damages with CFI of Rizal against
director of Public Works and BR Sebastian. Trial court rendered a
decision finding petitioner liable for damages but absolving the other
defendants.
 2. Petitioner through its counsel, the law firm of Baizas, Alberto and
Associates appealed the decision. Reyes, during the pendency of
the appeal died but substituted by his heirs. Petitioner through the
Baizas Law Office filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution
dismissing the appeal due to the death of Atty. Crispin Baizas, senior
partner of the Baizas, Alberto and Associates.
3. CA denied motion for reconsideration.
Ruling:
1. Petitioners’ counsel was the law firm and not merely Atty. Crispin
Baizas. Hence, the death of the latter does not extinguish the
lawyer-client relationship between the firm and petitioner.
2. Negligence of counsel binds the client.
3. Petition is dismissed.
Consolidated Farms v. Alpon
Facts:
1. Complainant hired service of respondents in its case before the
Social Security Commission. Complainant alleged that respondent
as counsel in said case did not submit the position paper being
required by the Commission and likewise failed to attend the
scheduled hearings of the case despite due notice.
2. Due to this, complainant was held liable in the case with the SSC
and ordered payment of Php 27, 117.09 as other party’s claim for
retirement benefits.
3. According to Alpon, he is the presiding judge of the municipal trial
court of La Castellana, Negros Occidental. He is willing to reimburse
complainant the amount judgment decreed.
4. Upon verification with the office of the court administrator, it was
confirmed that respondent is not a judge.
5. IBP Board of Governors recommended the suspension of Alpon for 3
months.
6. Respondent is connected with Octaviano, Pelayo and Associates
Law Office.
Ruling:
1. Respondent through gross negligence and incompetence failed to
perform what is required of him. He fell short of the demands
required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the bar.
2. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
3. Decision by IBP was affirmed.
Vitriolo v. Dasig
Facts:
1. Dasig is an official of the CHED. She is designated as officer-in-
charge of the Legal Affairs Service. She was charged for gross
misconduct in violation of the Attorney’s oath for having used her
public office to secure financial spoils to the detriment and reputation
of the CHED.
2. She demanded from Betty Mangohon a teacher of Our Lady of
Mariazel Educational Center in Novaliches, QC the amount of Php
20,000 and later reduced to php 5000 for the facilitation of her
application for correction of name. she had likewise demanded from
Rosalie Dela Torre, a student, the amount of Php 18000 to Php
20000 for facilitation of her application for correction of name. she
had likewise demanded from Rocella Eje, a student amount of Php
5000 for same purpose as above. Same with Jacqueline Ng, a
student, 20,000 (initial 5000).
3. IBP governors recommended suspension for three years.
Ruling:
1. In this case, the record shows that the respondent, on various
occasions, during her tenure as OIC, Legal Services, CHED,
attempted to extort from Betty C. Mangohon, Rosalie B. Dela Torre,
Rocella G. Eje, and Jacqueline N. Ng sums of money as
consideration for her favorable action on their pending applications
or requests before her office. The evidence remains unrefuted, given
the respondent’s failure, despite the opportunities afforded her by
this Court and the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline to comment on
the charges. We find that respondent’s misconduct as a lawyer of the
CHED is of such a character as to affect her qualification as a
member of the Bar, for as a lawyer, she ought to have known that it
was patently unethical and illegal for her to demand sums of money
as consideration for the approval of applications and requests
awaiting action by her office.
2. Attorney’s Oath is the source of the obligations and duties of every
lawyer and any violation thereof is a ground for disbarment,
suspension, or other disciplinary action. The Attorney’s Oath
imposes upon every member of the bar the duty to delay no man for
money or malice. Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility

3. A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his
professional obligations. Hence, the Code of Professional
Responsibility, promulgated on June 21, 1988, was not meant to
govern the conduct of private practitioners alone, but of all lawyers
including those in government service. This is clear from Canon 6 of
said Code. Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the
utmost fidelity to the public service. Thus, they should be more
sensitive in the performance of their professional obligations, as their
conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the public.

4. Respondent is disbarred.
 Artezuela v. Maderazo
Facts:
1. One Allan Echavia drove a car in the early morning of December 24,
1992. His car rammed into a small carinderia owned by Lolita
Artezuela.
2. The destruction of the complainant’s carinderia caused the cessation
of the operation of her small business. She incurred debts from her
relatives and stopped sending her two children to college.
3. Artezuela engaged the services of Maderazo in filing a damage suit
against Echavia and others. The case was dismissed due to the
instance of the complainant and her husband.
4. Due to the dismissal, complainant filed a complaint for damages
against respondent. It was dismissed. Thus, she filed a disbarment
case against respondent on grounds of gross negligence of his
duties as a lawyer and failure to represent her interests with zeal and
enthusiasm
5. In his answer, respondent claimed that complainant was
uncooperative and refused to confer with him.
Held:
1. The court upheld the IBP’s decision to suspend Maderazo for six
months.
2. In the case at bar, the records show that respondent repeatedly
sought the postponement of the hearings, prompting the
Investigating Commissioner to receive complainant’s evidence ex
parte and to set the case for resolution after the parties have
submitted their respective memorandum.
Facts:
3. To be guilty of representing conflicting interests, a counsel-of-record
of one party need not also be counsel-of-record of the adverse party.
He does not have to publicly hold himself as the counsel of the
adverse party, nor make his efforts to advance the adverse party’s
conflicting interests of record – although these circumstances are the
most obvious and satisfactory proof of the charge. It is enough that
the counsel of one party had a hand in the preparation of the
pleading of the other party, claiming adverse and conflicting interests
with that of his original client. To require that he be counsel-of-
record of the adverse party would punish only the most obvious form
of deceit and reward, with impunity, the highest form of disloyalty.
4. An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the
highly fiduciary nature of the attorney-client relationship, sound
public policy dictates that a lawyer be prohibited from representing
conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. He may not,
without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a
person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former
client. Indeed, good faith and honest intention on the part of the
erring lawyer does not make this rule inoperative. The lawyer is an
officer of the court and his actions are governed by the
uncompromising rules of professional ethics.
5. The relations of attorney and client is founded on principles of public
policy, on good taste. The question is not necessarily one of the
rights of the parties, but as to whether the attorney has adhered to
proper professional standard. With these thoughts in mind, it
behoves attorneys, like Ceasar’s wife, not only to keep inviolate the
client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery
and double-dealing. Only this can litigants be encouraged to entrust
their secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance in
the administration of justice.
6. Practice of law is not a property right but a mere privilege and as
such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact
compliance with the lawyer’s public responsibilities. The suspension
of the respondent’s privilege to practice law may result to financial
woes. But as guardian of the legal profession, we are constrained to
balance this concern with the injury he caused to the very same
profession he vowed to uphold with honesty and fairness.
Pimentel v. Llorente
1. Atty. Llorente is the election officer of the COMELEC and was
designated chairman of Pasig City Board of Canvassers.
Meanwhile, Ligaya Salayon, who is the city prosecutor of Pasig City,
served as the Board’s ex oficio vice chairman.
2. Complainant is a senator who was also a candidate for the Senate in
1995. He alleged that respondents tampered with the votes received
by him.
3. Respondents claimed that the errors pointed out by complainant
could be attributed to honest mistake, oversight and/or fatigue.
Held:
1. Respondents are guilty of misconduct.
2. The IBP recommends the dismissal of petitioner’s complaint on the
basis of: (a) respondents had no involvement in the tabulation of the
election returns because when the Statement of Votes were given to
them, such had already been accomplished and only needed their
respective signatures, (b) canvassing was done in the presence of
watchers, representatives of the political parties, the media, and the
general public so that the respondents would not have risked the
commission of any irregularity, and (c) acts dealt with in RA 6646
Section 27(b) which are mala in se and petitioner failed to establish
criminal intent on the part of respondents.
3. A lawyer who holds a govt position may not be disciplined as a
member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a
govt official. However, if the misconduct also constitutes a violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyer’s oath or is
such of character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows
moral delinquency on his part, such individual may be discipline as a
member of the bar for such misconduct.
4. As lawyers in the govt service, respondents were under greater
obligation to observe this basic tenet of the profession because a
public office is a public trust.
5. There is a strong public interest involved in requiring lawyers to
behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor and it
is important that the common caricature that lawyers by and large do
not feel compelled to speak the truth and to act honestly, should not
become a common reality.
Lim v. Barcelona
Facts:
1. Atty. Edilberto Barcelona was a lawyer formerly employed with the
NLRC as chief of the Public Assistance Center. He informed
complainant Lim through phone that his employees filed a labor
complaint against him and it was necessary that he sees him and
talk. Respondent visited him in his office and told him to settle the
case or else his business, Top Gun Billiards. For settlement, the
amount was Php 20,000.
2. Lim requested the NBI to investigate Barcelona. NBI performed an
entrapment operation where Barcelona was arrested.
Held:
1. The grounds for disbarment or suspension of an attorney are: (a)
deceit, (b) malpractice or other gross misconduct in office, (c) grossly
immoral conduct, (d) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
(e) violation of lawyer’s oath, (f) wilful disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court, and (g) wilfully appearing as an attorney for
a party without authority.
2. If a lawyer’s misconduct in the discharge of his official duties as a
govt official is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a
lawyer or to show moral delinquency, he may be disciplined as a
member of the Bar on such ground. More significantly, lawyers in
govt service in the discharge of their official tasks 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.
3. Rule 1.02 provides that a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system. Extortion by a govt lawyer, an outright violation of the law,
calls for the corresponding grave sanctions. With the aforesaid rule
a high standard of integrity is demanded of a govt lawyer as
compared to a private practitioner because the delinquency of a govt
lawyer erodes people’s trust and confidence in the govt.
4. Practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who
are competent intellectually, academically and morally. 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. He must faithfully perform his duties to society, to
the bar, to the courts and to his clients. A violation of the high
standards of the legal profession subjects the lawyer to
administrative sanctions which includes suspension and disbarment.
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.
5. The primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is not
only to punish and discipline the erring individual lawyers, but also to
safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the courts and
 the public from the misconduct of lawyers and to remove from the
legal profession persons utter disregard of the lawyer’s oath has
proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them
as members of the bar.
6. Barcelona was disbarred.
Tiongco v. Aguilar
Facts:
1. Atty. Jose Tiongco was charged for violating Canon 11 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. He characterized the decision of
respondent Judge as “having been crafted in order to fool the
winning party”; as a “hypocritical judgment in plaintiff’s favour”; one
with “perfidious character.”
2. Tiongco described respondent as a liar, perjurer or blasphemer
Ruling:
1. The duty contemplated in Canon 11 is closely entwined with his vow
in the lawyer’s oath “to conduct himself as a lawyer with all good
fidelity to the courts,” his duty under Section 20(b) of Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court “to observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts of justice and judicial officers,” and his duty under the first
canon “to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for
the sake of temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the
maintenance of its supreme importance.
2. The use of unnecessary /offensive and abusive/abrasive and
offensive language which jeopardizes high esteem in courts, creates
or promotes distrust in judicial administration or tends necessarily to
undermine the confidence of the people in the integrity of the
members of the Court and to degrade the administration of justice by
the Court.
3. Tiongco had exceeded the bounds of decency and propriety in
making the false and malicious insinuation against this Court. Such
could only come from anger, if not hate, after he was not given what
he wanted. Anger or hate could only come from one who seems to
be of that frame of mind whereby he considers as in accordance with
law and justice whatever he believes to be right in his own opinion
and as contrary to law and justice whatever does not accord with his
views.
4. Tiongco was ordered to pay fine of Php 5,000 plus warning.
Maglasang v. People
Facts:
1. The legal fees ascribed by Circular No. 1-88 of the Court, amounting
to Php 316.50 were not paid thus the case Maglasang v. People was
dismissed.
2. Atty. Marceliano Castellano, counsel for petitioner, moved for
reconsideration. It was denied with finality.
3. Due to it, Castellano, acting as counsel for Maglasang, accused all
the 5 justices of the Court’s 2nd division of biases and/or ignorance of
the law or knowingly rendering unjust judgments or resolution. When
cited for contempt, he reasoned that said constructive criticism
intended to correct in good faith the erroneous and strict practices of
the justices concerned.
Ruling:
1. Atty. Castellano sought to pass on the blame for his deficiencies to
the Court, in the hope of salvaging his reputation before his client.
Said action is grossly improper. As an officer of the Court, he should
have known better than to smear the honor and integrity of the Court
just to keep the confidence of his client.
2. While a lawyer must advocate his client’s cause in utmost earnest
and with the maximum skill he can marshal, he is not at liberty to
resort to arrogance, intimidation and innuendo.
3. Castellano was found guilty of contempt of court and improper
conduct. He was ordered to pay Php 1,000 within 15 days or suffer
10 days imprisonment. He is likewise suspended for 6 months.
Bautista v. Gonzales
Facts:
1. Ramon Gonzales was charged with malpractice, deceit, gross
misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath by Angel Bautista.
2. In the case Gonzales handled, he agreed with his clients (Fortunado)
to pay all expenses including court fees for a contingent fee of 50%
of the value of property in litigation. He acted as counsel for the
other party (Fortunado) and without said case being terminated,
acted as counsel for the Lopez. He had transferred to himself ½ of
the properties of the Fortunados while the case was still pending.
 3. He induced complainant, his former client, to enter into a contract
with him for the development into a residential subdivision of the land
involved in the case. Gonzales knew that the property was already
sold at public auction. He submitted falsified documents and
harassed complainant by filing several complaints without legal
basis.
Ruling:
1. Respondent committed acts of misconduct which warrant the
exercise by this court of its disciplinary powers.
2. A lawyer may not properly agree with a client to pay or bear the
expenses of litigation. Although a lawyer may in good faith advance
the expenses of litigation, same should be subject to reimbursement.
An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expenses of
proceedings to enforce the client’s rights is champertous. Such
agreements are against public policy especially where the attorney
has agreed to carry on the action at his expenses in consideration of
some bargain to have part of the thing in dispute.
3. Suspended for 6 months.
Garcia v. Francisco
Facts:
1. Atty. Crisanto Francisco commenced various suits against Garcia to
thwart her right to regain her property. These suits included one for
specific performance and reconveyance with damages, among
others. It was dismissed.
Ruling:
1. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client but not at the
expense of truth and administration of justice. He was aware of this
when he wilfully resorted to the gambits, continuously seeking relief
that was constantly denied. He added to the already clogged
dockets of the court and wasted their valuable time.
2. By grossly abusing his right of recourse to the courts for the purpose
of arguing a cause that had been repeatedly rebuffed, he was
disdaining the obligation of the lawyer to maintain only such actions
or proceedings as appear to him to be just and such defense only as
he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. By violating his
oath not to delay any man for money or malice, he has besmirched
the name of an honourable profession and has proved himself
unworthy of trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the court.
3. Suspended for one year.
People v. Rio
Facts:
1. Rio was convicted of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua for
having carnal knowledge with Wilma Phua. He interposed his appeal
and as a consequence, it was forwarded to the CA which in turn
forwarded the records of the case to the SC.
2. Court denied motion. Instead, it appointed a counsel de oficio for the
accused Rio for, as correctly observed by the Solicitor General, all of
Rio’s letter pertain that he is unable to retain services of counsel de
parte on account of his poverty.
Ruling:
1. Accused was unaware that Court can appoint a counsel de oficio to
prosecute his appeal pursuant to Section13, Rule 122 of Rules of
Court and Article III, Sec. 11 of the Constitution.
2. The constitutional provision imposes a duty on the judicial branch.
3. In criminal cases, there can be no fair hearing unless the accused by
given an opportunity to be heard by counsel. The right to be heard
would be of little meaning if it does not include right to be heard by
counsel. Even the most intelligent or educate man may have no skill
in the science of the law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and
without counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty but
because he does not know how to establish his innocence. And this
can happen more easily to persons who are ignorant or uneducated.
4. Right to a counsel de oficio does not cease upon conviction of
accused by a trial court. It continues even during appeal such that
the duty of the court to assign a counsel de oficio persists where an
accused interposes anintent to appeal. Even in a case, where the
accused signified his intent to withdraw his appeal, the court is
required to inquire into the reason for the withdrawal. If the reason is
poverty, court must assign a counsel de oficio.
Tiania v. Ocampo
Facts:
1. Amado Ocampo, in one case involving Ms. Blaylock, he appeared for
Tiania and also for Blaylock. However, he assured Tiania that there
was no need to hire a new lawyer since he still remains as her
lawyer. Ocampo made Tiana sign a compromise agreement which
she signed without reading. Two years later, she was order to
vacate. Ocampo advised Tiania to pay him certain amount for the
sheriff.
2. The Angel spouses sold their house in favour of Blaylock for the
amount of Php 70,000. Ocampo acted as counsel and prepared
Deed of Sale of a Residential House and Waiver of Rights over a lot.
Same with the above, he assured Angel spouses he would take care
of everything but still received a notice to vacate.
Moreover, she alleged that after respondent’s law studies, he
became aloof and abandoned her.
Ruling:
1. His declaration that he was single in his application was a gross
misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith. It is a
violation of Rule 7.01, Canon 7.0.
2. As good character is an essential qualification for admission of an
attorney to practice, when the attorney’s character is bad in such
respects as to show that he is unsafe and unfit to be entrusted with
the powers of an attorney, the court retain power to discipline him.

Ruling:

1. Prohibit the representation of conflicting interests not only because

the relation of attorney and client is one of trust and confidence of
the highest degree, but also because of the principles of public policy
and good taste. An attorney has the duty to deserve the fullest
confidence of his client and represent him with undivided loyalty.
2. The test of conflict of interest in disciplinary cases against a lawyer is
whether or not the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an
attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-
dealing in the performance thereof.
3. Suspended for 1 year.

Leda v. Tabang

Facts:

1. Respondent, Atty. Trebonian Tabang, and complainant, Evangeline

Leda, contracted marriage at Tigbauan, Iloilo. It was solemnized by
Judge Jose Tavarro.
2. The parties agreed to keep the marriage until after respondent had
finished his law studies and had taken the bar examinations.
3. Respondent in his application declared that he was single. He
passed the exam. But complainant blocked him from taking his oath
claiming that he acted fraudulently in filling out his application.