Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2
complainant manifested and confirmed his continuing immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer, and
interest in prosecuting his complaint for disbarment it is recommended that respondent be suspended from the
against respondent. practice of law for a period of three (3) years and which
later lessen to one (1) year. According to IBP:“At the
On the other hand, respondent sought several
outset, it must be stressed that the law profession does not
postponements of hearing on the ground that he needed
prescribe a dichotomy of standards among its members.
more time to locate vital documents in support of his
There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is
defense. The scheduled hearing of December 4, 2001 was
committed in the lawyers professional capacity or in his
reset for the last time on January 24, 2002, with a warning
private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his
that should he fail to appear or present deposition, the case
personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere
will be deemed submitted for resolution.[15] Respondent
citizen at another. Thus, not only his professional
again failed to appear on January 24, 2002; hence, the
activities but even his private life, insofar as the latter may
case was considered submitted for resolution
reflect unfavorably upon the good name and prestige of
ISSUE: the profession and the courts, may at any time be the
subject of inquiry on the part of the proper
WON the civil case (validity of his marriage to Lisa) authorities.”Professional competency alone does not
poses a prejudicial question to the present disbarment make a lawyer a worthy member of the Bar. Good moral
proceeding. character is always an indispensable requirement. The
WON respondent’s acts constitute deceit, malpractice, interdict upon lawyers, as inscribed in Rule 1.01 of the
gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct and Code of Professional Responsibility, is that they shall not
violation of his oath as a lawyer that would warrant his engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
disbarment. YES! conduct
3
Partner, Estrella D. Kraus, sold the same to one Ernesto for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
D. Lampa. agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Complainant stated in her Complaint that she did not sell Given the facts of this case, wherein respondent was in
her property to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd., and that possession of complainant’s copy of the certificate of title
she neither signed any deed of sale in its favor nor to the property in Marikina, and it was respondent who
appeared before respondent to acknowledge the sale. She admittedly prepared the Deed of Sale, which complainant
alleged that respondent manipulated the sale of her denied having executed or signed, the important evidence
property. of the alleged forgery of complainant’s signature on the
Deed of Sale and the validity of the sale is the Deed of
Sale itself. However, a copy of the Deed of Sale could not
Respondent alleged that complainant took hold of the
be produced by the Register of Deeds of Marikina City,
Deed of Sale. Complainant allegedly told respondent that
as it could not be located in the general files of the
she would inform respondent when the transaction was
registry, and a certification was issued stating that the
completed so that the Deed of Sale could be recorded in
Deed of Sale may be considered lost. Moreover,
the Notarial Book. Thereafter, respondent claimed that
respondent did not submit to the Clerk of Court of the
she had no knowledge of what transpired between
RTC of Manila her Notarial Report for the month of
complainant and the Spouses Kraus. Respondent stated
November 1986, including the said Deed of Sale, which
that she was never entrusted with complainant’s
was executed on November 11, 1986.
certificate of title. Moreover, it was only complainant who
negotiated the sale of her property. According to Hence, Investigating Commissioner Sordan opined that it
respondent, complainant’s inaction for eight years to appears that efforts were exerted to get rid of the copies
verify what happened to her property only meant that she of the said Deed of Sale to prevent complainant from
had actually sold the same, and that she concocted her getting hold of the document for the purpose of
story when she saw the prospect of her property had she handwriting verification from an expert to prove that her
held on to it. Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the alleged signature on the Deed of Sale was forged. The
case. failure of respondent to submit to the proper RTC Clerk
of Court her Notarial Register/Report for the month of
November 1986 and a copy of the Deed of Sale, which
ISSUE: was notarized by her within that month, has far-reaching
WON Paterno should be disbarred. implications and grave consequences, as it in effect
suppressed evidence on the veracity of the said Deed of
Sale and showed the deceitful conduct of respondent to
HELD: withhold the truth about its authenticity. During her
YES. Pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of testimony, it was observed by the Investigating
Court, a lawyer may be removed or suspended for any Commissioner and reflected in the transcript of records
deceit or dishonest act, thus: that respondent would neither directly confirm nor deny
that she notarized the said Deed of Sale. For the
Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme aforementioned deceitful conduct, respondent is disbarred
Court on what grounds. – A member of the bar may be from the practice of law. As a member of the bar,
removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the respondent failed to live up to the standards embodied in
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly the
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by following Canons:
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey
required to take before admission to practice, or for a the laws of theland and promote respect for law and for
wilfull disobedience of any lawful legal processes.
order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law
4
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities but also to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in court or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and
the legal system. to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge
and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts as well
CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
as to his clients. xxx In this light, Rule 10.01, Canon 10
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support
of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that
the activities of the Integrated Bar.
“[a] lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should Court to be misled by any artifice.”
he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
Atty. De Vera is found guilty of violating the Lawyer’s
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of
DISPOSITION: Respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno is Professional Responsibility by submitting a falsified
DISBARRED document before a court. Disciplinary proceedings
against lawyers are designed to ensure that whoever is
granted the privilege to practice law in this country should
remain faithful to the Lawyer’s Oath.
7
The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the property before and after the filing of Civil Case No.
lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his 4866-R, to the preparation of the Deed of Waiver of
duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues Rights in favor of Tulio runs counter and in conflict to his
for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when subsequent filing of Civil Case No. 6185-R and his
he argues for the other client." This rule covers not only imputation of fraud against Tulio. There is no question
cases in which confidential communications have been that Atty. Buhangin took an inconsistent position when he
confided, but also those in which no confidence has been filed Civil Case No. 6185-R against Tulio whom he has
bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of defended and protected as client in the past. Even if the
interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require inconsistency is remote or merely probable or even if he
the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect has acted in good faith and with no intention to represent
his first client in any matter in which he represents him conflicting interests, it is still in violation of the rule of
and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation conflict of interest.
to use against his first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection. Another test of the
inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a Atty. Buhangin was held guilty of representing
new relation will prevent an attorney from the full conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15
discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to of the CPR and was suspended from the practice of law
his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double for a period of 6 months with a warning.
dealing in the performance thereof.
Ruling:
Those in the legal profession must always conduct
themselves with honesty and integrity in all their dealings.
Members of the Bar took their oath to conduct themselves
according to the best of their knowledge and discretion
with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their
clients and to delay no man for money or malice. These
mandates apply especially to dealings of lawyers with
their clients considering the highly fiduciary nature of
their relationship
In the practice of law, lawyers constantly formulate
compromise agreements for the benefit of their clients.
Article 1878 of the Civil Code provides that " [s]pecial
powers of attorney are necessary in the following cases:
xxx (3) To compromise, to submit questions to
arbitration, to renounce the right to appeal from a
judgment, to waive objections to the venue of an action or
to abandon a prescription already acquired xxx."